What have you done for me lately...Republicans v Democrats

[geechiedan]

You can't argue that poor workers have no "real recourse," then as proof cite the details of a class-action lawsuit. That counts as recourse.


They're already getting fucked. However, you're using emotions and mixing up the correlation. They aren't getting fucked because of a specific wage level, but instead because they are a specific class of workers. Chicago's minimum wage is $9/hour. That's more than 400% the arbitrary $2/hour you hypothesized. But since you yourself provided evidence of available recourses, we can leave it to the workers themselves whether to take the job or not.

Leave poor people alone.

My statement about no recourse pertained to if there was no set minimum. Thats why I posted that article to show that the only reason those workers could sue to be compensated for hours worked is because of a minimum wage and guidelines otherwise they'd be fucked.

No individual should have to enter an illegal status for work that would, other than the wage level, be considered legal.

What kind of morality do you abide by if you feel it's more reasonable to advocate people taking an illegal action to feed themselves rather than just get rid of the minimum wage. Your argument about working under the table concedes that there is a strong demand from workers and employers to set their own terms independent of society's arbitrary whims.

Leave poor people alone.

The problem in this country is that we treat poor people like they're mildly retarded. We let them live on their own but every major decision like where they work has to meet their guardian's (society) approval.

In your post, you describe a number of conditional you think are abhorrent and goes against your sensibility regarding what it means to be a worker, but you never laid out who you think you are to make that decision for the millions of poor people that would disagree with you.

now who's being emotional look at it like this..if there was a great demand for working for less than minimum wage from people in general the law wouldn't have been enacted in the first place. Again how many people want to work for 2 dollars an hour and no bathroom breaks?? Hell illegals don't want to do they do it because they can't get legal jobs.

There are official Republican positions that differs from the Democratic positions. Black people don't prefer the Republican position, they support the Democratic positions. By your logic, the Republicans should develop a position that appeals to black people, which would mean the more Democratic position that black people prefer. Why would Republicans see becoming more Democratic as beneficial to them? Republicans have no realistic chance of capturing the black vote so they shouldn't even waste time and effort.

The GOP had black support before so its possible to regain it but lets be honest here...the last progress positive thing that a political party did for blacks was sign civil rights and voting rights legislation. Other than that neither party has done much of anything. The programs of entitlements the democrats have advocated pretty much are for everyone and the republicans haven't done away with them even when they had leverage. And since the minority vote has never been much of an issue in terms of deciding national elections its highly debatable that either party should be working to get the black vote.

 

[mangobob79]

Actually looking at what I wrote, it makes it implicit that Democrats want the black vote because they can't win without it.

So why are black people so passive in their support and don't demand anything of substance and don't receive anything of substance.

This makes sense

 

[Greed]

My statement about no recourse pertained to if there was no set minimum. Thats why I posted that article to show that the only reason those workers could sue to be compensated for hours worked is because of a minimum wage and guidelines otherwise they'd be fucked.

You didn't cite a lawsuit where people are suing to receive better wages. You cited a lawsuit where people are suing to receive the wages for which they agreed to work. That is completely unrelated to the minimum wage. That lawsuit doesn't exist to protect the minimum wage but instead to protect the mutually agreed upon wage level.

now who's being emotional look at it like this..if there was a great demand for working for less than minimum wage from people in general the law wouldn't have been enacted in the first place. Again how many people want to work for 2 dollars an hour and no bathroom breaks?? Hell illegals don't want to do they do it because they can't get legal jobs.

Look at it like this, politicians don' enact policies based on right or wrong but instead on how many votes it can deliver. Again, how many people will work for $2/hour has nothing to do with people like you making that decision for them and making it illegal to work for $2/hour.

Leave poor people alone. They don't need your guardianship or anyone else's.

 

[thoughtone]

Leave poor people alone. They don't need your guardianship or anyone else's.

 

[Greed]

Well communist, explain why they are poor. Make sure you don't leave out why they stay poor.

 

[QueEx]

Why would Republicans want the black vote if they can win without it?

Well, they didn't get it and they didn't win. So, if they had it or at least it they had some of it, arguably they could have won it.

One day after losing it, I notice several of its talking heads acknowledge that they got IT wrong, most of all because the demograhics are turning against them. I heard Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., mention that in the presidential race, republicans got 27% of the Latino vote, but had they gotten about 40% of the Latino vote, they would have won.

I don't know what changes the party proposes to make in order to make itself more attractive to a larger segment of the Latino community, but conspicuously absent from Graham's analysis was any hope or mention of obtaining more of the Black vote.

 

[Greed]

The OP referenced the Republicans writing off the black vote for decades, and my comment was addressing the fact that there has been multiple Republican presidents in that timeframe.

Republican and Democrats are both prioritizing Latinos, because Latinos put conditions on their support, which may be a bluff but which party is brave enough to call it. Black people are voting Democrat for free.

Black people aren't going to go Republican, so Graham is right to ignore the black vote.

 

[QueEx]

Again, in more of the Day 1 Post-Game Analysis, I've noticed several commenters, several of Hispanic background, state that the reason more Latino's don't move towards the republican side is out of fear of the republican rhetoric. Economics and other issues notwithstanding, over and over they kept hitting on "The Rhetoric" -- the language used by the republicans that stands in the way of more Latinos moving towards the republicans.

Assuming that to be true (they said it, not me), that sounds like the same reason that I hear all the time (offline) -- why many of US have diffculty considering that party, as well.

Why would the republican party look introspective with regards to Latinos, but not with regards to US

 

[QueEx]

Republican and Democrats are both prioritizing Latinos, because Latinos put conditions on their support, which may be a bluff but which party is brave enough to call it. Black people are voting Democrat for free.

I hear what you're saying but isn't the logic faulty??? If republicans are "prioritizing Latinos, because Latinos put conditions on their support" -- why would they NOT prioritize us, who are free ???

Black people aren't going to go Republican, so Graham is right to ignore the black vote.

Your opinion, but I wonder if it would hold up if Colin had been the nominee in 2008, instead of McCain ???

 

[Greed]

Republicans seem to be trusting what Latinos are saying. If Republicans change the rhetoric, then there is at least a chance in hell they can get a bigger percentage of their vote.

Is that same dynamic realistic in regards to black people shifting towards the GOP?

 

[Greed]

I don't think the logic is faulty. Latinos are putting benchmarks where they are willing to vote for either party. Both parties consider the benchmarks credible and attainable.

Black people have no standards of behavior for the parties. The goal is to just vote Democrat. 90% for Kerry. 95% for 2008 Obama, and I'm sure it will be greater when 2012 is analyzed.

You can feel its just me opinion, but how many more decades will this trend has to continue before you stop thinking it's all my head.

 

[QueEx]

I disagree -- but thats my opinion. It doesn't make sense logical sense to pay for what you could have, for free. But, that aside, if you're willing to examine your rhetoric with regards to Latinos -- but you're not interested in examining your rhetoric when it comes to black people -- its hard to arrive at a conclusion other than you're just not interested in me.

I believe the republican party received double digit black support as recent as Nixon but certainly during Eisenhower -- which was before Goldwater & Nixon's implementation of the great Southern Strategy and its no secret that implementation of the SS coincides with the black vote turning more heavily towards the democratic party. Despite the OP's opinion to the contrary, I believe our support for democratic candidates is based as much in racial considerations as anything else.

I think its not merely coincidental that the republican party would consider examining its rhetoric in an attempt to curry favor with Latinos -- but not with regards to Black people. It must be hard to tear itself away from a strategy that has proven so successful -- even when its now proving a loser?

 

[QueEx]

Republicans seem to be trusting what Latinos are saying. If Republicans change the rhetoric, then there is at least a chance in hell they can get a bigger percentage of their vote.

Is that same dynamic realistic in regards to black people shifting towards the GOP?

Hell, why not try it? - it doesn't cost anything

 

[Greed]

I don't remember saying the black vote is free but instead they vote Democrat for free. That doesn't make is true that they would vote Republican for free.

I only assess the world in one way, people respond to incentives. The Republicans have an incentive to address their own rhetoric when it comes to Latinos. They can dislike or like both groups for whatever reason, but a payoff exist for courting one group. The GOP has assess there is no payoff for addressing the other group.

 

[Greed]

If the GOP is wrong, then they will suffer. If not it will explain why black people have been suffering for so long. Reality will be the final judge.

 

[QueEx]

Its suffering today. Hence, they ponder a change in the rhetoric.

 

[muckraker10021]

Actually looking at what I wrote, it makes it implicit that Democrats want the black vote because they can't win without it.

So why are black people so passive in their support and don't demand anything of substance and don't receive anything of substance.

Blacks are in the caboose of party politics because they are not relevantly networked, especially at the highest most affluent levels. I can’t tell you how many ‘Black Enterprise’ Magazine or ‘Essence Magazine’ networking conferences I’ve attended, which turn out to be nothing more than just a strutting Black “peacock show”.

What is a peacock show? — at these events it’s men and women dressed like they going to the hottest club in town looking for the person who looks like their fantasy date so that they can pop game. The speeches during daylight hours are poorly attended despite the fact that attendees have paid money to hear and ostensibly network with the nationally known and allegedly important speakers, which indeed some of them are.

But at night with the addition of the non-paying party crashers who bribe security to get in —the party ballroom is over-packed with slick ninjas parading their Armani or Zenga and a presidential Rolex watch — and the sisters wide-eyed, dressed like they going to the Oscars, over drinking since the hotel room is upstairs, and ready to fuck with, literally, the brother with the best look and game. It’s like shooting ducks in a barrel if you are a dude who don’t look like ‘Biggie’ — even if you do look like ‘Biggie’ these “professional?” women will go upstairs to their rooms and hit the high #C note on your rod if you pull out a wad of ‘Benjamins’ from your pocket and your business card says vice president of ‘something’. Yes, it is that bad.

Contrast that pathetic scene with the 85% white people attended investment conferences that I also frequently attend. The speeches and seminars during the daytime are packed. These are not attended by older people. Older affluent white people don’t attend these events; they don’t have to, they have professional money managers go for them. The people here demographically are the same age 25 -50 that attend the Black events. Dress is about 50% very casual, slacks, iZod t-shirt, soft sole shoes, black plastic watch. The guys and women who are dressed up, are dressed up because they do it every day for work, and they have no fashion sense when it comes to casual dress or they just prefer to dress up because it makes them look better. The guy sitting next to me on the padded folding chair, fiddling with his tablet, trying to keep his flip-flops from falling off, listening to the speaker might be worth $100 milion; it’s irrelevant to him, he’s there listening intently because the speaker is an expert on Latin America equities. He turns looks at me and ask ‘do I know Obama’ — I look at him, see that he is serious and ask – “why do you think I know Obama? don’t tell me you think’……”No, No he says, it’s not like that, I saw your “white house” cuff links which I know are real because I have a pair I got during Clinton” I say “no I don’t know Obama, I’ve met him once at a fund raiser, but I do know Patrick Gaspard who got me these cuff links”. We talk, exchange contact info and have both forwarded and exchanged data in the last two years that was beneficial to both of us.
The cocktail reception that evening of the conference emptied quickly after the Latin American wine tasting was over. I saw few potential ‘booty-call’ hook-ups going on in the room, no preening or posturing or blaring disco/ house music; the young affluent, predominately white people who are at this 2 day conference didn’t come here for any type of hook-up. They came to get smarter by meeting and listening to hopefully smarter people and go away with at least one idea that pays for the cost of the trip. If that happens then the trip was a success.

I remember one Black event I went to with George C. Fraser -Chairman and CEO of FraserNet and Dr. Cornel West as the speakers. It was held at a downtown hotel. The conference room held 800 people. It was almost filled because a nearby HBU had sent 3 busloads (130 seats) of graduating seniors, gratis to hear these speakers. The paying attendees like myself paid up to $500 to attend. There was an after party scheduled in a hotel ballroom. George Fraser looked at the audience and said ‘this place should be packed’ he said Black people devalue the intellectual capital that their own community has to offer. He then handed out rubber wrist bands to everyone in the room that were imprinted with the name & web address of his company. He said,’you watch at the after party tonight we will see at least 3,000 people show up between 8PM & midnight trying to get into the party. Tonight were going to do something different. Dr. West stood and spoke, he said, my friend George Clinton & Bootsy will be funking at tonights after party; they are in town for their tour Only those with the wristbands we just handed out will be allowed in. The crowd went wild. Fraser & West’s presentation was awesome and worth the few bucks. Sure enough that evening the hotel lobby was so packed with ninjas that they had to call the fire department. Ninja’s were having strokes trying to get into the awesome party —but — no wrist band, no entry.

Okay enough story telling, here is why the Democratic party takes Black voters for granted.

Number One: there is no unity between Black advocacy groups pushing a short politically plausible legislative agenda; and outlying a strategy to get it done. Instead we get these annual reports which list dozens of maladies that afflict Black people without focusing like a laser behind one or two items and pushing the wheel as hard as possible to get-it-done. No they don’t do it. Instead they have meet-and-greets like the Black events I depicted above.

Number Two: and most important Black people donate virtually NO MONEY to the Democratic party. Black people have annual consumer buying power of over $700 Billion per year. Some spending hundreds per month on hair care alone. BUT not a dime given to OBAMA FOR AMERICA or democratic party. CHECK THIS OUT – The Gay Community self identifies at about 3.5% of the American population. That means 3.5% of Americans are proud gays who will check a box on a publicly available form and classify themselves as gay. 15 PERCENT OF THE OVER BILLION DOLLARS THAT OBAMA RAISED came from the gay community 15%

The Black community who is 13% of the US population and supported Obama and Democrats 94% to 97% gave how much? They gave a fraction of 1%. You say there is too much money in politics and that you are opposed to the SCOTUS citizens-united decision — so am I. But the rules as currently constituted are pay-to-play. The gay community has Obama staff and Democratic party staff dedicated to their issues 24/7 — because they supply 15% of the money — not hard to understand. Black people, even most affluent Black people, are they buying a seat at the table — hell No — they are tithing 10% of their salary to their pimp pastor — they are on the lay-away hair weave program where you pay the hair dresser $100 a month, every month, for unlimited hair weave maintenance”—“they partying in that ‘Sean John’ glued lapel, made in china suit, like it’s 1999. Wait a minute it’s 2012!!

Well, they didn't get it and they didn't win. So, if they had it or at least it they had some of it, arguably they could have won it.

One day after losing it, I notice several of its talking heads acknowledge that they got IT wrong, most of all because the demograhics are turning against them. I heard Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., mention that in the presidential race, republicans got 27% of the Latino vote, but had they gotten about 40% of the Latino vote, they would have won.

I don't know what changes the party proposes to make in order to make itself more attractive to a larger segment of the Latino community, but conspicuously absent from Graham's analysis was any hope or mention of obtaining more of the Black vote.

Lindsey in my opinion was just post-defeat posturing and talking shit. If he had any balls, - wait a minute he does have balls - he would step forward, denounce the tea-bagger racists in his Republiklan party, - come out of the closet - it is widely known that Lindsey is Gay - and annouce that Republicans can not survive as the racist anti-black, anti-brown, white men only, batterd white woman only, homophopic, party. He won't do it.

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="6"></hr>

 

[QueEx]

I don't remember saying the black vote is free but instead they vote Democrat for free. That doesn't make is true that they would vote Republican for free.

You stated that Blacks vote democratic, for free. If we vote en masse democratic for free, what the hell does the republican party have to lose ???

I only assess the world in one way, people respond to incentives.

I agree, people "tend" to respond to incentives -- and that, vel non, is reason sufficient to try a different approach with black people. If you're so convinced Black people vote democrat "for free" (I think its far more complicated than that) offering mere words should be virtually risk-free.

The Republicans have an incentive to address their own rhetoric when it comes to Latinos. They can dislike or like both groups for whatever reason, but a payoff exist for courting one group. The GOP has assess there is no payoff for addressing the other group.

Straight crock of shit! Even recent history dispels that theory.

 

[geechiedan]

Well, they didn't get it and they didn't win. So, if they had it or at least it they had some of it, arguably they could have won it.

One day after losing it, I notice several of its talking heads acknowledge that they got IT wrong, most of all because the demograhics are turning against them. I heard Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., mention that in the presidential race, republicans got 27% of the Latino vote, but had they gotten about 40% of the Latino vote, they would have won.

I don't know what changes the party proposes to make in order to make itself more attractive to a larger segment of the Latino community, but conspicuously absent from Graham's analysis was any hope or mention of obtaining more of the Black vote.

The writing is on the wall...after the election all the post mortems and analysis for the GOP is they need to get more hispanics and asians and women to vote for them. No mention of the black vote..not even by black pundits. I watched ABC's coverage and Donna Brazile was sitting quiet as commentators were talking about how the GOP needs the hispanic vote if theyre to stay a viable party.

These next three election cycles, 2014 mid terms, 2016 presidential, 2018 midterms will be VERY interesting to watch and see how much hispanic ass will be kissed by both parties..the dems to keep their majority vote and the repubs to sway it.

But in all of this NO ONE is checking for the black vote.

The OP referenced the Republicans writing off the black vote for decades, and my comment was addressing the fact that there has been multiple Republican presidents in that timeframe.

Republican and Democrats are both prioritizing Latinos, because Latinos put conditions on their support, which may be a bluff but which party is brave enough to call it. Black people are voting Democrat for free.

Black people aren't going to go Republican, so Graham is right to ignore the black vote.

Lets not go overboard. The latino vote has only come into play in the last 10 years or so. And as far as I can see the only demand they have is immigration reform after that its issues that are similar if not the same as african americans..jobs..poverty, education, judicial/penal disparities and how much movement will they get on that? note there is nothing in those issues that will benefit them that won't benefit blacks.

Latinos are in a similar positions blacks have been in decades earlier. immigration reform is a HUGE issue for them and BOTH parties have been dicking around with it for the last 15- 20 years now. And like blacks with civil rights..the president and party that solves that issue WILL gain favor with that group.

Truman couldn't get civil rights legislation thru congress back in the 40s but he issued executive orders to desegregated the military and federal jobs. He got 77% of the black vote.

Obama didn't even bring up immigration reform in his first year in office (a fact latinos reminded him of in their townhall) BUT he did sign an executive order thats similar to the Dream act earlier this year (a cold political calculation as he could done that much.. much earlier) he's got 70% of the latino vote.

Since Obama has won reelection if he can get congress to agree and signs immigration reform into law..well if Obama was as crass as LBJ he would say:

I'll have those spics votin' democrat for the next 200 years..."

before we can understand the present we have to understand the past..historically what has either party done for blacks and why?

 

[Greed]

I view the Democratic and Republican party as the same but black people as a whole do not feel that way.

Unfortunately, they actually put them in a good versus bad kind of categorization. They underprice themselves for what they perceive as good and overprice themselves for what they perceive as evil. They aren't free. They are free for Democrats, but they demand a cost from the Republicans that the Republicans aren't willing to pay. It doesn't even have to be a high cost, but what if the GOP don't actually believe they will get what they paid for? These are simply transactions that have risk and uncertainty associated with them. As I stated in another thread, I think black people's time to be influential has passed anyway. That can be measured as another type of risk, where black people's numbers will drop in significance at too fast a rate to be worthwhile.

I agree, people "tend" to respond to incentives -- and that, vel non, is reason sufficient to try a different approach with black people.

Obviously, I don't adhere to "tend to" view. People/entities take no action within a vacuum. Every human action is meant to achieve a result based on their best judgement of their situation.

The last statement you quoted offered no judgement from me. Right or wrong the GOP finds it easier to write-off black people and go after hispanics. You can attribute it race and the Southern strategy, but they went that route based on votes. I take it for granted that's the prize they are trying to secure now.

 

[Greed]

The writing is on the wall...after the election all the post mortems and analysis for the GOP is they need to get more hispanics and asians and women to vote for them. No mention of the black vote..not even by black pundits. I watched ABC's coverage and Donna Brazile was sitting quiet as commentators were talking about how the GOP needs the hispanic vote if theyre to stay a viable party.

These next three election cycles, 2014 mid terms, 2016 presidential, 2018 midterms will be VERY interesting to watch and see how much hispanic ass will be kissed by both parties..the dems to keep their majority vote and the repubs to sway it.

But in all of this NO ONE is checking for the black vote.

So basically, everyone who is paid to think about such things acknowledge that Republican outreach to black voters is a non-issue and inconsequential. Whether its pundits trying to pretend they know everything, or Democrats looking to lock in their electoral gains, or Republicans looking to increase their chance of winning, no one thinks blacks voting GOP is a worth taking seriously. Doesn't that say something.

Lets not go overboard. The latino vote has only come into play in the last 10 years or so. And as far as I can see the only demand they have is immigration reform after that its issues that are similar if not the same as african americans..jobs..poverty, education, judicial/penal disparities and how much movement will they get on that? note there is nothing in those issues that will benefit them that won't benefit blacks.

I'll go with your statements where the things that matter to hispanics are similar to the issues that blacks are concerned with overall. So, if hispanics get positive changes in these policies after being forceful, then what does that say about the black electorate not getting these changes implemented.

What has the black political model done lately?

 

[QueEx]

I view the Democratic and Republican party as the same but black people as a whole do not feel that way.

If you say so Greed -- but I wouldn't profess to know whats in the mind of "black people as a whole." A great number of us aren't registered and/or don't frequent the polls -- so I wouldn't presume them to have much opinion, one way or the other, regarding party politics.

Unfortunately, they actually put them in a good versus bad kind of categorization. They underprice themselves for what they perceive as good and overprice themselves for what they perceive as evil. They aren't free. They are free for Democrats, but they demand a cost from the Republicans that the Republicans aren't willing to pay.

And, what is that demand ???

 

[Greed]

I think the 95%, which represents more than 10 million black adults, that only votes one way is a good enough sample size for generalization purposes.

And, what is that demand ???

I don't know the demand that the GOP perceives. Whatever it is they aren't looking to deliver. They would rather go hispanic.

 

[geechiedan]

I view the Democratic and Republican party as the same but black people as a whole do not feel that way.

Unfortunately, they actually put them in a good versus bad kind of categorization. They underprice themselves for what they perceive as good and overprice themselves for what they perceive as evil. They aren't free. They are free for Democrats, but they demand a cost from the Republicans that the Republicans aren't willing to pay. It doesn't even have to be a high cost, but what if the GOP don't actually believe they will get what they paid for? These are simply transactions that have risk and uncertainty associated with them. As I stated in another thread, I think black people's time to be influential has passed anyway. That can be measured as another type of risk, where black people's numbers will drop in significance at too fast a rate to be worthwhile.

Obviously, I don't adhere to "tend to" view. People/entities take no action within a vacuum. Every human action is meant to achieve a result based on their best judgement of their situation.

The last statement you quoted offered no judgement from me. Right or wrong the GOP finds it easier to write-off black people and go after hispanics. You can attribute it race and the Southern strategy, but they went that route based on votes. I take it for granted that's the prize they are trying to secure now.

There is no price black people are asking from republicans the rift between blacks and the GOP gradually occurred when democratic presidents started signing civil rights executive orders and legislation. The GOP started out as an abolitionist party but only a faction of them believed in a level playing field for blacks and they were called the Radical Republicans and actually caused a schism in the party between the radicals and the conservatives. And depending on who had leverage you would see the GOP intermittently advocate for blacks or ignore them thru out the 1800s and early to mid 1900s. But securing the black vote seems to me to be something they never counted on as a necessity for their parties survival.And the democrats at that time fought against blacks having full citizens rights.

In the late 60s after LBJ signed voting rights and other civil rights legislation the GOP opposed some of it like affirmative action based on constitutional issues not necessarily because they opposed black specifically. But that nuance gets lost in the heat of political battle and all blacks see is the GOP trying to block something thats beneficial to them so the rift widens (you see the same thing playing out with obamacare..its leglastion thats beneficial to blacks in terms of getting health coverage and access but the GOP sees it as federal gov overreach. Its easy to sell as old white men blocking something that helps minorities again). The southern strategy was never about the black vote it was about obtaining the white vote in those regions so even then black vote wasn't a sought after thing from either party again on a national or major election level. Blacks migrated to the democrats because dems were signing legislation that at the time was beneficial to blacks at least initially.

By the time you get around to the 70s and 80s theres a wave of conservationism sweeping thru the party and the attitude and strategies that used blacks as the boogie man to scare up more of the white vote that was totally off-putting to blacks and solidified the rift. From 1865 (emancipation proclamation) to 1965 (civil rights legislation) in all that time the black vote was never really sought after on a national level in a way that were going to be seeing the hispanic vote fought for in the next few election cycles.

 

[Greed]

If you can't identify the price people put on each other's action, then that explains why black people are being left behind.

There is always a cost when humans interact with each other. Its fine if you think that's abstract or outright wrong.

 

[geechiedan]

So basically, everyone who is paid to think about such things acknowledge that Republican outreach to black voters is a non-issue and inconsequential. Whether its pundits trying to pretend they know everything, or Democrats looking to lock in their electoral gains, or Republicans looking to increase their chance of winning, no one thinks blacks voting GOP is a worth taking seriously. Doesn't that say something.


I'll go with your statements where the things that matter to hispanics are similar to the issues that blacks are concerned with overall. So, if hispanics get positive changes in these policies after being forceful, then what does that say about the black electorate not getting these changes implemented.

What has the black political model done lately?

If you can't identify the price people put on each other's action, then that explains why black people are being left behind.

There is always a cost when humans interact with each other. Its fine if you think that's abstract or outright wrong.

well there is some hope here for blacks in general..

1. Immigration reform seems to the ONLY big deal thats specific to hispanics (and other immigrant minorities but latinos are the biggest group by far)..once thats a done deal then what else can they demand thats specific to them and not anyone else? Not much if anything I can think of. So once thats off the table then what...and as we've seen with blacks once voting rights and civil rights was done all other demands have been glossed over with lip service.

2. The Obama campaign has given a clinic on how 21st century political campaigns are run. And thats by micro targeting constituents. They were able to target specific pockets of the electorate and shape messaging that appealed to them in very specific ways. Thats how they were able to offset any natural advantages mccain and romney had with larger white votes. Obama won nearly all of the swing states and a few of them by razor sharp differences..florida and virginia being two that were won by like less than 2% difference between Obama and Romney. That difference was the black vote the latino vote and young people vote. If the GOP want to replicate that success they will have to peel off votes with blacks in those areas meaning that the party and politicians in those areas are gonna have to deal with blacks in those areas. There may not be national sweeping change for blacks but there could be state and local change for blacks in swing state areas..its a start...

3. As I said before the person at the top of the party be it mayor, governor, president..whoever signs legislation thats beneficial to whatever minority group then thats the party they will go with.. IF Obama can get immigration reform done even if its bipartisan I'm willing to bet that hispanics will vote democrat by and large at least for the next four or five presidential cycles.

 

[QueEx]

Unfortunately, they actually put them in a good versus bad kind of categorization. They underprice themselves for what they perceive as good and overprice themselves for what they perceive as evil. They aren't free. They are free for Democrats, but they demand a cost from the Republicans that the Republicans aren't willing to pay.

I presumed, giving words their plain meaning, that you were referring to Black people through the use of the pronoun "THEY". So I asked, what is it that THEY (Black People) are demanding of republicans:

And, what is that demand ???

And you responded:

I don't know the demand that the GOP perceives. Whatever it is they aren't looking to deliver. They would rather go hispanic.

Confusing

If you don't know what WE are demanding of republicans, how do you know there is even a demand ??? If you don't know what demands the GOP is perceiving, again, how do you arrive at the conclusion that there is, in fact, a demand ???

Clearly you believe we demand nothing of the democratic party; but you think we have demands of the republican party, but you can't articulate that demand

If we are demanding nothing more from republicans than what you contend we demand of democrats, how can we not conclude that there is anything OTHER THAN race at play here with the GOP's recalcitrance ???

 

[thoughtone]

LOL! What a desperate thread for republicans!

 

[Greed]

If you concede the model of looking at this as transactional with cost and benefits, then it should be easy to think of it qualitatively from the Republican viewpoint without knowing what either party is thinking. Just based on the decades of results.

We can agree that Republicans want votes in general and has acted in the past to get them in various ways, and we agree black people have votes to offer and has shifted support in various ways. There is a demand and supply for votes, and you don't have to know the specifics to know that it is there.

This model is good because we can both think of things this way even though we have a different idea of the shape of the supply curve (the severity of the cost associated with each vote), and the model's existence isn't dependent on the magnitude of the willingness for people shifting between Democrats and Republicans, while at the same time accepting a distinction between the two parties.

Now, the characteristics of the model is the same for any seller and consumer. I don't know what black people are actually trying to exact from Republicans in exchange for political support, but they are sellers so they are trying to impose a cost.

I also don't know how far Republicans are willing to go to secure more votes from black voters, but they are consumers so they would demand a larger quantity of votes if the price were lower.

If they are in the same political market and they haven't come to a settlement, then that implies one or both isn't satisfied with the transactional terms.

My opinion is black voters charge Republicans something different than Democrats, since Democrats have come to a settlement for votes with black voters.

The reason I don't think it's racial is because I think even less of politicians. They are vote whores, and they wouldn't even be able to uphold a racist principle in practice. Of course there will be outliers, but generally they want to stay in office more than they want to breathe or feed their own children.

So, it may sound weird, but they aren't racist because they're much much worse.

 

[geechiedan]

If you concede the model of looking at this as transactional with cost and benefits, then it should be easy to think of it qualitatively from the Republican viewpoint without knowing what either party is thinking. Just based on the decades of results.

We can agree that Republicans want votes in general and has acted in the past to get them in various ways, and we agree black people have votes to offer and has shifted support in various ways. There is a demand and supply for votes, and you don't have to know the specifics to know that it is there.

This model is good because we can both think of things this way even though we have a different idea of the shape of the supply curve (the severity of the cost associated with each vote), and the model's existence isn't dependent on the magnitude of the willingness for people shifting between Democrats and Republicans, while at the same time accepting a distinction between the two parties.

Now, the characteristics of the model is the same for any seller and consumer. I don't know what black people are actually trying to exact from Republicans in exchange for political support, but they are sellers so they are trying to impose a cost.

I also don't know how far Republicans are willing to go to secure more votes from black voters, but they are consumers so they would demand a larger quantity of votes if the price were lower.

If they are in the same political market and they haven't come to a settlement, then that implies one or both isn't satisfied with the transactional terms.

My opinion is black voters charge Republicans something different than Democrats, since Democrats have come to a settlement for votes with black voters.

The reason I don't think it's racial is because I think even less of politicians. They are vote whores, and they wouldn't even be able to uphold a racist principle in practice. Of course there will be outliers, but generally they want to stay in office more than they want to breathe or feed their own children.

So, it may sound weird, but they aren't racist because they're much much worse.

Blacks aren't demanding anything more or different from reps than dems the difference is the perception reps have of blacks.

Again listening to pundits talk on and after election night about the latino vote they used words to describe them like industrious, hard working, entrepreneurial, driven and the like. They were talking aspects that matched up with republican characteristics and how and why repubs should be making inroads with that group. They talked about minorites then specifically mentioned latinos and asians and....(dead air pause)....no one else. The omission of blacks in that conversation was glaring to me.

So what you have is a disconnect with the perception of the black community by republicans...the GOP LOVES black INDIVIDUALS they LOVE Condi Rice and Herman Caine but they don't think much of Blacks as a GROUP and when they do its usually negative stats and negative adjectives. And those individual blacks they keep parading are only used in contrast to the group as in "theyre not like the others". Then theres the perception that handouts and welfare is going to be a large part of any negotiation with blacks becuase of course theyre lazy and don't want to work.

And blacks pick up on that and distrust and resent the GOP for it. So negotiation and trade between the two is nearly impossible because class and race is used as wedge.

Thats why its doubly interesting to see how they deal with hispanics because in the 60s and 70s they ignored latinos, in the 80s and 90s and 00s the demonized them as the illegal immigrant boogie man stealing their jobs. And thats a perception that romney played up this election and NOW its become apparent that they have to make nice with those boogie men if they want to stay competitive so the question is how do they make that pivot...

 

[muckraker10021]

I view the Democratic and Republican party as the same but black people as a whole do not feel that way.

Unfortunately, they actually put them in a good versus bad kind of categorization. They underprice themselves for what they perceive as good and overprice themselves for what they perceive as evil. They aren't free. {Black Votes}-They are free for Democrats, but they demand a cost from the Republicans that the Republicans aren't willing to pay. It doesn't even have to be a high cost, but what if the GOP don't actually believe they will get what they paid for? These are simply transactions that have risk and uncertainty associated with them. As I stated in another thread, I think black people's time to be influential has passed anyway. That can be measured as another type of risk, where black people's numbers will drop in significance at too fast a rate to be worthwhile.

Obviously, I don't adhere to "tend to" view. People/entities take no action within a vacuum. Every human action is meant to achieve a result based on their best judgement of their situation.

The last statement you quoted offered no judgement from me. Right or wrong the GOP finds it easier to write-off black people and go after hispanics. You can attribute it race and the Southern strategy, but they went that route based on votes. I take it for granted that's the prize they are trying to secure now.

The idea that for Black people in AmeriKKKa, there is NO difference between the RepubliKlans and the Democrats is demonstrably false. For Black people it is false empirically, it is false intuitively and it is false anecdotally.

Most importantly, Black people see the empirical evidence daily — ever since the Republicans became the RepubliKlans in 1980 with the ascension of Reagan — Black people have seen nothing but overt hostility and blatant racism toward them emanating from the RepubliKlans. In Reagans 1980’s the RepubliKlans vigorously opposed imposing sanctions on the white-supremacist racist country of South Africa — a Democratic controlled house of representatives had to override Reagan’s veto of economic sanctions on South Africa.

In the 1990’s we saw RepubliKlan George H.W. Bush – replace Thurgood Marshall on the SCOTUS with the self-deluded narcissist ogre named clarence thomas — papa bushit cynically said at the time, that Clarence was “the most qualified person in the land to sit on the Supreme Court”.

In the 2000’s during the Supreme Court sanctioned (in a 5-4 vote) ‘coup d'etat’ appointment of BuShit as POTUS we saw them use Colin Powell & Condi Rice as tools to sell the unnecessary Iraq war. Condi- mushroom cloud-Rice was dispatched to deliberately lie (propagandize) 24/7, on corporate media television. Colin who had a worldwide 80% approval rating was used by cheney-bushit, and lied to, by then CIA director Tenant — to go in front of the world and use his credibility to sell the lie of weapons-of-mass-destruction. When the neo-cons had no further use for Colin, they threw him overboard and gave his job to the easily malleable Condi, who hasn’t met an old white man authority figure that she doesn’t immediately genuflect to.

When RepubliKlan doyenne Ann Coulter, a creature who makes crack whores look good, said that ‘Our Blacks are better than their Blacks’ who was she referring to. She was talking about the few RepubliKlan Black totems, people like Clarence Thomas, herman cain, alen west, condi rice, tim scott. She was talking about Jennifer Carroll the Black RepubliKlan lieutenant governor of Florida who was silent and invisible as FL. Governor Rick Scott enacted a voter suppression program that resulted in Black districts in particular having voting hours cut and having to wait up to 10 hours to vote.

21st century RepubliKlans have gone to court numerous times trying to make “affirmative action” illegal despite the opposition of corporate america and the US military who are opposed to any complete repeal. RepubliKlans have twice tried to repeal the 1965 voting rights act in just the last 5 years which prevent RepubliKlan controlled states in the South from completely gerrymandering election districts to preserve ”white supremacy” in their congressional delegations —no Blacks, no Latinos. Just today SCOTUS said they will hear another appeal to gut the Voting Rights Act. I could keep typing for 7,000 words, explaining the empirical, intuitive and the anecdotal evidence that proves that THERE IS A DIFFERENCE between the RepubliKlans and the Democrats, but the overwhelming majority of so-called people-of-color —most who know a fraction about politics as the peeps who post here — they know that there is a profound difference.

96% of Blacks, 71% of Latinos, 73% of Asians and 77% of Gays voted for Democrats and President Obama. This is despite <s>FOX</s> FAKE News, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, Herman Cain, Condi Rice, Dinesh D'souza, Piyush Jindal, Arthur Davis and all the other paid propagandist for the RepubliKlans. If you own a diner that is selling stale food that makes people sick you will go out of business soon. The only reason RepubliKlans didn’t lose dozens of seats in the House-Of-Representatives is due to gerrymandering.

If you say so Greed -- but I wouldn't profess to know whats in the mind of "black people as a whole." A great number of us aren't registered and/or don't frequent the polls -- ..........

[color=00000]
In the critical state of Ohio, Black voter turnout for Obama & Senator Brown was higher than in 2008 in fact it was a remarkable 33% higher despite the intense RepubliKlan attempt to suppress the Black vote and cut early voting hours. Amazing! Why do you think they showed up in such huge numbers and waited up to 7 hours to vote? They know! - that there is a difference between the republiklans and the Democrats. Everytime they see the Obama family exit the 'white house' and get into that helicopter on the 'white house' lawn on their way to 'air force one' the simplest unsophisticated Black voter knows that there is a difference.

http://www.theroot.com/views/gop-awakens-sleeping-black-giant

Let us put things into historical perspective and context. We have a Black President of the United States elected in 2008, re-elected in 2012, who will live with his family in the ‘white house’ until January 20, 2017. In 1901 Booker T. Washington was the first Black man to dine at the ‘white house’ with President Teddy Roosevelt. White people were shocked and outraged. Read about it using the links below.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/fdr-booker-t-washington_n_1519165.html?ref=books

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...7db832-db09-11e1-bd1f-8f2b57de6d94_story.html

Addendum: Excluding only the state of Texas, there are more people living within a four mile radius of my home than there are in any state that was won by RMoney.



[/color]

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="6"></hr>

 

[Greed]

Blacks aren't demanding anything more or different from reps than dems the difference is the perception reps have of blacks.

Black people, wrongly, see a difference between the Republican and Democratic parties.

With that in mind, I would say you are completely wrong. Black people shouldn't demand the same kind of payment from both parties when both have different things to offer.

If there is a differnce between parties, then both parties are limited, by their principles, regarding what they are willing to exchange for votes. Black people should tailor the conditions to what each party is willing to pay.

 

[GhostofMarcus]

Blacks are in the caboose of party politics because they are not relevantly networked, especially at the highest most affluent levels. I can’t tell you how many ‘Black Enterprise’ Magazine or ‘Essence Magazine’ networking conferences I’ve attended, which turn out to be nothing more than just a strutting Black “peacock show”.

What is a peacock show? — at these events it’s men and women dressed like they going to the hottest club in town looking for the person who looks like their fantasy date so that they can pop game. The speeches during daylight hours are poorly attended despite the fact that attendees have paid money to hear and ostensibly network with the nationally known and allegedly important speakers, which indeed some of them are.

But at night with the addition of the non-paying party crashers who bribe security to get in —the party ballroom is over-packed with slick ninjas parading their Armani or Zenga and a presidential Rolex watch — and the sisters wide-eyed, dressed like they going to the Oscars, over drinking since the hotel room is upstairs, and ready to fuck with, literally, the brother with the best look and game. It’s like shooting ducks in a barrel if you are a dude who don’t look like ‘Biggie’ — even if you do look like ‘Biggie’ these “professional?” women will go upstairs to their rooms and hit the high #C note on your rod if you pull out a wad of ‘Benjamins’ from your pocket and your business card says vice president of ‘something’. Yes, it is that bad.

Contrast that pathetic scene with the 85% white people attended investment conferences that I also frequently attend. The speeches and seminars during the daytime are packed. These are not attended by older people. Older affluent white people don’t attend these events; they don’t have to, they have professional money managers go for them. The people here demographically are the same age 25 -50 that attend the Black events. Dress is about 50% very casual, slacks, iZod t-shirt, soft sole shoes, black plastic watch. The guys and women who are dressed up, are dressed up because they do it every day for work, and they have no fashion sense when it comes to casual dress or they just prefer to dress up because it makes them look better. The guy sitting next to me on the padded folding chair, fiddling with his tablet, trying to keep his flip-flops from falling off, listening to the speaker might be worth $100 milion; it’s irrelevant to him, he’s there listening intently because the speaker is an expert on Latin America equities. He turns looks at me and ask ‘do I know Obama’ — I look at him, see that he is serious and ask – “why do you think I know Obama? don’t tell me you think’……”No, No he says, it’s not like that, I saw your “white house” cuff links which I know are real because I have a pair I got during Clinton” I say “no I don’t know Obama, I’ve met him once at a fund raiser, but I do know Patrick Gaspard who got me these cuff links”. We talk, exchange contact info and have both forwarded and exchanged data in the last two years that was beneficial to both of us.
The cocktail reception that evening of the conference emptied quickly after the Latin American wine tasting was over. I saw few potential ‘booty-call’ hook-ups going on in the room, no preening or posturing or blaring disco/ house music; the young affluent, predominately white people who are at this 2 day conference didn’t come here for any type of hook-up. They came to get smarter by meeting and listening to hopefully smarter people and go away with at least one idea that pays for the cost of the trip. If that happens then the trip was a success.

