What Should the GOP Do To Appeal To Minorities?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do a paradigm change by renouncing the nativists and racists within the party in deed as well as in words (basically don't embrace them as a political asset, either covertly or overtly), and instead run on a platform of social conservatism (sanctity of life, protecting marriage from 'the gays', etc.), keeping the military strong and well-funded, and embrace the notion that government can actually be a force for good in this country while being cognizant of its limitations.  What I am saying is: go back to Eisenhower and Nixon when it comes to economic issues -'trickle down' economics of tax cuts and spending cuts is too fraught with racial overtones to be used any longer as a viable long-term economic strategy for political gain.  It is too easily interpreted as a means by which whites can covertly express their racial resentments by with-holding revenue to fund needed government programs for a diversifying society.  

Ask any African American or Native American on a reservation if they have seen an improvement in the communities situation over the past decades? They will say no. And enormous amounts of gov't aid, programs, and welfare. The answer will be no. The problem is not ideology. Many blacks are Conservative both Socially and Fiscally (maybe 1/4 of them) and the only reason that they vote Dem is because of talking points, pandering and fear mongering by Dems (Wasn't it John Lewis who ran an ad saying if his opponent won, crosses would burn back in 2004). The CBC and its members are interested in self preservative not the African American Community and most of the cities run by Democrats have collapsed, and the lack of competition breads incompetence and corruption. I think if the GOP were to agressively reach out, hear out concerns and offer up ideas and solutions they could peal off a slice of that vote. Could move a state like PA, MI or Ohio towards the GOP more.

Its not trickle down economics to use your phrase that hurts the GOP among minorities. Its lack of effort and Democratic fear mongering, which you yourself engaged in here. Why is securing our borders racist? its not. Why do legal Hispanics benefit from illegal immigration? They don't. Why is cracking down on employers who hire illegals nativist? Its not. Its all about politics and Democrats like yourself putting party ahead of the best interest of country, and surprisingly the very people you claim to fight for. The good think for you is the chances of them waking up are limited. If they did the Dems would be in trouble.

If I ever saw the GOP doing any of these things I'd never vote for them again.  The election is about being the best choice for president and not who can pander to the most ppl or give the most free hand outs.  I applaud my party for their efforts in staying true to their base and form this past year and a half. However, it couldn't hurt to learn how to talk about issues that would appeal to minorities in their own ways and offer their own ideas.  An example of this was the 2000 election when Bush talked mostly about education, social security, medicare, healthcare, and the environment.  He mad have had conservative ideas about these issues, but at least he didn't simply shrug it off as if those issues shouldn't matter.

Yes, issues such as those need to be discussed and you don't have to come in favor of Single Payer or something or abandon your positions. You need to fight back, defend the position, and argue for why its better then the Dem alternative.

[Bo]

Do a paradigm change by renouncing the nativists and racists within the party in deed as well as in words (basically don't embrace them as a political asset, either covertly or overtly), and instead run on a platform of social conservatism (sanctity of life, protecting marriage from 'the gays', etc.), keeping the military strong and well-funded, and embrace the notion that government can actually be a force for good in this country while being cognizant of its limitations.  What I am saying is: go back to Eisenhower and Nixon when it comes to economic issues -'trickle down' economics of tax cuts and spending cuts is too fraught with racial overtones to be used any longer as a viable long-term economic strategy for political gain.  It is too easily interpreted as a means by which whites can covertly express their racial resentments by with-holding revenue to fund needed government programs for a diversifying society.  

Ask any African American or Native American on a reservation if they have seen an improvement in the communities situation over the past decades? They will say no. And enormous amounts of gov't aid, programs, and welfare. The answer will be no. The problem is not ideology. Many blacks are Conservative both Socially and Fiscally (maybe 1/4 of them) and the only reason that they vote Dem is because of talking points, pandering and fear mongering by Dems (Wasn't it John Lewis who ran an ad saying if his opponent won, crosses would burn back in 2004). The CBC and its members are interested in self preservative not the African American Community and most of the cities run by Democrats have collapsed, and the lack of competition breads incompetence and corruption. I think if the GOP were to agressively reach out, hear out concerns and offer up ideas and solutions they could peal off a slice of that vote. Could move a state like PA, MI or Ohio towards the GOP more.

