Can The Democrats Win In 2020 Without A Candidate of Color?

[Asclepias]

How many of our presidents have been non white? I think the problem is that to white people skin color is the most important qualification.

Considering that in the 200+ year history of this country, blacks have only been lawfully allowed to vote in every state for 55 years, that is obvious.

Furthermore, there has never been a president of Asian, Native American or Hispanic decent.

So can either of you come up with how many non-whites have ever ran for President, that actually had a solid plan on the issues of this country??????? Instead of complaining why they haven't won?

Solid plan according to whom?

ok skip the 'solid plan'...….can you come up with anyone??????

Well that 'solid plan', I was thinking Hillary......she didn't have one, she never came up with any details on how she was going to 'fix' the problems facing the country, even though she's not 'of color'

Also, Ben Carson (hey there's one for ya) was a lame candidate

Frederick Douglass and Shirley Chisholm.

Unfortunately Frederick Douglass doesn't count...…...namely because of society's stance on anyone of color at that time. Not to mention, most blacks were still slaves then and had no rights, including the right to vote.


Shirley Chisholm is/was to be admired for the work she had done...….but again timing is important here. She ran in 1972, when most women of any color were still fighting for our rights of equality

Sounds like more excuses which actually highlights my point.

 

[Asclepias]

The Southern Strategy is now fully complete. The Republicans have fully morphed into the party of old white racists. The Dems messed up and nominated a charismatic Black man who went on to win the presidency. The bar was set extremely high with Obamas election. Who can the Democrats nominate that can lead like Obama did? Can it be a white person? I don't think so. Thoughts?

Amazingly, if that's your MAJOR concern, --- there's a problem with your allegiance to a party that can't see past skin color..

I've never voted republican in my life. You have the wrong guy.

With only 2 choices, that's a very dangerous place to be.. And I would expect you to vote Republican, but certainly, the benefits of being a party animal are vastly limited.

If the Rs and Ds after peoples names were banned tomorrow, would you be completely LOST in who to vote for? Or is it STILL by primarily their skin color?

Theres always more than two choices. I'm an Independent. I'm never lost in who I vote for. I do know for a fact I would never vote for a candidate that reflects the beliefs and values of a repub.

So -- when the progressive left in California BANS EVERY OTHER POLITICAL choice from the ballot and runs just TWO democrats on their General Election ballot for Senator -- you're completely cool with that?

I repeat -- it's dangerous to allow primarily ONE PARTY to determine your choices. It's too late for Cali -- but this is where not promoting ballot choice leads.

You sound uninformed. California doesnt ban anyone.

 

[IM2]

Looks like the OP was right. Come to think of it, i was right as well.
REPUBLICANS ARE RACIST.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, they're so racist that they freed the slaves from the Democrats.

Since that did not happen, try again.

Sounds like you've never read a history book.

I've read more of them than you have. That's why I said what I did.

Republicans back then were racists.

And nobody in todays republican party had anything to do with emancipation.

Well duh...….how can anyone in todays party have anything to do with emancipation......d or r??

And back then......pretty much everyone was 'racist' because that was the way of life at that time...….


if you haven't heard......we've come along way baby

Why do you republicans keep trying to take credit for shit none of you have done?

And so just because pretty much everyone was wrong back then makes it OK?

if you haven't heard...... we have not come all the way.

That is the only satisfactory outcome.

 

[flacaltenn]

Like republicans see past skin color.

Are you crazy? Who the hell do you think you are talking to?

I'm not a Republican. Far from it. I see them as wimps and without political conviction. Much as I see the Dems actually. But the DIFF IS -- the Repubs don't have a complicated playbook that PANDERS and smooth-talks every fucking demographic with platitudes. It's an open invitation. And yeah -- IMO --- they RUN PLENTY of black candidates.

But as I said in the other thread -- you just don't VOTE FOR THEM in primarily black districts. Otherwise it's a statistical thing. Nationwide, the representation should mathematically achieve 12 or 13%. But the gerrymandering of black districts is gonna determine if that gets met. Because there's PROPORTIONALLY far more Blacks that won't vote for a Republican, than whites that won't vote for a Democrat.

 

[IM2]

Seems like the most important qualification for the OP is the color of the person's skin!

How many of our presidents have been non white? I think the problem is that to white people skin color is the most important qualification.

Seems like the most important qualification for the OP is the color of the person's skin!

How many of our presidents have been non white? I think the problem is that to white people skin color is the most important qualification.

Considering that in the 200+ year history of this country, blacks have only been lawfully allowed to vote in every state for 55 years, that is obvious.

Furthermore, there has never been a president of Asian, Native American or Hispanic decent.

So can either of you come up with how many non-whites have ever ran for President, that actually had a solid plan on the issues of this country??????? Instead of complaining why they haven't won?

Solid plan according to whom?

ok skip the 'solid plan'...….can you come up with anyone??????

Well that 'solid plan', I was thinking Hillary......she didn't have one, she never came up with any details on how she was going to 'fix' the problems facing the country, even though she's not 'of color'

Also, Ben Carson (hey there's one for ya) was a lame candidate

Yes she did. That's why she got the majority of the national vote.

 

[flacaltenn]

Amazingly, if that's your MAJOR concern, --- there's a problem with your allegiance to a party that can't see past skin color..

I've never voted republican in my life. You have the wrong guy.

With only 2 choices, that's a very dangerous place to be.. And I would expect you to vote Republican, but certainly, the benefits of being a party animal are vastly limited.

If the Rs and Ds after peoples names were banned tomorrow, would you be completely LOST in who to vote for? Or is it STILL by primarily their skin color?

Theres always more than two choices. I'm an Independent. I'm never lost in who I vote for. I do know for a fact I would never vote for a candidate that reflects the beliefs and values of a repub.

So -- when the progressive left in California BANS EVERY OTHER POLITICAL choice from the ballot and runs just TWO democrats on their General Election ballot for Senator -- you're completely cool with that?

I repeat -- it's dangerous to allow primarily ONE PARTY to determine your choices. It's too late for Cali -- but this is where not promoting ballot choice leads.

You sound uninformed. California doesnt ban anyone.

Of course they do. Look up "jungle primary".. ((( No !! It's not racist --- LOL))) or "Top Two primary" system. The legislator USURPED what should be a PARTY FUNCTION to nominate candidates by PARTY -- and instead instituted a system where the FINAL GENERAL BALLOT has only the top 2 choices in the primary. NO ONE ELSE is ALLOWED on the ballot.. YOU'RE the "uninformed"...

Now -- it's not the "voice of the people" speaking in the primaries. It's a matter of math. If the Repubs offer MORE CHOICE OF CANDIDATES to their voters -- they will lose by "splitting the vote".. So the entire cynically conceived abortion is to REMOVE voter choice in BOTH the primaries and the general election.

Look it up... Last two Cali Senate races, there were ONLY 2 NAMES on the federal ballot -- both Dems..

 

[JustAnotherNut]

So can either of you come up with how many non-whites have ever ran for President, that actually had a solid plan on the issues of this country??????? Instead of complaining why they haven't won?

Solid plan according to whom?

ok skip the 'solid plan'...….can you come up with anyone??????

Well that 'solid plan', I was thinking Hillary......she didn't have one, she never came up with any details on how she was going to 'fix' the problems facing the country, even though she's not 'of color'

Also, Ben Carson (hey there's one for ya) was a lame candidate

Frederick Douglass and Shirley Chisholm.

Unfortunately Frederick Douglass doesn't count...…...namely because of society's stance on anyone of color at that time. Not to mention, most blacks were still slaves then and had no rights, including the right to vote.


Shirley Chisholm is/was to be admired for the work she had done...….but again timing is important here. She ran in 1972, when most women of any color were still fighting for our rights of equality

Sounds like more excuses which actually highlights my point.

