Back to blog

Segregation in America

See blog

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.

P Dunbar

It seems that the New York City numbers, or at least their interpretations, may be dubious and thus call into question whether interpretations of figures for some of the other cities can be challenged. As an immigrant city, NYC, like almost all older other cosmopolitan cities, has long had a history of migrant enclaves.
The statistics cited in the article lump all black persons together per city. The reality is much more nuanced. In NYC alone, there are clusters of black Africans in the Bronx and Manhattan as well as black West Indians in Queens and Brooklyn boroughs. Within this latter group, their locations further break down into hyphenated-nationalities. If they elect to be labeled as black, same applies to South American Hispanophone and Lusophone immigrants, each in different parts of Queens alone. Lineal black Americans are heavily clustered in Harlem and select parts of each other borough and may sometimes be a minority within locales of these other blacks.
As the immigrant experience around the world and throughout history shows, this clustering should be expected and does not reflect pre-established citizens' attitudes towards newcomers.
Conflating Rev. Dr. M. L. King's historic campaigns for racial equality with today's resident-clustering patterns in major cities as proxy for racial prejudice may be a stretch too far, if historical patterns over millenniums are any indication.


When states legislatures/panels draw up Congressional Districts,
they redline districts so that blacks may win the districts.
Is this a form of segregation?

Phil Hayward

Two important points that can be mentioned in this context.
1) As Glaeser and Vigdor point out in a paper called "The End of the Segregated Century", the lowest rates of segregation are to be found in the cities that are most responsive to housing demand by allowing "sprawl" to happen freely; their housing markets remain systemically affordable (median multiple below 4) regardless of how fast they grow. Houston and Dallas are the two least segregated cities in the USA today, and generally the South is the least segregated followed by "Flyover Country"; ironic, given the way the "liberal" Left in California and the Northwest automatically take the moral high ground about "racism" and "disparate impact".

This is partly because a higher proportion of the fast-growing, affordable cities, are new developments where "all comers" have been accepted (and could afford the prices), there is less long-term entrenched patterns.

Thomas Sowell uses the term "Green Disparate Impact", for enviro regulations that drive up the price of all housing, which always correlates with the unintended consequence of increased segregation. Nicole Garnett, Law Professor with a strong sense of social justice, calls it "unseemly" that there is a frenzy to "contain urban sprawl" just at the point in history at which previously excluded minorities were the chief beneficiaries of continued trends to suburbanisation.

2) Romans Pancs & Nicolaas J. Vriend, 2002. "Schelling's Neighborhood Segregation Model Revisited," describe how even the slightest tendency for people to choose "like" neighbours results in quite severe self-sorting effects in the long run - so it is not necessarily a demonstration of the nastiest kind of racism, it can be the result of quite mild "preferences".

P Dunbar in reply to Phil Hayward

Point two accounts for what the article seems to miss, i.e. people of common affinities tend to cluster.
= = = = =
Re "Thomas Sowell uses the term 'Green Disparate Impact', for enviro regulations that drive up the price of all housing, which always correlates with the unintended consequence of increased segregation."
Dr. T. Sowell also argues that integration is much less important as long as different groups have free choice to access or create resources. He also implies that urbanization has been instrumental to mankind's advancements. Maybe the referenced phrase out of its full context leads to certain conclusions.
Interestingly, it seems Dr. Sowell's scholarship is based on facts (with some evident biases) and is often at odds with his op-eds and widely broadcast policy and political thoughts.

Phil Hayward in reply to P Dunbar

Thanks for the comment - yes, the mechanism by which "higher house prices" (whether a consequence of restrictive urban planning or not) causes increased segregation, is "by income". Spatial sorting of urban populations "by income level" is always greater, the higher the average house price. In so far as this has "racial" consequences, the channel is the correlation between racial groups and lower incomes, rather than any "malice" - it really is the colour-blind invisible hand at work.

Incidentally, this is why higher house prices tends to correlate with less efficient commuting patterns on average. In a city where the price of all kinds of housing at all locations is relatively lower, there is much more chance of households making efficient location decisions. A similar effect applies to the cost of commercial sites. "Pricing out" effects always increase average commuting inefficiencies.

This is another example of Hayekian "unintended consequences" when the higher house prices are the result of regulations that "contain urban sprawl" to "reduce commuting distances". One of the clearest illustrations that market distortions have extremely severe consequences for the efficiency of "spatial sorting", is Hong Kong. It extremely high density is loved by "save the planet" urban planners, who have nice utopian pictures in their heads of workers catching the elevator down to the ground floor from their apartment, and walking along the street to where their job is, or riding a couple of subway stops. The reality is that average commute times in Hong Kong are possibly the longest in all the sets of data of cities around the world! Easily twice as long as cities with 1/20 the population density!

The impact on households with lower incomes is the greatest; monster commutes are the sad lot of those who can't afford "less inefficient" locations. There is more chance of someone in the bottom income quintile in Houston getting accommodation near the actual CBD, than there is of someone comparable in London getting accommodation anywhere even inside the Green Belt.

P Dunbar in reply to Phil Hayward

It's an interesting viewpoint and timely as well. Over the last couple weeks, two articles (links below) covering recent drops in urban populations have highlighted different aspects of it. Both concluded that urban center popularity peaked a few years ago largely because of their costs of living.
One however emphasizes that younger residents haven't been able to afford escalating housing costs and so have moved elsewhere that's cheaper. The other notes that those leaving urban areas, especially on the coasts, are often moving to smaller, lower cost hinterland cities and being replaced by those earning more, hence big cities don't lose their tax bases. Both viewpoints are consistent with yours, that segregation is "by income."
The normal urban affordability pattern suggest that these trends are self-correcting. I like to think that residential property prices are a short-term function of supply and demand and a long-term function of the productivity of residents.
If, for example, housing costs surge over a period to outstrip what a common resident could afford, over the short-term, one or two things will usually happen: (1) lower income / productivity residents leave (and this could, though not necessarily, be coupled with their replacement with higher income / productivity arrivals) or (2) price increases abate, either through increased supply (as is the recent case in NYC metro area rentals) or slackening demand as lower income residents depart. Either way, the market price reaches equilibrium over the long-term based mostly on resident productivity.
So what happens to lower income residents who can't afford city-living? As near island-states, Singapore and Hong Kong may be too narrow samples to apply lessons to vast nations like the U.S. Those in the U.S. with lower productivity who endure long commutes eventually leave. Places like Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Arizona are chock-full of lower productivity, expensive city migrants. Referring to your other example, an office receptionist or secretary working in Mayfair commuting from south Surrey likely earns more than working locally and that likely compensates for the long transit times. If not the person would leave the job or residence.
What's the result of that lower income group migration, those remaining amongst them are paid much more if demand still persists for their output. For example, one affluent California police department paid its police officers over $200,000 per year and, several years ago, police detectives earned over $250,000. Many of those law enforcement officials don't live in the areas they serve, partly because their areas are still too expensive for them.
As an aside, city policies such as incentives for real estate developers to create affordable housing and rent subsidies for lower income residents pervert the market reaching equilibrium resulting in "unintended consequences" that may take half century or longer to rectify, usually to the dissatisfaction of all interested parties.
This is not to suggest that land-use policy is unimportant; it's very important. It's instead to point out that real estate has constraints set by nature (rivers, lakes, swamps, hills, etc.) or man (e.g. policies). If those constraining factors are held constant, cities will reach equilibrium over time.
= = = = =
The links to the articles:

Phil Hayward in reply to P Dunbar

I've been following these trends with interest. They have several very able chroniclers, with Joel Kotkin and Wendell Cox both outstanding, and featuring on "New Geography" blog. There is unfortunately a lot of ideology and wishful thinking underlying "urban planning" fashions, and very selective use of evidence. One of the worst flaws concerns the use of exceptional "Global" and "Superstar" cities as models for everything else, and associated with this, is a kind of cargo-cultism about "form". This cargo-cultism holds that dense and highly productive urban cores are a "consequence of density" rather than both the density and the productivity having evolved from circumstances and history independent of any "planning" influences; therefore simply drawing urban growth boundaries around every city, upzoning, and investing heavily in mass transit, will turn every city into a mini-Manhattan and national and global productivity will soar, as well as the planet being saved from urban sprawl.

This ignores the evidence from the UK,where they have been planning this way since 1947, that regulating every city in this way results in LOWER productivity in the aggregate. One of the secret strengths of the US economy is the way that, as you describe, workforces and whole industries can relocate to where the land and housing is cheaper - and the national economy does not lose these sectors and does not have to pay unemployment benefits instead. The UK would be very much more productive if the multitude of medium and small cities like Manchester, Liverpool, Coventry etc were like Austin, Indianapolis, and Nashville rather than overpriced and potential-constrained as they are. Urbanistas are completely wrong to sneer at the "lower productivity" sprawling cities which would be "so much better in every way if they too constrained their sprawl". But the UK has high density low-productivity medium and small cities along with their famous London (which is what it is because of lucky accidents of history, not because of urban planning since 1947). Using a few Global or Superstar cities as exemplars is no less absurd than using exclusionary suburbs as exemplars because people of higher income live there: therefore "if we had large-lot mandates everywhere, everywhere would be more productive"! Planning fashions are opposed to large lot zoning yet their own standard of argument could be used (equally wrongly) as an argument in favour of them.

The simple reason that in these FEW exemplar cities, fleeing locals are replaced by incomers of high income, is the nature of those cities. If high-worth immigrants simply dispersed equally to every city, then there would be neither the exemplars or "the problem". But they disproportionately go to where the industries and customers and contacts are, that suit them. (But note that some proportion of immigrants are also attracted to the low costs and lower-density lifestyle in cities like Nashville and Indianapolis). The other dirty secret of high-cost global and superstar cities, is that low-paid menial work is mostly done by recent immigrants from the 3rd world who will tolerate living at 8 to a room to cope with the rents. Then the elites narrative is that "unemployed white trash in Liverpool are too lazy to move to London and better themselves".

Returning to your comment: people's tolerance is all relative. The problem in the UK is that there are no good options. Like for like (job and housing requirements), commutes will be longer in duration and housing costs higher in comparison to US cities. Even in New York "urban area" including New Jersey and Long Island, there would be hundreds of times as many multi-room separate family homes as there is in London "urban area" and in New York they would be half the cost or less, in real terms. And New York is "expensive" in US terms - the difference is that New York was sprawling freely at low density for decades while London was put in a central-planning straightjacket.

Re "natural" constraints, I don't know of any example of a city that was just as expensive all along before urban planners decided they needed to save the planet from sprawl; I know of dozens of examples of cities that have been held up as examples of "natural constraints" yet they had decades with a house price median multiple between 3 and 4, and became price-bubble / rent-extractive cities at the point where fringe-expansion rationing was introduced. Even the fact that infrastructure is more expensive where bridges and tunnels are required, does not need to put a "choke" on the conversion of low-cost rural land to urban use. The cost of infrastructure is virtually NEVER anywhere near as high as the "price of raw land" gouge that happens everywhere that landowners are gifted exploitive powers by urban planners. When "house price median multiples" have inflated from a historical 3-4, up to 6-10, the land prices have inflated 30-fold, or 100-fold, or even more.

P Dunbar in reply to Phil Hayward

We seem to be saying similar re urban growth constraints.
My emphasis is that man-made constraints eventually reach equilibrium, as they would have had those constraints instead been nature-made. Since you're closely follow this topic, please don't mind if I ask a couple questions: Don't residents of cities with multiples-higher median housing costs owing to planning policies eventually pay their opportunity costs in many ways? For instance, lower-income and civil service employees would need to earn more to live and work in these cities and hence taxes and wages, amongst other things, on residents would increase leading residents above and below the median to resettle elsewhere. (This could be one of several opportunity costs, of which most may not have a financial component.) Hence, an equilibrium would be found. Is this sensible?
Also, as you suggest, the "cargo cult" benefits of mini-Manhattans (or more recently urban Silicon Valleys) is questionable. Still, doesn't urban density correlate to greater productivity over time? It seems such cities serve as homes for industry clusters making nearly everyday like an industry conference reducing information gathering costs and other friction costs of commerce. In other words, there seems to be value in broader relationships and chance encounters that dense urban settings, man-made or otherwise, foster that is less conducive to bedroom communities.
Following that last question, as an observer, what do you think will happen to those new, "instant, prefabricated" Chinese glimmering cities? And are there successful historical parallels?
Thank you.

Phil Hayward in reply to P Dunbar

Appreciate your interest. Yes, there is an "equilibrium" when there are constraints to fringe growth. However, it is a different equilibrium to the cities without the same constraints.

"Median multiples" always have a equilibrium of between 3 and 4 when there are no constraints: the crucial thing is that rural land, which is extremely cheap, is being converted to urban use without significant markups in the price. If you graph a "land price curve" for any city with a median multiple of 3, it would have a very gradual slope from the surrounding rural land, upwards to the city centre.

