Ice Cube Says Democrats Don’t Support Black Americans, Says “Nothing Has Changed” With Their Politics

The Dust King

A Childrens Story
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
9,800
Reputation
2,340
Daps
18,730
Reppin
the tri-state
I refuse to give Republicans the benefit of the doubt. REFUSE. fukk dem and their blatant and coded cism.

this

im basing this strictly in policy and ideaology

if only that reason republicans are subhuman in thought articulation

i read about child labor laws gettin the boot in some red states recently

but hey if your ok with blatant racism and shyt like maga then who csres about the kids let em be slaves too
 

Rekkapryde

GT, LWO, 49ERS, BRAVES, HAWKS, N4O...yeah UMAD!
Supporter
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
154,940
Reputation
29,908
Daps
523,654
Reppin
TYRONE GA!
Republicans literally voted to end Biden’s loan forgiveness program yesterday which heavily impacts the Black community who is saddled with more student loan debt than any group yet its on Dems to show they arent as bad.

:snoop:

y4wedJ.gif


THANK YOU!!!!

nikkaz is being so disingenous and goofy that's it's disgusting.

We might not be getting ALL the "tangibles" we want with Dems, but we'd DAMN SURE would lose what we have now if you let these fukk ass Rethugs gain more power. shyt that is blatantly disproportionately going to help black people and cats still on that "THEY NOT DOING NOTHING FOR ME...I MEAN US!!!"

Why we being retarded with this? You see the bullshyt Republicans doing right in front of you and been pullin and wanna play dumb? :why:
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
32,006
Reputation
3,415
Daps
72,980
Reppin
New York
1. you ignored the definition of geopolitics and destabilization

2. you told me to live in the now yet bring up polls of wat dems did in 1960

3. ignored the dapping of nazis

4. claims dems are wish washy and repubs arent?

5. also ideaologies do change but have been mostly consistent on the left and the right for the last decade

6. you mentioned your big blue state but i almost feel as if you were just being a follower because you seem to be regurgitating propaganda from the right
1. I didn't, but you keep saying it like it insinuates something WE ALL should be worried about. Why? Explain your position. Not just say because 'destabilization ' and 'geopolitics'. What about that should make me all Gung ho for the Ukraine war? The war currently losing support. Is the tide turning mean more people are ignoring 'destabilization ' and 'geopolitics'? If so, why?
2. OK now. Biden ran on implementing a public option. Has he even mentioned it since winning? Where's his ideological fortitude?
3. I dap freely, I don't research posters for their world view. If you say something I like I will dap it. It's a dap on a messageboard, it means literally nothing.
4. They are both wishy washy. This thread is about Dems tho.
5. No they haven't. See 2.
6. I don't read or watch right wing outlets. If we agree it's a coincidence and isn't that a display of a bi-partisan view on that issue which according to a lot of pols is a good thing? lol
 

The Dust King

A Childrens Story
Joined
Jul 25, 2012
Messages
9,800
Reputation
2,340
Daps
18,730
Reppin
the tri-state
Good luck with finding consistency with an answer.

earlier in the thread i insulted him and quickly apologized

the idea a veteran poster i have been interacting with for 20 yrs has become radicalized led me to lash out

i realized hes just another in a long line of those who got psyoped by the cambridge analytica scandal chess moves

smh
 

NYC Rebel

...on the otherside of the pond
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
70,206
Reputation
11,185
Daps
237,349
earlier in the thread i insulted him and quickly apologized

the idea a veteran poster i have been interacting with for 20 yrs has become radicalized led me to lash out

i realized hes just another in a long line of those who got psyoped by the cambridge analytica scandal chess moves

smh
Im done, breh. The tell tale signs are so obvious. Black politics for the most part is local and dudes are posting CNN headline political concerns.

