Dumbass... I am not voting for hillary. Even if she wins the primary. But... Is mark Cuban racist? I think not.... http://thebiglead.com/2014/05/21/ma...-or-white-guy-with-a-shaved-head-and-tattoos/
I watched the video and I was immediately outraged. You're right, someone should be fired. She's running for president and only gives a 13 second speech?!? Just get up on stage, talk about hoodies and then speech over?!? What a bunch of crap! Her campaign staff can't think of anything for her to say for 15 secs? 20 secs? 30 secs? Then I realized that this was most likely a snippet of a bigger, longer speech. We're most likely missing some context. So I googled it and... I know there are truths we don’t like to say out loud or discuss with our children. But we have to. That’s the only way we can possibly move forward together. Race remains a deep fault line in America. Millions of people of color still experience racism in their everyday lives. Here are some facts. In America today, Blacks are nearly three times as likely as whites to be denied a mortgage. In 2013, the median wealth of Black families was around $11,000. For white families, it was more than $134,000. Nearly half of all Black families have lived in poor neighborhoods for at least two generations, compared to just 7 percent of white families. African American men are far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than white men, 10 percent longer for the same crimes in the federal system. In America today, our schools are more segregated than they were in the 1960s. How can any of that be true? How can it be true that Black children are 500 percent more likely to die from asthma than white kids? Five hundred percent! More than a half century after Dr. King marched and Rosa Parks sat and John Lewis bled, after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and so much else, how can any of these things be true? But they are. And our problem is not all kooks and Klansman. It’s also in the cruel joke that goes unchallenged. It’s in the off-hand comments about not wanting “those people” in the neighborhood. Let’s be honest: For a lot of well-meaning, open-minded white people, the sight of a young Black man in a hoodie still evokes a twinge of fear. And news reports about poverty and crime and discrimination evoke sympathy, even empathy, but too rarely do they spur us to action or prompt us to question our own assumptions and privilege. We can’t hide from any of these hard truths about race and justice in America. We have to name them and own them and then change them. You may have heard about a woman in North Carolina named Debbie Dills. She’s the one who spotted Dylann Roof’s car on the highway. She could have gone on about her business. She could have looked to her own safety. But that’s not what she did. She called the police and then she followed that car for more than 30 miles. As Congressman Jim Clyburn said the other day, “There may be a lot of Dylann Roofs in the world, but there are a lot of Debbie Dills too. She didn’t remain silent.” Well, neither can we. We all have a role to play in building a more tolerant, inclusive society, what I once called “a village,” where there is a place for everyone. You know, we Americans may differ and bicker and stumble and fall, but we are at our best when we pick each other up, when we have each other’s back. Like any family, our American family is strongest when we cherish what we have in common, and fight back against those who would drive us apart.
Let me ask you democrats a question.... In most "poverty stricken areas" the democrats OWN these areas for years. If the party actually had their interest in mind, why would they still have the highest high school drop out rate, highest welfare, highest crime and usually the most segregation? Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn’t elected a Republican mayor since 1961; Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn’t elected one since 1954; Cincinnati, OH (3rd)… since 1984; Cleveland, OH (4th)… since 1989; Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor; St. Louis, MO (6th)…. since 1949; El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor; Milwaukee, WI (8th)… since 1908; Philadelphia, PA (9th)… since 1952; Newark, NJ (10th)… since 1907.
Not a democrat but lets have another lesson in statistics. It should be noted that there are different ways to measure poverty. Occupy Democrats says its claim is based on per-person income. We looked at that, along with median household income and median family income. By all three measures, 9 out of the 10 poorest states voted Republican in the last presidential election. (In fact, they voted Red in the last four elections.) According to the latest Census data, 9 of the 10 states with the lowest per-person income levels were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Utah, Alabama, South Carolina and Oklahoma. The Census data also show that 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median household income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma. And 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median family income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana and South Carolina. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...mocrat-group-says-9-10-poorest-states-are-re/ While the meme’s suggestion that "Republican policies" are causing poverty is too subjective a question to be fact-checked, we decided to take a closer look at the set-up to the claim -- that "97 percent of the 100 poorest counties in America are in red states." First, we’ll explain our methodology. To determine the nation’s 100 poorest counties, we downloaded data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. This data covers five years ending in 2012, and includes more than 3,000 counties and county equivalents (such as Louisiana parishes). This data enabled us to rank-order these jurisdictions based on two commonly used measurements -- median income, and percentage of the population in poverty. As for determining whether a state is "red" or "blue," we decided to define it by whether the state voted for President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney in 2012. This means we counted North Carolina and Indiana as red states, since Obama lost them in 2012 after winning them in 2008. (Though either way, the differences would have been marginal.) So how did the data turn out? For median income, we found that 95 of the 100 poorest counties were located in red states. Here are the 10 poorest, all of them in red states: 1. Owsley County, Ky. 2. Jefferson County, Miss. 3. Wolfe County, Ky. 4. Brooks County, Texas 5. McCreary County, Ky. 6. Hudspeth County, Texas 7. Hancock County, Tenn. 8. Jackson County, Ky. 9. Clay County, Ky. 10. Holmes County, Miss. For percentage of residents in poverty, we found that 93 of the 100 poorest counties were in red states. Here are the 10 with the highest poverty rates, all of them in red states: 1. Shannon County, S.D. 2. Clay County, Ga. 3. East Carroll Parish, La. 4. Sioux County, N.D. 5. Todd County, S.D. 6. Hudspeth County, Texas 7. Holmes County, Miss. 8. Corson County, S.D. 9. Wolfe County, Ky. 10. Humphreys County, Miss. So there are some differences between the most recent Census data and what the meme said, but they are pretty small. Numerically, we don’t have much to quibble with. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-97-nations-100-poorest-counties-red-states/ I would say both parties do a shitty job when it comes to the poor.
My only response is that most "Republicans" aren't saying how they are for the poor. I mean they will say they want to help them, but their entire campaign isn't built around turning the low class around. The democrats use this as one of their #1 campaign strategies and topics. This is really why you don't see much about Republican poor smear campaigns, because the opposing party knows that's not were they need to attack them
Haha , ok ok , Now take a look at the States rather than cherry picking shit hole counties. How do that saying go? Liars figure and figures lie.
1. I didn't cherry pick anything. 2. I did include states. By all three measures, 9 out of the 10 poorest states voted Republican in the last presidential election. (In fact, they voted Red in the last four elections.) According to the latest Census data, 9 of the 10 states with the lowest per-person income levels were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Utah, Alabama, South Carolina and Oklahoma. The Census data also show that 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median household income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma. And 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median family income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana and South Carolina. Cities, Counties, States, poverty is not a one party problem.
West virginia is a blue state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_West_Virginia Kentucky is a blue state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party_strength_in_Kentucky
http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhen...-the-10-poorest-u-s-states-really-republican/ "The poorest states, based on per capita income, are, from first to last: Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, West Virginia, Louisiana, Montana, South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, and North Carolina. Of these, exactly half—Arkansas, Kentucky, Montana, North Carolina, and West Virginia—have Democratic governors and three have Democratic majorities in the lower house of their legislature, so these state governments can hardly be classified as completely Republican. On the other hand, only North Carolina voted for Obama in 2008, so in that sense, these states may be leaning Republican." and "The most fundamental difference between the data that conservatives prefer—that the 10 poorest cities are longtime Democratic strongholds—and the data that liberals will be more inclined to cite—that the 10 poorest states are predominantly Republican, is that conservatives can point to actual policies that Democrats implemented that contributed to the impoverishment of the cities, while the liberals cannot point to specific GOP policies that have caused the poorer states to lag behind. The Democratic case is illusory and circumstantial; the Republican case is solid and substantial. However, in a country where so many people are economically and historically illiterate, combined with the human proclivity whereby “a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” (Paul Simon, “The Boxer”), the Democrats may be able to score some points with a hollow argument. The Republicans, though, have the facts on their side."
When you look at the poorest cities, counties and states in the USA you will see that they have something in common, the highest rates of church attendance. One could make the argument that it's not political parties causing poverty but Christianity. Or we could not look to blame people and organizations for the causes of the problems and instead look to focus on solutions.
Actually, which has been well documented, poor areas tend to be more "Religious", because the people are very down on their luck and seeking something, anything that may help them cope. This is the feeding ground for Democrats so they can gain votes by telling these people they will go to bat for them. Instead, they write policies that keep them down so they can always need them.
Sly, The measure of poverty between different areas in the country using any of the three measures in your article is absurd. If you make the national median household income in Kentucky, you might live in a 6000 sq ft mansion. In california, you're homeless. Many of the native hawaiians I know make 1/2 the median income, but I wouldn't call them poor. They spend all day in the sun. They fish and hunt for food. They swim and own and ride horses. They throw really big parties, too (Luaus they're called). They're quite happy, actually, about most things except for white people buying up all the land and destroying their culture with truancy laws and separation of church and state (killed their language and culture).
