- Mar 11, 2015
- 77,492
- 35,423
- 2,330
And I bet Correll supported Buchanan.You keep bringing up 1996 as to say "that one time, we would have supported a black guy" -- because of some poll...Why do you keep deflecting??LOLOLLOLThe part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
And you know, that you cannot.
You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
BUt it is worth noting, that the REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.
You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
How sad.
Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
It happens a lot.
I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
Which it is not.
As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
I never admitted anything....
What has been admitted is that your inability to answer my question is EVIDENCE of your own party's racism....
If someone were to ask a "liberal voter" whom do they feel would make a good black Democrat presidential candidate -- they are not going to go on some long diatribe making excuses for what Democrats did 100 years ago....they are just going to name possible candidates -- many of which are probably candidates who are ALREADY elected to public office.....
The dem party has the vast majority of potential candidates.
That the few blacks that are in the party, are so far down the list of potential candidates that I don't know their names, is not evidence of racism.
If you had asked this question in summer, 1996, I would have had an excellent answer, one a good number of my friends were quite excited about.
Does that mean to you, that in 1996, the GOP was not "racist", cause we would have had a name?
YOur position, is nothing but partisan hackery and race baiting.
Does it bother you that the potential black candidates all lost in the dem primaries? Is that evidence of "Racism" or just that Biden won?
But what you don't mention is -- the candidates who actually got the MOST VOTES -- you of all people should be the last to tell me about polls as opposed to actual votes...
Bob Dole got the most votes...but the guy who had so much support that he didn't drop out until the convention is who??
Pat Buchanan......do we need to go on about his record on race??