White liberals talk down to blacks

[Correll]

My interest in this study is the difference between liberals who talk down to blacks and conservatives who do NOT.


I think it shows that liberals have a lower opinion of blacks than conservatives do.



And no, I'm not familiar with "mirroring". You are welcome to inform me, if you wish.

See the link to "code switching" above as well as the LBJ quote.

See also this thread, which is why the topic immediately called you-know-who to mind.

>> The Globe reviewed the language used by 19 presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans, in speeches announcing their campaigns for the 2016 presidential election. The review, using a common algorithm called the Flesch-Kincaid readability test that crunches word choice and sentence structure and spits out grade-level rankings, produced some striking results.

The Republican candidates — like Trump — who are speaking at a level easily understood by people at the lower end of the education spectrum are outperforming their highfalutin opponents in the polls. Simpler language resonates with a broader swath of voters in an era of 140-character Twitter tweets and 10-second television sound bites, say specialists on political speech.

.... His vocabulary is filled with words like “huge,” “terrible,” “beautiful.” He speaks in punchy bursts that lack nuance. It’s all easily grasped, whether it’s his campaign theme (“Make America Great Again”), words about his wealth (“I’m really rich”), or his disparagement of the Washington culture (“Politicians are all talk, no action”).

“Trump is talking about things that are emotional, simple, and angry,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida-based Republican consultant. <<​

Interesting information worthy of discussion. And I have done so in the past, and will do so in the future.


But this thread is about the difference specifically when liberals and conservatives talk to blacks.


Are you claiming that liberals are attempting to manipulate blacks when they do that?

No I'm not "claiming" anything. And your link is about when self-described "liberals and conservatives" WRITE to WHAT THEY PERCEIVE AS blacks, not 'when they talk to blacks'. Read your own link.

I was of course paraphrasing.



So, what do you think this data reveals?

If anything it reveals that these self-described "Liberals" are more sensitive, toning down the "grade-level" (as in my example above) of their language so as not to appear aloof to the other party, than are the self-described "conservatives". That's what it seems to conclude.

So, in your view, you assume BOTH groups assume that blacks have a lower grade level understanding, but cons don't care and just talk how they normally do, while libs adjust accordingly?

 

[Pogo]

See the link to "code switching" above as well as the LBJ quote.

See also this thread, which is why the topic immediately called you-know-who to mind.

>> The Globe reviewed the language used by 19 presidential candidates, Democrats and Republicans, in speeches announcing their campaigns for the 2016 presidential election. The review, using a common algorithm called the Flesch-Kincaid readability test that crunches word choice and sentence structure and spits out grade-level rankings, produced some striking results.

The Republican candidates — like Trump — who are speaking at a level easily understood by people at the lower end of the education spectrum are outperforming their highfalutin opponents in the polls. Simpler language resonates with a broader swath of voters in an era of 140-character Twitter tweets and 10-second television sound bites, say specialists on political speech.

.... His vocabulary is filled with words like “huge,” “terrible,” “beautiful.” He speaks in punchy bursts that lack nuance. It’s all easily grasped, whether it’s his campaign theme (“Make America Great Again”), words about his wealth (“I’m really rich”), or his disparagement of the Washington culture (“Politicians are all talk, no action”).

“Trump is talking about things that are emotional, simple, and angry,” said Rick Wilson, a Florida-based Republican consultant. <<​

Interesting information worthy of discussion. And I have done so in the past, and will do so in the future.


But this thread is about the difference specifically when liberals and conservatives talk to blacks.


Are you claiming that liberals are attempting to manipulate blacks when they do that?

No I'm not "claiming" anything. And your link is about when self-described "liberals and conservatives" WRITE to WHAT THEY PERCEIVE AS blacks, not 'when they talk to blacks'. Read your own link.

I was of course paraphrasing.



So, what do you think this data reveals?

If anything it reveals that these self-described "Liberals" are more sensitive, toning down the "grade-level" (as in my example above) of their language so as not to appear aloof to the other party, than are the self-described "conservatives". That's what it seems to conclude.

So, in your view, you assume BOTH groups assume that blacks have a lower grade level understanding, but cons don't care and just talk how they normally do, while libs adjust accordingly?

I don't agree with painting political philosophies into social robotics in the first place. But that aside, no I think everybody adjusts. It's how humans interact universally. Including those who have no interest in politics.

 

[Correll]

Interesting information worthy of discussion. And I have done so in the past, and will do so in the future.


But this thread is about the difference specifically when liberals and conservatives talk to blacks.


Are you claiming that liberals are attempting to manipulate blacks when they do that?

No I'm not "claiming" anything. And your link is about when self-described "liberals and conservatives" WRITE to WHAT THEY PERCEIVE AS blacks, not 'when they talk to blacks'. Read your own link.

I was of course paraphrasing.



So, what do you think this data reveals?

If anything it reveals that these self-described "Liberals" are more sensitive, toning down the "grade-level" (as in my example above) of their language so as not to appear aloof to the other party, than are the self-described "conservatives". That's what it seems to conclude.

So, in your view, you assume BOTH groups assume that blacks have a lower grade level understanding, but cons don't care and just talk how they normally do, while libs adjust accordingly?

I don't agree with painting political philosophies into social robotics in the first place. But that aside, no I think everybody adjusts. It's how humans interact universally. Including those who have no interest in politics.

The groups here are represented by self defined people. There is a difference in their behavior.


Liberals adjust their "writing" to lower grade levels when "writing" to "perceived blacks", conservatives do not.

You think it is because liberals are sensitive, while conservatives are not.



That seems to imply that you think BOTH groups think that blacks are less educated. Is that correct?

 

[Votto]

Interesting study. Not really a surprise to anyone.


White Liberals Present Themselves as Less Competent in Interactions with African-Americans


The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences.The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, ..."

“It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”

With this preliminary evidence in hand, the researchers set out to further test their ideas..."



On regular individuals.




"The researchers found that liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white. No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Dupree says. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.” "





Excellent finding on soft racism, or "low expectations".

Not only that, Dims think that if people have to use ID then blacks won't be able to vote.

Apparently, "Blacks" are just too poor and stupid to be able to come up with an ID.

 

[WillMunny]

White liberals see non-whites as helpless, child-like perpetual victims who need an oh-so-enlightened Big Daddy White Babysitter to hold their hand throughout life. They see minorities as objects of pity, not responsible adult equals.

You know that saying "soft bigotry of low expectations"? That's the definition of it.

 

[Oddball]

Different nomenclature, same behavior.

Similar behavior, definitely, but I think probably different underlying psychological mechanisms. So for example I grew up in a rural area of western Maryland and people there have a pretty specific accent. I haven't lived there for nearly 20 years and I don't really have that accent at all anymore... except when I visit for some extended period of time. I subconsciously switch back to it a little bit, especially with family members with strong accents. There's nothing particularly condescending about that. Code switching is almost automatic for people who participate in multiple distinct sub-cultures, essentially. If anything it signals a sort of in-group connection.

On the other hand, the interpretation of the study given by its authors makes sense to me:

'Dupree and Fiske suspect that the behavior stems from a liberal person’s desire to connect with other races. One possible reason for the “competence downshift,” as the authors describe it, is that, regardless of race, people tend to downplay their competence when they want to appear likeable and friendly. But it’s also possible that “this is happening because people are using common stereotypes in an effort to get along,” Dupree says.

Initial data from follow-up studies suggest that describing a black person as highly intelligent, thus reversing the stereotype, or as already highly motivated to get along with whites, thus removing the need to prove goodwill, can reduce the likelihood that a white person will downplay their competence in their interactions with the black person.'
​

Here the "downshifting" is more about implicit biases and a sort of uncomfortableness based in political and social views about race and racism, leading to the desire to appear friendly. You might call it a manifestation of what people often pejoratively describe as "white liberal guilt." I would suggest that rather than signifying participation in multiple groups or comfortable familiarity with black people, it signals much more about a lack of social interaction, so that the more abstract notions that follow from a liberal worldview have a greater impact, i.e. by making them uncomfortable. That's why it seems more condescending than a liberal with a southern background switching into a southern drawl when buying a fishing license.

I think it speaks to the idea of ongoing segregation in society as a root cause of a lot of problems, since I would expect more social interaction to reduce the measured effect. It shows how difficult implicit biases can be to overcome just by conscious effort in the absence of meaningful social interaction. It reminds me a little of research on "benevolent sexism" in that way.

The motivation behind the behavior is less interesting to me than the fact that it happens...From my perspective, the question of "why" invites speculation from without and rationalization from within, along with navel gazing from academics who desperately try to unpack the "whys" from people that they don't even know....For example, have you done something totally stupid right in front of a friend and been asked why you did it, only for you to subsequently spout out a line of BS that you know is BS before the words have crossed your lips?....If you can't tell a good friend the real reason you're doing something stupid, how is it you think some pointy headed college professor who doesn't even know you is going to be able to?


What is certain is that the behavior is about the individual engaging in it, and not the people in front of whom he is exhibiting it.....In the particular instance here, we're talking about progressives, whom we already can safely say hold most from outside their socio-political strata in lower regard, if not outright contempt...So it would only follow that they would feel the urge to further speak down to those they would perceive to be even lower in the social order...And, lo and behold, those people happen to be those with darker skin than they....Let me show you my shocked face.

 

[Pogo]

Different nomenclature, same behavior.

Similar behavior, definitely, but I think probably different underlying psychological mechanisms. So for example I grew up in a rural area of western Maryland and people there have a pretty specific accent. I haven't lived there for nearly 20 years and I don't really have that accent at all anymore... except when I visit for some extended period of time. I subconsciously switch back to it a little bit, especially with family members with strong accents. There's nothing particularly condescending about that. Code switching is almost automatic for people who participate in multiple distinct sub-cultures, essentially. If anything it signals a sort of in-group connection.

On the other hand, the interpretation of the study given by its authors makes sense to me:

'Dupree and Fiske suspect that the behavior stems from a liberal person’s desire to connect with other races. One possible reason for the “competence downshift,” as the authors describe it, is that, regardless of race, people tend to downplay their competence when they want to appear likeable and friendly. But it’s also possible that “this is happening because people are using common stereotypes in an effort to get along,” Dupree says.

Initial data from follow-up studies suggest that describing a black person as highly intelligent, thus reversing the stereotype, or as already highly motivated to get along with whites, thus removing the need to prove goodwill, can reduce the likelihood that a white person will downplay their competence in their interactions with the black person.'
​

Here the "downshifting" is more about implicit biases and a sort of uncomfortableness based in political and social views about race and racism, leading to the desire to appear friendly. You might call it a manifestation of what people often pejoratively describe as "white liberal guilt." I would suggest that rather than signifying participation in multiple groups or comfortable familiarity with black people, it signals much more about a lack of social interaction, so that the more abstract notions that follow from a liberal worldview have a greater impact, i.e. by making them uncomfortable. That's why it seems more condescending than a liberal with a southern background switching into a southern drawl when buying a fishing license.

I think it speaks to the idea of ongoing segregation in society as a root cause of a lot of problems, since I would expect more social interaction to reduce the measured effect. It shows how difficult implicit biases can be to overcome just by conscious effort in the absence of meaningful social interaction. It reminds me a little of research on "benevolent sexism" in that way.

The motivation behind the behavior is less interesting to me than the fact that it happens...From my perspective, the question of "why" invites speculation from without and rationalization from within, along with navel gazing from academics who desperately try to unpack the "whys" from people that they don't even know....For example, have you done something totally stupid right in front of a friend and been asked why you did it, only for you to subsequently spout out a line of BS that you know is BS before the words have crossed your lips?....

You mean like trying to sell Hillary Clinton reciting a gospel song lyric as a "black accent"?

Yeah I don't need to speculate about that motivation....

 

[Oddball]

You mean like trying to sell Hillary Clinton reciting a gospel song lyric as a "black accent"?

Yeah I don't need to speculate about that motivation....

I don't need to know the motivation behind condescension to recognize it as condescension.

 

[well named]

...navel gazing from academics...

That's just how we roll, dawg

If you can't tell a good friend the real reason you're doing something stupid, how is it you think some pointy headed college professor is going to be able to?

I think other people might very often have more insight into our behavior than we do about ourselves. Obviously that's going to be imperfect, but there's no reason to think that it's impossible to infer anything about human psychology from human behavior. It's usually just a good idea to take the conclusions with a large dose of salt (cf. the replication problems of psychology studies). So I agree that on some level behavior is more concrete and more informative than speculative interpretations about the same behavior, but in the context of this thread the different psychology is relevant. Describing the behavior in the OP as "talking down" or "condescension" is already inferring a motivation and a "why", and it's likely a different motivation from the example you gave with the southern accent. If we're already delving into psychology than it seems fair to point out apparent differences between different examples of similar behavior.

we're talking about progressives, whom we already can safely say hold most from outside their socio-political strata in lower regard, if not outright contempt...

I don't think you can safely say that.

 

[Oddball]

If you can't tell a good friend the real reason you're doing something stupid, how is it you think some pointy headed college professor is going to be able to?

I think other people might very often have more insight into our behavior than we do about ourselves. Obviously that's going to be imperfect, but there's no reason to think that it's impossible to infer anything about human psychology from human behavior. It's usually just a good idea to take the conclusions with a large dose of salt (cf. the replication problems of psychology studies). So I agree that on some level behavior is more concrete and more informative than speculative interpretations about the same behavior, but in the context of this thread the different psychology is relevant. Describing the behavior in the OP as "talking down" or "condescension" is already inferring a motivation and a "why", and it's likely a different motivation from the example you gave with the southern accent. If we're already delving into psychology than it seems fair to point out apparent differences between different examples of similar behavior

From my corner, condescension and talking down to people to are a "what" (i.e. a behavior) not a "why" (i.e. identity statement)...In this hierarchy, "why" is far more useful as a motivating element to change the behavior, than it is to explain the unwanted/undesirable behavior....Because "why" exists at the identity level (well above behaviors), it is highly subjective and personal....As such I think it's a fools errand to try and divine this sort of thing from without, IMO.

we're talking about progressives, whom we already can safely say hold most from outside their socio-political strata in lower regard, if not outright contempt...

I don't think you can safely say that.

I can safely say that because of the behavior of most progressive avatars I hear talk and see act....They are, without question, amongst the biggest snobs I've ever encountered....A generalization, yes...And one that, in my experience, applies far, far more often than not.

 

[well named]

If you're judging progressives as a group by the behavior of folks on internet forums (I think that's what you mean by avatar?) -- especially this one -- then I think you have a problem with the representativeness of your sample.

Note: I identify as progressive

 

[Cellblock2429]

Interesting study. Not really a surprise to anyone.


White Liberals Present Themselves as Less Competent in Interactions with African-Americans


The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences.The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, ..."

“It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”

With this preliminary evidence in hand, the researchers set out to further test their ideas..."



On regular individuals.




"The researchers found that liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white. No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Dupree says. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.” "





Excellent finding on soft racism, or "low expectations".

---- so you're saying these "white Liberals" don't have a great relationship with "the blacks"?

/----/ Yes, you are correct.
Big African-American Support for GOP in Florida and Georgia Enrages the Left
Nov 26, 2018

RUSH: Oh. A couple interesting stories here, too, related to the elections in Georgia and Florida. In Florida, an analysis of exit poll data shows that Ron DeSantis, the Republican and winner, got a far greater percentage of the African-American vote and Hispanic vote than anybody can believe. In Georgia, Kemp got more African-American votes than anybody imagined, and African-American organizations in Georgia are ticked and livid about this. They’re calling these black people that voted for Kemp traitors and who knows, Uncle Toms.

By "big" support by blacks for the Republican, you mean ten percent.

Sad.

