The next Republican President hasn't been born yet

[JakeStarkey]

You do not want to work out what needs to be done.

Those racial and religious communities are not going to adopt your group values, Correll.

That is not going to happen.

 

[Correll]

You do not want to work out what needs to be done.

Those racial and religious communities are not going to adopt your group values, Correll.

That is not going to happen.

How do you envision the One Party State, Jake?

Happy? Prosperous? Peaceful?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You do not want to work out what needs to be done.

Those racial and religious communities are not going to adopt your group values, Correll.

That is not going to happen.

How do you envision the One Party State, Jake? Happy? Prosperous? Peaceful?

Once again, there will be no such thing, but you are right that the Corrells are not going to be in charge.

 

[Correll]

You do not want to work out what needs to be done.

Those racial and religious communities are not going to adopt your group values, Correll.

That is not going to happen.

How do you envision the One Party State, Jake? Happy? Prosperous? Peaceful?

Once again, there will be no such thing, but you are right that the Corrells are not going to be in charge.

I'm explained my analysis, and it's pretty simple, one plus one level simple.

You've done nothing to explain what if any flaws it has.

Hint about the One Party State.

It's not gong to be Happy, Prosperous or Peaceful.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You do not want to work out what needs to be done.

Those racial and religious communities are not going to adopt your group values, Correll.

That is not going to happen.

How do you envision the One Party State, Jake? Happy? Prosperous? Peaceful?

Once again, there will be no such thing, but you are right that the Corrells are not going to be in charge.

I'm explained my analysis, and it's pretty simple, one plus one level simple. You've done nothing to explain what if any flaws it has. Hint about the One Party State. It's not gong to be Happy, Prosperous or Peaceful.

One, your plan has been explained to you what it won't work. You simply don't want to believe. Two, there will be no one party state. You don't want to believe that either.

 

[rightwinger]

2. So, give me the biggest single policy the GOP needs to shit can to, <ahem> adapt, that will make us competitive with minority votes. That will prevent the One Party State

I think Republicans already have it. It is the same thing they have been harping on for decades....Jobs

They claim to be the party that creates jobs and prosperity. If they can show it, minorities will vote for them

Reagan had the longest economic boom in peace time up to that point in time, and it did not help him, nor Bush with the Black vote.

Do you want to try again?

Reagan gave us short term benefits for long term suffering

Reagans supply side policies were instrumental in the loss of wages and jobs in the lower middle class. I did not see any improvements in jobs or prosperity in lower class neighborhoods

I guess trickle down never got that far

Your opinion is noted and expected.

It is completely expected that many liberal blacks would agree.

That fact that there was NO SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT in the voting numbers shows that your claim the if the GOP could change policy on "jobs" that that would be an "adaptation" that would make them competitive with the black vote

is wrong.

Show me where the economic situation in poor and minority neighborhoods improved under Reagans policies

Look. if Republicans want the minority vote they need to promote and identify specific employment they have brought to minority neighborhoods. Expecting poor people to buy the Republican "rising tide" and "trickle down" rhetoric is not going to work

Why?

If we had seen some movement on the votes of the Black Middle Class, which grew nicely under Reagan, I would accept that as evidence that your idea that the Republicans could compete for black votes if they offered "jobs".

But nothing.

HUGE economic boom with vast improvements for the nation as a whole that led to a record re-election landslide and nothing from the Black community.


Why was the black community so out of step?

It's not like they weren't benefiting.

The good that Reagan did for black America | The San Diego Union-Tribune


"n fact, black social scientist Bart Landry estimated that that upwardly mobile cohort grew by a third under Reagan's watch, from 3.6 million in 1980 to 4.8 million in 1988. His definition was based on employment in white-collar jobs as well as on income levels."


"All told, the middle class constituted more than 40 percent of black households by the end of Reagan's presidency, which was larger than the size of black working class, or the black poor."

Good stuff!

Now why can't you go into a black community and convince them how much better their lives are thanks to Reagan?

Point out community centers, infrastructure, new employment opportunities, federal jobs and show how Republicans helped to get them

 

[Correll]

You do not want to work out what needs to be done.

Those racial and religious communities are not going to adopt your group values, Correll.

That is not going to happen.

How do you envision the One Party State, Jake? Happy? Prosperous? Peaceful?

Once again, there will be no such thing, but you are right that the Corrells are not going to be in charge.

I'm explained my analysis, and it's pretty simple, one plus one level simple. You've done nothing to explain what if any flaws it has. Hint about the One Party State. It's not gong to be Happy, Prosperous or Peaceful.

One, your plan has been explained to you what it won't work. You simply don't want to believe. Two, there will be no one party state. You don't want to believe that either.

RW put forth "jobs" as a reason why it wouldn't happen, claiming that if the GOP could offer jobs that it could compete for minority votes.

I cited history that showed that idea was false.

I don't recall you putting forth any such suggestion. You've accused me of racism and fascism and insulted Evangelicals but offered no specifics on how you expect the GOP of the future to suddenly be able to "adapt" and get minority votes that they haven't been able to get for decades.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, current demographic trends will result is a long period of ONe Party Dominance .


This will be a disaster for America and all of it's citizens.

Except for maybe the Democratic Leadership, and the most extreme partisans who are more dedicated to the agenda than the interests of themselves and their fellow citizens.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Correll, you sound as silly at Edward Baiamonte with your chanting.

You are wrong, and time will show it if you live long enough.

 

[Correll]

Reagan had the longest economic boom in peace time up to that point in time, and it did not help him, nor Bush with the Black vote.

Do you want to try again?

Reagan gave us short term benefits for long term suffering

Reagans supply side policies were instrumental in the loss of wages and jobs in the lower middle class. I did not see any improvements in jobs or prosperity in lower class neighborhoods

I guess trickle down never got that far

Your opinion is noted and expected.

It is completely expected that many liberal blacks would agree.

That fact that there was NO SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT in the voting numbers shows that your claim the if the GOP could change policy on "jobs" that that would be an "adaptation" that would make them competitive with the black vote

is wrong.

Show me where the economic situation in poor and minority neighborhoods improved under Reagans policies

Look. if Republicans want the minority vote they need to promote and identify specific employment they have brought to minority neighborhoods. Expecting poor people to buy the Republican "rising tide" and "trickle down" rhetoric is not going to work

Why?

If we had seen some movement on the votes of the Black Middle Class, which grew nicely under Reagan, I would accept that as evidence that your idea that the Republicans could compete for black votes if they offered "jobs".

But nothing.

HUGE economic boom with vast improvements for the nation as a whole that led to a record re-election landslide and nothing from the Black community.


Why was the black community so out of step?

It's not like they weren't benefiting.

The good that Reagan did for black America | The San Diego Union-Tribune


"n fact, black social scientist Bart Landry estimated that that upwardly mobile cohort grew by a third under Reagan's watch, from 3.6 million in 1980 to 4.8 million in 1988. His definition was based on employment in white-collar jobs as well as on income levels."


"All told, the middle class constituted more than 40 percent of black households by the end of Reagan's presidency, which was larger than the size of black working class, or the black poor."

Good stuff!

Now why can't you go into a black community and convince them how much better their lives are thanks to Reagan?

Someone can be doing well themselves. But still his information about everyone who he does not have personal contact with comes thought the media and pop culture. So they believe that, not the truth.

The Economy did well under Reagan. Better than we can hope to do anytime soon.

Blacks did well under Reagan. Better than under Obama.

And there was no movement on black voting.

Reagan 1984.

And still, nothing from the blacks.


I appreciate your attempt at a serious and substantial response to my question.

BUT history shows that your belief is just not true.


What do you think the One Party State will be like?

Happy? Prosperous? Peaceful?

 

[Correll]

Correll, you sound as silly at Edward Baiamonte with your chanting.

You are wrong, and time will show it if you live long enough.

I hope you are proven correct.

It is disturbing that you cannot explain why what I foresee will not happen.

You read of RW attempting to answer me?

You saw how easy it was for me to crush the idea he offered?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have explained: you just won't accept it. And everything we have tried up to now is not working, so you want to keep trying that? RightWinger is tons smarter than you, Correll, and much more aware of what is happening. Also, he is not an ideologue. You are. That's your problem.

