|Image Replies||0 ()|
|Lifetime||7d 13h 4m 28s|
A Colorado-based GOP group issued a public apology yesterday for a social media post that claimed “Republicans hate poor people.”
The Alamosa County Republicans took to Facebook to apologize for the comments on Friday, which urged Americans to be Republicans “out of self-respect.”
"Democrats love poor people because they think that poor people will vote Democrat. Republicans hate poor people because they think the dignity of man is above being poor," the original post said.
The group have since deleted the post on their Facebook page, however, it still remains on Twitter.
On Sunday, the chair of the organization called the post “inappropriate and offensive” and confirmed that the individual who posted it has since resigned.
“Hate has no home here,” the Facebook apology said. “The author acted independently and without the concurrence of any other member of the Alamosa County Republicans.”
“The regrettable post was made with the intention of condemning poverty, not persons affected by poverty, and was not meant to insult anyone,” it continued.
“However, that occurred, and the author sincerely regrets the post and has offered his resignation from his position with the Alamosa County Republicans, which has been accepted. Actions have consequences.”
Social media users condemned the group’s apology, with some saying it seems disingenuous given that the original post has still not been taken down from Twitter.
“You literally have the exact same message still posted to your twitter at this moment. That makes the apology seem disingenuous,” one user wrote.
Another added: “I am a Republican and I have never been so embarrassed to say this. But this past year I've just been so embarrassed of the ignorant thinking that people are having. Shame on you guys for keeping the post."
-hate-poor-people-colorado-gop-grou p-apologizes-social-media-post-8682 90
>Democrats love poor people because they think that poor people will vote Democrat.
yeah... candidates pandering with policies the electorate likes is typically how democracy is supposed to work. Only here in the US have we somehow turned voting to benefit the rich if you're poor into somethingto aspire to.
The only poor people the Dems care about anymore are the urban sort, because that's where they already have their biggest footholds. They've pretty much abandoned the rural poor and are now trying to figure out whether or not to go all-in with the leftists and adopt a fully identity politics-based platform. The modern Democratic party is more interested in ideological purity than actually helping anyone.
political representation shouldn't be based on wealth but the rich decided to make it that way. What seems like taking a lot from them to some is really is just a statement on how out of line they have gotten and how huge of an undertaking reigning them in is going to be
This is literally Calvinism.
Like 100% 17th-18th century fire-and-brimstone fatalist Calvinism, except applied to personal finance instead of personal salvation. I know about the Health & Wealth Gospel, but I've never seen a theological underpinning of it spelled out so literally.
>47% of the country either has child tax credits, is retired/elderly, or is in poverty, better use my Mitt Romney tier talking point to justify punishing that group to deflect from my masters, whose boots I love to lick.
Good stupid bootlicker you are. I bet you do it for free
This. Losers don't get to call the shots. Never have, never will. If you want a voice then you need to prove your voice is worth hearing by demonstrating your ability to make prudent decisions. No one worth a shit wants the homeless turd on the street deciding how his house is being run. You'll have a say in the system when you have the right to have a say. If you can't pull it off, tough luck loser. Winners have important shit to worry about, sorry you don't have the capacity to hang with the shot callers. Sucks for you.
>political representation shouldn't be based on wealth
actually it should be. As someone who makes 200k a year I defiantly should have more a voice than a welfare nigger. I do more for this country than the harm a poor welfare leech does.
>actually it should be. As someone who makes 200k a year I defiantly should have more a voice than a welfare nigger.
Even the working class recognize the benefits of capitalism in producing wealth. That's why we have decided as a society that private property is important. Your reward for "contributing more" is that you earn 200K. That reward isn't a justification by itself why you deserve more political representation.
Your suffering and freedom is not inherently more or less worthy of political representation on the basis of your earning potential. Why would it be?
>I do more for this country than the harm a poor welfare leech does.
That's just false. Trickle down economics has done more to bankrupt the working class than any other ideology. The working class spends more of their money and they spend it domestically. The rich save a larger portion of their income, are more likely to offshore what they do spend or invest, or spend it on shit like mergers or stock buyback.
This is again the totally unfounded assumption that everyone who is on our meager safetynet is somehow abusing it. The occasional bum that falls through the cracks doesn't say anything about people who legitimately fall on hard times. The resources that go to supporting them tend to yield a much larger bang for their buck than in the pockets of someone already wealthy.
Centrist hate poor though. Ever heard what a centrist democrat has to say about them? It's not that different from what a conservative would say about how they belong there and that its their fault for not getting the right education or making the right life style decisions. To them, the only factor in unjustifiable poverty is systemic racial or gender discrimination, but if you're white and poor, they'll tell you to fuck off just as much as the Republicans will.
The republican response to the poor issue is just to let social darwinism run its course and have them die off. If you're motivated enough, you can make it from homeless child to middle class adult,. and you'll be better for it since poverty instilled the drive, wherewithal, and common sense to pull ahead. Those who aren't motivated are losers who will all starve to death. Society has no obligation to take care of those who are useless and cannot be employed.
No. The caste system has nothing to do with that. Their system is based on color. Whiter indians are seen as better while the darker are the untouchables. Of course that translates into more money for higher castes in the end, but the system has no basis on money. That wasn't how it developed at all.
page took 0.0167 seconds to execute