Why Democrats Rediculously Pander to African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos

[NYcarbineer]

here's the choice that you are having to face as a conservative right winger:

Either you're calling minorities "dumb" for not joining your regressive party....OR
Your party is RACIST that no true minority would ever want to join.......

What do you think? (if you ever think on your own)

What's a "true minority"?

Do you have to buy into the victimization meme of snowflakes to be one?

Conservatives claim to victims of

the media, the courts, the educational system, for starters...

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

I dunno. There are plenty of Communists and Socialists elected to office masquerading as Democrats. So, you see, we do have diversity of political parties.

That's not what I'm talking about. A Communist or Socialist being in the Democratic Party, or a Nazi being in the Republican Party is still only two choices. Why not make it so that Socialists vote Socialist parties, etc? The US has a system of negative voting, other countries have CHOICE>

A Nazi is simply a socialist with a nationalist bent. Don't know how all of a sudden the nationalist socialist German Workers Party suddenly becomes a right wing group. But nevertheless, our system seems to have so far worked better.

So two sentences, and the first has nothing to do with the topic. Right.

Second sentence, "so far worked better"? Better than what exactly? And what do you mean "worked"? I mean, almost every country in the world has a government, if your system is designed to just get someone, anyone, into that position, then most systems "work".

Not every country has a government. But yes, the American system has not only born great dividends for the American people, but it has also been a model to the world. The tyranny of the majority is limited whilst the minroity still has a great amount of political power. I'll say it's worked fine.

Yes, in the past it has borne great benefits for the people. The problem is times have changed. Maybe the US got lucky at times in the past. But the US didn't used to elect presidents who were destructive, they didn't have the issues that it is experience now. Things change, systems work well in one era don't always work well in the next.

Credit that to cultural change.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

Without African Americans and Hispanis/Latinos there is no Democrat Party. You may wonder why they continue to call the country racist. See below and you'll figure out why. So as long as they can convince minorities that the game is rigged the more votes they'll receive to "fix" it. The day that blacks and Hispanics/latinos realize they're being played is the moment the Democrat Party ceases to exist.

Trump said the election was rigged, speaking of rigging.

I'll bet you beleive that too.

 

[norwegen]

That's not what I'm talking about. A Communist or Socialist being in the Democratic Party, or a Nazi being in the Republican Party is still only two choices. Why not make it so that Socialists vote Socialist parties, etc? The US has a system of negative voting, other countries have CHOICE>

A Nazi is simply a socialist with a nationalist bent. Don't know how all of a sudden the nationalist socialist German Workers Party suddenly becomes a right wing group. But nevertheless, our system seems to have so far worked better.

So two sentences, and the first has nothing to do with the topic. Right.

Second sentence, "so far worked better"? Better than what exactly? And what do you mean "worked"? I mean, almost every country in the world has a government, if your system is designed to just get someone, anyone, into that position, then most systems "work".

Not every country has a government. But yes, the American system has not only born great dividends for the American people, but it has also been a model to the world. The tyranny of the majority is limited whilst the minroity still has a great amount of political power. I'll say it's worked fine.

Yes, in the past it has borne great benefits for the people. The problem is times have changed. Maybe the US got lucky at times in the past. But the US didn't used to elect presidents who were destructive, they didn't have the issues that it is experience now. Things change, systems work well in one era don't always work well in the next.

Name a time when the US didn't elect a president that was destructive?

I can name one: Thomas Jefferson reduced the size of the Executive office after the Federalists had bureaucratized it.

Maybe two, if Calvin Coolidge's paying down of the debt qualifies.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

A Nazi is simply a socialist with a nationalist bent. Don't know how all of a sudden the nationalist socialist German Workers Party suddenly becomes a right wing group. But nevertheless, our system seems to have so far worked better.

So two sentences, and the first has nothing to do with the topic. Right.

Second sentence, "so far worked better"? Better than what exactly? And what do you mean "worked"? I mean, almost every country in the world has a government, if your system is designed to just get someone, anyone, into that position, then most systems "work".

Not every country has a government. But yes, the American system has not only born great dividends for the American people, but it has also been a model to the world. The tyranny of the majority is limited whilst the minroity still has a great amount of political power. I'll say it's worked fine.

Yes, in the past it has borne great benefits for the people. The problem is times have changed. Maybe the US got lucky at times in the past. But the US didn't used to elect presidents who were destructive, they didn't have the issues that it is experience now. Things change, systems work well in one era don't always work well in the next.

Name a time when the US didn't elect a president that was destructive?

I can name one: Thomas Jefferson reduced the size of the Executive office after the Federalists had bureaucratized it.

Maybe two, if Calvin Coolidge's paying down of the debt qualifies.

Grover Cleavland?

 

[norwegen]

So two sentences, and the first has nothing to do with the topic. Right.

Second sentence, "so far worked better"? Better than what exactly? And what do you mean "worked"? I mean, almost every country in the world has a government, if your system is designed to just get someone, anyone, into that position, then most systems "work".

Not every country has a government. But yes, the American system has not only born great dividends for the American people, but it has also been a model to the world. The tyranny of the majority is limited whilst the minroity still has a great amount of political power. I'll say it's worked fine.

Yes, in the past it has borne great benefits for the people. The problem is times have changed. Maybe the US got lucky at times in the past. But the US didn't used to elect presidents who were destructive, they didn't have the issues that it is experience now. Things change, systems work well in one era don't always work well in the next.

Name a time when the US didn't elect a president that was destructive?

I can name one: Thomas Jefferson reduced the size of the Executive office after the Federalists had bureaucratized it.

Maybe two, if Calvin Coolidge's paying down of the debt qualifies.

Grover Cleavland?

In what way? Democrats expand government.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

Not every country has a government. But yes, the American system has not only born great dividends for the American people, but it has also been a model to the world. The tyranny of the majority is limited whilst the minroity still has a great amount of political power. I'll say it's worked fine.

Yes, in the past it has borne great benefits for the people. The problem is times have changed. Maybe the US got lucky at times in the past. But the US didn't used to elect presidents who were destructive, they didn't have the issues that it is experience now. Things change, systems work well in one era don't always work well in the next.

Name a time when the US didn't elect a president that was destructive?

I can name one: Thomas Jefferson reduced the size of the Executive office after the Federalists had bureaucratized it.

Maybe two, if Calvin Coolidge's paying down of the debt qualifies.

Grover Cleavland?

In what way? Democrats expand government.

They used to be a very Conservative party.

 

[norwegen]

Yes, in the past it has borne great benefits for the people. The problem is times have changed. Maybe the US got lucky at times in the past. But the US didn't used to elect presidents who were destructive, they didn't have the issues that it is experience now. Things change, systems work well in one era don't always work well in the next.

Name a time when the US didn't elect a president that was destructive?

I can name one: Thomas Jefferson reduced the size of the Executive office after the Federalists had bureaucratized it.

Maybe two, if Calvin Coolidge's paying down of the debt qualifies.

Grover Cleavland?

In what way? Democrats expand government.

They used to be a very Conservative party.

Not so. They were always expansionist and populist.

In its Genesis, while Jackson was president, they advocated for some sensible measures. Socialism doesn't overwhelm a country overnight; it does so in bytes. They have always run in opposition to the Republicans.

 

[Markle]

The problem is a system which gives you only two realistic options, in a country of 300 million people. The US needs more political parties and more choice, Proportional Representation would change that.

The House of Representatives...is proportional representation.

The 17th Amendment should be repealed returning representation to the states.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

Name a time when the US didn't elect a president that was destructive?

I can name one: Thomas Jefferson reduced the size of the Executive office after the Federalists had bureaucratized it.

Maybe two, if Calvin Coolidge's paying down of the debt qualifies.

Grover Cleavland?

In what way? Democrats expand government.

They used to be a very Conservative party.

Not so. They were always expansionist and populist.

In its Genesis, while Jackson was president, they advocated for some sensible measures. Socialism doesn't overwhelm a country overnight; it does so in bytes. They have always run in opposition to the Republicans.

One of the largest government Presidents in History was the first Republican: Lincoln. As was Teddy Roosevelt. Not all democrats have been for big government. In fact the first modern democrats was nothing of the sort: Andrew Jackson.

 

[USApatriotz]

Wow! Those 2 beaner/negro maps only increase my optimism that Trump can win re-election!!

 

[Markle]

Yes, in the past it has borne great benefits for the people. The problem is times have changed. Maybe the US got lucky at times in the past. But the US didn't used to elect presidents who were destructive, they didn't have the issues that it is experience now. Things change, systems work well in one era don't always work well in the next.

True, petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama was extremely destructive to our nation, both at home and around the world. We can only hope and pray that President Donald Trump can turn our country around.

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

Yes, in the past it has borne great benefits for the people. The problem is times have changed. Maybe the US got lucky at times in the past. But the US didn't used to elect presidents who were destructive, they didn't have the issues that it is experience now. Things change, systems work well in one era don't always work well in the next.

True, petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama was extremely destructive to our nation, both at home and around the world. We can only hope and pray that President Donald Trump can turn our country around.

It's certainly a tough hole to climb out of.

 

[Markle]

here's the choice that you are having to face as a conservative right winger:

Either you're calling minorities "dumb" for not joining your regressive party....OR
Your party is RACIST that no true minority would ever want to join.......

What do you think? (if you ever think on your own)

I take it that you are conveniently forgetting what your own architect of Obamacare called your party members, STUPID.



Interesting how Progressives accuse others of being racists, bigots and hate mongers.

At the same time, it is THEY who pride themselves on separating all minorities into carefully constructed pigeon holes. They then proceed to promulgate a plan to pander to each group and offer them enticements and handouts tailored to them specifically. Be they increases in entitlements, affirmative action, higher quotas, lowering of standards or any number of benefits.

In this way, they create a dependency among their chosen minorities on themselves, who they themselves perceive as the ELITES. The ELITES view themselves as being so superior that it is their responsibility in life to make decisions for those they consider inferior to themselves. In this way they convince these pigeon holed minorities that without them, they could not exist, that they are incapable of being responsible for themselves and must depend entirely on the benevolent Democrats.

This is simply replacing the old Southern Plantation Slave Master with GOVERNMENT and the Slaves with any minority group. In this way they are also able to continue to reward bad behavior and punish any good behavior. Liberals tell themselves that their INTENTIONS ARE GOOD, but the results are insulting, immoral and shameful.

 

[Norman]

Without African Americans and Hispanis/Latinos there is no Democrat Party. You may wonder why they continue to call the country racist. See below and you'll figure out why. So as long as they can convince minorities that the game is rigged the more votes they'll receive to "fix" it. The day that blacks and Hispanics/latinos realize they're being played is the moment the Democrat Party ceases to exist.

The problem is a system which gives you only two realistic options, in a country of 300 million people. The US needs more political parties and more choice, Proportional Representation would change that.

I don't think so. The federal government is not there to cater for the needs of every group or for forwarding an ideological agenda. It's there to fulfill very few, selected tasks.

Of course, today it has become the tool of identity power politics, which is complete BS.

 

[vlad_hombre]

Wow! Those 2 beaner/negro maps only increase my optimism that Trump can win re-election!!

What an ignorant, bigoted, piece of shit, you are.

Are you Republicans glad to have this on your side?

Guess so, I don't see anyone denouncing it.

 

[USApatriotz]

They pander to them because whites are FLEEING the Democratic party hence we have PRESIDENT Trump!!

 

[Wiskers Von Pussyboots]

Wow! Those 2 beaner/negro maps only increase my optimism that Trump can win re-election!!

What an ignorant, bigoted, piece of shit, you are.

Are you Republicans glad to have this on your side?

Guess so, I don't see anyone denouncing it.

You want me to argue against nasty name calling? What, attempt to convince him he's wrong? Perhaps scold him? Exactly how is that beneficial to me or anyone else?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The problem is a system which gives you only two realistic options, in a country of 300 million people. The US needs more political parties and more choice, Proportional Representation would change that.

The House of Representatives...is proportional representation.

The 17th Amendment should be repealed returning representation to the states.

Are you serious? I mean, I can't believe someone would come on here and make such a statement. Do you know what proportional representation is? No, you clearly don't.

The House is FIRST PAST THE POST and not Proportional Representation. Jeez.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Without African Americans and Hispanis/Latinos there is no Democrat Party. You may wonder why they continue to call the country racist. See below and you'll figure out why. So as long as they can convince minorities that the game is rigged the more votes they'll receive to "fix" it. The day that blacks and Hispanics/latinos realize they're being played is the moment the Democrat Party ceases to exist.

The problem is a system which gives you only two realistic options, in a country of 300 million people. The US needs more political parties and more choice, Proportional Representation would change that.

I don't think so. The federal government is not there to cater for the needs of every group or for forwarding an ideological agenda. It's there to fulfill very few, selected tasks.

Of course, today it has become the tool of identity power politics, which is complete BS.

Actually the country should be there to do certain tasks that the people want them to do. Having more choice can open up the options for people to make decisions.

Take the right wing supposedly in favor of small government, and yet every Republican president for 50 years has overseen an expansion in govt power and work. So.... those who genuinely want smaller govt don't have anyone to represent them, they simply end up voting for the Republicans who tell them the same lies to get their vote every time, and they vote Republican because they KNOW they don't want Democrats in power.

That's negative voting and it's not choice.