Its clear these dudes dont care about politics
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
32,006
Reputation
3,415
Daps
72,980
Reppin
New York
earlier in the thread i insulted him and quickly apologized

the idea a veteran poster i have been interacting with for 20 yrs has become radicalized led me to lash out

i realized hes just another in a long line of those who got psyoped by the cambridge analytica scandal chess moves

smh
Maybe you been psyoped yourself by the Democrats. lol But I don't believe any of that stuff works on a large scale. So I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that's not what's happening.
I vote Democrat 90% if the time. I've voted Green when I was in my early 20s a few times and I have voted Family Working Party twice locally in the last 10 to 15 years. We are on the same team. Don't be the thought police, we come to the same conclusions at the end of the day. lol
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
32,006
Reputation
3,415
Daps
72,980
Reppin
New York
All those folks? That's not historically true at all. Opposition was mixed.

In 1948, when Democratic president Harry Truman ordered the desegregation of the military, many segregationists felt the Democrats had left them behind. Southern governors met together and said that if the Democrats doubled down, they would form their own party. In 1948, the Democrats chose to pick Truman to run another term and adopted a platform by liberal Hubert Humphrey (future vice president to LBJ and 1968 presidential candidate), that called for civil rights.

As a result, racist southern Democrats left the party en masse and formed their own party, the "Dixiecrats". They chose Strom Thurmond as their candidate on an officially segregationist platform and he won 4 deep south states during the presidential election in an attept to spoil the vote.

After the election the party collapsed and the coalition broke up, but for the rest of the Civil Rights movement, opponents of Civil Rights were pretty much split between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican candidate for president in 1964, Barry Goldwater, officially opposed the Civil Rights Act because he said it was "unconstitutional" to force private persons to accept Black employees and customers in their businesses. Meanwhile, the Democratic presidents JFK and LBJ had been strongly in favor of it. When the Voting Rights Act was voted on in 1965, House Democrats agreed to it 221–61, while Republicans agreed 112–24. Senate opposition was entirely in the South, which was mostly held by Democrats at the time, but those states all pretty much switched to voting for the Republican candidate (Nixon) in 1968 out of protest to Democrats supporting civil rights.

Strom Thurmond himself officially joined the Republican Party in 1964 and served as a senator for them for forty years.
Thanks for this. It just shows Dems will change their ideology at the drop of a hat this proving my overall point.
I was referencing the LBJ moves moreso than what happened in the 1940s.
 

NYC Rebel

...on the otherside of the pond
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
70,206
Reputation
11,185
Daps
237,349
Maybe you been psyoped yourself by the Democrats. lol But I don't believe any of that stuff works on a large scale. So I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that's not what's happening.
I vote Democrat 90% if the time. I've voted Green when I was in my early 20s a few times and I have voted Family Working Party twice locally in the last 10 to 15 years. We are on the same team. Don't be the thought police, we come to the same conclusions at the end of the day. lol
You keep saying Democrats when people are asking and talking about policy. What issues do you have a democratic policies that you don’t have with republican policies?

The point is, you don’t care enough to know what’s out there.

Who the hell brings up ukraine when discussing politics discussing Black people? That’s a CNN trope. Then you threw out some lazy Republicans lower tax thing without any detail. We just have to stop being phony
 
Last edited:

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
32,006
Reputation
3,415
Daps
72,980
Reppin
New York
You keep saying Democrats when people are asking and talking about policy. What issues do you have a democratic policies that you don’t have with republican policies?

The point is, you don’t care enough to know what’s out there.

Who the hell brings up your queen when discussing politics discussing Black people? That’s a CNN trope. Then you threw out some lazy Republicans lower tax thing without any detail. We just have to stop being phony
I also don't care what you think about me. lol
I tried to have a real conversation with you and you balked. Stick to the conviction of your previous post and actually 'be done'. That shyt lasted all of 35 minutes. lol
 

NYC Rebel

...on the otherside of the pond
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
70,206
Reputation
11,185
Daps
237,349
I also don't care what you think about me. lol
I tried to have a real conversation with you and you balked. Stick to the conviction of your previous post and actually 'be done'. That shyt lasted all of 35 minutes. lol

Of course you don’t care. Because at the end of the day, you don’t know local politics and cannot speak broadly on policy. You caught up Ukraine. We are not even 24 hours off of student loan. Forgiveness being struck down, which has a major toll on the black community. You are not into policy. It is obvious. You said some of the most basic bumper sticker references when 1st asked in this thread. it’s not genuine. You don’t care.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,871
Daps
204,038
Reppin
the ether
Thanks for this. It just shows Dems will change their ideology at the drop of a hat this proving my overall point.
I was referencing the LBJ moves moreso than what happened in the 1940s.

I'm not sure you know what "drop of a hat" means. The split/growth in the Democratic party on race issues was a process that developed over 100+ years.

I'm not an expert on every era, but literally just off the top of my head....

* Even before the Civil War, northern Democrats and southern Democrats were split on the slavery issue, to the point that they even nominated different presidential candidates in 1860 (the four-way race was one reason Lincoln was able to win with just 37% of the vote).

* After the Civil War, southern Democrats remained heavily anti-black to a disgusting and violent degree, but northern dems were all over the map. Republicans continued to be radically pro-black (at least compared to the status quo) until the compromise of 1877.

* In the late 1800s and early 1900s, both parties failed Black people to an enormous degree, but ambiguity built. Democrats began moderating their racial viewpoints to the point that W.E.B. supported Woodrow Wilson for president in 1912 and he was elected with significant Black support. However, Wilson turned out to be a flaming racist and was a terrible president for Black people, something DuBois realized very early in his presidency and tore him apart on. That betrayal pretty much helped solidify DuBois's pessimism and depression on political movement for most of the rest of his life.

* FDR was the first Democrat president to actually follow through and gained enormous Black support, to the point where a large majority of Black voters were voting Democrat by the mid-1930s. The New Deal played a big part in that. FDR had lots of shortcomings in race issues (including failing to keep southern democrats from tailoring the New Deal to fukk over Black applicants, and allowing federal policies that continued to advance segregation), but he was also the president who first passed the executive order banning discrimination by race in federal hiring.

* Truman, as I already mentioned, took it further and desegregated the military, prompting the massive exodus of Dixiecrats from the Democratic party (temporary in some cases, permanent in others).

* Of course, you already know the Civil Rights story, where JFK started supporting but with contradictions, then LBJ followed through with a massive effort despite his own personal casual racism.

* The segregationist exodus from the Democratic party hit even harder in 1968, but even then, many southern white racists continued to support Democrat candidates at the state level in an uneasy alliance with black voters, choosing economics (especially union support and wages) over their racism. The full lose of the south to the Republicans didn't really hit until the 2000s.


That's a 150-year process. None of it was at the "drop of a hat". Low-information voters talk like Black voters suddenly started supporting Democrats in the 1960s when the Democrats had already had the Black vote for thirty years at that point, and Black party identification for nearly 20 years.


Black_Party_ID7.jpg


Black_Vote_Pres.jpg
 

Tribal Outkast

Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2016
Messages
34,335
Reputation
5,130
Daps
104,999
Lots locally.

But in these dumb ass conversations we pretend voting for President is the only way to be involved in politics :ehh:
That’s why I stopped caring. People so invested in the President, meanwhile their whole area is changing and they can’t even tell you who’s in office let alone why the area is changing. Just be mad when they see a Starbucks and Whitt people running in the hood. I’m trying to do better with following stuff locally myself but I know people that can’t tell me shyt about their area but be out here talking about Presidents and both sides shyt.
 

AnonymityX1000

Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
32,006
Reputation
3,415
Daps
72,980
Reppin
New York
I'm not sure you know what "drop of a hat" means. The split/growth in the Democratic party on race issues was a process that developed over 100+ years.

