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

[Correll]

We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.

You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.


Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.


This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.


But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.


Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.


And you know, that you cannot.


You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.



Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.



That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.

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

Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.

Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.

And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.


BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.


Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.


That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?

The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.

I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.


YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.

That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.


YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.

LOL

Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.

Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.


And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.

AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.


It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.


BUt it is worth noting, that the REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.

LOLOL

You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.

So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.

How sad.

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

It happens a lot.

I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.


The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.


Which it is not.

As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.


That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.

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

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

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



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


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


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

Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE BAITING.

LOL

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

Plenty of lame excuses though.

Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.


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


We both know that that is not true.


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



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

LOL

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

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

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


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

LOL

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

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

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

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

That factor is unknown.


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


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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

LOLOLOL

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

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

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

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


We know that.


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


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


1996 is one very good example.


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

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

You've yet to prove that.

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

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

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

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


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


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


what exactly?

LOL

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

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

The polls from 96 say otherwise.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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


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


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

LOLOL

You never cease being stupid, do ya?

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

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

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


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


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

"They show the black republican winning "

LOL

There was no black Republican running.

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

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


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


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

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


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

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

You lose again because you're a loser.

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

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


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


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

LOL

What support??

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

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

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

​

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


A scenario that would prefectly fit the exit polls results.


Your denial of this is not rational.


Would you like to move on to another example now?

LOLOL

You're literally making up most of that post from supposition and anecdotal evidence.

Again -- that exit poll does not report on the percentage of Republicans who would have voted for Powell. You're making that up too.

The information is not complete, but is far less spotty than you are pretending.

You are the one ignoring information, and making up outlandish scenarios to explain away the numbers, not I.

 

[Correll]

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

Yeah? Bullshit.

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

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

And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.

And the majority of that support, was from Republicans,


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

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

I would have. I was a Patrick Buchanan guy in that election. But, he lost the primaries and I voted for Bob Dole. I would have been just as happy to vote for Colin Powell.


Of my friends in the republican party, most of them were MORE excited by the idea than I.


Your denial of this fact, is you just holding on to a lie, a cool lie, that turns you from a partisan hack into a brave warrior against Evul Wacist republican super villains.


It is bullshit and you know it.


Would you like to look at another example now, or do you want to do some more pathetic stonewalling?

Liar, I didn't deny you would have voted for Powell. Your anecdotal claims are more meaningless than your New Hampshire poll.

The LIe is the LIe of Republican racism. You are dismissing the data from polling, because you just "know" that republicans wont' vote for a black guy. You are trusting your assumptions about people you hate, instead of actual data.

 

[Correll]

This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.

View attachment 316403

So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.

What point are you trying to make here?

Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.

And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.

YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.


Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.


So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.

Would you like to look at another example now?

 

[Correll]

Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.

Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.

Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.

On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.

As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96

There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.

Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll

Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support

www.cbsnews.com

"Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "

"Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "

Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.

LOLOLOL

Dumbshit -- 25% of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.

AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.

Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.

Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.


This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.

BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.

"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."

But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.

I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.

It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.

And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.

You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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

Mmmm, that is crazy talk. I did not challenge your premises because I wanted to address your point and move the discussion forward.

Baloney. You misquoted "ability" as "inability" (to succeed), thereby completely changing the meaning of the poll question to fit your racist "cultural" narrative of literally "blaming" anything the black minority does on the historically marginalized black minority itself:

ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".

Face it. You're a very sick puppy.

You are quibbling over details to avoid the meat of my argument.

You asked me, based on a poll of how people view "blacks" if republicans respect or treat seriously blacks.


I answered. You are now trying to avoid addressing my answer.


BTW, do you think that white American culture has problems?

 

[Correll]

how do you go from Pat Buchanan to being "happy" to support Colin Powell??

Why MSNBC Dumped Pat Buchanan: His 10 Most Outrageous Statements

thinkprogress.org

Because Bill and HIllary Clinton were both assholes, and I am a partisan republican.

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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

Interesting. "Black people have an inability to succeed, don't come from stable families, and lack role models", but on the flip side, there is a growing contingent of "angry white males" who believe that there is "mass anti white discrimination" currently taking place in America, which is contributing to massive numbers of white Americans being displaced by blacks in college admissions and the workforce.

WTF?

I want to know right now about this blatant, unfair favoritism that is "crippling" so many poor , maligned , white Americans just for the sake of UPLIFTING "THE BLACKS"

Then I wil not need to write anymore checks to the private school that I have paid for my grandkids to attend.


SMGDH @ this fucking nonsensical horseshit.

Kat,

Do not take the fact that I answered his question with any acceptance of his assumptions.


He asked a legit question and had a poll with answers for discussion purposes. If you want to fight him on the assumptions of his question, take it up with him.

 

[katsteve2012]

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

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

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

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

Interesting. "Black people have an inability to succeed, don't come from stable families, and lack role models", but on the flip side, there is a growing contingent of "angry white males" who believe that there is "mass anti white discrimination" currently taking place in America, which is contributing to massive numbers of white Americans being displaced by blacks in college admissions and the workforce.

WTF?

I want to know right now about this blatant, unfair favoritism that is "crippling" so many poor , maligned , white Americans just for the sake of UPLIFTING "THE BLACKS"

Then I wil not need to write anymore checks to the private school that I have paid for my grandkids to attend.


SMGDH @ this fucking nonsensical horseshit.

Kat,

Do not take the fact that I answered his question with any acceptance of his assumptions.


He asked a legit question and had a poll with answers for discussion purposes. If you want to fight him on the assumptions of his question, take it up with him.

I'm not looking to fight anyone. I only noticed an inconsistent equation in something that I mentioned, which is:

"How do such incapable, poorly mentored people
( as you described) displace an exact opposite majority in college admissions as well as the workforce"?

Just curious, but not important. Carry on.

I will just watch.

 

[Faun]

This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.

View attachment 316403

So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.

What point are you trying to make here?

Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.

And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.

YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.


Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.


So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.

Would you like to look at another example now?

Dumbfuck, "big field of candidates" dwindle down quickly once the primaries begin. You possess a grand total of zero evidence Cain would have prevailed. The best you could find was 60% were saying they would vote for a white candidate snc another 8% said they hadn't decided yet.

 

[Faun]

Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.

Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.

Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.

On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.

As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96

There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.

Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll

Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support

www.cbsnews.com

"Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "

"Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "

Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.

LOLOLOL

Dumbshit -- 25% of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.

AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.

Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.

Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.


This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.

BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.

"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."

But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.

I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.

It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.

And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.

You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.

The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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

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

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

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

Mmmm, that is crazy talk. I did not challenge your premises because I wanted to address your point and move the discussion forward.

Baloney. You misquoted "ability" as "inability" (to succeed), thereby completely changing the meaning of the poll question to fit your racist "cultural" narrative of literally "blaming" anything the black minority does on the historically marginalized black minority itself:

ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".

Face it. You're a very sick puppy.

You are quibbling over details to avoid the meat of my argument.

No. You can't handle the truth is all.

You asked me, based on a poll of how people view "blacks" if republicans respect or treat seriously blacks.

No, moron. The poll was about how the public views "Race in America 2019." Subtitled: "Public has negative views of the country’s racial progress; more than half say Trump has made race relations worse." It was NOT about "how people view blacks." You should avoid engaging in such discussions since you evidently don't (can't?) understand the difference. I asked you:

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

I answered. You are now trying to avoid addressing my answer.

I addressed it and "You're a very sick puppy."

BTW, do you think that white American culture has problems?

Does the Pope wear a funny hat? Has COVID-19 increased the price of tea in China? Get a clue.

Do not take the fact that I answered his question with any acceptance of his assumptions.

What are these "assumptions" of mine? All in your head? If you could manage to provide some compelling evidence in support of them.. that could be refreshing. Also, define "white American culture"?

 

[IM2]

The first black president came from a single parent family. There are plenty of role models in the black community. Republicans are simply inaccurate in their analysis of the black community and that includes the blacks used by people like Correll.

We’ve heard all the fake news calling itself political incorrectness, telling us that the problems plaguing black communities are self-inflicted and include: unmarried births, fatherless homes, refusal to take education seriously, rap music, worship of thug culture, genetic inferiority, low IQ, making up racism to get paid, the victim mentality, waiting for a handout, government dependence, special rights and more. All this is crap. So, let’s step out of the box. Let’s really leave the plantation. Let us truly be politically incorrect. The root cause of the problems blacks face today are due to white racism.

Yes, that’s what I said. I am not waiting for whites to give me anything free. I don’t have some so-called victim mentality whereby I blame whites for my failings. If I have failed at things, I failed on my own. It’s time whites stopped the juvenile name calling and tightened up. The reality of racism is not about failing, it is about denial. The denial of opportunity. If anyone has failed it is the whites who have chosen to fall for what the race pimps have told them. White racism IS the root cause, it is the fundamental reason for the occurrences of problems in the black community.

Personal or Individual responsibility according to every definition, is the idea that human beings create their own life experiences by their choices. I say this because it is apparent in these times, there are whites who do not seem to understand what it really means. Whites as a race have a 400 year pattern of behavior that has been consistent and it is based on a belief of superiority. There have been whites throughout American history that do not exhibit such behavior, but that doesn't erase the overall record.

