• 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!

Why Do Uneducated Poor White Americans Consistently Vote Republican?

Rich123 said:
Hi,
Seems to me that wedge issues are high on their list. Abortion and gay rights to name two. Neither issue will enhance their lives if the legislators successfully outlaw them. But those poor whites will feel good about it. And at the same time those same legislators will vote tax breaks for the wealthiest one percent, limit the effectiveness of organized labor by "Right to Work laws. Undo medicare and social security. All of which are contrary to those poor whites self interest. The question is, do they know this?
Click to expand...

I don't believe they know Nor really care to understand matter fact I think they would except these things as wins and the losses in their own personal lives they just except it too. It's a sick sad sort of brainwashing. Base on silly pride.
 
Basically most of the white, working class Republican voters today were once Democrats. However, once the D Party became the party of inclusion, the party for gays, minorities, recent immigrants, and non-Christians, the whites fled it like they did urban neighborhoods when the Blacks moved in.
 
Honestly how can you tell the difference between the two men running or do you just flip a coin?
 
Simple answer: Uneducated, poor Whites vote based on their racial identity, not their economic condition. People who voted for Trump did so because of their racial anxieties about non-Whites becoming more politically active and our growing demographics in America.
 
Cherub786 said:
Simple answer: Uneducated, poor Whites vote based on their racial identity, not their economic condition. People who voted for Trump did so because of their racial anxieties about non-Whites becoming more politically active and our growing demographics in America.
Click to expand...

what a stupid stereotype of millions. some poor whites just couldn't stand the sense of entitlement coming from the clinton crime family. some are military and tired of Hillary crapping on men in uniform.
 
Cherub786 said:
Simple answer: Uneducated, poor Whites vote based on their racial identity, not their economic condition. People who voted for Trump did so because of their racial anxieties about non-Whites becoming more politically active and our growing demographics in America.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they simply prefer the policies of the party they voted for. In my opinion, the 2 most polarizing issues that drive the base for Republicans are Pro-Life and Pro-2a supporters. Neither issue has anything to do with racial identity.
 
Nap said:
Or maybe they simply prefer the policies of the party they voted for. In my opinion, the 2 most polarizing issues that drive the base for Republicans are Pro-Life and Pro-2a supporters. Neither issue has anything to do with racial identity.
Click to expand...

The pro-life and pro-2a issues aren’t such big issues anymore, especially not in the rust belt where Trump did exceptionally well among the White voters. Trump was elected because of racism, pure and simple.
 
Cherub786 said:

The pro-life and pro-2a issues aren’t such big issues anymore, especially not in the rust belt where Trump did exceptionally well among the White voters. Trump was elected because of racism, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Lol no, Trump got elected mainly due to his opponent being Hillary. In the rust belt that you were referring to, in some of the states he won he received less votes than Romney or McCain who lost those states. He won the rust belt because Democrats didn't turn out for the election like they did for Obama. There are some that voted for him due to rasicm but painting everyone with the racist brush is pretty ridiculous.

In the South, Pro2a and Pro-Life are the key policies holding back Democrats.
 
Nap said:
Lol no, Trump got elected mainly due to his opponent being Hillary. In the rust belt that you were referring to, in some of the states he won he received less votes than Romney or McCain who lost those states. He won the rust belt because Democrats didn't turn out for the election like they did for Obama. There are some that voted for him due to rasicm but painting everyone with the racist brush is pretty ridiculous.

In the South, Pro2a and Pro-Life are the key policies holding back Democrats.
Click to expand...

Undoubtedly Hillary was a bad candidate, unlike Obama whom I think, despite his many shortcomings, has been the best President America has had in a long long time. Nevertheless to vote for a racist and incompetent buffoon like Trump over Hillary, despite her narcissism and corruption, is still ludicrous. By all accounts Trump is a total failure as president, even his own Party is getting sick of him. So the deep racial divide in voting patterns has to be taken into account and the result is obvious, people voted for Trump because they like his xenophobic and racist tendencies. Why do you think the racist alt-right was so excited about Trump more than any other Republican candidate?

As for the South, it is gradually becoming less dominated by Republicans. Virginia is already a solidly blue state, and North Carolina and even Texas are moving in that direction too. A great contributing factor is the demographic change happening in the South. Only the ‘Deep South’ remains strongly Republican. But those minor states like Alabama and Mississippi are very small and therefore irrelevant. Virginia and North Carolina are the real prize and Texas will soon be described as a ‘purple’ state.
 
Cherub786 said:
Undoubtedly Hillary was a bad candidate, unlike Obama whom I think, despite his many shortcomings, has been the best President America has had in a long long time. Nevertheless to vote for a racist and incompetent buffoon like Trump over Hillary, despite her narcissism and corruption, is still ludicrous. By all accounts Trump is a total failure as president, even his own Party is getting sick of him. So the deep racial divide in voting patterns has to be taken into account and the result is obvious, people voted for Trump because they like his xenophobic and racist tendencies. Why do you think the racist alt-right was so excited about Trump more than any other Republican candidate?

As for the South, it is gradually becoming less dominated by Republicans. Virginia is already a solidly blue state, and North Carolina and even Texas are moving in that direction too. A great contributing factor is the demographic change happening in the South. Only the ‘Deep South’ remains strongly Republican. But those minor states like Alabama and Mississippi are very small and therefore irrelevant. Virginia and North Carolina are the real prize and Texas will soon be described as a ‘purple’ state.
Click to expand...

Considering you think a woman's place is in the kitchen, I'm wondering if you voted Trump.

If I were forced to pick between Hillary and Trump, it would have been Trump (ultimately I was so disgusted with both of them, I voted neither) and it would have had zero to do with racism or xenophobia. The Alt-Right are neo-nazis who loved Trump's immigration policies. There are reasons to support lowering immigration outside of racism and xenophobia.
 
Nap said:
Considering you think a woman's place is in the kitchen, I'm wondering if you voted Trump.

If I were forced to pick between Hillary and Trump, it would have been Trump (ultimately I was so disgusted with both of them, I voted neither) and it would have had zero to do with racism or xenophobia. The Alt-Right are neo-nazis who loved Trump's immigration policies. There are reasons to support lowering immigration outside of racism and xenophobia.
Click to expand...

There is no rational reason to lower immigration apart from arguments rooted in racism and xenophobia that too many non-White people will end up changing America’s culture and identity.

Personally I am a very socially conservative person and economically very libertarian. I am the complete opposite of an authoritarian socialist. Nevertheless, as a non-White person I know that the right-wing in this country are actively going against my interests and so I prefer any government to a protectionist, right-wing xenophobic one.
 
Cherub786 said:

There is no rational reason to lower immigration apart from arguments rooted in racism and xenophobia that too many non-White people will end up changing America’s culture and identity.

Personally I am a very socially conservative person and economically very libertarian. I am the complete opposite of an authoritarian socialist. Nevertheless, as a non-White person I know that the right-wing in this country are actively going against my interests and so I prefer any government to a protectionist, right-wing xenophobic one.
Click to expand...

So considering the vast social safety net here in America, you don't see any problem with opening the borders? Ideally, I am for open borders myself, however as long as we continue to keep and expand the welfare programs we have I don't see that as particularly smart move which is why I would prefer a merit based system and do away with limiting the number of people allowed to come. If you can show you have the skills and ability to come in and get a job you should be granted citizenship on the spot imo.
 
Nap said:
So considering the vast social safety net here in America, you don't see any problem with opening the borders? Ideally, I am for open borders myself, however as long as we continue to keep and expand the welfare programs we have I don't see that as particularly smart move which is why I would prefer a merit based system and do away with limiting the number of people allowed to come. If you can show you have the skills and ability to come in and get a job you should be granted citizenship on the spot imo.
Click to expand...

You are correct, that’s why I’m in favor of dismantling this massive social security machine the government has imposed on the nation. We have to go back to our libertarian roots before the New Deal. That is the only true way to make America great again. Building a wall will make America worse.
 
Cherub786 said:
You are correct, that’s why I’m in favor of dismantling this massive social security machine the government has imposed on the nation. We have to go back to our libertarian roots before the New Deal. That is the only true way to make America great again. Building a wall will make America worse.
Click to expand...

We are 100% in agreement on that. If that were done then I would agree that arguments against immigration would mostly be about racism and xenophobia. As long as those social welfare programs are in place there is a valid argument for wanting to limit the amount of people coming in. The issue is that it would essentially be political suicide to say they just want to keep poor people out.
 
Geoist said:
Yeah, **** renters.
Click to expand...

I find this interesting because there was a thread on here some months ago where renters were being trashed by some people who tried to make the argument that the landlord was the one paying all the taxes.

Without renters the property would eventually have to be sold off or go back to the bank. Of course, I was told by some that I was wrong.
 
Nap said:
This isn't necessarily true, I know individuals that due to pride would rather do without than take a handout.
Click to expand...

You're correct of course nothing is absolute so let's change the percentage to say 99.98%.
 
The neurochemistry of "following".

/thread.
 
Geoist said:
Yeah, **** renters.
Click to expand...

wow, it took over a 100 days to respond to my post. one would think a more scholarly response would be merited with all that time to formulate an answer.
 
RetiredUSN said:
I find this interesting because there was a thread on here some months ago where renters were being trashed by some people who tried to make the argument that the landlord was the one paying all the taxes.

Without renters the property would eventually have to be sold off or go back to the bank. Of course, I was told by some that I was wrong.
Click to expand...

Those people clearly do not understand economics. A site's market value is determined by its attractiveness to potential buyers/renters... but I'm sure I am preaching to the choir on that.
 
TurtleDude said:
wow, it took over a 100 days to respond to my post. one would think a more scholarly response would be merited with all that time to formulate an answer.
Click to expand...

Because all your posts are chock-full of scholarly gems?

Your post didn't exactly warrant much more than a blunt response.

Btw, not everyone reads every post on DP on the very day it is posted. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom