I don't think it must all be due to racism (I should've made that clear in the thread). I don't care about intentions so much as the reality that exists for black people. And the reality is that for whatever reason, blacks have to wait longer to vote.
The text of the Fifteenth Amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The guarantee is the right to vote, not how long one may have to wait in line to vote. This particular issue is non-starter, a red herring, and isn't worth a research study used to confirm bias.
And honestly, it's a little suspicious to me that everything is worse for black people...
After seven years of the current administration everything is worse for everybody. Except those very rich Obama demonized not only during the 2008 campaign but ever since. Which would include Hillary Clinton, by the way.
...and Republicans still try to explain all of it away as if racism isn't the most useful explanation most of the time. I'd say the same thing about hospital wait times.
Racism isn't the most useful explanation most of the time. Sure, you can find racist within each and every group of people. Recall that Larry Elder once stated quite firmly, and backed his claim up, that in America black people are far more racist than white people. I was in Baltimore last summer only two weeks following the riots. I was singled out by a group of black people on the street not because I was white, but because they thought I was wearing a shirt sporting Puerto-Rican colors. Actually I was wearing a Captain America shirt, but until they figured that out you would have thought I was wearing a shirt which read "death to all black people." When I got back to my hotel I asked the Concierge, who happened to be a black man, about what happened. His answer was short and quick. "Black people hate Puerto-ricans."
Now I take that with a grain of salt, as I do not believe all black people hate Puerto-ricans or anyone else for that matter. But I relay the story to illustrate my point. If you want to talk about racist and racism, you can find it anywhere in any group. There is no monopoly to be found in the Republican party and any such claim is nothing but a lie.
As for hospital wait times, discussions concerning health care around the web routinely include reference to the fact low income families, and note I said low income families and not minorities, tend to use the emergency room as their source of primary care. ER's tend to work off of a triage system, the most in need are prioritized. Call me callous, but I hardly see an average wait of 19 minutes longer than someone else as indicative of societal collapse, let alone institutionalized racism.
Also, a lot of the things I listed
are simply racism. For example, blacks get
50% fewer callbacks than whites
even with identical resumes, and get shown
20% fewer homes even with identical qualifications.
From the first article sourced, quote:
"Data limitations make it difficult to empirically test these views. Since researchers possess far less data than employers do. White and African-American workers that appear similar to researchers may look very different to employers. So any racial difference in labor market outcomes could just as easily be attributed to differences that are observable to employers but unobservable to researchers."
From later in the report, quote:
"The experiment was carried out between July 2001 and January 2002 in Boston and between July 2001 and May 2002 in Chicago. Over that period, we surveyed all employment ads in the Sunday editions of The Boston Globe and The Chicago Tribune in the sales, administrative support, and clerical and customer services sections."
Anyone who has ever done serious job hunting knows the last place you go to look for a job is the want adds. Quote:
"Finally, and this is an issue pervasive in both our study and the pair-matching audit studies, newspaper ads represent only one channel for job search. As is well known from previous work, social networks are another common means through which people find jobs and one that clearly cannot be studied here. This omission could qualitatively affect our results if African-Americans use social networks more or if employers who rely more on networks differentiate less by race."
In addition I couldn't find listed in the report the race of the human resource personal who would have seen these fabricated resumes. The researchers themselves admitted their study also did not address the percentage of any group which actually were actually hired for the job in question.
It would be great if there were fewer abortions. But there's more than one way to prevent abortion. You can make it harder to get (usually by making it extremely uncomfortable and humiliating for the woman), or you can make it less desirable. Women don't abort because they're monsters; they do it because they're desperate and scared.
The majority are done out of convenience.
The vast majority (in excess of 90%) of abortions are sought for personal reasons:
21% feel that they do not have the financial resources to bring up a child.
21% feel that they are not ready for the responsibility of raising a child.
16% feel that their life would be changed too much. She might have a plan for her future (education, developing a career, etc.) that does not allow for having a child at the present time. She might be looking after an elderly parent and does not have sufficient time or energy to commit to a baby.
12% feel that her relationship with her partner is in difficulty.
11% feel that they are too young, and not sufficiently mature to become a mother.
In 8% of the cases, her children are grown and she does not want to start another family, or she has all the children that she wants.
Source:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_why.htm
These figures are based on research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, and can be found here:
http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/abortion.php
In addition, from BET dot com, quote:
"A recent study about national abortion rates and African-American female teens has stirred a huge debate.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, abortion rates among Black women are much higher than we thought: They are four times the rate of white women. The report found that on average, 41 in 1,000 pregnancies among Black women (ages 15-19) are terminated compared to 10 among white women and 20 among Latinas.
Other findings included:
—The highest abortion rates among Black teens occur in Texas (78 per 1,000), New York (76 per 1,000), Delaware (51 per 1,000), Michigan (45 per 1,000), Ohio (35 per 1,000) and Rhode Island (30 per 1,000).
—While Black women account for 13 percent of the female population, they accounted for 30 percent of all abortions. In 2008, 75,960 Black teens 15-19 had abortions, compared to 65,972 among white teens and 41,465 among Hispanic teens.
—Thirty-three percent of women obtaining abortions lacked health insurance, 30 percent had private health insurance, Medicaid covered 31 percent and 5 percent had some other type of health insurance."
Source:
http://www.bet.com/news/health/2013/04/01/commentary-why-are-black-abortion-rates-so-high.html
Don't you think they would be less likely to abort if they could be confident their child would live a decent life, and they could afford to raise it?
That is a valid question. It is also a valid question to wonder if women should make that decision before they get pregnant and not after.
If, for example, America guaranteed every family paid maternity leave, or pre-K education, or healthcare, or paid vacation, or paid sick leave, or tuition-free access to higher education, like many other countries?
Healthcare? But you are correct, Obamacare is a dismal failure because that is exactly what is was designed to be. As for the rest of your list, Sanders for President! Who cares we are 20 Trillion dollars in debt, just burn the rich.
Really? When did he defend Islamic terrorists like Cruz claimed? I haven't heard everything Obama's ever said, but I would be shocked if he defended terrorists.
As I stated in another thread, the American left at large and in particular those within the Obama administration to include Obama himself, always act surprised in response to every incident of Islamic atrocity. Their response is always the same, blame anyone and everyone except the Islamist who actually committed the act. Rape rampage in Germany? The fault of German woman, and they have to change their dress. Slaughter of Christmas Party attendees? Hey, there was a Planned Parenthood office just three miles away, must have been Christians. Children gunned down at school by Al-Qaida operatives? Gun control, yep, we need more gun control. ISIS tossing gays from rooftops? Well, that one we will ignore. But just you wait until the next Christian baker refuses to bake a cake.
The programmed response of the American left to Islamic extremist violence is, again, both dangerous and delusional. Seriously, consider these words by our President, quote:
"I don't quibble with labels. I think we all recognize that this is a particular problem that has roots in Muslim communities," Obama said in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria. "But I think we do ourselves a disservice in this fight if we are not taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject this ideology."
"The truth of the matter is that they can do harm. But we have the capacity to control how we respond in ways that do not undercut what's the essence of who we are. That means that we don't torture, for example, and thereby undermine our values and credibility around the world," Obama said. "It means that we don't approach this with a strategy of sending out occupying armies and playing whack-a-mole wherever a terrorist group appears because that drains our economic strength and it puts enormous burdens on our military."
Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/01/politics/obama-radical-islam-terrorism-war/index.html
Language such as this is interpreted by Islamic terrorist groups as appeasement, and ultimately capitulation. Citing torture on the part of the US when Islamist take joy in devising the most heinous methods to kill their victims and then post the video on Youtube?
And actions always speak louder than words:
DHS Employee: The Obama Administration Ordered Us To 'Scrub' Intelligence Of Muslims With Terror Ties
Twenty-three-year old Nigerian Muslim Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab intended to detonate Northwest Airlines Flight 253, but the explosives in his underwear malfunctioned and brave passengers subdued him until he could be arrested. The graphic and traumatic defeat they planned for the United States failed, that time.
Following the attempted attack, President Obama threw the intelligence community under the bus for its failure to “connect the dots.” He said, “this was not a failure to collect intelligence, it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already had.”
Most Americans were unaware of the enormous damage to morale at the Department of Homeland Security, where I worked, his condemnation caused. His words infuriated many of us because we knew his administration had been engaged in a bureaucratic effort to destroy the raw material—the actual intelligence we had collected for years, and erase those dots. The dots constitute the intelligence needed to keep Americans safe, and the Obama administration was ordering they be wiped away.
Source:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattve...lligence-of-muslims-with-terror-ties-n2116446
SHUT UP, BECAUSE THE CRUSADES
"This week, President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast, where he proceeded to inform an audience of Christians that they ought not judge radical Muslims currently engaged in beheading journalists, defenestrating gays, crucifying children, and engaging in mass rape of women. Why, pray tell, should Christians remain silent? Because, Obama informed them with Ivy League pride, "Unless we get on our high horse and think that this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ. So it is not unique to one group or one religion."
At some point in our collective history, our ancestors engaged in tribal warfare and cannibalized their fallen enemies. So shut up about the Nazis, you hypocrites."
Source:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/251103/shut-because-crusades-ben-shapiro
Kind of like being the tallest midget. Obama would be right-wing in almost any other first world democracy.
This is America, and the definition of liberal/progressive is based on our standards, not those of some other European country.
But actually, I don't think he's our most radical President: What about Theodore Roosevelt?
Neither Roosevelt nor Hoover nor FDR enjoyed cult status. Obama does, and a cult figure has far more power than just a leader elected to that position.
