How long will the liberal coalition last?

When will the liberal/progressive coalition unravel?

  • After Trump leave office

    Votes: 7 33.3%
  • The first woman president

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • The first woman of color president

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The first lgbt president

    Votes: 1 4.8%
  • Whites become the racial minority

    Votes: 12 57.1%

  • Total voters
    21
May 24, 2005
319
168
1,120
forums.wuggawoo.co.uk
#51
Now you're getting it!
Oh I get it alright, I just know at the end of the day I'm glad to be on the side that wants to help people fleeing their homelands out of fear, believes that everyone deserves healthcare for free, that wants to make those who earn more - pay more back into the system, that a minimum wage that people can live off is standard.

I honestly can't imagine being on the other side. A side that preaches love and all the blessings of a majority Christian nation would, but thinks building a wall with solve their communities issues.
 
Apr 25, 2009
8,517
9,898
830
Australia
#52
Oh I get it alright, I just know at the end of the day I'm glad to be on the side that wants to help people fleeing their homelands out of fear, believes that everyone deserves healthcare for free, that wants to make those who earn more - pay more back into the system, that a minimum wage that people can live off is standard.

I honestly can't imagine being on the other side. A side that preaches love and all the blessings of a majority Christian nation would, but thinks building a wall with solve their communities issues.
Do you believe that it is better to:

a) Give a man a fish
b) Teach a man to fish
 
May 19, 2010
2,036
182
565
#57
There are many instances where you can't, and this completely misses the point of the proverb. I know you think you're being clever but this was a very stupid and lazy thing to say.
proverbs aren't and shouldn't be the be all and end all of political quandaries. responding to a complex and nuanced situation with proverbs is much lazier, honestly.
 
May 19, 2010
2,036
182
565
#59
Did I say it was the panacea to all political issues? It's a simple check of the moral foundations that everything else is built on.
So then you can't say it's missing the point when someone says we can teach people to fish while also giving them fish if it's just a morality check for you. One proverb is not the be all and end all of moral theory. There may be instances where it's not possible to both give fish and teach others to fish, but I would argue that what azz0r was posting about is not one of those situations.
 
Apr 25, 2009
8,517
9,898
830
Australia
#60
So then you can't say it's missing the point when someone says we can teach people to fish while also giving them fish if it's just a morality check for you. One proverb is not the be all and end all of moral theory. There may be instances where it's not possible to both give fish and teach others to fish, but I would argue that what azz0r was posting about is not one of those situations.
Of course it's missing the point when you're misrepresenting what I'm asking. It's a moral foundation check that we then build up to understanding our positions on more complex topics. But hey, whatever it takes to derail and deflect from the question I'm asking. Par for the course with you at this point, mate.

@azz0r, pointless deflections from this guy aside, what is your position?
 
Dec 18, 2018
156
162
160
#61
Oh I get it alright, I just know at the end of the day I'm glad to be on the side that wants to help people fleeing their homelands out of fear, believes that everyone deserves healthcare for free

If you want to help people, give them your own money. You are on the side that wants to steal from others and give it to your chosen "victim" groups, so you can appear virtuous.

Don't bother appealing to Christian love, because a Christian does not steal from one man and give to another man, then claim the credit for "helping" the second man.
 
Feb 25, 2017
316
336
230
#62
Oh I get it alright, I just know at the end of the day I'm glad to be on the side that wants to help people fleeing their homelands out of fear, believes that everyone deserves healthcare for free, that wants to make those who earn more - pay more back into the system, that a minimum wage that people can live off is standard.

I honestly can't imagine being on the other side. A side that preaches love and all the blessings of a majority Christian nation would, but thinks building a wall with solve their communities issues.
Such a child-like conception of the world.

Ok, so you're on the side of people fleeing their homelands out of fear. Is there any reason why they're not fleeing to the nearest neighboring country if they're so fearful? Afterall, when you're shipwreck, you don't get to decide which ship you want to be picked up by. This isn't about political persecution or even "violence", it's about economics plain and simple, they just want a better life. Sorry but that goes against international asylum laws and is not a valid reason for breaking into another nation.
The only reason the travesty at the border is happening is because people can just walk up to American soil and demand asylum and the USA is force to hear them out, even when almost all cases are not credible. Try applying for asylum from africa, asia, middle east and see how far off the ground you get.

Everyone deserves free health care? So someone who decided to drink three cans of soda a day and eat junk food, weights 300lbs, has diabetes, high cholesterol, and all sorts of ailment is now expected to receive free healthcare that the young healthy people are suppose to pay for? Where is the compassion and concern for those that choose to live a healthy lifestyle? Why should they bare the blunt of the tax burden for other's bad choices? I am for helping those who are sick by no fault of their own, but a blanket healthcare program for everyone just invites waste, abuse, and fraud.

Minimum wage to live off? Who's going to pay for the minimum wage increase? Consumers will simply find cheaper places to shop/eat/buy and businesses will find cheaper ways to do business. Raising the minimum wage invites business owners to invest more in automation, which ironically destroys hurt even more people with low/no skill. And since when did the minimum wage job become something people rely on to raise a family on?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
#63
Oh I get it alright, I just know at the end of the day I'm glad to be on the side that wants to help people fleeing their homelands out of fear, believes that everyone deserves healthcare for free, that wants to make those who earn more - pay more back into the system, that a minimum wage that people can live off is standard.

I honestly can't imagine being on the other side. A side that preaches love and all the blessings of a majority Christian nation would, but thinks building a wall with solve their communities issues.
I could tolerate more left wing policies if we all came to an agreement on this:

Immigration + Welfare state = Collapse.

You are just asking for taxes to keep on rising forever, because the rest of the world will see this as "come and have a free meal".
And if we have people moving here for the free incentives, what reason do they ever have to vote conservative?
 
Last edited:
May 24, 2005
319
168
1,120
forums.wuggawoo.co.uk
#64
We can give people fish while also teaching them to fish. Done.
Such a child-like conception of the world.

Ok, so you're on the side of people fleeing their homelands out of fear. Is there any reason why they're not fleeing to the nearest neighboring country if they're so fearful? Afterall, when you're shipwreck, you don't get to decide which ship you want to be picked up by. This isn't about political persecution or even "violence", it's about economics plain and simple, they just want a better life. Sorry but that goes against international asylum laws and is not a valid reason for breaking into another nation.
The only reason the travesty at the border is happening is because people can just walk up to American soil and demand asylum and the USA is force to hear them out, even when almost all cases are not credible. Try applying for asylum from africa, asia, middle east and see how far off the ground you get.

Everyone deserves free health care? So someone who decided to drink three cans of soda a day and eat junk food, weights 300lbs, has diabetes, high cholesterol, and all sorts of ailment is now expected to receive free healthcare that the young healthy people are suppose to pay for? Where is the compassion and concern for those that choose to live a healthy lifestyle? Why should they bare the blunt of the tax burden for other's bad choices? I am for helping those who are sick by no fault of their own, but a blanket healthcare program for everyone just invites waste, abuse, and fraud.

Minimum wage to live off? Who's going to pay for the minimum wage increase? Consumers will simply find cheaper places to shop/eat/buy and businesses will find cheaper ways to do business. Raising the minimum wage invites business owners to invest more in automation, which ironically destroys hurt even more people with low/no skill. And since when did the minimum wage job become something people rely on to raise a family on?
- https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...-health-care-americas-still-not-on-it/259153/ - America is one of the only first world countries to not offer universal healthcare. Your weird critic of fat people is also a USA driven problem - you should be more concerned that your FDA isn't doing enough.

- I'm warning you now; as climate change gets worse, global discourse and the inevitable food shortages increase, mass migration in search of a better life is going to get worse world wide. We will all need to stop being country centric. Im always baffled that a country built on immigrants and immigration is so xenophobic. You've been around for a hot minute - chill your xeno.

- I'm not sure I really want to get into the automation discussion, firstly because you are right but for a different reason. Automation will continue to rise - eventually thats another debate we'll be having about a standard minimum living wage. Just probably not with the right side.
 
Likes: Aurelian
May 24, 2005
319
168
1,120
forums.wuggawoo.co.uk
#65
I could tolerate more left wing policies if we all came to an agreement on this:

Immigration + Welfare state = Collapse.

You are just asking for taxes to keep on rising forever, because the rest of the world will see this as "come and have a free meal".
And if we have people moving here for the free incentives, what reason do they ever have to vote conservative?
When did the EU collapse again?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
#66
When did the EU collapse again?
Poor example.
Some countries refuse to take on the burden of welfare immigrants and are fighting back (i.e Italy & Poland). Others though are definitely screwed in the long term (i.e Germany, Sweden).

- I'm warning you now; as climate change gets worse, global discourse and the inevitable food shortages increase, mass migration in search of a better life is going to get worse world wide. We will all need to stop being country centric.
Not gonna happen.
If you think Europe or America are going to take on millions of refugees, then there's going to be chaos.

Especially with the welfare state I mentioned above.
 
Last edited:
May 24, 2005
319
168
1,120
forums.wuggawoo.co.uk
#67
Poor example.
Some countries refuse to take on the burden of welfare immigrants and are fighting back (i.e Italy & Poland). Others though are definitely screwed in the long term (i.e Germany, Sweden).
Ok fine, the EU isn't collapsing due to immigration and welfare. So what other countries are collapsing because of them? An example please.

...because we know Italy, Poland, Germany and Sweden aren't.
 
Last edited:

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
#70
Venezuelas issues are caused by a reckless dictatorship - I'd love to see how you can equate healthcare and immigration as key factors to its downfall. Really.
Socialism and dictatorships go together.

Socialism wants to make everyone equal. The state promises to give everyone free shit by confiscating wealth and property. However, there will always be a group or person that wants more than everyone else. They form the elite class and make all the rules whereas all the poor people beneath them continue voting for more free shit, even if it means the state will eventually run out of money because no one works.

 
Last edited:
Jan 8, 2019
6
3
60
#71
I'm glad to be on the side that wants to help people fleeing their homelands out of fear
Except, they're not fleeing "out of fear." They're leaving their shithole because it's a shithole and demanding free shit once they get to my country (while voting for the same policies that created their shithole in the first place.)

believes that everyone deserves healthcare for free
Wanting to steal stuff from other people (and, in effect, enslave them) is not a virtue. I want a free car. Aren't I great for wanting a free car? Fuck the people building the cars, they don't need payment. They just need to make my car.

that wants to make those who earn more - pay more back into the system
We... already have a progressive tax system. Nearly 50% of the population pays nothing in federal taxes. If we took 100% of everything that the top 1% earned, it wouldn't be enough to cover Medicare for a single year.

that a minimum wage that people can live off is standard.
Even if triggers your sensibilities, supply and demand is a very real thing. When you flood a country with workers, the value of labor goes down. It's like talking to a small child. Who might be retarded. How do you get out of bed in the morning?

I honestly can't imagine being on the other side.
Of course you can't. The right supports things like logic, reason, and facts, while your side requires a lobotomy.
 
Last edited:
Oct 11, 2011
49
58
370
#73
Pretty much any economist I've followed from the left or the right including Paul Krugman have been predicting the EU collapse way before the migrant crisis. I've not heard of any serious economists that think the EU is sustainable regardless of their political orientation, even without the current problems.


The fact of the matter is that even within the EU countries and their attitudes/needs are so different that it's unimaginable that it will exist in it's current form for long. The economy of Germany is so different from that of Spain and Italy, and their consumer preferences and other factors mean that Germany desperately needs a certain kind of monetary policy which is the exact opposite of the type of policy that Spain and Italy need to survive. The EU is basically an experiment in organized poverty in industrialized nations. Spain never needed to have high unemployment, that was a choice made in Germany.


If Germany and Spain are so different that they need different monetary policy and can't work out an agreement where the EU is run where both are prosperous, how do you think they are going to handle demographic changes in a way that puts a smile on everyone's faces?


You need to learn to walk before you can run. You need to take care of and lift your own poor out of poverty. How much easier is it to bring up your own homeless who speak the same language and share your culture than it is to bring up foreigners out of poverty? If you can't eliminate poverty in your home country what makes you think the problem gets easier when you make it more complex by importing more impoverished people who are of different culture, religion, and language, which will only compound the problem. If you can't fix the problems of the millions in your own country, what makes you think you can fix the problems of billions outside of it?


The fundamental failure of liberalism in our time is in it's hubris in thinking it can construct and maintain societies in new and radical ways that have never been tried before in any serious way.
 
Jul 29, 2013
1,093
33
340
UK
#74
I have never understood the logic that you can't afford Medicare for all. You already do afford it (and then some) in the most retarded way possible.

Hospitals will treat people in the ER regardless of their ability to pay. That means for the hospital to pay it's staff and overheads it needs to charge those who can pay enough to not only cover the costs of those who can't pay. Generally the entities who pay are insurance companies who need to make sure they charge enough to their customers to make sure they cover their costs and a bit more to earn a profit.

That means the people who pay for insurance are already covering everyone and ensuring profits are made as well. Taxpayers also cover Medicare and Medicaid already and those services treat the most expensive and high risk groups.

Now if you were to set up a universal health care system and empowered it to negotiate drug prices and so on you could cut out a lot of fat and that would reduce costs overall meaning taxpayers pay less than their current Medicaid/Medicare contribution + insurance payment + employers insurance payment.

The other advantage of a universal system is that it gives people the ability to move jobs easier as their health coverage does not end where there employment does, this leads to a freer job market with better compensation as employees have a little bit more choice.

EDIT: As for minimum wage, if the government has to subsidise someones income when they work 40 hours a week on min wage that is effectively a corporate subsidy and a transfer of tax money into corporate profit.
 
Last edited:
Oct 17, 2016
82
70
215
#75
Latinos and African Americans only force themselves to fit within the larger Democratic voter base as they feel the other side (i.e. the GOP) hates their guts. Once this country moves past the age-old politics of racial grievance and the Republican Party is not seen any longer as a strictly white party, these voters will bolt from the Democrats. The vast, overwhelming majority of Latino voters hold socially conservative views on most issues, dislike overt government intervention and appreciate displays of family values and "public virtue". The same could be said of many segments of Black America. They'd vote Republican if they didn't feel the party hated them for who they are.
 
Likes: ssolitare
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
#76
Latinos and African Americans only force themselves to fit within the larger Democratic voter base as they feel the other side (i.e. the GOP) hates their guts. Once this country moves past the age-old politics of racial grievance and the Republican Party is not seen any longer as a strictly white party, these voters will bolt from the Democrats. The vast, overwhelming majority of Latino voters hold socially conservative views on most issues, dislike overt government intervention and appreciate displays of family values and "public virtue". The same could be said of many segments of Black America. They'd vote Republican if they didn't feel the party hated them for who they are.
Indeed.
 

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
650
456
845
Ottawa, Canada
#77
Latinos and African Americans only force themselves to fit within the larger Democratic voter base as they feel the other side (i.e. the GOP) hates their guts. Once this country moves past the age-old politics of racial grievance and the Republican Party is not seen any longer as a strictly white party, these voters will bolt from the Democrats. The vast, overwhelming majority of Latino voters hold socially conservative views on most issues, dislike overt government intervention and appreciate displays of family values and "public virtue". The same could be said of many segments of Black America. They'd vote Republican if they didn't feel the party hated them for who they are.
Well, there's no guarantee they'll bolt, but the real question is: will the Republicans budge before it's too late?

Right now, the GOP's strategy is the polar opposite: instead of reforming its policies to welcome non-white people, it's trying its hardest to ensure non-white people don't count. Disenfranchising non-white voters, scrapping policies and funding that would help primarily non-white communities... you get the idea. Basically making a bet that insecure, overly entitled white men are enough to keep them in power.

And it's not just fundamentally evil, it's extremely short-sighted. The non-white percentage of the population is growing, including in states that historically vote Republican, and there's only so much election rigging the GOP can do before those minority groups become too large to disenfranchise. If the US reaches that tipping point and the GOP still hasn't mended its ways... well, it's game over for the party, isn't it? It's baffling that the Republicans are willing to sacrifice their long-term viability for the sake of a few more years in office.
 
Likes: ssolitare
Oct 17, 2016
82
70
215
#78
Well, there's no guarantee they'll bolt, but the real question is: will the Republicans budge before it's too late?
This kind of realignment happened many, many times throughout American history. The idea that Texas would one day be a bulwark of the Republican party would be unthinkable to a Houstonian on his way to watch the Astros play their inaugural season in 1962. Civil rights were already a point of contention in the Southern party, but up until then Dixiecrats were still happy to "hold their noses" and vote for Northerners such as JFK. Texas in fact was solid blue till... 1979.

I'm a (fairly liberal) Latino myself and I can say that there many, many Latino voters (White Colombians, porteños, Charismatic Revival catholics, etc. etc.) who would like nothing more than be given an alternative to voting Democratic. Some of my older relatives, who were Goldwater Republicans in the 1960s, would now rather drink poison than vote for the GOP. Which leads me to believe that once our modern day incarnation of the GOP implodes, whatever rises from its ashes will be a more diverse, cosmopolitan iteration of the American right.

Right now, the GOP's strategy is the polar opposite: instead of reforming its policies to welcome non-white people, it's trying its hardest to ensure non-white people don't count. Disenfranchising non-white voters, scrapping policies and funding that would help primarily non-white communities... you get the idea. Basically making a bet that insecure, overly entitled white men are enough to keep them in power.

And it's not just fundamentally evil, it's extremely short-sighted. The non-white percentage of the population is growing, including in states that historically vote Republican, and there's only so much election rigging the GOP can do before those minority groups become too large to disenfranchise. If the US reaches that tipping point and the GOP still hasn't mended its ways... well, it's game over for the party, isn't it? It's baffling that the Republicans are willing to sacrifice their long-term viability for the sake of a few more years in office.
Totally agree. Which is why I believe the Republican Party as we know it only has about two or three more decades ahead of it.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
16,692
2,334
470
Brampton, Ontario
#79
Latinos and African Americans only force themselves to fit within the larger Democratic voter base as they feel the other side (i.e. the GOP) hates their guts. Once this country moves past the age-old politics of racial grievance and the Republican Party is not seen any longer as a strictly white party, these voters will bolt from the Democrats. The vast, overwhelming majority of Latino voters hold socially conservative views on most issues, dislike overt government intervention and appreciate displays of family values and "public virtue". The same could be said of many segments of Black America. They'd vote Republican if they didn't feel the party hated them for who they are.
What if the inverse also exists?
If you support low taxes, strict immigration, second amendment rights, the Democrats hate your guts.

While there are still some things about the Republican Party I don't like, I am absolutely dreading the day America only elects two left leaning parties.

You talk about the Republicans one day imploding and racial grievances ending (ha), but I feel the future is going to be far worse than that.

Republicans and Democrats should have their own separate countries. If it doesn't happen, then America becomes South Africa or Brazil 2.0, with taxes up the ass until they go bankrupt.

If Republicans implodes, it means there's going be even more resentment among the right that they're being doomed to living in Socialism.
 
Last edited:

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
650
456
845
Ottawa, Canada
#80
This kind of realignment happened many, many times throughout American history. The idea that Texas would one day be a bulwark of the Republican party would be unthinkable to a Houstonian on his way to watch the Astros play their inaugural season in 1962. Civil rights were already a point of contention in the Southern party, but up until then Dixiecrats were still happy to "hold their noses" and vote for Northerners such as JFK. Texas in fact was solid blue till... 1979.

I'm a (fairly liberal) Latino myself and I can say that there many, many Latino voters (White Colombians, porteños, Charismatic Revival catholics, etc. etc.) who would like nothing more than be given an alternative to voting Democratic. Some of my older relatives, who were Goldwater Republicans in the 1960s, would now rather drink poison than vote for the GOP. Which leads me to believe that once our modern day incarnation of the GOP implodes, whatever rises from its ashes will be a more diverse, cosmopolitan iteration of the American right.
I hope you're right. I want a genuinely functioning American government with parties that offer checks and balances, just not with the GOP as people know it. My main concern: I don't know if any party has dug in its heels quite the way the modern Republican party has. You get the impression that McConnell et. al. would genuinely prefer to go down with the ship than admit their policies need to evolve.

Totally agree. Which is why I believe the Republican Party as we know it only has about two or three more decades ahead of it.
I can't help but wonder if it'll last that long! It feels like a creaky edifice built on some particularly shaky ground (the tenure of aging obstructionists like McConnell, rigged elections, that sort of thing) and that it might not have much sway if it loses in 2020. They know they're not going to get another Trump that might rally people the same way, and if they lose in 2020, they might not return to power for a while.
 

appaws

Gold Member
Jan 31, 2008
2,297
692
1,040
Taylorsville, Ky!
#81
Latinos and African Americans only force themselves to fit within the larger Democratic voter base as they feel the other side (i.e. the GOP) hates their guts. Once this country moves past the age-old politics of racial grievance and the Republican Party is not seen any longer as a strictly white party, these voters will bolt from the Democrats. The vast, overwhelming majority of Latino voters hold socially conservative views on most issues, dislike overt government intervention and appreciate displays of family values and "public virtue". The same could be said of many segments of Black America. They'd vote Republican if they didn't feel the party hated them for who they are.
This is not true at all. The supposed "social conservative" views of Latinos don't seem to influence their voting patterns at all. The two major parties in Mexico are both socialist, and Mexico has massively liberalized their abortion laws. Mexican "Catholics" are just like the white "Catholic" ethnics of the past, they are Catholic in name only, and don't actually believe in the social teaching of the Church. They vote on economics, and they will continue to vote for redistribution from whites to themselves, and the Democratic Party is the way to get that done.

Now 100 years from now, when they are the majority, things will be completely different. But by then the country will be much poorer and more like Brazil. I could see a "right" party with the remaining whites plus the "white" Latinos who will by then have a more vested interest in the society, and a redistributive party with black and mestizo rank and file.

Blacks even more so. Almost 100% of black wealth comes from the state, as welfare, set-aside contracts, or patronage jobs. Black people have a legitimate self-interest in maintaining the Democratic Party as it is. They will never vote for a GOP that has an underlying anti-government ideal, no matter how much bullshit "outreach" they try to do.

I don't blame them for voting in their own self-interest. It makes sense.
 
Likes: weltalldx
Oct 17, 2016
82
70
215
#82
This is not true at all. The supposed "social conservative" views of Latinos don't seem to influence their voting patterns at all. The two major parties in Mexico are both socialist, and Mexico has massively liberalized their abortion laws. .
The PAN is a Christian Democratic party and the PRI is, well, the PRI, "la dictadura perfecta" as Vargas Llosa once called it . Neither one of these parties is remotely socialist. Their current President, Obrador, is indeed a "socialist", but he is not representative of how Mexican politics developed in the last, well, 50 years. Cafeteria Catholicism is not an exclusively American phenomenon, but there's a reason why there are only three places where one can get an abortion legally in the region: Uruguay, Red Cuba and... Mexico City. By the way, Mexico has not "massively liberalized their abortion laws" - access to abortion is still extremely restricted in 90% of the country, only in Mexico City is abortion somewhat legal.

Latinos vote for "small government" all the time, all over the continent. Uribe, Piñera, Macri... There's no reason to believe they wouldn't do so in America if given an honest alternative.
 
Last edited:
Jan 12, 2009
16,292
1,513
935
#84
This is not true at all. The supposed "social conservative" views of Latinos don't seem to influence their voting patterns at all. The two major parties in Mexico are both socialist, and Mexico has massively liberalized their abortion laws. Mexican "Catholics" are just like the white "Catholic" ethnics of the past, they are Catholic in name only, and don't actually believe in the social teaching of the Church. They vote on economics, and they will continue to vote for redistribution from whites to themselves, and the Democratic Party is the way to get that done.

Now 100 years from now, when they are the majority, things will be completely different. But by then the country will be much poorer and more like Brazil. I could see a "right" party with the remaining whites plus the "white" Latinos who will by then have a more vested interest in the society, and a redistributive party with black and mestizo rank and file.

Blacks even more so. Almost 100% of black wealth comes from the state, as welfare, set-aside contracts, or patronage jobs. Black people have a legitimate self-interest in maintaining the Democratic Party as it is. They will never vote for a GOP that has an underlying anti-government ideal, no matter how much bullshit "outreach" they try to do.

I don't blame them for voting in their own self-interest. It makes sense.
I see that you are still married to this, but 80% of black jobs come from the private sector, for whites it's 85%, and Hispanics 90%. The last recession all but sent the signal that gov jobs are declining. It turns out that 50% of the population (whites, black, etc) depend on the government.

Black wealth is low anyway due to having to catch up, not having wealth to fallback on, the usual bullshit like redlining, and getting set back during recessions.

So anyway my point is, the republican party still doesn't do people a whole lot of favors. They still naively believe in stereotypes, but I do see them slowly changing like with the wrist slap on Steve King, thats actually progress for Republicans. Unlike you some of them can look into the future.
 
Last edited:
Likes: enlyzer