I don't buy that the Democratic candidate absolutely needs to win white working class votes that were previously for Trump in the decisive 2016 states in order to win this election- but I would agree that it's a horrible answer to the question.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious 2020 Democratic Primary Thread
- Thread starter MikeDawg
- Start date
I agree, but if the Dem can’t win those voters back they have to make it up by inspiring increased turn out in droves. Biden sucks at that too.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/04/joe-biden-electable-trump-2020-election
"Last time round, Clinton supporters lived in a strange kind of denial. Anyone could see she had unique vulnerabilities Trump could exploit. She was a Wall Street candidate, and he was running to “drain the swamp”. She was under investigation by the FBI, and his pitch was that Washington was corrupt. She had supported the catastrophic Iraq war, and he portrayed himself as an outsider opponent of those wars. Trump could “run to her left” and make criticisms she would be unable to respond to, because they were accurate. Clinton’s attempts to attack Trump as an out-of-touch, reckless billionaire sex criminal would fail, because Trump would point out that she herself was out of touch, bought by billionaires, and had an unrepentant alleged sex criminal as her husband and chief campaign surrogate."
if you can find a biden supporter irl feel free to tell them cause if Biden runs in the general were looking at however many more terms of Trump and you know Trump ain't gonna leave if he gets a 2nd term.
"Last time round, Clinton supporters lived in a strange kind of denial. Anyone could see she had unique vulnerabilities Trump could exploit. She was a Wall Street candidate, and he was running to “drain the swamp”. She was under investigation by the FBI, and his pitch was that Washington was corrupt. She had supported the catastrophic Iraq war, and he portrayed himself as an outsider opponent of those wars. Trump could “run to her left” and make criticisms she would be unable to respond to, because they were accurate. Clinton’s attempts to attack Trump as an out-of-touch, reckless billionaire sex criminal would fail, because Trump would point out that she herself was out of touch, bought by billionaires, and had an unrepentant alleged sex criminal as her husband and chief campaign surrogate."
if you can find a biden supporter irl feel free to tell them cause if Biden runs in the general were looking at however many more terms of Trump and you know Trump ain't gonna leave if he gets a 2nd term.
Arguing about electability is always dumb but I'll bite.
I don't think Biden is a strong candidate, but he's seen as honest and not corrupt. Hillary was also seen as very culturally liberal (especially on immigration - and Bernie is running far to the left of Hillary's unpopular immigration platform!), so she didn't really get much moderate credibility aside from the elite media-types. People who thought Hillary was a moderate were the internet progressive-types who are voting against their ideological interests if they don't vote for a democratic candidate. Biden is significantly more likable too.
The fundamental problem with the progressive message for this election is Trump has strong economic approvals. It's extremely hard to sell that there is a fundamental need to shift the economy when the majority of Americans like the economy. While many millenials are struggling with student loan debt, housing, etc., 50%+ of the electorate is 65 years and older (the electorate in 2020 is even older than the electorate in 2016), so they do not face the same burdens that millennials do.
Maybe Bernie could end up being a better candidate than Biden, but I'm not really convinced. Bernie's immigration platform will kill him, and arguing for a fundamental restructuring of the economy when most people think the economy is doing well is a really hard sell.
FYI, I actually would prefer Hillary being president over Biden, but unfortunately the world does not work that way.
Nah, the economic message will sell because those for whom the economy is working for are living in a bubble. Over half of the poor-working class REPUBLICAN voters say the economy is not working for them— obviously for the left the critique of the economy is harder.
4 more years does not mean the electorate is older. 4 years means there are 4 more year’s worth of zoomers added to the voting base. The gen-x/millennials that were against Trump will still be against him 4 years later. The Democrats can win as long as they speak to working class issues and don’t depress the vote. Hillary won the popular vote but got dramatically less turn out than Obama. Bernie’s fundraising records and organization point at his ability to drive far MORE turn out.
Immigration will not hurt Bernie because so much of the country is disgusted with Trump on immigration.
Biden may be more likable than Hillary but his record is worse and so is his ability to finish thoughts and sentences.
I see zero arguments of substance for Biden being more electable.
Bidens not a crazy lunatic. There's your argument.
He ain’t crazy... he’s just lost it.
