When will Mormons learn?

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

What--now for the next 4-8 years there's no discussion allowed about how nonsensically loyal blacks are to the Democrats, no matter how they abuse them?

Looks like you still haven't gotten it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

Looks like you still haven't gotten it.

I think you have me confused with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think you have me confused with Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

You ask what Dems have done for blacks when they've just elevated a black person to the presidency?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

You ask what Dems have done for blacks when they've just elevated a black person to the presidency?

Obama is not black. He's mixed race who grew up in Indonesia.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Obama is not black. He's mixed race who grew up in Indonesia.

That's enough to get you pulled over and profiled at a rate 7x the white person's.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

You ask what Dems have done for blacks when they've just elevated a black person to the presidency?

We are talking about confusingly loyal constituencies, right?

So Obama got elected. So what? If Mitt Romney had gotten the nomination and won the election, would that change the nutty anti-Mormonism among thousands of evangelicals?

Blacks are the Great Abused Constituency of America. They are cringingly loyal to a party whose philosophies and policies have helped destroy the black family and kept thousands of blacks in poverty. They vote in higher percentages for a single party than any other demographic of any reasonable size, save that of party affiliation. Punching the card of some elitist liberal--though he happens to also be black--doesn't change all that.

And if blacks really are voting in droves for Obama (and the Dems) on that basis alone, then that's just good ol' fashioned race-based politics. Not something to be proud of, either.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

We are talking about confusingly loyal constituencies, right?

So Obama got elected. So what? If Mitt Romney had gotten the nomination and won the election, would that change the nutty anti-Mormonism among thousands of evangelicals?

Blacks are the Great Abused Constituency of America. They are cringingly loyal to a party whose philosophies and policies have helped destroy the black family and kept thousands of blacks in poverty. They vote in higher percentages for a single party than any other demographic of any reasonable size, save that of party affiliation. Punching the card of some elitist liberal--though he happens to also be black--doesn't change all that.

And if blacks really are voting in droves for Obama (and the Dems) on that basis alone, then that's just good ol' fashioned race-based politics. Not something to be proud of, either.

But that is precisely the point, Tex. Many Republican insiders, including now Michael Steele, have said that Mitt lost because he was Mormon. Many evangelical leaders (i.e., the base) said they would never vote for Mitt because he was Mormon. Mitt didn't win, and a great argument can be made that it was largely due to his religious beliefs. That represents a very real ceiling your party has erected for Mormons, despite the fact that Mormons are overwhelmingly Republican (in the US).

You say that blacks are mistreated by Democrats. Setting aside whether or not that is true, even if it is, it is true on an entirely different level for blacks and the Democratic Party. Democrats elected a black man to be president of the United States. While you may think Democrats mistreat blacks, they most certainly aren't constructing barriers to party and national leadership like Republicans are with Mormons. And, by the way, the guy Democrats elected in the Senate to be Majority Leader is also Mormon. Who was the last Mormon Republican Majority or Minority Leader?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

But that is precisely the point, Tex. Many Republican insiders, including now Michael Steele, have said that Mitt lost because he was Mormon. Many evangelical leaders (i.e., the base) said they would never vote for Mitt because he was Mormon. Mitt didn't win, and a great argument can be made that it was largely due to his religious beliefs. That represents a very real ceiling your party has erected for Mormons, despite the fact that Mormons are overwhelmingly Republican (in the US).

You say that blacks are mistreated by Democrats. Setting aside whether or not that is true, even if it is, it is true on an entirely different level for blacks and the Democratic Party. Democrats elected a black man to be president of the United States. While you may think Democrats mistreat blacks, they most certainly aren't constructing barriers to party and national leadership like Republicans are with Mormons. And, by the way, the guy Democrats elected in the Senate to be Majority Leader is also Mormon. Who was the last Mormon Republican Majority or Minority Leader?

What you're saying is: because one guy won the lottery, the lottery must be a great thing for everyone who plays.

You're right, it's more "hip" to be anti-Mormon than racially prejudiced. And that would be a great point, if it actually dealt with what I'm getting at. It doesn't. I got in this thread when someone wondered why Mormons stay loyal to a party whose leadership (allegedly) is keeping them down.

There is no party where that is more evident than the Democrat party and blacks. The election of one black president (who barely secured his nomination) does not erase decades of abuse.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

What you're saying is: because one guy won the lottery, the lottery must be a great thing for everyone who plays.

You're right, it's more "hip" to be anti-Mormon than racially prejudiced. And that would be a great point, if it actually dealt with what I'm getting at. It doesn't. I got in this thread when someone wondered why Mormons stay loyal to a party whose leadership (allegedly) is keeping them down.

There is no party where that is more evident than the Democrat party and blacks. The election of one black president (who barely secured his nomination) does not erase decades of abuse.

Tex, did you know that there is a prominent country club in Dallas that does not allow blacks to join? Even really rich, corporately-connected ones.

If you want to know the pull of minorities in the GOP, all you had to do was look at the GOP convention. Which looked like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. The dem convention looked like a mass of humanity, of all stripes. You tell me which group is more welcoming to minorities.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Tex, did you know that there is a prominent country club in Dallas that does not allow blacks to join? Even really rich, corporately-connected ones.

If you want to know the pull of minorities in the GOP, all you had to do was look at the GOP convention. Which looked like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. The dem convention looked like a mass of humanity, of all stripes. You tell me which group is more welcoming to minorities.

You're correct that there is a greater variety of race that is in the Dem party; however, Tex is asking why do blacks continue to be a part of a political party, the politics of which continuously keep the blacks in poverty? Sure, Mormons aren't liked by the religious right, but what does the religious right in the GOP do politically to Mormons that prevents them from making their lives better?