Inthemiddle
Rookie
- Oct 4, 2011
- 6,354
- 675
- 0
- Banned
- #61
My personal definition would be that anything a segment of voters feels is not in their best interest is "anti-(fill in the blank)." Are you arguing that an initiative has to reach a higher threshold of deteriment to be really "anti- (fill in the blank)"?
Well that's ridiculous. You know, my "best" interests would be for all federal tax revenues be remitted to me. I'd be one Helluva rich man. The fact that that doesn't happen is in no way an "anti-me" policy. An "anti-Latino" policy is not created by a policy simply not providing for the "best interest" of a certain portion of Latinos. Especially when there are Hispanic people like myself who feel that the same policy DOES support my interest, and when the allegedly disenfranchised Latinos are not even American citizens.
An "anti-Latino" policy would be one that specifically is in opposition to Latinos, by virtue of being Latino, with the intention or substantially foreseeable effect of disenfranchising Latinos exclusively, or to a substantial degree moreso than other similarly situated groups. In this case, similarly situated groups would be other races. GOP immigration positions are not "anti-Latino." They do not single out Latinos specifically, and have no intent to apply specially to Latinos. In fact, there is no regard given to race within GOP immigration policies.
What does it really matter? If it ticks off a segment enough for them not to vote for you, isn't that the only threshold that really matters? Why obsess over what label is attached when the net result is the same regardless of label?
Well, if it "ticks off a segment" because the policy is being misrepresented to allegedly being targeted specifically against that segment, then I'd say that matters entirely.
Tell you what, you attach whatever label you want with one exception. You cannot put a Republican label on the president.
Does that feel better?
I've never put any label on the President.