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

[IM2]

Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.

The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.

You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.

You're retarded.

So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.

That's nice. Go play.

You can't talk about these things now can you. You don't have any clue about them. If you did, you'd be running your mouth. You came here to fuck with me and got your racist white ass kicked with a quickness.

"Hello, Central Casting? I have a part for a guy. 'Angry Black Man'. Yes, the angrier, the better....Right. Lots of calling people racist, lots of arrogance, lots of 'bowing up', as the kids say...You have a guy? Awesome! Have his agent call him!"

Your phone should be ringing any minute with a gig.

If white men can be angry about some shit they imagine, I can be pissed off about what really happens. So you just keep running because you can't discuss what has gone on since slavery ended because it crushed that little lie whites like you have made up. I beat your ass, and you know it. I Beat Correll long ago. He's a joke, a whiny snot nose joke, now you have joined the Correll the clown club.

If you have to tell people you won...you didn't. I'm sure it makes you feel better about yourself, though.

Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean?

 

[IM2]

Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.

I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.

All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.

So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?

I said black Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.

Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.

Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.

You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.

Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.


They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.

It's not false.

Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.


And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.


If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.


I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.


Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?


Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?


Whatever. FUck off and die.

Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.

Except the ones calling out the racists are doing so spuriously to shut down discussion.

Maybe if y'all could form a rational argument, you wouldn't need to try to shame people into silence.

Try forming one yourself.

 

[IM2]

The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.

You said something right for a change.

I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection. It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.

The left doesn't. The left wants people to be defenseless. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.

That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People

It's a lie? Of course it isn't. Don't be silly.

Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?

It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.

Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.

Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.

Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.

You don't get to dictate what people need, kid. You just need to accept that damn quick.

You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is undeniable. So don't waste even more of my time denying it. Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?

Hint: Because you don't care about victims of crime. Period. End of story.

And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.

Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?

You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves. How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?

I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself. It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun. So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.

 

[daveman]

Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.

The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.

You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.

You're retarded.

So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.

That's nice. Go play.

He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.


Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?

He's counting on the usual leftist response: Do Not Question The Black Person.

Rational people, however, don't do that.

I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.

Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?

It makes you angry when people don't say the things you want them to say, doesn't it?

Well, you are a leftist. Nothing but emotion.

And how loudly would you screech RACIST!!! if I called you "boy", huh?

Well, you are a leftist. Emotion and double standards.

So you don't know anything about the supreme court case. That would mean you have to discuss things rationally and logically, instead of emotionally. Which you cannot do. I don't have to screech anything, you show your racism when you post.

You never have pointed out anything I've said that's racist. You think you have, but there was no actual racism there. I just said things you don't like, so you screech RACISM!!!

I think I'm vastly tired of your bullshit.

 

[daveman]

Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.

I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.

All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.

So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?

I said black Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.

Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.

Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.

You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.

Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.


They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.

It's not false.

Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.


And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.


If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.


I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.


Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?


Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?


Whatever. FUck off and die.

Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.

Except the ones calling out the racists are doing so spuriously to shut down discussion.

Maybe if y'all could form a rational argument, you wouldn't need to try to shame people into silence.

Try forming one yourself.

I have. It makes you angry. And that's your problem, not mine.

 

[daveman]

The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.

You said something right for a change.

I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection. It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.

The left doesn't. The left wants people to be defenseless. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.

That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People

It's a lie? Of course it isn't. Don't be silly.

Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?

It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.

Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.

Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.

Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.

You don't get to dictate what people need, kid. You just need to accept that damn quick.

You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is undeniable. So don't waste even more of my time denying it. Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?

Hint: Because you don't care about victims of crime. Period. End of story.

And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.

Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?

You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves. How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?

I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself. It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun. So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.

You wanna discuss a case from 1926?

Sure. It was overturned in 1948, Shelley v. Kraemer.

So you're beating a dead horse. You can pretend Corrigan means something now, but it's just a footnote in history, flogged about by idiots who think it still proves something.

