Comments by "No Fate But What We Make" (@SonoftheAllfather) on "The True Meaning of the New Jersey and Virginia Results" video.
-
9
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
@ 6gorillion: Blacks should still vote Republican. There was no takeover and Southern Dems were RINOs federally. Eisenhower won a lot of the Southern states before the CRA was even proposed, and the only reason the Republicans became popular in the South was because Goldwater opposed the CRA and was nominated as the Republican candidate in 1964. That was a complete diversion in Republican politics, and people do not just change their entire ideology on race overnight. That narrative is preposterous. The vast majority of state and local governments in the South remained Democrat from the reconstruction period until well after the Civil Rights movement. The governor of Mississippi was a Democrat from 1872 to 1988. The governor of Louisiana was a Democrat from 1887 to 1980. Alabama: 1874 to 1987. Georgia: 1872-2003. South Carolina: 1876 to 1979. Even Texas: 1874 to 1979. Most other Southern "red" states follow the same pattern, more or less. The Republicans did not change their allegiances and agenda after the Emancipation Proclamation. They have been responsible for the vast majority of Civil Rights reform in this country up to and after 1964, when the Democrats finally threw Blacks a bone and claimed responsibility. You've all been chewing on that bone ever since, too generally short of memory to recall that the Democrats were responsible for the KKK, Jim Crow, segregation, and the vast majority of resistance to civil rights legislation. Dems successfully deceived Black America by claiming responsibility for emancipating Blacks via the 1964 CRA, and then LBJ, a racist Southern Democrat subhuman, enslaved them again with the Great Society only a few years later. Blacks are generally more socially conservative than Whites. They only vote Democrat because they had been pandered and lied to for decades with identity politics, race baiting, and enslavement via welfare dependence and other detrimental left-wing policies. Meanwhile, Black America, under nearly unilateral Democratic leadership at the state and local level for the past 60 years, is still a total embarrassment, and is in many ways is worse off than it was before the Civil Rights Act. I don't think that is coincidental.
5
-
2
-
@Politics:
The question should be "what exactly do Democrats do to help black people?" Because they have had unilateral control over the Black population for fucking decades and things are getting worse or not changing at all. So really, the Republicans haven't even been given an opportunity to help Black people and try the things they want to do: namely issuing vouchers to Black parents so they don't have to send their children to be "educated" at demilitarized Hell project public schools. The Dems and teachers' unions block every effort conservatives make to reform education in urban areas.
As far as "suspicious voter-suppression tactics" and "racial district cracking" to "disenfranchise Black people," I would say that is mostly the same old lies and excuses Democrats have been using for years i.e. anything that disproportionately impacts Blacks or even impacts Blacks at all is racist. Tell me, how exactly are Republicans keeping Black people from voting? Sounds like soft bigotry of low expectations to me.
As far as Hispanics are concerned, the fact that you think "Trump shits all over that constituency" again shows your soft bigotry of low expectations and cognitive bias. How exactly does he "shit all over them" besides expecting them to follow the same laws as everybody else?
If Blacks actually did vote based on political/social view and not party allegiance, they wouldn't be voting Democrat 9:1.
Blacks are totally socially conservative, and are economically very goal driven. Their young men are alpha male capitalists, many of whom are obsessed with wealth and swag. The majority of Southern Black Americans are religious and follow Judeo-Christian social values. Blacks generally oppose same-sex marriage, homosexuality, and alternative lifestyles at a greater rate than Whites. They also poll as anti-immigration advocates. The main reason they vote Democrat is for the welfare state and the myth surrounding Republicans being WACIST. Of course this is a lie that began in the 60s, not the 70s as you said. Luckily for Blacks, Whites in this country have a vastly more diverse allegiance to political parties and ideologies. Blacks call the GOP the "White Party" when only 58% of Whites voted for Trump. Meanwhile, Blacks vote 9:1, Hispanics 4:1, and Asians 4:1 Democrat. Can you imagine if Whites voted 9:1 Republican? Even 4:1? Can you imagine the screams of racism from the Left and the utter butthurt? Doubles standards yet again.
"The conservatives have never been on black people's side throughout history."
Wrong. You do realize that a conservative is simply someone who is trying to CONSERVE classically liberal values? Take a look at classical liberalism defined and you'll pretty much be reading the blueprint for modern conservatism. As far as the social aspect, the social liberals have always just been virtue signaling and instituting a Marxist bourgeoise/proletariat framework onto the racial framework of this country, painting Whites as the oppressors and everyone else as the oppressed. Leftists "care" for Blacks, but they don't actually do anything but mire them in perpetual poverty, pander to their grievances, and facilitate and make excuses for their cultural failures that are largely a result of Leftist policies. Conservatives believe in the notion of family, tradition, self-accountability, work ethic, and education. These are things Blacks used to exemplify before the Great Society. Blacks were much better off when they were more socially conservative, but many of them still are in all actuality. At this point, they are simply driven by identity politics and are extremely tribal and anti-White. The Dems continue to nauseatingly peddle identity politics, despite it being so utterly transparent at this point, even to the point of creating a marked reactionary increase in White identitarianism.
2
-
1
-
@ Mike C: Another Republican? The incumbent in Virginia was a Democrat, dingus. Moreover, have you seen the new proposed tax reform? It keeps taxes the same for the rich and even caps the amount of property tax that wealthy homeowners can deduct. It also offers significant tax cuts to the lower and middle classes. It decreases the corporate tax rate to the same average of every Western European country, and Leftists are criticizing that, as if the middle class couldn't use millions more jobs and economic growth. This is what Rightists have wanted for years, but the establishment globalists have held a stranglehold on the GOP. Leftists, on the other hand, tax everyone more, not just the rich. If the minorities (not all of whom are poor btw) wanted just lower or less taxes and more economic growth, they would vote for right-wing populism. But they don't want lower taxes, they want more government assistance. You call people on this channel clueless, but you clearly have a very pleb-tier understanding of what you're trying to discuss. This is high-IQ territory, Leftist. You might find a few mutants here and there on this channel, but the majority here are highly informed.
1
-
Mike C
From your article:
"It's going to be hard to mold this into something where the middle class is the big winner. (still a winner, though, nay?)... And the reason for that, or course, is that the upper-income earners are those that pay the most in taxes," said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. "If you're going to reform the tax code, a lot of times it's going to be the people who pay the most taxes who end up with those bigger breaks."
So, the rich that pay the vast majority of the taxes pay less taxes under the plan, but so does pretty much everybody else, including the middle class...yet...this isn't good for the middle class and the poor? Hmmmm. Over 500K will pay 39.6% in income tax. 200K-500K 35%. 45K-200K 25%. 0-45K 12%. It also increases the standard deduction of both individuals and joint filers, which 70% of Americans use instead of itemized deductions. The only reason the rich are paying any "less" is because it eliminates estate tax (estate tax is totally corrupt and immoral btw) and the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Btw, you might want to use articles that aren't published by Left-leaning outlets like NPR if you want anyone to take you seriously. That article quoted a study done by a Left wing think tank called the Tax Policy Center, which is just a front for the Urban Institute. All it really tried to do was marginalize the relatively substantial savings that normal Americans will get by comparing them to the tax savings of the rich, which of course are more because the rich make exponentially more money and therefore pay and are refunded exponentially more taxes. Totally disingenuous angle, in all actuality.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Mike C
Wrong again bro. The only people that would see a 2% increase would be those making between $0-9,325, which is what...a kid in high school bussing tables or a person probably receiving social benefits as it is? Those making between $9,325-37,950 would see a 3% decrease, and those making $37,951-44,999 would see a 13% decrease. Those making 45,000-91,900 would stay the same at 25%, but remember, the standardized deduction increase=more refund. Those making $91,901-191,650 would get a 3% decrease and those making $191,651-199,000 would get a 8% decrease. This pretty much constitutes the entire lower and middle class.
1
-
"as I said there is no evidence that supply side economics increases economic productivity."
And as I said, tax cuts don't increase budget deficits, spending does. Tax cuts generally cause economic expansion that eventually lowers the deficits caused by spending. But the budget deficit will not decrease if we're spending trillions a year in social benefits, military spending, wasteful government bureaucracy, and foreign aid. Supply-side worked wonders in the 80s, but we spent too much fucking money on the Cold War arms race and could never balance the books. If it were not for that economic expansion, and we still spent all of that money on the Cold War arms race, the debt may have been insurmountable.
"Making wealthy people pay less as a percent then their poorer counterparts is counterproductive....."
I agree, but this is not what is happening; it is not the reality now nor would it be the reality if the Trump plan gets instituted. The wealthy would still be at the same 39.6% if they make over 500K, plus state taxes which can be as high as 10% in states like CA. That's almost 50% of your income in a place like CA if you're making over $500,000 a year. Meanwhile, a guy making 50K a year right now in CA would be getting taxed around 25% federal and 10% state. And then the government wants to come in and rob your heirs for estate taxes when you die? Shit...you've got to draw the line somewhere.
1