https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/4/idea-of-pro-trump-black-voters-terrifies-the-media/ The Democrat Party has done a pretty good job of pacifying their pet minority voters and keeping them on their knees with welfare and casting them as helpless, hopeless victims unable to attend to their own needs without a group of old white elitist Democrats thinking for them. Trump and the GOP have delivered something far-far better. A good job with prospects for a life of standing tall and kneeling to nobody.
Titles do not match. And this is an opinion piece. A dumb one at that because "the media" would never be scared of this notion, only fascinated and reporting on a new political trend amongst a particular voting demographic. One that is almost completely a right wing fantasy at this point considering that Trump got 8% of the black vote in 2016. By comparison, Romney got 6% of the black vote in 2012 and he was running against a Black man.
The media is scared of the notion. Just like the rest of the Democrat Party. So what if Trump only got 8% of the Black American vote in 2016? Since 2016 Trump has proven that the only reason Black unemployment has been so high is because Democrats want as many Black Americans unemployed, on food stamps, and subservient to government as possible.
I notice that you tend to think that welfare recipient and black are synonymous which is objectively not true given that the majority of welfare recipients in america are white.
Why do you keep failing so hard? Here's another: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ump-michael-cohen-racist-language-vanity-fair
And I suppose that's why Kanye just donated $126,460 to Chicago mayoral Dem candidate? A couple of weeks ago, Kanye was lauded as the man who saw Trump for who he really was - a man who supported Black America. But once he got inside - and saw the real inner workings - he bailed. And threw his money in the other direction. Listening to what Trump says at rallies and interviews or reading his tweets does not give a person a good look inside what he's really thinking or doing. I appreciate that you like his policies, but at some point, you have to look beyond the crumbs he's dropping and look at the big picture.
Really? A celebrity donation means.... Nothing Black unemployment is at a historic low because Democrats don't have the power to keep them unemployed.
You said Your link fails to quote Trump making that statement. Your definition of failure makes me laugh.
Well, in this case, not really. He isn't just any celebrity, is he? Kanye was embraced by Trump and the Republicans because he loved Trump. They saw the people he could reach on their behalf. But it only took a couple of weeks for him to figure that out - or for someone to get him on his meds and show him - and he not only jumped off the Trump train but financially back a Dem.
The data seems to show a fairly even split, depending of course on the type of welfare. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/gop-base-poverty-snap-social-security/516861/ What disgusting is the obvious coupling of black voters to welfare recipients. Not even putting a thin veil on the racism anymore I suppose.
You just undercut your own argument about the importance of Kaynes endorsement. But if you want to let a celebrity tell you who to vote for, go ahead. It's easier than thinking for yourself.
I didn't link Blacks to welfare. You were looking in a mirror. I linked historically high black employment to Democrats being out of power. Democrats supported Slavery Segregation, and Jim Crow Laws. Republicans ended them all. Now Republicans have brought the highest level of employment evet to Black Americans. And some people don't see the trend.
You clearly own the correlation, you wrote the OP, but I don't anticipate I'll convince you... And the above is only true if you have a very poor grasp of US history. Sure, it was the democrat party, hell, there wouldn't be Dixiecrats otherwise, but those same people, with those same views are now Republican voters. Southern conservative voters, once upon a time voted for Democrats, those roles swapped. I sure do hope you follow the link below so you can stop peddling revisionist history. It's hacky, at best... http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/ Bottomline: The parties changed over time as platform planks, party leaders, factions, and voter bases essentially switched between parties. Third parties aside, the Democratic Party used to be favored in the rural south and had a “small government” platform (which southern social conservatives embraced), and the Republican party used to be favored in the citied north and had a “big government” platform (which northern progressive liberals embraced). Today it is the opposite in many respects. Although what happened is complex and some voter bases and factions never switched, you can see evidence of the “big switches” by looking at the electoral map over time (where voter bases essentially flipped between 1896 and 2000). Or, you can see it by comparing which congressional seats were controlled by which parties over time (try comparing the 115th United States Congress under Trump to the 71st United States Congress under Hoover for example). Or, you can see the “solid conservative south switch” specifically by looking at the electoral map of the solid south over time. Or, you can dig through the historic party platforms. http://factmyth.com/factoids/democrats-and-republicans-switched-platforms/
Michael Cohen claims that Trump said, "Black people are too stupid to vote for me." That is a link...of a quote...of Trump...making that statement. Let me know if that made it easier for you.
I've seen that propaganda before. The Liberal Democrats that passed all of the ultra-liberal New Deal welfare expansions were the same Liberal Democrats that were supporting Segregation and Jim Crow. If you really think the Republicans and Demorats got together one day and switched sides I think you need to look again.
Neither I, nor the article said that, quite the opposite in fact and several sources of evidence were offered to illustrate that fact. For any readers at home, this is precisely what dissonance looks like and this is a prime example of when someone, despite being confronted by facts, has chosen to cling even more tightly to their errant position. Perhaps this is truly a 'post-truth' era. =\ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail/