How important is purchasing power in modern society?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



cdtm
Let's say a group loses their purchasing power over night. Any group.

Would they still be treated the same in society, as they were before that fall?

Would Democrats still go to bat for women, or blacks, or gays, if there wasn't even a single person who could donate to some cause, campaign, or marketing strategy.

I mean, I realize money matters, but at the end of the day I'd like think social politics is about ethics first, and money second (Or not at all.)

And yet, looking at groups without a powerful lobby, such as Native Americans or Asian Americans, and how they're essentially neglected...? Not so sure.

Surtur
Originally posted by cdtm
Let's say a group loses their purchasing power over night. Any group.

Would they still be treated the same in society, as they were before that fall?

Would Democrats still go to bat for women, or blacks, or gays, if there wasn't even a single person who could donate to some cause, campaign, or marketing strategy.

I mean, I realize money matters, but at the end of the day I'd like think social politics is about ethics first, and money second (Or not at all.)

And yet, looking at groups without a powerful lobby, such as Native Americans or Asian Americans, and how they're essentially neglected...? Not so sure.

As to your question about Dems, I don't think they would go to bat. They want your money or votes or both. It's like this: if tomorrow Donald Trump came to the Democrats and said "every single illegal in this country is now given legal status. They have all the rights normal citizens have save one: they cannot vote". Does anyone think the Dems would go for it? Nah.

And yeah it is weird how NA's and AA's are neglected. Guess they just aren't the right type of minority for the left. Especially the Asians, they rarely tend to blame whites for their issues.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by cdtm
Let's say a group loses their purchasing power over night. Any group.

Would they still be treated the same in society, as they were before that fall?

Would Democrats still go to bat for women, or blacks, or gays, if there wasn't even a single person who could donate to some cause, campaign, or marketing strategy.

I mean, I realize money matters, but at the end of the day I'd like think social politics is about ethics first, and money second (Or not at all.)

And yet, looking at groups without a powerful lobby, such as Native Americans or Asian Americans, and how they're essentially neglected...? Not so sure.

A significant portion of the Republican base is poor, and do not contribute to the GOP in any way, but the party still courts their votes.

Transgender people represent one-half of one-percent of the population, and cannot contribute to the Democratic Party in any significant way, yet the party still supports their rights.

So it is certainly not about money. And with Democrats, it is certainly not about votes, since tiny minorities like transgender people do not give them any electoral advantage.

Robtard
Originally posted by Surtur
As to your question about Dems, I don't think they would go to bat. They want your money or votes or both. It's like this: if tomorrow Donald Trump came to the Democrats and said "every single illegal in this country is now given legal status. They have all the rights normal citizens have save one: they cannot vote". Does anyone think the Dems would go for it? Nah.



Why would Democrats agree to making a group of people essentially second class citizens?

Do you support making certain peoples second class citizens?

ILS
ITT: limp wristed liberal cry babies

Flyattractor
Originally posted by Robtard
Why would Democrats agree to making a group of people essentially second class citizens?


Its worked with the Black Community for several decades.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.