However, every time there is a choke or quota on the rate at which land can be converted, there is what land economists call a "discontinuity" in the price curve. It is unusual for this discontinuity to be of a FACTOR less than 20. The longer the policy is persisted with, the higher the factor rises. It is uncommon for it to be below 100 anywhere in the UK now, and around London it is 900. That is, developers are paying 900 times as much in real terms, for rural-but-rezoned land, than a smooth price curve would have suggested for that location (and this smooth curve is a reality in any city with a median multiple of 3). Under these conditions the median multiple is never lower than 6, and cyclical volatility is an order of magnitude greater.

The reason that the median multiple might be "only" 6 versus 3, even though the raw land price might be inflated by a factor of 100, is density. Under these conditions, site/land value is elastic to allowed density of development. It is a myth that land value is static and upzoning "creates opportunities for smaller but more affordable" housing units. It would be more realistic to state that the price of a housing unit is close to static, and allowing them to be developed denser (and more stacked up) merely inflates the land value faster than new units are actually developed. In fact the smaller the housing units can be made on average, it seems the HIGHER the prices / rents can be extracted from households. The very densest cities of all, like Hong Kong, tend to have median multiples of 15 and higher. The value of land is literally thousands of times higher as a result of this packing and stacking.

I explain in a published essay titled "The Power and Necessity of Consumer Surplus", that what is going on in median-multiple-3 cities versus median-multiple-6+ cities, is that land in the first case is priced the same as any "cost input" for which the resource is superabundant. Housing can get steadily larger and better in quality for the same real prices, just like all consumer goods in adequately free markets for resources and production and supply. The land price is so low relative to the level to which incomes have grown, that it is not a significant factor in the price of finished housing, and improved production techniques, new materials, etc have full scope to make housing ever-better in value. This is what happened in most of the first world for most of the 20th century. However, a quota or choke on that superabundant resource - land in much lower-value uses (rural, forestry, etc) - results in urban land turning into a "rent-extractive" commodity - people are forced to pay "as much as they can stand" for it. And this "black hole" effect sucks any "value" created anywhere else in the system, into it. You can reduce the size of housing units, stack them up more, allow reduced quality, reduce builders remuneration, use much cheaper new materials, use new faster production techniques - and the land prices always rise to take out the "slack" and the median multiple of 6+ persists.

So this is an "equilibrium", but it is not the same as the equilibrium that applied to the old (and still applies to the few remaining contemporary) free-to-expand cities.

Phil Hayward in reply to P Dunbar

What I am saying about the correlation between density and productivity is that it is observable in history where largely the density "evolved" as cities evolved a certain type of important "industry". But it is NOT observable, in fact the reverse is the case, where the density is the result of forcing everyone to compete in a gladiatorial fashion, for space within an arbitrary "growth boundary" or some de facto alternative (like "rural character preservation" zoning, or government-department owned land which is the problem in Las Vegas and Phoenix).

I expand on the multitude of reasons, in this work:

Re China, I think their whole approach to urban planning and the capture of massive "planning gain" by government as the sole vendor of greenfields land, is unsustainable and a significant detractor to overall economic competitiveness. A trend that has been going almost unnoticed for too long, is the phenomenon called, in the USA, "re-onshoring": where manufacturing is returning to the USA after a period in China or elsewhere in the developing world. But this re-onshoring is occurring almost exclusively into the States with low urban land costs. Urban land costs tend to "multiply" through the entire local economy as either an advantage or a disadvantage. Germany has notably, in comparison to the UK, remained a manufacturing economy, and maintaining much lower urban land costs has to be a factor in this. Germany does not "allow sprawl" like southern US cities, but their urban area densities fall between that of Britain's and the USA's; and they have a mix of policies including strong powers of compulsory acquisition used as a weapon to suppress land-vendor price expectation, and frequently-exercised "replotting" under Growth Plans.

Britain has a strong "primary economic income" (literally substituting for the manufacturing it does not have) sector in "global finance". Having this sector is a matter of pure historical good luck. Part of cargo-cultist attitudes to "planned density" involves that the "high productivity" will materialise magically even if you were not the location to which Europe's powerful finance families fled to 2 centuries ago during revolutions. For most cities most of the time, this approach to planning will merely destroy the evolution of industries that need lower-cost space to whatever extent; and no-one will be any the wiser about what has been foregone.

Again, I appreciate your interest. I have been posting comments on this general subject on The Economist for a few years, and recently have started on


No matter how much abuse, genocide, oppression, repression, humiliation, killing and ruination that the Jewish peoples have had to endure over millennia, they have always managed to succeed and achieve immense success, by their industry, scholarship, devotion to Judaism, discipline and maintaining a cohesive, communal bond with their fellow Jews.
I wonder if other cultural, racial, gender (male and female) and sexual-orientated groups tried even half as hard, whether they would be capable of achieving something similar? I have never seen the Jews sit around waiting for government handouts. Sometimes, it can be amazing how placing a small amount of effort into a task, may provide ample reward.

NY Expat in reply to homocidalmaniac

Making sweeping generalizations makes me really uncomfortable, although you seem to be quite comfortable with labeling non-jewish minorities as lazy. I'll focus on one example that disproves your sweeping statement that you have, "never seen the jews sit around waiting for government handouts." Clearly, you're not familiar with the Hasidim of NYC who have one of the highest concentrations of Section 8 voucher usage in both NY and the US. Section 8 is a US government rent subsidy for the poor. In fact the Hasidim have organized themselves to maximize their take of "government handouts." This is well known in New York. Not sure if this link will work in Economist comments, but it's from the NY DAILY NEWSTuesday, May 17, 2016 and provides data that not only highlights the community's dependence on rent subsidy, but also calls into question the entire economics of the community since the rents don't align with the cost of the area, one of the most expensive in the country.


While I am absolutely all for equal opportunity and the love and welfare of all mankind, there is a reality that is often ignored in these debates.
This reality is that there are differences between races.
Many black races have a significantly lower IQ and different cultural values to Caucasian and Asian races. This is a proven fact that many people wont like.
And it means that as a race these people are generally going to be on a lower socio-economic strata than others, that this is no ones fault and that there is very little anyone can do about it, except for them.
This does not mean these people are in anyway inferior as human beings, it just that there are differences which shouldn't be ignored.

Reid1605 in reply to guest-ojwinnn

Facts don't have to be proven. They simply are.
There is not one predominantly Black country in the world where the people are prosperous or advanced by Western (OECD) standards. What does this say about Black culture (not individuals)? As far as Blacks in non-Black countries are concerned, xenophobia will always be present. It is an animal instinct we can't simply erase or legislate it.
MLK was a pretty good role model for Blacks. How many are there today like him? Most often, Black leaders today talk about what Blacks are owed - not what they need to do; about how they are treated - not how they act. Until this changes, The Black condition is unlikely to change.

guest-sieiean in reply to guest-ojwinnn

Ah, yes, that old racist chestnut of an idea. This "proven fact" has been debunked so many times by several scholars (Flynn, Nevin) and just won't die. Lazy racists always bring up this bs to justify why deserve another tax cut instead of funding infrastructure, schools, adequate housing. This zombie idea was tired in the 70's.

guest-ojwinnn in reply to guest-sieiean

Lol:) The inevitable hysterical accusations of 'racism'. In fact, the dramatic differences in IQ between races has never been debunked.
IQ studies carried out by professors Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen in 80 different countries between 2002 & 2006 clearly shows these differences.


Furthermore, IQ is essentially a fixed thing. Malleable over a few points, but no more.

Your comment about 'funding infrastructure, schools, adequate housing' only serves to prove my point. If there wasnt differences these welfare handouts wouldn't be necessary, they would procure these things for themselves.

The first white settlers in Australia had none of these things when they arrived. Yet they seemed to obtain them very quickly.

In contrast, the Australian government has thrown billions of dollars over decades at Aboriginal communities, yet nothing has changed.

It doesn't mean white people are better. But it is foolish, dishonest & cowardly to ignore the reality that there is differences. Truth has a way of asserting itself, whether you like it or not.

guest-ojwinnn in reply to Reid1605

MLK indeed was, and still is, an excellent role model, for whites as well as blacks.
So true what you say 'talk about what Blacks are owed - not what they need to do; about how they are treated - not how they act'
I believe this partly is a result of whites that like to paint them as victims, which only serves to take away any sense of self-responsibility.
In the long run it does far more harm than good, as the collapse of countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe demonstrate.

Timothy D. Naegele

Whatever Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed, America's first black president Barack Obama undid and/or destroyed.

If anyone has any doubts whatsoever that Obama was and is a black racist, please read his book "Dreams from My Father." It is all there, in his own words and beliefs, which undergirded eight years of his failed presidency.

See ("Is Barack Obama A Racist?")

Obama grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia, and never lived on the American mainland until he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles. His true beliefs were never consistent with those of most Americans. Indeed, poverty among America's blacks did not improve at all during his presidency.

