Racism, is it a party thing?

Ignorance prevails. It's not a democrat or republican thing; we'll never know what the ratio is between the two parties.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

So what we have is Lash and Baldimo providing no concrete answers, just unfounded assertions. The theme of this thread is whether or not it can be said that racism can be determined by party affiliation. I've already offered the opinion that i don't believe the question can be resolved. So i am trying to get at an answer to that question from Lash and Baldimo, not just contrarian argument with unsupported statement.

Do either or both of you believe, as one might infer from your remarks, that the Democrats are more racist than the Republicans, and can you demonstrate it with anything other than conjecture and unsupported allegation?

I don't think it is relative to any party.

What I do notice is the large amount of control the Dem party has over the major cities and the lack of success they have at making those areas any better. I have cited facts in my above post and I am interested as to some answers.

0 Replies

What questions? Your contention is that conditions for minorities are worse in cities controlled by Democrats, and you ask why that is. You provide no evidence that this is the case, you simply assert as much. You ask at the end of your remarks: "Why have the Dems do nothing for the people who keep voting them in?" But you fail to demonstrate that this is the case.

That type of question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety. Anyone who attempts to answer such a question must accept the premise that it is true--but you've not shown it to be true.

Furthermore, you now assert that you don't think it is relative to any party. If that is so, your remarks are a non sequitur, in that you couldn't be offering them as proof that the Democrats are more racist and still hold such a position.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

What questions? Your contention is that conditions for minorities are worse in cities controlled by Democrats, and you ask why that is. You provide no evidence that this is the case, you simply assert as much. You ask at the end of your remarks: "Why have the Dems do nothing for the people who keep voting them in?" But you fail to demonstrate that this is the case.

That type of question is of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety. Anyone who attempts to answer such a question must accept the premise that it is true--but you've not shown it to be true.

Furthermore, you now assert that you don't think it is relative to any party. If that is so, your remarks are a non sequitur, in that you couldn't be offering them as proof that the Democrats are more racist and still hold such a position.

Are you denying that the major cities have higher crime rates? Are you denying that the major cities have poorer education? Are you denying that the major cities have high unemployment rates? These are all facts that are addressed every time there is an election for a city mayor.

I don't think it is racist I think it is a power thing.

0 Replies

Quote:

Are you denying that the major cities have higher crime rates?

Higher than what? Smaller cities? Do you assert that major cities are the bailiwick of Democrats, and smaller cities that of Republicans? If not, why mention the democrats at all.

Quote:

Are you denying that the major cities have poorer education? Are you denying that the major cities have high unemployment rates?

I'm denying nothing. Are you asserting that not only are these things so, but that you can demonstrate that this is true, and that the majority of those cities are run by Democrats? If not, then once again you have a non sequitur as regards the topic of this thread.

Quote:

These are all facts that are addressed every time there is an election for a city mayor.

First of all they are not facts, they are your assertions. You've provided no evidence. You haven't defined "major city." You haven't demonstrated that the Democrats control either an absolute majority of "major cities," or cities which constitute the majority of the population of residents of major cities.

Asking me a series of what are presented as rhetorical questions when in fact you've not demonstrated the case for any of this may be entertaining for you, and you may think it helps you to assume a self-righteous position--but you've given no evidence that anything you've contended here is true.

Then you keep trying to climb out from under the burden of the thread with protestations that you're not casting this as a partisan issue. In which case, why did you mention the Democrats.

0 Replies

Baldimo wrote:

Are you denying that the major cities have higher crime rates? Are you denying that the major cities have poorer education? Are you denying that the major cities have high unemployment rates? These are all facts that are addressed every time there is an election for a city mayor.

I don't think it is racist I think it is a power thing.

Yes, worldwide, in cities with conservative town governments as well as in those with sentrist or more left mayors.

It's a sociological and cultural fact that bigger cities attract more people.

(You could ask as well: are you denying that bigger cities have more police troops with better equipments? Are you denying that major cities have more top ranked businesses? Are you denying the major cities have more universities, higher educational institutions, theaters, oeras, orchesters, museums, sport clubs ...?)

0 Replies

Here's a study done in Texas on small cities vs large cities, but don't have the slightest idea how relevant it is nationally.

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~bobprp/demographic.html

0 Replies

Lash wrote

Quote:

Kicky was trying to say(or was it AU) that racists who used to be Democrats all moved over to the GOP.

Never did I mention racism. What I said was that the democratic solid south f yesteryear is now the Republican solid south as a result of the Democrats push for civil right and integration. Remember it was a liberal thing. The went from being the dixiecrats within the Democratic party and eventually have adopted the republican line hook, line and sinker.

