# Blacks and the GOP **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 13, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057 "2010-06-13T22:53:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/281 "2010-06-23T17:18:55Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > The bottom line is that today’s Democrats give, and propose to give, much more many more handouts, welfare, food stamps, etc. money, housing, loans, grants, services, to black people than does the GOP. > > It is that simple. > > There is no mystery here folks. That and Republicans are racists :stick out tongue: ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/282 "2010-06-23T17:22:28Z")
> [@kunilou](#): > > Instead of blathering on about “Republicans” give credit where it’s due – to Sen. Everett Dirksen of Illinois, the one Republican who wheedled, nagged, compromised and strong-armed enough of his fellow party members in the Senate to get the bill passed. Is that why teh senate building is named after him? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/283 "2010-06-23T17:24:18Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > So now the Republican vote didn’t count? That is beyond lame because it ignores the failure of the party you’re trying to defend. If you want to get the record straight then you have to go with the ACTUAL RECORD. Either LBJ was too busy to twist some arms or Democrats were too racist to actually vote for the rights of black people. That is the reality of it. > > Isn’t the board suppose to be about fighting ignorance? The Republican party has been there since the end of the civil war. But didn’t most of those racist Democrats become Republicans? What does the Southern strategy mean to you? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/284 "2010-06-23T17:34:58Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > I am not a Republican… > …I dont like Republicans very much either lately…, but the Democrats are just as bad … > Frankly, other than what i mentioned above , there is not a whole lot of difference between the Democrats and Republicans lately. Except that Republicans pander to racists. > [@](#): > > I am not saying the Republicans are much better than Democrats, esp lately, but one would guess that blacks should be voting roughly 50-50 for Democrats and Republicans because there is not much difference. Did you miss the pandering to racists? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2010, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/285 "2010-06-24T04:49:13Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > But didn’t most of those racist Democrats become Republicans? What does the Southern strategy mean to you? It means [political soundbites](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html) used by the Democratic leadership as a way of maintaining a voting block. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2010, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/286 "2010-06-24T05:32:09Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It means [political soundbites](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html) used by the Democratic leadership as a way of maintaining a voting block. Given that numerous Republicans have noted and expounded on the Southern Strategy over the years, the best that can be said for the book reviewed in the article is that there was a separate economic movement that had the effect of reinforcing the Republican efforts. Given that the term was coined by Republicans and employed by Republicans and commented upon by Republicans, any effort to recast it as a “political soundbite” of the Democrats is merely revisionist spin. ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2010, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/287 "2010-06-24T06:44:45Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Oddly, I can’t find anything in the tax code that differentiates rates based on race. Where is that? > [@](#): > > the Republicans passed laws giving the right for blacks to carry concealed weapons for self defense in 38 states, > [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Similar comment to the first one - where in the law is race even mentioned? If some policy is good for people across the spectrum, not matter what race, that’s not good enough? Guess what, **ElvisL1ves** , it is quite possible for a policy to help blacks, even if it doesn’t discriminate based on race. Your whole post is an example of condescension towards blacks by liberals. Do you think that blacks require special treatment by the law because otherwise nothing can help them? If a law doesn’t have giveaways based on ethnicity, then it doesn’t count? ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2010, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/288 "2010-06-24T12:06:45Z")
> [@erez](#): > > If some policy is good for people across the spectrum, not matter what race, that’s not good enough? Guess what, **ElvisL1ves** , it is quite possible for a policy to help blacks, even if it doesn’t discriminate based on race. Your whole post is an example of condescension towards blacks by liberals. Do you think that blacks require special treatment by the law because otherwise nothing can help them? If a law doesn’t have giveaways based on ethnicity, then it doesn’t count? Precisely which of the “policies” mentioned by **Susanann** were beneficial to “people across the spectrum”? Lower taxes, which I recall accruing mostly to the top strata of society, excluding most blacks? A fence to keep Mexicans out, which actually negatively impacts all minorities? Airline deregulation, which caused more problems than it solved for everyone, including blacks? Concealed weapons laws that didn’t make it easier one iota for the average black person to legally own a gun? And what the Heck did Sarah Palin have to do with the already existing rebate in Alaska, other than simply allowing it to continue, big accomplishment there, and which also benefits blacks to an extremely negligable level since there are very few blacks in Alaska anyway? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2010, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/289 "2010-06-24T13:41:57Z")
