This topic is locked from further discussion.
Not just the Diocese, but the Church as a whole. Also votes on the issue of gay marriage have little to do with the issue of the HHS mandate.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
Your positions and criticisms make much more sense now. I'm guessing you agree with the Green Bay Diocese position, then.
jimkabrhel
Gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with the HHS mandate, except for the mentality of the church for all the topics put together. My point is that referring to such things as "intrinsically evil" won't resonate with a populus that is becoming less religious.
Even if religion doesn't disappear, it's influence will fade.
That trend may reverse itself and is only limited to certain areas anyway. Gay marriage will eventually plateau and perhaps go on to fade. Feminism in the sense of the influence of Planned Parenthood and NARAL feminism is minishing and I would say within a few decades Planned Parenthood may well be bankrupt and gone.[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Not just the Diocese, but the Church as a whole. Also votes on the issue of gay marriage have little to do with the issue of the HHS mandate.
whipassmt
Gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with the HHS mandate, except for the mentality of the church for all the topics put together. My point is that referring to such things as "intrinsically evil" won't resonate with a populus that is becoming less religious.
Even if religion doesn't disappear, it's influence will fade.
That trend may reverse itself and is only limited to certain areas anyway. Gay marriage will eventually plateau and perhaps go on to fade. Feminism in the sense of the influence of Planned Parenthood and NARAL feminism is minishing and I would say within a few decades Planned Parenthood may well be bankrupt and gone.Where do you get these ideas? I haven't seen any evidence of what you are suggesting. Can you provide any evidence that gay marriage will fade away?
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] Not just the Diocese, but the Church as a whole. Also votes on the issue of gay marriage have little to do with the issue of the HHS mandate.
whipassmt
Gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with the HHS mandate, except for the mentality of the church for all the topics put together. My point is that referring to such things as "intrinsically evil" won't resonate with a populus that is becoming less religious.
Even if religion doesn't disappear, it's influence will fade.
That trend may reverse itself and is only limited to certain areas anyway. Gay marriage will eventually plateau and perhaps go on to fade. Feminism in the sense of the influence of Planned Parenthood and NARAL feminism is minishing and I would say within a few decades Planned Parenthood may well be bankrupt and gone. Meanwhile in the reality based community...one thing I would like to see is electoral votes given out by state based on percentage...I have no idea if this would have helped either candidate...but I feel that it more accurately reflects the people of each state...Omni-Slash
In other words, if a candidate gets 51% of the vote in a certain state, he would get 51% of the state's electoral votes (i.e. 1 more EV than the other guy)? For example I think Romney got about 30% of the vote in Connecticut and Obama got somewhere in the 60s, CT has 7 votes so Obama should get 5 instead of all 7.
I think your system probably wouldn't normally benefit any particular candidate in regards to changing the outcome, however it would make the elections closer and make the candidates pay more attention to states other than the ones they normally focus on.
That trend may reverse itself and is only limited to certain areas anyway. Gay marriage will eventually plateau and perhaps go on to fade. Feminism in the sense of the influence of Planned Parenthood and NARAL feminism is minishing and I would say within a few decades Planned Parenthood may well be bankrupt and gone.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
Gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with the HHS mandate, except for the mentality of the church for all the topics put together. My point is that referring to such things as "intrinsically evil" won't resonate with a populus that is becoming less religious.
Even if religion doesn't disappear, it's influence will fade.
jimkabrhel
Where do you get these ideas? I haven't seen any evidence of what you are suggesting. Can you provide any evidence that gay marriage will fade away?
I mean centuries from now. But you don't think it'll plateau at some point in time?[QUOTE="whipassmt"]That trend may reverse itself and is only limited to certain areas anyway. Gay marriage will eventually plateau and perhaps go on to fade. Feminism in the sense of the influence of Planned Parenthood and NARAL feminism is minishing and I would say within a few decades Planned Parenthood may well be bankrupt and gone. Meanwhile in the reality based community... reality? You think PP will be around forever, they are already waning, their number of facilities, continues to minish, they are financially dependent on gov't handouts.[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
Gay marriage doesn't have anything to do with the HHS mandate, except for the mentality of the church for all the topics put together. My point is that referring to such things as "intrinsically evil" won't resonate with a populus that is becoming less religious.
Even if religion doesn't disappear, it's influence will fade.
nocoolnamejim
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] That trend may reverse itself and is only limited to certain areas anyway. Gay marriage will eventually plateau and perhaps go on to fade. Feminism in the sense of the influence of Planned Parenthood and NARAL feminism is minishing and I would say within a few decades Planned Parenthood may well be bankrupt and gone.
whipassmt
Where do you get these ideas? I haven't seen any evidence of what you are suggesting. Can you provide any evidence that gay marriage will fade away?
I mean centuries from now. But you don't think it'll plateau at some point in time?Not necessarily. Gay partnerships are not something new. Roman men were encouraged to take younger men and boy under their wings, often involving sexual intimacy.
Women will constantly fight to have control over thir own bodies, wheter its abortion, contraceptions or anything else. The churches will have to deal with that fact eventually.
Meanwhile in the reality based community... reality? You think PP will be around forever, they are already waning, their number of facilities, continues to minish, they are financially dependent on gov't handouts. I think gay marriage will eventually be legal in the entire country and that Planned Parenthood provides very valuable services that people continue to need. Conservatives hate it because they provide abortion services, but that accounts for a grand total of 3% of what they do. They also do things like pap smears, cervical screenings, etc. Conservatives still haven't gotten the picture if they still are trying to do things like "get rid of" Planned Parenthood a couple of years from now. Women overwhelmingly like Planned Parenthood and represent something like 55% of voters nationwide. The gender gap is real and, like just about every other demographical trendline, is not moving in the Republican direction.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] That trend may reverse itself and is only limited to certain areas anyway. Gay marriage will eventually plateau and perhaps go on to fade. Feminism in the sense of the influence of Planned Parenthood and NARAL feminism is minishing and I would say within a few decades Planned Parenthood may well be bankrupt and gone.
whipassmt
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]reality? You think PP will be around forever, they are already waning, their number of facilities, continues to minish, they are financially dependent on gov't handouts. I think gay marriage will eventually be legal in the entire country and that Planned Parenthood provides very valuable services that people continue to need. Conservatives hate it because they provide abortion services, but that accounts for a grand total of 3% of what they do. They also do things like pap smears, cervical screenings, etc. Conservatives still haven't gotten the picture if they still are trying to do things like "get rid of" Planned Parenthood a couple of years from now. Women overwhelmingly like Planned Parenthood and represent something like 55% of voters nationwide. The gender gap is real and, like just about every other demographical trendline, is not moving in the Republican direction. But you are ignoring what I have said about their number of facilities (for that matter I think their donations have been down in recent decades) Besides other places perform pap smears and cervical screenings (hell if people want a cervical exam they can go to the chiropractor).[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Meanwhile in the reality based community...nocoolnamejim
I think gay marriage will eventually be legal in the entire country and that Planned Parenthood provides very valuable services that people continue to need. Conservatives hate it because they provide abortion services, but that accounts for a grand total of 3% of what they do. They also do things like pap smears, cervical screenings, etc. Conservatives still haven't gotten the picture if they still are trying to do things like "get rid of" Planned Parenthood a couple of years from now. Women overwhelmingly like Planned Parenthood and represent something like 55% of voters nationwide. The gender gap is real and, like just about every other demographical trendline, is not moving in the Republican direction. But you are ignoring what I have said about their number of facilities (for that matter I think their donations have been down in recent decades) Besides other places perform pap smears and cervical screenings (hell if people want a cervical exam they can go to the chiropractor).[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] reality? You think PP will be around forever, they are already waning, their number of facilities, continues to minish, they are financially dependent on gov't handouts.
whipassmt
Um... what?
I think gay marriage will eventually be legal in the entire country and that Planned Parenthood provides very valuable services that people continue to need. Conservatives hate it because they provide abortion services, but that accounts for a grand total of 3% of what they do. They also do things like pap smears, cervical screenings, etc. Conservatives still haven't gotten the picture if they still are trying to do things like "get rid of" Planned Parenthood a couple of years from now. Women overwhelmingly like Planned Parenthood and represent something like 55% of voters nationwide. The gender gap is real and, like just about every other demographical trendline, is not moving in the Republican direction. But you are ignoring what I have said about their number of facilities (for that matter I think their donations have been down in recent decades) Besides other places perform pap smears and cervical screenings (hell if people want a cervical exam they can go to the chiropractor). I don't think cervical exam means what you think it means, which is another reminder of why men shouldn't be making medical decisions for women unless they are doctors. But that aside, can you provide your data source for your claims?[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] reality? You think PP will be around forever, they are already waning, their number of facilities, continues to minish, they are financially dependent on gov't handouts.
whipassmt
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]But you are ignoring what I have said about their number of facilities (for that matter I think their donations have been down in recent decades) Besides other places perform pap smears and cervical screenings (hell if people want a cervical exam they can go to the chiropractor). I don't think cervical exam means what you think it means, which is another reminder of why men shouldn't be making medical decisions for women unless they are doctors. But that aside, can you provide your data source for your claims? Lol. I was joking about the chiropractor thing.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I think gay marriage will eventually be legal in the entire country and that Planned Parenthood provides very valuable services that people continue to need. Conservatives hate it because they provide abortion services, but that accounts for a grand total of 3% of what they do. They also do things like pap smears, cervical screenings, etc. Conservatives still haven't gotten the picture if they still are trying to do things like "get rid of" Planned Parenthood a couple of years from now. Women overwhelmingly like Planned Parenthood and represent something like 55% of voters nationwide. The gender gap is real and, like just about every other demographical trendline, is not moving in the Republican direction.nocoolnamejim
As for their donations and their number of facilities, both have been minished over the years.
But you are ignoring what I have said about their number of facilities (for that matter I think their donations have been down in recent decades) Besides other places perform pap smears and cervical screenings (hell if people want a cervical exam they can go to the chiropractor).[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I think gay marriage will eventually be legal in the entire country and that Planned Parenthood provides very valuable services that people continue to need. Conservatives hate it because they provide abortion services, but that accounts for a grand total of 3% of what they do. They also do things like pap smears, cervical screenings, etc. Conservatives still haven't gotten the picture if they still are trying to do things like "get rid of" Planned Parenthood a couple of years from now. Women overwhelmingly like Planned Parenthood and represent something like 55% of voters nationwide. The gender gap is real and, like just about every other demographical trendline, is not moving in the Republican direction.jimkabrhel
Um... what?
cervical vertebrae.The GOP is predominately hurt by the fact that they are not willing to buy votes with tax payer dollars. If you can vote for someone who will give you free healthcare, food stamps, unemployment, or whatever it is, why would you vote for someone who won't give you free stuff?
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] But you are ignoring what I have said about their number of facilities (for that matter I think their donations have been down in recent decades) Besides other places perform pap smears and cervical screenings (hell if people want a cervical exam they can go to the chiropractor).
whipassmt
Um... what?
cervical vertebrae.Not what a cervical exam is checking. You need a review of ladyparts.
I don't think cervical exam means what you think it means, which is another reminder of why men shouldn't be making medical decisions for women unless they are doctors. But that aside, can you provide your data source for your claims? Lol. I was joking about the chiropractor thing.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] But you are ignoring what I have said about their number of facilities (for that matter I think their donations have been down in recent decades) Besides other places perform pap smears and cervical screenings (hell if people want a cervical exam they can go to the chiropractor).
whipassmt
As for their donations and their number of facilities, both have been minished over the years.
Fair enough on the number of facilities, though I'd like to see a longer trendline on the donations question. Simply showing what happened between 2009 and 2010 isn't enough to show a consistent, meaningful longterm trend.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]Lol. I was joking about the chiropractor thing.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I don't think cervical exam means what you think it means, which is another reminder of why men shouldn't be making medical decisions for women unless they are doctors. But that aside, can you provide your data source for your claims?nocoolnamejim
As for their donations and their number of facilities, both have been minished over the years.
Fair enough on the number of facilities, though I'd like to see a longer trendline on the donations question. Simply showing what happened between 2009 and 2010 isn't enough to show a consistent, meaningful longterm trend. so you agree that the number of facilities have minished?cervical vertebrae.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
Um... what?
jimkabrhel
Not what a cervical exam is checking. You need a review of ladyparts.
What then would a cervical exam check, the thoracic vertebrae? Oh and if they want a pap smear they could just go see Dr. Dre.[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
[QUOTE="whipassmt"] cervical vertebrae.
whipassmt
Not what a cervical exam is checking. You need a review of ladyparts.
What then would a cervical exam check, the thoracic vertebrae? Oh and if they want a pap smear they could just go see Dr. Dre.You need work on your humor.
What then would a cervical exam check, the thoracic vertebrae? Oh and if they want a pap smear they could just go see Dr. Dre.[QUOTE="whipassmt"]
[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]
Not what a cervical exam is checking. You need a review of ladyparts.
jimkabrhel
You need work on your humor.
about the vertebrae or Dr. Dre? The Dr. Dre joke is from the movie White Chick's ("your momma's so dumb she goes to Dr. Dre for a pap smear").Fair enough on the number of facilities, though I'd like to see a longer trendline on the donations question. Simply showing what happened between 2009 and 2010 isn't enough to show a consistent, meaningful longterm trend. so you agree that the number of facilities have minished? Sure, if your source is accurate. I'd love to see a less partisan source, but I'll accept this for the sake of argument. Side question, why do you use the non-word "minished" instead of diminished?[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Lol. I was joking about the chiropractor thing.
As for their donations and their number of facilities, both have been minished over the years.
whipassmt
lol edit: @whipass white chicks quoteMrPralineYeah it's a good movie. Maybe some day I should watch BSG (battle-star galactica for the 2 jims here, Praline mentioned it to me in another thread so I'm getting back to him here).
Now here's some more white chicks yo momma jokes:
"your momma's so old her breastmilk is powdered, she breast feeds like this" (blows powder)
"2012 white-chicks remake "YourMomma's so dumb she voted for Obama again".
[QUOTE="whipassmt"]so you agree that the number of facilities have minished? Sure, if your source is accurate. I'd love to see a less partisan source, but I'll accept this for the sake of argument. Side question, why do you use the non-word "minished" instead of diminished? I don't know. Why'de it take you so long to ask?[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] Fair enough on the number of facilities, though I'd like to see a longer trendline on the donations question. Simply showing what happened between 2009 and 2010 isn't enough to show a consistent, meaningful longterm trend.nocoolnamejim
I have no idea what you guys are talking about. "the Republican party is moving too far to the right." Are you kidding me? They just elected the most far-left liberal republican candidateever. He supported forcing people to buy insurance, he supported numerous unconstitutional programs, and is pro-abortion. Come on, Mitt Romney could have run as a moderate Democrat and done well for himself, yet the party is going too far to the right? Maybe if Rick Santorum had been nominated you could say that, but Mitt Romney got it. Him being nominated proves that they are moving more towards the center.
We are not asking you to give up your religion. Just to add to your perspective. Untill you do, it clear the majority will not vote repulican.dreman999If you read people like Matt Barber, Michael Brown, Ray Comfort, and Kirk Cameron, you're realize that they believe the only people that are going to heaven are not only those who profess Christ to be their savior, but those who reject LGBT and abortion/contraception rights as well as including creationism as a form of scientific curriculum. Personally, this line of thinking doesn't even help their agenda, because it's an "my way or the highway" approach.
They should try to appeal to more than one group. But there's nothing wrong with being a white male.
I mean the democrats pandered to every group trying to get them all under their umbrella. One of my teachers today brought up this same point saying the GOP will really have to change if it wants a chance. This doesnt really feel right to me im not gonna sell out my beliefs and turn on my morals just because i want some votes.
Sure, if your source is accurate. I'd love to see a less partisan source, but I'll accept this for the sake of argument. Side question, why do you use the non-word "minished" instead of diminished? I don't know. Why'de it take you so long to ask? Wasn't sure it was intentional until I saw you do it over and over again.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] so you agree that the number of facilities have minished?
whipassmt
Demographic problem? I agree that the GOP will have to start catering to women and minorities if they want to continue existing, but to call the demographics of the party a problem is to imply that there is something wrong with being of older age, male, or white.
