Politcal-ish Thread

[C4K3]

I recently enough watched what I think was the first televised debate between JFK and Nixon. JFK seemed the victor, though I... guess I generally somewhat lean right. Nixon was so obvious in trying to play to the center-- which upon reflection and blessing, may not be inherently wrong-- but Nixon seemed less sincere.

I've also recently have seen some jokes from Reagan. The humor and humility are heartwarming. It is interesting though; I have heard members of the black community say that Reagan caused the black drug epidemic in the 1980's, as well as tore apart the black family. I, just having done a modicum of research, think that the first claim is patently false unless anyone adds any evidence otherwise. As to tearing apart the black family... well, black on black violence, and higher rates of criminalization for the same crime for blacks... though, (I'm going to stop soon so I don't get buried in data) one talking point is that, if we can be forgiven to use the homicide rates to talk of all crime, it's at a 50-year near-low and at a 100-year mid-range. But the incarceration rate is going up.

Finally, and relevantly, I remember President Trump, after the election, promising reform and freedom to improperly jailed black men.
Go to bed, C4K3. Or play some games.

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

I recently enough watched what I think was the first televised debate between JFK and Nixon. JFK seemed the victor, though I... guess I generally somewhat lean right. Nixon was so obvious in trying to play to the center-- which upon reflection and blessing, may not be inherently wrong-- but Nixon seemed less sincere.

I've also recently have seen some jokes from Reagan. The humor and humility are heartwarming. It is interesting though; I have heard members of the black community say that Reagan caused the black drug epidemic in the 1980's, as well as tore apart the black family. I, just having done a modicum of research, think that the first claim is patently false unless anyone adds any evidence otherwise. As to tearing apart the black family... well, black on black violence, and higher rates of criminalization for the same crime for blacks... though, (I'm going to stop soon so I don't get buried in data) one talking point is that, if we can be forgiven to use the homicide rates to talk of all crime, it's at a 50-year near-low and at a 100-year mid-range. But the incarceration rate is going up.

Finally, and relevantly, I remember President Trump, after the election, promising reform and freedom to improperly jailed black men.
Go to bed, C4K3. Or play some games.

Firstly applause for being one of the few to bring up a subject like this C4K3 . The hallmark of the Holy Spirit is an earnest desire to know God and do His will in all things, including politics, which more often than not is a moral issue. Unfortunately I rarely see this from "Christians" who are more interested in pleasing people and avoiding conflict than pleasing God. That is why Matthew 10:34-39 has become my favorite verse as I believe it applies not only to parent and child, but, siblings, husband and wife, and certainly social groups.

I know little of Nixon and JFK but I can speak a short basic history of the Democrat and Republican parties as it pertains to racism. Prior to the Civil War they were originally one party the Democratic-Republicans who split into two over a Presidential election and, eventually, slavery with the Democrats being for slavery. The GOP was founded in 1854 by anti-slavery activists who opposed the Kansas–Nebraska Act out of the remnants of the Whig party and defecting anti-slavery Democrats. It was the Democrat wing of the Supreme Court who authored the awful Dred Scott decision and when Democrats talk about replacing Andrew Jackson with Harriet Tubman on the 20 dollar bill over racism they fail to mention he was a Democrat. I cannot stress enough the Republican party was specifically created as abolitionists and Democrats were, and remain to today, the party of racism. Though I will note individuals within the parties differed as to what degree slaves should be freed. A faction of the Republicans the "Radical Republicans" wanted immediate abolition and others wanted gradual. In both parties some feared a race war, some wanted to preserve the Union, some didn't think Blacks had anywhere to go, some feared the economic impact, and some didn't want to end up killing their own sons, brothers, and fathers in what remains the bloodiest war in American history (though most didn't think it would happen). You also had Lincoln, the first Republican president and no fan of slavery saying things like...

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

Yours, A. Lincoln.

Odd isn't it that Democrats today celebrate Obama, first Black President, while hiding the Democrat past and things like Hiram Revels the first Black senator, a Republican, is regulated to obscurity. My friend and 50 year old Black martial art instructor did not know Lincoln was a Republican. Pelosi orders the removal of portraits of former House speakers who served in the Confederacy hmm... it's almost as if they are trying to hide something...

All the Confederate commanders were Democrats. The only one I know who became a Republican was Longstreet but that was after Pickett's charge. That's not to say all Democrats were of one stripe. The controversial Robert E. Lee was a racist who had the plantation slaves he inherited, and was supposed to free, whipped in an effort to make them work off the plantation's debt that was also left to him. At the same time he also supported his wife's school for them and after the war opposed the continued violence other Democrats pushed for. He had called the South's secession treason and was in fact offered command of the Northern army before the war but could not abandon his loyalty to Virginia. Fact was his wife and sons wanted to go with the North while only he and his daughter wanted to go with the South. In the context of his time he was a moderate Democrat, with some honor, but thought we were stuck with slavery. Civil Wars are unlike any other war and those that think you can "just do a thing" like abolishing slavery without a price are historically and contextually ignorant. China is currently enslaving, sterilizing, and committing genocide on the Uighurs and America can't even stop using their products. Just what do you think it was like in America in the 1850's where half the continent (ok population wise it was more like a 3rd) was indirectly economically dependent on slaves?

