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

[barfbag]

Democrats always have affairs with people who make less than average income. They use the less fortunate for votes as the less fortunate use them for redistribution of the wealth.

[barfbag]

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.

[barfbag]

It can't be entirely income-based, because then Asians, who out-earn whites(especially Indian-Americans), vote heavily Democrat as well. Ditto with the gays and Jews.


Income is a big part of it, yes. But social issues and the perception that the Republican Party is nothing but a hate-fest sure isn't helping

There are many Hispanics who weren't born here and don't yet understand the bias of the liberal media. They come here and become poorly informed and poor information leads to voting for Democrats.

[barfbag]

It can't be entirely income-based, because then Asians, who out-earn whites(especially Indian-Americans), vote heavily Democrat as well. Ditto with the gays and Jews.


Income is a big part of it, yes. But social issues and the perception that the Republican Party is nothing but a hate-fest sure isn't helping

There are many Hispanics who weren't born here and don't yet understand the bias of the liberal media. They come here and become poorly informed and poor information leads to voting for Democrats.

You really need to get new and more original arguments.

I don't think our answers are that different. The perception of the Republican Party throughout the world is a hate fest funded by the wealthy members of society who control the media such as Ted Turner and George Soros.

[barfbag]

It can't be entirely income-based, because then Asians, who out-earn whites(especially Indian-Americans), vote heavily Democrat as well. Ditto with the gays and Jews.


Income is a big part of it, yes. But social issues and the perception that the Republican Party is nothing but a hate-fest sure isn't helping

There are many Hispanics who weren't born here and don't yet understand the bias of the liberal media. They come here and become poorly informed and poor information leads to voting for Democrats.

You really need to get new and more original arguments.

I don't think our answers are that different. The perception of the Republican Party throughout the world is a hate fest funded by the wealthy members of society who control the media such as Ted Turner and George Soros.

So I guess the birther talk, openly anti-gay platforms, use of racist terms by unaplogetic GOP politicians and supporters, and the fact that tax cuts passed by Republicans tend to benefit the rich, is all just a liberal media lie? The racism and homophobia is not hateful?

Yes it's blown out of proportion by the media. There's the notion too that the birther movement was started by the left to make Republicans look bad. Having traditional Christian values that oppose gay marriage doesn't mean anyone is anti-gay. It means gays don't fit their values. Someone who makes a lot of money shouldn't be forced by the iron fist of law to pay for someone who doesn't make a lot of money. Charges of racism and homophobia is exactly what the media wants you to do.

[barfbag]

It can't be entirely income-based, because then Asians, who out-earn whites(especially Indian-Americans), vote heavily Democrat as well. Ditto with the gays and Jews.


Income is a big part of it, yes. But social issues and the perception that the Republican Party is nothing but a hate-fest sure isn't helping

There are many Hispanics who weren't born here and don't yet understand the bias of the liberal media. They come here and become poorly informed and poor information leads to voting for Democrats.

You really need to get new and more original arguments.

I don't think our answers are that different. The perception of the Republican Party throughout the world is a hate fest funded by the wealthy members of society who control the media such as Ted Turner and George Soros.

So I guess the birther talk, openly anti-gay platforms, use of racist terms by unaplogetic GOP politicians and supporters, and the fact that tax cuts passed by Republicans tend to benefit the rich, is all just a liberal media lie? The racism and homophobia is not hateful?

Yes it's blown out of proportion by the media. There's the notion too that the birther movement was started by the left to make Republicans look bad. Having traditional Christian values that oppose gay marriage doesn't mean anyone is anti-gay. It means gays don't fit their values. Someone who makes a lot of money shouldn't be forced by the iron fist of law to pay for someone who doesn't make a lot of money. Charges of racism and homophobia is exactly what the media wants you to do.

Reporting racism and homophobia is not "blowing it out of proportion". It's not the media's fault that Republicans think it's hilarious to make racist jokes on video and pass laws that discriminate/allow discrimination against gays(using Christianity as their reasons), it's the GOP's fault. The media didn't force thousands of people to post their incredible stupidity on Facebook and Twitter on election night.

And "forced to pay for people who don't make a lot of money"? Once again: unoriginal and simplistic argument. The federal government collects $2.6 trillion in taxes but spends about $140 billion on welfare. We're also paying for defense, education, infrastructure, etc. that also benefits higher earners. If you benefit the most from the system, you should pay more to maintain it. Draggin welfare recipients into this is one of the reasons people assume the GOP is for the rich.

The "liberal media"is always a useful scapegoat. The sooner you accept you have problems with racists and homophobes, and publicly and actively disown them, the perception will go away.

You. Still. Don't. Get. It. I'm going to assume you're white, straight, and probably from a middle-class or affluent family. You probably have never experienced discrimination, homophobia, or economic struggle. Thus, it's not a problem for you, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem for others. This is why the GOP keeps losing.

I'm wasting my time, and we're off topic.

We are off topic so how would you fix the problems of Hispanics? It's not just a scapegoat either. The press voted 88% for Clinton in 1992 and 92% for Kerry in 2004. Chris Matthews claimed to get a tingly feeling up his leg and all you have to criticize is Fox which is the one media network that's not liberal. NBC edited George Zimmerman's recording to make him sound racist.

[barfbag]

It can't be entirely income-based, because then Asians, who out-earn whites(especially Indian-Americans), vote heavily Democrat as well. Ditto with the gays and Jews.


Income is a big part of it, yes. But social issues and the perception that the Republican Party is nothing but a hate-fest sure isn't helping

There are many Hispanics who weren't born here and don't yet understand the bias of the liberal media. They come here and become poorly informed and poor information leads to voting for Democrats.

You really need to get new and more original arguments.

I don't think our answers are that different. The perception of the Republican Party throughout the world is a hate fest funded by the wealthy members of society who control the media such as Ted Turner and George Soros.

So I guess the birther talk, openly anti-gay platforms, use of racist terms by unaplogetic GOP politicians and supporters, and the fact that tax cuts passed by Republicans tend to benefit the rich, is all just a liberal media lie? The racism and homophobia is not hateful?

Yes it's blown out of proportion by the media. There's the notion too that the birther movement was started by the left to make Republicans look bad. Having traditional Christian values that oppose gay marriage doesn't mean anyone is anti-gay. It means gays don't fit their values. Someone who makes a lot of money shouldn't be forced by the iron fist of law to pay for someone who doesn't make a lot of money. Charges of racism and homophobia is exactly what the media wants you to do.

Reporting racism and homophobia is not "blowing it out of proportion". It's not the media's fault that Republicans think it's hilarious to make racist jokes on video and pass laws that discriminate/allow discrimination against gays(using Christianity as their reasons), it's the GOP's fault. The media didn't force thousands of people to post their incredible stupidity on Facebook and Twitter on election night.

And "forced to pay for people who don't make a lot of money"? Once again: unoriginal and simplistic argument. The federal government collects $2.6 trillion in taxes but spends about $140 billion on welfare. We're also paying for defense, education, infrastructure, etc. that also benefits higher earners. If you benefit the most from the system, you should pay more to maintain it. Draggin welfare recipients into this is one of the reasons people assume the GOP is for the rich.

The "liberal media"is always a useful scapegoat. The sooner you accept you have problems with racists and homophobes, and publicly and actively disown them, the perception will go away.

You. Still. Don't. Get. It. I'm going to assume you're white, straight, and probably from a middle-class or affluent family. You probably have never experienced discrimination, homophobia, or economic struggle. Thus, it's not a problem for you, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem for others. This is why the GOP keeps losing.

I'm wasting my time, and we're off topic.

We are off topic so how would you fix the problems of Hispanics?

The “problem of Hispanics”?


If I were a GOP strategist/politician, I would:
1.) Watch my wording.
2.) Publicly and aggressively disown any Republican who race-baits.
3.) Praise the work ethic. Talking up people is a good way to get them to like you, and when they like you, they are more open to voting for you.
4.) Go “Mitt the Moderate” and propose changes to Obamacare, in a way that shows Republicans care about healthcare reform (something that is deeply important to Hispanics, many of whom are not insured).
5.) Talk about the importance of education. Propose public-private solutions to improve education. 4 out of 5 charter schools perform worse or the same as public schools. So they’re out.

6.) Actually listen to them. What are their concerns? How do they want policies implemented to better their lives?
7.) Discuss how a smaller government can be more effective, while still delivering needed services in a cost-reducing manner that allows them to keep more of their tax dollars.
8.) Approach religious leaders about cleaning up their neighborhoods (the black community has seen great results with this) through community-based action. “Tough on Crime” will benefit the thousands of Hispanics cut down in violence, and they will accept this as long as we’re not portraying them as criminals.

If I really wanted to pander: embrace immigration reform with blanket amnesty. But I’m opposed to that. So that’ll be awkward.

I don’t see the GOP gaining a majority of the Hispanic vote for a long time. But if they can cut down the Democrats’ margins in CO/NV/NM/etc. like GWB did in 2004, you can win.

I was only talking about Hispanics but our party needs to speak of issues everyone can relate to more than social issues which tend to alienate half of the country each time. We can still be socially conservative but not highlight those positions or issues. Instead of talking about why lower taxes is good for the economy, talk about lower taxes being good for individuals and families as Bush did. Karl Rove made the point in 2008 that Republicans need to be able to talk about issues Democrats win or used to win on such as health care, energy, the environment, social security, Medicare, and education. We don't have to agree with them, but at least know how to talk about where we stand on such things. I know their advantages have changed due to high gas prices and Obamacare since 2008. However, I think supporting the immigration reform bill would be a good start along with talking points about hardships of starting out a life in America.

[barfbag]

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.

That's a pretty extreme circumstance and not reflective of the middle class.

[barfbag]

No. It is based on the Republicans consciously positioning themselves as The White Anglo party. Asians vote pretty much the same as Hispanics. If you choose to run as a party of one racial/ethnic/linguistic group, do not be surprised that you get few votes from other groups.

That's the stereotype of the GOP painted by the media.

[barfbag]

No. It is based on the Republicans consciously positioning themselves as The White Anglo party. Asians vote pretty much the same as Hispanics. If you choose to run as a party of one racial/ethnic/linguistic group, do not be surprised that you get few votes from other groups.

That's the stereotype of the GOP painted by the media.

Mostly by Fox News, I guess.

What about Fox News?

[barfbag]

It can't be entirely income-based, because then Asians, who out-earn whites(especially Indian-Americans), vote heavily Democrat as well. Ditto with the gays and Jews.


Income is a big part of it, yes. But social issues and the perception that the Republican Party is nothing but a hate-fest sure isn't helping

There are many Hispanics who weren't born here and don't yet understand the bias of the liberal media. They come here and become poorly informed and poor information leads to voting for Democrats.

That's true I work I was working Security in 2004 and one of the cleaners who was Hispanic he was like you like Bush W. he is for the rich. I'm like what are you talking about? At that time I didn't understand the liberal bias of the media because I didn't follow politics that often. Now had it been now I might have agreed with the cleaner in 2004 because the hard-right really didn't exist and nobody heard of the tea party.

On another note NBC does own Univision(a Hispanic network.)

Are you saying that Republican's aren't for the rich, and the Democrats aren't for the poor and middle class?

Why would anyone think the Democrats support the poor and middle class? Simply because they say they do? We shouldn't believe everything we hear. For 80 years, the Democrats have claimed to focus helping the poor and it hasn't gotten any better. After all these years, it's an obvious political tool to get elected to public office.

[barfbag]

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!"

Actually, the GOP will make it easier to obtain these things.  We support school choice so every kid gets a quality education.  We oppose the War on Coal, sugar taxes, bans on offshore drilling, and restrictive industry regulations, which all hit poor people the hardest.  We also support individual savings accounts and market-based healthcare reform.  Obamacare is taking away health coverage for poor people.

Latinos vote Dem because they think the GOP is the party of the rich, when in reality, we're the party of capitalism and free enterprise.  We believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.  Most of all, we believe in the dignity and potential of every human life, and we don't think that people should be told that they're not good enough to work and must be consigned to the federal dole indefinitely. 

They may get a few more handouts from Dems, but the GOP is doing what will actually improve the quality of life for Hispanics.

Yes we are the party of choice. A child should not be forced to go to a failing school simply because their parents cannot afford to move. What this country needs is a school voucher system where parents can opt to send their child anywhere in their county or city. We also need more charter schools to cut down the student to teacher ratio. Parents and families know better than politicians in Washington D.C. when it comes to their own children and how they're doing in school.

[barfbag]

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.

[barfbag]

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!"

Actually, the GOP will make it easier to obtain these things.  We support school choice so every kid gets a quality education.  We oppose the War on Coal, sugar taxes, bans on offshore drilling, and restrictive industry regulations, which all hit poor people the hardest.  We also support individual savings accounts and market-based healthcare reform.  Obamacare is taking away health coverage for poor people.

Latinos vote Dem because they think the GOP is the party of the rich, when in reality, we're the party of capitalism and free enterprise.  We believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.  Most of all, we believe in the dignity and potential of every human life, and we don't think that people should be told that they're not good enough to work and must be consigned to the federal dole indefinitely. 

They may get a few more handouts from Dems, but the GOP is doing what will actually improve the quality of life for Hispanics.

Yes we are the party of choice. A child should not be forced to go to a failing school simply because their parents cannot afford to move. What this country needs is a school voucher system where parents can opt to send their child anywhere in their county or city. We also need more charter schools to cut down the student to teacher ratio. Parents and families know better than politicians in Washington D.C. when it comes to their own children and how they're doing in school.

I'm not quite sure that students are being FORCED to go to failing schools. In my district, parents can apply for an intradistrict transfer to go to a different school if they wish. The situation is  especially fluid at the elementary school level, since my family considered two or three different selementaries in the district.  Could you elaborate which districts suffer from this?

I'm not quite sure why it has to be charter schools per se that should be built to lower the student:teacher ratio. Why can't more public schools be created? Charter schools just drain more and more money from public schools, causing current cutbacks in education to be intensified.

This is not a bad response to what I said. In most places, kids have to go to the school district their home falls into unless the parents pay for a private school. Some states do it differently, but not most of them. School vouchers help parents who can't afford to send their kids to other schools due to costs of transportation. Education itself should be solely on the states with the exception of segregation and extremities comparable. It's good your parents had a choice. I'd like to hear how education works in your state. More public and charter schools can be built, but we're all flying the same flag which is to educate children. At least we all should be flying this flag. Every time it's suggested that failing schools shouldn't get funds we hear cries about the teachers' union. If we allow school choice and competition where parents can choose, then no longer funding as much for failing schools wouldn't be as much of a burden because most parents wouldn't want to send their kids there anyways. It's similar to a bad company going out of business.

[barfbag]

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!"

Actually, the GOP will make it easier to obtain these things.  We support school choice so every kid gets a quality education.  We oppose the War on Coal, sugar taxes, bans on offshore drilling, and restrictive industry regulations, which all hit poor people the hardest.  We also support individual savings accounts and market-based healthcare reform.  Obamacare is taking away health coverage for poor people.

Latinos vote Dem because they think the GOP is the party of the rich, when in reality, we're the party of capitalism and free enterprise.  We believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes.  Most of all, we believe in the dignity and potential of every human life, and we don't think that people should be told that they're not good enough to work and must be consigned to the federal dole indefinitely. 

They may get a few more handouts from Dems, but the GOP is doing what will actually improve the quality of life for Hispanics.

Yes we are the party of choice. A child should not be forced to go to a failing school simply because their parents cannot afford to move. What this country needs is a school voucher system where parents can opt to send their child anywhere in their county or city. We also need more charter schools to cut down the student to teacher ratio. Parents and families know better than politicians in Washington D.C. when it comes to their own children and how they're doing in school.

I'm not quite sure that students are being FORCED to go to failing schools. In my district, parents can apply for an intradistrict transfer to go to a different school if they wish. The situation is  especially fluid at the elementary school level, since my family considered two or three different selementaries in the district.  Could you elaborate which districts suffer from this?

I'm not quite sure why it has to be charter schools per se that should be built to lower the student:teacher ratio. Why can't more public schools be created? Charter schools just drain more and more money from public schools, causing current cutbacks in education to be intensified.

This is not a bad response to what I said. In most places, kids have to go to the school district their home falls into unless the parents pay for a private school. Some states do it differently, but not most of them. School vouchers help parents who can't afford to send their kids to other schools due to costs of transportation. Education itself should be solely on the states with the exception of segregation and extremities comparable. It's good your parents had a choice. I'd like to hear how education works in your state. More public and charter schools can be built, but we're all flying the same flag which is to educate children. At least we all should be flying this flag. Every time it's suggested that failing schools shouldn't get funds we hear cries about the teachers' union. If we allow school choice and competition where parents can choose, then no longer funding as much for failing schools wouldn't be as much of a burden because most parents wouldn't want to send their kids there anyways. It's similar to a bad company going out of business.

Well, I go to school in California, so you can look its education policy up.

It's harder to get an interdistrict transfer, but it is possible to get, and plenty of people I know at my public school come from neighboring cities, even counties (admittedly, we are a magnet school, but the same is true for other, non-magnet schools).

However, vouchers are different from what you said, frankly. I have no qualms about allowing kids to go to any school within the district, or even out of district, or else I would not be able to get to the school that I am at currently. However, school vouchers essentially means taking money out of the public school system and giving it to parents to choose between public, private, or parochial schools. On the surface, this would be a good fix, but in the long run, it would mean crippling the public school system. With less money going toward public schools, teachers must be laid off, classes cut, up-to-date materials not coming because the district simply would not have the ability to pay for it. This then leads to a vicious cycle where more and more bright kids skipping the public school system for private schools because the districts continue to lower quality by slashing spending.

By contrast, I support additional funding for public schools so they can hire teachers, and get updated technology, which most public schools desperately need. This can make them more competitive with more affluent private schools. This is one reason why my school became a success story.

Also, the problem with closing a failing school is that the students who used to go to that school will need to go somewhere, they're not all going to drop out. The district will eventually cram them into neighboring schools, placing further demands on infrastructure, increasing class sizes, and lowering the quality of the education there.

The main problem I see with your business analogy is that a school is much harder to create than a business; whenever a business closes down, there is often another one that replaces it, or an existing business expands to take up demand. By contrast, if a failing school closes, would the school district really be interested in wasting millions to put up another school in the same neighborhood?

If by crippling the public education system, we mean providing parents with the right to choose where their kids go to school and receiving a better education then I'm all for it. For all the money we spend on public education, the very least we can do is provide families with a choice in the matter. After all, the parents should be making decisions for their children, not politicians in Washington D.C. or legislators. I would limit school vouchers to being valid for only public schools especially if it meant Democrats getting on board to pass the bill. If by schools closing we mean students who used to go to failing schools will now be attending better schools. Going to better schools is a good thing. Another thing I'd like to see is more schools being built so that we can cut down on the student to teacher ratio. Smaller classes is also a good thing. My basic proposals are the following.


We're off topic from Hispanics and Democrats so I'm going to ask if we can continue this discussion on my back to school thread under political debate. I enjoy our conversation. I'm sorry I forget you're name and I believe you are new? Welcome to atlas!

[barfbag]

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.

Conservatives pay plenty to charity so they can write it off on their taxes. I'm not sure how you got onto the topics of churches, but I'm not discussing it on this thread and would be delighted to elsewhere. Are you lumping churches and conservatives together? What do abortions have to do with Hispanics and Democrats? Again, I'd be happy to discuss abortion on another thread. If you insist though in your next response I'll discuss abortions and churches. I'm just very confused how they came up at all. I was stating the obvious about politicians. Do you think the Democrats are just a bunch of saints who are out to do the right thing and help the poor regardless of where it gets them? Should we call them by St. Obama and St. Hillary? The likely proven scenario is like all parties around the world, they use others misfortunes to expand their own political careers. It's called taking advantage of the poor. Democrats can criticize my charity work all they want when they're party is the party of saints. Then we can call them St. Obama and St. Hillary.

[barfbag]

Even if that were the case (and I am not sure that statistic is correct) it is probably because democrats skew poorer and thus have less money to give. The Sierra Club,  Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon, etc. get their money from somewhere, and it isn't corporations.

In addition, calling the democrats hypocrites because of the actions of the very small rich entertainment faction of the democratic party is not really a sound argument. I'm sure the liberal entertainment group does much more to help the environment than their conservative counterparts. Not to mention Jimmy Carter's  mission to exterminate guinea worm, etc.

There's parts I agree and disagree with. Liberals in Hollywood tend to fly around in helicopters which produce pollution. While they make up a small portion of the Democratic Party, they attend fundraisers where dinners cost $28,000. That's more money than I've ever spent on food. What I'm saying is that they make up a larger portion of funding that goes to Democrats running for office. This is why we need to not allow federal candidates to opt out of campaign finance reform. They should be limited to $200,000,000. I don't mean to get off topic. Environmental groups can be a bit extreme and a lot of their money comes from places overseas who want America to fail. Listen though, I'm a real environmentalist and know there our environment is having problems that are caused by humans and it is important to regulate pollution through cap and trade legislation, car inspections, renewable forms of energy, hydrogen powered cars, hybrids, and lots of other ways.

[barfbag]

Even if that were the case (and I am not sure that statistic is correct) it is probably because democrats skew poorer and thus have less money to give. The Sierra Club,  Defenders of Wildlife, Audubon, etc. get their money from somewhere, and it isn't corporations.

In addition, calling the democrats hypocrites because of the actions of the very small rich entertainment faction of the democratic party is not really a sound argument. I'm sure the liberal entertainment group does much more to help the environment than their conservative counterparts. Not to mention Jimmy Carter's  mission to exterminate guinea worm, etc.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Wrong.  Liberals are actually wealthier than conservatives (note that liberal v. conservative is different than Dem v. GOP, as Republicans are wealthier than Democrats) and give less to charity, give less blood, and straight from the study, "People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition."       

