Republican party needs to attract more black voters

Go ahead. Spend tons. For every black vote you get, you're going to lose 5 bigot votes. You think your base WANTS you pandering to blacks? Guess again.

 

Nope. You got my post all wrong. I feel like I already told you that though, didn't I?

 

And Republicans should take a hit on that because..................Democrats should get their support because of that why?

 

No I got you just fine, you don't get to deny your own words

"I mean, social security, veteran's benefits, food stamps and TANF are all paid for by taxes" therefore welfare which we were talking about.

Well so are the salaries of all the government workers and the President so according to you they are welfare.

 

See, I think that part raises all kinds of alarms on the right that don't make much sense to us on the left. Like on the right they're like "he didn't just say it, he SAID IT TO BLACK PEOPLE!!!!" and that makes it a super big deal... But on the left we just assume there are going to be black people in the audience any time anybody talks. If I say something in a meeting at work or on the street, a black person is very likely among those hearing what I say. We don't like have different messages when speaking to black people as if we are like trying to avoid stirring them up or something lol, they're just regular people like everybody else. Having an audience including black people doesn't seem weird to us. What seems weird to us is when a guy like Romney speaks to an audience of 100s of people in a country that is 1/3 non-white or Hispanic, and everybody in the audience is white and non-Hispanic...

It's like when Rand Paul made a big deal about how he was going to speak to the black people at Howard and then on the right he became known as the man who speaks to blacks and so on.... Meanwhile, pretty much every Democratic politician in the country talked to black people that day too, but they didn't get all weird trying to teach them the weird Republican version of black history...

Yeah, Romney's campaign claimed it was a misquote. Seems it probably was. There was some dispute over whether he said "unchain" or "unshackle." To add confusion to it, Boehner talked about "unshackling Wall Street" earlier that week too. Regardless though, that was explicitly what Biden was talking about- Wall Street deregulation, not enslaving black people.

 

Republicans would do much better by going after the womens' vote; hispanic and black voters aren't nearly as important as they're made out to be, due to lower numbers and lower turnouts, especially in mid-terms. The Democrats are totally dependent on identity politics, and their key demographic is women voters. As a strategy going after black and hispanic voters is a poor strategy; they already have enough Hispanic votes roughly to neutralize the criminal illegal alien vote, and Obama has lost popularity with black voters as far as inspiring a large turnout in the mid-terms at least. He didn't come through with the free houses and utilities many of them were convinced he was going to get for them, and Holder has failed to toss enough whites like Zimmerman and Wilson into prison to be killed for the crime of self-defense.

 

It isn't "race baiting." I'm giving you real advice on how to mend your party's relationship with black people, but you don't seem interested in mending anything. You seem more like it makes you upset when people tell you how you could do it. Which, by the way, tip number 1- as long as you keep using the phrase "race baiting" and you don't even understand why that is racist, you won't ever gain support from black voters.

What was wrong with your statement was not that you said you were a conservative, it was that you depicted black people as some other that was trying to take from you. Before you can get the support of black voters, you need to start thinking of black people as part of your team, you need to drop the idea that they are trying to take things from you, and you even need to go further and start thinking about what black people can give to you. You need to do a total 180 to the point where you're seeking the advice of black people to try to benefit from the wisdom they are willing to share with you. That sounds crazy to you doesn't it? Well, there is your problem.

- - - Updated - - -

I already explained it to you, no? I told you that I was pointing out how arbitrary your lines were. Got it now? Gonna make me repeat myself a 5th time just to be annoying?

 

Well this thread is about the statements Democrats make all the time and what THEY mean by it.

Note the lack of specific responses.

 

They aren't my lines, and if you are going to continue to claim SS and Veterans benefits are welfare because they are paid with taxpayer dollars I will continue you to point out the fallacy of that statement. Of you can just admit they are not and then discuss what actually is welfare.

 

What on earth are you talking about now? When did Romney say any such thing even a misquote?

It was Biden who made the vile statement about Romney's Wal-Street "gonna put YA"LLLLLLLLL back in chains", it was utterly reprehensible.

 

As charter schools take hold in the inner cities the blacks will get more educated . This advanced out of the norm education is detrimental to the democratic party which is why they fight all funding and acknowledgement that is given to these schools . The students in these schools outperform in every category as compared to the government sponsored schools and the democrats are terrified of them . Educated blacks realize the lies and deceit that the left has used to keep docile and impoverished minoritys in check and as a voting block. Education is the answer and it's not the subversive one that comes in public school. If we have any libs out there that care to tell me I'm wrong give me proof , I'll check it out and throw it right back in your face.Any black out there that is going to tell me he/ she got a fair shake in a so-called public school inner city system can jump in , but wear your life vest. Inner city public schools are a failure and have been since their inception . Proper education = proper knowledge = the end of the Democratic Party

 

You're clearly intentionally playing dumb at this point. Enjoy the rest of your evening.

 

Nothing, and I mean nothing, that a white conservative like me can do will earn the black vote. The reason? Because I don't approach the situation from the perspective that our party needs to "win" the black vote. Thats non-sense. That is what has been engrained in the black community for decades. Its the philosophy that the black culture is subordinate to, and dependent on, the actions of the whites when it comes to voting. Thats crazy. Its demeaning.

Rather, I approach it from the perspective that blacks should align with conservative philosophy and political ideology because it best serves them. That it should be voluntary.

Race baiting is not a racist term. You used my comments about democrats wanting to always give something away to the blacks as a means of earning their votes to tell me I am racist.

It has nothing to do with race. My position on conservatisms is that its good for all people... blacks included.

 

and again... I see you haven't even tried to answer the larger question: "Why in the world should any democrat give any republican any ideas as to how to win back the black vote?"

 

I'll look at your other post, and see what I missed. In the mean time, here's where agree and disagree on the focused topic:

I don't agree that failing to give someone something is the same as forcing them do something else. If that kid wants or needs clothes or video games and I offer him a job to get those, neither I nor society is making him act. His motivation is coming from his own needs and wants, if he chooses a path I offer to a goal he has selected -- I'm not coercing him. Anymore than showing a starving man how to fish is the same as making him fish.

I do agree that we could chose any society we want, even one where we collect all the shoes we produce and divy them up based on needs and wants, eye color, or fig leaves. But we didn't. We recognized that societies that act collectively to provide for collective needs advance more slowly and are less productive. People just don't work as hard to make sure some unknown kid get's the stuff he wants and needs. We opted for a society that's based on private ownership. One where Joe and Bob get to keep the shoes they make and can negotiate with others for the right to transfer that ownership (and yea, the group takes a cut of that deal in a lot of ways to provide for G&A).

Now if you want to change those rules... well we can. But we're going to loose those benefits. We can nationalize shoe production we can even seize all the shoe's Joe and Bob made over two generations and divvy them out. But to do that you have get enough of us to agree to that change (or hold a gun to our head). And when you do, you'll have proved the promise of private property to be a lie. You will get the immediate benefit of a pile of shoes, but you will probably loose the craftsmen and designers working on flying, hovering, robotic, biofabricated, or nano-tech shoes. The shoes you grabbed will have to last you a long time.

And folks are already slowing down because of that threat. Apple and Google have transferred their intellectual property out of the U.S., Burger King and KFC have shifted focus to other nations and markets, GM and IBM have decided not to bring profits produced over seas back to the states. And the U.S. stopped being the number one market in 2012. We expect to drop to #3 around 2016.

I agree you can make the U.S. a fully socialist country, I just don't think you'll like what you get.





​

 

In your example each of the men had something the "other needs and neither has much incentive to wreck a deal." And in each case he "agrees to it." I'd say both deals are fair. And if they're not, I wouldn't fault either man for walking away from the deal, or coming back with an army to wage war because he couldn't find a civil solution to his problems.

Your assessment of the value inherent in a plow, title, or days work are based on your assumptions about what each man was thinking, his motivations, and your opinion about those thoughts and motivations. I don't fault you for holding those opinions, I just don't think I'll rely on them in making my own judgements.

Nothing has a fixed value. We only find value in things when they are part of a solution to a problem. And you can't say what my problems, or my solutions, are worth.




​

 

White flag noted....

Next time make sure you can support your assertions.

- - - Updated - - -

And again proving my point thank you.

 

(sidenote - you mentioned the "Democrat camp", and I've used the term "Democrat" other than a singular pronoun before and was "put on blast" for it, because apparently some liberals here think it's a derogatory term :/ )

The black vote is probably the worst grounds for the GOP. There are many factors which, just looking at correlation, suggest that blacks will vote Democrat regardless of "race" issues.

1. Families. Married voters are more likely to vote Republican, and (obviously) conversely single voters are more likely to vote Democratic. Blacks are less likely to be married.
2. Income. Blacks earn less income, particularly by household comparisons (since black households have fewer people, as they are less likely to marry). People with low incomes are more likely to vote Democratic.
3. Community politics. Of all the racial groups, blacks are by far the most likely to be communalists see image on page 9. Communalists are more likely to vote Democratic - for example, given this study just cited, 6% of communalists identify as Republican, 20% as independent, and 69% as Democratic (see page 11).
4. Education. Blacks are less educated, and the less education a voter has, the more likely they are to vote Democratic.

Unscientific claims of blacks voting Democratic because of GOP racism aside, these factors strongly suggest that blacks would vote Democratic. The GOP winning the black vote would be like Democrats winning voters who are college educated rich married libertarians. That combination is just a losing category for Democrats. We don't need some bogus left-field theory to explain why Democrats lose voters who are [college educated & rich & married & libertarians].

 

I notice you had to add "libertarian" to your list of criteria. You could just have easily added "conservative" as well. In fact, many many college educated, rich married Americans ARE democrats. Being educated or married or wealthy does not preclude one from being a democrat.... being a libertarian or a conservative - regardless of education, income, or marital status - usually does, however.

 

The Republicans need to make opposition to immigration, illegal, unlawful and even legal, a national issue. Immigration drives wages down and disproportionately effects the labor class, which is disproportionately black. Its being written that they are not doing this so that the Republican leadership can betray the base after the elections stating individual candidates might have been against immigration, but the national party is not.

Republicans also need to make the war against (black) men a national issue. Prison reform and drug legalization (bringing us closer to a small government) should also be national issues. And get rid of the penny. The thing is worthless.

 

^_- oh really? conservative is juxtaposed to communalist?

And really, I hate to be asking this - but do you not understand what correlation is? You understand that I was talking about statistical patterns, not universal maxims, right? Your entire post was just one big straw man.

 

I think when you use racially coded language to an audience of largely black people, then your intent is to use racially coded language to an audience of largely black people. In this case, it wasn't even a dog whistle, it was a fire alarm. Considering Biden's history of racist statements, he was the perfect person to deliver it too.

Regardless I never heard it and it seems you never did either.

 

That is because no liberal I know thinks the Repubs should attract more black voters or more woman voters or more Latin voters. They should continue to focus on knuckle dragging elderly white voters because it has worked so wll in the distant past which is where the party lives.

 

Are you suggesting that statistical patterns indicate that rich, educated, married Americans tend to be libertarian? That's silly. I am saying that of "educated", "rich", "married", and "libertarian", the only one that is a statistically valid indicator for a republican voter is the last one. If you have some data which shows otherwise, please bring it.

 

You forgot elderly as an indicator of Republican voters as in " I have mine and the ---- with you"