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

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk



The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
He's literally pointing at two blacks who were never nominated by the GOP as evidence the GOP would nominate a black person. :lmao:


Correct. The reasons they were not nominated are well know, and not "Evul Wacism".


That you would pretend that does not make sense, is just you being dishonest.
 
Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.



I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
The original crickets are long dead. :( The next generation as well. :omg: However, the current generation remains chirping away in anticipation.. :p


My God, I answered that a long time ago. YOu are pathetic.


YOur emotional investment in your delusion of yourself as a Hero fighting Evul Wacists, is warping your thinking.
 
Why on Earth would I want to give up making a fool of you and your ¼ GOP support for a black candidate??
What color candidates did the remaining 75% of the GOP support?
What color did they end up nominating for President?
 
Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
And that was it for Cain.


Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
Liar.

You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.


1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.

2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.

At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.

Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.

But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Bully for you. :itsok:



Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.



And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

Cain was.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
LOL

Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.

Real serious. :lmao:
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: IM2
The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
1585419274482-png.316403




And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.


The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack and destroyed.

BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.


Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.

LOLOL

Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.

There are variables. And a good chunk of them are the Progs in the media/entertainment fiefdom domain. They destroy Repub women and Repub African Americans when they run for high office. It is endless attacks and the tactics are of pure destruction. Progs can not be having strong Repub women and strong African Americans running for office on the other side. That in affect makes it more difficult for the said candidate to win a general election for President then the other candidates as a Republican. They are scrutinized much more meticulously. This scares the Progs. Big time!
 
Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk



The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
He's literally pointing at two blacks who were never nominated by the GOP as evidence the GOP would nominate a black person. :lmao:


Correct. The reasons they were not nominated are well know, and not "Evul Wacism".


That you would pretend that does not make sense, is just you being dishonest.
Says who? You?? A Buchanan supporter??

:lmao:
 
Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.



I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
The original crickets are long dead. :( The next generation as well. :omg: However, the current generation remains chirping away in anticipation.. :p


My God, I answered that a long time ago. YOu are pathetic.
Thank you, Son. I, your God, am pathetic. For picking on you. But if it's any consolation, you've made it fun.:auiqs.jpg:
 
The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
1585419274482-png.316403




And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.


The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack and destroyed.

BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.


Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.

LOLOL

Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.

There are variables. And a good chunk of them are the Progs in the media/entertainment fiefdom domain. They destroy Repub women and Repub African Americans when they run for high office. It is endless attacks and the tactics are of pure destruction. Progs can not be having strong Repub women and strong African Americans running for office on the other side. That in affect makes it more difficult for the said candidate to win a general election for President then the other candidates as a Republican. They are scrutinized much more meticulously. This scares the Progs. Big time!

So media Progs are scaring away the Progs? Say whaa?
 
The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
 
Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
And that was it for Cain.


Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
Liar.

You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.


1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.

2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.

At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.

Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.

But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Bully for you. :itsok:



Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.



And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

Cain was.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
LOL

Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.

Real serious. :lmao:


He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.


That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,


is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.


THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
 
The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
1585419274482-png.316403




And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.


The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack and destroyed.

BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.


Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.

LOLOL

Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.

There are variables. And a good chunk of them are the Progs in the media/entertainment fiefdom domain. They destroy Repub women and Repub African Americans when they run for high office. It is endless attacks and the tactics are of pure destruction. Progs can not be having strong Repub women and strong African Americans running for office on the other side. That in affect makes it more difficult for the said candidate to win a general election for President then the other candidates as a Republican. They are scrutinized much more meticulously. This scares the Progs. Big time!



These lefties pretend there is ONE variable, ie Race. And any result other than the one they say should happen, is proof of Evul Wacism.


They pretend to be stupid as hell. But no one is that stupid. I call them liars.
 
Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.



I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
The original crickets are long dead. :( The next generation as well. :omg: However, the current generation remains chirping away in anticipation.. :p


My God, I answered that a long time ago. YOu are pathetic.
Thank you, Son. I, your God, am pathetic. For picking on you. But if it's any consolation, you've made it fun.:auiqs.jpg:


Hee, Hee.


My answer stands. I answered that long ago. You are pathetic.


YOur delusion of being so Hero, fighting Evul Wacists, has been debunked.


YOur stonewalling on it, is just you holding on to your fantasy world.
 
If I had voted for Obama in a primary would that have entitled me to a non-racist card?


The issue here is that your assumption of Evul Wacism in your enemies, is not based on any reality, but circular logic and self delusion.


YOu KNOW that your enemies are Evul Wacist. So anything you see, such as a lack of black republican presidents, becomes proof of Evul Wacism.


If I point out high levels of support at certain times for certain black republicans for President,


That does NOT refute the idea, because you just know, that it is not what it looks like, because Evul Wacism.


You are full of blind faith. YOur mind is completely closed to any information that challenges your assumptions about people who are different than you.


And none of this seems self serving to you. Indeed, it is likely that you are not "hearing" this at all.
 
If I had voted for Obama in a primary would that have entitled me to a non-racist card?


The issue here is that your assumption of Evul Wacism in your enemies, is not based on any reality, but circular logic and self delusion.


YOu KNOW that your enemies are Evul Wacist. So anything you see, such as a lack of black republican presidents, becomes proof of Evul Wacism.


If I point out high levels of support at certain times for certain black republicans for President,


That does NOT refute the idea, because you just know, that it is not what it looks like, because Evul Wacism.


You are full of blind faith. YOur mind is completely closed to any information that challenges your assumptions about people who are different than you.


And none of this seems self serving to you. Indeed, it is likely that you are not "hearing" this at all.
Oh, the irony :eek::auiqs.jpg:
 
  • Funny
Reactions: IM2
Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk



The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
 
Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
And that was it for Cain.


Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
Liar.

You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.


1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.

2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.

At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.

Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.

But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Bully for you. :itsok:



Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.



And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

Cain was.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
LOL

Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.

Real serious. :lmao:


He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.


That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,


is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.


THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
 
The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
1585419274482-png.316403




And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.


The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack and destroyed.

BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.


Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.

LOLOL

Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.

There are variables. And a good chunk of them are the Progs in the media/entertainment fiefdom domain. They destroy Repub women and Repub African Americans when they run for high office. It is endless attacks and the tactics are of pure destruction. Progs can not be having strong Repub women and strong African Americans running for office on the other side. That in affect makes it more difficult for the said candidate to win a general election for President then the other candidates as a Republican. They are scrutinized much more meticulously. This scares the Progs. Big time!


Look, whites need to stop thinking they can determine who blacks decide are our leaders. The black republicans put out there in leadership do not represent the best interests of the black community. They often parrot the rhetoric of white supremacists. The media does not destroy them, they destroy themselves for what they represent. These are not strong black people, but to whites like you they are strong because they help you with your agenda. Progressives are not why republicans cannot nominate a black candidate.
 
The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
 

Forum List

Back
Top