South Africa's new president wants to redistribute land from white farmers

[Famous Mortimer]

Why wouldn't the ANC's justification for taking property from whites also not be valid in the United States? Why would non-whites in the United States not do something similar if they were an absolute majority of the electorate?

[Famous Mortimer]

Why wouldn't the ANC's justification for taking property from whites also not be valid in the United States? Why would non-whites in the United States not do something similar if they were an absolute majority of the electorate?

Because the culture, politics, and history of the U.S. are vastly different than SA. Plus, we don't have "ethnic" parties here.

The US doesn't have ethnic parties? Wow, how are you even able to use a computer?

[Famous Mortimer]

Why wouldn't the ANC's justification for taking property from whites also not be valid in the United States? Why would non-whites in the United States not do something similar if they were an absolute majority of the electorate?

Because the culture, politics, and history of the U.S. are vastly different than SA. Plus, we don't have "ethnic" parties here.

The US doesn't have ethnic parties? Wow, how are you even able to use a computer?

I mean, we do, but they are so tiny they have no influence. And no, don't try to argue that the Dems are an "ethnic" party.

Both the Democratic and Republican Parties are de facto ethnic parties. What justification do you have for declaring that position unbroachable? Other than the fact that it makes you uncomfortable?

[Famous Mortimer]

Why wouldn't the ANC's justification for taking property from whites also not be valid in the United States? Why would non-whites in the United States not do something similar if they were an absolute majority of the electorate?

Because the culture, politics, and history of the U.S. are vastly different than SA. Plus, we don't have "ethnic" parties here.

I thought in some states whites voted 90%+ republican and blacks 90%+ democrat?

I think that does qualify as "ethnic" parties at least at the state level.

I think Mississippi is closest, in the upper 80s GOP for whites and in the 90s for blacks. However, it's common for blacks to vote 90% Democratic in nearly every part of the country. The thing is, that doesn't make it an ethnic party. Not every single black is Democratic and not every white is Republican, even in the deepest parts of the south. And while at a national level the Republican Party is mostly white, it's still not a "white" party, of course – there are plenty of loyal black, Asian, and Latino Republicans, still much less than the number of minority Democrats, but still.

You are the one who said the United States was different than South Africa because South Africa had ethnic parties and the United States doesn't. Now you are saying in order to be an ethnic party, every single member of your party has to be from the same ethnic group. Well, by that standard, South Africa doesn't have ethnic parties either. There's a token number of whites who vote ANC and a token number of Blacks who vote DA. So back to my original question, why wouldn't minorities in the United States vote themselves white people's property?

[Famous Mortimer]

Why wouldn't the ANC's justification for taking property from whites also not be valid in the United States? Why would non-whites in the United States not do something similar if they were an absolute majority of the electorate?

Because the culture, politics, and history of the U.S. are vastly different than SA. Plus, we don't have "ethnic" parties here.

I thought in some states whites voted 90%+ republican and blacks 90%+ democrat?

I think that does qualify as "ethnic" parties at least at the state level.

I think Mississippi is closest, in the upper 80s GOP for whites and in the 90s for blacks. However, it's common for blacks to vote 90% Democratic in nearly every part of the country. The thing is, that doesn't make it an ethnic party. Not every single black is Democratic and not every white is Republican, even in the deepest parts of the south. And while at a national level the Republican Party is mostly white, it's still not a "white" party, of course – there are plenty of loyal black, Asian, and Latino Republicans, still much less than the number of minority Democrats, but still.

You are the one who said the United States was different than South Africa because South Africa had ethnic parties and the United States doesn't. Now you are saying in order to be an ethnic party, every single member of your party has to be from the same ethnic group. Well, by that standard, South Africa doesn't have ethnic parties either. There's a token number of whites who vote ANC and a token number of Blacks who vote DA. So back to my original question, why wouldn't minorities in the United States vote themselves white people's property?

No, an "ethnic" party is a party that specifically advocates mainly for people of one ethnic group. In Bosnia and Belgium, all parties are ethnic parties. The Mississippi GOP doesn't exclusively or mainly advocate for whites and the Mississippi Dem party doesn't exclusively or mainly advocate for blacks. Examples of actual ethnic parties are the Bloc Quebecois, the La Raza party from the 1970s, the Black Panther Party, and every party in Belgium and Bosnia.

And to answer your question, even most reparationists don't support forcefully taking property, second, most minorities (and whites) are decent enough that they don't support forcefully taking property.

If they don't support theft of property. They just support a tax on being a certain race. Okay. Much better then.

[Famous Mortimer]

Why wouldn't the ANC's justification for taking property from whites also not be valid in the United States? Why would non-whites in the United States not do something similar if they were an absolute majority of the electorate?

Because the culture, politics, and history of the U.S. are vastly different than SA. Plus, we don't have "ethnic" parties here.

I thought in some states whites voted 90%+ republican and blacks 90%+ democrat?

I think that does qualify as "ethnic" parties at least at the state level.

I think Mississippi is closest, in the upper 80s GOP for whites and in the 90s for blacks. However, it's common for blacks to vote 90% Democratic in nearly every part of the country. The thing is, that doesn't make it an ethnic party. Not every single black is Democratic and not every white is Republican, even in the deepest parts of the south. And while at a national level the Republican Party is mostly white, it's still not a "white" party, of course – there are plenty of loyal black, Asian, and Latino Republicans, still much less than the number of minority Democrats, but still.

You are the one who said the United States was different than South Africa because South Africa had ethnic parties and the United States doesn't. Now you are saying in order to be an ethnic party, every single member of your party has to be from the same ethnic group. Well, by that standard, South Africa doesn't have ethnic parties either. There's a token number of whites who vote ANC and a token number of Blacks who vote DA. So back to my original question, why wouldn't minorities in the United States vote themselves white people's property?

Nqaba Bhanga, Mmusi Maimane, Herman Mashaba, Dan Plato, Sharna Fernandez, and Lindiwe Mazibuko would be surprised to hear that they are all white. Or does half a dozen of the most prominent DA members not suffice?

The Famous Mortimer Derangement Syndrome (FMDS) is strong with this one.