How come Asians aren't Republican leaning, yet fit the Repub model?

[Wells]

Well when the Democrats want to enforce diversity requirements that will mean removing higher performing people for lower performing people based on Race or Gender.

Asians are over represented in many universities, to get the diversity the Democrats want, Asian acceptance will have to be intentionally limited.

You didn't answer my question. Is anyone advocating blocking people from schools?

[Captain N]

Well when the Democrats want to enforce diversity requirements that will mean removing higher performing people for lower performing people based on Race or Gender.

Asians are over represented in many universities, to get the diversity the Democrats want, Asian acceptance will have to be intentionally limited.

Can you show me where this has ever happened or if you're simply pulling things out of your ass in a conspiracy theory?

[SpcGuts]

Egalitarianism should be the goal of every sane human being, IMO.

Been trying to have an "Egalitarian Movement" at my university, but people aren't catching up to it.

You should start with your anthropology department.

[Deleted]

Why would the asians vote for people who want all minorities gone and the world ruled by the white master race?!

[Korgoth]

You didn't answer my question. Is anyone advocating blocking people from schools?

Yes when you are advocating diversity over merit, you are advocating blocking people from schools. Which is exactly what the Democrats are doing.

[yurano]

Just wait until the progressive wing of the Democratic party starts blocking Asians from schools and jobs so Latinos and Blacks can get that spot to meet their diversity goals.

This already happens. If you're Asian, putting race on your application can only hurt you. Asian is the only race that is over represented in higher education. Even white people are under represented. For instance, white people comprise ~75% of the population but only ~55% of medical school admission.

Putting Republicans in charge of admissions doesn't necessarily make it better; Republicans are predominantly white and tend to be xenophobic.

[NineSpine]

Yes when you are advocating diversity over merit, you are advocating blocking people from schools. Which is exactly what the Democrats are doing.

Look at that goalpost run!

[Rhinopotamus]

Welcome to MMO-C where idiots discuss the intelligent, like idiots. /thread.

First off not sure how accurate that data is, as every Asian but one I have ever met is Republican. Especially Indians. Second, true story, but most Ivy League Colleges breed Socialist, and Liberal Ideology. Don't believe me? Explain why they a lot of required reads in Ivy League Colleges are The Communist Manifesto, The People's History of the United States, ect, ect, and not things like Atlas Shrugged?

[Captain N]

Look at that goalpost run!

[Cthulhu 2020]

Actually, it is. https://www.google.com/#q=racism

Any policy or belief which involves one race being better than another or needing help IS RACISM. It is no different than the idea of gentrification/"the white man's burden" held by pro-slavery democrats prior to the civil war.

To change your way of approaching or dealing with another based upon that person's race is racism. To believe otherwise is delusion and to declare racist those who don't make accommodations based upon race is projection.

Helping people who are looked down upon by other people is not racism. Trying to lift someone out and help them because you realize they've been disadvantaged by other groups is not viewing one group as superior. Painting it as racism is just a way for the right to say "Stop helping people I don't like."

[belfpala]

...and not things like Atlas Shrugged?

I almost choked on a cucumber slice when I got to that part of your post. Good job, good job.

[TZK203]

I almost choked on a cucumber slice when I got to that part of your post. Good job, good job.

If only your post did not have "slice" after "cucumber," I might have been interested.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Voter Fraud.


Can we see some evidence that isn't from bias sources(Fox, Info Wars) and multiple sources that's credible.

[Lord Havik]

That's just false. The challenges have included numerous constitutional issues, not just the 24th amendment. Specifically, the 14th amendment's equal protection clause has been an important factor in many of the cases, as well as the Voting Rights Act.

When the voting ID law PASSED and was decided to be constitutional in Texas, the primary considerations were on the poll tax amendment as it was the only one which pertained directly and unequivocally to the voter ID law.

Sure, and that's why when someone points out the Southern Strategy, you start talking about Democrats during reconstruction.

