Leftist Nightmare: Black Conservatives Running for Office

[buckeye45_73]

You know, if you get your way, and you do marginalize the GOP...

All that will mean is that the status quo will continue and the black community will NEVER improve or solve or even seriously address any of it's many problems.


Without the GOP, and with the rapid growth of the Hispanic bloc, the dems will do even less than the nothing they have done for you up till now.

I hope you like gang culture, and drug related violence and poverty, and high rates of incarceration and lower life expectancy and high rates of ever form of social dysfunction,


because that is what you are working towards with your hardline support of the dems.

Unbeknownst to you, black people are solving our problems without you or the Republican Party .. neither of which intend to do a damn thing about our issues anyway.

I don't gives a rats ass about what you think about black people or our issues. Not one damn.

How about you stop pretending that you give a shit about black people. Obviously you don't. The ONLY reason you're crying about who we vote for is because we won't vote for republicans, which seriously damages any chance of them winning the White House.

Your all-white party has rejected black voters .. which is their right to do. But if you think black voters are coming to the rescue of the Republican Party .. well, that would be quite stupid, would it not?

Already? Not according to Charles Barkley or snoop dog

So you've got ONE.

Snoop Dogg is a democrat .. and will be voting for HIllary.

Snoop Dogg: I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton
Snoop Dogg: I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton

At what point do you knuckleheads abandon all hope of black people voting for republicans? Obviously that's NEVER going to happen .. AGAIN.

Republicans had a lock on black votes FIRST .. then abandoned black voters while you chased racists.

Republicans made this bed .. lie in it.

What does snoop for hilary have to.do with the subject? God you're dumb...

I said he wanted to fix it in the black community, by never said he was a republican......jesus always gotta bring party into it...maybe if you worked on solutions and not partisanship um you'd be better off.

And it should tell you something, he had to publicly declare his support.....maybe he doesn't agree with everything hilary does?

. There are a lot more influential and effective proponents of 'fixing' the black community than Snoop Dogg .. who is part of the problem. You brought him into this conversation, not me.

Maybe if you worked on fixing your party and its relationship with everyone else not them, then perhaps you wouldn't have to beg black people to vote republican.

Who is begging?
I pointed out that what needs to happen is now finally happening....
Whitey can't fix the problem......and you know why they cant.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Not for blacks. They lag behind regardless. That tells me the problem is with them.

LOLOLOLOL

Of course for blacks too. What the fuck is wrong with you? Black unemployment typically runs about twice as high for blacks as it does for whites regardless of which party is in control; but as history has shown, the economy typically does better under Democrats. So even if black unemployment runs double that of whites during a Democrat administration, they're still doing better than if a Republican is in office.

So still running double during Democrats being in charge is better? Sounds the same to me.

Not when the unemployment rate is lower for both whites and blacks during Democrat administrations, it's not the same.

Common sense is not your strong suit.

Math isn't yours. Comparing Bush 43 and Clinton, the average unemployment was a .06% difference, 5.27% to 5.21%. With Obama, the average is over 9%. That takes into account almost 25 years. How far back do you want to go?

Why would you not look at all the data?

BLS: Unemployment Rate

Republicans ... 6.0%
Democrats ..... 5.7%

And that's only half the story. The other half is where a president starts and how they finish. For example.... Clinton's average was 5.2% and Bush43's was 5.3%... but Clinton started with 7.3% unemployment and finished with 4.2%; whereas Bush43 started with 4.2% and ended up with 7.8%.

And when looking at all the data, not one single Democrat president left office with an unemployment rate higher than when they started. Compared to Republicans, where every single Republican president except for Reagan left office with the unemployment rate higher than when they started.

Republicans:

Starting average ... 4.8%
Ending average ..... 6.7%

Democrats:

Starting average ... 7.0%
Ending average ..... 5.1%

So Obama is at 8.8 because.......

 

[buckeye45_73]

You're asking for proof of a claim I didn't make. I said blacks have supported Democrat policies and have been recipients of Democrat policies for 50 years with poor results. That's easy to prove.

In other words, better than Republican policies then...

Republican president ... 2.21 times higher
Democrat president ..... 2.15

Republican president & Congress ... 2.17
Democrat president & Congress ..... 2.16

white unemployment rate
black unemployment rate

And you're taking local and state government into account?

I'm quoting the same unemployment figures you were when you yelled, "BINGO."

You have a problem with those figures now??

Blacks have an unemployment rate twice that of white, today.

Seems you have a problem with that and forget LBJ will have them voting for another 150 years for a party that keeps them doing so well.

Your problem is you can't show any other time in history where black unemployment was any closer to white unemployment than it is at double.

Well you can't show wha th they would do with republicans in local government......that's a huge part of the problem.....I know you want everything in washington....but when your local government drives out business....well....no jobs left.