I dont deny Biden isnt sharp, dont get me wrong. Its the fact that he's a harmless sack of nothing that wont stir drama that people find appealing. He's a sort of calm in the midst of chaos, because he's familiar. Bernie and at least 3/4s of the Dem primary, they're crazy nutsacks, sorry. Im not leaving Trump out of this either, he does not make things better. He is also a very chaotic personality.
Oh man... I discovered a new YouTube Channel today and wonder where this was in my life:
The kiddie Gloves are off— Bernie following up his WP interview with this Anderson Cooper Interview. Going after Biden on electability and record.
Sirota on the hill calling Joe’s lies about his Iraq War pathological lies.
I think this is the perfect timing.
•A month from Iowa, Americans finally tuning in
•The unwanted war with Iran being pushed
•Bernie and Khanna re-introducing War Powers legislation
Now is the time to go for Biden’s head, and the team is playing this perfectly. A lot of voices on the left and even populist right that were demanding Bernie be more aggressive and antagonistic to the Party. I disagree on strategy—the Democratic Party, base, media is not the same as on the right; the strategy cannot be like Trump, Bernie must win by unflappably taking the higher road backed up with his superior record.
I think the team has been absolutely brilliant. We’ve mostly cleared the field largely without alienating the normal voters of other candidates, and Bernie essentially stands at #1 in Iowa, New Hampshire, and California— the 3 most important contests. No one has won without at least one of Iowa or New Hampshire— we’re going to take both and cause the later states to flip.
Now is the time to go for Joe, and they’re playing this brilliantly as well. Let’s sweep this up, let’s keep going hard— let’s win this one.
Sirota on the hill calling Joe’s lies about his Iraq War pathological lies.
I think this is the perfect timing.
•A month from Iowa, Americans finally tuning in
•The unwanted war with Iran being pushed
•Bernie and Khanna re-introducing War Powers legislation
Now is the time to go for Biden’s head, and the team is playing this perfectly. A lot of voices on the left and even populist right that were demanding Bernie be more aggressive and antagonistic to the Party. I disagree on strategy—the Democratic Party, base, media is not the same as on the right; the strategy cannot be like Trump, Bernie must win by unflappably taking the higher road backed up with his superior record.
I think the team has been absolutely brilliant. We’ve mostly cleared the field largely without alienating the normal voters of other candidates, and Bernie essentially stands at #1 in Iowa, New Hampshire, and California— the 3 most important contests. No one has won without at least one of Iowa or New Hampshire— we’re going to take both and cause the later states to flip.
Now is the time to go for Joe, and they’re playing this brilliantly as well. Let’s sweep this up, let’s keep going hard— let’s win this one.
You are definitely the one in the bubble. Get out of progressive message boards and get into the real world. https://civiqs.com/results/economy_us_now?uncertainty=true&annotations=true&zoomIn=true (civiqs is a pollster founded by leftwing dailykos) - 73% of americans say the economy is doing fairly good/very good! That's a very large bubble! Even many democratic people say the economy is doing well! I genuinely only see the "economy isn't doing well" message from people under 30 years old on message boards (And it actually isn't good for many people under 30 - but they are a small fraction of the electorate!). It has gone significantly up since election day November 2016. It's not perfect, but the poorest of Americans already get health care through Medicaid, and it already the government already helps the lowest of income people pay for college. Bernie's argument is that we should extend those benefits (free college, student loan debt relief, medicare for all) to the middle class... his spending policies are NOT geared to the lowest income people. His income tax proposal would be helpful for working class americans, but the bulk of the benefits of many of his programs go to people who are not the poorest of Americans.
Also, Bernie's immigration platform is definitely very radical. He wants to give free health insurance to everyone regardless of documentation, he wants to make crossing the border a civil offense, and he wants to drastically increase legal immigration and refugees into the country. All three of these policies have only mid 30% support among the electorate! They're really unpopular. Trump's border wall meanwhile has 44% approval! And that was one of his more ridiculous ideas.
I think the sentiment about the economy can really be argued either way, and with different parts of the electorate experiencing radically different economic futures, only playing out this contest will really tell which message is going to sell more. Change sold better in 2016, and I'm willing to bet-- especially since in a general we so desperate need those exact under 30 to be motivated to turn out-- that the need for change will still be the much more effective strategy in 2020.