> [@erez](#): > > Iit is quite possible for a policy to help blacks, even if it doesn’t discriminate based on race. Of course. But it is not possible to claim it honestly as a pro-black policy. ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/290 "2010-06-25T05:50:10Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > Precisely which of the “policies” mentioned by **Susanann** were beneficial to “people across the spectrum”? Lower taxes, which I recall accruing mostly to the top strata of society, excluding most blacks? You better start providing some facts and data instead of trying to “recall” if you want to be taken seriously. For example, doubling of the child credit or creating a new 10% bottom bracket by Bush certainly hugely affected low income payers. Thanks mainly to Bush’s cuts, there are now a record number of non-payers of federal taxes (more than a third of all tax returns in 2008 and likely to grow in 2009 and 2010, according to the Tax Foundation). > [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > A fence to keep Mexicans out, which actually negatively impacts all minorities? Not that I necessarily agree with **Susanann** , but once again you need to show some support for your claims. Your opinion is just that and your attempt to start talking about “minorities” instead of “blacks” because it fits your agenda better, even if that’s not the topic, is transparent. > [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > Airline deregulation, which caused more problems than it solved for everyone, including blacks? Once again, no justification whatsoever for your opinion. We know for example that the average airfare fell by 30% in inflation-adjusted terms from 1976 to 1990 ([Airline deregulation - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_deregulation)) and that would affect low-income passengers (blacks on average have lower incomes) more. But this deregulation was proposed by a Democrat and signed by Carter… > [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > Concealed weapons laws that didn’t make it easier one iota for the average black person to legally own a gun? From no facts to twisting what **Susanann** said: > [@](#): > > the Republicans passed laws giving the right for blacks to carry concealed weapons for self defense in 38 states, Notice the difference? > [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > And what the Heck did Sarah Palin have to do with the already existing rebate in Alaska, other than simply allowing it to continue, big accomplishment there, and which also benefits blacks to an extremely negligable level since there are very few blacks in Alaska anyway? I am not **Susanann** , so I don’t know, but your argument is a failure once again. Just because there are few blacks in Alaska doesn’t mean that you can ignore them and say that **Susanann** ’s point is invalid. If it helped even just a few of them (I’m not claiming that it did), that’s good enough. ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/291 "2010-06-25T05:58:33Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Of course. But it is not possible to claim it honestly as a pro-black policy. It absolutely is. If a policy is just “pro-people” and its effects include blacks, then it is obviously “pro-black” as well, since blacks are people. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/292 "2010-06-25T14:08:55Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > It means [political soundbites](http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html) used by the Democratic leadership as a way of maintaining a voting block. So your sayin g the Southern strategy was just a myth, a distortion of something relatively benign into something ugly, divisive and racist? Do we really need to start a great debates thread to discuss whether the Southern strategy was a myth? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/293 "2010-06-25T14:19:04Z")
> [@erez](#): > > You better start providing some facts and data instead of trying to “recall” if you want to be taken seriously. For example, doubling of the child credit or creating a new 10% bottom bracket by Bush certainly hugely affected low income payers. Thanks mainly to Bush’s cuts, there are now a record number of non-payers of federal taxes (more than a third of all tax returns in 2008 and likely to grow in 2009 and 2010, according to the Tax Foundation). This is true, when Republicans cut taxes, they shift the burden away from the top 0.1% and the bottom 20-40% of Americans and shift them to the middle/upper middle class. The way they figure it, the bottom 20-40% didn’t contribute much to begin with and the top 0.1% need their money for campaign contributions. > [@](#): > > Once again, no justification whatsoever for your opinion. We know for example that the average airfare fell by 30% in inflation-adjusted terms from 1976 to 1990 ([Airline deregulation - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_deregulation)) and that would affect low-income passengers (blacks on average have lower incomes) more. But this deregulation was proposed by a Democrat and signed by Carter… I think he was talking about the negative effects of airline deregulation (which as far as I can see fell mostly on airline employees and