Demographic problem refers to being able to put together a winning majority. There's nothing wrong with old white guys per se...except if that's the only demographic your party appeals to and you're trying to win national elections. Basically, the number of old, white males is decreasing as a percentage of the total population whereas demographics that vote Democratic heavily, such as minorities, single women and young people, are increasing as a percentage of the total electorate. Demographic problem refers to this trend. Over time, unless the GOP finds a way to reach beyond their current voting groups, it will become harder and harder to win elections due to the demographic trendlines.Demographic problem? I agree that the GOP will have to start catering to women and minorities if they want to continue existing, but to call the demographics of the party a problem is to imply that there is something wrong with being of older age, male, or white.
gamerguru100
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]While this would be great...I honestly don't think it will matter.....there is such a contingent of the american populace that depends on the government to provide for them..that they are indebted to the Dems to keep their life afloat....so without a Republican (or new partY) that can pander to these people and their programs..(which should go against their ideology)....it's a worthless gesture....They aren't going to get more moderate. If anything they are going to end up divided in the middle. The Tea Parties are going to keep getting more radical as they lose power and lose out on things. They don't care about compromise, it's all or nothing to them.
In the next 4 years the Republican party is going to practically destroy itself because of these radicals. The good, more moderate/right leaning candidates that are far more in-touch with modern social issues are going to continue to be shunned so that the candidates that can appeal to the ridiculous radicals that only care about religion and social conservatism will be the ones getting elected.
Kind of like this campaign. Romney wasn't a radical himself, but he could pander well to the radicals and say what he needed to say to get the nomination. The fact that Rick Santorum even stood a chance was a major red flag early in the campaign.
The only thing we can really pray for is a more moderate group of conservatives with more liberal social policies (more modern ones that actually make sense) breaks away from the Republicans and can somehow take some of the more moderate Democrats with them making a viable 3rd party that can get a presence in the house/senate. I see that happening (which is an extremely long shot in itself) over the Republicans becoming more moderate.
Omni-Slash
That's one of the main issues with the Republican Party. People who need these programs, most of which have no choice, are generally considered to be freeloaders among the party. If it was up to them, they'd cut all support to them just to fund programs for "real Americans". There is no heart of the humanitarian in the party anymore. They pander to the higher-ups, losing connection to the people that care for the government more than most other sects of the population. It'll cost them a lot if they continue to be the party they are now.
I mean the democrats pandered to every group trying to get them all under their umbrella. One of my teachers today brought up this same point saying the GOP will really have to change if it wants a chance. This doesnt really feel right to me im not gonna sell out my beliefs and turn on my morals just because i want some votes.
AdamPA1006
As opposed to the Republicans, who just pander to older white folks, which is a shrinking demographic. Pandering is what politicians do, but you have to spread the pander out if you want to stay elected.
I'm not sure willfully adopting a niche platform for your party is the appropriate response to changing demographics if you want to remain relevant.I mean the democrats pandered to every group trying to get them all under their umbrella. One of my teachers today brought up this same point saying the GOP will really have to change if it wants a chance. This doesnt really feel right to me im not gonna sell out my beliefs and turn on my morals just because i want some votes.
AdamPA1006
Jeb Bush/Marco Rubio for 2016 make a pretty strong early ticket for getting the Latino vote. (not that I think they'd be able to beat Hillary.)AllicrombieThis notion of securing the "latino vote" or the "black vote" is racist. This whole country is racist. The negros are racist, the latinos are racist, every minority that allows itself to be pandered to is racist, and every politician that panders to any racial demographic is racist. I'm sick of people calling the GOP racist (not saying you did that Allicrombie) and acting like the democrats aren't. The democrats go out of their way to pander to negroes every election by running on a pro-poverty pro-"welfare" platform. Their racist policies destroy upward social/economic mobility. That's why ~50 years after their civil rights movement the negro demographic still has overwhelmingly high poverty rates. Minimum wage laws, for example, make it impossible for untalented labourers who can't justify being hired for the minimum wage to find work. That means rather than working for $3/hour or $4/hour, they don't work at all and they rely on welfare programs. Minimum wage makes people in poverty stay in poverty. Only the most exceptional people have a chance of ever getting out of it. 30% of negroes are living in poverty, and the democrats' policies do nothing to change that. The day the negro community has a poverty rate, life expectancy, and college graduate rate to match caucasians is the day the democrats lose their vote. The democrats will never allow that to happen because they make up ~10% of the electorate. Losing their guaranteed support would make it almost impossible for the democrats to win a national election.
I don't think the GOP has to drop the idea of social conservatism. depends on your idea of what constitutes their social conservative agenda.
I just think, there is a time when you look at the trends and see where things are going, one must adapt. They're gonna need to stop blocking gay marriage just because it offends their moral values, stop trotting out abortion every election cycle (which literally hijacks and alienates any moderate or liberal women who are willing to listen), and putting their foot in their mouths when the topic of rape gets involved.
I do believe you can take a conservative approach to abortion that doesn't involve trying to banning whether by outright by law or defacto.
When George W. Bush fought his own party on the issue of illegal immigration, saying "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande" he lost. and while a lot of guys and gals here don't like GWB - and neither do i. I think he was right in this case. Republicans and Conservatives are so incensed and focused on the word 'illegal', they they overstep their bounds and forget the human element involved. The conservative white base that is predominent for the Republicans almost across the board absolutely REFUSE to compromise on the issue of illegal immigration and what to do with those who are currently here.
let me break it down, for the first time Hispanics/Latinos who can vote made it to double digits, they are the fastest growing minority and will likely surprass the African American population, in this election 71% of them voted Obama.
Even right-wing demigod "The Gipper" Ronald Reagan, forgave and legalize illegal immigrants in the US.
----------------
I was listening to CNN the whole night, one of the women on the show was saying that about 2 million voters die every year, most of whom elderly, most of whom white, and most of whom Republican voters. That makes some 8-10 million voters are dead, most of whom being those demographics.
you break it down again, the youth and young adults voted for Obama, the elderly and late middle aged voted Romney. again, where do you think the trend is going? especially when the youth (even good number of the conservative youth) are so different then the elderly voters.
I don't think CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and other news sources (websites and blogs) are being unfair when they say, the Republicans need to re-tool their platform.
Even when you look at the US map, look at the number of counties that voted blue this election even in states that Romney won big in. and i don't think it's all based on a strong candidate like Clinton was in 1992 and 1996. Remember this, in 1996, 88% of the voters were white. in 2012, 72% of the voters were white. that's a 16% drop in 16 years. Romney only won the white demographic in this election, he ran on it to drive up the vote - it isn't enough anymore.
I think the ground is shifting beneath the Republicans feet and some of them don't want to believe it.
P.S.
and for those crying racism for playing identity politics, here's the raw deal. These different demographics, whites, blacks, hispanics, asians, women, men, and lgbt - they all have major issues that they are concerned with, as well as many overlapping ones. but if your party opts to support a few or only one to the exclusion of all others, then have fun sitting high atop your mole hill.
Also I think it might be time to stop harping on tax cuts! tax cuts! tax cuts!
Seriously Republicans, is there no other magic phrase you guys love to trot out in EVERY election?
Hahaha yeah I'm sure welfare programs are the secret reason why blacks are generally in the lower economic strata. That's why European countries with all those crazy socialist entitlements have much higher intergenerational social mobility than we do here. AbbetenIt's not a secret. The democrats do best when poverty is worst, because the democrats pander to the poor by promising to expand welfare programs every election, and they villainize the rich. The negroes have historically had extremely high poverty rates, and the democrats can only benefit from keeping it that way.
This is why the negro vote is ~90% democrat every presidential election.
Then you better start conceding elections to the Democrats if that's the case.I mean the democrats pandered to every group trying to get them all under their umbrella. One of my teachers today brought up this same point saying the GOP will really have to change if it wants a chance. This doesnt really feel right to me im not gonna sell out my beliefs and turn on my morals just because i want some votes.
AdamPA1006
It's not a secret. The democrats do best when poverty is worst, because the democrats pander to the poor by promising to expand welfare programs every election, and they villainize the rich. The negroes have historically had extremely high poverty rates, and the democrats can only benefit from keeping it that way.[QUOTE="Abbeten"]Hahaha yeah I'm sure welfare programs are the secret reason why blacks are generally in the lower economic strata. That's why European countries with all those crazy socialist entitlements have much higher intergenerational social mobility than we do here. Laihendi
This is why the negro vote is ~90% democrat every presidential election.
Yeah I'm sure the democrats actively try to increase poverty rates among black communities by expanding entitlement programs in order to lock in their vote. This seems like an incredibly sound theory.[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]That's what their race is called.People actually still use the word negro? Is this the 60s?:|
Laihendi
I think you should ask a black person here if they prefer that over something else.
Should I call you a Caucasian? Or Honkey?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment