GOP: Too Old, Too White, and Too Male?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[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. Abbeten

This is why the negro vote is ~90% democrat every presidential election.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] 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.

This is why the negro vote is ~90% democrat every presidential election.

Laihendi

Whites have a pretty high poverty rate too, but many impoverished whites vote Republican. I'd like to hear an explanation for that.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] 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.

This is why the negro vote is ~90% democrat every presidential election.

Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

People actually still use the word negro? Is this the 60s?:|

jimkabrhel

I think you should ask a black person here if they prefer that over something else.

Should I call you a Caucasian? Or Honkey?

According to my understanding of the english language, their race is called "negro". I'm fine with caucasian. You can call me honkey if you want, but I'm not familiar with that word so I probably won't know what you're talking about.

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]

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.

jimkabrhel

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.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] That's what their race is called.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?

According to my understanding of the english language, their race is called "negro". I'm fine with caucasian. You can call me honkey if you want, but I don't know what that word means so I probably won't know what you're talking about.

I know what Negro means. What I'm saying is that the term has a negative connotation these days, and I don't think any black person would appreciate being called a Negro.

The fact that you want to use the term Negro and don't recognize the term Honkey of Honky, means you need to go back in history a bit.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]

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.

whipassmt

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.

Or, each party could appeal to all people.

I loled today when I say Gingrich on CBS saying the GOP has to change.

Gingrich of all people to advocate change.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I think you should ask a black person here if they prefer that over something else.

Should I call you a Caucasian? Or Honkey?

jimkabrhel

According to my understanding of the english language, their race is called "negro". I'm fine with caucasian. You can call me honkey if you want, but I don't know what that word means so I probably won't know what you're talking about.

I know what Negro means. What I'm saying is that the term has a negative connotation these days, and I don't think any black person would appreciate being called a Negro.

The fact that you want to use the term Negro and don't recognize the term Honkey of Honky, means you need to go back in history a bit.

Listened to some conservative talk radio. Their solution to get back on top: Nominate more conservative politicians and never compromise.

I loled today when I say Gingrich on CBS saying the GOP has to change.

Gingrich of all people to advocate change.

BossPerson

People actually still use the word negro? Is this the 60s?:|

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

People actually still use the word negro? Is this the 60s?:|

jimkabrhel

I think you should ask a black person here if they prefer that over something else.

Should I call you a Caucasian? Or Honkey?

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] That's what their race is called.whipassmt

I think you should ask a black person here if they prefer that over something else.

Should I call you a Caucasian? Or Honkey?

That's my point. I don't think Negro is anyone's preferred term, except Laihendi.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

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.

jimkabrhel

Or, each party could appeal to all people.

Dick Morris admits he was wrong. says the same thing many of the mainstream media is saying.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]

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.

whipassmt

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.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] 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. jimkabrhel

Whites have a pretty high poverty rate too, but many impoverished whites vote Republican. I'd like to hear an explanation for that.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

I think you should ask a black person here if they prefer that over something else.

Should I call you a Caucasian? Or Honkey?

jimkabrhel

That's my point. I don't think Negro is anyone's preferred term, except Laihendi.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

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.

Abbeten

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] I think they prefer the term black.

whipassmt

That's my point. I don't think Negro is anyone's preferred term, except Laihendi.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Maybe a better strategy would be for the Republicans to let the Dems keep the blacks and the Hispanics (except of course the Cubans) and concentrate on expanding their hold among whites as well as allying with Asian voters, particularly Chinese and Japanese but also Indians.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Maybe a better strategy would be for the Republicans to let the Dems keep the blacks and the Hispanics (except of course the Cubans) and concentrate on expanding their hold among whites as well as allying with Asian voters, particularly Chinese and Japanese but also Indians.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"] I'm not sure that capturing those demographics would be worth giving up the Hispanic block. Abbeten

I loled today when I say Gingrich on CBS saying the GOP has to change.

Gingrich of all people to advocate change.

BossPerson

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] So then you're admitting I'm right.Laihendi

.... And where are these sweeping wellfare programs that have been "hiding".. If supporting safety net programs, something that pretty much every first world country has, means pandering to the poor.. I will ask you nicely to get your head out of yoru ass.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] But I think as Hispanics assimilate and become more upwardly mobile they may begin to slip away from the Democrats.TheWalkingGhost

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] nnnnope. because your contention is that democratic policies are designed to encourage the spread of poverty among black communities. and that black people would then vote for democrats for making them poor. Abbeten

Minimum wage laws makes it extremely difficult for unskilled labourers to find work, because they don't have the necessary skills to justify a high wage from an employer. Social security redistributes money to the upper classes, because the life expectancy of the poor is so low that most of them don't receive benefits from it for very long before they die, and the poor also start working at a younger age than the upper classes because they don't go to college. This causes them to start paying into social security at a relatively young age.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] :roll: Yeah, because they have a history of being tough on immigration in a national sense. Both parties are too lax.TheWalkingGhost

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"][QUOTE="Abbeten"] They don't generally do much about it, but the rhetoric come election time doesn't help. whipassmt

[QUOTE="Abbeten"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] No I'm saying the democrats pander to the poor by advocating broadening of welfare programs, and broadening the welfare programs does nothing to combat poverty, and arguably makes it worse. The negro demographic already has a high poverty rate due to historical reasons, and the democrats' pro-poverty platform is making it stay that way.Laihendi

Minimum wage laws makes it extremely difficult for unskilled labourers to find work, because they don't have the necessary skills to justify a high wage from an employer. Social security redistributes money to the upper classes, because the life expectancy of the poor is so low that most of them don't receive benefits from it for very long before they die, and the poor also start working at a younger age than the upper classes because they don't go to college. This causes them to start paying into social security at a relatively young age.

