House and Senate are more or less local elections. Especially the house. They literally represent your district. Different from the presidential elections.
Anyone who's eligible to vote can vote if they wish. I'm all for voting locally. Tariq's point, as well as the point of others, is that voting purely for the sake of voting, especially at the national level, is not the best use of your vote. Unfortunately, the black electorate has been doing this, especially with democrats, for a very long time at the national level. It's very rare these days for a Dem candidate for prez to not get at least 80-85% of the black vote. And black voters for the most part don't get much for their support, if at all.
It's even weirder when other groups more or less vote based on who is pushing their agendas. Gays will vote for the candidate that supports their cause. Latinos will vote for the candidate that supports immigration reform that benefits them specifically. Asians will look for candidates who, among many other things, is against Affirmative action (they are going hard against it in Cali and other places). And so on.
Black voters have strongly voted Democrat for some time now. Yet, we've had DA's in heavily democratic areas basically shyt on black victims that were killed unjustly by police officers by not even inditing the killers. We've had democratic mayors call those protesting against one of those killings thugs (Rawlings-Blake), and another who flat out tried to cover up a cop who got caught killing a black youth unjustly on tape (Rahm Emmanuel). Also, it was a Dem president, Bill Clinton, who pushed for policies that resulted in a lot of black people being locked up today for bs charges.
Other people in those democratic areas more or less didn't do a damn thing either. During the Mike Brown situation, the governor of Missouri basically didn't do shyt except sending national guards troops and tell people to go home. Similar situation occurred in Maryland during the Freddie Gray situation. The known notable exception in all this was Marilyn Mosby, Baltimore's state attorney, who decided to charge the cops complicit in Freddie Gray's death. And the only reason Mosby, a much younger candidate who was outspent 3 to 1, got that position is that the people actually got their vote on in a local election.
As for Obama, rather than siding with the electorate that supported him the most, he basically tried playing both sides of the fence in terms of rhetoric, while pretty much doing very little and nothing notable on the police brutality issue.
He could've said that said that there are good police out there, but the irresponsible ones should be held accountable, similar to how he framed his argument when calling certain protesters thugs on a press conference (which is a whole topic in of itself).
He did not.
He could've slapped fed charges on Eric Garner's killer, just like George Bush Sr. slapped fed charges on the cops that beat up Rodney King after they were acquitted. The same killing everyone saw on tape.
He did not.
He did, however, not only openly supported gay marriage (I have no problems with gay marriage personally), after reversing a position he's held for over 10 years, he's actively pushing gay marriage overseas, especially in Africa.
Obama: Gay marriage ruling is 'a victory for America'
Barack Obama tells African states to abandon anti-gay discrimination
He did, however, sign a bill specifically benefiting police officers.
Obama signs 'Blue Alert' law to protect police
He did, however, sign executive orders that deferred deportations for an estimated 5 million undocumented immigrants (both children and parents) and provided undocumented immigrants (who meet a certain criteria) a renewable two-year work permit and exemption from deportation (for those that came illegally as children) and a three-year, renewable work permit and exemption from deportation (for parents).
Obama Announces His New Immigration Plan
Deferred Action for Parents of Americans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
He did, however, earmark $12 million for holocaust survivors. Even though the U.S. had nothing to do with either causing, supporting, or continuing the holocaust).
Obama administration earmarks $12M for Holocaust survivors
His administration even began negotiations with France for holocaust survivors...in France...to get reparations. When the states of New York and Maryland were thinking of contracting a French company that transported jews to concentration camps during WWII, the Obama Administration send both states a warning saying that they are messing up the negotiations.
Obama administration warns states over Holocaust reparation talks with France
Meanwhile, Obama, like most dems (and repubs) is officially against reparations for black people in the US. And he has opposed it for a long time.
Obama opposes reparations for slavery
Now, are there some bills / laws Obama has past that ended up benefiting black people in some way? Sure. Were black people specifically the intended recipients? No, no really.
And even initiatives like My Brother's Keeper (which I like), or even the billions of dollars to farmers, other people benefit greatly as well.
-My Brother's Keeper: Black and Latino Youth.
Obama: Black, Latino Young Men Focus Of 'My Brother's Keeper Alliance'
-The Billions for farmers: Black farmers and Native American .
http://content.usatoday.com/communi...tlement-with-black-farmers-native-americans/1
So with all things in mind, yes, black voters should strongly consider changing their behavior. Black voters have played the "lesser of two evils" game for a very long time and it has bit us in the ass many times over, even with a black president around. Many black voters basically vote on autopilot, whether it be out of tradition, obligation, or otherwise. And when they do, they for the most part don't ask much out of their elected officials. As long as said elected official mentioned some rhetoric about black people that may be interpreted as positive, all is good.
Meanwhile, other groups are getting stuff they specifically ask for. Why? Because at some point, they put the pressure on their officials, and they are willing to pull both their votes AND their money off the table and put it to someone else who will take on their cause.
If both parties, and the Dems in particular, notice that the black vote is willing to not vote (D) this time around, you best believe BOTH parties will notice this. And ultimately, if neither party at a national level are willing to take on causes that black voter specifically ask for, then not voting for either, at a national level, should def be on the table.
Debate? What you think this is Harvard? Stop being a scary ass nikka and call that man. He ain't Bill O'Reilly, if you're making sense and not rambling just to ramble he won't cut you off.