I say the root cause of the problems blacks face today, right now, are due to white racism. Again you will ask, “Why?” Because there is proven or observable evidence that shows this to be true. Because that evidence exists, it is impossible for us to be making it up. Some whites refuse to accept this and argue citing various issues that are the result of racism trying to dispute any black or non white person who dares to say that racism has had a continuing negative effect on our communities. The arguments they make are made against indisputable evidence to the contrary. We know that the suburbs were built with guaranteed government backed loans given primarily to whites. We know that black communities were redlined making real estate values less. We know federal housing policy created the slums and ghettos. We know that city zoning policies made it so black communities were divided by freeways. We know that because property values in black communities are less, it affects the funding of schools located in black communities. We know that donors from outside the black community have undue influence relative to city policies and that influence has negatively impacted black communities. We know that today, right now, in the 21st century, a process called retail redlining exists whereby retail businesses do not place businesses in black communities. All of these statements are supported by loads of evidence and people have refused to listen. However, every “conservative” Tom, Dick, Jane, and yes, Spot, has an opinion.

Definition of fact: 1 a : something that has actual existence. b : an actual occurrence. 2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality. 3: the quality of being actual. 4: a thing done. b archaic : action. c obsolete: feat

Definition of opinion:1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter. 2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. b : a generally held view. 3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert. b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based.

Definition of delusion:1 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated. b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also: the abnormal state marked by such beliefs. 2 : the act of tricking or deceiving someone the state of being deluded.

Fact- the root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism.

Opinion/Delusion- Anti white discrimination.

Definition of empirical:1 : originating in or based on observation or experience. 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory. 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. 4 : of or relating to empiricism.

Books such as “Color of Law”, “White Rage”, “American Apartheid”, “The New Jim Crow”, “We Charge Genocide,” or “Racism without Racists” to name a few, provide example after example of the great pains the America government took to establish and maintain a system based on white racial supremacy. They detail the toll such policies have inflicted upon blacks as well as all other people of color in America. Countless studies have been done detailing the negative effects that purposefully designed racially exclusionary American public policy has had upon black communities. Yet, to say that the root cause of the problems blacks face is due to white racism gets you ridiculed and called all kinds of childish names by racists in the white community and by a few blacks or other nonwhites who have been shamed into not defending themselves to the point of adopting right wing opinions about some kind of imaginary victim mentality.

Here is one example of how white racism creates a problem for blacks. It is common knowledge in the Black community that having a "Black" name can often lead to, for example, employment applications being discarded, and other similar forms of discrimination. People of all colors with black sounding names get rejected at the interview stage. The next few lines are from a white poster on an internet discussion forum.

“I can say for sure that happens because I did it. Before retirement I was an Engineer. The last 20 years of my career I was a Manager and Director and I hired hundreds of people. I reviewed well over a thousand resumes for all kinds of positions. Everything from Secretaries to Engineering Managers. Both Salary and Hourly. I always culled out the resumes with Black Ethnic names. Never short listed anybody with a Black Ethnic name. Never hired them.”

“Since the Fortune 50 company I worked for had a stupid "affirmative action" hiring policies I never mentioned it to anybody and I always got away with it. A couple of times I was instructed to improve my departmental "diversity" demographics but I always ignored it and never got into any trouble. My stereotype is that anybody with a stupid ghetto Black ethnic name is probably worthless. I could have been wrong a couple of times but I was also probably right 99% of the time.
​

Now here is empirical evidence of the fact that white racism causes a problem for blacks. This situation had nothing to do with the garbage Correll says about some kind of cultural problem in the black community and points a finger at a huge cultural problem in the white community. Correll is part of that cultural deficiency.

 

[Grumblenuts]

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

Don't know. Calls for personal "opinion" which, as IM2 has just pointed out (again), is of no value. Especially as in this case from a white guy (like me or you). However, with the tiniest bit of effort either of us could research the question and in a few minutes find plenty of "empirical" "evidence" decisively supporting one conclusion or another. But it appears you can't be bothered because you don't really care about obtaining an unbiased, fact based result. You just shoot from the hip, fast and loose. That is why you fail, time and again.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41069676?seq=1

Will Democrats Finally Align With Racial Justice?

From Johnson's "War on Drugs" to Clinton's "Third Way," the criminalization of black bodies in the postwar era has been, until recently, a decidedly bipartisan affair.

democracyjournal.org

What did Republicans do about furthering racial justice during the same period?

 

[IM2]

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

Don't know. Calls for personal "opinion" which, as IM2 has just pointed out (again), is of no value. Especially as in this case from a white guy (like me or you). However, with the tiniest bit of effort either of us could research the question and in a few minutes find plenty of "empirical" "evidence" decisively supporting one conclusion or another. But it appears you can't be bothered because you don't really care about obtaining an unbiased, fact based result. You just shoot from the hip, fast and loose. That is why you fail.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41069676?seq=1

Will Democrats Finally Align With Racial Justice?

From Johnson's "War on Drugs" to Clinton's "Third Way," the criminalization of black bodies in the postwar era has been, until recently, a decidedly bipartisan affair.

democracyjournal.org

What did Republicans do about furthering racial justice during the same period?

Blacks have stuck with democrats because they at least offer a few things that address our community. Clinton did a few things but he was a blue dog democrat and was a problem.

 

[Grumblenuts]

he was a blue dog democrat and was a problem.

Believe me, I know that much. He's the one who turned me permanently Independent. I had a landscaping business at the time and listened to NPR on my Walkman most of the day while working. I recall smashing things on the ground and breaking several handles in disgust upon hearing of his latest betrayals. LOL

 

[IM2]

he was a blue dog democrat and was a problem.

Believe me, I know that much. He's the one who turned me permanently Independent. I had a landscaping business at the time and listened to NPR on my Walkman most of the day while working. I recall smashing things on the ground and breaking several handles in disgust upon hearing of his latest betrayals. LOL

No doubt. I felt that way a lot too. Then he cheated on his wife and made it worse. But I live in Kansas and could not vote for Dole. No way. He was from western Kansas and that side of the state still lives in the 1950's. Or earlier.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Dole's still kicking apparently. 96. Somehow seems rather tame now in retrospect.. But yeah, he would have been worse than Slick. He quipped "In politics honorable compromise is no sin. It is what protects us from absolutism and intolerance" which works just as well for promoting absolutism and intolerance when you think about it. Not real smart, but sounded good at the time, I'm sure. Bill, of course, then had to triangulate that to In politics compromise is no sin. It is what I do best and then some.

 

[Correll]

This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.

View attachment 316403

So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.

What point are you trying to make here?

Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.

And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.

YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.


Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.


So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.

Would you like to look at another example now?

Dumbfuck, "big field of candidates" dwindle down quickly once the primaries begin. You possess a grand total of zero evidence Cain would have prevailed. The best you could find was 60% were saying they would vote for a white candidate snc another 8% said they hadn't decided yet.

Your position is based on the false pretense that every other candidate is a single entity, ie "white candidate".


Cain was the one wining at that point in time. He was winning the gop primary, a fact that refutes your belief that the gop is soooo evully wacist.


What took him down, was not the shocking news to the gop voters, that he was suddenly found out to be blacks, but a ginned up media scandal.


Would you like to look at another example now?

 

[Correll]

Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.

Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.

Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.

On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.

As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96

There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.

Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll

Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support

www.cbsnews.com

"Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "

"Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "

Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.

LOLOLOL

Dumbshit -- 25% of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.

AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.

Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.

Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.


This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.

BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.

"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."

But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.

I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.

It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.

And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.

You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.

The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.

Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.

 

[Correll]

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

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

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

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

Mmmm, that is crazy talk. I did not challenge your premises because I wanted to address your point and move the discussion forward.

Baloney. You misquoted "ability" as "inability" (to succeed), thereby completely changing the meaning of the poll question to fit your racist "cultural" narrative of literally "blaming" anything the black minority does on the historically marginalized black minority itself:

ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".

Face it. You're a very sick puppy.

You are quibbling over details to avoid the meat of my argument.

No. You can't handle the truth is all.

You asked me, based on a poll of how people view "blacks" if republicans respect or treat seriously blacks.

No, moron. The poll was about how the public views "Race in America 2019." Subtitled: "Public has negative views of the country’s racial progress; more than half say Trump has made race relations worse." It was NOT about "how people view blacks." You should avoid engaging in such discussions since you evidently don't (can't?) understand the difference. I asked you:

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

I answered. You are now trying to avoid addressing my answer.

I addressed it and "You're a very sick puppy."

BTW, do you think that white American culture has problems?

Does the Pope wear a funny hat? Has COVID-19 increased the price of tea in China? Get a clue.

Do not take the fact that I answered his question with any acceptance of his assumptions.

What are these "assumptions" of mine? All in your head? If you could manage to provide some compelling evidence in support of them.. that could be refreshing. Also, define "white American culture"?

Do you think that white American culture has any problems?