Regardless, any democrat will have to run on a fixing-the-economy platform against Trump. Look at Biden's comments last debate; also Biden's approval amongst the LA Times focus group rose to its highest point amongst liberals AND moderates when he was giving his harshest critique of the economy not working for normal people-- he was so negative, it could have been Yang talking.
Also, we never said that the goal of the Sanders campaign was limited to helping the poorest people. As AOC says, the goal is 21st century economic rights, universally lifting up the living conditions of the people in the richest country in the world. Period.
I am willing to grant that the immigration plan is a big risk and that is a case he will have to make to the American people. I actually was still very much behind Sanders when he was a protectionist candidate against immigration in order to protect worker's wages. I think Sanders always approved of path to citizenship and healthcare/education for immigrants, but wanted to limit legal worker visas and called open boarders a Koch brother's policy. To me, worker's rights is the center.
But there is also a worker's rights argument to be made about his current policy, and he will have to make it strongly and effectively to win against Trump. I personally am onboard with the current policy-- because with healthcare, education, strong worker's rights put in place for the undocumented, it will mean a bottom-up elevation of the worker's floor. The biggest problem with illegal immigration from a worker's rights stand point is that more vulnerable workers imported into the country suppresses average wages. If we strengthen the rights of those workers, if we elevate them out of vulnerability-- getting them the same wages as all workers-- than we alleviate that problem. We bring them into the coalition.
The argument has to be, that the best way to fix immigration is to make it so that the richest class of the country is no longer able to see undocumented immigrants as a subsidy-- instead, wealthy Americans must be forced to see illegal immigrants as a tax burden. And the way you do that is by giving them healthcare, education, unionization rights. What you do is create whistle blower protections, and send the authorities after employers instead of undocumented workers.
This is the Richard Wolff theory to solving immigration through socialism. The immigrant and Hispanic community staffers and volunteers of the campaign who changed Bernie's heart with their personal stories, and also crafted the policy to make it concrete, have as you said-- radicalized the campaign on this issue. It has also won Bernie the dominant support of the hispanic voters he will need to win the primary; and for us Berni-crats, we have always seen the primary as the much bigger challenge.
Does this mean Bernie is now a weaker general candidate vulnerable to attacks on the issue of immigration? Maybe-- I could see that being the case. Certainly for many of the independents with nationalist/social-right leaning tendancies who may have supported Bernie in 2016, this may be a deal breaker. He will have to either make the case aggressively, or stir up more than enough hispanic support in order to overcome that desparity.
At the end of the day, when it comes to immigration and when it comes to taking on the xenophia of the Trump campaign, what the left must do is guarantee to citizens of the country that we will massively lift their economic rights and the future of their children-- so they need not be scared that other, different people will also be there building that better future together.
Last edited:
I find there is a big disconnect between how we quantify the "success" of an economy (ie the metrics we use to measure it) and the economy's impact on the majority of the US's citizens.
Here are some metrics I commonly see referenced when discussing the state of the US economy:
Most-discussed metrics in terms of frequency
GDP growth and the rate of GDP growth
Unemployment rate
Corporate profits (DOW Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, NASDAQ)
To be honest, I think many of these metrics are bullshit, and only represent how the economy is doing for the richest 10% of the country. And if you're in the richest .01% of the country, as long as the system doesn't collapse entirely, these metrics mean jack shit to you; you will accumulate wealth no matter the circumstances. Here's a breakdown of why I believe that, starting from the top of the list.
GDP (gross domestic product) is defined as "the monetary value of all finished goods and services made within a country during a specific period" and "includes all private and public consumption, government outlays, investments, additions to private inventories, paid-in construction costs, and the foreign balance of trade (exports are added, imports are subtracted)." The rate of GDP growth is how fast this value grows (or shrinks) over some period of time (generally quarters or years). There are a few ways to calculate it (and in theory, they should give the same result), but the most common method is GDP = consumption + government spending + investment + net exports. In the US, the scale of these terms relative to each other will look something like this:
You'll notice that consumer spending is by far the largest term, and if we look at trends over time, it's the only term that has seen consistent growth. Basically, the metric of GDP is propped up exclusively by the fact American consumers spend more and more money per year (source for both). However, income, adjusted for inflation, has stagnated for the majority of Americans, with only the top 10% of earners seeing any gains in the modern era.
