So how does America feel about the influence of, latinos, blacks, and women?

I can't believe you're still just saying all this stuff.

 

I don't think anything has really changed. 100 years ago, the Micks and Wops were giving white southern men a bad case of heartburn. The majority changed then, too. A lot of Irish and Italians became conservative and a lot of country clubs started allowing the Irish and Italians in. Conservatives are always at least 40 years behind the time, which is why they continue to give ground.

 

Women, not all the time. But just because it is true, doesnt mean it is disrespectful. Just cause it can be shown that the largest demographics of handout reciepents per capita are Blacks and latinos and that they constantly vote for the party that insists on providing more to them while taking from others doesn't mean it is disrespectful, it is just a fact. Is it disrespectful to say lung cancer is mostly caused by smoking? Lung cancer isnt always caused by smoking, but smoking is the leading cause, so there for it being a fact, its not disrespectful. You just dont want to face the facts cause they show blacks and latinos to be in a bad light.

 

Because you havent proven me wrong.

 

Your premise is 100% wrong. America has not turned into a "melting pot" and never will. A "melting pot" is something in which, in this case, means that all the disparate cultures/races/religions have/will 'melt together' into one big happy 'multiculture'. In America's case nothing could be would be farther from the truth. America has and will always be a 'mosaic'. Look around. Are the Latinos and the Blacks and the Asians and the Whites 'melting' together? No. As the years go by each culture/race/religion is finding it's own 'turf' they have staked out for themselves. Can you say 'Little Havana'? the 'projects'? 'Dearborn'? 'Chinatown' 'Little Italy'? I could list literally tens of thousands of cultural/racial/religious enclaves around the country that WILL NEVER allow their culture to be 'diluted' AKA 'melted' by embracing another culture/race/religion. Yes yes there are exceptions but they just prove the rule. The next time a young man from Dearborn brings a nice White blond blue eyed girl home to meet his parents let us know. Nope, America is and will forever be a mosaic and to be frank the race/culture/religion that has the most eye balls will always rule over those with less eye balls. (Why do you think the RC church is against BC and abortion? Bc one sexual 'union' between two RC's that doesn't make a baby is one less RC in the world). That's just one example. It's commonly known as social Darwinism and it ain't going to change as long as more than one human being is alive and kicking.

 

Yeah, it's pretty insurmountable if the ideology doesn't adapt. You're actually going to have to start doing things to accomodate women and Hispanics.

It might have been a 2-point margin but, as Laura Ingraham has said, this should have been a gimme election for Republicans. The Democrat candidate was a black, muslim, pot-smoking, socialist, foreigner with community organizing tendancies and an 8% unemployment rate, fer cryin' out loud.

 

With freedom comes responsibility doesn't matter what supremacist ideology is at hand. As long as one class of people dictates their desires upon the other nothing will ever be accomplished except despair.

 

The Left have shown they don't care how much it cost, or who will finally wind up paying for it. If we need more, we'll tax the rich more. If that isn't enough, we'll get more from the Middle Class. If that won't get it, we'll just print more money.

 

I do agree that under the circumstances Obama should have lost. But I also agree that when you don't accomodate who you said in your post you can't win. I don't see why they didn't see this.

 

I chalk it up to Tea Party rigidity and their NEED to insult women, blacks and hispanics. Romney was a pragmatist who I could have liked. Then he got mixed up with that rightwing crowd.

 

Chronic unemployment.

A shrinking middle class income.

More people on food stamps.

Two international credit rating downgrades.

The loss of status as the worlds number one economy.

The new ruling majority of minorities has been very bad for America.

 

Well the 'Makers' can always 'up-sticks' and leave. That's what they are doing and they are taking the manufacturing equipment with them to places like Canada which is welcoming them with open arms. The 'Takers' on the other hand are going to find that the UR is going to increase meaning less work/wages/ability to survive. One day the 'Takers' are going to get a lump of coal in the welfare envelope. Like Maggie Thatcher said: "Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money". The 'Takers', and I've spoken with some honestly believe that the Gov./Obama will never REALLY 'run out of money'. It's actually in their genetic make up not to understand the concept of 'consequence'. There nothing more of a threat to America than millions of VERY angry people who will soon be marching towards the White house demanding their welfare cheques and food stamps.

 

Another major demographic ignored was the under-thirties, who may be fiscally conservative, but tend to be socially liberal. The Republicans had nothing to offer them but "trickle-down", so they voted accordingly.

 

We get it.

America must learn to accept the rise of minorities and the decline of our living standards.

 

Wow!! I'm...still shocked.

 

Yeah so when was the last time a "socially liberal" 'under thirty' paid their rent with 'Go Green' pamphlets?

 

No you aren't.

You started this thread as a way to poke a stick in the eye of white males and you love to see them react.

 

I still don't understand why they did this? Did they really think it was going to be affective? What was the mindset when they were doing this.

 

Another major demographic ignored was the under-thirties, who may be fiscally conservative, but tend to be socially liberal. The Republicans had nothing to offer them but "trickle-down", so they voted accordingly.

 

This is why Trotsky believed socialism needed to be global. Otherwise you need to worry about capital flight and their is no group who is more mobile than the wealthy. In fact almost every nation needs to worry about this because as long as there are nations out there who can offer a better living and business environment capital flight is a risk. Though unless there is a major crisis it usually only occurs on a small scale. America has never had to worry about this in it's history of course since most capital flight from other nations has been to America in recent times. It's probably the main reason America is as wealthy as it is today.

 

But they have to be looked at as having the demographic importance that the represent. We can't disrepect them like this.

 

Female unemployment is very high right now. Most white democrats, especially the young will gravitate toward the republican party when they can't find a job.


And if you think republicans are the party of hate, who did those black and hispanic voters get "revenge" against?

 

So it's all about what a politician can offer you. That's the problem.

 

They won't always be that way and they have to be given the demographic influence respect for the influence they have. Their view counts too. Obviously.

 

How are you shocked? Those are all verifiable facts. My guess is that you get your news only from MSNBC, which is why you weren't aware of the above. unemployment has remained high throughout Obama's presidency, real incomes are down $2,500 since Obama's presidency, 46 million people are on foodstamps since Obama's presidency, and our credit rating has been downgraded since Obama's presidency.

The only reason you are shocked by the facts is because you haven't done any research.