|
on the left posted:Congrats on copy-pasting some strategy right out of the conservative anti-gay cookbook. I already pointed out that your thought is toy. You don't get to flip it around on me; you don't have the chops. Go to free republic, hang out with simpletons and fool yourself into thinking that you have the chops while America moves past you.
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
Telling conservatives their ideas are poo poo is basically the same as what the cops were doing at Stonewall.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I already pointed out that your thought is toy. You don't get to flip it around on me; you don't have the chops. Go to free republic, hang out with simpletons and fool yourself into thinking that you have the chops while America moves past you. How are you able to present your opinions as the society-wide consensus and the only correct opinions? Oh, that's right, you are only able to do it because you are posting in a leftist echo chamber. This is why the "help D&D debate" thread is full of posts like "I am so smart, but I got owned by my illiterate family at the dinner table over the holidays".
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Society has ignored its workers. This is terrible. We need a strong Left to make sure that society hears their voice. Also, the workers have wrong opinions. Why bother listening to them? We certainly shouldn't work with the sort of people they'd elect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 04:36
|
|
falcon2424 posted:Society has ignored its workers. This is terrible. We need a strong Left to make sure that society hears their voice. I don't know what you're talking about, since poor people consistently break Democratic despite what Republicans tell themselves to recapture the glory days of Reagan's massive popularity. Hell, some of the poorest cities (Detroit, Cleveland) produced some of the most liberal politicians (Conyers, Kucinich). Even if we look solely at solidly Republican states, rich people still lean further right than poor people. Traditional class/income/educational effects on voting haven't reversed at all.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't know what you're talking about, since poor people consistently break Democratic despite what Republicans tell themselves to recapture the glory days of Reagan's massive popularity. Hell, some of the poorest cities (Detroit, Cleveland) produced some of the most liberal politicians (Conyers, Kucinich). Even if we look solely at solidly Republican states, rich people still lean further right than poor people. Traditional class/income/educational effects on voting haven't reversed at all. Detroit is 80% black and Cleveland is majority black too (non-hispanic Whites are 33% of the latter).
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 04:55
|
|
computer parts posted:Detroit is 80% black and Cleveland is majority black too (non-hispanic Whites are 33% of the latter). Blacks and Latinos don't count as workers? Well, yes, people do tend to segregate ethnic minorities from the rest of society unconsciously when it comes to politics, but that doesn't seem particularly relevant considering all the manufactured uproar over Prop 8 etc. that insist the poor are naturally conservative across racial boundaries.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Blacks and Latinos don't count as workers? Well, yes, people do tend to segregate ethnic minorities from the rest of society unconsciously when it comes to politics, but that doesn't seem particularly relevant considering all the manufactured uproar over Prop 8 etc. that insist the poor are naturally conservative. What falcon2424 was talking about were white workers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 05:03
|
|
computer parts posted:What falcon2424 was talking about were white workers. Unless you're him, I don't think that you can really guarantee that's what he was talking about, and even if we go "rednecks only", the data still shows working class people trending leftward versus upper-class people, and college-educated to the right of high-school-educated, which is inconsistent with the broad notion that if communists really want to represent the people, they've got to do something that rhymes with "hate gays".
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Unless you're him, I don't think that you can really guarantee that's what he was talking about You'd have to be really obtuse to not get that from context.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
I don't know how it breaks down along racial lines, but given the lopsided votes for Obama among lower incomes, it seems unlikely that poor whites broke for Romney... I think the whites who vote Republican against their economic interests are middle class suburbanites. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 05:12
|
|
computer parts posted:You'd have to be really obtuse to not get that from context. Okay, so the context must lead us to believe that in the game of "leftists are elitists", falcon2424 specifically refused to include racial minorities as counting as workers that have their opinions ignored by elitist college students because... they're all liberal or something? There's some real racism here, frankly, and it also ignores various talking points that crop up regularly against the broad liberal coalition.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I don't know how it breaks down along racial lines, but given the lopsided votes for Obama among lower incomes, it seems unlikely that poor whites broke for Romney... The poverty rate for non-Hispanic whites is ~10%. At 60% of the population, that means 6% of the total population are poor whites. The estimated percent of Americans in poverty is ~15%, so white poor people represent about 40% of poor people in general. That would line up roughly with what those demographics show (though obviously poverty rates are much lower than $30k/year and white people don't unanimously vote for conservatives). e: Going by Census demographics White people made up ~72% of people under $30k/year, and 76% of people under $50k/year. Assuming minorities voted in line with the general trend* the White split would be about 50.1% for Obama for the under $30k, and 47.5% for Obama for the under $50k. So yeah, it's not the lopsided Republican victory it was for whites in general, but it's pretty clearly divided to an extent much greater than any other demographic group of that income level. *(20% black families under $30k, 3.6% Asian under 30k, 4.4% Hispanic under 30k; 17% black families under 50k, 3.5% Asians under 50k, 3.5% Hispanics under 50k, with 93% Blacks for Obama, 71% Hispanics for Obama, 73% Asians for Obama) e2: I probably hosed up those numbers but I'm tired and that's enough  for one night.
computer parts fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't know what you're talking about, since poor people consistently break Democratic despite what Republicans tell themselves to recapture the glory days of Reagan's massive popularity. Hell, some of the poorest cities (Detroit, Cleveland) produced some of the most liberal politicians (Conyers, Kucinich). Even if we look solely at solidly Republican states, rich people still lean further right than poor people. Traditional class/income/educational effects on voting haven't reversed at all. Sure, you're right about the trend. Poorer workers lean more democratic. Workers overall look a lot like the general electorate. After all, the 1% can only cast so many ballots. However we slice and aggregate the data, we're still left with millions of workers supporting the GOP and millions more supporting the democrats (who some posters have suggested dismissing, too). And, not all elections are national. There are still regions where conservative candidates get strict majorities of both the workers (my word) and the poor (yours). Dismissing these voters is saying that a huge swath (and in some regions, a majority) of workers fundamentally can't be reached and will always support bad policy. In most policy debates this would be inconvenient, but not damning. Environmentalists are right to say that coal is harmful. Their opponents are just stubborn and wrong. Leftism is different in that it's a stance about both outcomes (e.g. "we should have a living wage") the process used to decide those outcomes (e.g. "let workers make workplace decisions"). Both things need to be possible or you get something that's not Leftism. If as the OP suggests, we can't trust people to change their minds via argument, then Leftism is doomed from the outset. Effectronica posted:falcon2424 specifically refused to include racial minorities
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 06:24
|
|
|
DoubleDonut posted:It seems to me that if you are an American and you are left-wing (or anything but right-wing) and you want to make an actual difference in something, the best thing to do is to basically ignore everything the GOP does until it's time to cast your vote in a general election. Wait, man, did you just point out that Republicans tend to get a good chunk of votes from super impressionable and easily-swayed people, then declare that it is implausible to divest them of their votes? I don't get it. Seems like shifting a portion of those arbitrarily-minded swing voters should be doable, in a given election. Why wouldn't that be a worthwhile political goal? PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