/----/ Here ya go Sparky. Enjoy.
After Racism Claims, Trump Support From Blacks and Hispanics Climbs
In every age group, and at every level of education, about twice as many African American men as women gave Trump positive marks. In all, 23 percent of black men approved of Trump’s performance versus 11 percent of black women. “The outlier here isn’t [black] men … it’s [black] women, where you have near-universal disapproval of Trump,” said Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster who studies African American voters. Still, black men are one of the few groups for which Trump’s 2017 average approval rating significantly exceeds his 2016 vote share.

 

[g5000]

Interesting study. Not really a surprise to anyone.


White Liberals Present Themselves as Less Competent in Interactions with African-Americans


The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences.The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, ..."

“It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”

With this preliminary evidence in hand, the researchers set out to further test their ideas..."



On regular individuals.




"The researchers found that liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white. No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Dupree says. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.” "





Excellent finding on soft racism, or "low expectations".

---- so you're saying these "white Liberals" don't have a great relationship with "the blacks"?

/----/ Yes, you are correct.
Big African-American Support for GOP in Florida and Georgia Enrages the Left
Nov 26, 2018

RUSH: Oh. A couple interesting stories here, too, related to the elections in Georgia and Florida. In Florida, an analysis of exit poll data shows that Ron DeSantis, the Republican and winner, got a far greater percentage of the African-American vote and Hispanic vote than anybody can believe. In Georgia, Kemp got more African-American votes than anybody imagined, and African-American organizations in Georgia are ticked and livid about this. They’re calling these black people that voted for Kemp traitors and who knows, Uncle Toms.

By "big" support by blacks for the Republican, you mean ten percent.

Sad.

/----/ Here ya go Sparky. Enjoy.
After Racism Claims, Trump Support From Blacks and Hispanics Climbs
In every age group, and at every level of education, about twice as many African American men as women gave Trump positive marks. In all, 23 percent of black men approved of Trump’s performance versus 11 percent of black women. “The outlier here isn’t [black] men … it’s [black] women, where you have near-universal disapproval of Trump,” said Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster who studies African American voters. Still, black men are one of the few groups for which Trump’s 2017 average approval rating significantly exceeds his 2016 vote share.

The claim was "In Florida, an analysis of exit poll data shows that Ron DeSantis, the Republican and winner, got a far greater percentage of the African-American vote and Hispanic vote than anybody can believe".

Trying to move the goalposts doesn't work with me, rube.


DeSantis got something like 10 percent of the black vote. Notice how Rush didn't say the percentage? That's because he was trying to make it sound much bigger than it was for the Rube Herd to swallow.


So again. By "big" support for the Republican, you mean ten percent.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Interesting study. Not really a surprise to anyone.


White Liberals Present Themselves as Less Competent in Interactions with African-Americans


The team found that Democratic candidates used fewer competence-related words in speeches delivered to mostly minority audiences than they did in speeches delivered to mostly white audiences.The difference wasn’t statistically significant in speeches by Republican candidates, ..."

“It was really surprising to see that for nearly three decades, Democratic presidential candidates have been engaging in this predicted behavior.”

With this preliminary evidence in hand, the researchers set out to further test their ideas..."



On regular individuals.




"The researchers found that liberal individuals were less likely to use words that would make them appear highly competent when the person they were addressing was presumed to be black rather than white. No significant differences were seen in the word selection of conservatives based on the presumed race of their partner. “It was kind of an unpleasant surprise to see this subtle but persistent effect,” Dupree says. “Even if it’s ultimately well-intentioned, it could be seen as patronizing.” "





Excellent finding on soft racism, or "low expectations".

---- so you're saying these "white Liberals" don't have a great relationship with "the blacks"?

/----/ Yes, you are correct.
Big African-American Support for GOP in Florida and Georgia Enrages the Left
Nov 26, 2018

RUSH: Oh. A couple interesting stories here, too, related to the elections in Georgia and Florida. In Florida, an analysis of exit poll data shows that Ron DeSantis, the Republican and winner, got a far greater percentage of the African-American vote and Hispanic vote than anybody can believe. In Georgia, Kemp got more African-American votes than anybody imagined, and African-American organizations in Georgia are ticked and livid about this. They’re calling these black people that voted for Kemp traitors and who knows, Uncle Toms.