 

[rightwinger]

Because economies do better under Democrat leadership than Republicans. Didn't you learn anything from Trump?

Not for blacks. They lag behind regardless. That tells me the problem is with them.

LOLOLOLOL

Of course for blacks too. What the fuck is wrong with you? Black unemployment typically runs about twice as high for blacks as it does for whites regardless of which party is in control; but as history has shown, the economy typically does better under Democrats. So even if black unemployment runs double that of whites during a Democrat administration, they're still doing better than if a Republican is in office.

So still running double during Democrats being in charge is better? Sounds the same to me.

Not when the unemployment rate is lower for both whites and blacks during Democrat administrations, it's not the same.

Common sense is not your strong suit.

Math isn't yours. Comparing Bush 43 and Clinton, the average unemployment was a .06% difference, 5.27% to 5.21%. With Obama, the average is over 9%. That takes into account almost 25 years. How far back do you want to go?

Average unemployment?

Who gives a damn about that?

Is a president who starts at five percent unemployment and ends at ten the same as one who starts at ten and ends at five

Their average is the same

 

[Faun]

LOLOLOLOL

Of course for blacks too. What the fuck is wrong with you? Black unemployment typically runs about twice as high for blacks as it does for whites regardless of which party is in control; but as history has shown, the economy typically does better under Democrats. So even if black unemployment runs double that of whites during a Democrat administration, they're still doing better than if a Republican is in office.

So still running double during Democrats being in charge is better? Sounds the same to me.

Not when the unemployment rate is lower for both whites and blacks during Democrat administrations, it's not the same.

Common sense is not your strong suit.

Math isn't yours. Comparing Bush 43 and Clinton, the average unemployment was a .06% difference, 5.27% to 5.21%. With Obama, the average is over 9%. That takes into account almost 25 years. How far back do you want to go?

Why would you not look at all the data?

BLS: Unemployment Rate

Republicans ... 6.0%
Democrats ..... 5.7%

And that's only half the story. The other half is where a president starts and how they finish. For example.... Clinton's average was 5.2% and Bush43's was 5.3%... but Clinton started with 7.3% unemployment and finished with 4.2%; whereas Bush43 started with 4.2% and ended up with 7.8%.

And when looking at all the data, not one single Democrat president left office with an unemployment rate higher than when they started. Compared to Republicans, where every single Republican president except for Reagan left office with the unemployment rate higher than when they started.

Republicans:

Starting average ... 4.8%
Ending average ..... 6.7%

Democrats:

Starting average ... 7.0%
Ending average ..... 5.1%

So Obama is at 8.8 because.......

Let's start with.... Obama is not at at 8.8 and then work our way to the Great Recession.

 

[Faun]

In other words, better than Republican policies then...

Republican president ... 2.21 times higher
Democrat president ..... 2.15

Republican president & Congress ... 2.17
Democrat president & Congress ..... 2.16

white unemployment rate
black unemployment rate

And you're taking local and state government into account?

I'm quoting the same unemployment figures you were when you yelled, "BINGO."

You have a problem with those figures now??

Blacks have an unemployment rate twice that of white, today.

Seems you have a problem with that and forget LBJ will have them voting for another 150 years for a party that keeps them doing so well.

Your problem is you can't show any other time in history where black unemployment was any closer to white unemployment than it is at double.

Well you can't show wha th they would do with republicans in local government......that's a huge part of the problem.....I know you want everything in washington....but when your local government drives out business....well....no jobs left.

Who said I want everything in Washington? Can't you argue your position without making shit up?

 

[Conservative65]

So still running double during Democrats being in charge is better? Sounds the same to me.

Not when the unemployment rate is lower for both whites and blacks during Democrat administrations, it's not the same.

Common sense is not your strong suit.

Math isn't yours. Comparing Bush 43 and Clinton, the average unemployment was a .06% difference, 5.27% to 5.21%. With Obama, the average is over 9%. That takes into account almost 25 years. How far back do you want to go?

Why would you not look at all the data?

BLS: Unemployment Rate

Republicans ... 6.0%
Democrats ..... 5.7%

And that's only half the story. The other half is where a president starts and how they finish. For example.... Clinton's average was 5.2% and Bush43's was 5.3%... but Clinton started with 7.3% unemployment and finished with 4.2%; whereas Bush43 started with 4.2% and ended up with 7.8%.

And when looking at all the data, not one single Democrat president left office with an unemployment rate higher than when they started. Compared to Republicans, where every single Republican president except for Reagan left office with the unemployment rate higher than when they started.

Republicans:

Starting average ... 4.8%
Ending average ..... 6.7%

Democrats:

Starting average ... 7.0%
Ending average ..... 5.1%

So Obama is at 8.8 because.......