Not excuses, but facts..... Sounds like you know darn well your options were lame to begin with.

How in the heck would you or anyone expect a black man in the early 1800's, long before blacks were even considered 'citizens' much less free, be voted in as President??????

And what was society's stance on both people of color and women in general in 1972??? It hadn't been all that long after girls were allowed to wear pants to school for goodness sake. I will give her credit for becoming the first black woman in Congress.

And if you haven't noticed......there hasn't yet been a woman President regardless of race

 

[Asclepias]

I've never voted republican in my life. You have the wrong guy.

With only 2 choices, that's a very dangerous place to be.. And I would expect you to vote Republican, but certainly, the benefits of being a party animal are vastly limited.

If the Rs and Ds after peoples names were banned tomorrow, would you be completely LOST in who to vote for? Or is it STILL by primarily their skin color?

Theres always more than two choices. I'm an Independent. I'm never lost in who I vote for. I do know for a fact I would never vote for a candidate that reflects the beliefs and values of a repub.

So -- when the progressive left in California BANS EVERY OTHER POLITICAL choice from the ballot and runs just TWO democrats on their General Election ballot for Senator -- you're completely cool with that?

I repeat -- it's dangerous to allow primarily ONE PARTY to determine your choices. It's too late for Cali -- but this is where not promoting ballot choice leads.

You sound uninformed. California doesnt ban anyone.

Of course they do. Look up "jungle primary".. ((( No !! It's not racist --- LOL))) or "Top Two primary" system. The legislator USURPED what should be a PARTY FUNCTION to nominate candidates by PARTY -- and instead instituted a system where the FINAL GENERAL BALLOT has only the top 2 choices in the primary. NO ONE ELSE is ALLOWED on the ballot.. YOU'RE the "uninformed"...

Now -- it's not the "voice of the people" speaking in the primaries. It's a matter of math. If the Repubs offer MORE CHOICE OF CANDIDATES to their voters -- they will lose by "splitting the vote".. So the entire cynically conceived abortion is to REMOVE voter choice in BOTH the primaries and the general election.

Look it up... Last two Cali Senate races, there were ONLY 2 NAMES on the federal ballot -- both Dems..

"FINAL GENERAL BALLOT"

That should be your clue that you are uninformed on how proposition 14 from 2010 works.

 

[Asclepias]

Solid plan according to whom?

ok skip the 'solid plan'...….can you come up with anyone??????

Well that 'solid plan', I was thinking Hillary......she didn't have one, she never came up with any details on how she was going to 'fix' the problems facing the country, even though she's not 'of color'

Also, Ben Carson (hey there's one for ya) was a lame candidate

Frederick Douglass and Shirley Chisholm.

Unfortunately Frederick Douglass doesn't count...…...namely because of society's stance on anyone of color at that time. Not to mention, most blacks were still slaves then and had no rights, including the right to vote.


Shirley Chisholm is/was to be admired for the work she had done...….but again timing is important here. She ran in 1972, when most women of any color were still fighting for our rights of equality

Sounds like more excuses which actually highlights my point.

Not excuses, but facts..... Sounds like you know darn well your options were lame to begin with.

How in the heck would you or anyone expect a black man in the early 1800's, long before blacks were even considered 'citizens' much less free, be voted in as President??????

And what was society's stance on both people of color and women in general in 1972??? It hadn't been all that long after girls were allowed to wear pants to school for goodness sake. I will give her credit for becoming the first black woman in Congress.

And if you haven't noticed......there hasn't yet been a woman President regardless of race

No. Its just an excuse. You didnt like my two people so you made an excuse why they "Don't count" as you put it. If you keep moving the goal posts no one I pick will count and I wont let you do that. Your criteria was someone that had a solid plan. Those two had solid plans.