Because those people's mindset was the backbone of the Dem party until the mid 60s. It survives to this day with the race-identity politics of the current Democratic party. The Reps have their own race related faults, mainly racial insensitivity, but racism itself requires the belief that one is somehow different for the color of his skin.

Show me where Democrats are passing laws to restrict Republican voters.

That's not the Dem's MO. They primarily look for ways to grow their constituency legally such as with their push for amnesty for illegal aliens. (And thus voting rights)

[belfpala]

If only your post did not have "slice" after "cucumber," I might have been interested.

I live in the US. My cucumbers come with labels that say, "Not for use by children under the age of 8. Do not feed the cucumber after midnight. Do not deep throat the cucumber. For external use only."

[Lord Havik]

Helping people who are looked down upon by other people is not racism. Trying to lift someone out and help them because you realize they've been disadvantaged by other groups is not viewing one group as superior. Painting it as racism is just a way for the right to say "Stop helping people I don't like."

If that were the case, then Reps "don't like" poor, old and disabled whites, who are the per capita recipients of the majority of social benefit programs.

Egalitarianism is all about equality under the law. Where someone starts and what they look like is a crapshoot of genetics and chance and special considerations based upon this randomness should only be made in extreme rare circumstances in which that crapshoot of genetics and chance produced exceptionally shitty results. (Someone with a severe disability for instance.)

[NineSpine]

When the voting ID law PASSED and was decided to be constitutional in Texas, the primary considerations were on the poll tax amendment as it was the only one which pertained directly and unequivocally to the voter ID law.

The Wisconsin law included free ID as well and was found unconstitutional. The Texas law has not had it's last day in court.

Because those people's mindset was the backbone of the Dem party until the mid 60s. It survives to this day with the race-identity politics of the current Democratic party. The Reps have their own race related faults, mainly racial insensitivity, but racism itself requires the belief that one is somehow different for the color of his skin.

That's just ahistorical bullshit. The racists mostly left the Democratic Party when that shift happened and Nixon intentionally drew them to the Republicans, with Reagan solidifying the transition. This policy of appealing to whites inarguably ran up until the 90s at least. Republican leadership has admitted and apologized for this, but you still continue to pretend it isn't true. You aren't living in reality. You are the worst kind of apologist. The kind who will utterly deny reality while pretending to be a high minded intellectual.

That's not the Dem's MO. They primarily look for ways to grow their constituency legally such as with their push for amnesty for illegal aliens. (And thus voting rights)

And therein lies the difference. One party wants to deny rights, and the other wants to grant them, and you want to call that even. Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.

- - - Updated - - -

If that were the case, then Reps "don't like" poor, old and disabled whites, who are the per capita recipients of the majority of social benefit programs.

There's a reason that when Republicans go after social programs they curiously tiptoe around the programs that benefit the people you are talking about and directly target the programs used more by minorities. That's what the Southern Strategy was/is. It's a policy of appealing to white voters by using racial proxy issues that invoke the racist vote without explicitly stating it, such as crying about "welfare queens".

Egalitarianism is all about equality under the law. Where someone starts and what they look like is a crapshoot of genetics and chance and special considerations based upon this randomness should only be made in extreme rare circumstances in which that crapshoot of genetics and chance produced exceptionally shitty results. (Someone with a severe disability for instance.)

That's not what egalitarianism is necessarilly about. Economic egalitarianism is kind of the opposite of what you said.

[Lord Havik]

The Wisconsin law included free ID as well and was found unconstitutional. The Texas law has not had it's last day in court.



That's just ahistorical bullshit. The racists mostly left the Democratic Party when that shift happened and Nixon intentionally drew them to the Republicans, with Reagan solidifying the transition. This policy of appealing to whites inarguably ran up until the 90s at least. Republican leadership has admitted and apologized for this, but you still continue to pretend it isn't true. You aren't living in reality. You are the worst kind of apologist. The kind who will utterly deny reality while pretending to be a high minded intellectual.



And therein lies the difference. One party wants to deny rights, and the other wants to grant them, and you want to call that even. Your logic does not resemble our Earth logic.

Actually, it's not Ahistorical. The bulk of the voters associated with the old Democratic party converted and voted for Nixon, but those in office in the congress did not change. Most remained democrats until the day they died. Robert Byrd as an example. (though he later renounced his view on segregation)

As for the immigration debate, we are not talking about United States citizens. We are talking about those who crossed our borders illegally or illegally overstayed their Visas. Yes, it is the same granting or withholding rights to those who have no legal right to vote. In both instances, what was done/is being proposed is unconstitutional and was done/is supported flagrantly for political gain regardless of the potential negative effects it could have on the country.

Immigration is a good thing. It allows for new talent and ideas to become part of this country and provides a ready workforce for when more labor is needed. Illegal immigration is an undue burden on law enforcement and social welfare systems.

That's not what egalitarianism is necessarilly about. Economic egalitarianism is kind of the opposite of what you said.

Not talking about economic egalitarianism, talking about social egalitarianism which is about equality in the eyes of the law, not forced equality of circumstance.

Egalitarianism (from French égal, meaning "equal")—or, rarely, equalitarianism[1][2] or equalism[3]—is a trend of thought that favors equality for all people.[4] Egalitarian doctrines maintain that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or social status, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[5] According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term has two distinct definitions in modern English.[6] It is defined either as a political doctrine that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights[7] or as a social philosophy advocating the removal of economic inequalities among people or the decentralization of power. Some sources define egalitarianism as the point of view that equality reflects the natural state of humanity

[Frozenmerc]

Saw this article and thought it was interesting. Asians only make up 5% of the US population, yet make up almost 20% of the total students enrolled in Ivy League schools. They make almost $10,000 more then Caucasians on average, have less divorce rates, and many other factors that in theory SHOULD make them vote more Republican, but it's quite the opposite. In the end they are more liberal-leaning and are mostly democrat. How could this be?







http://www.aei.org/publication/why-a...s-republicans/

Well, for the most part, it has to do with education, culture, and the fact that they're a minority in the United States.

The rate of Asian people above 25 years old that have a Master's degree or higher is around 21.1%. This has to do with the fact that most people with graduate degrees lean towards being liberal. I learned this in my AP United States Government class. I don't remember exactly what it was, but I think my teacher said it had to do with people being more educated are usually more open-minded, and that usually leads to lean towards liberal ideology.

Another thing is the culture of most Asian countries. I know that in Japan the society as a whole is held about the individuals, and I'm not sure if it's the same with all other Asian countries, but I remember learning that in AP Human Geography.

Another thing is the fact that Asian people are a minority, and there still is some anti-minority views within the Republican party. The Tea Party is pretty notorious for being anti-minority and less tolerant of immigration, and as long as those ideologies exist within the Republican party, the Republican politicians are going to shift their views to appeal towards the Tea Party, which usually ends up alienating the moderate voters that side with the Republican party.

[NineSpine]

Actually, it's not Ahistorical. The bulk of the voters associated with the old Democratic party converted and voted for Nixon, but those in office in the congress did not change. Most remained democrats until the day they died. Robert Byrd as an example. (though he later renounced his view on segregation)

That's bullshit. The serious racists in the Democratic Party were mostly consolidated in the South. They were quickly removed from the political sphere when the Republicans quickly took over the South by appealing to racist voters that became disillusioned with the Democrats because of Civil Rights.

As for the immigration debate, we are not talking about United States citizens. We are talking about those who crossed our borders illegally or illegally overstayed their Visas. Yes, it is the same granting or withholding rights to those who have no legal right to vote. In both instances, what was done/is being proposed is unconstitutional and was done flagrantly for political gain regardless of the potential effects it could have on the country.

Amnesty is not unconstitutional, and doesn't involve removing anyone's rights.