I'm not an expert on every era, but literally just off the top of my head....

* Even before the Civil War, northern Democrats and southern Democrats were split on the slavery issue, to the point that they even nominated different presidential candidates in 1860 (the four-way race was one reason Lincoln was able to win with just 37% of the vote).

* After the Civil War, southern Democrats remained heavily anti-black to a disgusting and violent degree, but northern dems were all over the map. Republicans continued to be radically pro-black (at least compared to the status quo) until the compromise of 1877.

* In the late 1800s and early 1900s, both parties failed Black people to an enormous degree, but ambiguity built. Democrats began moderating their racial viewpoints to the point that W.E.B. supported Woodrow Wilson for president in 1912 and he was elected with significant Black support. However, Wilson turned out to be a flaming racist and was a terrible president for Black people, something DuBois realized very early in his presidency and tore him apart on. That betrayal pretty much helped solidify DuBois's pessimism and depression on political movement for most of the rest of his life.

* FDR was the first Democrat president to actually follow through and gained enormous Black support, to the point where a large majority of Black voters were voting Democrat by the mid-1930s. The New Deal played a big part in that. FDR had lots of shortcomings in race issues (including failing to keep southern democrats from tailoring the New Deal to fukk over Black applicants, and allowing federal policies that continued to advance segregation), but he was also the president who first passed the executive order banning discrimination by race in federal hiring.

* Truman, as I already mentioned, took it further and desegregated the military, prompting the massive exodus of Dixiecrats from the Democratic party (temporary in some cases, permanent in others).

* Of course, you already know the Civil Rights story, where JFK started supporting but with contradictions, then LBJ followed through with a massive effort despite his own personal casual racism.

* The segregationist exodus from the Democratic party hit even harder in 1968, but even then, many southern white racists continued to support Democrat candidates at the state level in an uneasy alliance with black voters, choosing economics (especially union support and wages) over their racism. The full lose of the south to the Republicans didn't really hit until the 2000s.


That's a 150-year process. None of it was at the "drop of a hat". Low-information voters talk like Black voters suddenly started supporting Democrats in the 1960s when the Democrats had already had the Black vote for thirty years at that point, and Black party identification for nearly 20 years.


Black_Party_ID7.jpg


Black_Vote_Pres.jpg
I'm talking about the pols moreso than the constituents.
LBJ participated in casual racism but signed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. Not a strong ideology there.
George Wallace ran against LBJ and policy wise they were far apart on Civil Rights. They were ideologically opposed on the issue and ran for the same presidential nomination. Pols/political parties do not have ideology that's rooted in anything. They change rather quickly for political expediency.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,871
Daps
204,038
Reppin
the ether
I'm talking about the pols moreso than the constituents.
LBJ participated in casual racism but signed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. Not a strong ideology there.

Obviously, you can be a casual racist and still support civil rights. I mean, I don't agree with trans/gay lifestyle but I'm still 100% towards anti-discrimination. Or look at all the rich dems who don't give to charity but still support wealth distribution.

Now, I doubt LBJ had some amazingly firm ideology on race. But the Democrats being the pro-Civil Rights party was cemented in by that point and LBJ didn't suddenly flip on that overnight.




George Wallace ran against LBJ and policy wise they were far apart on Civil Rights. They were ideologically opposed on the issue and ran for the same presidential nomination. Pols/political parties do not have ideology that's rooted in anything. They change rather quickly for political expediency.

And I already pointed out to you that the LBJ vs. Wallace civil rights divide had been ongoing in the Democratic party for 100 years at that point. It wasn't a quick shift for political expediency. The less racist dems had been at odds with the more racist dems since before either LBJ or Wallace was even born.

If you want to talk about shifting for political expediency, there are much better examples (like what happened with gay marriage during Obama's term, or how the dems abandoned unions and government regulation in the 80s/90s, or how republicans swing between libertarian ideologues and populists). You just picked a bad historical example.
 
Top