The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....

[Correll]

WHat logic are you referring to?

Indeed it "is not reasonable or fair" to presume Republicans are racist "because the only viable black candidate of the time, didn't want the job". Yet that's your illogic and yours alone.

IF the republicans were as racist as you claim, they would not have supported a potential Powell run for the office.

But they did.

Dismissing that, because POwell choose not to run, is not reasonable or fair. Or accurarte.


The support was real. The Republican voters were willing to support a black guy to be President.


Why are you so invested in this belief in republicans being "racist"?

That's a lovely story you keep telling yourself. Now consider this one. The Republicans have so far failed to nominate any black Presidential candidate. Who do you think will be the first black Presidential nominee? Why? When?

It is a lovely story. Much nicer than the dystopian world you live in. So, why are you so intent on holding on to your story?

And really, it is not a lovely story either. It is a little sad. It would have been amusing if the republicans had managed to snake that milestone away from the dems, ie the First Black President, and see them try to hang on to their fantasy after that. But no. We got DOle instead. and just lost.


So, two stories. ONe a dystopian hell world, and another, a slightly sad and boring one.


Is that it? Is your story just more exciting for you? To be a brave social justice warrior fighting the good fight against evul racists, even if on some level you know it is all pretend?



Instead of just some guy who disagrees with some other people over boring politics? You get to have white hot self righteous rage coursing though your veins?!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Other than not nominating a Presidential candidate yet, why do I think Republicans are, in general, more racist than Democrats? Here's a good start:

White Democrats (64%) are far more likely than white Republicans (15%) to say the country hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to giving black people equal rights with whites. About half of Republicans say it’s been about right, while a sizable minority (31%) says the country has gone too far in this regard.

Eight-in-ten white Democrats – vs. 40% of white Republicans – say the legacy of slavery continues to have an impact on black people’s position in American society today. And when it comes to views about racial discrimination, 78% of white Democrats say the bigger problem is people not seeing it where it really does exist, while a similar share of white Republicans say people seeing racial discrimination where it really does not exist is the bigger problem.

 

[Grumblenuts]

WHat logic are you referring to?

Indeed it "is not reasonable or fair" to presume Republicans are racist "because the only viable black candidate of the time, didn't want the job". Yet that's your illogic and yours alone.

IF the republicans were as racist as you claim, they would not have supported a potential Powell run for the office.

But they did.

Dismissing that, because POwell choose not to run, is not reasonable or fair. Or accurarte.


The support was real. The Republican voters were willing to support a black guy to be President.


Why are you so invested in this belief in republicans being "racist"?

That's a lovely story you keep telling yourself. Now consider this one. The Republicans have so far failed to nominate any black Presidential candidate. Who do you think will be the first black Presidential nominee? Why? When?

It is a lovely story. Much nicer than the dystopian world you live in. So, why are you so intent on holding on to your story?

And really, it is not a lovely story either. It is a little sad. It would have been amusing if the republicans had managed to snake that milestone away from the dems, ie the First Black President, and see them try to hang on to their fantasy after that. But no. We got DOle instead. and just lost.


So, two stories. ONe a dystopian hell world, and another, a slightly sad and boring one.


Is that it? Is your story just more exciting for you? To be a brave social justice warrior fighting the good fight against evul racists, even if on some level you know it is all pretend?



Instead of just some guy who disagrees with some other people over boring politics? You get to have white hot self righteous rage coursing though your veins?!

So by completely failing to address the questions I asked you.. you are showing me respect and taking my words seriously?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.

Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?

 

[Correll]

Other than not nominating a Presidential candidate yet, why do I think Republicans are, in general, more racist than Democrats? Here's a good start:

White Democrats (64%) are far more likely than white Republicans (15%) to say the country hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to giving black people equal rights with whites. About half of Republicans say it’s been about right, while a sizable minority (31%) says the country has gone too far in this regard.

Eight-in-ten white Democrats – vs. 40% of white Republicans – say the legacy of slavery continues to have an impact on black people’s position in American society today. And when it comes to views about racial discrimination, 78% of white Democrats say the bigger problem is people not seeing it where it really does exist, while a similar share of white Republicans say people seeing racial discrimination where it really does not exist is the bigger problem.

Your inability to be honest about my point, demonstrates your dishonesty on the issue. Lets keep that in mind, moving forward.


And now we see why you need to hold on to your dystopian narrative.


Because it gives you a pass, to dismiss any idea or policy or action or candidate that you disagree with as "racist" without having to actually explain why.


It is just assumed as a premise in your world. And as your side has dominance in pop culture and the media, you have managed to craft that into the Conventional Wisdom.


That is why, the possibility that America is far LESS RACIST than you thought, is terrifying to you, instead of being TEMPTING to you.


This gives you a tremendous advantage in policy debate. NOt to mention the power to destroy people, who don't conform.

 

[Correll]

WHat logic are you referring to?

Indeed it "is not reasonable or fair" to presume Republicans are racist "because the only viable black candidate of the time, didn't want the job". Yet that's your illogic and yours alone.

IF the republicans were as racist as you claim, they would not have supported a potential Powell run for the office.

But they did.

Dismissing that, because POwell choose not to run, is not reasonable or fair. Or accurarte.


The support was real. The Republican voters were willing to support a black guy to be President.


Why are you so invested in this belief in republicans being "racist"?

That's a lovely story you keep telling yourself. Now consider this one. The Republicans have so far failed to nominate any black Presidential candidate. Who do you think will be the first black Presidential nominee? Why? When?

It is a lovely story. Much nicer than the dystopian world you live in. So, why are you so intent on holding on to your story?

And really, it is not a lovely story either. It is a little sad. It would have been amusing if the republicans had managed to snake that milestone away from the dems, ie the First Black President, and see them try to hang on to their fantasy after that. But no. We got DOle instead. and just lost.


So, two stories. ONe a dystopian hell world, and another, a slightly sad and boring one.


Is that it? Is your story just more exciting for you? To be a brave social justice warrior fighting the good fight against evul racists, even if on some level you know it is all pretend?



Instead of just some guy who disagrees with some other people over boring politics? You get to have white hot self righteous rage coursing though your veins?!

So by completely failing to address the questions I asked you.. you are showing me respect and taking my words seriously?

Well, we've gone over that ground repeatedly. You are just stone walling now. So, I guess I am treating your words with less respect as you keep stonewalling.


Yes, that is a valid point. I guess I was attempting to be diplomatic, in not calling you on your tactics.


I note that you are dodging my far more relevant and on topic questions.


So, two stories. ONe a dystopian hell world, and another, a slightly sad and boring one.


Is that it? Is your story just more exciting for you? To be a brave social justice warrior fighting the good fight against evul racists, even if on some level you know it is all pretend?



Instead of just some guy who disagrees with some other people over boring politics? You get to have white hot self righteous rage coursing though your veins?!

 

[Correll]

Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.

Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?

The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".


Good white dems, blame, according to your excerpt, "blame...racial discrimination, less access to good schools and jobs".

So, your question is do most republicans take black seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared with Democrats.


I think that the biggest obstacle for blacks when it comes to "succeeding" is the breakdown in the family. This is a common and ever increasingly held view among republicans.


That would be us, blaming a cultural problem in the black community for a lot of problems in the black community.


There is nothing in that statement that requires or implies a lack of respect. All cultures have problems. This does not mean the we will not treat black individuals or groups, or the population as a whole, without respect or not seriously.


THe dems, basically see the blacks as victims of discrimination and lack of access to jobs and schools. I believe that liberals see being a Victim as as sign of moral superiority, so....


Comparably speaking, I think republicans are do fairly well, dealing with blacks as individuals, while dems tend to put them on a pedestal.


I got a great example, if you would like to see it?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Good white dems, blame, according to your excerpt, "blame...racial discrimination, less access to good schools and jobs".

You sure that excerpt says "blame"? I think you may have respectfully made that up in your serious "white hot self righteous rage"!

 

[Correll]

Good white dems, blame, according to your excerpt, "blame...racial discrimination, less access to good schools and jobs".

You sure that excerpt says "blame"? I think you may have respectfully made that up in your serious "white hot self righteous rage"!

Sorry about "blame" misquote.

That being said, I answered your question seriously and honestly.


I answered both for Republicans absolutely and relative to dems.


Do you think culture of white America has any problems?

 

[Faun]

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.

Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."

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?

The 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.

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.

LOL

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.

LOLOL

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.

"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."

That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.

In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.


I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.


But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.


If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.


Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?

Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.

Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.

And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.

So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.



I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.


And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.


Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.

Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "

"Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "

So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...

Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??

What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??

Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...

Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....

Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....

And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"

1. Sure I can. And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.

2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.

3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.

4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.

5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.

6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.

7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE BAITING.

LOL

And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.

Plenty of lame excuses though.

Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.


"Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.


We both know that that is not true.


NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.



You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.

LOL

Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.

And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.

Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.


EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.

LOL

No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.

And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.

Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.

It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.

That factor is unknown.


BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.


SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.


Why is it so important to you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?

Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.

The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.


Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.


Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.


The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.


And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.


YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.


Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?

I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.

"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"

LOLOLOL

The thread topic is: "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."

None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.

You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.

It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.


We know that.


BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.


Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.


1996 is one very good example.


Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?

"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "

You've yet to prove that.

You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?

No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.

You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.

LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.


Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.


So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....


what exactly?

LOL

You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.

Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.

The polls from 96 say otherwise.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "


Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.


YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.

LOLOL

You never cease being stupid, do ya?

That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.

And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.

They show the black republican winning, despite the loss of support from the number of "racist" republicans, not matter how big or small that number might be. We can disagree on the size of that number, but the lack of impact, is clear.


This refutes your position, that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.


Your denial of this obvious fact, is you being stupid. YOU.

"They show the black republican winning "

LOL

There was no black Republican running.

Even funnier -- Powell wasn't even a Republican when those state election polls were taken.

He had declared himself a republican, and the polls were taken asking people to choose between Powell and the Democrat Bill Clinton.


And in the exit polls, the numbers showed that Powell would have defeated Clinton.


Despite how ever many, or few, racist republicans would have voted race over party.

And considering the outcome and the previous polls showing mostly the moderate numbers of Reagan Democrats that might have crossed party lines,


it is obvious that republican racism is not one of the reasons for the lack of black republican Presidents.

He didn't declare himself a Republican until November, 1995. The one and only primary poll you [sorta] referenced [via wikipedia] was for New Hampshire, a northern state, taken in October.

You lose again because you're a loser.

Your denial of the support for Powell, from the republican party is just you stonewalling in the face of documented history.

Your claim of racism being the cause of the lack of black republican candidates is disproved by the republican support for POwell in 96.


Would you like to look at other, actually DECLARED candidates to see how "republican racism" did or did not effect their campaigns?


Or would you like to admit that facts don't matter to you? Your choice.

LOL

What support??

Dumbfuck, at what point will you realize the only thing you've shown was a link to a link to exit polls which didn't demonstrate political breakdown, and a poll based on one state taken more than 4 months before the election.

Even worse for you, Powell's support came from Moderate and Liberal Republicans...

New Hampshirites who say they are likely to vote in their state's Republican Presidential primary favor Gen. Colin L. Powell over Senator Bob Dole and the other announced contenders, according to a poll made public today.​

​

The survey, conducted by Chris Potholm, who has run a polling operation at Bowdoin College in Maine for two decades, found General Powell drawing 34 percent, compared with 25 percent for Mr. Dole, 16 percent for Patrick J. Buchanan and 16 percent undecided. If General Powell, who has not announced a candidacy, is excluded from the race, Mr. Dole leads with 35 percent.​

​

The poll found that among Republicans describing themselves as moderates, General Powell was favored over Mr. Dole by 43 percent to 35 percent; among liberals, he was favored by 38 percent to 12 percent.​

​

"The astonishing thing is this is a man who nobody knows is a Republican," said Mr. Potholm, a professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin. "For Republican primary voters to embrace somebody to this degree I find truly extraordinary."​

​

The poll, of 300 voters, was conducted the last week in September. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus six percentage points.​

Other recent polls in New Hampshire -- whose primaries, the first in the nation, are set for Feb. 20 -- have also found General Powell more popular among Republican voters than are the announced candidates.​

So now we see the poll referenced in the wikipedia article you linked is actually just 300 Republicans from New Hampshire with a portion of them supporting Powell describing themselves as Moderate or Liberal; and with a margin of error of 6 percentage points.

Now while 300 respondents out of a pool of some 260,000 Republicans is a reasonable sample, the margin of error you get when extrapolating that 300 in a country of some 128 million Republicans is bigger than your IQ.

Even funnier, as you're claiming a poll taken many months before an election is an accurate predictor, that means the latest polls which show Biden winning in November spells certain doom for Impeached Trump.

1. Your pretense of being shocked that polls ask small numbers of people and the extrapolate, is not credible. Dismissed.

2. I'm not sure why you fixate on the "4 months" before the election. Your lib position is a claim of generations long racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican presidents. Whether the support was on election day or a couple of months earlier, it still is strong evidence towards refuting that claim.


3. Re: your point about moderates and liberal republicans supporting Powell more. His political positions were quite moderate for the party at that time. It makes sense that the moderates would like him more.

4 Your position is that republican racism is why the lack of black republican presidents. The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy. This refutes your position.


5. As a 96 supporter of Patrick Buchanan, I can speak that, supporting Buchanan as the BEST choice, in our opinions, did not mean that we OPPOSED Powell, or thought he was a BAD choice. I can certainly speak for us and tell you that we would have been far happy with a President Powell than another 4 years of that asshole Bill Fucking Clinton.

6. Would you like to take a look at other republican candidates now?

"Your pretense of being shocked that polls ask small numbers of people and the extrapolate, is not credible. Dismissed."

Dumbfuck, I wasn't shocked by the small sample size. I even pointed out it was an appropriate size for New Hampshire. You're the one who posted a link to the wikipedia article about it while you claimed there were polls showing Republicans supported Powell for president, implying national support. That sample is far too small to be extrapolated to represent the entire nation.

"I'm not sure why you fixate on the "4 months" before the election. Your lib position is a claim of generations long racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican presidents. Whether the support was on election day or a couple of months earlier, it still is strong evidence towards refuting that claim."

Again, you demonstrate what an abject imbecile you are. It matters because polls taken that far in advance of an election are completely meaningless and do not accurately measure how the actual vote will pan out. Meaning that had Powell run, those early polls do not mean he necessarily would have had enough votes to win.

"Re: your point about moderates and liberal republicans supporting Powell more. His political positions were quite moderate for the party at that time. It makes sense that the moderates would like him more."

And there's no evidence that Conservative Republicans supported Powell.

"Your position is that republican racism is why the lack of black republican presidents. The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy. This refutes your position."

You've yet to post a single poll that proves that.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Will someone, anyone who is in Cory L's corner throw in the towel please....this is embarrassing....

 

[Correll]

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.

Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."

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?

The 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.

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.

LOL

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.

LOLOL

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.

"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."

That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.

In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.


I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.


But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.


If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.


Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?

Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.

Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.

And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.

So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.



I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.


And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.


Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.

Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "

"Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "

So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...

Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??

What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??

Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...

Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....

Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....

And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"

1. Sure I can. And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.

2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.

3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.

4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.

5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.

6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.

7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE BAITING.

LOL

And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.

Plenty of lame excuses though.

Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.


"Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.


We both know that that is not true.


NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.



You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.

LOL

Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.

And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.

Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.


EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.

LOL

No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.

And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.

Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.

It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.

That factor is unknown.


BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.


SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.


Why is it so important to you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?

Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.

The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.


Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.


Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.


The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.


And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.


YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.


Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?

I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.

"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"

LOLOLOL

The thread topic is: "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."

None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.

You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.

It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.


We know that.


BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.


Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.


1996 is one very good example.


Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?

"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "

You've yet to prove that.

You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?

No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.

You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.

LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.


Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.


So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....


what exactly?

LOL

You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.

Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.

The polls from 96 say otherwise.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "


Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.


YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.

LOLOL

You never cease being stupid, do ya?

That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.

And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.

They show the black republican winning, despite the loss of support from the number of "racist" republicans, not matter how big or small that number might be. We can disagree on the size of that number, but the lack of impact, is clear.


This refutes your position, that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.


Your denial of this obvious fact, is you being stupid. YOU.

"They show the black republican winning "

LOL

There was no black Republican running.

Even funnier -- Powell wasn't even a Republican when those state election polls were taken.

He had declared himself a republican, and the polls were taken asking people to choose between Powell and the Democrat Bill Clinton.


And in the exit polls, the numbers showed that Powell would have defeated Clinton.


Despite how ever many, or few, racist republicans would have voted race over party.

And considering the outcome and the previous polls showing mostly the moderate numbers of Reagan Democrats that might have crossed party lines,


it is obvious that republican racism is not one of the reasons for the lack of black republican Presidents.

He didn't declare himself a Republican until November, 1995. The one and only primary poll you [sorta] referenced [via wikipedia] was for New Hampshire, a northern state, taken in October.

You lose again because you're a loser.

Your denial of the support for Powell, from the republican party is just you stonewalling in the face of documented history.

Your claim of racism being the cause of the lack of black republican candidates is disproved by the republican support for POwell in 96.


Would you like to look at other, actually DECLARED candidates to see how "republican racism" did or did not effect their campaigns?


Or would you like to admit that facts don't matter to you? Your choice.

LOL

What support??

Dumbfuck, at what point will you realize the only thing you've shown was a link to a link to exit polls which didn't demonstrate political breakdown, and a poll based on one state taken more than 4 months before the election.

Even worse for you, Powell's support came from Moderate and Liberal Republicans...

New Hampshirites who say they are likely to vote in their state's Republican Presidential primary favor Gen. Colin L. Powell over Senator Bob Dole and the other announced contenders, according to a poll made public today.​

​

The survey, conducted by Chris Potholm, who has run a polling operation at Bowdoin College in Maine for two decades, found General Powell drawing 34 percent, compared with 25 percent for Mr. Dole, 16 percent for Patrick J. Buchanan and 16 percent undecided. If General Powell, who has not announced a candidacy, is excluded from the race, Mr. Dole leads with 35 percent.​

​

The poll found that among Republicans describing themselves as moderates, General Powell was favored over Mr. Dole by 43 percent to 35 percent; among liberals, he was favored by 38 percent to 12 percent.​

​

"The astonishing thing is this is a man who nobody knows is a Republican," said Mr. Potholm, a professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin. "For Republican primary voters to embrace somebody to this degree I find truly extraordinary."​

​

The poll, of 300 voters, was conducted the last week in September. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus six percentage points.​

Other recent polls in New Hampshire -- whose primaries, the first in the nation, are set for Feb. 20 -- have also found General Powell more popular among Republican voters than are the announced candidates.​

So now we see the poll referenced in the wikipedia article you linked is actually just 300 Republicans from New Hampshire with a portion of them supporting Powell describing themselves as Moderate or Liberal; and with a margin of error of 6 percentage points.

Now while 300 respondents out of a pool of some 260,000 Republicans is a reasonable sample, the margin of error you get when extrapolating that 300 in a country of some 128 million Republicans is bigger than your IQ.

Even funnier, as you're claiming a poll taken many months before an election is an accurate predictor, that means the latest polls which show Biden winning in November spells certain doom for Impeached Trump.

1. Your pretense of being shocked that polls ask small numbers of people and the extrapolate, is not credible. Dismissed.

2. I'm not sure why you fixate on the "4 months" before the election. Your lib position is a claim of generations long racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican presidents. Whether the support was on election day or a couple of months earlier, it still is strong evidence towards refuting that claim.


3. Re: your point about moderates and liberal republicans supporting Powell more. His political positions were quite moderate for the party at that time. It makes sense that the moderates would like him more.

4 Your position is that republican racism is why the lack of black republican presidents. The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy. This refutes your position.


5. As a 96 supporter of Patrick Buchanan, I can speak that, supporting Buchanan as the BEST choice, in our opinions, did not mean that we OPPOSED Powell, or thought he was a BAD choice. I can certainly speak for us and tell you that we would have been far happy with a President Powell than another 4 years of that asshole Bill Fucking Clinton.

6. Would you like to take a look at other republican candidates now?

"Your pretense of being shocked that polls ask small numbers of people and the extrapolate, is not credible. Dismissed."

Dumbfuck, I wasn't shocked by the small sample size. I even pointed out it was an appropriate size for New Hampshire. You're the one who posted a link to the wikipedia article about it while you claimed there were polls showing Republicans supported Powell for president, implying national support. That sample is far too small to be extrapolated to represent the entire nation.

Taken in isolation, maybe. Considered in the context of the exit polls, not so much.

"I'm not sure why you fixate on the "4 months" before the election. Your lib position is a claim of generations long racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican presidents. Whether the support was on election day or a couple of months earlier, it still is strong evidence towards refuting that claim."

Again, you demonstrate what an abject imbecile you are. It matters because polls taken that far in advance of an election are completely meaningless and do not accurately measure how the actual vote will pan out. Meaning that had Powell run, those early polls do not mean he necessarily would have had enough votes to win.

First point is, as the point of this thread is "republican racism" that is irrelevant. Sure, some factor might have change to undermine his support between the poll and the actually voting. But the factor that changed would not be his race, it would have to be something else.

and the exit polls shows that 4 months later, a huge number of people were still supporting him. To get that massive win over Clinton, pretty much ALL the republicans would have had to be voting for him AND a good sized number of blue dog democrats.

"Re: your point about moderates and liberal republicans supporting Powell more. His political positions were quite moderate for the party at that time. It makes sense that the moderates would like him more."

And there's no evidence that Conservative Republicans supported Powell.

Well, I recall it being discussed at the time, and there was no doubt among republicans that conservatives would support Powell in the general. Hell, the question was more, if he could win them in the PRIMARIES, and conclusion of most people was yes.

Among the republicans I know, the conservatives ranged from eager supporters to accepting supporters.

I can't recall if there were formal polling done to show that, or if it was just as consensus, because everyone could tell just by the way the conversation was going.

"Your position is that republican racism is why the lack of black republican presidents. The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy. This refutes your position."

You've yet to post a single poll that proves that.

There is a slim possibility in the exit poll, that republican conservatives, oddly enough, choose to vote for the white guy over black guy, and those votes were more than made up by white libs choosing to vote across party lines for the black guy, willing to give the GOP the win, if it meant having the first black president.


ANd by "slim chance", I mean, no, "no chance". It is nonsense.


THat was why the draft Powell people were so excited about his electablity. Because he appealed to moderates with his policies while his military service and connection with Reagan and Bush administrations, appealed to more conservatives republicans.


If he had run, he would have taken quite a number of moderates from Dole, and quite a number of conservatives from Buchanan, and almost certainly had won.

In the General, then, with a far more stark contrast between him and the hated Bill Clinton, EVERYONE would have fallen in line, and his connection with Reagan would have given him a nice link to the Reagan Democrats.


A scenario that would prefectly fit the exit polls results.


Your denial of this is not rational.


Would you like to move on to another example now?

 

[Correll]

Will someone, anyone who is in Cory L's corner throw in the towel please....this is embarrassing....
View attachment 317160

Dude. I'm humiliating you leftard race baiters and you know it.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Will someone, anyone who is in Cory L's corner throw in the towel please....this is embarrassing....
View attachment 317160

Dude. I'm humiliating you leftard race baiters and you know it.

Uh huh...I bet you just suffered a scratch in all of this huh

 

[Correll]

Will someone, anyone who is in Cory L's corner throw in the towel please....this is embarrassing....
View attachment 317160

Dude. I'm humiliating you leftard race baiters and you know it.

Uh huh...I bet you just suffered a scratch in all of this huh

THe idea that republicans will not support black candiates for the Presidency because of "racism" is easily disproved by many examples.


We are stuck on the first one, by liberals stonewalling. But I'm happy to keep rubbing their faces in it, for as long as it takes.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Republicans have so far failed to nominate any black Presidential candidate. Who do you think will be the first black Presidential nominee? Why? When?

 

[Correll]

The Republicans have so far failed to nominate any black Presidential candidate. Who do you think will be the first black Presidential nominee? Why? When?

Like I said, stonewalling.


Yes, we have not actually nominated one yet. The dems? THey did ONE. and act like they've done it a hundred times.


Was the dem party of Bill Clinton as "racist" as the party of the gop today? Or does you logic only apply sometimes?

 

[Faun]

The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy.

Yeah? Bullshit.

On Nov. 5, 1996, Voter News Service — the organization hired by the TV networks to do exit polling — asked people at the polls, who had just given Bill Clinton 49 percent of the vote, Bob Dole 41 percent and Ross Perot 8 percent, how they would have voted if the Republican candidate had been Gen. Colin L. Powell.

As usual - None of the above wins - hands down!

And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.

And the majority of that support, was from Republicans,


thus refuting the claim that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.

Still doesn't mean they would have actually voted for Powell.

 

[xyz]

Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'


With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??

Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...

"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."

They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:

KingFace (Conservative Thug)
View attachment 310638
Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)
View attachment 310639

Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)
View attachment 310641

Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....

I think more likely it'll be Donald Trump Jr. or Jared Kushner wearing blackface.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.

Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?

The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".

Wrong. Your conversion there of "hurts a person’s ability to succeed" into 'black people's "inability to succeed"' was clearly deliberate and grossly disrespectful. Yet you'll continue to wonder why most people presume Republicans to be more racist than Democrats. Go figure.