Its not trickle down economics to use your phrase that hurts the GOP among minorities. Its lack of effort and Democratic fear mongering, which you yourself engaged in here. Why is securing our borders racist? its not. Why do legal Hispanics benefit from illegal immigration? They don't. Why is cracking down on employers who hire illegals nativist? Its not. Its all about politics and Democrats like yourself putting party ahead of the best interest of country, and surprisingly the very people you claim to fight for. The good think for you is the chances of them waking up are limited. If they did the Dems would be in trouble.

If I ever saw the GOP doing any of these things I'd never vote for them again.  The election is about being the best choice for president and not who can pander to the most ppl or give the most free hand outs.  I applaud my party for their efforts in staying true to their base and form this past year and a half. However, it couldn't hurt to learn how to talk about issues that would appeal to minorities in their own ways and offer their own ideas.  An example of this was the 2000 election when Bush talked mostly about education, social security, medicare, healthcare, and the environment.  He mad have had conservative ideas about these issues, but at least he didn't simply shrug it off as if those issues shouldn't matter.

Yes, issues such as those need to be discussed and you don't have to come in favor of Single Payer or something or abandon your positions. You need to fight back, defend the position, and argue for why its better then the Dem alternative.

First of all, the GOP is NOT the fiscally conservative party if you look at the fiscal records of the last five Presidents before Obama. Thus, I don't think the GOP would be able to appeal too well to fiscally conservative minorities. Secondly, even though Bush talked about a lot of important minority issues in 2000, he still didn't do very well in winning the votes of any minority group.

[Mechaman]

May I remind people that there was once a time when Irish Catholics voted 80-95% Democratic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_American#Irish_in_politics_and_government

Anything is possible.

[Sbane]

Seriously, the interests of most minority voters consist of receiving handouts from the government. How can the GOP compete on that level?

First thing the GOP needs to do is get rid of this line of thinking. If you divide the country into an us vs them with the them being minorities always getting "handouts" from hardworking whites....yeah not going to get that many votes. You won't even get the votes of successful Hispanics and Asians, who are even less helped by "handouts" than Whites as a whole.

Overall they just need to have more minority candidates in minority heavy districts, hopefully starting at the local and state levels. The GOP really should be getting close to a majority of the middle class Black vote, but things are a little complicated since the southern strategy happened just a few decades ago. Yet that does not excuse the horrible performance of the GOP amongst Latinos and Asians. Asians as a whole are just as well off as Whites, so why shouldn't the GOP win a majority of their votes? Latinos are certainly more working class, but that doesn't mean the GOP can't win about 40% of their vote. Bush actually ran the perfect campaign to get Latino votes. I don't think he got a lot of the votes of poorer latinos, but he did well among the middle class. Republicans have to compete at that level or they are screwed in the long term.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do a paradigm change by renouncing the nativists and racists within the party in deed as well as in words (basically don't embrace them as a political asset, either covertly or overtly), and instead run on a platform of social conservatism (sanctity of life, protecting marriage from 'the gays', etc.), keeping the military strong and well-funded, and embrace the notion that government can actually be a force for good in this country while being cognizant of its limitations.  What I am saying is: go back to Eisenhower and Nixon when it comes to economic issues -'trickle down' economics of tax cuts and spending cuts is too fraught with racial overtones to be used any longer as a viable long-term economic strategy for political gain.  It is too easily interpreted as a means by which whites can covertly express their racial resentments by with-holding revenue to fund needed government programs for a diversifying society.  

Ask any African American or Native American on a reservation if they have seen an improvement in the communities situation over the past decades? They will say no. And enormous amounts of gov't aid, programs, and welfare. The answer will be no. The problem is not ideology. Many blacks are Conservative both Socially and Fiscally (maybe 1/4 of them) and the only reason that they vote Dem is because of talking points, pandering and fear mongering by Dems (Wasn't it John Lewis who ran an ad saying if his opponent won, crosses would burn back in 2004). The CBC and its members are interested in self preservative not the African American Community and most of the cities run by Democrats have collapsed, and the lack of competition breads incompetence and corruption. I think if the GOP were to agressively reach out, hear out concerns and offer up ideas and solutions they could peal off a slice of that vote. Could move a state like PA, MI or Ohio towards the GOP more.

Its not trickle down economics to use your phrase that hurts the GOP among minorities. Its lack of effort and Democratic fear mongering, which you yourself engaged in here. Why is securing our borders racist? its not. Why do legal Hispanics benefit from illegal immigration? They don't. Why is cracking down on employers who hire illegals nativist? Its not. Its all about politics and Democrats like yourself putting party ahead of the best interest of country, and surprisingly the very people you claim to fight for. The good think for you is the chances of them waking up are limited. If they did the Dems would be in trouble.

If I ever saw the GOP doing any of these things I'd never vote for them again.  The election is about being the best choice for president and not who can pander to the most ppl or give the most free hand outs.  I applaud my party for their efforts in staying true to their base and form this past year and a half. However, it couldn't hurt to learn how to talk about issues that would appeal to minorities in their own ways and offer their own ideas.  An example of this was the 2000 election when Bush talked mostly about education, social security, medicare, healthcare, and the environment.  He mad have had conservative ideas about these issues, but at least he didn't simply shrug it off as if those issues shouldn't matter.

Yes, issues such as those need to be discussed and you don't have to come in favor of Single Payer or something or abandon your positions. You need to fight back, defend the position, and argue for why its better then the Dem alternative.

First of all, the GOP is NOT the fiscally conservative party if you look at the fiscal records of the last five Presidents before Obama. Thus, I don't think the GOP would be able to appeal too well to fiscally conservative minorities. Secondly, even though Bush talked about a lot of important minority issues in 2000, he still didn't do very well in winning the votes of any minority group.

Actually, all you have to do is look at 1995-1999 and you will find a fiscally Conservative GOP. I used the wrong term. I should have said pro-Free Market. Cause Fiscal Conservaitism is not an ideology but a reaction to a period of fiscal irresponsibility. Being Pro-Free Market is an ideology. True but he did do better in 2004.

Seriously, the interests of most minority voters consist of receiving handouts from the government. How can the GOP compete on that level?

First thing the GOP needs to do is get rid of this line of thinking. If you divide the country into an us vs them with the them being minorities always getting "handouts" from hardworking whites....yeah not going to get that many votes. You won't even get the votes of successful Hispanics and Asians, who are even less helped by "handouts" than Whites as a whole.

Overall they just need to have more minority candidates in minority heavy districts, hopefully starting at the local and state levels. The GOP really should be getting close to a majority of the middle class Black vote, but things are a little complicated since the southern strategy happened just a few decades ago. Yet that does not excuse the horrible performance of the GOP amongst Latinos and Asians. Asians as a whole are just as well off as Whites, so why shouldn't the GOP win a majority of their votes? Latinos are certainly more working class, but that doesn't mean the GOP can't win about 40% of their vote. Bush actually ran the perfect campaign to get Latino votes. I don't think he got a lot of the votes of poorer latinos, but he did well among the middle class. Republicans have to compete at that level or they are screwed in the long term.

The GOP shouldn't write them off, but part of the problem is because we ignore them or don't make the effort we don't bother to define issue like securing the borders and instead let the ID politics groups run wild with there hysteria of a racist, nativist GOP. The GOP could actually do well among working class Hispanics if they could successfully define the immigration issue right as a national security and an issue of Wage Depression but unfortunately the Business interests want cheap slave labor, so focusing on wage Depression caused by illegal Immigration would be difficult.

[Sbane]

The issue of immigration and the internal struggles within the GOP is rather interesting. The vast majority of the party wants to crack down on illegal immigration but those who fund the party want the exact opposite.

The easiest way to crack down on illegal immigration and not cause a backlash amongst Hispanics is to go after the employers.....who basically fund the Republican party. So you can see what the problem is. Also increasing enforcement at the borders is something most people don't have a problem with. But when you start talking about deporting 12 million individuals.......

[Bo]

The issue of immigration and the internal struggles within the GOP is rather interesting. The vast majority of the party wants to crack down on illegal immigration but those who fund the party want the exact opposite.

The easiest way to crack down on illegal immigration and not cause a backlash amongst Hispanics is to go after the employers.....who basically fund the Republican party. So you can see what the problem is. Also increasing enforcement at the borders is something most people don't have a problem with. But when you start talking about deporting 12 million individuals.......

Why should the employers be punished and not the illegals themselves? The illegals came there illegally, and the employers are just making use of this fact. Also, what is happening with the border fence Bush Jr. signed into law in 2006?

[Sbane]

The issue of immigration and the internal struggles within the GOP is rather interesting. The vast majority of the party wants to crack down on illegal immigration but those who fund the party want the exact opposite.

The easiest way to crack down on illegal immigration and not cause a backlash amongst Hispanics is to go after the employers.....who basically fund the Republican party. So you can see what the problem is. Also increasing enforcement at the borders is something most people don't have a problem with. But when you start talking about deporting 12 million individuals.......

Why should the employers be punished and not the illegals themselves? The illegals came there illegally, and the employers are just making use of this fact. Also, what is happening with the border fence Bush Jr. signed into law in 2006?

Because the illegals only came here to better their lives and that of their families? Why do people always think that people coming here illegally are part of some mass conspiracy to undermine the laws of the US. There is no system set up for working class people to immigrate to the US, so these people have to go this route. I see no reason at all to punish them.

On the other hand I don't really want to punish business owners. I just want them to follow the law. Most business owners already do, so in effect more enforcement of the law would help them as those companies who don't follow the law don't have an unfair advantage anymore. Furthermore, it's much easier to enforce these laws than stopping every brown person and asking for papeles (not to mention how damn offensive that is).

[memphis]

Maybe they could find a token black to chair the RNC.

[Bo]

The issue of immigration and the internal struggles within the GOP is rather interesting. The vast majority of the party wants to crack down on illegal immigration but those who fund the party want the exact opposite.

The easiest way to crack down on illegal immigration and not cause a backlash amongst Hispanics is to go after the employers.....who basically fund the Republican party. So you can see what the problem is. Also increasing enforcement at the borders is something most people don't have a problem with. But when you start talking about deporting 12 million individuals.......

Why should the employers be punished and not the illegals themselves? The illegals came there illegally, and the employers are just making use of this fact. Also, what is happening with the border fence Bush Jr. signed into law in 2006?

Because the illegals only came here to better their lives and that of their families? Why do people always think that people coming here illegally are part of some mass conspiracy to undermine the laws of the US. There is no system set up for working class people to immigrate to the US, so these people have to go this route. I see no reason at all to punish them.

On the other hand I don't really want to punish business owners. I just want them to follow the law. Most business owners already do, so in effect more enforcement of the law would help them as those companies who don't follow the law don't have an unfair advantage anymore. Furthermore, it's much easier to enforce these laws than stopping every brown person and asking for papeles (not to mention how damn offensive that is).

Wow, you are such a liberal humanitarian. Anyway, you still didn't answer my question about the border fence?

[Bo]

Maybe they could find a token black to chair the RNC.

[Sbane]

The issue of immigration and the internal struggles within the GOP is rather interesting. The vast majority of the party wants to crack down on illegal immigration but those who fund the party want the exact opposite.

The easiest way to crack down on illegal immigration and not cause a backlash amongst Hispanics is to go after the employers.....who basically fund the Republican party. So you can see what the problem is. Also increasing enforcement at the borders is something most people don't have a problem with. But when you start talking about deporting 12 million individuals.......

Why should the employers be punished and not the illegals themselves? The illegals came there illegally, and the employers are just making use of this fact. Also, what is happening with the border fence Bush Jr. signed into law in 2006?

Because the illegals only came here to better their lives and that of their families? Why do people always think that people coming here illegally are part of some mass conspiracy to undermine the laws of the US. There is no system set up for working class people to immigrate to the US, so these people have to go this route. I see no reason at all to punish them.

On the other hand I don't really want to punish business owners. I just want them to follow the law. Most business owners already do, so in effect more enforcement of the law would help them as those companies who don't follow the law don't have an unfair advantage anymore. Furthermore, it's much easier to enforce these laws than stopping every brown person and asking for papeles (not to mention how damn offensive that is).

Wow, you are such a liberal humanitarian. Anyway, you still didn't answer my question about the border fence?

Since you spend all your time inside, I am pretty sure you can find that answer all by yourself, douche.

[Bo]

The issue of immigration and the internal struggles within the GOP is rather interesting. The vast majority of the party wants to crack down on illegal immigration but those who fund the party want the exact opposite.

The easiest way to crack down on illegal immigration and not cause a backlash amongst Hispanics is to go after the employers.....who basically fund the Republican party. So you can see what the problem is. Also increasing enforcement at the borders is something most people don't have a problem with. But when you start talking about deporting 12 million individuals.......

Why should the employers be punished and not the illegals themselves? The illegals came there illegally, and the employers are just making use of this fact. Also, what is happening with the border fence Bush Jr. signed into law in 2006?

Because the illegals only came here to better their lives and that of their families? Why do people always think that people coming here illegally are part of some mass conspiracy to undermine the laws of the US. There is no system set up for working class people to immigrate to the US, so these people have to go this route. I see no reason at all to punish them.

On the other hand I don't really want to punish business owners. I just want them to follow the law. Most business owners already do, so in effect more enforcement of the law would help them as those companies who don't follow the law don't have an unfair advantage anymore. Furthermore, it's much easier to enforce these laws than stopping every brown person and asking for papeles (not to mention how damn offensive that is).

Wow, you are such a liberal humanitarian. Anyway, you still didn't answer my question about the border fence?

Since you spend all your time inside, I am pretty sure you can find that answer all by yourself, douche.

[Sbane]

The issue of immigration and the internal struggles within the GOP is rather interesting. The vast majority of the party wants to crack down on illegal immigration but those who fund the party want the exact opposite.

The easiest way to crack down on illegal immigration and not cause a backlash amongst Hispanics is to go after the employers.....who basically fund the Republican party. So you can see what the problem is. Also increasing enforcement at the borders is something most people don't have a problem with. But when you start talking about deporting 12 million individuals.......

Why should the employers be punished and not the illegals themselves? The illegals came there illegally, and the employers are just making use of this fact. Also, what is happening with the border fence Bush Jr. signed into law in 2006?

Because the illegals only came here to better their lives and that of their families? Why do people always think that people coming here illegally are part of some mass conspiracy to undermine the laws of the US. There is no system set up for working class people to immigrate to the US, so these people have to go this route. I see no reason at all to punish them.

On the other hand I don't really want to punish business owners. I just want them to follow the law. Most business owners already do, so in effect more enforcement of the law would help them as those companies who don't follow the law don't have an unfair advantage anymore. Furthermore, it's much easier to enforce these laws than stopping every brown person and asking for papeles (not to mention how damn offensive that is).

Wow, you are such a liberal humanitarian. Anyway, you still didn't answer my question about the border fence?

Since you spend all your time inside, I am pretty sure you can find that answer all by yourself, douche.

Yes I know you were being ironic....

[Bo]

The issue of immigration and the internal struggles within the GOP is rather interesting. The vast majority of the party wants to crack down on illegal immigration but those who fund the party want the exact opposite.

The easiest way to crack down on illegal immigration and not cause a backlash amongst Hispanics is to go after the employers.....who basically fund the Republican party. So you can see what the problem is. Also increasing enforcement at the borders is something most people don't have a problem with. But when you start talking about deporting 12 million individuals.......

Why should the employers be punished and not the illegals themselves? The illegals came there illegally, and the employers are just making use of this fact. Also, what is happening with the border fence Bush Jr. signed into law in 2006?

Because the illegals only came here to better their lives and that of their families? Why do people always think that people coming here illegally are part of some mass conspiracy to undermine the laws of the US. There is no system set up for working class people to immigrate to the US, so these people have to go this route. I see no reason at all to punish them.

On the other hand I don't really want to punish business owners. I just want them to follow the law. Most business owners already do, so in effect more enforcement of the law would help them as those companies who don't follow the law don't have an unfair advantage anymore. Furthermore, it's much easier to enforce these laws than stopping every brown person and asking for papeles (not to mention how damn offensive that is).

Wow, you are such a liberal humanitarian. Anyway, you still didn't answer my question about the border fence?

Since you spend all your time inside, I am pretty sure you can find that answer all by yourself, douche.

Yes I know you were being ironic....

^

[Derek]

Do a paradigm change by renouncing the nativists and racists within the party in deed as well as in words (basically don't embrace them as a political asset, either covertly or overtly), and instead run on a platform of social conservatism (sanctity of life, protecting marriage from 'the gays', etc.), keeping the military strong and well-funded, and embrace the notion that government can actually be a force for good in this country while being cognizant of its limitations.  What I am saying is: go back to Eisenhower and Nixon when it comes to economic issues -'trickle down' economics of tax cuts and spending cuts is too fraught with racial overtones to be used any longer as a viable long-term economic strategy for political gain.  It is too easily interpreted as a means by which whites can covertly express their racial resentments by with-holding revenue to fund needed government programs for a diversifying society.  

Ask any African American or Native American on a reservation if they have seen an improvement in the communities situation over the past decades? They will say no. And enormous amounts of gov't aid, programs, and welfare. The answer will be no. The problem is not ideology. Many blacks are Conservative both Socially and Fiscally (maybe 1/4 of them) and the only reason that they vote Dem is because of talking points, pandering and fear mongering by Dems (Wasn't it John Lewis who ran an ad saying if his opponent won, crosses would burn back in 2004). The CBC and its members are interested in self preservative not the African American Community and most of the cities run by Democrats have collapsed, and the lack of competition breads incompetence and corruption. I think if the GOP were to agressively reach out, hear out concerns and offer up ideas and solutions they could peal off a slice of that vote. Could move a state like PA, MI or Ohio towards the GOP more.

Its not trickle down economics to use your phrase that hurts the GOP among minorities. Its lack of effort and Democratic fear mongering, which you yourself engaged in here. Why is securing our borders racist? its not. Why do legal Hispanics benefit from illegal immigration? They don't. Why is cracking down on employers who hire illegals nativist? Its not. Its all about politics and Democrats like yourself putting party ahead of the best interest of country, and surprisingly the very people you claim to fight for. The good think for you is the chances of them waking up are limited. If they did the Dems would be in trouble.

If I ever saw the GOP doing any of these things I'd never vote for them again.  The election is about being the best choice for president and not who can pander to the most ppl or give the most free hand outs.  I applaud my party for their efforts in staying true to their base and form this past year and a half. However, it couldn't hurt to learn how to talk about issues that would appeal to minorities in their own ways and offer their own ideas.  An example of this was the 2000 election when Bush talked mostly about education, social security, medicare, healthcare, and the environment.  He mad have had conservative ideas about these issues, but at least he didn't simply shrug it off as if those issues shouldn't matter.

Yes, issues such as those need to be discussed and you don't have to come in favor of Single Payer or something or abandon your positions. You need to fight back, defend the position, and argue for why its better then the Dem alternative.

First of all, the GOP is NOT the fiscally conservative party if you look at the fiscal records of the last five Presidents before Obama. Thus, I don't think the GOP would be able to appeal too well to fiscally conservative minorities. Secondly, even though Bush talked about a lot of important minority issues in 2000, he still didn't do very well in winning the votes of any minority group.

You have a point. Bush didn't do well among them. Further, I would like to point out that it's never really been about what benefits minorities. It's always been more about helping democrats get elected to office. My point can be made in the fact that if Obama were a Republican, then the black community would reject him as only being half black and remind us that he was raised by a white woman.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Seriously, the interests of most minority voters consist of receiving handouts from the government. How can the GOP compete on that level?

First thing the GOP needs to do is get rid of this line of thinking. If you divide the country into an us vs them with the them being minorities always getting "handouts" from hardworking whites....yeah not going to get that many votes. You won't even get the votes of successful Hispanics and Asians, who are even less helped by "handouts" than Whites as a whole.

very true. there are a lot of hard-working blacks and hispanics trying to start businesses or other things to improve their communities, and the GOP can and should reach out to them. this is one thing that I give Steele credit for at least trying to do.

[MODU]

In my view, I would say "nothing."  By treating minorities as if they are inferior simply prolongs disparity between the two demographics.  However, treat everyone the same, and you will see the two demographics move more in line with each other.  If that means they only carry 5-10% of the black vote, then so be it.

[Gren]

When it comes to minorities, I think that the GOP should focus on Hispanics and Asians. I mean, they already win the states where blacks form a large minority (the South) and where most native americans live (Oklahoma, The Dakotas)

[DariusNJ]

Well, passing the bill they just did in Arizona is not going to help.

[Bo]

Well, passing the bill they just did in Arizona is not going to help.

True, but supporting amnesty for illegals is not going to help either (ex. Reagan in 1986).

[Derek]

support affirmative action, it actually does help kids in certain areas who just haven't had the family structure to do better. Yes, this is the same Derek who sympathized with McVeigh on another forum on here.

[opebo]

They could drop the racism, but people who are under constant threat are wary, so not easily fooled, and anyway they'd risk losing their core vote - racist whites.  Racism is really their finest trump card, as Nationalism and xenophobia aren't so hard hitting.

And anyway, their economic policy (which is their Raison d'être, the way they serve their masters) is essentially and thoroughly racist, so they wouldn't really be the Republican Party without the racism.

[Derek]

They could drop the racism, but people who are under constant threat are wary, so not easily fooled, and anyway they'd risk losing their core vote - racist whites.  Racism is really their finest trump card, as Nationalism and xenophobia aren't so hard hitting.

And anyway, their economic policy (which is their Raison d'être, the way they serve their masters) is essentially and thoroughly racist, so they wouldn't really be the Republican Party without the racism.

Come on you know better than to believe what you typed.

[opebo]

Come on you know better than to believe what you typed.

No, it is accurate.