Why should blacks become republicans?

[hadit]

I'm talking about RW's obvious contempt for black people.

The RW has more contempt for themselves than they do black people.

RW is a poster who apparently does not think black people are capable of figuring out what they think is best for themselves.

Evidently, they do
That is why they know better than to vote Republican

Which is, of course, how you excuse your paternalistic contempt for any who would stray from the appointed orthodoxy.

Why does RW have to be paternalistic? Why can't you racist mother fuckers in the republican party understand that we blacks who are not republicans decided this based on looking at what your party stands for. Just because you get 3-4 percent of dumb blacks and those who still stay faithful to Lincoln doesn't mean the rest of us are being controlled by white liberals. Why can't you see how racist your thinking is in this regard?

Contempt is contempt. He is very contemptuous toward any black person who dares to espouse conservative rhetoric.

 

[rightwinger]

The concern is that you chase away more legitimate voters than you prevent illegal voters

It is a trade off not worth making

The obvious question becomes: Why would it chase away legitimate voters?

People who were born in this country and have been voting for years but have problems in their birth records, name changes, clerical errors in their records

I've heard the argument before about difficulties with birth certificates but the question for me is: If minorities have a disproportionate number of problems with birth certificates, why is this so and why are they not addressing that issue? If they have more clerical errors on their BCs, why is that so? If one gets a name change, it's his/her responsibility to apply for a new birth certificate. Are they not doing this?

You need a birth certificate to get a driver's license, register for school, get a passport, enroll in social security, get a job, etc., etc. If all these people have problems with their birth certificates, how are they getting these things?

Well, not everything in life is hunky dory

Some people are born in broken families, bounce around between relatives or foster homes, some were not born in hospitals, change names as they grow up.......documentation does not always follow

These kinds of problems can be remedied by the people themselves. They can do something to reduce broken families, determine where their children are born, stay on top of documentation, etc. Neither the government, the Republican party or white people are going to do these things for them. For that matter, neither is the Democratic party.

I was just lectured by ATL the other day about white and black poverty. The impression I got from that was that he was saying that black poverty is no worse than white poverty. If that is the case, it begs two questions: 1.) Then why is the handling of birth certificates and other documentation in minority communities seemingly so lackadaisical compared to other communities? 2.) If black poverty is no worse than white poverty then what do they expect the Republican party to do for them?

Why don’t we do this. ......
Help people get adequate documentation for voting. Once 99 percent of the people have documentation acceptable to Republicans, we can require it to vote

That's a very good question. Another question is: Why hasn't it been done before now?

If you want to require ID to vote
Remove the barriers to getting an ID

Can’t get an ID...... too bad for you

 

[rightwinger]

You're exactly right. The Constitution does not grant Rights. The Constitution can guarantees the basic Rights found in the first ten Amendments aka the Bill of Rights. Remember what the United States Supreme Court said in the Cruikshank decision:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

When you have the United States Supreme Court saying that your Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, you should take them at their word.

Now, is there a "right" to vote? Well if you have a God given, inherent, unalienable Right to vote, then ANYONE can vote... citizen, non - citizen. You do realize that isn't correct though. Right?

So, the government grants privileges, calls them "rights" and leaves us to squabble over semantics.

The constitution damn sure granted whites rights. But now suddenly it des not grant rifgs wgen yu want t make excuses

15 cases of vote fraud in 31 years means once every 2 years they may find a case of fraud. The chances of such fraud are small. There is no reason for additional laws to stop it.

The “fraud” republicans are trying to stop is exceedingly rare

Someone trying to vote under someone else’s name.

You need to know a registered voters name. Show up and fake their signature on the ballot and hope it is not noticed. Then you have to hope that person has not already voted and you will be caught

All to cast one vote

True, but that's not the only form that voter fraud takes. It also takes the form of fraudulent use of absentee ballots; ineligible voting; buying votes; duplicate voting; false registrations; altering vote counts, etc.

How does ID stop those frauds?

Why is the Sky Blue ?

You failed to answer the question


As I expect

 

[Humorme]

Voting is more of a privilege than a Right. What we claim to hold so sacred, we don't protect.

I didn't say we hold it sacred, I said it was what we were taught. Besides, voting is a right. The 15th Amendment says precisely that. More specifically, it says neither the federal nor state government shall deny or abridge the right to vote based on race or color.

The 15th Amendment presumes a Right; it does not and cannot (under a dejure interpretation of our Constitution) grant one.

U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says

Then why does the 15th Amendment call it a right?

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the Constitution doesn't grant any rights. The Constitution only declares that these implicit rights shall not be abridged or infringed. They are rights, they're just not granted by the government.

You're exactly right. The Constitution does not grant Rights. The Constitution can guarantees the basic Rights found in the first ten Amendments aka the Bill of Rights. Remember what the United States Supreme Court said in the Cruikshank decision:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

When you have the United States Supreme Court saying that your Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, you should take them at their word.

Now, is there a "right" to vote? Well if you have a God given, inherent, unalienable Right to vote, then ANYONE can vote... citizen, non - citizen. You do realize that isn't correct though. Right?

So, the government grants privileges, calls them "rights" and leaves us to squabble over semantics.

The constitution damn sure granted whites rights. But now suddenly it des not grant rifgs wgen yu want t make excuses

15 cases of vote fraud in 31 years means once every 2 years they may find a case of fraud. The chances of such fraud are small. There is no reason for additional laws to stop it.

And you aim this at me, why?

 

[Humorme]

I don't know you, so therefore, how could I hold you responsible for anything?

You are, in essence, holding the entire Republican party responsible for the stupid shit Trumps says and does.

I think that judging from the captive audience that Trump seems to mesmerize, there are more of those than not who agree with his "shithole country" position on immigration.

When you say "captive audience", how many are we talking about?

Isn't the president the ultimate head monkey of his political party?

No. The president is simply a member of the Republican party, he does not head the party. The Republican party is currently under the leadership of chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.

Okay, Explain this:

"Donald Trump officially won the nomination of the Republican party Tuesday, making the businessman the standard-bearer of the party.."

GOP nominates Trump, now standard-bearer for party

Maybe you should argue with journalists and political science professors.

The standard bearer is not the leader. Think of a marching high school band: Who is the leader, the ones carrying the school standard or the drum major out front?

It's all semantics, but let's face the truth:

The Republicans who are not running for reelection are giving up because they don't want to be running on a ticket dominated by Trump.

 

[Humorme]

The 15th Amendment presumes a Right; it does not and cannot (under a dejure interpretation of our Constitution) grant one.

U.S. Constitution is not explicit on the right to vote, Wisconsin Rep. Mark Pocan says

Then why does the 15th Amendment call it a right?

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the Constitution doesn't grant any rights. The Constitution only declares that these implicit rights shall not be abridged or infringed. They are rights, they're just not granted by the government.

You're confusing the Bill of Rights with the Constitution itself.

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution aren't they?

If you claim that people have an inherent Right to vote (and they don't) NOTHING on God's green earth prevents a state from allowing an undocumented foreigner from voting.

If they don't have the inherent right and no one grants it, where does it come from?

Let's do Civics 101:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, on this subject, stated:

"The Declaration of Independence . . . [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."

One of our FIRST foundational principles is that we have unalienable Rights. Those Rights are inherent, natural, unalienable, .and absolute. For instance, when Texas first ruled on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, they said:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

That is one of several state rulings and it was not changed by the United States Supreme Court while the founders were alive. The Cruikshank decision acknowledging the Right AND then admitting that the Right was not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence was essentially telling you it was one of those Rights you were born with.

So, where do those pre-existing Rights come from? Check what I said earlier. Those Rights were bestowed upon you, at birth, by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) and if you don't like the God reference, think of the synonyms: natural, inherent, absolute.

