Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Edit: ignore, wrong forum

DeadMutagen94 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
The US is a Republic not a Democracy.

False! it is a democratic republic.

Just like the German Democratic Republic and the Democratic Republic of Korea you mean?

 Cheesecat wrote:
I think Black people in general tend to vote democrat over republican regardless of the race of the candidates.

What Black Republican candidates have made it past the Primaries?

 cincydooley wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
When you have 93% of a particular race vote for one candidate, it becomes increasingly clear that for many people in the US the way they cast their ballot has nothing to do with politics.

When did race cease to be political?

Oh. I thought we were supposed to vote for the best candidate for the job. Not the one that looks most like me. Silly me.

And ethnic minorities, especially Black and Latino in the US are far more likely to either be socialy and economically deprived or from a deprived background, so it's hardly a supprise that they vote for the party who's policies normaly favor tax cuts for the poor and widening of social welfair.

 Polonius wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
While I don't agree with it, I think there's merit to not allowing people that don't pay taxes a vote.

I mean, it would take votes away from most of our congressmembers :-D

Surely your kidding. Democracy is about letting everyone participate in government.

Except its not. Children can't vote, and neither can felons. Most states had property requirements to vote prior to the Jacksonian era.

Now, poll taxes are explicitly forbidden under the 24th Amendment to the Constitution, so it's not going to happen, but the impetus for the amendment was its role in suppressing black voting the south, not any really class related purpose.

Still, it's blackletter law, so good luck changing it.

Funny you mention the property requirements to vote. When that was changed the federal government first started spending more than they took in....

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In Australia it's illegal not to vote,

I think it's like that in Germany too. On the other hand it is treated like a national holiday, no work, no school ect.

Yeah but then you get 2 parties screaming 'stop dem brown people in da boatz' and all the bogans go 'ermagerd brown people' and cast their ill informed vote for whoever scared them most before reassuring their racist asses that the boat people won't steal their jobs. You get fb pictures of 'welfare payments' that have Australian seniors getting like $100 a week, and immigrants getting a free house for life, car, and $56,000 p.a. and people believe it, rage, and swear to vote out the party that has been letting these boat people in for the past 8 years and given them houses. Never mind that the image and numbers are bollocks. Our last election cycle was an honest-to-god national embarrassment in my eyes.

 Hordini wrote:
Wait, wait! Guys! I got it! Why don't we just make it so only people who own land get to vote? No one has ever tried that before have they?

I hope that was sarcasm.... In case it was not...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/10/22/quinn-originally-if-you-didnt-have-land-you-did/145797

This is one of the reasons why, in the original Constitution of the United States, it was only people who were landowners -- property owners were the ones who were allowed to vote. You couldn't vote unless you owned property.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
When you have 93% of a particular race vote for one candidate, it becomes increasingly clear that for many people in the US the way they cast their ballot has nothing to do with politics.

When did race cease to be political?

Oh. I thought we were supposed to vote for the best candidate for the job. Not the one that looks most like me. Silly me.

And ethnic minorities, especially Black and Latino in the US are far more likely to either be socialy and economically deprived or from a deprived background, so it's hardly a supprise that they vote for the party who's policies normaly favor tax cuts for the poor and widening of social welfair.

I'd normally agree if popular, influential blacks in this country weren't making lists like this :

[MOD EDIT - Pictures are subject to all the same rules of the site - watch out for language in them!]

 cincydooley wrote:

Oh. I thought we were supposed to vote for the best candidate for the job. Not the one that looks most like me. Silly me.

People tend to prefer (and vote for) candidates they identify with over ones they do not. It doesn't matter if that's what they're supposed to do, its just what they actually do. As race is a significant factor in identification, race is a political issue.

And that's before we get to the legacy of race relations in the US.

 cincydooley wrote:
I'd normally agree if popular, influential blacks in this country weren't making lists like this

If you are going to say an influential person wrote something, you really need to back it up by saying who that person was. You should also probably realize that finding outliers on something doesn't really present an argument when discussion mass groups. Again, if a homogenous voting block is something you have a problem with, you might be looking the wrong direction:

 motyak wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In Australia it's illegal not to vote,

I think it's like that in Germany too. On the other hand it is treated like a national holiday, no work, no school ect.

Yeah but then you get 2 parties screaming 'stop dem brown people in da boatz' and all the bogans go 'ermagerd brown people' and cast their ill informed vote for whoever scared them most before reassuring their racist asses that the boat people won't steal their jobs. You get fb pictures of 'welfare payments' that have Australian seniors getting like $100 a week, and immigrants getting a free house for life, car, and $56,000 p.a. and people believe it, rage, and swear to vote out the party that has been letting these boat people in for the past 8 years and given them houses. Never mind that the image and numbers are bollocks. Our last election cycle was an honest-to-god national embarrassment in my eyes.

You realize that's current american politics.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In Australia it's illegal not to vote,

I think it's like that in Germany too. On the other hand it is treated like a national holiday, no work, no school ect.

Yeah but then you get 2 parties screaming 'stop dem brown people in da boatz' and all the bogans go 'ermagerd brown people' and cast their ill informed vote for whoever scared them most before reassuring their racist asses that the boat people won't steal their jobs. You get fb pictures of 'welfare payments' that have Australian seniors getting like $100 a week, and immigrants getting a free house for life, car, and $56,000 p.a. and people believe it, rage, and swear to vote out the party that has been letting these boat people in for the past 8 years and given them houses. Never mind that the image and numbers are bollocks. Our last election cycle was an honest-to-god national embarrassment in my eyes.

You realize that's current american politics.

I realise that it's a crying shame that it's anyone's national politics.

Since there appear to be a number of flat-tax advocates in this thread, I'll ask the question I always ask of that position and still live in hope that one day I'll get a coherent, reasoned answer:

Flat-tax advocates tend to assert that flat-taxes are "fair" because everyone pays the same percentage, but progressive taxes are "unfair" because a rich person doesn't just pay more in absolute terms, but also in relative terms.

My question is; given a person with great wealth has received a greater benefit from society than a person with little wealth, and that this gain is exponential rather than linear(education, healthcare, property protection both physical and intellectual etc etc all benefit the individual worker once, but benefit the members of the capital class to a greater and greater degree with each additional worker who contributes to their wealth), why is it "unfair" that their contribution is more substantial as well?

 Yodhrin wrote:
Since there appear to be a number of flat-tax advocates in this thread, I'll ask the question I always ask of that position and still live in hope that one day I'll get a coherent, reasoned answer:

Flat-tax advocates tend to assert that flat-taxes are "fair" because everyone pays the same percentage, but progressive taxes are "unfair" because a rich person doesn't just pay more in absolute terms, but also in relative terms.

My question is; given a person with great wealth has received a greater benefit from society than a person with little wealth, and that this gain is exponential rather than linear(education, healthcare, property protection both physical and intellectual etc etc all benefit the individual worker once, but benefit the members of the capital class to a greater and greater degree with each additional worker who contributes to their wealth), why is it "unfair" that their contribution is more substantial as well?

I'll answer.

This is my opinion.

We're all equal...right? Given that, why should *I* care if the Bill Gates/Alex Rodriguez of the world "receive a greater benefit from society" than me? And for that matter, what is this "greater benefit"? Is it simply because they have more money?

Bill Gates/Alex Rodriguez live in this country, enjoying whatever opportunity that comes their way, just as *I* do as well. Why should they "have to pay more in relative terms", just because they're rich/successful?

I mean, when we're talking about fairness, say we did implement a Flat Tax system. They idea is that from a percentage basis, each person pays an equal amount of their income towards taxes, and from an absolute basis, richer people pay more! Isn't that by definition a pregressive taxation system as well?

 whembly wrote:

I mean, when we're talking about fairness, say we did implement a Flat Tax system. They idea is that from a percentage basis, each person pays an equal amount of their income towards taxes, and from an absolute basis, richer people pay more! Isn't that by definition a pregressive taxation system as well?

No. A progressive tax is one where the tax rate increases with the taxable amount.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I mean, when we're talking about fairness, say we did implement a Flat Tax system. They idea is that from a percentage basis, each person pays an equal amount of their income towards taxes, and from an absolute basis, richer people pay more! Isn't that by definition a pregressive taxation system as well?

No. A progressive tax is one where the tax rate increases with the taxable amount.

I did a poor job elaborating...

Yes, a "Progressive Tax Scheme" is exactly as you described.

The word progressive can mean happening and/or developing gradually. Being taxed at a flat rate, your absolute tax payment increases as your earnings increases.

One of the major problems with Flat Tax is that the wealthy don't earn wages... it's via investments from capital gains/dividends/etc... which are taxed lower. If we are going to ANY new tax scheme, say Flat Tax (or FairTax... eeeew), then those same capital gains/dividends/etc need to be taxed at the same rate.

This is a moot discussion... going to a Flat Tax system (or any other system) will Never. Ever. Happen.

 Ahtman wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I'd normally agree if popular, influential blacks in this country weren't making lists like this

If you are going to say an influential person wrote something, you really need to back it up by saying who that person was. You should also probably realize that finding outliers on something doesn't really present an argument when discussion mass groups. Again, if a homogenous voting block is something you have a problem with, you might be looking the wrong direction:

It shows that more than half of the people that voted for Obama were white. If 93% of the black population votes for Obama, it doesn't leave a very big piece to vote for Romney.

And it was snoop dog.

I mean, if you're a black conservative or a black that voted not for Obama, you're pretty much "uncle tom'd" into hiding.

 whembly wrote:


Yes, a "Progressive Tax Scheme" is exactly as you described.

The word progressive can mean happening and/or developing gradually. Being taxed at a flat rate, your absolute tax payment increases as your earnings increases.

The term "progressive tax" is one with a fixed definition. Attempting to couch an argument in a turn of phrase does nothing beyond introducing confusion into the debate.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Wait, wait! Guys! I got it! Why don't we just make it so only people who own land get to vote? No one has ever tried that before have they?

I hope that was sarcasm.... In case it was not...

http://mediamatters.org/research/2008/10/22/quinn-originally-if-you-didnt-have-land-you-did/145797

This is one of the reasons why, in the original Constitution of the United States, it was only people who were landowners -- property owners were the ones who were allowed to vote. You couldn't vote unless you owned property.

It was sarcasm, don't worry.

 cincydooley wrote:
If 93% of the black population votes for Obama, it doesn't leave a very big piece to vote for Romney.

Is your argument that black people only voted for Obama because Obama is black?

I mean some people certainly did, and I'm sure there are quite a few people who would have voted for Hillary only because she is a woman, but there are other factors that influence voting that extend beyond race.

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
If 93% of the black population votes for Obama, it doesn't leave a very big piece to vote for Romney.

Is your argument that black people only voted for Obama because Obama is black?

I mean some people certainly did, and I'm sure there are quite a few people who would have voted for Hillary only because she is a woman, but there are other factors that influence voting that extend beyond race.

Not all. That would be absurd. Many? Yep.

I absolutely think there are a bunch of rednecks and racists that only voted for Romney because he was white.

Big difference is that 93% of the white voting population didn't vote for Romney.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My favorite stat, of course, is that 74% of the people that said they voted primarily on health care voted for Obama. Hoes that workin?

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
If 93% of the black population votes for Obama, it doesn't leave a very big piece to vote for Romney.

Is your argument that black people only voted for Obama because Obama is black?

I mean some people certainly did, and I'm sure there are quite a few people who would have voted for Hillary only because she is a woman, but there are other factors that influence voting that extend beyond race.

Looking back through the results back to 1992 you get an interesting picture in voter demographics for both parties.

Year - Black voters for the Democrat - White voters for the Republican
1992 - 83% - 40%
1996 - 84% - 46%
2000 - 90% - 55%
2004 - 88% - 58%
2008 - 95% - 55%
2012 - 93% - 59%

So the vast majority of black voters have always voted for democrats, even when these democrats were white. Between 1992 and 2012 the "black vote" increased 12% for the Democratic Party, and the white vote increased 19% for the Republican Party. So if we were to imply race based on percentages it would look worse for whites.

The makeup of the different races participating in the elections haven't really changed all that much either:



Is there a portion of "black people that voted for the black guy"? Sure. I'm also sure that there is a portion of "white people that voted for the white guy".

Is "95% of black people voted for Obama" any kind of meaningful statustic? Not if you are looking at past trends and the big picture.

That's a really good point d-USA. You're totally right there.

I think in 2012 I was just bothered by it significantly more because lots of people were very vocal about voting for Obama expressly because he's black.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also didn't realize the white voting % had dropped so much since 96.

 cincydooley wrote:

Not all. That would be absurd. Many? Yep.

I absolutely think there are a bunch of rednecks and racists that only voted for Romney because he was white.

Big difference is that 93% of the white voting population didn't vote for Romney.

Ok, so your argument is that black people constitute a voting bloc, and that its bad that they do?

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Not all. That would be absurd. Many? Yep.

I absolutely think there are a bunch of rednecks and racists that only voted for Romney because he was white.

Big difference is that 93% of the white voting population didn't vote for Romney.

Ok, so your argument is that black people constitute a voting bloc, and that its bad that they do?

Nope.

 cincydooley wrote:

Nope.

Then what is your argument?

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Nope.

Then what is your argument?

That the Republican party being sustained by almost entirely white votes isn't a problem, but a lot of black people voting for someone he doesn't like is, it seems. Though the attitude helps sort of proves why the 93% didn't vote the other way, as it is framed as if it is their problem for not being more diverse and not that the other side has any appeal, and why that is.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Since there appear to be a number of flat-tax advocates in this thread, I'll ask the question I always ask of that position and still live in hope that one day I'll get a coherent, reasoned answer:

Flat-tax advocates tend to assert that flat-taxes are "fair" because everyone pays the same percentage, but progressive taxes are "unfair" because a rich person doesn't just pay more in absolute terms, but also in relative terms.

My question is; given a person with great wealth has received a greater benefit from society than a person with little wealth, and that this gain is exponential rather than linear(education, healthcare, property protection both physical and intellectual etc etc all benefit the individual worker once, but benefit the members of the capital class to a greater and greater degree with each additional worker who contributes to their wealth), why is it "unfair" that their contribution is more substantial as well?

That's easy. Your premise is incorrect. The poor receive more benefit from society.

 Ahtman wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Nope.

Then what is your argument?

That the Republican party being sustained by almost entirely white votes isn't a problem, but a lot of black people voting for someone he doesn't like is, it seems. Though the attitude helps sort of proves why the 93% didn't vote the other way, as it is framed as if it is their problem for not being more diverse and not that the other side has any appeal, and why that is.

Nope.

Voted for Obama in 08 BTW.

 cincydooley wrote:
Voted for Obama in 08 BTW.

And Morgan Freeman complained about Black History once. You still haven't made an argument, and are deflecting. Why don't you answer Dogma directly?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
The poor receive more benefit from society.