 

[flacaltenn]

With only 2 choices, that's a very dangerous place to be.. And I would expect you to vote Republican, but certainly, the benefits of being a party animal are vastly limited.

If the Rs and Ds after peoples names were banned tomorrow, would you be completely LOST in who to vote for? Or is it STILL by primarily their skin color?

Theres always more than two choices. I'm an Independent. I'm never lost in who I vote for. I do know for a fact I would never vote for a candidate that reflects the beliefs and values of a repub.

So -- when the progressive left in California BANS EVERY OTHER POLITICAL choice from the ballot and runs just TWO democrats on their General Election ballot for Senator -- you're completely cool with that?

I repeat -- it's dangerous to allow primarily ONE PARTY to determine your choices. It's too late for Cali -- but this is where not promoting ballot choice leads.

You sound uninformed. California doesnt ban anyone.

Of course they do. Look up "jungle primary".. ((( No !! It's not racist --- LOL))) or "Top Two primary" system. The legislator USURPED what should be a PARTY FUNCTION to nominate candidates by PARTY -- and instead instituted a system where the FINAL GENERAL BALLOT has only the top 2 choices in the primary. NO ONE ELSE is ALLOWED on the ballot.. YOU'RE the "uninformed"...

Now -- it's not the "voice of the people" speaking in the primaries. It's a matter of math. If the Repubs offer MORE CHOICE OF CANDIDATES to their voters -- they will lose by "splitting the vote".. So the entire cynically conceived abortion is to REMOVE voter choice in BOTH the primaries and the general election.

Look it up... Last two Cali Senate races, there were ONLY 2 NAMES on the federal ballot -- both Dems..

"FINAL GENERAL BALLOT"

That should be your clue that you are uninformed on how proposition 14 from 2010 works.

That what I SAID.. And it's tyrannical and dangerous. Because the Jungle Primaries aint about preferences, it's about HOW MANY CHOICES each party offers the voters. The one with the MOST choices is killed off.

And BTW -- INDEPENDENTS can't even get on the General if they don't Win or Show in the Primary. Neither can 3rd parties. ALL get disenfranchised. Original question....

You all cool with that dictator move??? As and Indie -- you should be MAD AS HELL about it..

 

[JustAnotherNut]

Yeah, they're so racist that they freed the slaves from the Democrats.

Since that did not happen, try again.

Sounds like you've never read a history book.

I've read more of them than you have. That's why I said what I did.

Republicans back then were racists.

And nobody in todays republican party had anything to do with emancipation.

Well duh...….how can anyone in todays party have anything to do with emancipation......d or r??

And back then......pretty much everyone was 'racist' because that was the way of life at that time...….


if you haven't heard......we've come along way baby

Why do you republicans keep trying to take credit for shit none of you have done?

And so just because pretty much everyone was wrong back then makes it OK?

if you haven't heard...... we have not come all the way.

That is the only satisfactory outcome.

what are you talking about taking credit for shit none of you have done????? I wasn't taking credit for anything

Never said it was ok...….it was just that time in this country's history......it was what is was.

Again, I didn't say we came all the way...…..but we had come a long way.....there is a difference. Though I will agree that since Obama was President, this country has been losing much of the ground that had been gained against racism.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Amazingly, if that's your MAJOR concern, --- there's a problem with your allegiance to a party that can't see past skin color..

I've never voted republican in my life. You have the wrong guy.

With only 2 choices, that's a very dangerous place to be.. And I would expect you to vote Republican, but certainly, the benefits of being a party animal are vastly limited.

If the Rs and Ds after peoples names were banned tomorrow, would you be completely LOST in who to vote for? Or is it STILL by primarily their skin color?

Theres always more than two choices. I'm an Independent. I'm never lost in who I vote for. I do know for a fact I would never vote for a candidate that reflects the beliefs and values of a repub.

So -- when the progressive left in California BANS EVERY OTHER POLITICAL choice from the ballot and runs just TWO democrats on their General Election ballot for Senator -- you're completely cool with that?

I repeat -- it's dangerous to allow primarily ONE PARTY to determine your choices. It's too late for Cali -- but this is where not promoting ballot choice leads.

You sound uninformed. California doesnt ban anyone.

Of course they do and you wish it was like that for president, a democrat vs a democrat.


.

 

[Asclepias]

Theres always more than two choices. I'm an Independent. I'm never lost in who I vote for. I do know for a fact I would never vote for a candidate that reflects the beliefs and values of a repub.

So -- when the progressive left in California BANS EVERY OTHER POLITICAL choice from the ballot and runs just TWO democrats on their General Election ballot for Senator -- you're completely cool with that?

I repeat -- it's dangerous to allow primarily ONE PARTY to determine your choices. It's too late for Cali -- but this is where not promoting ballot choice leads.

You sound uninformed. California doesnt ban anyone.

Of course they do. Look up "jungle primary".. ((( No !! It's not racist --- LOL))) or "Top Two primary" system. The legislator USURPED what should be a PARTY FUNCTION to nominate candidates by PARTY -- and instead instituted a system where the FINAL GENERAL BALLOT has only the top 2 choices in the primary. NO ONE ELSE is ALLOWED on the ballot.. YOU'RE the "uninformed"...

Now -- it's not the "voice of the people" speaking in the primaries. It's a matter of math. If the Repubs offer MORE CHOICE OF CANDIDATES to their voters -- they will lose by "splitting the vote".. So the entire cynically conceived abortion is to REMOVE voter choice in BOTH the primaries and the general election.

Look it up... Last two Cali Senate races, there were ONLY 2 NAMES on the federal ballot -- both Dems..

"FINAL GENERAL BALLOT"

That should be your clue that you are uninformed on how proposition 14 from 2010 works.

That what I SAID.. And it's tyrannical and dangerous. Because the Jungle Primaries aint about preferences, it's about HOW MANY CHOICES each party offers the voters. The one with the MOST choices is killed off.

And BTW -- INDEPENDENTS can't even get on the General if they don't Win or Show in the Primary. Neither can 3rd parties. ALL get disenfranchised. Original question....

You all cool with that dictator move??? As and Indie -- you should be MAD AS HELL about it..

Its only your opinion that its tyrannical and dangerous.

Yeah thats always been the problem with independent voters. The two top parties usually win.

 

[Google_Yourself]

The only qualified ones are white.

Looks like the OP was right. Come to think of it, i was right as well.
REPUBLICANS ARE RACIST.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, they're so racist that they freed the slaves from the Democrats.

Since that did not happen, try again.

Sounds like you've never read a history book.

I've read more of them than you have. That's why I said what I did.

Republicans back then were racists.

And nobody in todays republican party had anything to do with emancipation.

If Republicans back then were racist then why did they free the slaves from the Democrats?
Emancipation is Republican history. Of course no Republican today had anything to do with emancipation, just like no Democrat today had anything to do with inventing the wheel.

 

[Asclepias]

Looks like the OP was right. Come to think of it, i was right as well.
REPUBLICANS ARE RACIST.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, they're so racist that they freed the slaves from the Democrats.

Since that did not happen, try again.

Sounds like you've never read a history book.

I've read more of them than you have. That's why I said what I did.

Republicans back then were racists.

And nobody in todays republican party had anything to do with emancipation.

If Republicans back then were racist then why did they free the slaves from the Democrats?
Emancipation is Republican history. Of course no Republican today had anything to do with emancipation, just like no Democrat today had anything to do with inventing the wheel.

They freed the slaves from the confederates not the Dems dummy. If they werent racists why didnt they free all the slaves in the states that were loyal to the Union? Come to think of it, if they werent racists why did Lincoln say this?...

 

[flacaltenn]

So -- when the progressive left in California BANS EVERY OTHER POLITICAL choice from the ballot and runs just TWO democrats on their General Election ballot for Senator -- you're completely cool with that?

I repeat -- it's dangerous to allow primarily ONE PARTY to determine your choices. It's too late for Cali -- but this is where not promoting ballot choice leads.

You sound uninformed. California doesnt ban anyone.

Of course they do. Look up "jungle primary".. ((( No !! It's not racist --- LOL))) or "Top Two primary" system. The legislator USURPED what should be a PARTY FUNCTION to nominate candidates by PARTY -- and instead instituted a system where the FINAL GENERAL BALLOT has only the top 2 choices in the primary. NO ONE ELSE is ALLOWED on the ballot.. YOU'RE the "uninformed"...

Now -- it's not the "voice of the people" speaking in the primaries. It's a matter of math. If the Repubs offer MORE CHOICE OF CANDIDATES to their voters -- they will lose by "splitting the vote".. So the entire cynically conceived abortion is to REMOVE voter choice in BOTH the primaries and the general election.

Look it up... Last two Cali Senate races, there were ONLY 2 NAMES on the federal ballot -- both Dems..

"FINAL GENERAL BALLOT"

That should be your clue that you are uninformed on how proposition 14 from 2010 works.

That what I SAID.. And it's tyrannical and dangerous. Because the Jungle Primaries aint about preferences, it's about HOW MANY CHOICES each party offers the voters. The one with the MOST choices is killed off.

And BTW -- INDEPENDENTS can't even get on the General if they don't Win or Show in the Primary. Neither can 3rd parties. ALL get disenfranchised. Original question....

You all cool with that dictator move??? As and Indie -- you should be MAD AS HELL about it..

Its only your opinion that its tyrannical and dangerous.

Yeah thats always been the problem with independent voters. The two top parties usually win.

Only because voters are CONDITIONED to vote for the Brand Names. Independents COULD win easily, if they RAN as Independents. Politicians don't like to be muzzled and puppetteered any more than we do. So for instance, I wrote a guest column about Phil Bredesen, ex Dem governor of Tennessee who has LOTS of bi-party and Indie support in Tennessee. Spent $Mills on ads telling us how "Independent" he was gonna be. When everyone knew he was just gonna be another bitch in the Schumer harem.. So I wrote how he blew a GREAT opportunity to actually RUN as an Indie.. I truly believe he WOULD have won.

But neither voters or politicians are ASKING for those choices or even THINKING about them.

In most states, Indies don't show on the ballot in primaries. Don't need to. And they conserve their funds for the GENERAL ballot race. Cali destroyed that because of Dem arrogance and "because they could"...

 

[IM2]

Like republicans see past skin color.

Are you crazy? Who the hell do you think you are talking to?

I'm not a Republican. Far from it. I see them as wimps and without political conviction. Much as I see the Dems actually. But the DIFF IS -- the Repubs don't have a complicated playbook that PANDERS and smooth-talks every fucking demographic with platitudes. It's an open invitation. And yeah -- IMO --- they RUN PLENTY of black candidates.

But as I said in the other thread -- you just don't VOTE FOR THEM in primarily black districts. Otherwise it's a statistical thing. Nationwide, the representation should mathematically achieve 12 or 13%. But the gerrymandering of black districts is gonna determine if that gets met. Because there's PROPORTIONALLY far more Blacks that won't vote for a Republican, than whites that won't vote for a Democrat.

Who the hell do you think you are talking to? Republicans have openly ran on a racist platform since Goldwater. Republicans do not address our concerns. Until they start, we will be voting anything but republican

Now since you are not a republican, why should we listen to your opinion?

 

[IM2]

Looks like the OP was right. Come to think of it, i was right as well.
REPUBLICANS ARE RACIST.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, they're so racist that they freed the slaves from the Democrats.

Since that did not happen, try again.

Sounds like you've never read a history book.

I've read more of them than you have. That's why I said what I did.

Republicans back then were racists.

And nobody in todays republican party had anything to do with emancipation.

If Republicans back then were racist then why did they free the slaves from the Democrats?
Emancipation is Republican history. Of course no Republican today had anything to do with emancipation, just like no Democrat today had anything to do with inventing the wheel.

Since that didn't happen why do you continue repeating it?

 

[JustAnotherNut]

ok skip the 'solid plan'...….can you come up with anyone??????

Well that 'solid plan', I was thinking Hillary......she didn't have one, she never came up with any details on how she was going to 'fix' the problems facing the country, even though she's not 'of color'

Also, Ben Carson (hey there's one for ya) was a lame candidate

Frederick Douglass and Shirley Chisholm.

Unfortunately Frederick Douglass doesn't count...…...namely because of society's stance on anyone of color at that time. Not to mention, most blacks were still slaves then and had no rights, including the right to vote.


Shirley Chisholm is/was to be admired for the work she had done...….but again timing is important here. She ran in 1972, when most women of any color were still fighting for our rights of equality

Sounds like more excuses which actually highlights my point.

Not excuses, but facts..... Sounds like you know darn well your options were lame to begin with.

How in the heck would you or anyone expect a black man in the early 1800's, long before blacks were even considered 'citizens' much less free, be voted in as President??????

And what was society's stance on both people of color and women in general in 1972??? It hadn't been all that long after girls were allowed to wear pants to school for goodness sake. I will give her credit for becoming the first black woman in Congress.

And if you haven't noticed......there hasn't yet been a woman President regardless of race

No. Its just an excuse. You didnt like my two people so you made an excuse why they "Don't count" as you put it. If you keep moving the goal posts no one I pick will count and I wont let you do that. Your criteria was someone that had a solid plan. Those two had solid plans.

ok be a prick for all I care. but to name a black man that ran for President in 1818, when slavery was at it's height and blacks had no rights whatsoever, very few even had an education and nearly all whites were racist...…...and then cry because he didn't win. If you want to count him go for it

Similar with Chisolm though more because she was a woman during a time when women weren't even considered for top jobs (CEO, Executives, etc) much less President. And as I said before, there still hasn't been a woman President......but you go ahead and count her too if it makes you feel any better.


Granted racism sucks and always has, not just in this country but around the world and from the beginning of the world as well. So does being a woman in a mans world. But you can't let it keep you down& out, but to propel you up and forward


PS...…...it would have made much more sense if you had argued for Ben Carson. Just sayin

 

[flacaltenn]

Like republicans see past skin color.

Are you crazy? Who the hell do you think you are talking to?

I'm not a Republican. Far from it. I see them as wimps and without political conviction. Much as I see the Dems actually. But the DIFF IS -- the Repubs don't have a complicated playbook that PANDERS and smooth-talks every fucking demographic with platitudes. It's an open invitation. And yeah -- IMO --- they RUN PLENTY of black candidates.

But as I said in the other thread -- you just don't VOTE FOR THEM in primarily black districts. Otherwise it's a statistical thing. Nationwide, the representation should mathematically achieve 12 or 13%. But the gerrymandering of black districts is gonna determine if that gets met. Because there's PROPORTIONALLY far more Blacks that won't vote for a Republican, than whites that won't vote for a Democrat.

Who the hell do you think you are talking to? Republicans have openly ran on a racist platform since Goldwater. Republicans do not address our concerns. Until they start, we will be voting anything but republican

Now since you are not a republican, why should we listen to your opinion?

Because I'm cleanly NOT aligned with either party. Like the GROWING "big middle" of the entire population. And within a few years -- WE'LL be bigger than both your inept, corrupt, arrogant parties put together.. Because we THINK FOR OURSELVES, not for a captive demographic of ONE party politics.. That's why...

I didn't tell you to vote Repub. If I ever do that -- you have permission to trash me. I was telling you that Repubs don't HAVE a lot of "speciality outreach".. But that doesn't mean they are any more racist than a lot of Dems are.