If voting were a God given, natural, inherent, absolute Right, it would have been protected by the Bill of Rights. Instead, it was created by government after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The problem we have with people understanding basic civics is that, after all the founders were dead and buried, the United States Supreme Court took over, and over-ruled their own standing precedents (which is known as legislating from the bench.) Today, nobody appreciates their unalienable Rights and nobody wants to fight the Supreme Court over their power grab.

Fact is most people defend the power grabs as the Court gave them something: Socialist Security, the ability to impose on others (i.e. forcing bakers to bake cakes for gay couples, open the bathroom to non-paying customers, warrant less searches, profiling), - Hell you name it.

Unable to distinguish between unalienable Rights, inalienable rights, government created "rights" and then privileges, most Americans are oblivious as to what their Rights really are. I make it simple for myself:

If the Right fits the foundational principles mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Bill of Rights, I exercise them without Uncle Scam's input. He may have the power to say otherwise, but damn sure not the authority. If the government is giving me permission via some kind of registration, license, permit, etc. then it is not a "right" as far as I'm concerned.

It makes for a much simpler way to understand what Rights we have pursuant to the foundational principles versus nine grown adults wearing ladies robes and pretending to be God. BTW, Trump did nominate Gorsuch as a start to bring the United States Supreme Court back to their constitutional role.

So in other words, our rights are inherent. That's pretty much what I said.

Only unalienable Rights are inherent.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
If you want to require ID to vote
Remove the barriers to getting an ID

Can’t get an ID...... too bad for you

What "barriers" are those, Comrade?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The constitution damn sure granted whites rights. But now suddenly it des not grant rifgs wgen yu want t make excuses

15 cases of vote fraud in 31 years means once every 2 years they may find a case of fraud. The chances of such fraud are small. There is no reason for additional laws to stop it.

The “fraud” republicans are trying to stop is exceedingly rare

Someone trying to vote under someone else’s name.

You need to know a registered voters name. Show up and fake their signature on the ballot and hope it is not noticed. Then you have to hope that person has not already voted and you will be caught

All to cast one vote

True, but that's not the only form that voter fraud takes. It also takes the form of fraudulent use of absentee ballots; ineligible voting; buying votes; duplicate voting; false registrations; altering vote counts, etc.

How does ID stop those frauds?

Why is the Sky Blue ?

You failed to answer the question


As I expect

Voter ID stops one of the most common forms of voter fraud, and the favorite of democrats.

When people die or move, their names remain on voter registration roles. Any attempt to remove the names of dead voters or those who have moved is met with lawsuits by you Stalinists (democrats view voter fraud as their most sacred right).
Groups sue to block Iowa voter purge, fraud rules
Ohio Voter Challenges Election Roll Purge in Supreme Court Clash

The Communists will fight to the death to keep dead and invalid voters on registration rolls. Why? Well because election fraud is a major part of the demcorats election strategy.

The fraud you Stalinists engage in is proxy voting. Basically the democrats gather up thousands of illegal aliens and bus them to various polling places where the illegals vote using the names of the dead or out of state voters.

You'll see the happy voter walking up and declaring "Mi llama es Chen Wong, si voto esso" And of course it is illegal to ask for ID or question whether he actually is Chen Wong.

So you communists defraud elections across the nation every election.

 

[Humorme]

The “fraud” republicans are trying to stop is exceedingly rare

Someone trying to vote under someone else’s name.

You need to know a registered voters name. Show up and fake their signature on the ballot and hope it is not noticed. Then you have to hope that person has not already voted and you will be caught

All to cast one vote

True, but that's not the only form that voter fraud takes. It also takes the form of fraudulent use of absentee ballots; ineligible voting; buying votes; duplicate voting; false registrations; altering vote counts, etc.

How does ID stop those frauds?

Why is the Sky Blue ?

You failed to answer the question


As I expect

Voter ID stops one of the most common forms of voter fraud, and the favorite of democrats.

When people die or move, their names remain on voter registration roles. Any attempt to remove the names of dead voters or those who have moved is met with lawsuits by you Stalinists (democrats view voter fraud as their most sacred right).
Groups sue to block Iowa voter purge, fraud rules
Ohio Voter Challenges Election Roll Purge in Supreme Court Clash

The Communists will fight to the death to keep dead and invalid voters on registration rolls. Why? Well because election fraud is a major part of the demcorats election strategy.

The fraud you Stalinists engage in is proxy voting. Basically the democrats gather up thousands of illegal aliens and bus them to various polling places where the illegals vote using the names of the dead or out of state voters.

You'll see the happy voter walking up and declaring "Mi llama es Chen Wong, si voto esso" And of course it is illegal to ask for ID or question whether he actually is Chen Wong.

So you communists defraud elections across the nation every election.

As someone who identifies as a Libertarian, are you being facetious or do you have some hidden strategy to explain the NEW WORLD ORDER?

 

[Uncensored2008]

True, but that's not the only form that voter fraud takes. It also takes the form of fraudulent use of absentee ballots; ineligible voting; buying votes; duplicate voting; false registrations; altering vote counts, etc.

How does ID stop those frauds?

Why is the Sky Blue ?

You failed to answer the question


As I expect

Voter ID stops one of the most common forms of voter fraud, and the favorite of democrats.

When people die or move, their names remain on voter registration roles. Any attempt to remove the names of dead voters or those who have moved is met with lawsuits by you Stalinists (democrats view voter fraud as their most sacred right).
Groups sue to block Iowa voter purge, fraud rules
Ohio Voter Challenges Election Roll Purge in Supreme Court Clash

The Communists will fight to the death to keep dead and invalid voters on registration rolls. Why? Well because election fraud is a major part of the demcorats election strategy.

The fraud you Stalinists engage in is proxy voting. Basically the democrats gather up thousands of illegal aliens and bus them to various polling places where the illegals vote using the names of the dead or out of state voters.

You'll see the happy voter walking up and declaring "Mi llama es Chen Wong, si voto esso" And of course it is illegal to ask for ID or question whether he actually is Chen Wong.

So you communists defraud elections across the nation every election.

As someone who identifies as a Libertarian, are you being facetious or do you have some hidden strategy to explain the NEW WORLD ORDER?

Proxy voting is the most common form of voter fraud and is used extensively by the Stalinists in each and every election.

What this has to do with a new world order I don't know.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Then why does the 15th Amendment call it a right?

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the Constitution doesn't grant any rights. The Constitution only declares that these implicit rights shall not be abridged or infringed. They are rights, they're just not granted by the government.

You're exactly right. The Constitution does not grant Rights. The Constitution can guarantees the basic Rights found in the first ten Amendments aka the Bill of Rights. Remember what the United States Supreme Court said in the Cruikshank decision:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

When you have the United States Supreme Court saying that your Right to keep and bear Arms is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, you should take them at their word.

Now, is there a "right" to vote? Well if you have a God given, inherent, unalienable Right to vote, then ANYONE can vote... citizen, non - citizen. You do realize that isn't correct though. Right?

So, the government grants privileges, calls them "rights" and leaves us to squabble over semantics.

The constitution damn sure granted whites rights. But now suddenly it des not grant rifgs wgen yu want t make excuses

15 cases of vote fraud in 31 years means once every 2 years they may find a case of fraud. The chances of such fraud are small. There is no reason for additional laws to stop it.

The “fraud” republicans are trying to stop is exceedingly rare

Someone trying to vote under someone else’s name.

You need to know a registered voters name. Show up and fake their signature on the ballot and hope it is not noticed. Then you have to hope that person has not already voted and you will be caught

All to cast one vote

True, but that's not the only form that voter fraud takes. It also takes the form of fraudulent use of absentee ballots; ineligible voting; buying votes; duplicate voting; false registrations; altering vote counts, etc.

How does ID stop those frauds?

It's proof that you're a citizen or otherwise eligible to vote.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The obvious question becomes: Why would it chase away legitimate voters?

People who were born in this country and have been voting for years but have problems in their birth records, name changes, clerical errors in their records

I've heard the argument before about difficulties with birth certificates but the question for me is: If minorities have a disproportionate number of problems with birth certificates, why is this so and why are they not addressing that issue? If they have more clerical errors on their BCs, why is that so? If one gets a name change, it's his/her responsibility to apply for a new birth certificate. Are they not doing this?

You need a birth certificate to get a driver's license, register for school, get a passport, enroll in social security, get a job, etc., etc. If all these people have problems with their birth certificates, how are they getting these things?

Well, not everything in life is hunky dory

Some people are born in broken families, bounce around between relatives or foster homes, some were not born in hospitals, change names as they grow up.......documentation does not always follow

These kinds of problems can be remedied by the people themselves. They can do something to reduce broken families, determine where their children are born, stay on top of documentation, etc. Neither the government, the Republican party or white people are going to do these things for them. For that matter, neither is the Democratic party.

I was just lectured by ATL the other day about white and black poverty. The impression I got from that was that he was saying that black poverty is no worse than white poverty. If that is the case, it begs two questions: 1.) Then why is the handling of birth certificates and other documentation in minority communities seemingly so lackadaisical compared to other communities? 2.) If black poverty is no worse than white poverty then what do they expect the Republican party to do for them?

Why don’t we do this. ......
Help people get adequate documentation for voting. Once 99 percent of the people have documentation acceptable to Republicans, we can require it to vote

That's a very good question. Another question is: Why hasn't it been done before now?

If you want to require ID to vote
Remove the barriers to getting an ID

Can’t get an ID...... too bad for you

What barriers? If you're referring to birth certificate problems, no one can resolve that problem but the people themselves.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

You are, in essence, holding the entire Republican party responsible for the stupid shit Trumps says and does.

When you say "captive audience", how many are we talking about?

Isn't the president the ultimate head monkey of his political party?

No. The president is simply a member of the Republican party, he does not head the party. The Republican party is currently under the leadership of chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.

Okay, Explain this:

"Donald Trump officially won the nomination of the Republican party Tuesday, making the businessman the standard-bearer of the party.."

GOP nominates Trump, now standard-bearer for party

Maybe you should argue with journalists and political science professors.

The standard bearer is not the leader. Think of a marching high school band: Who is the leader, the ones carrying the school standard or the drum major out front?

It's all semantics, but let's face the truth:

The Republicans who are not running for reelection are giving up because they don't want to be running on a ticket dominated by Trump.

Okay, that's their choice I suppose. The point is, Trump doesn't represent the ideals of all Republicans any more than Obama represented the ideals of all Democrats.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Then why does the 15th Amendment call it a right?

If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, the Constitution doesn't grant any rights. The Constitution only declares that these implicit rights shall not be abridged or infringed. They are rights, they're just not granted by the government.

You're confusing the Bill of Rights with the Constitution itself.

The Bill of Rights are part of the Constitution aren't they?

If you claim that people have an inherent Right to vote (and they don't) NOTHING on God's green earth prevents a state from allowing an undocumented foreigner from voting.

If they don't have the inherent right and no one grants it, where does it come from?

Let's do Civics 101:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Thomas Jefferson, on this subject, stated:

"The Declaration of Independence . . . [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man."

One of our FIRST foundational principles is that we have unalienable Rights. Those Rights are inherent, natural, unalienable, .and absolute. For instance, when Texas first ruled on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, they said:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

That is one of several state rulings and it was not changed by the United States Supreme Court while the founders were alive. The Cruikshank decision acknowledging the Right AND then admitting that the Right was not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence was essentially telling you it was one of those Rights you were born with.

So, where do those pre-existing Rights come from? Check what I said earlier. Those Rights were bestowed upon you, at birth, by your Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be) and if you don't like the God reference, think of the synonyms: natural, inherent, absolute.

If voting were a God given, natural, inherent, absolute Right, it would have been protected by the Bill of Rights. Instead, it was created by government after the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

The problem we have with people understanding basic civics is that, after all the founders were dead and buried, the United States Supreme Court took over, and over-ruled their own standing precedents (which is known as legislating from the bench.) Today, nobody appreciates their unalienable Rights and nobody wants to fight the Supreme Court over their power grab.

Fact is most people defend the power grabs as the Court gave them something: Socialist Security, the ability to impose on others (i.e. forcing bakers to bake cakes for gay couples, open the bathroom to non-paying customers, warrant less searches, profiling), - Hell you name it.

Unable to distinguish between unalienable Rights, inalienable rights, government created "rights" and then privileges, most Americans are oblivious as to what their Rights really are. I make it simple for myself:

If the Right fits the foundational principles mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Bill of Rights, I exercise them without Uncle Scam's input. He may have the power to say otherwise, but damn sure not the authority. If the government is giving me permission via some kind of registration, license, permit, etc. then it is not a "right" as far as I'm concerned.

It makes for a much simpler way to understand what Rights we have pursuant to the foundational principles versus nine grown adults wearing ladies robes and pretending to be God. BTW, Trump did nominate Gorsuch as a start to bring the United States Supreme Court back to their constitutional role.

So in other words, our rights are inherent. That's pretty much what I said.

Only unalienable Rights are inherent.

So which ones are not unalienable?

 

[Humorme]

Isn't the president the ultimate head monkey of his political party?

No. The president is simply a member of the Republican party, he does not head the party. The Republican party is currently under the leadership of chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.

Okay, Explain this:

"Donald Trump officially won the nomination of the Republican party Tuesday, making the businessman the standard-bearer of the party.."

GOP nominates Trump, now standard-bearer for party

Maybe you should argue with journalists and political science professors.

The standard bearer is not the leader. Think of a marching high school band: Who is the leader, the ones carrying the school standard or the drum major out front?

It's all semantics, but let's face the truth:

The Republicans who are not running for reelection are giving up because they don't want to be running on a ticket dominated by Trump.

Okay, that's their choice I suppose. The point is, Trump doesn't represent the ideals of all Republicans any more than Obama represented the ideals of all Democrats.

Everybody looks to the figurehead... Trump did this - Obama did that. Isn't that what they base their presidential vote on?

All the president really does is sign the legislation. Trump has told Congress what he wants; they either give it to him or they don't. It's been that simple.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

No. The president is simply a member of the Republican party, he does not head the party. The Republican party is currently under the leadership of chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.

Okay, Explain this:

"Donald Trump officially won the nomination of the Republican party Tuesday, making the businessman the standard-bearer of the party.."

GOP nominates Trump, now standard-bearer for party

Maybe you should argue with journalists and political science professors.

The standard bearer is not the leader. Think of a marching high school band: Who is the leader, the ones carrying the school standard or the drum major out front?

It's all semantics, but let's face the truth:

The Republicans who are not running for reelection are giving up because they don't want to be running on a ticket dominated by Trump.

Okay, that's their choice I suppose. The point is, Trump doesn't represent the ideals of all Republicans any more than Obama represented the ideals of all Democrats.

Everybody looks to the figurehead... Trump did this - Obama did that. Isn't that what they base their presidential vote on?

All the president really does is sign the legislation. Trump has told Congress what he wants; they either give it to him or they don't. It's been that simple.

Okay. But the fact remains his ideals don't entirely mesh with all Republicans.

I didn't want Trump from the start because I thought he lacked the maturity for the job. In fact, a lot of Republicans were not really happy with the choice they had been given. For a lot of us it was a case of the lesser of two evils.

 

[Correll]

Tucker Carlson always has the deer in the headlights look on his face...

At least he dumped the stupid bow tie

The use of foreign born blacks to give the appearance of proportional diversity is a real problem.


By doing this, they create the illusion of successful diversity.


Thus discouraging real, honest discussion about the failure of the current policies.


And what we need to actually do to improve things.

He did have a stupid bow tie, but still makes that

1. The people on this site are a very NON representative slice of the public. Of all my friends, I am the only one I know to spend much time of sites like this.

2. Most of the conservatives on this site are NOT racist. They are only "racist" in the definition of not wallowing in white guilt.

3. You are speaking to IM2, one of the biggest racists on this site.


4. What do you think of the actual claim, ie that Steel was appointed to increase diversity? Do you believe it? Do you think, if true, that it was right or wrong to do so?


5. And this deserves it's own point. What do you think of people that would attack republicans for not having diverse appointments and then attack them for appointing someone to be more diverse?

Steele was a shallow attempt to counteract Obama

Look! We got blacks too

Didn’t hide the fact that Republicans had only elected six blacks to Congress in the previous hundred years

Maybe. I don't know his background. He might have earned it based on his previous work.


But what if he did not, and the accusation is true.


Is that not the type of shit that you libs are always saying we need to do?


WTF, is this? Attacking us for supposedly following your advice?


Seriously? You don't see anything worth commenting on here?

Nobody is telling you to go find a token

Republicans need to actively recruit and groom minorities and women for higher office. The current machine seems centered on Christian, white males

So, "token" is someone that is there PURELY based on skin color? Is that how you are using the term?


Steele does not seem to be that. I saw him on several TV programs. He seemed competent and pretty much exactly what I would expect from a GOP establishment.


So, Like I asked,



WTF, is this? Attacking us for supposedly following your advice?

If not for the candidacy of Obama , Steele would not have been selected

Token

So, explain, hypothetically, how the GOP, follows the heart felt advice of you libs, and

"outreach" and "increase diversity" without it being, a "token"?


Because from what I can see, this looks like a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation,



where if we DON'T appoint/elect any blacks, we get attacked for lack of diversity


and if we do


we get attacked for "tokenism".

 

[GreenBean]

The “fraud” republicans are trying to stop is exceedingly rare

Someone trying to vote under someone else’s name.

You need to know a registered voters name. Show up and fake their signature on the ballot and hope it is not noticed. Then you have to hope that person has not already voted and you will be caught

All to cast one vote

True, but that's not the only form that voter fraud takes. It also takes the form of fraudulent use of absentee ballots; ineligible voting; buying votes; duplicate voting; false registrations; altering vote counts, etc.

How does ID stop those frauds?

Why is the Sky Blue ?

You failed to answer the question


As I expect

Voter ID stops one of the most common forms of voter fraud, and the favorite of democrats.

When people die or move, their names remain on voter registration roles. Any attempt to remove the names of dead voters or those who have moved is met with lawsuits by you Stalinists (democrats view voter fraud as their most sacred right).
Groups sue to block Iowa voter purge, fraud rules
Ohio Voter Challenges Election Roll Purge in Supreme Court Clash

The Communists will fight to the death to keep dead and invalid voters on registration rolls. Why? Well because election fraud is a major part of the demcorats election strategy.

The fraud you Stalinists engage in is proxy voting. Basically the democrats gather up thousands of illegal aliens and bus them to various polling places where the illegals vote using the names of the dead or out of state voters.

You'll see the happy voter walking up and declaring "Mi llama es Chen Wong, si voto esso" And of course it is illegal to ask for ID or question whether he actually is Chen Wong.

So you communists defraud elections across the nation every election.

In the 2014 elections, In Maryland and Illinois, voting machines were switching votes from Republican to Democrat, raising allegations of fraud for the so-called "malfunction".

Apparently the machines never switched a Democratic vote to a Republican - It just switched Republican Votes to Democratic.

These same machines were used in multiple state, county, and Federal elections nationwide, they were only caught in 3 States and apparently most likely got away with it in many others - that's a damn convenient "malfunction".

Voter Fraud and Theft of Democracy

 

[GreenBean]

But the fact remains his ideals don't entirely mesh with all Republicans.

The "problem" with Republicans is that they don't march in Goose Step - they have their own formulated opinions and do not participate in the "SEIG HEIL" bull shit to any fuhrer - this creates the illusion that they are in disarray at times.

 

[rightwinger]

[
If you want to require ID to vote
Remove the barriers to getting an ID

Can’t get an ID...... too bad for you

What "barriers" are those, Comrade?

Ask Pol Pot