What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

CNN: Why Trump is still winning (1 Viewer)

What "team" is Trump on?

And whatever "team" that is, you don't think it panders to identity politics?

And what city do you live in?  
The "team" comment was in response to a previous comment.  

I think he is trying to do what he feels is in the best interests of this country as a whole.  That this should transcend identity, not be dictated by it.  He completely fails at articulating this.

I recently moved to Media PA just outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  I lived in Philly since '97.  That is the city I'm referring to when I talk about democrat led.

 
The "team" comment was in response to a previous comment.  

I think he is trying to do what he feels is in the best interests of this country as a whole.  That this should transcend identity, not be dictated by it.  He completely fails at articulating this.

I recently moved to Media PA just outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  I lived in Philly since '97.  That is the city I'm referring to when I talk about democrat led.
He has absolutely no experience from which to draw to make any sort of conclusion on what is best for this country as a whole.  Why in the world would anyone want what he feels is in the best interests of the USA?  He has also surrounded himself with virtually no one that meets any sort of experience criteria in his cabinet.  He's shooting off the cuff and shaping policy based on the Bannons and Stephen Millers of the world.  Who cares if his intentions are possibly good when he has no business making those decisions and never did.

 
The "team" comment was in response to a previous comment.  

I think he is trying to do what he feels is in the best interests of this country as a whole.  That this should transcend identity, not be dictated by it.  He completely fails at articulating this.

I recently moved to Media PA just outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  I lived in Philly since '97.  That is the city I'm referring to when I talk about democrat led.
I highly disagree that he is trying to do what is best for the country as a whole.  I think he is tryouts ngbto do what is best for his pocketbook and that ofnhis Rich donors and the niche of his base and little

more.

 
Anytime you paint an entire group as such and such it is bogus and I have accurately pointed out many instances and not in a single case was it met with anything but attacks. 
Can you give me an example of a time people were wrongly critical of Trump and you corrected them and were met with nothing but attacks?

 
Yep. I’m stupid.  By the way...what happened to the “Day of Rage” that you lefties were clutching your pearls over?  They don’t dare cross Trump.  
They don’t dare cross Trump?  Wat?

Like NK has you mean?  You think Palestinians are afraid of Donald Trump?

 
The "team" comment was in response to a previous comment.  

I think he is trying to do what he feels is in the best interests of this country as a whole.  That this should transcend identity, not be dictated by it.  He completely fails at articulating this.

I recently moved to Media PA just outside of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  I lived in Philly since '97.  That is the city I'm referring to when I talk about democrat led.
Throughout my life, I've found that folks who repeatedly fail to articulate something despite being given repeated opportunities, often are those who don't understand what it is they're trying to explain.  Trump is a perfect example of this.  He is given a pass by his supporters at sucking at communication, but he doesn't suck at all communication.  He's really good at being petty, at insulting folks, at bragging on himself, at talking up his business.  He's good at talking about how much money he has.  But get him talking about almost anything else, and he stumbles or falls...anyone else in your life who does this, you'd conclude they don't know what they're talking about.  With Trump...he's given the benefit of the doubt that he actually knows...he just can't articulate it.  Ok...blind faith in that, just like religion, can't really argue despite it being about as silly as believing Joseph Smith was given the golden tablets by an angel in the woods and translated them himself despite being illiterate and then couldn't show them to anyone else except a single person. People believe that too...with about similar logic behind it.

There are democratic leaders across the country, at all levels of government.  Look at California and the quality of life in many cities there.  Can you pick bad examples? Sure, but there are plenty of good ones too.  I live in Louisiana, and if you want to talk about minorities and the hope they have under Republican leadership, you will absolutely not find a receptive audience in me because I've lived it and paid attention to what conservative values do when Jindal was in office.  Good god.

Look across the political parties.  Which one has more diversity?  It's not the republican party, full of old white males.  Few women, fewer minorities.  It's not because people are stupid...it's because Republicans are interested in appealing to rich folks with money and old folks who want less government - and traditionally, those are white folks.  "Life is good for us, less government, less taxes, yes please!" While the folks trying to cut in on the american dream say they need a little help, some fairness...some government intervention in a system built to benefit the rich and the white and the powerful.

So, i'm not going to defend democrats in general, but it's just utterly insane to suggest that republicans are more focused on helping minorities than democrats.  It's self-deception to believe this.

 
That was never my point.  
But that was MY point, in the post to which you angrily replied.  I was pointing out the difference between Trump threads and other politics threads, which IMO is that in other threads people defend a person or party or position using facts and logical arguments.  That almost never happens in a Trump threads. In fact I’d venture a guess that I actually do that more than anyone (did it the other day on the national monuments), which should tell you something.

 
But that was MY point, in the post to which you angrily replied.  I was pointing out the difference between Trump threads and other politics threads, which IMO is that in other threads people defend a person or party or position using facts and logical arguments.  That almost never happens in a Trump threads. In fact I’d venture a guess that I actually do that more than anyone (did it the other day on the national monuments), which should tell you something.
Angrily?  No one bit.  I wasn't even disagree ing with your point.  I was just pointing out it had nothing to do with what I was saying, which is their is a lot of over-generalizing attacks on entire groups in the Trump threads which i think is wrong.  

 
But that was MY point, in the post to which you angrily replied.  I was pointing out the difference between Trump threads and other politics threads, which IMO is that in other threads people defend a person or party or position using facts and logical arguments.  That almost never happens in a Trump threads. In fact I’d venture a guess that I actually do that more than anyone (did it the other day on the national monuments), which should tell you something.
Trump defenses typically require a lot of faith: guessing at what he really meant, or faith that he has a master plan that we just don't know about, trust that he's hiring the right folks, belief that he's not lying to us and the entire rest of the agencies are against him...

Believing in Trump is like believing in a religion.

 
Anytime you paint an entire group as such and such it is bogus and I have accurately pointed out many instances and not in a single case was it met with anything but attacks. 
If you don't like the thread...

Stay out of the thread jon_whataboutism

 
Ivanka Trump✔@IvankaTrump

The Hispanic unemployment rate dropped to 4.7% - the LOWEST in the history of the United States. This Administration and @realDonaldTrump are working hard to create opportunities for all Americans…and we are just getting started!  #MAGA#JobsReport https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf …
THEY ARE TAKING AWAY AMERICAN JOBS!

 
There are democratic leaders across the country, at all levels of government.  Look at California and the quality of life in many cities there.  Can you pick bad examples? Sure, but there are plenty of good ones too.  I live in Louisiana, and if you want to talk about minorities and the hope they have under Republican leadership, you will absolutely not find a receptive audience in me because I've lived it and paid attention to what conservative values do when Jindal was in office.  Good god.
California?  Are you kidding?  California has the highest poverty rate in the country.  It is tied for 41st in unemployment rate at 4.9% (just below Louisiana at 4.8%)  They spend the most money on their school system by far and are ranked in the bottom 10 worst schools in the country.  According to their own Governor the state is projected to be $1.6 billion deficit next year.  

Look across the political parties.  Which one has more diversity?  It's not the republican party, full of old white males.  Few women, fewer minorities.  It's not because people are stupid...it's because Republicans are interested in appealing to rich folks with money and old folks who want less government - and traditionally, those are white folks.  "Life is good for us, less government, less taxes, yes please!" While the folks trying to cut in on the american dream say they need a little help, some fairness...some government intervention in a system built to benefit the rich and the white and the powerful.

So, i'm not going to defend democrats in general, but it's just utterly insane to suggest that republicans are more focused on helping minorities than democrats.  It's self-deception to believe this.
I suggested that Democrats claim to be the party of minorities but at the end of the day, once they've got the votes, they do little for that constituency.  Look at one of the Dems shining stars, Maxine Waters.  She's been representing South-Central Los Angeles, continuously since 1977.  This is a predominantly Black and Hispanic area of the city.  Their poverty rate is over 35% with a median household income of $31,000.  High School Graduation rate is 51% (US rate is over 87%).  What the #### has she done for these people over the last 40+ years?

This is a person that is propped up as a shining example of democrat values.  California's economy is the 6th largest in the world (if it were a stand alone country).  She has been representing these people that she cares about for longer than I've been alive.  Tell me how much dems care?  This example can be applied to almost every predominantly minority part of a city in the country.  BTW Philly is the poorest city in the country, so its bi-coastal.

 
Look across the political parties.  Which one has more diversity?  It's not the republican party, full of old white males.  Few women, fewer minorities.  It's not because people are stupid...it's because Republicans are interested in appealing to rich folks with money and old folks who want less government - and traditionally, those are white folks.  "Life is good for us, less government, less taxes, yes please!" While the folks trying to cut in on the american dream say they need a little help, some fairness...some government intervention in a system built to benefit the rich and the white and the powerful.
Why shouldn't people want less taxes and smaller government?  

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” - Adrian Rogers

It's scary to think what would happen if the US became a socialist country.  

 
:shrug: I am calling it as it is. If Trump haters were as honest as they claim, they would call out the tools too. 
Maybe when they get personal they are just calling it as it is.

Seems odd though to completion so much about broad generalizations and Persian attacks and then do both together yourself.

 
California?  Are you kidding?  California has the highest poverty rate in the country.  It is tied for 41st in unemployment rate at 4.9% (just below Louisiana at 4.8%)  They spend the most money on their school system by far and are ranked in the bottom 10 worst schools in the country.  According to their own Governor the state is projected to be $1.6 billion deficit next year.  

I suggested that Democrats claim to be the party of minorities but at the end of the day, once they've got the votes, they do little for that constituency.  Look at one of the Dems shining stars, Maxine Waters.  She's been representing South-Central Los Angeles, continuously since 1977.  This is a predominantly Black and Hispanic area of the city.  Their poverty rate is over 35% with a median household income of $31,000.  High School Graduation rate is 51% (US rate is over 87%).  What the #### has she done for these people over the last 40+ years?

This is a person that is propped up as a shining example of democrat values.  California's economy is the 6th largest in the world (if it were a stand alone country).  She has been representing these people that she cares about for longer than I've been alive.  Tell me how much dems care?  This example can be applied to almost every predominantly minority part of a city in the country.  BTW Philly is the poorest city in the country, so its bi-coastal.
California's poverty rate isn't the highest in the country.

So your logic seems to be that because democratic representatives can't single handedly lift largely minority populated parts of cities out of poverty through policies, they don't care about minorities?

Look, I've lived through years of Bobby Jindal pushing through an incredibly conservative agenda in Louisiana, culminating in the privatization of the public health care system in the state.  Almost every side of what Jindal did with the conservative agenda hurt Louisiana, hurt minorities, and hurt our future.

I've seen first hand how devastating policies about giving tax breaks to companies and cutting healthcare and education works for minorities.  I've seen first hand how minorities are the ones who suffer most when you privatize public healthcare in an area where many of the poor and sick are minorities.  You're coming to the wrong person preaching that republican values are the best for minorities, because that dog simply won't hunt.

Republican's aren't interested in helping minorities.  They want a smaller federal government, less taxes, and let the chips fall where they may.  If that means cutting social security, cutting medicare, cutting entitlements...so be it.  They're against the safety net that many minorities rely on, not to mention white men.

And please, minorities know who is looking out for them, that's why they overwhelmingly vote democratic and are represented by democrats.  If republicans had better plans, or cared more, you'd see more republicans representing minorities RATHER than what you see...which is Republicans try to gerrmander districts to AVOID minorities.  The truth on this issue is incredibly clear.

 
Look across the political parties.  Which one has more diversity?  It's not the republican party, full of old white males.  Few women, fewer minorities.  It's not because people are stupid...it's because Republicans are interested in appealing to rich folks with money and old folks who want less government - and traditionally, those are white folks.  "Life is good for us, less government, less taxes, yes please!" While the folks trying to cut in on the american dream say they need a little help, some fairness...some government intervention in a system built to benefit the rich and the white and the powerful.
Why shouldn't people want less taxes and smaller government?  

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” - Adrian Rogers

It's scary to think what would happen if the US became a socialist country.  
The US already has many elements of socialism, and we're just fine.

And yes, you can multiply wealth by dividing it.  In fact, there's no surer way to destroying our country than by having all the wealth in the country in the hands of a very few people.  It's guaranteed to destroy an economy.

There are many arguments as to why more taxes and bigger government can be beneficial.

 
Hold on, what echo chamber? I'm addressing you. Is there a whole echo chamber against you here?
The echo chamber is rapid anti-trump.  The only thing you addressing me is that if I don't like it, get out.  Real cool.  

 
The US already has many elements of socialism, and we're just fine.

And yes, you can multiply wealth by dividing it.  In fact, there's no surer way to destroying our country than by having all the wealth in the country in the hands of a very few people.  It's guaranteed to destroy an economy.

There are many arguments as to why more taxes and bigger government can be beneficial.
You wouldn't know by looking in these political forums.  If we're just fine, I'd say capitalism is working.  Or are you suggesting that we are just fine because of the socialist elements we have.  How exactly are we just fine and why are we just fine?  

 
The US already has many elements of socialism, and we're just fine.

And yes, you can multiply wealth by dividing it.  In fact, there's no surer way to destroying our country than by having all the wealth in the country in the hands of a very few people.  It's guaranteed to destroy an economy.

There are many arguments as to why more taxes and bigger government can be beneficial.
You wouldn't know by looking in these political forums.  If we're just fine, I'd say capitalism is working.  Or are you suggesting that we are just fine because of the socialist elements we have.  How exactly are we just fine and why are we just fine?  
It's a figure of speech meant to indicate that the sky isn't falling as it relates to socialism because socialist elements already exist in the system and the sky hasn't fallen.

You seem to have skipped over the point about how that quote you referenced was nonsense.

 
California's poverty rate isn't the highest in the country.

So your logic seems to be that because democratic representatives can't single handedly lift largely minority populated parts of cities out of poverty through policies, they don't care about minorities?

Look, I've lived through years of Bobby Jindal pushing through an incredibly conservative agenda in Louisiana, culminating in the privatization of the public health care system in the state.  Almost every side of what Jindal did with the conservative agenda hurt Louisiana, hurt minorities, and hurt our future.

I've seen first hand how devastating policies about giving tax breaks to companies and cutting healthcare and education works for minorities.  I've seen first hand how minorities are the ones who suffer most when you privatize public healthcare in an area where many of the poor and sick are minorities.  You're coming to the wrong person preaching that republican values are the best for minorities, because that dog simply won't hunt.

Republican's aren't interested in helping minorities.  They want a smaller federal government, less taxes, and let the chips fall where they may.  If that means cutting social security, cutting medicare, cutting entitlements...so be it.  They're against the safety net that many minorities rely on, not to mention white men.

And please, minorities know who is looking out for them, that's why they overwhelmingly vote democratic and are represented by democrats.  If republicans had better plans, or cared more, you'd see more republicans representing minorities RATHER than what you see...which is Republicans try to gerrmander districts to AVOID minorities.  The truth on this issue is incredibly clear.
You are correct on the poverty rate-my bad.  California is 35th.  What about everything else I wrote?

I dont think any representatives can walk in and single handedly lift cities out of poverty.  I DO think that the example I cited, and myriad others show that even though there are generational lengths of time of the same representation by democrats, their policies are ineffectual.  Does that mean they don't care?  Not necessarily.  I think some don't.  I think many care more about their own power than anything else.  

Minorities don't vote for Republicans because democrats and people like you have been beating the drum that Republicans are all racists who hate minorities and women.  Honestly, if more minorities actually assessed their situation honestly (at least here in Philadelphia) rather than defaulting to Democrat, they'd realize that the party they've supported for the last 60 years and their policies have hung them out to dry.

Republicans are not the only ones to Gerrymander.

 
I've lost count of how many times he's suggested that.  The idea that dozens of people could independently come to the same conclusion about the relative strength of his arguments seems inconceivable to him.  
Where is the binary line he is drawing up here? On this forum alone, I see less Trump supporters (outside of the Trump trolls like RBM, Bozeman, and Opie aren't an echo chamber, but vapid dogwhistles who just are here to poke bears) than I do actual Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. The old "Liberals vs. Conservatives" doesn't even apply here anymore, and that argument was a bogus argument anyway, even more so now because of Trump, who doesn't have any core ideology other than how much money he can steal. 

Nationally, I think Trump's hardcore support is less than 30%, but using whataboutjon_mx's binary echo chamber math, that would make 70% of non Trump supporters (who more than likely are made up of Republicans, Independents, and Democrats) antagonists to the small minority of Trump supporters who are also antagonists (like RBM, Bozeman, Opie) etc. 

For whatabout_jon to decide to be an arbiter in all this is just why he is whatabout_jon. Because I guess he is feeling left out of all this and insignificant. 

 
You are correct on the poverty rate-my bad.  California is 35th.  What about everything else I wrote?

I dont think any representatives can walk in and single handedly lift cities out of poverty.  I DO think that the example I cited, and myriad others show that even though there are generational lengths of time of the same representation by democrats, their policies are ineffectual.  Does that mean they don't care?  Not necessarily.  I think some don't.  I think many care more about their own power than anything else.  

Minorities don't vote for Republicans because democrats and people like you have been beating the drum that Republicans are all racists who hate minorities and women.  Honestly, if more minorities actually assessed their situation honestly (at least here in Philadelphia) rather than defaulting to Democrat, they'd realize that the party they've supported for the last 60 years and their policies have hung them out to dry.

Republicans are not the only ones to Gerrymander.
Republicans win elections by Gerrymandering minorities out of their districts and by suppressing voter turnout of minorities.  It's basically codified in the party strategy manual that this is how they win elections.  Democrats don't have the same playbook.  They want more minorities in their districts and more minorities voting.  That alone should tell you the story.

Regarding your other stats on California, they seem accurate, but I'm not interested in quoting stats about states in the USA...there are plenty of amazing stats about California.

I don't beat any drums about all republicans being racist or that they hate minorities and women.  I simply say that their policies and actions are not geared to help minorities, and in fact in many ways Republicans work to exclude minorities either by gerrymandering or voter suppression tactics because minorities don't typically vote Republican.  That's not me saying it...it's literally what Republicans have been doing for decades.

Now, believe it or not I'm not a Democrat.  You would find a partner in me in saying that many democratic policies often are counterproductive for minorities.  But that doesn't mean that Republicans are better for minorities.

 
Republicans win elections by Gerrymandering minorities out of their districts and by suppressing voter turnout of minorities.  It's basically codified in the party strategy manual that this is how they win elections.  Democrats don't have the same playbook.  They want more minorities in their districts and more minorities voting.  That alone should tell you the story.

Regarding your other stats on California, they seem accurate, but I'm not interested in quoting stats about states in the USA...there are plenty of amazing stats about California.

I don't beat any drums about all republicans being racist or that they hate minorities and women.  I simply say that their policies and actions are not geared to help minorities, and in fact in many ways Republicans work to exclude minorities either by gerrymandering or voter suppression tactics because minorities don't typically vote Republican.  That's not me saying it...it's literally what Republicans have been doing for decades.

Now, believe it or not I'm not a Democrat.  You would find a partner in me in saying that many democratic policies often are counterproductive for minorities.  But that doesn't mean that Republicans are better for minorities.
I don't know what to tell you. You point to California as a representation of democratic policies that help minorities, I Point to statistics that show the exact opposite and you don't want to get into statistics.

Democrats have engaged in gerrymandering to put  minorities into districts to help them because minorities vote Democrat. And I agree with you. hence my point that both parties do it. 

 Again, my point with this whole thing is not necessarily if that Republicans have all the answers for minorities. Simply that democrat policies over the last 50+ years have not benefited minorities the way that everyone makes it sound. Quite the opposite in fact.

 
 According to their own Governor the state is projected to be $1.6 billion deficit next year. 
I don't know which "next year" you're talking about. Back in January Brown was suggesting there could be a $1.6 billion deficit for 2017/2018. Then, in July they passed the budget. See if you can find the deficit. This is the first time CA has had a deficit since 2012.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't know what to tell you. You point to California as a representation of democratic policies that help minorities, I Point to statistics that show the exact opposite and you don't want to get into statistics.

Democrats have engaged in gerrymandering to put  minorities into districts to help them because minorities vote Democrat. And I agree with you. hence my point that both parties do it. 

 Again, my point with this whole thing is not necessarily if that Republicans have all the answers for minorities. Simply that democrat policies over the last 50+ years have not benefited minorities the way that everyone makes it sound. Quite the opposite in fact.
We can go back and forth on California all day long and cite statistics showing great things and bad things.  If you want to focus on a district with Compton in it and say that exemplifies California, it's going to be a silly debate throwing statistics back and forth.

Yes, Democrats look to have more of their constituents be minorities, Republicans look to have less be minorities.  That should tell you a lot right there about which party wants to represent, and look out for, minorities.  You seemed to say it was the liberals fault that republicans have a bad name with minorities but I'm saying look no further than the action of Republicans in terms of who THEY want to represent.  It's not minorities.

Republicans have some policies good for minorities, and some not.  Democrats have policies good for minorities, and some not.  Neither party has a strangelhold on the truth or things that benefit only one side or the other.

But on the whole, the Republican approach to government isn't to look out for the little guy.  It's smaller goverment, less taxes, less entitlements, less having the government be a social safety net, less government involvement in education, less affirmative action practices, less government subsidized healthcare, less welfare, less consumer protections, less reuglations...Almost all of these things are things minorities care about, and Republicans want to cut at the federal level.  

So while no party has a stranglehold on helping all Americans, Republicans hold a lot of principles about government that run counter to what many minorities want from government.

 
You are one of the lead perpetrators. Read the posts.  Have some self awareness.  
I have... it finding a single one that has violated Joe’s request.

I have seen you make false accusations like this without providing anything to back them up though.

Try again.

 
They spend the most money on their school system by far and are ranked in the bottom 10 worst schools in the country.
I don't know what data you are looking at, but in terms of per student spending, California is middle to bottom the pack in the U.S. (spends less than most states). The amount has increased over the last 5 years and CA has come up in those rankings. But CA is nowhere near the top in terms of money per student.

U.S News ranked CA 3rd overall for best public high schools.

Wallet Hub ranked CA 28th for public schools.

24/7 Wall street ranks CA 41st - 6th lowest spending per student in the country.

Your assertion about spending is wrong. Your assertion about ranking is somewhat valid. But the former explains the latter. Remember, we're the Prop 13 state - we hate paying for public education here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maxine Waters.  She's been representing South-Central Los Angeles, continuously since 1977.  This is a predominantly Black and Hispanic area of the city.  Their poverty rate is over 35% with a median household income of $31,000.  High School Graduation rate is 51% (US rate is over 87%).  What the #### has she done for these people over the last 40+ years?
I can find the current year data for these metrics, but I'm having trouble finding them for 1977. Anyone know where to get that?

 
We can go back and forth on California all day long and cite statistics showing great things and bad things.  If you want to focus on a district with Compton in it and say that exemplifies California, it's going to be a silly debate throwing statistics back and forth.
Yeah I don't want to get into the weeds on California.  It goes to a larger point that democrat run areas, while claiming to want to help minorities, actually don't. 

Yes, Democrats look to have more of their constituents be minorities, Republicans look to have less be minorities.  That should tell you a lot right there about which party wants to represent, and look out for, minorities.  You seemed to say it was the liberals fault that republicans have a bad name with minorities but I'm saying look no further than the action of Republicans in terms of who THEY want to represent.  It's not minorities.
It tells me that dems know where their bread is buttered when it comes to votes. That's all.  And I absolutely say that dems daily call much of the republican policies racist.  You are making it sound like republicans do not want to represent minorities.  That's not true in any sense.

Republicans have some policies good for minorities, and some not.  Democrats have policies good for minorities, and some not.  Neither party has a strangelhold on the truth or things that benefit only one side or the other.

But on the whole, the Republican approach to government isn't to look out for the little guy.  It's smaller goverment, less taxes, less entitlements, less having the government be a social safety net, less government involvement in education, less affirmative action practices, less government subsidized healthcare, less welfare, less consumer protections, less reuglations...Almost all of these things are things minorities care about, and Republicans want to cut at the federal level.  
Those entitlements, affirmative action, welfare are the policies I'm referring to.  They've decimated the black population in this country-especially in large cities like philadelphia.  

So while no party has a stranglehold on helping all Americans, Republicans hold a lot of principles about government that run counter to what many minorities want from government.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top