Minimum wage laws are also not responsible for poverty, nor would you suddenly see an explosion of prosperity if we got rid of all of them. Unless you think it would be a good idea for us to compete with China in manufacturing jobs.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"] welfare programs don't entrench poverty, especially since most of them are timed. they just make it suck less to be poor, or to have the rug yanked out from under you. hell, a lot of them encourage finding another job. I have no idea what a 'pro-poverty' platform is. Abbeten

Minimum wage laws makes it extremely difficult for unskilled labourers to find work, because they don't have the necessary skills to justify a high wage from an employer. Social security redistributes money to the upper classes, because the life expectancy of the poor is so low that most of them don't receive benefits from it for very long before they die, and the poor also start working at a younger age than the upper classes because they don't go to college. This causes them to start paying into social security at a relatively young age.

Minimum wage laws are also not responsible for poverty, nor would you suddenly see an explosion of prosperity if we got rid of all of them. Unless you think it would be a good idea for us to compete with China in manufacturing jobs.

Having jobs paying $2 an hour sounds like such a GREAT idea.

[QUOTE="Abbeten"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] The fundamental reason people are poor is that they do not possess a sufficiently marketable skill. No amount of wealth redistribution can change that. Rewarding people for nothing is the pro-poverty agenda of the democrats.

Minimum wage laws makes it extremely difficult for unskilled labourers to find work, because they don't have the necessary skills to justify a high wage from an employer. Social security redistributes money to the upper classes, because the life expectancy of the poor is so low that most of them don't receive benefits from it for very long before they die, and the poor also start working at a younger age than the upper classes because they don't go to college. This causes them to start paying into social security at a relatively young age.

sSubZerOo

Minimum wage laws are also not responsible for poverty, nor would you suddenly see an explosion of prosperity if we got rid of all of them. Unless you think it would be a good idea for us to compete with China in manufacturing jobs.

Having jobs paying $2 an hour sounds like such a GREAT idea.

And no doubt that would eliminate poverty forever. I think he's forgetting that we live in a global economy now. Abbeten

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"] That's an extremely un-nuanced explanation for the existence of poverty. And how strange of you to overlook the jobs-training programs that democrats also support in conjunction with welfare programs. But the fact that you think entitlements are about 'rewarding people for doing nothing' rather than making it suck slightly less for people to live in poverty as they attempt to claw their way out of it is telling. 'Pro-poverty' continues to be a meaningless label. I'm not sure you can find a single politician in either major party who thinks poverty is a good thing or that we could use more of it.

Minimum wage laws are also not responsible for poverty, nor would you suddenly see an explosion of prosperity if we got rid of all of them. Unless you think it would be a good idea for us to compete with China in manufacturing jobs.

Laihendi

Having jobs paying $2 an hour sounds like such a GREAT idea.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="TheWalkingGhost"] Seems like if you are not for wide open borders you get the xenophobic label attached to you. TheWalkingGhost

The Green party, needs newer better candidates next time around. I say it should be Green Goblin and Jolly Green Giant for the Green Party Ticket in 2016.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Abbeten"] That's an extremely un-nuanced explanation for the existence of poverty. And how strange of you to overlook the jobs-training programs that democrats also support in conjunction with welfare programs. But the fact that you think entitlements are about 'rewarding people for doing nothing' rather than making it suck slightly less for people to live in poverty as they attempt to claw their way out of it is telling. 'Pro-poverty' continues to be a meaningless label. I'm not sure you can find a single politician in either major party who thinks poverty is a good thing or that we could use more of it.

Minimum wage laws are also not responsible for poverty, nor would you suddenly see an explosion of prosperity if we got rid of all of them. Unless you think it would be a good idea for us to compete with China in manufacturing jobs.

Laihendi

Having jobs paying $2 an hour sounds like such a GREAT idea.

Democrats undeniably benefit from poverty. The democrats dominated American politics throughout the great depression. FDR ran on a socialist platform and won landslide victories 4 times in a row.

$2 wouldn't be refused if it were a livable wage, but it isn't. That is the fact, a minimum wage is not there to be chairty.. It is to ensure that all American people have a minimum standard they can reach.. You sound alot like a selfish prick that doesn't understand that the United States, and the west in general prospered through general welfare of a population instead of this every man for him self horse sh!t you shovel.. And furthermore your view points contradict basic ideas like the American Dream.

The Republican Party is facing an existential demographic crisis. Of that much, I am absolutely certain. There needs to be quite a deal of introspection. Immediately, the GOP needs re-rethink its stance on immigration and return to where the leaders were some ten years ago - amnesty - and make a serious push. There needs to be an immediate halt on attacking the Federal Reserve, and a return to the fact that "we are all Keynesians now." Attacking senior entitlements is the third rail. DON'T FVCKING TOUCH IT. Tax raises to mitigate budget shortfalls should be on the table. Tax cuts are nice and all, but we don't exactly have a $400 billion surplus to play with anymore. All of this brings the GOP back to where it was a few decades ago, but it is a nice start.

Drop gay marriage opposition from the platform. Loosen drug law enforcement, but from behind closed doors. Stop being so damn loud WRT foreign policy.

There's more, but that's what immediately came to mind.

If people do not make enough money to survive, they will not work. $2 an hour is not enough to survive. The natural minimum wage is a wee higher than that - not too far below the legal one, considering the relatively small number of people who make minimum wage.