Trump Will Purge Hispanics From GOP Like Nixon Did With Blacks

[AvgGuyIA]

. Senator Everett Dirkson and fellow GOP Senators who voted for voting rights and Civil Rights Bills. They overcame the negative votes of Al Gore and J William Fullbright, Bill Clinton's mentor, and many other Democrats who never switch parties.

So I ask again: "Where are the Republican Civil Rights heroes?

nuhuh Screw you jackass. I'm not playing your fucking game and repeating myself. Marching gets you nothing but worn out shoes. The real heroes were thpe GOP senators who ended slavery and passed civil rights. If it wasn't for the GOP you democrats would have slaves.

Of course you're going to say that. No Republican heroes, no pictures of a single Senator, president, congressman, or business leaders sitting on Black family mantles. No legislation, no public pools or libraries named after any Republicans of the Civil rights era. No books, no letters, no Pulitzers, no Nobel, something must be wrong with the excuse you've offered up all these years.

simply amazing leftard!!

you just have to tell me how you got into the living rooms of every Black family in America!!!

Who needs to? If there were any at all, Republicans would be using them for advertising material for the last 50 years.

Democrats paid for black loyalty. That is the chief reason they are uneducated and on welfare. They are a dependent class who are not much better off than slaves.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Foolish liberal. Southern strategy is a fallacy. No such strategy you liberals dreamt up to justify your enslavement of southern blacks --- again. Dixiecrats died as democrats except one Senator.

I am not a liberal and the Southern Strategy was in fact a very real campaign strategy. It's not a myth.

Yeah... ****** hating democrats suddenly decided they were aligned with the Republican Party that ended sqlavery and gave blacks civil rights and switched parties. Stop pushing that fucking lie. The real southern stagegy was LBJ's War on Poverty program to buy the votes of blacks and gain their loyalty for 0 years. In the meantime, blacks live in poverty and hopelessness.

 

[TemplarKormac]

80 percent of Americans want illegals to be granted legal status or citizenship

In other words, 80 percent of Americans want them to GET BACK IN LINE.

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

There was a time in this country where black voters were a reliable constituency for the Republican Party. That changed in the 1970s when Richard Nixon ran his reelection campaign using the Southern Strategy resulting in a purge of the last remaining blacks in the Republican Party and making them a solidly Democratic voter group for the last 40 years.

Right now, Hispanics are still a competitive group for the Republicans. Bush won almost half of them in 2004. Christie won the majority of them in his gubernatorial reelection and in the 2014 mid terms Texas Republicans did very well with them also. If Donald Trump were to become the Republican nominee he will purge them from the party just like Nixon did with blacks with his extremist and nonsensical immigration rhetoric. The Republican Party cannot afford to be relegated to only 10% of the Hispanic vote. They will never win a presidential election after that and they will no longer be competitive in states like Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and ultimately Texas.

Even if he were to get the nomination he won't be able to win the general for this reason. His words might temporarily placate your xenophobia, but ultimately you guys will be fucking your party and the country in the long term.

Hispanics need to be purged from America.....like the Jews were in Germany. This country was created for White people only. It's the truth and it is written in the 1790 Naturalization Act.

 

[Pogo]

Foolish liberal. Southern strategy is a fallacy. No such strategy you liberals dreamt up to justify your enslavement of southern blacks --- again. Dixiecrats died as democrats except one Senator.

I am not a liberal and the Southern Strategy was in fact a very real campaign strategy. It's not a myth.

Yeah... ****** hating democrats suddenly decided they were aligned with the Republican Party that ended sqlavery and gave blacks civil rights and switched parties. Stop pushing that fucking lie. The real southern stagegy was LBJ's War on Poverty program to buy the votes of blacks and gain their loyalty for 0 years. In the meantime, blacks live in poverty and hopelessness.

You're a fucking moron. The black vote started going Democratic early in the FDR Administration -- three decades before LBJ -- and has been there ever since. And the Republican Party philosophy that abolished slavery has been gone for over a century.

The Nixon-era Southern Strategy wasn't aimed at blacks; it was aimed at racist whites. Reagan had his own version, particularly when he opened his Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, talking "states rights". This is already recorded history.

You should break open the piggy bank and go buy a freaking history book.

 

[Freewill]

Foolish liberal. Southern strategy is a fallacy. No such strategy you liberals dreamt up to justify your enslavement of southern blacks --- again. Dixiecrats died as democrats except one Senator.

I am not a liberal and the Southern Strategy was in fact a very real campaign strategy. It's not a myth.

Yeah... ****** hating democrats suddenly decided they were aligned with the Republican Party that ended sqlavery and gave blacks civil rights and switched parties. Stop pushing that fucking lie. The real southern stagegy was LBJ's War on Poverty program to buy the votes of blacks and gain their loyalty for 0 years. In the meantime, blacks live in poverty and hopelessness.

You're a fucking moron. The black vote started going Democratic early in the FDR Administration -- three decades before LBJ -- and has been there ever since. And the Republican Party philosophy that abolished slavery has been gone for over a century.

The Nixon-era Southern Strategy wasn't aimed at blacks; it was aimed at racist whites. Reagan had his own version, particularly when he opened his Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, talking "states rights". This is already recorded history.

You should break open the piggy bank and go buy a freaking history book.

Can you tell me the direct connection between "state's rights" and racism?

Your command of history sounds like a sound bite from the DNC.

Read and learn: The Lie of Richard Nixon’s Racism

In 1956, as vice president, Nixon went to Harlem to declare, “America can’t afford the cost of segregation.” The following year, Nixon got a personal letter from Dr. King thanking him for helping to persuade the Senate to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Nixon supported the civil rights acts of 1964, 1965, and 1968.

In the 1966 campaign, as related in my new book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, out July 8, Nixon blasted Dixiecrats “seeking to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”

Nixon called out segregationist candidates in ’66 and called on LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, and Bobby Kennedy to join him in repudiating them. None did. Hubert, an arm around Lester Maddox, called him a “good Democrat.” And so were they all—good Democrats. While Adlai chose Sparkman, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew, the first governor south of the Mason Dixon Line to enact an open-housing law.

In Nixon’s presidency, the civil rights enforcement budget rose 800 percent. Record numbers of blacks were appointed to federal office. An Office of Minority Business Enterprise was created. SBA loans to minorities soared 1,000 percent. Aid to black colleges doubled.

Nixon won the South not because he agreed with them on civil rights—he never did—but because he shared the patriotic values of the South and its antipathy to liberal hypocrisy. When Johnson left office, 10 percent of Southern schools were desegregated. When Nixon left, the figure was 70 percent.

Richard Nixon desegregated the Southern schools, something you won’t learn in today’s public schools. For history is a pack of lies agreed upon.

 

[Ravi]

from all I've seen. the majority of the LEGAL Hispanics who did things the RIGHT WAY to become a citizen in this country. is against giving any FAVORS to the Illegal INVADERS coming into our country. no matter what race or nationality they are

You are making the assumption all Illegal immigrants are Hispanics.

Post of the day, I travel 45k-50k miles per year in 15 states and all the legals hate the free reign being given to illegals by this administration and will not vote democrat

What free reign ?

 

[rightwinger]

many of you left-wingers remind me of little crybabies. you lost long ago but your Mommy told you that you were a King so you just cant take the wound to your pride, so you keep posting, furthering the shame you SHOULD have by repeating the same lame excuses and deflections

exactly, they helped their party in LOSING congress under a thug Democrat Obama in only six years of office. yet here they strut around as if the PEOPLE in this country still wants what they are selling. which is NOTHING BUT the same old shit

Obama got more votes in 2012 than all the republicans in congress combined got in 2014

 

[bedowin62]

many of you left-wingers remind me of little crybabies. you lost long ago but your Mommy told you that you were a King so you just cant take the wound to your pride, so you keep posting, furthering the shame you SHOULD have by repeating the same lame excuses and deflections

exactly, they helped their party in LOSING congress under a thug Democrat Obama in only six years of office. yet here they strut around as if the PEOPLE in this country still wants what they are selling. which is NOTHING BUT the same old shit

Obama got more votes in 2012 than all the republicans in congress combined got in 2014

you're comparing two different things; so typical of the stupidity you post here. obama's elections; especially the second one, are nothing spectacular as presidential elections go, in popular vote OR ELECTORAL VOTES

 

[rdean]

Asking someone to prove illegals aren't voting is asking them to prove a negative.

Who cares?

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. An open admission of a complete unfamiliarity with Logic.

Since no one did that your straw man is irrelevant - as logical fallacy tends to be.

And here we see the misuse of the straw man accusation.

Now let's see what a REAL straw man looks like, shall we?

You view election fraud as the sacred right of your filthy party.

Now THAT is what a straw man fallacy looks like.

Goddam, this kid never fails to provide neverending entertainment.

How can you ask someone to prove something that isn't happening?

Asking someone to prove illegals aren't voting is asking them to prove a negative.

Who cares?

Since no one did that your straw man is irrelevant - as logical fallacy tends to be.

It has been frequently claimed on this forum that millions of illegals are voting. It is this claim which needs to be proven.

Providing stories which say illegals COULD BE voting is not evidence. Certainly not evidence that millions of them are.

You view election fraud as the sacred right of your filthy party. We have debated this ad nasium - the bottom line is that you demand that illegals be allowed to vote. So do most of your fellow democrats.

And Jake, that really does make you a scumbag.

I'm just sayin...

How can you ask someone to prove something that isn't happening?

 

[bedowin62]

Asking someone to prove illegals aren't voting is asking them to prove a negative.

Who cares?

And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. An open admission of a complete unfamiliarity with Logic.

Since no one did that your straw man is irrelevant - as logical fallacy tends to be.

And here we see the misuse of the straw man accusation.

Now let's see what a REAL straw man looks like, shall we?

You view election fraud as the sacred right of your filthy party.

Now THAT is what a straw man fallacy looks like.

Goddam, this kid never fails to provide neverending entertainment.

How can you ask someone to prove something that isn't happening?

Asking someone to prove illegals aren't voting is asking them to prove a negative.

Who cares?

Since no one did that your straw man is irrelevant - as logical fallacy tends to be.

It has been frequently claimed on this forum that millions of illegals are voting. It is this claim which needs to be proven.

Providing stories which say illegals COULD BE voting is not evidence. Certainly not evidence that millions of them are.

You view election fraud as the sacred right of your filthy party. We have debated this ad nasium - the bottom line is that you demand that illegals be allowed to vote. So do most of your fellow democrats.

And Jake, that really does make you a scumbag.

I'm just sayin...

How can you ask someone to prove something that isn't happening?

YAWN
you losers see "change" that isnt happening, and dont see your criminality'

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Foolish liberal. Southern strategy is a fallacy. No such strategy you liberals dreamt up to justify your enslavement of southern blacks --- again. Dixiecrats died as democrats except one Senator.

I am not a liberal and the Southern Strategy was in fact a very real campaign strategy. It's not a myth.

Yeah... ****** hating democrats suddenly decided they were aligned with the Republican Party that ended sqlavery and gave blacks civil rights and switched parties. Stop pushing that fucking lie. The real southern stagegy was LBJ's War on Poverty program to buy the votes of blacks and gain their loyalty for 0 years. In the meantime, blacks live in poverty and hopelessness.

You're a fucking moron. The black vote started going Democratic early in the FDR Administration -- three decades before LBJ -- and has been there ever since. And the Republican Party philosophy that abolished slavery has been gone for over a century.

The Nixon-era Southern Strategy wasn't aimed at blacks; it was aimed at racist whites. Reagan had his own version, particularly when he opened his Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, talking "states rights". This is already recorded history.

You should break open the piggy bank and go buy a freaking history book.

You and your ilk are the fucking idiots and are nothing but shills for the neo-pro slavery democrat party of today. Your goal of subjegating blacks hasn't changed since the founding of America. Only your methods have changed. The GOP has been the friend of blacks and freedom since inception. You fucking democrats have succeeded in controlling the narrative. It's a fucking lie and you damn well know it. Get a history book and read up on who passed civil rights and ended slavery.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

There was a time in this country where black voters were a reliable constituency for the Republican Party. That changed in the 1970s when Richard Nixon ran his reelection campaign using the Southern Strategy resulting in a purge of the last remaining blacks in the Republican Party and making them a solidly Democratic voter group for the last 40 years.

Right now, Hispanics are still a competitive group for the Republicans. Bush won almost half of them in 2004. Christie won the majority of them in his gubernatorial reelection and in the 2014 mid terms Texas Republicans did very well with them also. If Donald Trump were to become the Republican nominee he will purge them from the party just like Nixon did with blacks with his extremist and nonsensical immigration rhetoric. The Republican Party cannot afford to be relegated to only 10% of the Hispanic vote. They will never win a presidential election after that and they will no longer be competitive in states like Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and ultimately Texas.

Even if he were to get the nomination he won't be able to win the general for this reason. His words might temporarily placate your xenophobia, but ultimately you guys will be fucking your party and the country in the long term.

Hispanics need to be purged from America.....like the Jews were in Germany. This country was created for White people only. It's the truth and it is written in the 1790 Naturalization Act.

Your ideology is what needs to be purged from America, Steve. You're not discriminating between illegal Hispanics and American Hispanics. Republican and conservative objections are with illegals, not races.

 

[Pogo]

Foolish liberal. Southern strategy is a fallacy. No such strategy you liberals dreamt up to justify your enslavement of southern blacks --- again. Dixiecrats died as democrats except one Senator.

I am not a liberal and the Southern Strategy was in fact a very real campaign strategy. It's not a myth.

Yeah... ****** hating democrats suddenly decided they were aligned with the Republican Party that ended sqlavery and gave blacks civil rights and switched parties. Stop pushing that fucking lie. The real southern stagegy was LBJ's War on Poverty program to buy the votes of blacks and gain their loyalty for 0 years. In the meantime, blacks live in poverty and hopelessness.

You're a fucking moron. The black vote started going Democratic early in the FDR Administration -- three decades before LBJ -- and has been there ever since. And the Republican Party philosophy that abolished slavery has been gone for over a century.

The Nixon-era Southern Strategy wasn't aimed at blacks; it was aimed at racist whites. Reagan had his own version, particularly when he opened his Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi, talking "states rights". This is already recorded history.

You should break open the piggy bank and go buy a freaking history book.

You and your ilk are the fucking idiots and are nothing but shills for the neo-pro slavery democrat party of today. Your goal of subjegating blacks hasn't changed since the founding of America. Only your methods have changed. The GOP has been the friend of blacks and freedom since inception. You fucking democrats have succeeded in controlling the narrative. It's a fucking lie and you damn well know it. Get a history book and read up on who passed civil rights and ended slavery.

I'm not a "democrat" [sic] Moron, I'm a studier of history. Which tells me -- and could tell you, it's not a damn secret --- that the Liberal goals of the original Republican party were pushed off the table when it gravitated to the interests of the rich and the corporations a century ago; see especially "McKinley, William" when you break down and crack a book. Simultaneously the DP was absorbing a growing opposition Populist movement, which is what attracted blacks as well as .... Jews... Catholics... immigrants... women... any group that's been marginalized.

Know what's essential about history? It tells you where you are now, by explaining where you came from.

And I've already posted the stats and charts on the black vote, and then the black voters, migrating from the RP to the DP beginning in the 1930s.

"Civil rights", depending on what that means, have been passed by both parties. Partisan hack.

 

[Pogo]

Can you tell me the direct connection between "state's rights" and racism?

Sure. It's a euphemism.

It started out meaning literally that, a decentralized governmental structure where the states had more autonomy and the Fed keeps its distance. In other words aversion to "big gummint", the irony of which is that aversion is seemingly associated with the RP today, whereas it was the position of the Democratic Party for most of the 19th century. The Republican Party (founded 1854) was a coalition of Abolitionists and Whigs. The latter, a party dying out and splitting over the slavery issue, was the host of "big gummint" ideas, which seeded the RP and would manifest in the strong federal presence of Reconstruction and land grants to freed slaves, the first affirmative action. But the middle of the century was of course dominated by the Civil War, which was at root about "states rights", i.e. most fundamentally whether the states had the right to secede, form their own country, and run their own variant constitution.

Slavery became the human cargo on that rickety ship, and the South-North schism over control issues that had begun back with Henry Clay's* "Tariff of Abominations" (1828, a legislation that had nothing to do with slavery) would come to be invoked long after the Civil War by the descendant racists like Thurmond and Wallace as a hot-button term for "segregation", which by the 20th century was the only remaining shard of a Southern independence movement that had originally been an economic/big government dispute.

In its time, that Tariff --- an import tax designed to protect Northern/New England industry at the expense of the agricultural South, which bitterly opposed it --- was toasted in the South, on the Fourth of July 1828, with

"Let the South look to States rights and State sovereignty".1

This is the origin of the idea of Southern secession, which would fester for 33 years until literally blowing up in 1861 -- an economic dispute. By the time the Civil War was a century in the past, the original economic question was long in the past and invoking "states rights" was a nod and a wink to the concept of "keeping the ******* down", used as campaign rhetoric by those demagogue descendants (Thurmond, Wallace et al). As Lee Atwater -- Ronald Reagan's adviser -- put it:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can't say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff."​

--- and that's exactly what Reagan did in Philadelphia Mississippi --- followed his advisor's advice. It was a clear and obvious pander to those Southern conservative white racists, the message being "you know the Democrats won't give you what you want -- come buy the new improved Republican Party". And that's exactly what we mean by the "Southern Strategy".

Fun fact: Henry Clay (a Whig/"National Republican") had a cousin who went on to become a noted and courageous Kentucky abolitionist; his name was later taken in tribute by a black musician/artist whose son would go on to achieve his own kind of fame -- his name was Cassius Marcellus Clay.​

Your command of history sounds like a sound bite from the DNC.

Well let's see how much of this I got from the DNC:
Zero.

Why would I do that? The DNC is a political party. As such, it's a partisan source. Its website even lies about its own origins. A partisan ship will only sail where it wants you to see. I don't play that.

In the 1966 campaign, as related in my new book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, out July 8, Nixon blasted Dixiecrats “seeking to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”

"Your" new book?

It needs some work. The Dixiecrats were around for one year -- 1948. You're off by 18 years. By 1966 half the Dixiecrats (Thurmond) had become a Republican, and the other half (Wright) was dead for a decade. Are you insinuating Richard Nixon -- a private citizen/lawyer at the time -- was talking to dead people?

Nixon called out segregationist candidates in ’66 and called on LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, and Bobby Kennedy to join him in repudiating them. None did. Hubert, an arm around Lester Maddox, called him a “good Democrat.” And so were they all—good Democrats. While Adlai chose Sparkman, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew, the first governor south of the Mason Dixon Line to enact an open-housing law.

Link?

Interesting again since (a) there was no Presidential election in 1966, and (b) the reason Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement walked out of the Democratic Party convention in 1948 was that they were hearing too much about civil rights for their taste after a stirring speech in advocacy of such by a young mayor of Minneapolis named Hubert Humphrey.

As I said -- your book might need work.


1 - Page Smith, "A Nation Comes of Age", Vol. 4 (1981) p.

 

[Freewill]

Can you tell me the direct connection between "state's rights" and racism?

Sure. It's a euphemism.

It started out meaning literally that, a decentralized governmental structure where the states had more autonomy and the Fed keeps its distance. In other words aversion to "big gummint", the irony of which is that aversion is seemingly associated with the RP today, whereas it was the position of the Democratic Party for most of the 19th century. The Republican Party (founded 1854) was a coalition of Abolitionists and Whigs. The latter, a party dying out and splitting over the slavery issue, was the host of "big gummint" ideas, which seeded the RP and would manifest in the strong federal presence of Reconstruction and land grants to freed slaves, the first affirmative action. But the middle of the century was of course dominated by the Civil War, which was at root about "states rights", i.e. most fundamentally whether the states had the right to secede, form their own country, and run their own variant constitution.

Slavery became the human cargo on that rickety ship, and the South-North schism over control issues that had begun back with Henry Clay's* "Tariff of Abominations" (1828, a legislation that had nothing to do with slavery) would come to be invoked long after the Civil War by the descendant racists like Thurmond and Wallace as a hot-button term for "segregation", which by the 20th century was the only remaining shard of a Southern independence movement that had originally been an economic/big government dispute.

In its time, that Tariff --- an import tax designed to protect Northern/New England industry at the expense of the agricultural South, which bitterly opposed it --- was toasted in the South, on the Fourth of July 1828, with

"Let the South look to States rights and State sovereignty".1

This is the origin of the idea of Southern secession, which would fester for 33 years until literally blowing up in 1861 -- an economic dispute. By the time the Civil War was a century in the past, the original economic question was long in the past and invoking "states rights" was a nod and a wink to the concept of "keeping the ******* down", used as campaign rhetoric by those demagogue descendants (Thurmond, Wallace et al). As Lee Atwater -- Ronald Reagan's adviser -- put it:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “******, ******, ******.” By 1968 you can't say “******” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff."​

--- and that's exactly what Reagan did in Philadelphia Mississippi --- followed his advisor's advice. It was a clear and obvious pander to those Southern conservative white racists, the message being "you know the Democrats won't give you what you want -- come buy the new improved Republican Party". And that's exactly what we mean by the "Southern Strategy".

Fun fact: Henry Clay (a Whig/"National Republican") had a cousin who went on to become a noted and courageous Kentucky abolitionist; his name was later taken in tribute by a black musician/artist whose son would go on to achieve his own kind of fame -- his name was Cassius Marcellus Clay.​

Your command of history sounds like a sound bite from the DNC.

Well let's see how much of this I got from the DNC:
Zero.

Why would I do that? The DNC is a political party. As such, it's a partisan source. Its website even lies about its own origins. A partisan ship will only sail where it wants you to see. I don't play that.

In the 1966 campaign, as related in my new book The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, out July 8, Nixon blasted Dixiecrats “seeking to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”

"Your" new book?

It needs some work. The Dixiecrats were around for one year -- 1948. You're off by 18 years. By 1966 half the Dixiecrats (Thurmond) had become a Republican, and the other half (Wright) was dead for a decade. Are you insinuating Richard Nixon -- a private citizen/lawyer at the time -- was talking to dead people?

Nixon called out segregationist candidates in ’66 and called on LBJ, Hubert Humphrey, and Bobby Kennedy to join him in repudiating them. None did. Hubert, an arm around Lester Maddox, called him a “good Democrat.” And so were they all—good Democrats. While Adlai chose Sparkman, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew, the first governor south of the Mason Dixon Line to enact an open-housing law.

Link?

Interesting again since (a) there was no Presidential election in 1966, and (b) the reason Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement walked out of the Democratic Party convention in 1948 was that they were hearing too much about civil rights for their taste after a stirring speech in advocacy of such by a young mayor of Minneapolis named Hubert Humphrey.

As I said -- your book might need work.


1 - Page Smith, "A Nation Comes of Age", Vol. 4 (1981) p.

And as history showed, all the dixiecrats returned home.

 

[doctordog]

from all I've seen. the majority of the LEGAL Hispanics who did things the RIGHT WAY to become a citizen in this country. is against giving any FAVORS to the Illegal INVADERS coming into our country. no matter what race or nationality they are

You are making the assumption all Illegal immigrants are Hispanics.

Post of the day, I travel 45k-50k miles per year in 15 states and all the legals hate the free reign being given to illegals by this administration and will not vote democrat

What free reign ?

No papers, no insurance for your car, no requirements whatsoever, just come here and vote for democrats is really the only requirement for the unwanted idiots pouring in

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

from all I've seen. the majority of the LEGAL Hispanics who did things the RIGHT WAY to become a citizen in this country. is against giving any FAVORS to the Illegal INVADERS coming into our country. no matter what race or nationality they are

You are making the assumption all Illegal immigrants are Hispanics.

Post of the day, I travel 45k-50k miles per year in 15 states and all the legals hate the free reign being given to illegals by this administration and will not vote democrat

What free reign ?

No papers, no insurance for your car, no requirements whatsoever, just come here and vote for democrats is really the only requirement for the unwanted idiots pouring in

The only idiocy is this post, as only citizens are eligible to vote.

 

[Freewill]

from all I've seen. the majority of the LEGAL Hispanics who did things the RIGHT WAY to become a citizen in this country. is against giving any FAVORS to the Illegal INVADERS coming into our country. no matter what race or nationality they are

You are making the assumption all Illegal immigrants are Hispanics.

Post of the day, I travel 45k-50k miles per year in 15 states and all the legals hate the free reign being given to illegals by this administration and will not vote democrat

What free reign ?

No papers, no insurance for your car, no requirements whatsoever, just come here and vote for democrats is really the only requirement for the unwanted idiots pouring in

The only idiocy is this post, as only citizens are eligible to vote.

Which brings up an interesting question, how does one register to vote and prove they are a citizen?

 

[ninja007]

There was a time in this country where black voters were a reliable constituency for the Republican Party. That changed in the 1970s when Richard Nixon ran his reelection campaign using the Southern Strategy resulting in a purge of the last remaining blacks in the Republican Party and making them a solidly Democratic voter group for the last 40 years.

Right now, Hispanics are still a competitive group for the Republicans. Bush won almost half of them in 2004. Christie won the majority of them in his gubernatorial reelection and in the 2014 mid terms Texas Republicans did very well with them also. If Donald Trump were to become the Republican nominee he will purge them from the party just like Nixon did with blacks with his extremist and nonsensical immigration rhetoric. The Republican Party cannot afford to be relegated to only 10% of the Hispanic vote. They will never win a presidential election after that and they will no longer be competitive in states like Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and ultimately Texas.

Even if he were to get the nomination he won't be able to win the general for this reason. His words might temporarily placate your xenophobia, but ultimately you guys will be fucking your party and the country in the long term.

but i thought the republican party was ONLY the party of white males?