Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 27 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,573 posts, read 16,560,540 times
Reputation: 6044
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2
Yes the GOP has a major image problem. There are racists in the right wing but the right wing itself is not racist. It's similar to the Democrats having communists supporting them but they aren't communists. But while the idiots who try to claim the Democrats are communists are seen as being alarmist nutjobs, the people on the left who try to pain the entire right wing as inveterate racists are seen as mainstream.
Contrary to what some people say, states rights is not a code word for racism. It really is states rights. It's just the idea that the more local a government is to the people, the better that government can meet the needs of those people.
It's true that people 50 years ago used states rights to implement racist policies but that's because they were racist people, it's not because of states rights being somehow a racist concept. At the same time they were doing that, people in other states used states rights to implement all sorts of other policies. Like the people in Massachusetts implementing an Obamacare type system before it became national. The only reason that was possible is because of states rights. And it's not an issue now because we have laws against discrimination now so even if racists did take control of a local government they wouldn't be able to pass illegal laws.
They say the GOP has allocated 10 million to improve community relations but I think that's too little. Considering each side in the last election spent a billion dollars, 10 million is less than a drop in the bucket.
That first paragraph up until the last line is about spot on. I have said it before. Its not that we think you are all racist, it is that your side defends the people who use it, or at the very least, do not call them out on it. Do liberals do the same things of course, but it seems to be on a larger scale when it comes to republicans.
This past February, i got into a debate about slavery. I had 4 different people tell me that each state had the right to allow it citizens to own slaves( which is true south of the 30th parallel or what ever) but they continued on to say that states should have been allowed to continue that right if they chose to because "that would have prevented tension between the north and the south and that since slavery was on the way out, the transition would have been smoother"
I know you may not see that as a code phrase for racism, but do you at least see how some of us can look at it and see racism ?
That is because, while the Republicans stand for the destruction of the American middle class, the Democrats stand for nothing. We need a real liberal party with people like Bernie Sanders that care about people who actually do work for a living.
After reading this I had an overwhelming feeling to just tell you to shut up!! so shut it!!
How does the Tea Party conference on including blacks go along with your statement? How does the chairman of the Republican Party saying they are allocating ten million dollars to minority outreach agree with your statement? How does the Republican plan to send community outreach representatives into minority neighborhoods to explain to them what sorts of education and employment opportunities the Republicans support agree with your statement?
."Call them racist" strategy? It's pretty easy when you have people like Gingrich saying that Spanish is the language of the ghetto.
This is why you guys will continue to lose elections: you just don't get it.
I don't recall that Gingrich quote, but I do recall a Hispanic educator in CA saying that he wanted kids to learn English because Spanish was the language of the fruit-picker, back during the bi-lingual ed debate in CA a few years back. Was that racist? Well, it came from a Hispanic and a Spanish-speaker.
No, in fact, "it's pretty easy" when you have people like Spencer Ackerman who are willing to lie, deceive and distort for political gain. But this only works for so long; eventually the truth will out. That's why you guys are going to get slaughtered in elections when the GOP gets its PR problem fixed when it comes to race. If the GOP can get just 40% of the black, asian, and hispanic vote we will win overwhelmingly.
Good lord. The Democrats are having problems with the white vote. Liberals, not all white people are bad. I went to college in Appalachia which is overwhelmingly white...and poor, why the hate? These people aren't doing to well also, just because they're white doesn't mean times are good.
Too bad for the GOP that the % of whites in America is declining and the lowest numbers are among the 18-29 vote.
If you know that 1+1=2, then you most certainly know that your figures don't add up.
VT's problem is simple.
While it is true that Conservatives are around 38% of the population and liberals are about 23%, what he is ignoring is that moderates make up the rest of America and they vote strongly Democratic.
In the 2012 election conservatives made up 35% of voters and while true, liberals made up only 25% of voters, Moderates made up 41% of voters and went to Obama by a 15% margin.
The problem with the math is that the OP is presenting is it ignores more the 1/3 of the voters, which is understandable for propaganda purposes, but is problematic if you truly want to understand how Americans think politically and vote.
That first paragraph up until the last line is about spot on. I have said it before. Its not that we think you are all racist, it is that your side defends the people who use it, or at the very least, do not call them out on it. Do liberals do the same things of course, but it seems to be on a larger scale when it comes to republicans.
This past February, i got into a debate about slavery. I had 4 different people tell me that each state had the right to allow it citizens to own slaves( which is true south of the 30th parallel or what ever) but they continued on to say that states should have been allowed to continue that right if they chose to because "that would have prevented tension between the north and the south and that since slavery was on the way out, the transition would have been smoother"
I know you may not see that as a code phrase for racism, but do you at least see how some of us can look at it and see racism ?
Those people you debated are idiots. This country was founded on the premise of equality among people. Slavery should never have been legal in the first place. That's true even if you take moral judgment out of it, which obviously those people did. Just as some generic concept X, the nation was founded with X as one of its basic principles, so therefore a law which is anti-X is not compatible with the country. Whether slavery should have been allowed or not under states rights isn't a legitimate question because the states only have the right to make laws that are compatible with the constitution, and the inclusion of slavery in the constitution was a political expediency that clearly went against the principles of the document.
Those people were not defending any sort of true principle of states rights. States rights do not grant the states the authority to do something which is inherently illegitimate.
Where states rights come in is in something like welfare, where states should be able to adjust benefits based on local cost of living. Someone in Los Angeles needs a different amount of aid to live the same level of life than does someone in rural Alabama, and yet with a federal system both receive the same benefit.
It also comes into play with Arizona versus San Francisco on illegal immigration. If the people in San Francisco want to de-emphasize illegal immigration laws then they should be able to do so. If the people in Arizona want to especially emphasize illegal immigration laws then they should be able to do so. That's again a situation of the local government being responsive to the wishes of the people who live in that locality. It does not affect the people in Arizona at all if there are illeal aliens allowed in San Francisco and does not affect the people in San Francisco if illegal aliens are vigorously kept out of Arizona. Yet we have a group of politicians in Washington who are making the decision for both of them without either of them having any input.
As for seeing why people consider states rights as racist, yes I understand why. But I still think it is wrong. Since blacks have higher crime rates than whites, one could understand why someone treats a black person like a potential criminal, but that doesn't make doing it right. So that's why I encourage people to consider states rights as a principle, and not judge it based on some stupid things people did with it in the past. As a concept, it has clear and positive benefits in the present which could improve peoples' lives.
If you know that 1+1=2, then you most certainly know that your figures don't add up.
2:1 is wrong, but when taken as a 3-way question (Conservative/Moderate/Liberal) Conservatives greatly outnumber Liberals. According to the latest Gallup Poll it's currently at 38:23. Not 2:1, but fairly close at 1.7:1. "Moderates" are at 36% of that same poll. I'd love to see a poll where there are just two options, you much choose either Conservative or Liberal. I'd answer "Moderate" on the 3-way poll, but "Conservative" on the 2-way poll.
So why did Obama win? Easy enough... Obama took the majority of the 36% of Americans who identify as Moderate. That's the ONLY way ANY national candidate can win an election.
Incidentally, I personally maintain that Obama didn't win; instead, Romney lost. The unemployment rate was horrible, we were still suffering from a horrid recession, and the government as a whole was generally viewed as slightly less favorable than smallpox. The ONLY way an incumbent could possibly win in that scenario is if the challenger was even worse. Against all odd, the Repubs fielded a mostly insane group of challengers then picked the one ijit who had the greatest chance of alienating the most conservatives. Romney was more anti-gun than Obama, socially moderate, and fiscally idiotic. Many conservatives are blue-collar working folk, and Romney is the guy who made a fortune sending their jobs overseas. Many conservative Christians view Mormonism as an unreliable cult and refused to vote for a member. As a result a significant percentage of Conservatives plain refused to vote for him (nor did they vote for Obama; they just stayed home); few moderates voted for him (I didn't; I voted for Johnson), and of course none of the Liberals voted for him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These people aren't doing to well also, just because they're white doesn't mean times are good. 