Timothy D. Naegele in reply to jouris

He has hated Jews and Whites. It is just that simple.

It was no coincidence that he and Moochie sat through Rev. Wright's sermons for about 20 years. They were simpatico.

Also, he has hated Brits and Colonialism. Read the article that I cited.

One of his first acts was to remove Winston Churchill's bust from the Oval Office, which President Trump brought back on his first day in office.

Obama equated Israel with South Africa's Apartheid.

jouris in reply to Timothy D. Naegele

He has hated Jews and Whites. It is just that simple.
He doesn't. It's just that simple.
Lots of people, including a lot of Jews, view Israel's behavior in the West Bank as equivalent to South Africa's apartheid. It doesn't require hating the group (whether Jews or Israelis) to take a dim view of the behavior. Aleichem Shalom.

Timothy D. Naegele in reply to jouris

Nonsense. He hates them—both groups—although he masks his feelings carefully.

If you bother to read the article, you will understand this. It is all there, in his own words.

I was shocked when I read his book for the first time, and ended up reading it twice to make sure that I had not missed anything. And I wrote the article, with quotes and page cites, so I would never forget what I learned.

He and Moochie were perfect for each other: white-hating black racists.

Wait until he cheats on her. That will be next.

See ("Barack Obama’s Sex And Drugs Past")

Timothy D. Naegelain there must be some internal shortcomings or self-esteem issues fueling your diatribe against the Obamas, because your argument is just hyperbolic rubbish which lacks any bearing in reality. Is it the fact that Barack and Michelle Obama made it into America's most elite universities whereas you failed to? Is it the fact that Obama assumed the highest office in the land and most powerful position in the world, whereas you couldn't dream of achieving that in your lifetime? Is it the fact that the Obamas success exposes you for been a white man who fails at everything in life?

It seems looking down on black people is the only thing that keeps your self-esteem afloat, and the fact that the Obamas are far more successful than you can ever dream of makes you very upset. Maybe you should see a therapist to work on these things instead of lashing out online like a psychotic let loose from the asylum.

You have not addressed any of the substantive arguments set forth above, or any of the conclusions reached in my article, which are based on direct quotes from Barack Obama.

Instead, you have engaged nonstop in—to use your own phrase—"hyperbolic rubbish" or mental masturbation.

Why would I attempt to engage with a pig in its wallow? Your premises are such garbage, they don't even deserve a debate.
President Obama, who is half-white, was elected and re-elected by broad swaths of the American public, including more whites numerically than any other racial group. If he was such a white people hater as you claim how you do you explain him winning overwhelmingly white states like Iowa, and all of the states in the New England region... not to mention the mid-west and deep red states like Indiana (in 2008)?
Your racist charges against the President come across as mentally unstable as the crazed lunatic Glenn Beck who was booted from the right wing tabloid Fox News for making similar outlandish claims. From my experience, dudes like you who make this kind of attack against Obama usually have some self-esteem issues they are dealing with internally.

It is unfortunate, "Dude," that your pretense at literacy does not allow you to engage in a substantive discussion of the issues. You retreat to illiterate gibberish, which speaks volumes.

Among other things, President Trump is already ahead in the polls, in relation to where the black racist.Obama was at this stage of his presidency.

Obama will go down in American history as the worst president we have had, by far. Like Hillary Clinton, both deserve to be in prison; and hopefully that happens soon.

See, e.g., ("The Real Russian Conspiracy: Barack Obama, The Clintons, And The Sale Of America’s Uranium To Russia’s Killer Putin")

The faster, the better.

Hahaha... you can invent your own alternative universe, but not your own facts. Pussy-grabber Donald Trump has had the worst poll ratings of any Presidents at the start of their first term. The short-fingered-vulgarian has barely topped 40% approval rating since coming into office which ranks him as one of the most hated Presidents in the history of the United States. This probably explains why Republicans are losing special elections left, right, and center including in deep red places like Alabama.

In fact the way things look right now, Democrats are on track for landslide victories in the midterm elections in November and may not only take back the House, but also the US Senate which was unthinkable not too long ago. Then your pussy-grabber President would be vulnerable for impeachment which would be a great thing for the U.S.A. Hurray!!!

I seem to have touched a chord with you and your low self-esteem as evidenced by your emotional reaction. It's not my fault you have failed as a white man or have a tiny micro-penis. Pull yourself up by your own bootstrap and stop blaming Obama you piece of deplorable white trash.