The OP's proposal that "leftists" (not exactly a monolithic bloc) should focus on changing the Democratic party, rather than spending so much time trashing Republicans is probably reasonable. If you go back fifty years then that is basically how the conservative movement was able to change the country: they sidelined the liberal faction of the GOP and seized control of the party machinery. Their first candidate for President, Barry Goldwater, lost spectacularly but they persisted and eventually got Reagan elected, and that administration was really a turning point for them in terms of shifting the political centre of the country. So the idea that a dedicated political faction that wants to change the country should focus on taking over the party most sympathetic to it while mostly ignoring the other party has some historical precedent for success. Obviously it is dangerous to think you can just transplant the strategy wholesale, especially given that the capabilities of the left and the right aren't even remotely symmetrical in America, but at least the history of the GOP lends some support of the OP's argument. However there are a few problems with the OP's overall argument. First of all the three (or four?) part division of the Republican base that the OP proposes makes no sense. Grouping rich people and racists together doesn't make much sense. If the OP wants to pursue these ideas more seriously he needs to refine his ideas about the Republican party. There's enough scholarly research and polling that is either available for free on the net that he really has no excuse for not having a more coherent picture of the actual demographic base of the GOP. Finally, I think that the idea of outright ignoring the GOP is dangerous. If all you mean by ignore is that it's time to stop fixating so much on how terrible the GOP is an actually start fixing the Democratic party then that's probably a good idea. But it's still important to study why Republicans get so many working class votes in some regions. Know your enemy. Finally, when it comes to reversing the southern strategy I think the obvious solution in the longer term would be some sort of economic populism. This was, in part, how Roosevelt built his own multi-racial coalition. Of course times were different back then so the exact same strategy probably wouldn't work in a modern context, but again, that doesn't mean you can't learn something from Roosevelt's success. By posing himself as the champion of the working man against the 'malefactors of great wealth' and by offering some redistributive programs he was able to build a very successful electoral coalition. Of course lurking in the background of this entire discussion of strategy is the bigger question: how Democratic is modern America? Could a genuinely leftist movement make any headway in a general election, even if we assume that it somehow had a broad base of popular appeal. Money and ruling class solidarity go a long way in America. What is really lacking right now is some kind of countervailing power. So it might be that rather than focusing on either major political party the left needs to focus on building institutions. Without a labour movement or something like it I don't think any purely political agenda can succeed. The left's big problem today, compared to the 1930s, has a lot to do with the decline of worker militancy. So perhaps rather than centring your strategy on a political party the best agenda for the left would be fighting to increase the power of organized labour. Without some strong institutional muscle that exists outside the electoral cycle it's pretty hard to imagine any real political reforms getting implemented. If you think about the history of the GOP, the reason Conservatives were able to take over the party and win elections is because they had the support of institutions like corporations, churches, law societies, rotary clubs etc. etc. That constellation of supporting institutions is necessary for a political movement to really succeed in changing the country.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:46
|
|
|
If anything the chance for reform at the electoral level only slips away more when money is further pumped into the system. Occupy got a rather impressive amount of press considering the near non-existent resources it had but it could only last so long, as long as the camps were up more or less. To be honest, I think at best, you can only change things at a very local level at this point where the money is still low enough that citizens can be involved in the process. Even then, if you live in a relatively small city (for example, Portland Oregon), institutional forces are going to be still near unassailable. At some point, you have to be realistic amount the forces at play in the US and what can be done to combat them, and at best it is working around the corners here and there. It doesn't mean it should be tried but even at the local level it can often be a nightmarish challenge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 07:55
|
|
|
A few Occupy break ways are running a Jubilee project that saves people from Everett College' predatory for-profit model. They've gone and paid off student debt for a few people now. poo poo like that goes a long way in getting a person's ear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
on the left posted:How are you able to present your opinions as the society-wide consensus and the only correct opinions? Oh, that's right, you are only able to do it because you are posting in a leftist echo chamber. This is why the "help D&D debate" thread is full of posts like "I am so smart, but I got owned by my illiterate family at the dinner table over the holidays". I never posted such a thing, I am capable of objectively winning an argument with any conservative on earth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I never posted such a thing, I am capable of objectively winning an argument with any conservative on earth. It's arrogance like this that feeds the cultural resentniks on the right. When a large portion of the left is incapable of anything but sneering derision when addressing tens of millions of voters, it's easy to sell the stereotype of elitism. Who would want to join a voting bloc that explicitly hates them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 08:26
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:It's arrogance like this that feeds the cultural resentniks on the right. I'm supposed to cushion people from having resentment? It's not my job to protect violent, atavistic moral sellouts from the consequences of what they say and do. See, I believe in the words of Jesus, when he says "let your yes be yes and your no be no." I don't lie; I don't hide my beliefs and get defensive about it. I don't imply bigotry and hatred and retreat to "I'm just asking questions" when cornered. I say what I mean; can I not express myself freely? Whatever happened to the marketplace of ideas? What is this stifling climate, that I can't express myself in a public forum without the mavens of political correctness, such as yourself, come swooping down from their aerial patrol, screeching, trying to blame me for their own moral failure and disengagement? How like a beatnik, blaming me for your own cultural resentment! quote:When a large portion of the left is incapable of anything but sneering derision when addressing tens of millions of voters, it's easy to sell the stereotype of elitism. Sell it! quote:Who would want to join a voting bloc that explicitly hates them? Sell it! By all means keep selling it. By all means construct a bunker where you don't have to look at gay people, and you don't have to look at black people, and you don't have to look at Latinos, and you don't have to look at young people. You won't have to look at anyone but one another, wearing oxford shirts and storebought khakis, believing one another. Who's in my echo chamber? Who is in yours? Who looks more like America? Let's wager it on down because I don't give a poo poo. You keep criticizing phantom leftists for using tactics the right wing uses: so what? They worked for the right when it was in power, and when it was viable. It works to ostracize people. It works to use the prevailing moral tone of the culture against your political enemies. It worked for you when the prevailing moral tone was one of bigotry, but that's changing. Your way of life is dying out, so by all means try to rally one another. See if you can hold on to relevance for another thirty years. See if you can keep your kids from realizing that all they have to do to avoid our hate is drop your poo poo ideology.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 08:49
|
|
|
I expect more from myself and my "team" than I do from the hard right. If you must become your enemy to win a fight, it's not a fight worth winning. The ends to not justify the means.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 08:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Who's in my echo chamber? Who is in yours? Who looks more like America? Let's wager it on down because I don't give a poo poo. You keep criticizing phantom leftists for using tactics the right wing uses: so what? They worked for the right when it was in power, and when it was viable. It works to ostracize people. It works to use the prevailing moral tone of the culture against your political enemies. It worked for you when the prevailing moral tone was one of bigotry, but that's changing. Your way of life is dying out, so by all means try to rally one another. See if you can hold on to relevance for another thirty years. See if you can keep your kids from realizing that all they have to do to avoid our hate is drop your poo poo ideology. When it comes to where the country is heading, the country is going to probably look more like Mexico in the next 30 years, especially in the areas of social/political institutions, income inequality, and racial strife. This will frankly work out pretty great for me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Who would want to join a voting bloc that explicitly hates them?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 09:35
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Maybe - just maybe - there are people, voters even, who matter in American politics, and... are not lean-Republican swing voters? Definitely not a majority. Kulturkampf is a powerful force in US politics. The right wing adroitly exploits cultural resentment, and the left as exemplified by Sedan Chair has entirely ceded the matter. A lot of NASCAR Republicans hate cultural elitism more than they care about their own economic interests. Most of the electorate are swing voters. Ignore them (or worse, sneer and them as troglodytes and per se racists) at your own peril.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Who would want to join a voting bloc that explicitly hates them?  You make a good point though: how do conservatives expect to win elections when the party is going full-on racist/sexist/gay-basher/bigot? Bush won 40% of the Latino vote in 2004, pretty good times for you eh? From what demographic did Romney even get anything close to a majority other than old white men and married white women? Just kidding though, don't change a thing. I'm sure the 80% minority group landslides for Obama is just proof they're the Real Racists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
You are correct in that the point works both ways. I'm happy to see the GOP use a strategy that will eventually doom it to national irrelevance though, and tend to hold my nose and vote mostly Democrat. The point was directed at Sedan Chair, who appears to hold not only conservatives but also moderates and even US-variety liberals in contempt. I can see the GOP making a serious play for Latino voters. It's doubtful they'll ever get more than a small fraction of the black vote though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 13:59
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I can see the GOP making a serious play for Latino voters. It's doubtful they'll ever get more than a small fraction of the black vote though. I think the time for that for Hispanics was the interwar period, there were a lot of people who were trying to integrate as "white people". Ever since the 60s there's been a coordinated effort to have Hispanics deemed a separate race entirely though (it helps that de jure discrimination is no longer a thing).
