the idea that if you bring more black people into the system then the banks will have less influence is utter idiocy - you don't need to be white to accept a pay check from goldman sachs (just ask barack obama). but, hillary does have somewhat of a point: you don't get anywhere trying to convince hillary clinton that some ideal is of greater worth than her sponsors. you have to run against her and beat her. why don't you run?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMegFe2GUp
but, if you look into it a little bit further, you'll realize that the democrats really never embraced civil rights so much as they acted to prevent a civil war. they passed the laws, and everything. and, it's true that the really open, loud-mouthed racists moved to the republicans - who courted them on that basis [see the southern strategy]. but, that doesn't suggest that the democrats ever really reversed their positions on much of anything substantive. the truth is that the clintons come from a pretty nasty lineage, and they've done more to uphold it than reverse it.
--
i just want to point out that it's well documented that hillary clinton campaigned for goldwater.
--
this idea that welfare makes people less intelligent is rather curious. does it follow that the strict division of labour would make people more intelligent? that the more work you do, the smarter you get?
it would then follow that the working class should be demonstrably more intelligent, through history, than the idle aristocratic classes, right? that all our great scientists and philosophers should have been people that spent their lives performing hard labour.
ah, calvin. orwell's got nothing on calvin, i tell you. nothing at all.
--
milton friedman also supported a guaranteed income, though. it's not a particularly left-wing idea.
--
this is a debate i've seen before, and these are all the same arguments that normally come up. i wanted to let it come to a conclusion...
see, here's the thing: mlk was neither a republican nor a democrat. he was a communist. and, that's why he ended up dead.
southern black democrats, today, are not a liberal voting bloc. but, they do vote overwhelmingly for the democrats. it's hard to see why mlk would exist outside of this existing relationship, although he would no doubt have been marginalized by now.
just look at cornel west, for example.