Great summation here from a questioner in a WaPo chat:
Arlington, Va.: Post today has an article entitled “The Year of the Black Republican” that puts forth the idea black Republicans may cut into the traditional Democractic base. The grounds for this hypothesis are quite tenuous. Yes many African Americans agree with Republicans on social issues such as gay marriage. However, as the article notes, the candidates do not represent the black community on issues such as health care, affirmative action, work’s rights including minimum wage, education, the Iraq War (which has killed more African Americans than any other group) and The Voting Rights Act. Do Republicans expect African Americans to be so short-sighted and racially narrow minded (and possibly bigoted)to sacrific their collective interests to vote for a Republican simply because he shares their skin tone?
Of course they expect African-Americans to be short-sighted, racially narrow minded and possibly bigoted.
Black (and white) Democrats have been assuming that for years and they’re usually proven right. Black neighborhoods in Philly have been getting worse and worse for sixty years, but if the race card is played, they’ll line right up. This despite the fact that murder is through the roof, the schools are horrendous.
Hell, they voted overwhelmingly to re-elect a black mayor that DROPPED A FRICKIN BOMB ON A BLACK NEIGHBORHOOD!!
Yeah, where did Republicans ever get such an idea about black voters?
Huh?
As of April 1, 2006 there were 238 black fatalities for US soldiers out of 2325 reported killed by the DoD. That’s 10.2%.
Would Oliver care to explain how this is part of a “great summation”? Or is the truth, like usual, unnecessary as long as it supports your cause?
I will admit I know neither the provenance nor the veracity of the statistic in question. But it is pretty simpleminded to try to counter it by arguing “total fatalities for African-Americans as a group are 10.2%”, unless you seriously believe “not African-American” is a racial group classification. Presumably our armed forces are, like the rest of society, comprised of black, white, Hispanic, Indian, Asian, etc. elements. The appropriate comparison is to examine what percentage of war fatalities are suffered by each of these groups, and then to determine which percentage is largest.
Here
White (non-Hispanic): 73.5%
To put the numbers in context:
Whites make up about 70% of the Army and Marine Corps (60% Navy and 65% Air Force)
Blacks make up 18% of the Army and just over 10% of the Marines.
If someone tries to claim that “more African Americans than any other group” have been killed in Iraq, then showing that the ACTUAL fatalities of black troops is less than their proportion in the military is valid.
Researchers Finding Surprises In Figures On Deaths In Iraq
It wasn’t true in Viet Nam, either.
The man is an idiot. In 2003 in Chicago alone there were 600 homicides. Trend date shows about 40% to 45% of homicides are black on black.
Crunch the numbers. The man is an idiot.
Dugger
If Republicans could lose the racists and bigots, they’d probably get the black vote.
And really, that’d be a good thing. Not so much because blacks would vote Republican, but because the Republicans would be pandering to them instead of bigots.
Of course, the Republicans won’t make this swap, because black people know when they’re being used, whereas the predominantly white evangelical crowd is blissfully unaware.
because black people know when they re being used, whereas the predominantly white evangelical crowd is blissfully unaware.
And this is because a black person’s powers of poltical comprehension are naturally superior to those of “predominantly white” evangelists’?
Something genetic, I suppose…
You do know your namesake was blind, don’cha, Homey?