0 Replies

Lash
A new york city republican such as Guiliani world be considered a die hard liberal in the red states of America, trying to equate them with the bible thumpers and conservatives of the republican party is nonsense. As for Bloomberg the Democratic ,Republican he is doing even better

0 Replies

Baldimo
Rudy claim to fame was cleaning up or should I say went after the criminal element. And of course the PR he got for his actions on 9/11.
Other than that it was as it always is in N.Y.C.

I would also add that NY is in may ways unique in that the ethnic makeup of it's population is always in a state of flux.Neighborhoods change almost over night.

0 Replies

bm

0 Replies

Seems everyone is mistating everyone else.

Setanta--

Your mention of me in your latest weirdness is erroneous, as was Walter's.

Seems it was Au's conversation that I remembered, not kicky's. Au says I was incorrect; could be, but I don't think I was. Seems we had a conversation somewhere about race...re post-Civil War Democrats with racist overtones becoming Republicans.

This thread seems to have unfortunately been birthed from that sad display.

Two things....I would be interested to se how Setanta can possibly drag me into something I had no part in--and Au, Guiliani is as Republican as they come. Ask him. Religion isn't a Republican plank. Bloomberg wouldn't call himself a Democrat in an alleyway. NY needs Republicans, because the Democrats nearly irretrievably ruined NY. The way they ruin everything they have their hands on for too long.

Lash wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
At least, it's Lash's theme here since shortly.

Oh. Bad English again, Walter.

Kicky was trying to say(or was it AU) that racists who used to be Democrats all moved over to the GOP.

I said, quite reasonably as usual, that racism was found in all parties, races, and environs.

You should retract your erroneous statement.

And, poo on you.

0 Replies

Lash, Baldimo asserted that Democrats control major cities, and neglect the minorities who vote for them. That was an unfounded assertion. When i challenged that, you came in with a remark about Giuliani cleaning up New York, and that Dinkins had done nothing. That was an unfounded assertion. Therefore, when i pointed out unfounded assertions, i mentioned both of you.

By the way, you are dead wrong, once again, as it so often seems you are. Bloomberg was a life-long Democrat who switched to the Republican Party, without explanation, although most observers believe he did it to escape a crowded Democratic primary field. He trounced the Republican in the primary, and went on to win the election.

Wikipedia wrote:

Bloomberg, a lifelong Democrat, ran for mayor as a Republican (or Republican In Name Only), reportedly to avoid the crowded field in the Democratic primary. He defeated Herman Badillo in the Republican primary to go on to the general election.

You can read all about it at Wikipedia

0 Replies

At least we have what is supposed to be your point.

You say it is unfounded that Dinkins' tenure stunk up NY, and also that Guiliani cleaned it up?

<smiles>

Really?

And, you know I can prove this with statistics, eh?

0 Replies

I have nothing to prove, you made the claim, i just pointed out that it was unfounded. If you wish your claim to be taken seriously, you need to support it.

I see you have dropped the issue of whether or not Bloomberg would be or ever was a Democrat. Rather embarrassing, eh?

0 Replies

Nah--not embarrassed about Bloomberg. I knew he claimed he was a Republican in the mayoral race in NY. That was good enough for me. No dealio.

But, correct me if you should---but...."unfounded" is a refutation, is it not?

Do you refute Dinky's crappy slide to hell and Guiliani's SMASHING SUCCESS at the helm of NY? Like the crime statistics...? The look and use of Times Square...? Unfounded means...without merit, eh?

<scans for facial muscle movement>

0 Replies

Yes, i'll be happy to correct your wrong assumption. Unfounded means that you have not supported your contention. You still make your allegations without foundation. I don't deny them, i simply have no reason to take your word for it without you having provided evidence that what you say is true.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Nah--not embarrassed about Bloomberg. I knew he claimed he was a Republican in the mayoral race in NY. That was good enough for me. No dealio.

This is what you say now, but just above, on this page . . .

Lash wrote:

Bloomberg wouldn't call himself a Democrat in an alleyway.

I'm sure you're not embarrassed. I've seen you contradict yourself time and again without batting an eye, all the while claiming there is no contradiction. Usually, however, it doesn't occur on the same page.

0 Replies

I don't know how anyone who comes here with protractors and metronomes, all anal about the exact wording of everything they say, can stand to talk.

I think most people know the difference in a contradiction and a little bluster. You act like you think you're above imperfection. Which is your worst imperfection.

0 Replies

Lash, I'm here to say you are wrong. I have read Set's post much longer than most on a2k. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

0 Replies

Racism, is it a party thing?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know