shareholders). But if it was proposed by a Democrat and signed by Carter, then how did it end up on the list of things the Republicans did for blacks? > [@](#): > > From no facts to twisting what **Susanann** said:… > > Notice the difference? If it doesn’t actually increase access to firearms for blacks, then how the heck is that helping them? > [@](#): > > I am not **Susanann** , so I don’t know, but your argument is a failure once again. Just because there are few blacks in Alaska doesn’t mean that you can ignore them and say that **Susanann** ’s point is invalid. If it helped even just a few of them (I’m not claiming that it did), that’s good enough. I think his point is Sarah palin didn’t do sh!t, she just happened to be governor of a state that already had a mechanism in place for distributing oil profits to its citizens. I guess Palin could have stopped some oil production in Alaska… hardly seems worth mentioning. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/294 "2010-06-25T14:22:16Z")
> [@erez](#): > > It absolutely is. If a policy is just “pro-people” and its effects include blacks, then it is obviously “pro-black” as well, since blacks are people. “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ improves military readiness and morale. With DADT, our military is better able to carry out its varying missions and protect America. The military protects gay Americans, too. Therefore, DADT is a pro-gay policy.” ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2010, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/295 "2010-06-25T15:08:16Z")
> [@erez](#): > > It absolutely is. If a policy is just “pro-people” and its effects include blacks, then it is obviously “pro-black” as well, since blacks are people. I am not suprised on this messageboard that people fail to grasp even what “pro black” means. This is about as genuine a statement as Japanese-internment reparations were “pro-people”, since Japanese Americans are people. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/296 "2010-06-26T02:06:16Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Do we really need to start a great debates thread to discuss whether the Southern strategy was a myth? No we don’t, at least not since 2005 when [RNC chairman Ken Mehlman apologized for it.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html) > [@](#): > > Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Onomatopoeia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/onomatopoeia/32/4145_2.png) [@Onomatopoeia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Onomatopoeia)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/297 "2010-06-26T03:14:41Z")
> [@erez](#): > > You better start providing some facts and data instead of trying to “recall” if you want to be taken seriously. For example, doubling of the child credit or creating a new 10% bottom bracket by Bush certainly hugely affected low income payers. Thanks mainly to Bush’s cuts, there are now a record number of non-payers of federal taxes (more than a third of all tax returns in 2008 and likely to grow in 2009 and 2010, according to the Tax Foundation). Upon research, I see that indeed the poor did receive a tax cut under Bush, albeit extremely modest. A tax cut, even if only $42 a year, is a tax cut after all. Also, those who paid no taxes because their incomes fell below the taxable threshold can thank the EITC, enacted not under Bush, but Gerald Ford who, although a Republican, and not a particularly strong president, was, IMO, a pretty decent guy. Anyway, **Susanann** ’s implication was that the tax cut was targeted to blacks, which it clearly wasn’t. > [@erez](#): > > Not that I necessarily agree with **Susanann** , but once again you need to show some support for your claims. Your opinion is just that and your attempt to start talking about “minorities” instead of “blacks” because it fits your agenda better, even if that’s not the topic, is transparent. My agenda was to state that a proposal to build a wall to keep out illegal aliens, which is xenophobic and racist, presents a detriment not solely accruable to hispanics but to blacks as well. Ask me how. > [@erez](#): > > Once again, no justification whatsoever for your opinion. We know for example that the average airfare fell by 30% in inflation-adjusted terms from 1976 to 1990 ([Airline deregulation - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_deregulation)) and that would affect low-income passengers (blacks on average have lower incomes) more. But this deregulation was proposed by a Democrat and signed by Carter… **Damuri Ajashi** ’s response was what I was getting at. Airline deregulation negatively impacted the incomes of low-level airline and airport employees, including baggage handlers and ground crew, many of whom were black. I’m probably one of the three people on the planet who liked President Carter, but even I thought deregulation of the airlines was a bad move. > [@erez](#): > > From no facts to twisting what **Susanann** said: > > Notice the difference? You’re parsing too tightly to make a point that doesn’t address the issue, which is that the law didn’t result in more guns legally owned by blacks. And again, **Susanann** ’s implication was that this was a law designed to benefit blacks when that could not possibly be further from the truth. > [@erez](#): > > I am not **Susanann** , so I don’t know, but your argument is a failure once again. Just because there are few blacks in Alaska doesn’t mean that you can ignore them and say that **Susanann** ’s point is invalid. If it helped even just a few of them (I’m not claiming that it did), that’s good enough. **Susanann** ’s point is invalid because she credits Sarah Palin who had nothing to do with instituting the fund, nor was its disbursement designed to benefit blacks. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/298 "2010-06-26T03:54:30Z")