By "big" support by blacks for the Republican, you mean ten percent.

Sad.

/----/ Here ya go Sparky. Enjoy.
After Racism Claims, Trump Support From Blacks and Hispanics Climbs
In every age group, and at every level of education, about twice as many African American men as women gave Trump positive marks. In all, 23 percent of black men approved of Trump’s performance versus 11 percent of black women. “The outlier here isn’t [black] men … it’s [black] women, where you have near-universal disapproval of Trump,” said Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster who studies African American voters. Still, black men are one of the few groups for which Trump’s 2017 average approval rating significantly exceeds his 2016 vote share.

The claim was "In Florida, an analysis of exit poll data shows that Ron DeSantis, the Republican and winner, got a far greater percentage of the African-American vote and Hispanic vote than anybody can believe".

Trying to move the goalposts doesn't work with me, rube.


DeSantis got something like 10 percent of the black vote. Notice how Rush didn't say the percentage? That's because he was trying to make it sound much bigger than it was for the Rube Herd to swallow.


So again. By "big" support for the Republican, you mean ten percent.

/-----/ It's more than 10 percent and growing.

 

[g5000]

More Rush Limbaugh humor:

"In Georgia, Kemp got more African-American votes than anybody imagined."

Notice again Rush does not provide the actual percentage. This is deliberate. He knows the low information rubes will "imagine" a much higher number than the reality.

You know what Kemp got?

THREE PERCENT of the black female vote. EIGHT PERCENT of the black male vote.

Single digits.

 

[Cellblock2429]

More Rush Limbaugh humor:

"In Georgia, Kemp got more African-American votes than anybody imagined."

Notice again Rush does not provide the actual percentage. This is deliberate. He knows the low information rubes will "imagine" a much higher number than the reality.

You know what Kemp got?

THREE PERCENT of the black female vote. EIGHT PERCENT of the black male vote.

Single digits.

/----/ Keep your head in the sand.
In every age group, and at every level of education, about twice as many African American men as women gave Trump positive marks. In all, 23 percent of black men approved of Trump’s performance versus 11 percent of black women. “The outlier here isn’t [black] men … it’s [black] women, where you have near-universal disapproval of Trump,” said Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster who studies African American voters. Still, black men are one of the few groups for which Trump’s 2017 average approval rating significantly exceeds his 2016 vote share.

 

[g5000]

More Rush Limbaugh humor:

"In Georgia, Kemp got more African-American votes than anybody imagined."

Notice again Rush does not provide the actual percentage. This is deliberate. He knows the low information rubes will "imagine" a much higher number than the reality.

You know what Kemp got?

THREE PERCENT of the black female vote. EIGHT PERCENT of the black male vote.

Single digits.

/----/ Keep you head in teh sand.
In every age group, and at every level of education, about twice as many African American men as women gave Trump positive marks. In all, 23 percent of black men approved of Trump’s performance versus 11 percent of black women. “The outlier here isn’t [black] men … it’s [black] women, where you have near-universal disapproval of Trump,” said Cornell Belcher, a Democratic pollster who studies African American voters. Still, black men are one of the few groups for which Trump’s 2017 average approval rating significantly exceeds his 2016 vote share.

Well, gee, the vast majority of those 23 percent didn't vote for the Republican in Georgia.

Ain't that a peach?

 

[whitehall]

A perfect example is the photo I.D. controversy. Liberals get away with claiming that (only) Black people have difficulty in obtaining something as basic as a photo I.D. in the 21st century.

 

[g5000]

I agree the Democratic Party isn't doing any good for blacks as a whole. However, I also believe the pseudocons are severely stupid if they think that means blacks should vote for the party which so clearly HATES them with a passion.

Neither party is serving the American people any more, not just blacks. That's why I don't vote for either one of them.

 

[Correll]

I agree the Democratic Party isn't doing any good for blacks as a whole. However, I also believe the pseudocons are severely stupid if they think that means blacks should vote for the party which so clearly HATES them with a passion.

Neither party is serving the American people any more, not just blacks. That's why I don't vote for either one of them.

We are the ones talking down to them. YOu are.