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

Regardless after the war the stark divide between Republicans and Democrats continued, if not widened. It was the Radical Republicans who pushed for Black rights and reconstruction while Democrats pushed against giving Blacks the vote on the basis they were uneducated and would be victims of demagogues, remember this as I will refer to it later. Then the Radical Republicans lost power, ending reconstruction, and the Democrats implemented the Black codes and then Jim Crow.

Flash forward to the 1950's-1960's and three civil rights acts are passed under by-partisan agreement, by Eisenhower a Republican President and JFK a Democrat President, while they are filibustered, for a record 60 hours, by Democrat holdouts like Robert C. Byrd and Strom Thurmond. Strom Thurmond had previously declared that Truman (one of the very few Democrats I like) had betrayed the South with desegregation. With the passage of Civil Rights Thurmond was one of the very few who switched parties but Robert C. Byrd, former KKK Exalted Cyclops, remained in the Democrat party so long I was alive to remember Nancy Pelosi wishing him a Happy Birthday in the early 2000's.

So what happened did the parties swap on racism? No what happened was the Democratic party ran on open racism for nearly a century but open racism was no longer popular so they fell back on politics 101, giving people things. Whether those things were helpful or hurtful they do not care. Remember Democrats post Civil War denied Blacks the vote on the basis of them becoming victims to demagogues... which the Democrats became a hundred years later. Generally speaking Democrats are the party of bigger government, greater control of you to "help" you, and most importantly no personal responsibility (or racially selective personal responsibility which is racism). Republicans are the party of smaller government, freedom, and personal responsibility. "But there are racists on the right!" there are racists on both sides but not because Republicans somehow swapped with Democrats. How would "I'm going to take up the position of my opponent who abandoned it for it's unpopularity" make any sense in a political environment? No the difference is how the right and left define freedom (and dozens of other things). Freedom is not possible without the ability to choose wrong. In Christianity God has absolute power and could have forced us to choose Him. Yet we were given a choice, free will, so our choices might have value. Likewise if speech is to be free than people must have the right to say things I don't like that might even, gasp, hurt people's feelings. Thus the division is those that would make whatever they dislike "hate" speech and illegal and those who would not. If I have to allow you to say a racist thing to say a true thing, like boys can't be girls, so be it because the left is trying to ban both under the same auspice. Yet within the actual parties Republicans have done better at expelling racists than Democrats who still keep anti-Semites like Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib around (randomly searched article https://www.jns.org/opinion/anti-semitism-has-a-history-in-the-democratic-party/ Hmm a guy made an interesting post in the comments section of that article too). That's not to mention the Democrats who can call Blacks who vote Republican "Oreos", make comments like "You ain’t black’ if you have trouble deciding between Trump and me", or outright state they are going to pick people based firstly on their race and/or sex not merit or ability.

A clear example of Democratic racism is their support of affirmative action. Take the Harvard college admissions scandal where the school admitted it would have been 43% Asian if not for Asians' "bad personalities". If Republicans gave that excuse against Blacks just what do you think would happen? This was under investigation by the Trump administration and dropped by Biden's. Thomas Sowell has also noted how affirmative action has hurt Blacks who would have done well in any normal college but through affirmative action got into ones where they teach at a speed they cannot keep up with, drop out, and fail. As two wrongs do not make a right the racism of affirmative action to fight racism is not "anti-racism" it is just racism. Furthermore when Asians, Jews, and Black Nigerians, all supposedly more discriminated against than Whites, have higher standards of education and income than Whites maybe discrimination is not what is holding Blacks back.

"But do Democrat policies help?" No they don't. I'm too tired to look up more statistics now but off the top of my head Black incomes were rising and fatherless rates were lower prior to World War 2 (or was it just after I forget) but with welfare reform in the 60's both became worse for both Blacks and poor Whites. https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/poverty-and-welfare-the-american-founding has the general concept.

As far as crime below is one ninth of a massive e-mail I wrote a couple years ago during the BLM riots. As it is gigantic and some of it needs updating I will only post this part. I will note I actually didn't really agree with Trump's prison reform but it wasn't a big deal for me either.

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

By statistics and population the majority of violent crime is intraracial not interracial.

In 2005 most homicides involving one victim and one offender were intraracial. About 93% of Black homicide victims and 85% of White victims in single victim and single offender homicides were murdered by someone of their race.

By statistics Blacks should be more afraid of themselves than Whites.

The majority of interracial crime is Black on White not White on Black too.

Cory Booker claims that there is “systemic racism” in our criminal justice system leading to unjust mass incarceration of Black people. The facts simply say the opposite. According to the new National Crime Victimization Survey published by the Bureau of Justice Statics, out of the 593,598 interracial violent victimization crimes between Blacks and Whites reported in 2018, 90 percent were Black against White, and 9.5 percent were White against Black. That is simply astounding given that Black people compose just 12 percent of the general population and White people comprise 62 percent. And the trend is getting worse. As Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute observes, “That ratio is becoming more skewed, despite the Democratic claim of Trump-inspired White violence. In 2012-13, Blacks committed 85 percent of all interracial victimizations between Blacks and Whites; Whites committed 15 percent.”

There is no disproportionate police brutality either. If you have far more Black crime you proportionately get more Blacks arrested and shot than other races.

The lopsided share of crime committed by Black people is a problem across the board, but particularly for violent crimes. According to the FBI’s 2018 Uniform Crime reporting, of the 11,514 homicide offenders whose race is known, a whopping 55 percent were Black, 42 percent White, and three percent other. Though Black people make up only 12 percent of the population, they composed 53 percent of all murder victims in cases where the identity of the victim was known and reported. In cases where the race of both the victim and offender was known, a staggering 88.9 percent of Black homicide victims were murdered by Black offenders.

To drill down even further, in 2017, Black males accounted for 45 percent of homicides, even though they make up just seven percent of the population. That means they commit murders at a rate eight times higher than Whites.

In 2018, African-Americans accounted for 54 percent of those arrested for robbery, 34 percent of those arrested for aggravated assault, and 43 percent of weapons violations. In total, they composed 37.4 percent of all violent crime arrests. Yet, despite the complaint about Black imprisonment, only 33 percent of state and federal inmates in 2017 were Black. And their numbers are dropping quicker than any other group.

Sources:
Shapiro Youtube Video

FactCheck: do black Americans commit more crime?

Anti-police protests continue across America after the Michael Brown killing. But does the black community have tough questions to answer too?

www.channel4.com

How can incarceration rates be racist if they reflect the ACTUAL crime rates? | Blaze Media

Under a true system of justice, if you do the crime, you do the time. Law and order deter bad guys. Period. However, once we start social engineering and going soft on crime in order to avoid rightfully incarcerating individuals of particular races, everyone is harmed, including those the...

www.conservativereview.com

Racism against Blacks certainly exists but, by statistics, if one earnestly wants to save "Black lives" it's not the main problem we should be addressing. Yet the minor problem is given ridiculously more coverage, and resources, than the major one. Yes currently the "talk" is in respect to police brutality and (White on Black) racism. Problem is the emphasis has, and for as long as I've been alive, been on placing responsibility on White (culture) and none on Black (culture). We have beheld the mote in our eye, gouged the eye out, and can now see straight out the back meanwhile Black culture is walking around with a two by four. Seriously there is a video of Whites bowing to Blacks out there (Another person's assessment). Discrimination against Blacks was excused by sighting the acts of a few for all and now some demand all Whites apologize for the acts of a few. Both are wrong and racist. If we actually want to save the most lives the majority of the call to responsibility should not be against cops but the Black community, and it is not. We have a culture of enablers. Maybe prioritize Black father's abandoning their children? Maybe instead of demanding criminals out of prison because they are Black we recognize they are there because they actually committed crimes.

"But Whites cause the poverty that causes crime" you may say.

No one makes Blacks shoot Blacks or Black fathers abandon their children (the fatherless problem is one of few things I agree with Obama about). Furthermore I want to know the depths of the "poverty" that drives people to crime. Poverty is starving, poverty is being homeless. If you have money, or are stealing it, to spend on drugs and booze your problem goes beyond poverty (Rodney King, drunk, George Floyd, Meth (and Cocaine when younger), Micheal Brown, THC). If you have what you need to live there is no excuse for committing crimes against innocents but your own lack of personal responsibility. Food stamps, unemployment, medicaid, medicare, aren't going to help with that problem only enable it. Blacks are disproportionately killing themselves with abortion ( https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2020/02/25/abortion-the-overlooked-tragedy-for-black-americans/ ), disproportionately killing themselves in murders, and killing themselves when they succeed. This is what you get when you have a culture being told they are owed from birth and that they can't make it legitimately (random thoughts from the 90's). Black president, Black surgeon general, Black cops, Black scientists, Black reporters, Black athletes, Black actors, Black musicians. Whatever barriers Blacks have, or do not have, these people prove you do not need to commit crime to survive.

Side note. In a Charles Barkley (not a Republican, at least anymore) interview he said when he visited schools in the predominately black ones 90% of children wanted to be athletes (or actors I think he said?) while in the white schools they wanted to be widely varying things. The idea that everyone will apply in proportionate numbers to every job is just foolish. Remember also Blacks are just 14% of the population.

 

[The Mighty Gerbil]

TLDR go read Thomas Sowell to provide the historical context and facts popular media avoids to keep Blacks voting Democrat against their own interest. My only reservations with Sowell being I, unfortunately, haven't made time to listen though all of that video XD so you may quickly surpass me (and I may also differ on his drug stance which I have not yet researched).

...so tired, too tired to work on server like I wanted too now sry guys XD.