• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out?

Mycroft said:
Oh, I don't know if Democrats are taking white people's money and giving it to blacks and I'm probably not as well read as you are...so, I wonder if you can point me to some of this "well documented" stuff about what Republican strategists have done?
Click to expand...

Sure, not a problem.

Jonathan Weiler: Lee Atwater and the GOP's Race Problem

It has been the stuff of legend for years now -- an interview that canonized GOP political consultant Lee Atwater gave while he was working in the Reagan White House in 1981. In that sit-down, Atwater explained how the Republican Party had so successfully executed the "Southern Strategy" of convincing large numbers of Southern Whites to vote Republican while navigating a new world in which overt prejudice was no longer politically viable. How? By replacing formerly overtly racist appeals, embodied in the n-word (which, Atwater noted, "you can't say" anymore) with coded language instead. These coded appeals -- "dog-whistles" -- whether about busing or, even more "abstract," as Atwater put it, things like tax cuts and other economic issues, would have the effect of "hurting blacks worse than whites," appealing to the constituencies the GOP was trying to attract, all while affording the party plausible deniability with respect to racism.

Now the full interview, 42 minutes long, has been unearthed by James Carter IV, who dug up the Romney 47 percent tape. As Rick Perlstein wrote over in The Nation today in describing the release of the tape, since first being highlighted in a column by Bob Herbert in the New York Times in 2005, Atwater's "n-gger, n-gger, n-gger" quote has emerged as a kind of Rosetta Stone for unlocking the political language the American right has been using for decades to siphon off white voters, especially in the South, from their formerly traditional home in the Democratic Party.

One of the striking facts about the just-completed presidential campaign was the degree to which the GOP barely concerned itself with dressing up its appeals in the kinds of camouflaged terms about which Atwater spoke. These included Rick Santorum's unprompted comments about Blacks and welfare in Iowa in January (which he later tried to dodge by insisting he'd said "blah people"), the Romney campaign's baseless and ongoing insistence that the Obama administration was getting ready to end the work requirements for welfare and repeated over-the-top diatribes from high-profile surrogates, including former New Hampshire Governor and Chief of Staff to President George H. W. Bush, John Sununu (Obama's "lazy and "not that bright,") and former Speaker Newt Gingrich.
Click to expand...
 
MildSteel said:
Sure, not a problem.
Click to expand...

First off, linking to hate-sites is probably not a good idea.

Secondly, it's amazing how liberals always manage to hear these dog whistles which they claim are aimed at conservatives whites but the conservative whites never manage to hear them. How does that work?

Busing was a freaking hate crime that liberals inflicted upon people. There's absolutely nothing to be ashamed about regarding using busing as an election issue.
 
RiverDad said:
And the criminal justice system jails people who commit crimes and yet we keep hearing about how the criminal justice system is racist because so many black men are in prison.

People can point to the neutrality of the law, you can point to income being redistributed on the basis of earned income, but the racial effects are there and they're noticed.
Click to expand...

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Racial profiling is a known fact. You can't come up with a case where a Democrat has taken money from a white person and given it to a black person because he is black.
 
RiverDad said:
First off, linking to hate-sites is probably not a good idea.

Secondly, it's amazing how liberals always manage to hear these dog whistles which they claim are aimed at conservatives whites but the conservative whites never manage to hear them. How does that work?

Busing was a freaking hate crime that liberals inflicted upon people. There's absolutely nothing to be ashamed about regarding using busing as an election issue.
Click to expand...

Hate site is a distortion. And that's the problem that Republicans have. They have to resort to distortions when they have weak arguments and are exposed. Here's a book about it

Up from Conservatism: Michael Lind: 9780684831862: Amazon.com: Books
 
MildSteel said:
You are comparing apples and oranges here. Racial profiling is a known fact. You can't come up with a case where a Democrat has taken money from a white person and given it to a black person because he is black.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it's just that black persons tend to make less money on average, in part because a higher percentage receive welfare, compared to white persons (although how you define "white" and "black" apart from self-designation I don't know). At least, I think that's currently the case? Perhaps I'm wrong though.

I think a better statement might be "people who make less than X receive money from people who make more than X". Even though that is not at all correct, since accuracy would dictate something more along the lines of "people who make more than X are required to give money to the government, which keeps some of it, wastes more of it, and gives the rest to people who make less than X".
 
The Mark said:
Perhaps it's just that black persons tend to make less money on average, in part because a higher percentage receive welfare, compared to white persons (although how you define "white" and "black" apart from self-designation I don't know). At least, I think that's currently the case? Perhaps I'm wrong though.

I think a better statement might be "people who make less than X receive money from people who make more than X". Even though that is not at all correct, since accuracy would dictate something more along the lines of "people who make more than X are required to give money to the government, which keeps some of it, wastes more of it, and gives the rest to people who make less than X".
Click to expand...

The bottom line is this, it's a distortion to put forward the notion that Democrats are taking money from whites and giving it to blacks.
 
MildSteel said:
Sure, not a problem.

Jonathan Weiler: Lee Atwater and the GOP's Race Problem
Click to expand...

Ummm...yeah. Okay. This is "well-documented", for sure.

The writings of one liberal pundit on HuffPost...dredging up a 1982 interview with Lee Atwater about "dog-whistles"...and then, somehow, in his own mind, this is connected to the 2012 Presidential campaign. I especially like Mr. Weiler's "interpretation" of that Gingrich quote. LOL!! :roll:

Ahhh...got a suggestion for you and for Mr. Weiler: Stop looking for boogy-men. Most kids outgrow that kind of thing.
 
Mycroft said:
Ummm...yeah. Okay. This is "well-documented", for sure.

The writings of one liberal pundit on HuffPost...dredging up a 1982 interview with Lee Atwater about "dog-whistles"...and then, somehow, in his own mind, this is connected to the 2012 Presidential campaign. I especially like Mr. Weiler's "interpretation" of that Gingrich quote. LOL!! :roll:

Ahhh...got a suggestion for you and for Mr. Weiler: Stop looking for boogy-men. Most kids outgrow that kind of thing.
Click to expand...

The truth is that it's well documented. There's plenty of sources on it. I gave a link to a good book on it, if you don't like websites. I'm not going to sit here and write a research paper on it. I have given sufficient references. If you are really interested in the truth, go and research it. I did my part.
 
MildSteel said:
You are comparing apples and oranges here. Racial profiling is a known fact.
Click to expand...

The NYPD disproportionately stopped more white people than their presence in the population but ended up arresting more black people because black people in NY committed more crimes. It's hard to make a claim of racial profiling when the profiling results in fewer stops than should be the case.

You can't come up with a case where a Democrat has taken money from a white person and given it to a black person because he is black.
Click to expand...

It's all over the place. Here are Federal Aid programs for Minority business owners. White business owners are excluded. The US Dept. of Justice is forcing all sorts of government agencies to lower standards in order to hire more black applicants. Here is a story about the Dayton Police Department having to lower test score thresholds in order to hire "qualified" black applicants, the upshot of which is that white applicants who are better qualified are passed over:

The Dayton Police Department is lowering its testing standards for recruits.

It’s a move required by the U.S. Department of Justice after it says not enough African-Americans passed the exam.

Dayton is in desperate need of officers to replace dozens of retirees. The hiring process was postponed for months because the D.O.J. rejected the original scores provided by the Dayton Civil Service Board, which administers the test.

Under the previous requirements, candidates had to get a 66% on part one of the exam and a 72% on part two.

The D.O.J. approved new scoring policy only requires potential police officers to get a 58% and a 63%. That’s the equivalent of an ‘F’ and a ‘D’.

“It becomes a safety issue for the people of our community,” said Dayton Fraternal Order of Police President, Randy Beane. “It becomes a safety issue to have an incompetent officer next to you in a life and death situation.​
”

Here is The US Dept. of Justice again doing it's magic, forcing a California bank to make risky mortgage loans to minorities because the banks was too professional and had too low of a default rate on its mortgage portfolio:

Between 2006 and mid-2011, 5.2% of Luther's single-family residential mortgage loans went to African-Americans and Hispanics, compared to an average of 41.7% for other lenders in the area. The complaint doesn't cite evidence of intentional discrimination because there wasn't any.

Luther Burbank might not have been in this business were it not for government. The bank was largely focused on multi-family mortgages until its regulator, the former Office of Thrift Supervision, asked the lender to diversify its portfolio in the mid-2000s. Luther Burbank then hired a team to do "nontraditional" loans such as interest-only or option adjustable-rate mortgages that the bank would keep on its own books. Yes, this is the same stuff that eventually blew up the housing market.

Luther Burbank wasn't a fly-by-night operator that marketed those loans to any and all. The bank insisted on a minimum $400,000 loan amount and made loans with an average 680 FICO score and 67% loan-to-value. Over the period that Justice examined, Luther Burbank foreclosed on a mere 11 borrowers out of 629 loans outstanding—a loss ratio of 1.75%. In a normal world, Luther Burbank would get a medal from regulators for its risk management, having chosen borrowers even at the height of the housing mania who could meet their monthly payments.

But Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez has a different priority: He wants banks to meet lending quotas to minorities—regardless of whether those borrowers can afford the loans. Many minority borrowers have low incomes that make them riskier lending bets. Is that a bank's fault?

Luther Burbank admitted no guilt and said it settled to avoid costly litigation, which makes sense for a small, local lender that has to worry about its reputational risk. The bank has agreed to ratchet down its minimum loan to $20,000 and will now commit $2.2 million to a "special financing program" for "qualified borrowers," payouts for local community groups, and "consumer education programs." Justice has the final say on who gets that money.​
 
MildSteel said:
The truth is that it's well documented. There's plenty of sources on it. I gave a link to a good book on it, if you don't like websites. I'm not going to sit here and write a research paper on it. I have given sufficient references. If you are really interested in the truth, go and research it. I did my part.
Click to expand...

Well, the fact is I don't give a whole lot of credence to your "dog-whistle" fantasies even if they are as "well documented" by Mr. Weiler as you say. So, if you don't mind, I'll decline to give your contentions about what those Republican strategists are doing much further thought.
 
MildSteel said:
The truth is that it's well documented. There's plenty of sources on it. I gave a link to a good book on it, if you don't like websites. I'm not going to sit here and write a research paper on it. I have given sufficient references. If you are really interested in the truth, go and research it. I did my part.
Click to expand...

It's well documented if you're predisposed to believe it. It's not so persuasive under critical scrutiny. In short, it's handy and comfortable affirmation for long-held views.:peace
 
MildSteel said:
The bottom line is this, it's a distortion to put forward the notion that Democrats are taking money from whites and giving it to blacks.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Jack Hays said:
Since Repubs seem poised for a smashing victory in 2014 I'd say reports of their demise may be exaggerated.:peace

What FL-13 Could Mean for Democrats - Charlie Cook, Cook Political Report
Click to expand...

the special election Fl. race doesn't mean repubs are roaring back. The repub won with a very narrow margin, narrower than in past years.
 
Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %

Welfare Statistics | Statistic Brain
 
paddymcdougall said:
Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %

Welfare Statistics | Statistic Brain
Click to expand...

To make your schedule meaningful , you should have added another column for % of population.
 
paddymcdougall said:
Welfare Demographics
Percent of recipients who are white 38.8 %
Percent of recipients who are black 39.8 %
Percent of recipients who are Hispanic 15.7 %
Percent of recipients who are Asian 2.4 %
Percent of recipients who are Other 3.3 %
Click to expand...

Non-Hispanic Whites = 63% of the population
Blacks = 13% of the population.
Hispanic = 16% of the population.
Asians = 4% of the population.
Other = 4% of the population.

Non-Hispanic Whites = 61% of par.
Blacks = 300% of par
Hispanic = 100% of par.
Asians = 60% of the population.
Other = 82% of the population.

Blacks are overrepresented on welfare at a rate of 4.9x compared to whites.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

MildSteel said:
The quote I provided was an excellent example of clear thinking. The problem is that politicians have taken to distortions, and people take those distortions to be true. The notion that Democrats take white people's money and give it to black people is a distortion.

But, I can only put forward suggestions. You are right, I am the arbiter of nothing.
Click to expand...

The democrat party is known to engage in wealth redistribution (obamacare, anyone?), and its left wing wants even more of this-so thats not a distortion, its objective fact.

And yes, you are the arbiter of nothing, or at least not conservationism.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Grand Mal said:
That's right. Keep in step.
If the conservatives on this board are typical, the Republican Party's problem is pretty clear. If they want to survive they have got to attract more people from the centre and centre-left and they have to find a way to make their conservatives STFU. Conservatives, every time they open their mouths, hand whole blocs of voters to the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

Ive heard that before, but the thing is compromising ones principles for votes is not my bag. Democrat light isnt the way to go. And they said the same thing about Reagan.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

danielpalos said:
I believe supply side economics should be supplying us with better governance at lower cost.
Click to expand...

I believe governance should not depend on economics to lower the cost of government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom