How To Turn The Hispanic Tide Toward The GOP

[jaeger19]

Angst? No, No, I've got your number, The idea of having real conservatives with real ideas was never a point of contention

, Your too funny... you argued with me about needing substance remember?

If you don't know how a political attack campaign is orchestrated and how the tactic I gave could help, which has nothing to do with the conservative bona fides of individuals, well that is just a matter you have to figure out on your own, I've repeated myself enough on the topic.

Just to point out.. in the midst of repeating.. you have contradicted yourself... so lets see.. "it was never a point of contention that we need real conservatives with real ideas"... but NOW we need to really understand an "attack campaign which has nothing to do with "conservative bona fides"

It appears I have your number.. that's why you are waffling all over the place.

Meaning me, and the name calling you are referring to has nothing to do with my OP or any corresponding posts after

Actually.. it goes exactly to your original post which was how to win the latino vote.. and I stated that it was important to stop name calling. After that you were off and running telling me I was wrong.

No, they don't and what you're preaching below isn't helping matters. You might have a different, more nuanced view but the way you are presenting it is testament to the exact thing I've been preaching on about. You've got to learn to give a better narrative. Of course, I don't think your view is nuanced, I am giving the benefit of doubt but you had plenty of opportunity to present it. As it is, it seems nothing more than the same old same old neocon prattle

Yeah.. I guess that's your attempt to illustrate how an attack campaign would work... the problem is.. it doesn't. Certainly my posts are not "the same old neocon prattle".. in fact far from it. In fact, I'd point out that my narrative is far more likely to bring the republican party together rather than your version where you refer to someone's ideas as .. "neocon prattle".. (think about it).

No, what that means is that local communities get to decide for themselves what they find acceptable for them. Not some sweeping Federal mandate that allows the San Francisco crowd to dictate what is and isn't allowed in the Bible Belt

I see.. so when do we go back to segregation, slavery, and a whole host of other examples where one community decides to infringe on the right of others? Say.. when do we go back to the time where some states would say my wife and I can't be married because we are of different races?

Tax reform accompanied with incentives to increase worker wage thereby providing a larger tax base along with steep cuts in government spending is the common sense approach

Except for the "incentives to increase workers wage part".. I agree.

Way to problematic for the government to be giving "incentives to increase workers wage"..

Regulation should be protective not proactive by nature. Government propping up of industries, bailouts, subsidies, all these must end.

Largely yep.. except some proactive is a lot more efficient and effective.

The Federal government has no business in any of this. Locally citizens should decide for themselves

How about we just say citizens should decide for themselves... state and local governments can take away freedoms just a the federal government can. Being conservative and for small efficient government doesn't just extend to the federal government but to ALL government.

These are more the Ayn Randian Gordon Gecko types who aren't conservative but corporatist and need to be excommunicated.

Yep.

That sounds precisely like what you want. A Corporate Democrat. You've given every indication that you're a neocon, the bane of conservatism. This explains your disagreeable nature.

How funny.. do you realize that I have gotten you to agree with me on just about everything? I guess you are more "neocon" and "corporatist" than you realize. :2wave:

You've given no indication of this, only pseudo freedom in the form of sweeping over arching allotments by the Federal Government. Nothings smells of elitist like Neocon

Again.. how funny.. because I defy you to produce one iota of evidence in this thread where I support "over arching allotments" by the Federal government...



\

 

[jaeger19]

but hispanics in texas also favored rejecting mexican rules as did most seperate mexican states at the time.mexicos original constitution granted states rights,and had mexico seperated into states and territories,while later santa ana wanted to unify mexico into a single nation.

even further the hispanic population of texas prior to us immigration was almost non existent,mexicans didnt want to go there,and only the tejas natives who were few and far between lived there.it was so bad that mexico made it rule that for commiting a crime you go to jail or go to texas.

a region that no one wanted to go but us immigrants,and a region that wanted to seperate from mexico even with its hispanic population,in order to become either part of the united states or its own sovereign country(it became the latter first).

Again.. bottom line.. Hispanics lived in these areas and their progeny have been American citizens for a long time and are not second generation immigrants whose parents came from corrupt nations as the OP implies.

 

[Paschendale]

Why not the interests of the entire country?

They overlap a lot more than the rich white old men are willing to admit.

 

[head of joaquin]

I like how this thread is about "how can we trick Latinos into voting for Republicans?" instead of "how can we actually serve the interests of Latinos?"

That's exactly it. Conservatives can only get anybody to vote for them (except the superwealthy) by trickery. They have to pretend to be or believe something they aren't or don't. No wonder rightwingers show symptoms of schizophrenia


Maybe they should try using lots of tanning spray like Romney did when he spoke in front of a Latino group. That's about the level of GOP understanding of race and ethnicity.

 

[Drake McHugh]

With all due respect.. Romney did run a hateful campaign. But you sort of bring up a good point... many in the GOP have no idea that he did....

That's because a portion of the GOP is out of touch with the rest of America.

Lets start with Gay marriage... remember when Obama came out that he had deciding that he had changed his mind and gay marriage was okay.
What was Romney's immediate response... AGAINST gay marriage. What what do you think that you are telling people when you tell them that their relationship is not okay and is NOT on par with your marriage? You think you are being nice?

then there is the 47% comment. 47% that he "doesn't care about"... Again. what are you telling folks about what you think of them... you think its a nice thing

And then "self deportation" and on and on.

We absolutely lost because we alienated folks... whole populations in fact. We very much focused on people... Remember.. the slogan... "take our country back"... really? FROM WHO? Oh right.. anyone that disagrees or has disagreed with us.

Ok. I am trying hard to believe you are a conservative. It's kind of hard though. You think the absolute worst about Republicans and use leftwing talking points to make your argument.
On same sex marriage,maybe just maybe Romney disagrees with it? He said nothing hateful,just that he disagreed with it. It was hardly a major issue that he harped on.
The 47% comment was stupid. I wouldn't call it hateful. It was also using leftwing logic(that we are a static society where people are stuck in their "class"). The real "hate"or contempt is with liberals who want people to be comfortable and complacent in their poverty.
I disagreed with self deportation. It's hardly hateful though. You arte a real dramatist. Just have a hard time thinking you are not a liberal with the talking points you use.
You must also not have paid attention to the memo's of the left(Romney killed my wife,war on women,the race card etc). Republicans need to improve in a number of ways. No question. Saying they lost because of "hate"is a joke though. if anything,against a negative campaign like Obama ran they required a much tougher approach.

 

[Drake McHugh]

That's exactly it. Conservatives can only get anybody to vote for them (except the superwealthy) by trickery. They have to pretend to be or believe something they aren't or don't. No wonder rightwingers show symptoms of schizophrenia


Maybe they should try using lots of tanning spray like Romney did when he spoke in front of a Latino group. That's about the level of GOP understanding of race and ethnicity.

The real mistake is thinking you can out pander the masters of deception,your side. Democrats are a true coalition party,one that thrives on identity politics and keeping grievances and victimhood alive. No,the answer is to speak to Americans like adults,not like you do,as groups. That will never do.

 

[head of joaquin]

The real mistake is thinking you can out pander the masters of deception,your side. Democrats are a true coalition party,one that thrives on identity politics and keeping grievances and victimhood alive. No,the answer is to speak to Americans like adults,not like you do,as groups. That will never do.

So now it's the Democrats' fault that the GOP are going extinct electorally because it has alienated virtually every demographic except retired white males and serial killers?

Can't you guys take responsibility even for your own failed, bankrupt ideology?

 

[beerftw]

Again.. bottom line.. Hispanics lived in these areas and their progeny have been American citizens for a long time and are not second generation immigrants whose parents came from corrupt nations as the OP implies.

i dont think you can count tejas ancestors,as today actual true tejas hispanic ancestors are almost non existent.

texas itself was mostly inhabited by white people until it became fully developed,in which long after texas became a state hispanics started immigrating.but if you wish to prove there are more than a few people left with true hispanic texas lineage,good luck,they are extremely few,as i said before,hispanics avoided texas like a plague in the past except the native tejas population,which then was probably ;less than 5000 people,native americans in texas outnumbered the hispanic population during the states independance.

 

[beerftw]

The only opposition came from Democrats, and a number of Democrats opposed its renewal. Progressive groups outside of government opposed it vigorously. Conservative groups supported it vigorously.

The GOP demagogued 9-11 and whined that anybody who opposed the PA was "soft on terrorism", so I can't really blame the Democrats who supported it in the heat of the Bush demagogue-storm; the GOP wanted them to oppose it to us it as a campaign tactic. Americans are fools when it comes to falling for conservative patriotic drumbeating. So progressives and centrists have to play it smart, or worse harm will come as rightwingers take over on an outburst of demagoguery.

So there is no equivalency here: progressives opposed the PA, conservatives were for it. Period. It's weird to hear them whine now that the PA is doing what they wanted and involves metadata espionage.

reguardless of your claims,only 1 senator opposed the act during the initial vote,during the second vote there were both democrats and republicans who had opposed it.

just to point out,if every republican had been eradicated or thrown in an oven prior to both votes,the patriot act would have passed solely on democrat votes.your own argument is failed since the party you claimed was against it overwhelmingly voted in favor in every single vote,having a few more opposition does not change the overwelming support from the democratic party.