I remember one Black event I went to with George C. Fraser -Chairman and CEO of FraserNet and Dr. Cornel West as the speakers. It was held at a downtown hotel. The conference room held 800 people. It was almost filled because a nearby HBU had sent 3 busloads (130 seats) of graduating seniors, gratis to hear these speakers. The paying attendees like myself paid up to $500 to attend. There was an after party scheduled in a hotel ballroom. George Fraser looked at the audience and said ‘this place should be packed’ he said Black people devalue the intellectual capital that their own community has to offer. He then handed out rubber wrist bands to everyone in the room that were imprinted with the name & web address of his company. He said,’you watch at the after party tonight we will see at least 3,000 people show up between 8PM & midnight trying to get into the party. Tonight were going to do something different. Dr. West stood and spoke, he said, my friend George Clinton & Bootsy will be funking at tonights after party; they are in town for their tour Only those with the wristbands we just handed out will be allowed in. The crowd went wild. Fraser & West’s presentation was awesome and worth the few bucks. Sure enough that evening the hotel lobby was so packed with ninjas that they had to call the fire department. Ninja’s were having strokes trying to get into the awesome party —but — no wrist band, no entry.

Okay enough story telling, here is why the Democratic party takes Black voters for granted.

Number One: there is no unity between Black advocacy groups pushing a short politically plausible legislative agenda; and outlying a strategy to get it done. Instead we get these annual reports which list dozens of maladies that afflict Black people without focusing like a laser behind one or two items and pushing the wheel as hard as possible to get-it-done. No they don’t do it. Instead they have meet-and-greets like the Black events I depicted above.

Number Two: and most important Black people donate virtually NO MONEY to the Democratic party. Black people have annual consumer buying power of over $700 Billion per year. Some spending hundreds per month on hair care alone. BUT not a dime given to OBAMA FOR AMERICA or democratic party. CHECK THIS OUT – The Gay Community self identifies at about 3.5% of the American population. That means 3.5% of Americans are proud gays who will check a box on a publicly available form and classify themselves as gay. 15 PERCENT OF THE OVER BILLION DOLLARS THAT OBAMA RAISED came from the gay community 15%

The Black community who is 13% of the US population and supported Obama and Democrats 94% to 97% gave how much? They gave a fraction of 1%. You say there is too much money in politics and that you are opposed to the SCOTUS citizens-united decision — so am I. But the rules as currently constituted are pay-to-play. The gay community has Obama staff and Democratic party staff dedicated to their issues 24/7 — because they supply 15% of the money — not hard to understand. Black people, even most affluent Black people, are they buying a seat at the table — hell No — they are tithing 10% of their salary to their pimp pastor — they are on the lay-away hair weave program where you pay the hair dresser $100 a month, every month, for unlimited hair weave maintenance”—“they partying in that ‘Sean John’ glued lapel, made in china suit, like it’s 1999. Wait a minute it’s 2012!!






Lindsey in my opinion was just post-defeat posturing and talking shit. If he had any balls, - wait a minute he does have balls - he would step forward, denounce the tea-bagger racists in his Republiklan party, - come out of the closet - it is widely known that Lindsey is Gay - and annouce that Republicans can not survive as the racist anti-black, anti-brown, white men only, batterd white woman only, homophopic, party. He won't do it.

You are the first person, I have seen to state why people black don't have anything on the table. I saw countless pro-black people and others state that black people don't get anything by voting for the democratic party but never state what's on the table that they are not getting.

 

[muckraker10021]

Chris Hayes 'UP' show on November 10th 2012 is worth watching if you missed it, as he and his guests dissect the republiklan loss. The 'UP' show is one of those shows highly paid conservative propagandists like rush, hannity, beck, coulter, o'really, deride and scoff at as 'pointy head intellectual latte drinking, seltzer drinking girly-man new york liberal unamerican, hate-america trash. Their audience of course are primarily in the 'archie bunker' demographic; scared over 50 white males who are unread, stupid and are afraid of losing their white skin privilege.
However, For those of you in the "reality based" community I highly recommend it. The panel consist of self-professed 'white liberal' Chris Hayes, and a "reality based" Latina, Black woman, Black man, and a 'honorary white' Indian man Rmoney supporter. In this non <s>FOX</s> FAKE News show , where "reality based" facts & dialogue are not censored, watch the 'honorary white' Indian man Rmoney supporter just get factually destroyed as he attempts to deny the RepubliKlan parties white supremacy and blatant racism. What crack is he smoking?

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc5c3cb"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=49770667&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc5c3cb" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=49770667&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>


<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbcb4c77"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=49770692&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbcb4c77" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=49770692&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>


<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc7cebc0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=49770716&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc7cebc0" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=49770716&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc220a59"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=49770749&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc220a59" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=49770749&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc1c32e1"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=49770806&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc1c32e1" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=49770806&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

<hr noshade color="#ff0000" size="6"></hr>

 

[Greed]

Rand Paul to speak at Howard University

Rand Paul to speak at Howard University
By Alexandra Jaffe - 04/07/13 02:46 PM ET

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a potential 2016 presidential contender, will address students at Howard University on Wednesday in Washington, D.C.

According to a release on the university's website, “Sen. Paul’s speech will focus on the importance of outreach to younger voters, as well as minority groups. He will also discuss the history of the African-American community’s roots in the Republican Party and current issues, such as school choice and civil liberties."

Paul's address at the historically black university may be seen as an early effort at outreach to young and minority voters, two voting blocs that typically vote Democratic.

Young voters came out in support of Paul's father, former Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), in his 2012 campaign for the Republican nomination for president, and supporters of the younger Paul believe he'll have similar appeal for young voters if he continues to champion the libertarianism his father brought to prominence.

Further stoking 2016 speculation, Paul will speak in New Hampshire, an early primary state, next month.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...92231-rand-paul-to-speak-at-howard-university