The entertainment faction funds the Democratic Party and conveys their worldview to the masses.  It's an integral part of the Democratic Party the same way that business interests and free enterprise-supporting groups like the Koch Brothers are integral to the Republican Party. And I know that I do more than the liberal environmentalists in Hollywood - I don't own a 30,000 square foot home; I don't fly a private jet or helicopter; I may not be a vegan or use one square of toilet paper per bathroom visit but I consume far, far less energy overall.  Not that I care - I have no problem with energy consumption; I strongly dislike environmental regulations that make the USA more like Africa.  I just hate the utter hypocrisy and stupidity of these elites who want to make energy costs higher for us while they consume exorbitant amounts of energy.

And the left is silent.

[barfbag]

Wow, the shift from 2000 to 2004..

It's called September 11. Hispanics reacted the same way as New Yorkers, New Englanders and other Northeastern Democrats. With empathy and voting less Democratic than usual.

It's too bad not everyone showed the same determination.

[barfbag]

I'd like to invite those of you or anyone on this forum for that matter to discuss civil rights in further detail under the political debate threads. There I propose a number of things which could be done in order to help minorities and help my party to reach out to new voters.

[barfbag]

What used to happen was that along with economic assimilation into the middle class (typically the result of formal education, entrepreneurial activity, and entry into skilled trades) came a tendency for people to vote increasingly for the conservative party (typically the Republican Party outside the South, the South long receiving rather few immigrants) out of self-interest -- tax cuts and deregulation. So it remained as long as the Republicans chose to pander to poor white people left behind by economic change (especially in the Mountain and Deep South).

But by pandering to mass ignorance and anti-rational religion, Republicans offended people who thought that such anti-intellectualism was an assault on the very thing that made themselves successful. Republican budget cuts have often been directed at education and research that heavily employ highly-educated people. That is one way to lose many people with advanced degrees -- and of course college students.

The Hispanic middle class sees its position shaky in America because much of it is new to the middle class. Any threat to its economic security, including ideological attacks upon its means of success, suggests a return to poverty. Republicans have thrust most educated Hispanics into a position in which they become loud and effective proponents of the Democratic Party.  They are able to enlist not-so-rich Hispanics into voting Democratic.

Note well that white Anglo prejudice against Hispanics has never and nowhere approached white prejudice against blacks. It is safe to say that much of the Hispanic middle class has white Anglo friends, and it is able to reach out to them on political issues. It is able to offer the message that what is bad for the Hispanic middle class is also bad for the white Anglo middle class -- personally. Cultural assimilation goes both ways with Anglos and Hispanics, and some of it is political.   

   

So what you're basically saying is that Republicans pushed Hispanics away by pandering to social conservatives who tend to be prejudice?

[barfbag]

cheesepizza, I'm going to counter your unfounded assertion with one of my own. What about rural, poor , conservative whites in states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Mississippi. Are you sure they would would be able to answer your Nitrogen-13 question better than your Chicago seniors?

Proficiency in science tends to be much more correlated with parent jobs and incomes. Therefore, black seniors in urban cities probably will not have high science grades. On the other hand, Asian students and children of scientists and engineers, who also lean democratic, will have the greatest knowledge of science.

I think income is a large reason why hispanics lean democratic. However, considering the curren low social mobility, it does not appear that republicans will be getting their votes anytime soon.

You've made a lot of good points about Chicago seniors being better able to discuss Nitrogen 13 than poor whites from the deep south. Another truth is that Asians are better at science and blacks tend to do poorly. It's just the way it is and stereotypes are made for a reason. However, the other side of the argument is that there is a war on religion. I'm sure poor whites from the deep south could quote scripture better than urban liberals. I myself am in the middle. As a college graduate with a degree in religion and philosophy, I see the Bible through literary and historical criticism. It's not on the left. It's not on the right. It's in the middle.

[barfbag]

There are so many ways to measure the quality of schools though.

[barfbag]

There are members of the Tea Party who push for a false history lesson to be taught in schools and want to eliminate or cut programs which help the poor. Unfortunately this is what's seen in most media as opposed to the more moderate positions of Republicans like Chris Christie, Mitt Romney, and John McCain. A Republican as president who reaches out to the Hispanic Community will help our party more than anything. Until then we're going to be at a huge disadvantage.