Blacks for Trump
-
wrote on 25 Aug 2020, 14:29 last edited by
They are, in fact, the liberal's worst nightmare. Without a consolidated black vote to adhere with, all of leftward american politics would crumble. I would consider that an existential tail risk of the Democratic party.
-
wrote on 25 Aug 2020, 19:08 last edited by
Notice how democrats ignore and avoid this discussion like the plague? Lol
-
wrote on 25 Aug 2020, 19:12 last edited by
Wonder what Ax thinks?
-
wrote on 25 Aug 2020, 19:30 last edited by xenon
Have the polls for blacks moved appreciably? It's typically like 90% for dem, right?
With social media, anyone can make videos. And as evidenced by this thread there is demand from Republicans to elevate republican-leaning black voices.
Boilerplate caveat: I think identity politics is asinine.
-
wrote on 25 Aug 2020, 19:34 last edited by Jolly
Actua!ly, there is some interesting polling, indicating Trump may do a good bit better among blacks than the usual GOP candidate.
-
wrote on 25 Aug 2020, 19:35 last edited by
I don't begin to assume that Trump will get a majority of black votes. But there is a BIG shift coming , and this 90% business is a pipe dream. I think a lot of people are going to be shocked at the numbers this time around. Remember, even a small prick in the numbers for the republicans and the democrats lose a major chunk of votes.
-
wrote on 25 Aug 2020, 19:56 last edited by
A middle class black person could have every bit the reason to be conservative politically as a middle class white person.
-
Have the polls for blacks moved appreciably? It's typically like 90% for dem, right?
With social media, anyone can make videos. And as evidenced by this thread there is demand from Republicans to elevate republican-leaning black voices.
Boilerplate caveat: I think identity politics is asinine.
wrote on 25 Aug 2020, 20:08 last edited by@xenon said in Blacks for Trump:
Have the polls for blacks moved appreciably? It's typically like 90% for dem, right?
89% for Biden vs. 8% for Trump, according to Pew Research based on surveys conducted in late July/early August of 2020:
-
wrote on 25 Aug 2020, 20:21 last edited by
Ax, what policies of this year's democrat platform do you agree with? I know that you will support anyone the democrats tell you to support, I just want to see how unprincipled you actually are.
-
Ax, what policies of this year's democrat platform do you agree with? I know that you will support anyone the democrats tell you to support, I just want to see how unprincipled you actually are.
wrote on 25 Aug 2020, 21:32 last edited by Axtremus@Larry said in Blacks for Trump:
Ax, what policies of this year's democrat platform do you agree with?
Since I agree with (or at least do not object to) most of the Democratic Party's 2020 Platform, it would be easier to tell you which parts I disagree with:
-
"... making racial equity part of the mandate of the Federal Reserve." -- I do not think this should be the Federal Reserve's business.
-
"... use the purchasing power of the federal government to incentivize private companies to recruit and advance people of color, women, ..." -- I would rather they focus on lifting the poor rather than lifting subgroups identified by race or gender.
-
"... Democrats will target relevant investments with the goal of delivering 40 percent of the overall benefits to disadvantaged and frontline communities ..." -- where does that 40 percent figure come from, how is it justified, why not 30% or 50%? I don't see enough justification for the "40 percent" figure.
-
Many places in the platform where the Democrats says they want to achieve x% reduction of emission reduction target in N years, replace y% of technologies/equipments with clean/renewable energy alternatives in M years ... directionally they are fine as aspirations, but those specific numerical targets are most likely too aggressive/optimistic to be practical.
-
"... must prioritize STEAM education and funding for underrepresented students, including students of color, girls, and low-income students, ..." -- (1) note the typo "STEAM" instead of "STEM", shame on them for making that typo not once, by twice, in their document. (2) On this subject, again I would rather they focus on lifting the poor rather than lifting subgroups identified by race or gender.
-
On making higher education affordable, there is a lot of stuff on increasing student load amounts and forgiving student loans, but not enough on cost control. I much prefer to see some cost control measure imposed on higher education institution that wants to take students with publicly funded or publicly guaranteed student loans. May be tag on some performance standards too, such that institutions that do not adequately educate/train their students are disqualified from taking in students with publicly funded or publicly guaranteed student loans.
-
-
wrote on 26 Aug 2020, 01:25 last edited by
It's a steamer, all right.
-
@Larry said in Blacks for Trump:
Ax, what policies of this year's democrat platform do you agree with?
Since I agree with (or at least do not object to) most of the Democratic Party's 2020 Platform, it would be easier to tell you which parts I disagree with:
-
"... making racial equity part of the mandate of the Federal Reserve." -- I do not think this should be the Federal Reserve's business.
-
"... use the purchasing power of the federal government to incentivize private companies to recruit and advance people of color, women, ..." -- I would rather they focus on lifting the poor rather than lifting subgroups identified by race or gender.
-
"... Democrats will target relevant investments with the goal of delivering 40 percent of the overall benefits to disadvantaged and frontline communities ..." -- where does that 40 percent figure come from, how is it justified, why not 30% or 50%? I don't see enough justification for the "40 percent" figure.
-
Many places in the platform where the Democrats says they want to achieve x% reduction of emission reduction target in N years, replace y% of technologies/equipments with clean/renewable energy alternatives in M years ... directionally they are fine as aspirations, but those specific numerical targets are most likely too aggressive/optimistic to be practical.
-
"... must prioritize STEAM education and funding for underrepresented students, including students of color, girls, and low-income students, ..." -- (1) note the typo "STEAM" instead of "STEM", shame on them for making that typo not once, by twice, in their document. (2) On this subject, again I would rather they focus on lifting the poor rather than lifting subgroups identified by race or gender.
-
On making higher education affordable, there is a lot of stuff on increasing student load amounts and forgiving student loans, but not enough on cost control. I much prefer to see some cost control measure imposed on higher education institution that wants to take students with publicly funded or publicly guaranteed student loans. May be tag on some performance standards too, such that institutions that do not adequately educate/train their students are disqualified from taking in students with publicly funded or publicly guaranteed student loans.
wrote on 26 Aug 2020, 02:02 last edited by@Axtremus said in Blacks for Trump:
@Larry said in Blacks for Trump:
Ax, what policies of this year's democrat platform do you agree with?
Since I agree with (or at least do not object to) most of the Democratic Party's 2020 Platform, it would be easier to tell you which parts I disagree with:
-
"... making racial equity part of the mandate of the Federal Reserve." -- I do not think this should be the Federal Reserve's business.
-
"... use the purchasing power of the federal government to incentivize private companies to recruit and advance people of color, women, ..." -- I would rather they focus on lifting the poor rather than lifting subgroups identified by race or gender.
-
"... Democrats will target relevant investments with the goal of delivering 40 percent of the overall benefits to disadvantaged and frontline communities ..." -- where does that 40 percent figure come from, how is it justified, why not 30% or 50%? I don't see enough justification for the "40 percent" figure.
-
Many places in the platform where the Democrats says they want to achieve x% reduction of emission reduction target in N years, replace y% of technologies/equipments with clean/renewable energy alternatives in M years ... directionally they are fine as aspirations, but those specific numerical targets are most likely too aggressive/optimistic to be practical.
-
"... must prioritize STEAM education and funding for underrepresented students, including students of color, girls, and low-income students, ..." -- (1) note the typo "STEAM" instead of "STEM", shame on them for making that typo not once, by twice, in their document. (2) On this subject, again I would rather they focus on lifting the poor rather than lifting subgroups identified by race or gender.
-
On making higher education affordable, there is a lot of stuff on increasing student load amounts and forgiving student loans, but not enough on cost control. I much prefer to see some cost control measure imposed on higher education institution that wants to take students with publicly funded or publicly guaranteed student loans. May be tag on some performance standards too, such that institutions that do not adequately educate/train their students are disqualified from taking in students with publicly funded or publicly guaranteed student loans.
Interesting.
So based on your own claims of what you agree with and what you don't, you've just made it clear that while you have disagreement with the democrats over student finances and identity politics, you agree totally with killing babies right up to the minute they are born. Interesting.
And again, based on your own statement, you agree with eliminating our borders and letting anyone and everyone into the Country and then giving them free health care the moment they cross the border. Even though even a 3 year old knows that would bankrupt the nation.
And you agree with ending all fossil fuel production, throwing ten of thousands of people out of work and knocking the Country back to the stone age..
Does human life not matter to you, or is it just babies you don't mind being murdered for convenience?
I've yet to ask a democrat that question and get an answer that made any sense. You didn't change that atvall.
-
-
wrote on 26 Aug 2020, 09:33 last edited by
Hey Ax.
You were making an Ax joke regarding STEAM, right?
We've had discussions on why the Arts should be part of a STEM focus. -
wrote on 27 Aug 2020, 02:01 last edited by
I think half of them have a speaking slot at the convention.