Democrats and Hispanics love affair -- is it based on income?

[Indy Texas]

As the child of a fairly recent immigrant from a developing country, I don't think white Americans with no recent foreign roots understand that if you are someone who cannot afford food for your family, can't afford a roof over your head and can't find a job, you're going to vote for the candidate who will give you those things and you'd be a fool if you didn't. And if you have food on the table, a roof over your head and some sort of employment, you're going to be fine with that person staying in office. Even if he's corrupt. Even if he shoots political enemies in the back of the head in dark alleys. Even if he suspends the constitution and makes himself President For Life.

It's beyond most Americans' frame of reference for why people like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro or Muammar Qaddafi or the Shah of Iran would be able to stay in power for so many years. If your life precludes being able to take basic things like food, clothing and shelter for granted, those are your overriding concerns. Not free speech. Not government transparency.

I'm not trying to compare Barack Obama to a third world despot. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that even if Hispanics did agree with Republicans on abortion or family values or foreign policy, they're not going to vote for a party whose policies would threaten their economic security and make it harder for them to obtain things like education and healthcare. They're not far enough removed from severe poverty and scarcity to buy into the poor white mentality of "I don't need no health insurance as long as I have mah guns and mah freedom!"

[Indy Texas]

As the child of a fairly recent immigrant from a developing country, I don't think white Americans with no recent foreign roots understand that if you are someone who cannot afford food for your family, can't afford a roof over your head and can't find a job, you're going to vote for the candidate who will give you those things and you'd be a fool if you didn't. And if you have food on the table, a roof over your head and some sort of employment, you're going to be fine with that person staying in office. Even if he's corrupt. Even if he shoots political enemies in the back of the head in dark alleys. Even if he suspends the constitution and makes himself President For Life.

It's beyond most Americans' frame of reference for why people like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro or Muammar Qaddafi or the Shah of Iran would be able to stay in power for so many years. If your life precludes being able to take basic things like food, clothing and shelter for granted, those are your overriding concerns. Not free speech. Not government transparency.

I'm not trying to compare Barack Obama to a third world despot. I'm simply trying to get you to understand that even if Hispanics did agree with Republicans on abortion or family values or foreign policy, they're not going to vote for a party whose policies would threaten their economic security and make it harder for them to obtain things like education and healthcare. They're not far enough removed from severe poverty and scarcity to buy into the poor white mentality of "I don't need no health insurance as long as I have mah guns and mah freedom!"

This is the problem. Too many people vote for their own self interests instead of the candidate who will keep us protected from the government and limit the power of government.

I know. I mean the nerve of those wretched poors voting for candidates who want to enact policies that benefit them. Don't they know that it's far better for them to send their kids to bed hungry at night and have no hope of sending them to college so that those who have more money than them can pay less in taxes? Such selfishness.

[Indy Texas]

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Insurance, Minimum Wage, labor protections and regulations, etc. Just to name a few.

Yes it's called using the poor to get elected to office. Vote for me and I'll give you money. If they really cared about the poor they'd be building homeless shelters and working for charities.

So are agricultural subsidies about using agribusiness to get elected to office?

Stop with the homeless shelter and charity BS. When was the last time you worked at a homeless shelter, Saint Barfbag?

And the only reason conservatives technically donate more to charity is because most of that goes to their church, where it pays for upkeep and staff. It's not really charity so much as membership dues for a private club. The only time the non-denominational megachurch near me ever does any help for poor people, they're sending clothes to Africa. I'd be shocked if they were to do something for the poor people in this city, other than convince them not to abort the baby they can't afford to have and then provide them no help whatsoever in actually raising said baby.