Posted on 05/07/2014 1:52:18 PM PDT by NYer
We aren’t importing millions of blacks of any denomination\, but the left has always counted on importing Catholics, and still do.
So it’s not a matter of religion but of demographics.
If the “imports” were protestant, would you not object?
“Pluralism” means everyone agrees with the extreme left these days
Or.. how do young hispanic female protestants vote?
England is not Protestant, they are dhimmi
What is your definition of “Protestant”?
Do you think Jeremiah Wright is Protestant? I don’t think so.
For this purpose: Whatever your church, confession, acceptable religion.
The “import” is your acceptable religious affiliation, AND the demographic that votes liberal.
Well, we do know how Protestant Hispanics vote, but we don’t have a breakdown by denominations, except for Catholic, which is what we are importing so many of.
This racism is making me uncomfortable, is Catholicism a white supremacy church to some Catholics?
Catholics were voting democrat long before JFK’s immigration law had any effect.
I think Jeremiah Wright is Protestant, at least for general conversation, and in polling he is recorded as Protestant when listing the Protestant vote, which always goes republican.
The problem is that no one talks about individual denominations.
Evidently it is a matter of religion, since Catholics have almost always voted democrat, and were white.
We do know that demographics are a much more accurate predictor of voting than religious affiliation.
To use religious affiliation as the more accurate predictor is an error.
Why persist in this error?
If that is true they weren't too successful were they??? Almost 85% of Mexicans in Mexico are Catholic...It is definitely a Catholic Country...
Actually we have always known how the Catholic vote was going to, and we still do.
Mexico used to be almost purely Catholic, like 95% or so.
Sorry, it was greater than 95% Catholic.
So that religious affiliation is not the more accurate predictor is an irrelevant fact in your argument about what is the more accurate predictor.
This would be an argument without concern for credibility.
If you wish to persist in obvious error, then that reveals still more.
Your choice.
I know how Catholics vote, so did JFK, since the republican party had either never won the Catholic vote, or depending on the polling, had won it once, that is why it was so important to JFK and to the left, to change the immigration laws.
So Catholics voted for Kennedy, Kennedy was liberal.. ergo..
that’s your factual, statistical basis for Catholic = liberal.
You do see the problems with this being the foundation of your argument, yes?
Let’s break it down just a bit:
Do you think Kennedy being Catholic had anything to do with the Catholic vote going for Kennedy?
Do you think Kennedy’s positions on foreign policy and economic policy and domestic policy were liberal?
Do you think any of this applies to the vote today for what has become the Democrat liberal party?
Then, after this diversion, we can consider your argument that the variable of religious affiliation is a more accurate predictor of voting than is demographics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.