Let's start with.... Obama is not at at 8.8 and then work our way to the Great Recession.

Obama's average is still significantly higher that Bush.

The recession was claimed to be over in June, 2009. Unemployment under Obama continued to rise to over 10%. That 10% was 2%+ higher than Obama said it would if the stimulus was passed in February, 2009. Guess he either lied again or is too stupid to do the job.

 

[Conservative65]

And you're taking local and state government into account?

I'm quoting the same unemployment figures you were when you yelled, "BINGO."

You have a problem with those figures now??

Blacks have an unemployment rate twice that of white, today.

Seems you have a problem with that and forget LBJ will have them voting for another 150 years for a party that keeps them doing so well.

Your problem is you can't show any other time in history where black unemployment was any closer to white unemployment than it is at double.

Well you can't show wha th they would do with republicans in local government......that's a huge part of the problem.....I know you want everything in washington....but when your local government drives out business....well....no jobs left.

Who said I want everything in Washington? Can't you argue your position without making shit up?

You're a Liberal. The two go together.

 

[Conservative65]

Not for blacks. They lag behind regardless. That tells me the problem is with them.

LOLOLOLOL

Of course for blacks too. What the fuck is wrong with you? Black unemployment typically runs about twice as high for blacks as it does for whites regardless of which party is in control; but as history has shown, the economy typically does better under Democrats. So even if black unemployment runs double that of whites during a Democrat administration, they're still doing better than if a Republican is in office.

So still running double during Democrats being in charge is better? Sounds the same to me.

Not when the unemployment rate is lower for both whites and blacks during Democrat administrations, it's not the same.

Common sense is not your strong suit.

Math isn't yours. Comparing Bush 43 and Clinton, the average unemployment was a .06% difference, 5.27% to 5.21%. With Obama, the average is over 9%. That takes into account almost 25 years. How far back do you want to go?

Average unemployment?

Who gives a damn about that?

Is a president who starts at five percent unemployment and ends at ten the same as one who starts at ten and ends at five

Their average is the same

Obama didn't start at 10 and Bush didn't end at 10. Obama did go over 10, though.

 

[Faun]

And you're taking local and state government into account?

I'm quoting the same unemployment figures you were when you yelled, "BINGO."

You have a problem with those figures now??

Blacks have an unemployment rate twice that of white, today.

Seems you have a problem with that and forget LBJ will have them voting for another 150 years for a party that keeps them doing so well.

Your problem is you can't show any other time in history where black unemployment was any closer to white unemployment than it is at double.

Well you can't show wha th they would do with republicans in local government......that's a huge part of the problem.....I know you want everything in washington....but when your local government drives out business....well....no jobs left.

Who said I want everything in Washington? Can't you argue your position without making shit up?

Not when the unemployment rate is lower for both whites and blacks during Democrat administrations, it's not the same.

Common sense is not your strong suit.

Math isn't yours. Comparing Bush 43 and Clinton, the average unemployment was a .06% difference, 5.27% to 5.21%. With Obama, the average is over 9%. That takes into account almost 25 years. How far back do you want to go?

Why would you not look at all the data?

BLS: Unemployment Rate

Republicans ... 6.0%
Democrats ..... 5.7%

And that's only half the story. The other half is where a president starts and how they finish. For example.... Clinton's average was 5.2% and Bush43's was 5.3%... but Clinton started with 7.3% unemployment and finished with 4.2%; whereas Bush43 started with 4.2% and ended up with 7.8%.

And when looking at all the data, not one single Democrat president left office with an unemployment rate higher than when they started. Compared to Republicans, where every single Republican president except for Reagan left office with the unemployment rate higher than when they started.

Republicans:

Starting average ... 4.8%
Ending average ..... 6.7%

Democrats:

Starting average ... 7.0%
Ending average ..... 5.1%

So Obama is at 8.8 because.......

Let's start with.... Obama is not at at 8.8 and then work our way to the Great Recession.

Obama's average is still significantly higher that Bush.

The recession was claimed to be over in June, 2009. Unemployment under Obama continued to rise to over 10%. That 10% was 2%+ higher than Obama said it would if the stimulus was passed in February, 2009. Guess he either lied again or is too stupid to do the job.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator.

Now ya know.

 

[Faun]

I'm quoting the same unemployment figures you were when you yelled, "BINGO."

You have a problem with those figures now??

Blacks have an unemployment rate twice that of white, today.

Seems you have a problem with that and forget LBJ will have them voting for another 150 years for a party that keeps them doing so well.

Your problem is you can't show any other time in history where black unemployment was any closer to white unemployment than it is at double.

Well you can't show wha th they would do with republicans in local government......that's a huge part of the problem.....I know you want everything in washington....but when your local government drives out business....well....no jobs left.

Who said I want everything in Washington? Can't you argue your position without making shit up?

You're a Liberal. The two go together.

Your delusions are noted.

 

[konradv]

If Dems are socialists, why have the average economic numbers been better under Dems, since WW II?
Which Presidents Have Been Best for the Economy?

Are you saying that the growth was based on socialist policies? Prove it.

I didn't say Dems were socialists, you did. What I asked was, if that's true, why has capitalism prospered more under Democratic administrations than under Republicans?

 

[Conservative65]

If Dems are socialists, why have the average economic numbers been better under Dems, since WW II?
Which Presidents Have Been Best for the Economy?

Are you saying that the growth was based on socialist policies? Prove it.

I didn't say Dems were socialists, you did. What I asked was, if that's true, why has capitalism prospered more under Democratic administrations than under Republicans?

That you don't agree Dems are socialists shows you don't have much of a clue about how things work.

 

[konradv]

If Dems are socialists, why have the average economic numbers been better under Dems, since WW II? Which Presidents Have Been Best for the Economy?

Are you saying that the growth was based on socialist policies? Prove it.

I didn't say Dems were socialists, you did. What I asked was, if that's true, why has capitalism prospered more under Democratic administrations than under Republicans?

That you don't agree Dems are socialists shows you don't have much of a clue about how things work.

That you didn't even try to answer my question shows you don't have much but rhetoric on your side.

 

[Conservative65]

If Dems are socialists, why have the average economic numbers been better under Dems, since WW II? Which Presidents Have Been Best for the Economy?

Are you saying that the growth was based on socialist policies? Prove it.

I didn't say Dems were socialists, you did. What I asked was, if that's true, why has capitalism prospered more under Democratic administrations than under Republicans?

That you don't agree Dems are socialists shows you don't have much of a clue about how things work.

That you didn't even try to answer my question shows you don't have much but rhetoric on your side.

That's like asking me to answer why the moon is made out of cheese.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Dems are socialists, why have the average economic numbers been better under Dems, since WW II? Which Presidents Have Been Best for the Economy?

Are you saying that the growth was based on socialist policies? Prove it.

I didn't say Dems were socialists, you did. What I asked was, if that's true, why has capitalism prospered more under Democratic administrations than under Republicans?

That you don't agree Dems are socialists shows you don't have much of a clue about how things work.

That you didn't even try to answer my question shows you don't have much but rhetoric on your side.

That's like asking me to answer why the moon is made out of cheese.

I'd like you to name 3 black conservatives we should be afraid of, politically.

 

[Conservative65]

Are you saying that the growth was based on socialist policies? Prove it.

I didn't say Dems were socialists, you did. What I asked was, if that's true, why has capitalism prospered more under Democratic administrations than under Republicans?

That you don't agree Dems are socialists shows you don't have much of a clue about how things work.

That you didn't even try to answer my question shows you don't have much but rhetoric on your side.

That's like asking me to answer why the moon is made out of cheese.

I'd like you to name 3 black conservatives we should be afraid of, politically.

You're afraid of all black conservatives.

 

[konradv]

If Dems are socialists, why have the average economic numbers been better under Dems, since WW II? Which Presidents Have Been Best for the Economy?

Are you saying that the growth was based on socialist policies? Prove it.

I didn't say Dems were socialists, you did. What I asked was, if that's true, why has capitalism prospered more under Democratic administrations than under Republicans?

That you don't agree Dems are socialists shows you don't have much of a clue about how things work.

That you didn't even try to answer my question shows you don't have much but rhetoric on your side.

That's like asking me to answer why the moon is made out of cheese.

Aha, moving from rhetoric to BULLSHIT!

 

[Conservative65]

Are you saying that the growth was based on socialist policies? Prove it.

I didn't say Dems were socialists, you did. What I asked was, if that's true, why has capitalism prospered more under Democratic administrations than under Republicans?

That you don't agree Dems are socialists shows you don't have much of a clue about how things work.

That you didn't even try to answer my question shows you don't have much but rhetoric on your side.

That's like asking me to answer why the moon is made out of cheese.

Aha, moving from rhetoric to BULLSHIT!

Just explaining that you shouldn't ask ridiculous questions.

 

[konradv]

I didn't say Dems were socialists, you did. What I asked was, if that's true, why has capitalism prospered more under Democratic administrations than under Republicans?

That you don't agree Dems are socialists shows you don't have much of a clue about how things work.

That you didn't even try to answer my question shows you don't have much but rhetoric on your side.

That's like asking me to answer why the moon is made out of cheese.

Aha, moving from rhetoric to BULLSHIT!

Just explaining that you shouldn't ask ridiculous questions.

The question isn't ridiculous, but your failure to even attempt to answer it is.