> [@Onomatopoeia](#): > > Upon research, I see that indeed the poor did receive a tax cut under Bush, albeit extremely modest. A tax cut, even if only $42 a year, is a tax cut after all. Well, to be fair, the poor weren’t paying very much to begin with. The thing about taxation is not how much we tax, that is determined over the long run by how much we spend. The question is how will that tax burden be spread. And while the wealthy carry the lion’s share of the federal income tax burden both before and after Bush, they have shifted more of their burden to future generations than any other group. > [@kunilou](#): > > No we don’t, at least not since 2005 when [RNC chairman Ken Mehlman apologized for it.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html) Then why does someone come along and try to wave away the Southern Strategy every time it some up? The same sort of phenomenon occurs with slavery and the civil war; tax cuts that increase tax revenues; education vouchers; and recently social security as a Ponzi scheme (there are some things that conservatives also have to constantly prove over and over again as well). WHy do we have to keep reproving these things (often to the same people) over and over again? ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/299 "2010-06-26T05:06:12Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > This is true, when Republicans cut taxes, they shift the burden away from the top 0.1% and the bottom 20-40% of Americans and shift them to the middle/upper middle class. The way they figure it, the bottom 20-40% didn’t contribute much to begin with and the top 0.1% need their money for campaign contributions. The Bush tax cuts did directly lower taxes on the middle class. An argument could be made that they were lowered more for upper class or that they increased the deficit because there were no accompanying spending cuts, thus indirectly increasing future taxes. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think he was talking about the negative effects of airline deregulation (which as far as I can see fell mostly on airline employees and shareholders). But if it was proposed by a Democrat and signed by Carter, then how did it end up on the list of things the Republicans did for blacks? The impact of lower airfares on the ability to travel by airplane by lower-income public (which includes a lot of blacks) is undoubtedly very significant. There would have to be a huge impact on the much lower number of airline employees and shareholders for your statement to be true. I doubt very much that it is. For example, you can’t neglect shareholders of companies created thanks to the additional opportunities due to the deregulation. There are definitely more airline employees now than before deregulation (see BTS data) and the closest BLS survey I can find shows that the wages in this industry increased from 1980 to 1995. As to why it was mentioned, I don’t know, it wasn’t my list. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > If it doesn’t actually increase access to firearms for blacks, then how the heck is that helping them? I don’t know why you and **Onomatopoeia** both have such huge problems understanding a simple sentence by **Susanann**. It was about **carrying concealed weapons** , not about increasing access to all firearms or any such thing. You’re creating a straw man. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I think his point is Sarah palin didn’t do sh!t, she just happened to be governor of a state that already had a mechanism in place for distributing oil profits to its citizens. I guess Palin could have stopped some oil production in Alaska… hardly seems worth mentioning. **Onomatopoeia** ’s argument specifically mentioned “there are very few blacks in Alaska” and that’s what I was responding to. ---
**Author:** ![erez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@erez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erez)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2010, 5:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057/300 "2010-06-26T05:44:47Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ improves military readiness and morale. With DADT, our military is better able to carry out its varying missions and protect America. The military protects gay Americans, too. Therefore, DADT is a pro-gay policy.” Laughable attempt. Obviously both positive and negative effects of a policy have to considered. If the effects of DADT were only those you stated, then it’d be a true statement. My simplified statement was about policies that are positive for everybody (“pro-people” and I even mentioned “its effects include blacks” to apparently in vain prevent jokers like you from trying to twist it around). > [@julius blaze](#): > > I am not suprised on this messageboard that people fail to grasp even what “pro black” means. This is about as genuine a statement as Japanese-internment reparations were “pro-people”, since Japanese Americans are people. :rolleyes: Yet another poster for whom apparently it’s a revelation that a policy can have positive effects on a racial group without specifically targeting it and it might even be positive for other races too! There can be no way for a policy to be positive for blacks, unless it only benefits them, right **julius blaze**? One might call such a policy “racist,” but for **julius blaze** it’s the way the government should be run. Otherwise, how could blacks ever vote for Republicans, since they didn’t get any blacks-specific giveaways lately? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/blacks-and-the-gop/543057.md?page=16)