Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
If you disagree that welfare is a problem, then make that argument.
Dafuq you think I've been doing?* I'm not changing your analogy. I'm using your analogy to correctly express my position. For some reason, you insist that my argument is to ignore the primary problem when I keep telling you that I don't believe welfare is the problem.
Stating a belief is not the same as making an argument. When I say that welfare is a problem, and list of a number of reasons why I think this is true, and your response is basically "You're wrong because there's this problem here, and that problem there, and this other problem over thataway", you're not actually making an argument that welfare isn't a problem. You're just changing the subject.
The only thing remotely close to an argument you've made about welfare has been that it doesn't affect people's choices unless they choose to make those choices. Which, as I've pointed out several times, is completely circular and non-useful.
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
. The question was why blacks vote at such a high rate for the Dems.
Exactly. I gave you a list of policies that black people tend to support.
No. You gave me a list (I guess two things is technically a list) of things that black people oppose. Ironically, right after I pointed out that black voters tend to be motivated not to vote *for* the Democrats, but *against* the GOP. Those two things were "VRA (gutting of)" and "privatization of public services, such as schools". Again, it's interesting to note that you didn't frame this in the form of things that the Democrats do that you think black people support, but things that the GOP does that you think black people oppose.
My point is that it's always easiest to get people to join together *against* things than to join together *for* things. Which kinda supports my argument that black voters have been the recipients of a significant amount of political manipulation. It's just always been funny to me how I'll ask liberals to tell me what they are for, and why, and it's nearly impossible for them to do so without turning it around into a negative thing they are against. Funny. Not unique to black voters at all btw, but telling that you do this. And usually indicative of the degree to which the person has been subjected to liberal rhetoric.
Quote:
The initial conversation was why black Americans overwhelmingly vote Democrat. Your theory was that it was because of welfare. You then went of on a tangent to argue the supposed irony that supporting welfare was a major factor in black poverty. I countered to say it wasn't, asking if you were to remove welfare, would things like white flight and gentrification disappear?
Yes. I know the history. It was a dumb counter then, and it's no less dumb now. Notice how you didn't actually address whether or not welfare harms those who receive it, nor if it's a contributing factor to the perpetuation of black poverty. You changed the subject. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You just pointed to other things that you view as problems. Great! But that doesn't address the question of welfare.
If we end welfare things like question marks and exclamation points wont disappear either. What does that have to do with welfare? Nothing. That's the point. Bringing them up in that situation was purely about changing the subject. Eliminating welfare wont prevent aids, or world hunger, or help us build a base on mars either. Those facts also don't constitute a valid response to my argument about welfare.
Quote:
It's not all or nothing. Welfare increases the motivation to succeed because you can now get education and training to better yourself without worrying about rent or food.
That's the theory. I even addressed it earlier. Don't get me wrong, when people do use it this way, they can get themselves out of their state of poverty. Problem is that most people don't use welfare to get education and training for a better job. They just use welfare to get a better life while doing the same amount of work. There's more or less zero evidence that welfare recipients are any more likely to recover via education/training than those who don't avail themselves of public assistance.
And this doesn't address the generational issue. It's one thing for someone to fall on hard times, and receive temporary assistance until they get back on their feet. The problem is with the percentage who don't, and then raise children in that state. Their children have a much harder time getting out of poverty and avoiding welfare themselves. Over time, this creates a population of "always been on welfare". And it's in this segment that blacks are horrifically overrepresented. Single motherhood is the hallmark of that generational welfare effect, and black children are the victims of this at a disproportionate rate. 29% of white children are born to single mothers. 75% of black children are. That's three out of freaking four black children. You can't possibly be trying to tell me that there's no underlying generational poverty effect going on here.
As I mentioned earlier, welfare tends to replace the fathers in that situation. It's hard not to see a strong correlation between the effect of welfare on family and the effect of that on the children. And, once again, the effect of this is born most heavily by blacks. Do you think this is because black people choose to be poor more than whites? Or they choose to be single moms more than whites? External factors affect those choices. And welfare is a biggie.
Quote:
I'm not even sure why I'm wasting time with this. It's beyond obvious that you don't follow politics, at least to the level that I do. Chris Christie was one of the first to support the ACA. He implemented a NJ version of the Dream Act and supported Common Core. He also supported treatment over incarceration for nonviolent drug instances.Rand Paul is seen as an "isolationist" for his foreign policy views, drug views and other libertarian views. As for JEB, the entire primary is "Guy not JEB". The donors support JEB, but the voters support everyone else. JEB said himself that he has to be willing to lose the primary in order to win the presidency, referencing the lack of support. To be fair, his name doesn't help, but his view on common core and immigration dug that knife in further.
And? What is your point? All of these guys are popular conservative figures. You're cherry picking who is in "power" on the right to suit your narrative. Is it the voters? CPAC? Donors? Who? I'm just not seeing the pattern you're trying to make at all.
Remember that your starting claim was that labeling of conservatives as RINOs was equivalent to labeling of blacks at Uncle Toms. Somehow you've arrived at this bizarre idea that conservatives (the definition of which changes from case to case) "shun" Republican leaders who do things that appeal to minorities. But your evidence in support of this is incredibly spotty. You lurch from issue to issue with different candidates, but there's no pattern there. Some of those may appeal to some voters, but not to others, and there's no real correlation between "minorities" much less "black voters".
You're simultaneously arguing about disagreements with such candidates over common core and dream act in one case, and libertarian positions in another, and then trying to claim that they are both being "shunned" for the same reason? That's nuts? Those are on opposite sides of the scale. The only thing we can glean from any of this is that conservatives are not all in agreement over everything (which is a good thing), and that we're fine with expressing our disagreements and openly discussing them. I'm not sure how that's "bad".
Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Also, this still is nothing like blacks being labeled Uncle Toms. That's an entirely different thing.
I've already made the connection, you chose not to reply. It also became apparent that you don't know what an Uncle Tom is.
Uh... The connection only exists in your own mind. I know exactly what an Uncle Tom is, and how the term is used to pressure blacks into complying with a very strict set of social positions. The fact that you seem to want to deny this is amazing to me. All your examples show is that conservatives will criticize their own leaders for a wide assortment of reasons, depending on the varying positions of various conservative viewpoints. On the Left? Especially when it comes to blacks? Not much room for variation allowed at all. They're just not comparable conditions.
Edited, Apr 29th 2015 8:21pm by gbaji 
lunatic protest signs.