I do thank you for the calm discussion.

 

[rightwinger]

Reagan gave us short term benefits for long term suffering

Reagans supply side policies were instrumental in the loss of wages and jobs in the lower middle class. I did not see any improvements in jobs or prosperity in lower class neighborhoods

I guess trickle down never got that far

Your opinion is noted and expected.

It is completely expected that many liberal blacks would agree.

That fact that there was NO SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT in the voting numbers shows that your claim the if the GOP could change policy on "jobs" that that would be an "adaptation" that would make them competitive with the black vote

is wrong.

Show me where the economic situation in poor and minority neighborhoods improved under Reagans policies

Look. if Republicans want the minority vote they need to promote and identify specific employment they have brought to minority neighborhoods. Expecting poor people to buy the Republican "rising tide" and "trickle down" rhetoric is not going to work

Why?

If we had seen some movement on the votes of the Black Middle Class, which grew nicely under Reagan, I would accept that as evidence that your idea that the Republicans could compete for black votes if they offered "jobs".

But nothing.

HUGE economic boom with vast improvements for the nation as a whole that led to a record re-election landslide and nothing from the Black community.


Why was the black community so out of step?

It's not like they weren't benefiting.

The good that Reagan did for black America | The San Diego Union-Tribune


"n fact, black social scientist Bart Landry estimated that that upwardly mobile cohort grew by a third under Reagan's watch, from 3.6 million in 1980 to 4.8 million in 1988. His definition was based on employment in white-collar jobs as well as on income levels."


"All told, the middle class constituted more than 40 percent of black households by the end of Reagan's presidency, which was larger than the size of black working class, or the black poor."

Good stuff!

Now why can't you go into a black community and convince them how much better their lives are thanks to Reagan?

Someone can be doing well themselves. But still his information about everyone who he does not have personal contact with comes thought the media and pop culture. So they believe that, not the truth.

The Economy did well under Reagan. Better than we can hope to do anytime soon.

Blacks did well under Reagan. Better than under Obama.

And there was no movement on black voting.

Reagan 1984.

And still, nothing from the blacks.


I appreciate your attempt at a serious and substantial response to my question.

BUT history shows that your belief is just not true.


What do you think the One Party State will be like?

Happy? Prosperous? Peaceful?

Why are you telling me?

If you want to convince blacks and minorities to vote Republican, you will have to point out how much better their lives are because of Republicans and what you will do in the future to make their lives better

 

[Correll]

I have explained: you just won't accept it. And everything we have tried up to now is not working, so you want to keep trying that? RightWinger is tons smarter than you, Correll, and much more aware of what is happening. Also, he is not an ideologue. You are. That's your problem.

I do thank you for the calm discussion.

You're welcome.

I might be an ideologue, but I am not a blind ideologue. If something is not working I can admit that.

And our immigration policy is not working.

Unless your goal is to empower the Democratic Party at the expense of everyone else.

 

[NightFox]

And our immigration policy is not working.

Unless your goal is to empower the Democratic Party at the expense of everyone else.

"Ding-ding-ding. Gutter, tell her what's she's won." -- Droz, PCU

 

[JakeStarkey]

Trump is saying he will pick Kasich as VP.

That's interesting, and if so, that would put OH in play, and that would worry the Dems.

 

[WelfareQueen]

What a douchbag thread. They do realize the Hildabeast is their nominee? Morons.....

That and too stupid to realize whites are still 2/3 rds of the electorate and Dems struggle to get 33% of their vote. Again....idiots.

 

[JakeStarkey]

 

[JakeStarkey]

What a douchbag thread. They do realize the Hildabeast is their nominee? Morons.....

That and too stupid to realize whites are still 2/3 rds of the electorate and Dems struggle to get 33% of their vote. Again....idiots.

And we do realize the Dems got five of the six popular votes and four of the six elections.

The demographic do not favor the Pubs. Grow up.

 

[Correll]

Your opinion is noted and expected.

It is completely expected that many liberal blacks would agree.

That fact that there was NO SIGNIFICANT MOVEMENT in the voting numbers shows that your claim the if the GOP could change policy on "jobs" that that would be an "adaptation" that would make them competitive with the black vote

is wrong.

Show me where the economic situation in poor and minority neighborhoods improved under Reagans policies

Look. if Republicans want the minority vote they need to promote and identify specific employment they have brought to minority neighborhoods. Expecting poor people to buy the Republican "rising tide" and "trickle down" rhetoric is not going to work

Why?

If we had seen some movement on the votes of the Black Middle Class, which grew nicely under Reagan, I would accept that as evidence that your idea that the Republicans could compete for black votes if they offered "jobs".

But nothing.

HUGE economic boom with vast improvements for the nation as a whole that led to a record re-election landslide and nothing from the Black community.


Why was the black community so out of step?

It's not like they weren't benefiting.

The good that Reagan did for black America | The San Diego Union-Tribune


"n fact, black social scientist Bart Landry estimated that that upwardly mobile cohort grew by a third under Reagan's watch, from 3.6 million in 1980 to 4.8 million in 1988. His definition was based on employment in white-collar jobs as well as on income levels."


"All told, the middle class constituted more than 40 percent of black households by the end of Reagan's presidency, which was larger than the size of black working class, or the black poor."

Good stuff!

Now why can't you go into a black community and convince them how much better their lives are thanks to Reagan?

Someone can be doing well themselves. But still his information about everyone who he does not have personal contact with comes thought the media and pop culture. So they believe that, not the truth.

The Economy did well under Reagan. Better than we can hope to do anytime soon.

Blacks did well under Reagan. Better than under Obama.

And there was no movement on black voting.

Reagan 1984.

And still, nothing from the blacks.


I appreciate your attempt at a serious and substantial response to my question.

BUT history shows that your belief is just not true.


What do you think the One Party State will be like?

Happy? Prosperous? Peaceful?

Why are you telling me?

If you want to convince blacks and minorities to vote Republican, you will have to point out how much better their lives are because of Republicans and what you will do in the future to make their lives better

Just pointing out that your recommendation ie jobs, didn't cut it the last time we (the gop) did that.

It's been a while but I recall both Reagan AND Bush running on their record, and the economy in those elections.

It was wildly successful message.

And the blacks ignored it.

If they blow off the President of the United States when he is there with a message of "jobs", then there is nothing I can do. Indeed, there is really nothing that can be done.

So, like I said.

1. Dems will keep their lock on the black and brown votes.

2. Democratic change leads to One Party State.


WIth all that entails.

I am agreeing with you and your op. (though we might have one or two more wins in us because Hillary)

So, what do you think the One Party State will be like?

Happy? Prosperous? Peaceful?

 

[Davros]

You do not want to work out what needs to be done.

Those racial and religious communities are not going to adopt your group values, Correll.

That is not going to happen.

How do you envision the One Party State, Jake? Happy? Prosperous? Peaceful?

Once again, there will be no such thing, but you are right that the Corrells are not going to be in charge.

I'm explained my analysis, and it's pretty simple, one plus one level simple. You've done nothing to explain what if any flaws it has. Hint about the One Party State. It's not gong to be Happy, Prosperous or Peaceful.

One, your plan has been explained to you what it won't work. You simply don't want to believe. Two, there will be no one party state. You don't want to believe that either.

RW put forth "jobs" as a reason why it wouldn't happen, claiming that if the GOP could offer jobs that it could compete for minority votes.

I cited history that showed that idea was false.

I don't recall you putting forth any such suggestion. You've accused me of racism and fascism and insulted Evangelicals but offered no specifics on how you expect the GOP of the future to suddenly be able to "adapt" and get minority votes that they haven't been able to get for decades.

Barring unforeseen circumstances, current demographic trends will result is a long period of ONe Party Dominance .


This will be a disaster for America and all of it's citizens.

Except for maybe the Democratic Leadership, and the most extreme partisans who are more dedicated to the agenda than the interests of themselves and their fellow citizens.

"Barring unforseen circumstances" such as the right wing suspending the constitution to allow themselves to change our system such that these demographic trends are overturned.

And you still want me to believe that your ilk will do nothing to stop the oncoming "ruin" and "disaster"? Such strong rhetoric! And coming with no promise to do whatever it takes to stop it.

I don't believe you one iota.