Why Democrats Rediculously Pander to African Americans and Hispanics/Latinos

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

No, the country (and by that I'm assuming you mean government) should do the tasks outlined in our US Constitution; that's what it's there for. Our funders wrote the Constitution so that we did not become a citizenry of government dependents as you suggest.

Of course thanks to liberal policies, we are a government dependent nation. Over one-third of our working age population are not working nor looking for a job. The middle-class is shrinking, but the liberals don't blame government dependency, they blame WallMart and federal minimum wage.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Well, US foreign policy for over one hundred years has been one of US supremacy over other countries and going to war. To blame Obama only for carrying on a policy that the previous 15 presidents or so also engaged in, is a little too partisan for me.

Will Trump turn it around? No. Trump has shown he'll carry on doing what has been done before. He criticized China for its One China policy, and then three weeks into his presidency he reverted to the default position of the govt. He said he wouldn't go warring but has reverted to the default position with Israel and Iran.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

Funny........ when minorities vote Democrat, they are commended because they (supposedly) are voting for the best interest of their race. Yet when it's suspected whites do the same, they are ignorant, bigoted pieces of shit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

No, the country (and by that I'm assuming you mean government) should do the tasks outlined in our US Constitution; that's what it's there for. Our funders wrote the Constitution so that we did not become a citizenry of government dependents as you suggest.

Of course thanks to liberal policies, we are a government dependent nation. Over one-third of our working age population are not working nor looking for a job. The middle-class is shrinking, but the liberals don't blame government dependency, they blame WallMart and federal minimum wage.

Well, it should. And when there's a boss and the boss says that the worker should do something, and the worker doesn't do that, and the boss just accepts it, then the worker does what it chooses. The boss is the voters and the worker is the govt. So.... the boss decides how things are going to go.

Now, when the boss is separated among so many people then it's all about who gets into power, and right now there are only two parties who get any power and they do whatever they like.

You go off on your partisan position again, and blame liberals. That's totally meaningless to me.

I don't really see anyone blaming Walmart, I see people blaming the govt for allowing Walmart to be in a certain position.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

No, the country (and by that I'm assuming you mean government) should do the tasks outlined in our US Constitution; that's what it's there for. Our funders wrote the Constitution so that we did not become a citizenry of government dependents as you suggest.

Of course thanks to liberal policies, we are a government dependent nation. Over one-third of our working age population are not working nor looking for a job. The middle-class is shrinking, but the liberals don't blame government dependency, they blame WallMart and federal minimum wage.

Well, it should. And when there's a boss and the boss says that the worker should do something, and the worker doesn't do that, and the boss just accepts it, then the worker does what it chooses. The boss is the voters and the worker is the govt. So.... the boss decides how things are going to go.

Now, when the boss is separated among so many people then it's all about who gets into power, and right now there are only two parties who get any power and they do whatever they like.

You go off on your partisan position again, and blame liberals. That's totally meaningless to me.

I don't really see anyone blaming Walmart, I see people blaming the govt for allowing Walmart to be in a certain position.

And what position might that be, offering jobs to Americans for a set wage?

I do blame the government for Walmart. Government subsidizes their employees for not trying to better themselves. WallMart offers the best chance at advancement for qualified workers and overtime to keep them out of poverty. But if government pays people not to advance themselves, they won't.

Yes, blaming the parties responsible is partisan, but that's why you and your ilk are losing more and more power every election.

"If you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't!"
Rush Limbaugh

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

No, the country (and by that I'm assuming you mean government) should do the tasks outlined in our US Constitution; that's what it's there for. Our funders wrote the Constitution so that we did not become a citizenry of government dependents as you suggest.

Of course thanks to liberal policies, we are a government dependent nation. Over one-third of our working age population are not working nor looking for a job. The middle-class is shrinking, but the liberals don't blame government dependency, they blame WallMart and federal minimum wage.

Well, it should. And when there's a boss and the boss says that the worker should do something, and the worker doesn't do that, and the boss just accepts it, then the worker does what it chooses. The boss is the voters and the worker is the govt. So.... the boss decides how things are going to go.

Now, when the boss is separated among so many people then it's all about who gets into power, and right now there are only two parties who get any power and they do whatever they like.

You go off on your partisan position again, and blame liberals. That's totally meaningless to me.

I don't really see anyone blaming Walmart, I see people blaming the govt for allowing Walmart to be in a certain position.

And what position might that be, offering jobs to Americans for a set wage?

I do blame the government for Walmart. Government subsidizes their employees for not trying to better themselves. WallMart offers the best chance at advancement for qualified workers and overtime to keep them out of poverty. But if government pays people not to advance themselves, they won't.

Yes, blaming the parties responsible is partisan, but that's why you and your ilk are losing more and more power every election.

"If you pay people not to work, don't be too surprised when they don't!"
Rush Limbaugh

What position? A partisan position, always looking for the blame on liberals no matter what. And you "ilk" comment just shows me, once again, how partisan you are.

Yes, the govt is at fault for the Walmart situation.

 

[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.

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.

Really, this definition seems to support my version and the real version 100%. Thank you for your courteous comment! I am impressed!

Proportional representation

Proportional representation (PR) characterizes electoral systems by which divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. If 30% of the electorate support a particular political party, then roughly 30% of seats will be won by that party. The essence of such systems is that all votes contribute to the result: not just a plurality, or a bare majority, of them.

 

[Meathead]

I guess all political parties pander to their base. Works flawlessly with blacks but not so much with Hispanics.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What position? A partisan position, always looking for the blame on liberals no matter what. And you "ilk" comment just shows me, once again, how partisan you are.

Yes, the govt is at fault for the Walmart situation.

I don't have to "look" to take a partisan position. I know who's at fault in most cases. And yes, government is at fault for paying people not to work, or is that too partisan for you?

 

[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.

Really, this definition seems to support my version and the real version 100%. Thank you for your courteous comment! I am impressed!

Proportional representation

Proportional representation (PR) characterizes electoral systems by which divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. If 30% of the electorate support a particular political party, then roughly 30% of seats will be won by that party. The essence of such systems is that all votes contribute to the result: not just a plurality, or a bare majority, of them.

Oh God, it gets even worse.

Seriously, go look up the difference between the two. This is BASIC POLITICS here, I'm not going to debate fact with you. Either you figure it out or you don't, I don't care.

Simple fact, Proportional Representation is NOT used in US federal elections. Deal with it, learn something and stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What position? A partisan position, always looking for the blame on liberals no matter what. And you "ilk" comment just shows me, once again, how partisan you are.

Yes, the govt is at fault for the Walmart situation.

I don't have to "look" to take a partisan position. I know who's at fault in most cases. And yes, government is at fault for paying people not to work, or is that too partisan for you?

Yes, a lot of people, I've found, "know" things. Problem is, they're usually wrong.

Look at post 48 for evidence of this, the guy "knows" something that is so obviously wrong it's embarrassing. And this happens ALL the time.