Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

I doubt it. Fissures in the Republican party are nothing compared to those in the Democrats. If we pretended people voted for reasons other than identity politics, I'd place money on a party emerging which unites fiscal populism with reactionary Christian morality across racial lines, consider:



The single most reliable ethnic constituency of Democrats are blacks. Despite this, when gay rights - a Democratic pet project if there very was one - went to the ballot, they were more conservative than Whites.

Latinos & Blacks tend to vote Democrat for reasons economic & because of identity politics. I don't think this is sustainable because (1) their religious/cultural views conflict strongly with those of liberal whites/jew/asians, & (2) because the economic life of these groups continue to move apart.

Originally Posted by Janszoon

You do realize you have actually just said nothing that backs up your doubts about what I said about the republican party, right?

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

whoops. Let me expand on:

If we pretended people voted for reasons other than identity politics,

In other words, most people vote Republican because said party is evolving into an white identity party. The party is already mostly white, so major fissures won't occur.

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

They sure seemed to be spinning the importance of adding Rubio to their agenda last night. Seems like they're moving towards the Latino vote and that makes sense considering Latinos will be the majority in 2016.

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

Your math is off by a few decades.

Regardless, yeah, they trot out the few colourful faces in the party, but I doubt it'll be successful. If the Republicans were going to split amongst ideological lines, it would've been in '92 when Buchanan challenged Bush. Notions of white identity will continue to trump ideology in the Republican party as Whites lose their grip on power.

The only Latino group I could see them making further inroads with would be white latinos (not mestizos, blacks, etc.), considering the prevalent racism in latin america.

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

That is one thing I never understood the racist ideals of Latinos toward Blacks and vice versa. Albeit it did seem that every race known to man seemed rather happy in the HQ in Chicago last night. Maybe that is more representative of where America as a whole is ready to move.

Originally Posted by eraser.time206

If you can't deal with the fact that there are 6+ billion people in the world and none of them think exactly the same that's not my problem. Just deal with it yourself or make actual conversation. This isn't a court and I'm not some poet or prophet that needs everything I say to be analytically critiqued.

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

If you visit most Latin American countries you'll find the status quo is usually like so: Whites, false whites, mestizos/mulattos, blacks and bottom of the pile the indigenous population. There is usually no open hostility amongst these groups, but they all know their order in society, so there are no real issues.

They tend to get a shock when they travel or move abroad and see how the real world is.

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

whoops. Let me expand on:

If we pretended people voted for reasons other than identity politics,

In other words, most people vote Republican because said party is evolving into an white identity party. The party is already mostly white, so major fissures won't occur.

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I know you have a tendency to view everything in terms of race, but that's only part of the equation. The republican party is, as Tore already mentioned, the homophobe party, the xenophobe party, the Christian fundamentalist party, etc.

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

...eh? If it's the party of homophobia & fundamentalism, why do the most homophobic & church-going ethnic groups trend Democrat?