pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:Charter schools in Philly have been a failure

By what metric? Compared to what?

by RAND, compared to schools restructured by the district itself and kept from making profits

The report, unsurprisingly, is about 100x more nuanced than your assessment.

Bucky wrote:zOMG EVEN W VOTED FOR O

And for those who don't know, the daily currant is satire... I am not certain that some, or most, of the people in the comments section know this. It was on the Internet so it has to be true, right?

Susan Rice likely to be Sec. Of State. Kerry being looked at for Sec. Of Defense.

JFLNYC wrote:School choice (aka vouchers) is bad for those lower on the socio-economic scale. Primary and secondary private schools will become min-universities, with decisions on admittance being made in large part on the basis of socio-economic status of the students, including which parents are more likely to contribute financially to the school. In effect, the choice goes to the schools, not the students.

Public schools will be left with the less gifted students of poorer parents. The voucher system is designed for them to fail and, when they do, conservatives will cite it as an example of the virtues of private schools.

I think vouchers are a fundamentally flawed idea, for these reasons and others. But regardless of whether they are or not, it is true that it something that enjoys support in minority communities and thus could be something that a Republican candidate could theoretically "offer" to said communities, only Romney really made nothing more than a few passing glances at it. And aside from that, I'm still waiting to hear what exactly Romney offered as a reason to vote for him if you were non-white.

Pro choice non whites would prefer Romney.

Nonwhite antiKeynesians would vote Romney.

Nonwhite pro growth conservatives would Romney.

Nonwhites annoyed at the bailout, stimulus, disappointed in drone strikes, annoyed that Guantonimo Bay is open, that Obama has doubled down on the War on Drugs... They would vote Romney.

While I'm not personally offended, I'm sure there would be nonwhites offended at your mildly racist insinuation that all nonwhites should vote for Obama, as if nonwhite votes are decided based on their skin color, instead of policy positions influenced by their religion, economic theories, or thoughts on school choice.

oh please at moz's post being mildly racist

pacino wrote:oh please at moz's post being mildly racist

You believe that all blacks should vote the same way?

i dont think all blacks should do anything, but let's be real...the republican party leaders are dominated by haters. even at the meetings, all the blacks agree

pacino wrote:i dont think all blacks should do anything, but let's be real...the republican party leaders are dominated by haters. even at the meetings, all the blacks agree

I don't understand... What meetings are you talking about?

that's the joke

Deep down I know you're right. It's obvious why all the blacks voted for Obama.

you know how they do, voting for all those 'democrats' with their 'values' and 'ideas' on taxes and social issues and international affairs and such

Werthless wrote:Deep down I know you're right. It's obvious why all the blacks voted for Obama.

Ok, I'm calling BS on the admittedly impressive troll job you've pulled the last few pages here. You're almost always too smart and usually too reasonable for me to accept that you actually believe any of this. But if it's not a troll...

Going back to the W. years, Republicans like Ken Mehlman talked about how they'd failed to reach out to African-Americans in particular. The party has become if anything farther to the right since then, and the racial component of the opposition to Obamacare--"They're taking your Medicare money and giving it to Those People"--is somewhat less than subtle. The Southern Strategy is history, not speculation. All the way back in January, you had the runner-up for the R nomination talking about black people and welfare (or rather "blah people").

Oh, and then there's the whole voter suppression stuff. The despicable stunts pulled or attempted in Ohio, Florida and PA to depress the black vote likely made African-Americans all the more determined to be counted. Admittedly, the argument of "we'd prefer you not vote at all, but if you do make it to the polls, vote Republican!" is a tough one for even the best candidates to pull off.

It's generally accepted in electoral politics that if you want the votes of a group, you take and emphasize positions that speak to the priorities held by members of that group. Failing that, you might attempt to persuade those voters of the merits of your contrary positions. Have you honestly seen any Republican candidate in recent memory try either approach with African-American voters? They're either actively trying to stop them from voting, or calling them parasites. I think that's pretty good explanation for why they didn't do so well with that group.

dajafi wrote:

Werthless wrote:Deep down I know you're right. It's obvious why all the blacks voted for Obama.

Ok, I'm calling BS on the admittedly impressive troll job you've pulled the last few pages here. You're almost always too smart and usually too reasonable for me to accept that you actually believe any of this. But if it's not a troll...

Going back to the W. years, Republicans like Ken Mehlman talked about how they'd failed to reach out to African-Americans in particular. The party has become if anything farther to the right since then, and the racial component of the opposition to Obamacare--"They're taking your Medicare money and giving it to Those People"--is somewhat less than subtle. The Southern Strategy is history, not speculation. All the way back in January, you had the runner-up for the R nomination talking about black people and welfare (or rather "blah people").

Oh, and then there's the whole voter suppression stuff. The despicable stunts pulled or attempted in Ohio, Florida and PA to depress the black vote likely made African-Americans all the more determined to be counted. Admittedly, the argument of "we'd prefer you not vote at all, but if you do make it to the polls, vote Republican!" is a tough one for even the best candidates to pull off.

It's generally accepted in electoral politics that if you want the votes of a group, you take and emphasize positions that speak to the priorities held by members of that group. Failing that, you might attempt to persuade those voters of the merits of your contrary positions. Have you honestly seen any Republican candidate in recent memory try either approach with African-American voters? They're either actively trying to stop them from voting, or calling them parasites. I think that's pretty good explanation for why they didn't do so well with that group.

Far more eloquent and coherent than my version. Thank you.

I should add that, to my knowledge, Romney never indicated support for the attempts by Republicans in those states or elsewhere to limit access to voting. But nor did he make what should be a pretty uncontroversial point: in a democracy, you want people to vote! "More voting" and "less voting" are not equally valid positions, in terms of political morality.

This could have been a great way for him to get a second hearing on things like school vouchers. But he showed no interest in any of that.

Werthless wrote:Pro choice non whites would prefer Romney.

Nonwhite antiKeynesians would vote Romney.

Nonwhite pro growth conservatives would Romney.

Nonwhites annoyed at the bailout, stimulus, disappointed in drone strikes, annoyed that Guantonimo Bay is open, that Obama has doubled down on the War on Drugs... They would vote Romney.

that first one gets your assertion off on the wrong foot

Wow, Bill O'Reilly is one psycho mother

I mean, I mean he's one psycho mother