Almalieque wrote:
That doesn't even make sense. If the GOP candidates are supported by minorities, those minorities are not going to say that they are against them. You are literally doing the same thing that you are accusing the Democrats as doing, playing identity politics. You refuse to accept the fact that black people vote on polices and are not married to the Democratic party.
I believe that black people are so strongly pressured to vote Democrat that it doesn't matter what candidate the GOP fields. You listed a group of potential GOP candidates who you think are "good for minorities". I'm predicting that if any of them were to win the nomination they would be slammed by "the left" for being "bad for minorities". Heck. I'll further predict that if one of them were to be nominated, you will insist he's bad for minority voters.
My point is that you are pointing out "ok" GOP politicians, not because you actually think they are ok, but because you want to make it appear as though you'd be willing to vote for a Republican if only a reasonable one were to appear. You want to appear to be voting based on policies and not just blindly parroting the party line. But when it comes down to it, you'll find a reason to vote the party line every single time.
Quote:
Rand Paul would not be hailed as the leader for minorities not because he is a Republican, but because his rhetoric doesn't match his voting record. Furthermore, he has began flip flopping on topics.
Yeah. Keep telling yourself that. You're deluding yourself.
Quote:
Your claim was that minorities vote Democratic because they are deceived by the Democratic party, but in reality, whenever a GOP candidate or elected official speak on political views that are appealing to minorities, they are called RINOS (JEB) or isolationists (Rand).
Huh? When we call people RINOs, it has nothing to do with whether they appeal to minorities. We call people RINO when they support big government. When the call for higher taxes, or support more social spending, or more intrusive domestic federal power.
Now. If you want to argue that those are the things that make a candidate appealing to minorities, then you're really just supporting what I said earlier about voting based on who's buttering your bread. But when we oppose those things, it's not because we oppose or hate those who the benefits may be targeted towards (and whose votes they're attempting to buy), but because we believe that those things are not really good in the long run. They're not good for society as a whole and they're not even good for the recipients of those benefits.
Quote:
JEB was immediately disqualified for supporting the president's immigration and education reform. If the GOP allowed candidates not to be cookie cutters, their voter base would expand.
I think you are grossly overestimating the impact of his comments. Also, I'm not sure where you get his comments as "supporting the president's". What this really shows is that the GOP is *not* cookie cutter. We have disagreements. That's a good thing. The real difference is that the Dems have so totally bashed their members into a single mold that no one even considered straying from the party line at all. I wouldn't call that a good thing.
Um... I also don't agree that a position on illegal immigration is a good litmus test for being "good for minorities". Since when does a policy question involving what to do about undocumented immigrants have anything at all to do with the problems facing a black man in Ferguson? Yet, you seem to be arguing that this is what that black man should use as evidence of the GOP not being the party he should support. That kinda makes no sense. And it's exactly that bizarre kind of associative thinking that I'm trying to get you to recognize. The Dems don't say "vote for us because of our position on X". They say "Vote for us because you are a minority, and the GOP is bad for minorities because the GOP doesn't want to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants".
That's a really strange argument, and yet it's surprising how effective it is.
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Then answer the question I asked. See. I raised this issue first. So how about we make the "one concept" the one that I brought up. If you want to start a separate thread where we discuss white flight, I'll gladly do that. But in this thread, you're only using that to avoid the subject at hand.
I've answered it. It is multifaceted, not welfare.
But I'm asking just about welfare. I'm saying "is welfare really the solution, or part of the problem". And you are responding by saying "But there's another problem over here!". That's great and all, but that doesn't allow us to examine this one thing. When you do that, you're avoiding the question.
Quote:
When I begin to discuss those other reasons (i.e., white flight), you say "Tangent! Stay on topic! Welfare!!". So for you to understand my answer, you must understand each scenario that creates poverty.
Lot's of things can cause a broken leg. But if the topic of discussion is "how can cars be redesigned to reduce the rate of broken legs during front end collisions", insisting that we talk about how falling from ladders can result in a broken leg as well is not about discussion, but avoidance.
Quote:
Furthermore, poverty and high crime has nothing to do with the original topic (remember the whole Ferguson thing ?). You are continually trying to tie poverty and crime for police wrong actions and then say that crime and poverty is a result of welfare done by Democrats to keep blacks down. You create these side conversations and accuse me of going off topic by addressing them.
I've presented my logic several times. Here is it again:
Again. My argument is that welfare perpetuates poverty among those who are already poor. I further argue that since most of our welfare system was instituted at a time when blacks were disproportionately poor, welfare has had the effect of keeping blacks disproportionately poor. I further argue that since poor neighborhoods tend to also be high crime neighborhoods, this also creates a disproportionately high crime and victimization rate among blacks (including negative interactions with police). I further argue that a whole list of social ills can also be connected to this same disproportionate poverty rate.
I therefore question the logic of black people continuing to vote for and support the political party that continues to fight to maintain and even expand welfare programs. I believe that if you really want to improve the condition of blacks in America, and eliminate the disproportionate rates of events like Ferguson, or any of the large list of symptoms of that poverty discrepancy that you have mentioned in this thread, you'd be better off fighting to end the welfare state. What baffles me is that there seems to be this tendency, which you exhibit as well, of just wanting to complain about the problems, but not wanting to actually fix them (or even discuss how to do so). You keep meandering from one complaint to the next, but I've yet to hear you propose anything remotely resembling a solution.
That's my argument. Do you agree, or disagree, and why? And if you disagree, then what do you think is the root problem, and what do you think we should do about it? Join another pity party? Because that's all I'm seeing you do.
This is what you have steadfastly refused to address. Welfare leads to generational poverty. Generational poverty leads to high crime. High crime leads to situations like Ferguson. When you ask questions like "how can we prevent this from happening in the future", my answer is "eliminate the welfare system". But instead of addressing what I'm saying, you keep wanting to talk about other things. That's great, but how about start by addressing what I said? If you don't think that welfare has this negative effect, then say that and arguing that position. Just saying "but here's this other thing!" is about avoiding talking about welfare.