Looks like you can stop whining about it now.

But you won't.

As far as your horseshit about guns, stop trying to pass off your ignorance as fact. There are far more defensive gun uses every year than crimes committed with them.

No, people are not going to give up their Second Amendment rights just because your feelings are hurt. It's past time you grew up, kid.

 

[IM2]

Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.

The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.

You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.

You're retarded.

So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.

That's nice. Go play.

He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.


Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?

He's counting on the usual leftist response: Do Not Question The Black Person.

Rational people, however, don't do that.

I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.

Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?

It makes you angry when people don't say the things you want them to say, doesn't it?

Well, you are a leftist. Nothing but emotion.

And how loudly would you screech RACIST!!! if I called you "boy", huh?

Well, you are a leftist. Emotion and double standards.

So you don't know anything about the supreme court case. That would mean you have to discuss things rationally and logically, instead of emotionally. Which you cannot do. I don't have to screech anything, you show your racism when you post.

You never have pointed out anything I've said that's racist. You think you have, but there was no actual racism there. I just said things you don't like, so you screech RACISM!!!

I think I'm vastly tired of your bullshit.

Yes I have. In standard USMB racist fashion, you avoid the challenge then claim things. You were asked to discuss the decision made in Corrigan v. Buckley. You can't because it proves my point of how the government has given whites everything they have. It kills your claim of my racism, so all you have left is trolling.

 

[daveman]

Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.

The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.

You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.

You're retarded.

So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.

That's nice. Go play.

He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.


Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?

He's counting on the usual leftist response: Do Not Question The Black Person.

Rational people, however, don't do that.

I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.

Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?

It makes you angry when people don't say the things you want them to say, doesn't it?

Well, you are a leftist. Nothing but emotion.

And how loudly would you screech RACIST!!! if I called you "boy", huh?

Well, you are a leftist. Emotion and double standards.

So you don't know anything about the supreme court case. That would mean you have to discuss things rationally and logically, instead of emotionally. Which you cannot do. I don't have to screech anything, you show your racism when you post.

You never have pointed out anything I've said that's racist. You think you have, but there was no actual racism there. I just said things you don't like, so you screech RACISM!!!

I think I'm vastly tired of your bullshit.

Yes I have. In standard USMB racist fashion, you avoid the challenge then claim things. You were asked to discuss the decision made in Corrigan v. Buckley. You can't because it proves my point of how the government has given whites everything they have. It kills your claim of my racism, so all you have left is trolling.

Keep reading. Let me know if you need help with the big words.

 

[IM2]

The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.

You said something right for a change.

I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection. It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.

The left doesn't. The left wants people to be defenseless. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.

That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People

It's a lie? Of course it isn't. Don't be silly.

Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?

It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.

Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.

Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.

Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.

You don't get to dictate what people need, kid. You just need to accept that damn quick.

You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is undeniable. So don't waste even more of my time denying it. Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?

Hint: Because you don't care about victims of crime. Period. End of story.

And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.

Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?

You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves. How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?

I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself. It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun. So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.

You wanna discuss a case from 1926?

Sure. It was overturned in 1948, Shelley v. Kraemer.

So you're beating a dead horse. You can pretend Corrigan means something now, but it's just a footnote in history, flogged about by idiots who think it still proves something.

Looks like you can stop whining about it now.

But you won't.

As far as your horseshit about guns, stop trying to pass off your ignorance as fact. There are far more defensive gun uses every year than crimes committed with them.

No, people are not going to give up their Second Amendment rights just because your feelings are hurt. It's past time you grew up, kid.

Corrigan shows what whites were doing after slavery. And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not. See junior, you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about and should be quiet. Two weeks after the court ruled, the FHA Commissioner stated that the decision would not change the policies or procedures of the FHA meaning that restrictive covenants, redlining and other race based discrimination against blacks and others who were not white would continue to be the policy of the FHA, or in short, the federal government.

You are completely wrong about your gun shit, but I am not obsessed with the ability to be able to shoot someone so I don't give a damn what your opinion on the matter is.

My argument is that things went on after slavery ended that impact us today as well as there is continuing racism going on today that impacts communities of color negatively. The argument has gone way beyond slavery and only the racists talk about todays African slavery like its the only slavery on earth while ignoring the slaves in Europe. You do so to try diverting the argument about the racism here in America by whites such as yourself as part of the gaslighting you guys try doing.

 

[IM2]

Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.

The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.

You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.

You're retarded.

So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.

That's nice. Go play.

He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.


Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?

He's counting on the usual leftist response: Do Not Question The Black Person.

Rational people, however, don't do that.

I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.

Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?

It makes you angry when people don't say the things you want them to say, doesn't it?

Well, you are a leftist. Nothing but emotion.

And how loudly would you screech RACIST!!! if I called you "boy", huh?

Well, you are a leftist. Emotion and double standards.

So you don't know anything about the supreme court case. That would mean you have to discuss things rationally and logically, instead of emotionally. Which you cannot do. I don't have to screech anything, you show your racism when you post.

You never have pointed out anything I've said that's racist. You think you have, but there was no actual racism there. I just said things you don't like, so you screech RACISM!!!

I think I'm vastly tired of your bullshit.

Yes I have. In standard USMB racist fashion, you avoid the challenge then claim things. You were asked to discuss the decision made in Corrigan v. Buckley. You can't because it proves my point of how the government has given whites everything they have. It kills your claim of my racism, so all you have left is trolling.

Keep reading. Let me know if you need help with the big words.

That was weak.

 

[IM2]

Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.

I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.

All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.

So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?

I said black Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.

Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.

Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.

You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.

Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.


They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.

It's not false.

Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.


And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.


If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.


I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.


Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?


Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?


Whatever. FUck off and die.

Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.

Except the ones calling out the racists are doing so spuriously to shut down discussion.

Maybe if y'all could form a rational argument, you wouldn't need to try to shame people into silence.

Try forming one yourself.

I have. It makes you angry. And that's your problem, not mine.

lol! If you call the psychosis you post rational...

 

[daveman]

The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.

You said something right for a change.

I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection. It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.

The left doesn't. The left wants people to be defenseless. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.

That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People

It's a lie? Of course it isn't. Don't be silly.

Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?

It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.

Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.

Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.

Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.

You don't get to dictate what people need, kid. You just need to accept that damn quick.

You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is undeniable. So don't waste even more of my time denying it. Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?

Hint: Because you don't care about victims of crime. Period. End of story.

And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.

Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?

You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves. How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?

I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself. It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun. So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.

You wanna discuss a case from 1926?

Sure. It was overturned in 1948, Shelley v. Kraemer.

So you're beating a dead horse. You can pretend Corrigan means something now, but it's just a footnote in history, flogged about by idiots who think it still proves something.

Looks like you can stop whining about it now.

But you won't.

As far as your horseshit about guns, stop trying to pass off your ignorance as fact. There are far more defensive gun uses every year than crimes committed with them.

No, people are not going to give up their Second Amendment rights just because your feelings are hurt. It's past time you grew up, kid.

Corrigan shows what whites were doing after slavery. And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not. See junior, you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about and should be quiet. Two weeks after the court ruled, the FHA Commissioner stated that the decision would not change the policies or procedures of the FHA meaning that restrictive covenants, redlining and other race based discrimination against blacks and others who were not white would continue to be the policy of the FHA, or in short, the federal government.

You are completely wrong about your gun shit, but I am not obsessed with the ability to be able to shoot someone so I don't give a damn what your opinion on the matter is.

My argument is that things went on after slavery ended that impact us today as well as there is continuing racism going on today that impacts communities of color negatively. The argument has gone way beyond slavery and only the racists talk about todays African slavery like its the only slavery on earth while ignoring the slaves in Europe. You do so to try diverting the argument about the racism here in America by whites such as yourself as part of the gaslighting you guys try doing.