In my eyes, what this data shows is that GDP can continually show growth year to year, but not have any effect whatsoever on the economic well-being of the majority of Americans; all the wealth is pooling at the top. When you couple this effect with a continual increase to the cost of living in the USA (adjusted for inflation), you start to realize that the economic situation for the majority of Americans is getting worse over time.
Unemployment rate is another metric that doesn't effectively summarize the plight of average Americans; even during the worst bouts of economic anxiety, it never grows above 10%. Is it good that most people have jobs? Yes. Is it bad that in a tight labor market, there has been little wage growth? Yes, it means workers are being exploited/not paid what they are worth. To get a better understanding, we should really be looking at underemployment rate (~11-12%), worker productivity, and wage growth. See for yourself below:
Corporate profits mean very little for the majority of Americans; only 55% of Americans own any sort of stock option (401k, IRA, mutual funds, or individual stock) and the top 10% of wealthiest individuals in the US own 81% of available stock. Additionally, the majority of US corporate profits are spent on stock buybacks (at least relative to reinvestment/worker compensation), which neither benefit the worker or the company (in the long-term); it's a cash-grabbing move to satiate investors and ensure executive bonuses. Most of the wealth/increases from this metric benefit the rich and only the rich.
So yeah, on paper, the economy is doing well, but it doesn't translate to anyone but the rich. The working class is doing what they've always done: just getting by.
Here are some metrics I commonly see referenced when discussing the state of the US economy:
Most-discussed metrics in terms of frequency
GDP growth and the rate of GDP growth
Unemployment rate
Corporate profits (DOW Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, NASDAQ)
To be honest, I think many of these metrics are bullshit, and only represent how the economy is doing for the richest 10% of the country. And if you're in the richest .01% of the country, as long as the system doesn't collapse entirely, these metrics mean jack shit to you; you will accumulate wealth no matter the circumstances. Here's a breakdown of why I believe that, starting from the top of the list.
GDP (gross domestic product) is defined as "the monetary value of all finished goods and services made within a country during a specific period" and "includes all private and public consumption, government outlays, investments, additions to private inventories, paid-in construction costs, and the foreign balance of trade (exports are added, imports are subtracted)." The rate of GDP growth is how fast this value grows (or shrinks) over some period of time (generally quarters or years). There are a few ways to calculate it (and in theory, they should give the same result), but the most common method is GDP = consumption + government spending + investment + net exports. In the US, the scale of these terms relative to each other will look something like this:
Unemployment rate is another metric that doesn't effectively summarize the plight of average Americans; even during the worst bouts of economic anxiety, it never grows above 10%. Is it good that most people have jobs? Yes. Is it bad that in a tight labor market, there has been little wage growth? Yes, it means workers are being exploited/not paid what they are worth. To get a better understanding, we should really be looking at underemployment rate (~11-12%), worker productivity, and wage growth. See for yourself below:
Corporate profits mean very little for the majority of Americans; only 55% of Americans own any sort of stock option (401k, IRA, mutual funds, or individual stock) and the top 10% of wealthiest individuals in the US own 81% of available stock. Additionally, the majority of US corporate profits are spent on stock buybacks (at least relative to reinvestment/worker compensation), which neither benefit the worker or the company (in the long-term); it's a cash-grabbing move to satiate investors and ensure executive bonuses. Most of the wealth/increases from this metric benefit the rich and only the rich.
So yeah, on paper, the economy is doing well, but it doesn't translate to anyone but the rich. The working class is doing what they've always done: just getting by.
Last edited:
But I guess I'll bite. Here's how you're misrepresenting what I said.
First off, my argument clearly states that the rich are reaping the benefits of a "strong" economy while the working class are not, and it's supported with data (of which you have provided none of in your supposed counterpoint). There is no wage growth among the working class. This is important because it defies economic theory; as more people are employed, the market becomes more competitive, and employers should have to pay higher wages to retain their labor talent. However, the model seems to be failing as wages are not rising as unemployment has indeed hit a decade-long low. As I said, it's good people are employed, but it is bad they have lost bargaining power to obtain a larger, more equitable slice of growing corporate profits.
Secondly, I never mention race once in my post, and your attempt to make it an issue seems to a thinly-veiled attack. I'll quote the abstract of this piece to show you why it's systemic discrimination issue rather than some underlying failure of minorities as a whole. The fact you seem to portray it as a failing of a race is racist.
"Black workers are twice as likely to be unemployed as white workers overall (6.4% vs. 3.1%). Even black workers with a college degree are more likely to be unemployed than similarly educated white workers (3.5% vs. 2.2%). When they are employed, black workers with a college or advanced degree are more likely than their white counterparts to be underemployed when it comes to their skill level—almost 40% are in a job that typically does not require a college degree, compared with 31% of white college grads. This relatively high black unemployment and skills-based underemployment suggests that racial discrimination remains a failure of an otherwise tight labor market."
Either come back with data-driven arguments or kindly fuck off. Willful ignorance is not a virtue I respect.
None of what I said is willful ignorance, that's all fact. What I find pitiful is that I didnt even attack you and this is how you react. You want data? https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000 https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm all of which are historically low rates. Additionally fuckwad, last I heard having a steady job makes it pretty hard to make the argument that someone isn't "reapong rewards of a great economy." That certainly does not apply to just the rich. Or how about the fact that even those in poverty have access to so much technology compared to years ago, like cars, televisions, heating, you get it from there.
But I guess I'll bite. Here's how you're misrepresenting what I said.
First off, my argument clearly states that the rich are reaping the benefits of a "strong" economy while the working class are not, and it's supported with data (of which you have provided none of in your supposed counterpoint). There is no wage growth among the working class. This is important because it defies economic theory; as more people are employed, the market becomes more competitive, and employers should have to pay higher wages to retain their labor talent. However, the model seems to be failing as wages are not rising as unemployment has indeed hit a decade-long low. As I said, it's good people are employed, but it is bad they have lost bargaining power to obtain a larger, more equitable slice of growing corporate profits.
Secondly, I never mention race once in my post, and your attempt to make it an issue seems to a thinly-veiled attack. I'll quote the abstract of this piece to show you why it's systemic discrimination issue rather than some underlying failure of minorities as a whole. The fact you seem to portray it as a failing of a race is racist.
"Black workers are twice as likely to be unemployed as white workers overall (6.4% vs. 3.1%). Even black workers with a college degree are more likely to be unemployed than similarly educated white workers (3.5% vs. 2.2%). When they are employed, black workers with a college or advanced degree are more likely than their white counterparts to be underemployed when it comes to their skill level—almost 40% are in a job that typically does not require a college degree, compared with 31% of white college grads. This relatively high black unemployment and skills-based underemployment suggests that racial discrimination remains a failure of an otherwise tight labor market."
Either come back with data-driven arguments or kindly fuck off. Willful ignorance is not a virtue I respect.
Additionally, I did not purposefully make this a race issue, but the fact that you think I mentioned "failing of a race" is pretty fucking laughable, given once again, I stated a simple fact that minority unemployment is at a historic low, which is a notable economic benefit. I see nothing wrong with saying that, youre pulling a rabbit out of a hat from my one-liner. I think the only person laughably ilinformed in this is you blaming shit on systematic discrimination, something of which that theres minute and only circumstantial evidence of, and don't you dare call me ignorant again.
P.S. if you want to go into Blacks having double the unemployment rate, keep in mind that single Black parent homes have skyrocketted since the War on Poverty in the 60s and 70s, with that number reaching 75% of the Black population. Fatherlessness plays a massive role on women essentially marrying the government and a loss of responsibility and accountability in my opinion. None of what I said is racist, quit virtue signalling. What I think is racist is you believing an entire population is less than what they are based off of skin color via systematic discrimination. Last I heard, we should be judging people on the content of their character and not the color of their skin (MLK).
Last edited:
Use adjectives when you speak. Your bolded phrase doesn't imply historically low unemployment rates among minorities. It just implies that there's something historic about minority unemployment. I took this to mean you thought minority unemployment was at an all-time high, and since you provided no data to clarify your point, I wrote my post addressing my understanding of what you wrote. And I stand by my assumption, given your post history.
There's plenty of evidence showing that institutionalized racism occurs in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
The vast majority of people have a job regardless of how the economy is performing (95% of Americans are employed now versus 90% during the 2008 recession, wow big change!!!). Being employed isn't an automatic gateway to "reaping the rewards of a great economy" and I spent the majority of my first post explaining why. You just ignored what I said (or didn't read it in the first place).
Your stats on single-parent black families are close to reality (again you provided no source) but the reason for this jump mainly has do to with mass incarceration of blacks (specifically black males) as a result of the war on drugs, disproportionate targeting by police, and more stringent sentences given to people of color. You can read about it here. This exact problem is the definition of a systemic issue. Torn-up families do result in worse outcomes for children (in general), but throwing affected people out into the street doesn't solve the issue; it just exacerbates the problem. You don't seem to get that.
You're right, we should. You spew a lot of bullshit, make many untrue assumptions, and ignore data / experts opinions. You're either willfully ignorant, stupid, or both.
Pleasure speaking with you, as always.
Last edited:
Dude are you hearing yourself? How is any of that racist or what have you? Yes, its hard to say America as a whole is an overall racist country when we just overwhelmingly elected a Black president, twice. Also, I never said the wage gap between races is fake, what I did say was that it shouldnt be blamed on institutional racism but personal choices. As said, fatherlessness is a serious issue, and it is much harder to take care of a family on one paycheck. Im not seeing what is wrong with any of those statements, and I am certainly not implying that anyone is inferior to anyone. Im pretty offended that youd accuse me of that.
Additionally, youre quoting a Wikipedia page for institutional racism. Yea Im really going to believe you there over an academic work. And are you sure mass targeted incarceration is the reason? Have you ever considered the cause may be because police have actually been too light on black on black crime? Ill give an example, during Jim Crowe many cops would prosecute black on white murder, but not nearly as much black on black. Statistics also show in general that police being lighter in high crime areas lead to increased crime. Why? Because theyre making the incentive that theres little punishment for those consequences. Thats basic Operant Conditioning. This article explains that more in detail, based on a recent book published suggesting policy proposals: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/12/22/the-need-to-discuss-black-on-black-crime/ and to clear up, I never said anything about throwing people onto the street, thats a bias of my writing on your part lol
As for mass incarceration, yes your correct there is unfortunately a disproportionate incarceration of blacks. However, where that point gets ignorant is ignoring that Blacks are sadly disproportionately commiting the crimes (and no I am not saying anything close to "all blacks are criminals" or what have you, Im pointing out that theres a very notable culture problem). There was a NJ study done actually with speeding tickets, and it was done twice because they didnt believe the first set of results. To summarize, it went on the lines of the fact that 90% of the people pulled over admitted that they did what their ticket entailed, and it had almost nothing to do with racial profiling. https://www.city-journal.org/html/racial-profiling-myth-debunked-12244.html
Its a pleasure, next time dont call me racist or ignorant, and perhaps read what I say instead of making shit details up and crap that I never wrote.
Poor people commit a disproportionate amount of crime. Black people are disproportionately poor (which is what zf was talking about) because wealth is cumulative (generationally), and black people started off poorer (slavery) and historically faced more economic barriers (institutionalized racism like red-lining, designing the freeway system so it went through middle class black neighborhoods (and uprooting them), the fact that school funding is based on property tax (esp in combination with the prior 2), drug laws specifically targeting black people (entire war on drugs was just a way to criminalize being black and being a hippy, Nixon’s political strategist literally said this), etc.). The black on black crime thing is such a dog whistle btw, most crime committed by whites people is done to white people (America is historically segregated!) which is why people accuse you of being racist / ignorant. If you’ve displayed anything with your posting in this forum, it’s that you are incredibly ignorant, sorry it’s obvious to everyone except yourself.
u know this is just a shittier version of the "i'm not racist, my best friend is black" argument right
idk what academic work u mean but if u mean those government statistics, everyone who actually knows the first thing about statistics knows that data in and of itself tells u very little about anything. actual academic research doesn't just collect data but also attempts to explain data by, say, providing a hypothesis for a certain causal mechanism that would give us insight into why black unemployment rates are decreasing (but also why they tend to be higher than white unemployment rates - hint: it has something to do with systemic racism, believe it or not). u really shouldn't be asking for more complicated sources than wikipedia when u have yet to demonstrate that u have the reading comprehension necessary to actually understand that kind of stuff
now why would that be? it's almost like the american police force is less concerned with the protection of black lives. woahhhhh it's almost like racism exists and is a major underlying cause for "muh black on black crime"
i know u sincerely believe urself not to be racist but maybe u should consider that ur understanding of what racism is is deeply flawed and it might be time for some of that good old self-criticism cuz im gonna be honest, ur posts really do not do a lot to convince anyone here of ur supposed lack of racism
Last edited:
