Florida's GOP gubernatorial nominee says a vote for his black opponent would 'monkey this up'

[Jeanne_S]

Shrink as n cleaning out the RINO.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Focus on education … for men AND women.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Since BLM is not a hierarchical organization, there is no one “motivation.” There are thousands of individual motivations, and some of them are racists, probably. But most of them are not.

That’s a great excuse, but I’m not buying it.

You were the one who said that BLM has some other motive. Is that an act of faith, or do you have a reason to think so?

You will note that I specified “ when there are no other variables .” In the case you mentioned, there is another obvious variable. That variable is the population density. That more than anything else influences the incidence of violence.

I disagree. I believe the statistics clearly indict progressive government

Again, act of faith, or do you have a reason to dismiss or minimize the role of high population density in statistics on violence?

You can speculate that violence has something to do with the policies of the leaders, but the statistics alone do not prove it. But in the statistics I refer to (the higher proportion of unarmed black men being shot by police) where is the “other variable” (besides racism) that can explain the statistic?

And population density does not alone explain it. It doesn’t explain the high incidence of black in black crime, anymore than race explains it.

Are you saying that having a Democratic mayor explains black on black crime? That does not explain it either.

 

[Inisfallen]

The progressive racism against blacks. continues today, as we can see in large inner cities. It also has expanded now, using racist intersectionality and identity politics to divide people.

I believe your standard is “specific, verifiable evidence.” You mentioned it above. Several times.

I understand from your posts that mere correlation is not enough.

Show us your specific, verifiable evidence for your proposition.

 

[JonNC]

You were the one who said that BLM has some other motive. Is that an act of faith, or do you have a reason to think so?

I have no reason to believe that the hierarchical system impacts the motives.

Again, act of faith, or do you have a reason to dismiss or minimize the role of high population density in statistics on violence?

No. A statistical reality. This place a what you posted earlier. Either the approach is valid or not. You can’t cherry pick it.

Are you saying that having a Democratic mayor explains black on black crime? That does not explain it either.

Actually, it explains the conditions consistent with cities run by progressive Democrats for 50 years. Being black is not the reason.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Yes, the Democratic Party used to be the party of conservatives. Slavery was, after all, the tradition. The Democrats were upholding traditional Souther

And this is factually false. When the south started turning conservative…

The south did not “turn conservative.” They turned Republican. That invalidates the rest of your argument.

The Democratic Party has always been the progressive party. No one claims that Wilson was a conservative. No one claims that FDR was.

You aren’t going back far enough. Democrats in the 18th century were conservatives. They became more liberal through the 20th century, which includes Wilson and FDR.

Some time in the early 20th century a realignment began. The realignment culminated with the election of Ronald Reagan. The Republican Party had become the party of conservatives and the Democratic Party became the party of liberals. Keep that in mind whenever you refer to history to justify your view of today’s political parties.

This is factually false. Blacks started voting Democrat in the 1930’s for economic reasons, thinking the New Deal was a good thing. It was an alliance of convenience between blacks and the progressive Democrats that continued to defend segregation…

In the 1930’s some Democrats were conservative and some were progressive. The blacks voted for the progressive ones. There is no Democrat defender of segregation who got the black vote.

 

[JonNC]

I believe your standard is “specific, verifiable evidence.” You mentioned it above. Several times.

I understand from your posts that mere correlation is not enough.

Show us your specific, verifiable evidence for your proposition.

You go first. I think using your approach validates my conclusion.
Unless you want to use mine for your conclusions.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You were the one who said that BLM has some other motive. Is that an act of faith, or do you have a reason to think so?

I have no reason to believe that the hierarchical system impacts the motives.

It does make it harder for you to demonstrate that BLM has racist motives by finding one BLM supporter who is racist. You have to show that “most of them” are racist. I doubt you can do that.

Again, act of faith, or do you have a reason to dismiss or minimize the role of high population density in statistics on violence?

No. A statistical reality. This place a what you posted earlier. Either the approach is valid or not. You can’t cherry pick it.

No, I posted that statistical correlation is sufficient if there are no other variables. If there are other variables then it is not sufficient. No cherry picking involved - just correct and consistent application of the principle.

Are you saying that having a Democratic mayor explains black on black crime? That does not explain it either.

Actually, it explains the conditions consistent with cities run by progressive Democrats for 50 years. Being black is not the reason.

No, but population density is the reason, and population density has been high for 50 years. As population got higher, violence got worse.

 

[JonNC]

You aren’t going back far enough. Democrats in the 18th century were conservatives. They became more liberal through the 20th century, which includes Wilson and FDR.

There is no reason to believe that the racism of Wilson was any different than his Democratic predecessors. All along, it has been conservatives and Republicans that have fought against the scourge of racism and bigotry.

In the 1930’s some Democrats were conservative and some were progressive. The blacks voted for the progressive ones. There is no Democrat defender of segregation who got the black vote.

A few were. And some of the Democrats finally followed the Republicans in fighting segregation, to their credit, including some liberals.

 

[Inisfallen]

You go first. I think using your approach validates my conclusion.
Unless you want to use mine for your conclusions.

I haven’t made any claim other than “racism exists.” You on the other hand, made a specific claim linking Democratic Party government of large cities with crime and poverty.

I’m asking if you can back up your own claim in accordance with the standard you set.

One would think this would be easy for you, since you undoubtedly adhere to your own standard. So I’m thinking you must have specific, verifiable evidence for your claim.

Let’s see it.

 

[JonNC]

It does make it harder for you to demonstrate that BLM has racist motives by finding one BLM supporter who is racist. You have to show that “most of them” are racist. I doubt you can do that.

Oh, you mean like showing that most whites are racist, or most Republicans are racist, or most Trump supporters are racist. Yeah, I get that. I’ve been hearing it every election cycle for all of my adult life, not from you, obviously, but from progressive Democrats.
And now, the lie is foisted on DeSantis because he used terms like “monkeying”, a term even Obama used, and “articulate”, which I frankly disagree with. Articulate and socialist seem mutually exclusive to me.

 

[Inisfallen]

Oh, you mean like showing that most whites are racist, or most Republicans are racist, or most Trump supporters are racist. Yeah, I get that. I’ve been hearing it every election cycle for all of my adult life, not from you, obviously, but from progressive Democrats.

Funny. None of the progressive Democrats I know believe that most white people, or most Republicans, or most Trump supporters, are racists. What’s your evidence that this is a belief generally held by progressive Democrats?

 

[JonNC]

I haven’t made any claim other than “racism exists.” You on the other hand, made a specific claim linking Democratic Party government of large cities with crime and poverty.

Untrue. You claimed that institutional racism existed. If it is institutional, it can be proven. Jim Crow was institutional racism. Specific and proven.

I’m asking if you can back up your own claim in accordance with the standard you set.

I asked you first. Can you back up your claim, and don’t dodge by saying I wouldn’t believe any proof.

One would think this would be easy for you, since you undoubtedly adhere to your own standard. So I’m thinking you must have specific, verifiable evidence for your claim.

Then show me how easy it is. Specific, verifiable proof of institutional racism in government today. Maybe Eric Holder, but even that is hard to prove.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, but population density is the reason, and population density has been high for 50 years. As population got higher, violence got worse.

Do you really think that’s adequate? There are places where population density is extremely high and crime quite low. I recall my old neighborhood in St. Louis north of Lindell near DeBaliviere, where crime was rampant. Developers bought up the whole neighborhood and gentrified it. If anything, the population now is more dense but less crime ridden.

On the other hand, the near north suburbs like Florissant, and Ferguson were very low crime, low density. The density has not changed but the crime has increased. “The Hill” is denser that those northern suburbs, but crime is lower.

I think any St. Louisan would confirm what I’m saying. Density probably matters, but it’s not the only factor and probably not the main one.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

It does make it harder for you to demonstrate that BLM has racist motives by finding one BLM supporter who is racist. You have to show that “most of them” are racist. I doubt you can do that.

Oh, you mean like showing that most whites are racist, or most Republicans are racist, or most Trump supporters are racist.

As you noted, I don’t say that. If you want to have an argument against someone else, argue with them.

And now, the lie is foisted on DeSantis because he used terms like “monkeying”, a term even Obama used, and “articulate”, which I frankly disagree with. Articulate and socialist seem mutually exclusive to me.

OK, good. Now you are at least addressing the right issue.

 

[JonNC]

Funny. None of the progressive Democrats I know believe that most white people, or most Republicans, or most Trump supporters, are racists. What’s your evidence that this is a belief generally held by progressive Democrats?

Lots of them in the media and in politics. Tom Perez, Keith Ellison to name two.

 

[Inisfallen]

Then show me how easy it is. Specific, verifiable proof of institutional racism in government today. Maybe Eric Holder, but even that is hard to prove.

Stacking the deck much? Funny how you see lots and lots of racism on the part of black people, but so little on the part of white people. That’s just an observation, but it is noticeable.

 

[Inisfallen]

Lots of them in the media and in politics. Tom Perez, Keith Ellison to name two.

That hardly amounts to specific, verifiable evidence that the belief that most white people, or most Republicans, or most Trump supporters, are racists is generally or even widely held by progressive Democrats.

 

[Inisfallen]

Untrue. You claimed that institutional racism existed. If it is institutional, it can be proven. Jim Crow was institutional racism. Specific and proven.

What I actually said was " I don’t think to say that rampant de facto segregation of our schools and cities is the result of ongoing institutional racism . . . makes me a racist."

I’m going to stand by that, but it’s not a claim that needs proof.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

No, but population density is the reason, and population density has been high for 50 years. As population got higher, violence got worse.

Do you really think that’s adequate? There are places where population density is extremely high and crime quite low. I recall my old neighborhood in St. Louis north of Lindell near DeBaliviere, where crime was rampant. Developers bought up the whole neighborhood and gentrified it. If anything, the population now is more dense but less crime ridden.

That is a good point. But it shows that there is yet another variable besides population density, and that is average income level. That changed with gentrification, right? And did the gentrification of the Lindell and DeBaliviere coincide with St. Louis changing from a Democrat to a Republican mayor? Remember, that’s the position I am arguing against - the idea that violence in big cities is the direct result of Democratic leadership.

I think any St. Louisan would confirm what I’m saying. Density probably matters, but it’s not the only factor and probably not the main one.

I agree. Income matters too. But the party of the mayor does not.