"And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not."

You're dismissed.

 

[IM2]

The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.

You said something right for a change.

I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection. It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.

The left doesn't. The left wants people to be defenseless. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.

That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People

It's a lie? Of course it isn't. Don't be silly.

Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?

It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.

Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.

Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.

Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.

You don't get to dictate what people need, kid. You just need to accept that damn quick.

You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is undeniable. So don't waste even more of my time denying it. Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?

Hint: Because you don't care about victims of crime. Period. End of story.

And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.

Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?

You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves. How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?

I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself. It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun. So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.

You wanna discuss a case from 1926?

Sure. It was overturned in 1948, Shelley v. Kraemer.

So you're beating a dead horse. You can pretend Corrigan means something now, but it's just a footnote in history, flogged about by idiots who think it still proves something.

Looks like you can stop whining about it now.

But you won't.

As far as your horseshit about guns, stop trying to pass off your ignorance as fact. There are far more defensive gun uses every year than crimes committed with them.

No, people are not going to give up their Second Amendment rights just because your feelings are hurt. It's past time you grew up, kid.

Corrigan shows what whites were doing after slavery. And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not. See junior, you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about and should be quiet. Two weeks after the court ruled, the FHA Commissioner stated that the decision would not change the policies or procedures of the FHA meaning that restrictive covenants, redlining and other race based discrimination against blacks and others who were not white would continue to be the policy of the FHA, or in short, the federal government.

You are completely wrong about your gun shit, but I am not obsessed with the ability to be able to shoot someone so I don't give a damn what your opinion on the matter is.

My argument is that things went on after slavery ended that impact us today as well as there is continuing racism going on today that impacts communities of color negatively. The argument has gone way beyond slavery and only the racists talk about todays African slavery like its the only slavery on earth while ignoring the slaves in Europe. You do so to try diverting the argument about the racism here in America by whites such as yourself as part of the gaslighting you guys try doing.

"And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not."

You're dismissed.

The reality here that you have dismissed is that the givernment continued the practices that were supposed to be overturned by the court.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.

You said something right for a change.

I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection. It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.

The left doesn't. The left wants people to be defenseless. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.

That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People

It's a lie? Of course it isn't. Don't be silly.

Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?

It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.

Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.

Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.

Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.

You don't get to dictate what people need, kid. You just need to accept that damn quick.

You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is undeniable. So don't waste even more of my time denying it. Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?

Hint: Because you don't care about victims of crime. Period. End of story.

And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.

Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?

You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves. How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?

I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself. It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun. So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.

You wanna discuss a case from 1926?

Sure. It was overturned in 1948, Shelley v. Kraemer.

So you're beating a dead horse. You can pretend Corrigan means something now, but it's just a footnote in history, flogged about by idiots who think it still proves something.

Looks like you can stop whining about it now.

But you won't.

As far as your horseshit about guns, stop trying to pass off your ignorance as fact. There are far more defensive gun uses every year than crimes committed with them.

No, people are not going to give up their Second Amendment rights just because your feelings are hurt. It's past time you grew up, kid.

Corrigan shows what whites were doing after slavery. And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not. See junior, you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about and should be quiet. Two weeks after the court ruled, the FHA Commissioner stated that the decision would not change the policies or procedures of the FHA meaning that restrictive covenants, redlining and other race based discrimination against blacks and others who were not white would continue to be the policy of the FHA, or in short, the federal government.

You are completely wrong about your gun shit, but I am not obsessed with the ability to be able to shoot someone so I don't give a damn what your opinion on the matter is.

My argument is that things went on after slavery ended that impact us today as well as there is continuing racism going on today that impacts communities of color negatively. The argument has gone way beyond slavery and only the racists talk about todays African slavery like its the only slavery on earth while ignoring the slaves in Europe. You do so to try diverting the argument about the racism here in America by whites such as yourself as part of the gaslighting you guys try doing.

"And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not."

You're dismissed.

The reality here that you have dismissed is that the givernment continued the practices that were supposed to be overturned by the court.

Meanwhile YOU call anyone that disagrees with you a racist. Thats what makes you racist you think any white person that has a different opinion then you is racist, you think any black person that disagrees with you is an uncle Tom. You can not ACTUAL link to ANY racist comment by most of the people you label a racist and when called on it you waffle and never once have you linked to any racist comment by me EVER.

 

[IM2]

The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.

You said something right for a change.

I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection. It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.

The left doesn't. The left wants people to be defenseless. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.

That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People

It's a lie? Of course it isn't. Don't be silly.

Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?

It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.

Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.

Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.

Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.

You don't get to dictate what people need, kid. You just need to accept that damn quick.

You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is undeniable. So don't waste even more of my time denying it. Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?

Hint: Because you don't care about victims of crime. Period. End of story.

And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.

Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?

You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves. How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?

I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself. It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun. So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.

You wanna discuss a case from 1926?

Sure. It was overturned in 1948, Shelley v. Kraemer.

So you're beating a dead horse. You can pretend Corrigan means something now, but it's just a footnote in history, flogged about by idiots who think it still proves something.

Looks like you can stop whining about it now.

But you won't.

As far as your horseshit about guns, stop trying to pass off your ignorance as fact. There are far more defensive gun uses every year than crimes committed with them.

No, people are not going to give up their Second Amendment rights just because your feelings are hurt. It's past time you grew up, kid.

Corrigan shows what whites were doing after slavery. And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not. See junior, you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about and should be quiet. Two weeks after the court ruled, the FHA Commissioner stated that the decision would not change the policies or procedures of the FHA meaning that restrictive covenants, redlining and other race based discrimination against blacks and others who were not white would continue to be the policy of the FHA, or in short, the federal government.

You are completely wrong about your gun shit, but I am not obsessed with the ability to be able to shoot someone so I don't give a damn what your opinion on the matter is.

My argument is that things went on after slavery ended that impact us today as well as there is continuing racism going on today that impacts communities of color negatively. The argument has gone way beyond slavery and only the racists talk about todays African slavery like its the only slavery on earth while ignoring the slaves in Europe. You do so to try diverting the argument about the racism here in America by whites such as yourself as part of the gaslighting you guys try doing.

"And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not."

You're dismissed.

The reality here that you have dismissed is that the givernment continued the practices that were supposed to be overturned by the court.

Meanwhile YOU call anyone that disagrees with you a racist. Thats what makes you racist you think any white person that has a different opinion then you is racist, you think any black person that disagrees with you is an uncle Tom. You can not ACTUAL link to ANY racist comment by most of the people you label a racist and when called on it you waffle and never once have you linked to any racist comment by me EVER.

Wrong. I've show you examples of your racism. That tactic won't work anymore. Calling a white person "having a different opinion than I do" a racist is not racism. You get presented actual cases that show how whites have benefitted from the government and even as you see the evidence you disagree. So you are not disagreeing based on fact. You have made claims about blacks committing 50 percent of the crimes here. The UCR annual reports show white commit 60 percent of the violent crime. You disagree with that when the facts show different, then you try arguing on a per capita basis which implicates the entire black race even those not committing crimes, and think that is not racist.

There are blacks who don't agree with me who I don't call uncle toms. But the blacks you guys push in front of us who repeat your racist opinions are. I don't see any one of you pushing out Shermichael Singleton as some hero or someone black who should be a presidential candidate. He is a black republican, so why is that? He is far more intelligent than Candice Owens and would eat her alive in any type of debate. But he's not pumped up by those like you because he doesn't follow the massas plan for blacks. Deny all racsim and declare to blacks that white supremacy doesn't exist. If Singleton ran for president, he could get my vote.

And Colin Powell was excommunicated from the party when he decided to think independently.

Your disagreements with me have primarily been about my lived experiences as a black man versus your opinion as a white man. I think that when I sat there and watched older blacks talking about leaving the republican party and you haven't, that my opinion of why blacks left is definitive and you have nothing to disagree with about it.. When I am black and look at the policies and beliefs of republicans, especially in places like this, my statement of reasons why I do not join the republican party are definitive and you have nothing to disagree about.

Especially when your disagreement is made up of fictional bullshit about white liberal mind control on a made up figurative plantation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Actually you retard I have NEVER commented on YOUR experiences I have never disagreed that in the past there was Jim Crow. You call me a racist because I cite facts like that Obama was a crappy President, not cause he was black but because his policies SUCKED. I note with links that blacks were JUST as complicit in the slave trade and your response is to call me a racist and claim blacks were FORCED to attack pother black tribes take prisoners and sell them to whites. And your response, No that didn't happen, even though it is historical fact. You ignore all the whites that fought against slavery risking life and limb to do it and dismiss it as not important. You blatantly REFUSE to acknowledge that right now in 2020 Blacks in Africa still practice Slavery.

 

[Faun]

Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.

I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.

All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.

So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?

Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.

Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.

That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.

I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.

LOL

If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...

Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics". That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.


Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.

Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.

So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.


Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?

I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.

YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".


That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.



You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?


LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.


You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.

Your call.

"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."

So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?

"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"

You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???

Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?

Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.


Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.

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.[51] "

LOLOLOL

Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.

Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.


That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.

Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.

Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.

Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.


The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.


That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".

I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.

When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.


And that refutes the point of the op.

LOL

Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.

 

[Faun]

Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.

I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.

All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.

So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?

I said black Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.

Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.

Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.

You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.

LOL

YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.

*LOL*

No, I did not.

YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...

No, I did not.

​

"And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."

​

... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.

It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.

As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.

"No, I did not. "

The fuck you didn't.

Right, the fuck I didn't.

"And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected"

​

Quoted out of context. How original.

I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?

That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.

You said I admitted to it dumbass.

Dumbfuck -- quote me saying you admitted "most conservatives are racist."

When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.

"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."

So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?

So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?

What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?


What a loser.


Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.

LOLOL

And by getting my ass kicked, your big claim is that Republicans would elect a black man who never wanted to be president.

Would HAVE, yes. The data is clear. The claim the the reason for the lack of black republican presidents, being "racism" is demonstrated to be incorrect.

No, not would have. You can't be elected president if you're not running.

 

[Faun]

Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.

I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.

All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.

So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?

I said black Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.

Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.

Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.

You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.

LOL

YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.

*LOL*

No, I did not.

YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...

No, I did not.

​

"And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."

​

... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.

It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.

As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.

"No, I did not. "

The fuck you didn't.

Right, the fuck I didn't.

"And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected"

​

Quoted out of context. How original.

I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?

That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.

You said I admitted to it dumbass.

Dumbfuck -- quote me saying you admitted "most conservatives are racist."

When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.

"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."

So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?

So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?

What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?


What a loser.


Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.

I've run into this sort of thing many times. If you can't actually refute the argument, make your opponent look foolish or stupid. It's what Grumblefish did with me the whole time he was debating me in this discussion.

If you're arguing with something I never said then you're arguing with yourself -- and losing.

YOu having a hissy fit over such a minor quibble, is pathetic. You are just trying to distract from how much you have gotten your ass handed to you.

LOLOLOL

Spits the idiot whose best hope of electing a black republican as president is someone who's not running for president.

 

[Faun]

Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.

I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.

All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.

So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?

I said black Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.

Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.

Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.

You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.

Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.


They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.

It's not false.

Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.


And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.


If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.


I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.


Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?


Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?


Whatever. FUck off and die.

Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.

Except the ones calling out the racists are doing so spuriously to shut down discussion.

Maybe if y'all could form a rational argument, you wouldn't need to try to shame people into silence.

So? What's wrong with shutting down racism?