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I think the time for that for Hispanics was the interwar period, there were a lot of people who were trying to integrate as "white people". Ever since the 60s there's been a coordinated effort to have Hispanics deemed a separate race entirely though (it helps that de jure discrimination is no longer a thing). It's not a coincidence that the names of two of the GOP's rising stars are Cruz and Rubio.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 14:23
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:You are correct in that the point works both ways. I'm happy to see the GOP use a strategy that will eventually doom it to national irrelevance though, and tend to hold my nose and vote mostly Democrat. The point was directed at Sedan Chair, who appears to hold not only conservatives but also moderates and even US-variety liberals in contempt. Why should anyone mollycoddle the feelings of outright bigots? Why shouldn't we hold people that want to deny amnesty to countless immigrants looking for a better life, who want to deny basic human rights to homosexuals, who want to keep racial minorities de facto segregated into ghettos and slums in contempt? What is there to be gained in shielding them from the horribleness of their own beliefs? Some sort of sense of moral superiority, some smug feeling of righteousness as the world burns to the ground around you because of the policies of the people who's feelings you are so concerned with protecting? gently caress that, SedanChair is right, these people and their beliefs need to be held up to a mirror and if they don't like what they see then it is on them to change it. Many won't, but some surely will. There's a short story I like about this very subject called The Racist Tree. It shows that mockery and scorn can be effective tactics towards changing how people act, if not how they think. And you don't have to participate if it makes you uncomfortable for whatever reason, but you don't have the moral high ground to look down your nose at those who do, either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 14:35
|
|
|
There's still a big effort by the GOP to court Latinos. At least socially, they're a fairly conservative group and are generally in favor conservative ideals. Not to mention the dog-whistle of "illegal thugs trying to destroy our way of life" can be a very effective message for people who had to live with those "thugs", especially if that's part of the reason they immigrated in the first place. Yeah, the GOP is basically going out of it's way to ostracize Latin-Americans, but it's not necessarily a lost cause for them. Edit: HBNRW posted:Also hasn't it been shown mulitple times over that Latinos aren't, on the whole, conservative? At least by the US definition of the word. Kind of, they aren't white Cleaver-wannabes who think they live in a world that's equal parts Tom Clancy novel and Halmark movie, but they are religious, very into family values, and, depending on their story, can be very receptive to libertarianism. MizPiz fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
As was stated in the Canadian politics thread, the only way the US is going to move back to the left is if the GOP is forced too. Once that happens, and supposing the results are better for everyone, then you can continue to do so. You're already seeing it with the ACA. However, you won't see any major change until your grandparent's generation kick the bucket. That's the point where the GOP will become irrelevant if they don't stop being a bunch of bigots. Also hasn't it been shown mulitple times over that Latinos aren't, on the whole, conservative? At least by the US definition of the word.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 14:50
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:There's still a big effort by the GOP to court Latinos. At least socially, they're a fairly conservative group and are generally in favor conservative ideals. Not to mention the dog-whistle of "illegal thugs trying to destroy our way of life" can be a very effective message for people who had to live with those "thugs", especially if that's part of the reason they immigrated in the first place. It's much more likely that they are cousins with "Illegal thugs" (and actually like them unlike On The Left) than that they are terrorized by them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's much more likely that they are cousins with "Illegal thugs" (and actually like them unlike On The Left) than that they are terrorized by them. Right. It's hard to justify voting for the party that wants to deport you and your entire family, even the ones that are legal citizens.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:05
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There's a short story I like about this very subject called The Racist Tree. It shows that mockery and scorn can be effective tactics towards changing how people act, if not how they think. And you don't have to participate if it makes you uncomfortable for whatever reason, but you don't have the moral high ground to look down your nose at those who do, either. What if we partner with black and other minority activist groups and implement a secret Rovian strategy to take back the south by appealing to racism and bigotry, then pass far-left legislation and accuse the Republicans of being The Real Liberals if they oppose it? "The Republicans oppose the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you want to live in an America where your affluent homosexual manager can fire you for your straight marriage, your Christian beliefs, or your traditionally masculine appearance? Republicans: anti-Christian, anti-marriage, anti-American." "Republicans oppose universal health care because they know that when a Mexican steals your job, he steals your health care too, and they like it that way. Stop the White Genocide, help Democrats help you take back what is yours from the brown menace." "Republican liberals support local school funding and charter schools, removing the civilizing influence of whites from the public school system. Don't turn public schools into criminal training camps. Vote for the equal school funding. Vote integration, together we'll keep an eye on the urban streets." etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's much more likely that they are cousins with "Illegal thugs" (and actually like them unlike On The Left) than that they are terrorized by them. It's not like various Central and South America countries have a very serious gang problem that would lead people to flee their country, or that people in very close families rationalize the decisions and actions of members who are otherwise decent or relatively good. My point is that while the GOP is seemingly trying to stop Latin-Americans from even considering to vote for them, they can (potentially) still create a solid voting-bloc with the demographic.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:22
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:My point is that while the GOP is seemingly trying to stop Latin-Americans from even considering to vote for them, they can (potentially) still create a solid voting-bloc with the demographic. It's not going to be easy. They're Catholics, and Catholics are traditionally a Democratic constituency in the United States because they place a higher value on the economic justice that Jesus actually talked about rather than enforcing compliance with narrow interpretations of Mosaic law. Weren't the Catholics reliably Democrat for populist reasons, both before and after the Southern Strategy, because they just don't give as much of a poo poo about racial and sexual issues as they do about a living wage and a safety net? Several Mexican states have gay marriage and legal abortions so those clearly aren't deal-breakers, and the Mexican Constitution guarantees health care as a basic right.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:It's not like various Central and South America countries have a very serious gang problem that would lead people to flee their country, or that people in very close families rationalize the decisions and actions of members who are otherwise decent or relatively good. Those people fleeing would themselves be illegal immigrants. quote:My point is that while the GOP is seemingly trying to stop Latin-Americans from even considering to vote for them, they can (potentially) still create a solid voting-bloc with the demographic. Your point is non-sensical. Again, the most opportune time to do this would've been in the interwar period. Mexicans during the time were mostly natives (i.e., non-immigrants) and were interested in integrating themselves into white culture. These days, you're at least a few decades too late to capitalize on the "those fuckers are putting us Good Hispanics out of jobs/homes/etc" rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's not going to be easy. They're Catholics, and Catholics are traditionally a Democratic constituency in the United States because they place a higher value on the economic justice that Jesus actually talked about rather than enforcing compliance with narrow interpretations of Mosaic law. There's a huge split between non-hispanic white Catholics and Latino Catholics, with the former breaking hard for Romney and the latter breaking overwhelmingly for Obama in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 01:01 |
|
|
computer parts posted:Those people fleeing would themselves be illegal immigrants. Not all Latin-American immigrants came here illegally, not all Latin-Americans are Mexican, and "most opportune" does not mean "the only chance". Except in very specific cases, it's foolish to think the political affiliation of a demographic can't shift with enough time and the right messaging. VitalSigns posted:It's not going to be easy. They're Catholics, and Catholics are traditionally a Democratic constituency in the United States because they place a higher value on the economic justice that Jesus actually talked about rather than enforcing compliance with narrow interpretations of Mosaic law. Yeah, that's true. Catholics are still susceptible to social issues, though more likely than not it's a reflection of the person's economic status. I'm sure Pope Francis also did a lot to shift the focus.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 15:57
|
|