Democrats hate Carson because he is black

[NYcarbineer]

Of course it's true. Democrats can elect a black as president. Republicans can't. Democrats have elected 42 blacks to Congress, Republicans have elected 3. And 3 is in one session is a record for them going back to the days of Reconstruction when most Republicans were in the north.

If someone had said, in 2000 that the democrats could not elect a black as President, would that have been true at that time?

Don't know. Probably not since Democrats had elected 36 blacks to that Congress compared to the Republicans one.

So, even though they had NOT yet elected a black to the office of President it wasn't because they couldn't.

I agree. ONly a fool would have said that about the Dems in 2000.

The Democratic Party was obviously ready and had been for some time.

Jesse Jackson for example, didn't lose because of his race. He lost because he was too radical.

Again, there is a difference. Democrats have demonstrated for many years now they don't have a problem electing blacks; whereas it's been a huge struggle for Republicans. When Democrats are electing 35-45 blacks to Congress, it's not a stretch to see where they could elect a black as president. When Republicans elect 0-3 blacks to Congress, it's a long shot bordering on not possible.

THere is a big difference between electing someone to a large congress and giving someone executive power.

There were people who were afraid that the White Dem voters would balk at that.

IMO, they were fools. It was obvious for many reasons that the Democratic Party and America people had been ready for some time.

Hell, the 96 exit polls showing Colin Powell beating Bill Clinton 50-38 showed that America as a whole was ready for a Black Candidate to be president. Especially when you consider that the core of his support was from the conservative wing of the party that, as you pointed out, has NOT been electing a lot of blacks.


I remember viciously ridiculing those libs who were preparing excuses for a possible Obama loss, so they could gin it up to further "evidence" of American Racism.


Are you old enough to remember that?

You're rewriting history. In 1996 Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Colin Powell for the GOP nomination,

but his listeners rebelled, mostly around the fact that Powell was pro-choice. There was never any groundswell of 'conservative wing' support for Colin Powell.

 

[Papageorgio]

Sorry numb nuts, you lose. Nice try though.

Thanks, I always get a good laugh when some Conservative declares himself the winner.

I get no laughs when racists such as yourself have no clue.

Yeah, that really hurts coming from a rightie, who've elected a grand total of 9 blacks Republicans to Congress over the last 140 years. Democrats elected 43 this past election alone.

I didn't vote for any of them, they weren't running in my district. Tough to vote for those not in your district. I know you probably commit voter fraud and vote early and often. Most Democrats commit voter fraud and as this thread has proven, Democrats are very racist.

You're delirious now. Who said anything about voting in districts one does not live in??

You said a right who've elected. You have no clue to who I have or have not voted for. Again, the left making up shit. The fact is the voting public votes for elected officials, not the party's. Pretty simple to understand, for most people.

 

[francoHFW]

A racist believes a minority is inferior and discriminates against them. You people are totally FOS.

Seriously someone who has been on this site that long hasn't noticed that that is no longer the way that word is used?

THat is not really credible.

Words change over time. We are just trying to catch up.

Part of that is holding dems accountable for their racist behavior.

Oh, and you too of course.

Totally brainwashed out of your tiny little mind.

NOpe. My point stands.

I am using the word as it has been used for quite some time.

Insulting me is not a challenge to my logic, it is a logical fallacy.

Is that all you have?

Your new Rush WHATEVER definition is ridiculous double talk.

Haven't listed to Rush in years. My definition is based on the way I see the word used.

If it is ridiculous double talk, then ask yourself why you libs did that.

As if it's not one big propaganda service lol...brought to you by 5 or 6 greedy idiot lying billionaires and the dupes.

 

[the_human_being]

Here's a new read: Ben Carson, Black Conservative

 

[billyerock1991]

Democrats and thier sycophants in the media attack and lie about Ben Carson because he is a black man who doesn't follow thier orders. This is the real reason he is being attacked. They hate him because he is a runaway slave. He was a man who grew up poor in bad neighborhoods and became a accomplished brain surgeon with h D work and intelligence. He proves that you don't need the slave masters of the democrat party to become successful.

Ben Carson is proving the truth us conservatives already knew that the oldest American hate group the democrat party has never really changed.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Actually we don't hate him at all we don't support his point of views on taxes, health care, or any of his Ideals

 

[Votto]

Democrats and thier sycophants in the media attack and lie about Ben Carson because he is a black man who doesn't follow thier orders. This is the real reason he is being attacked. They hate him because he is a runaway slave. He was a man who grew up poor in bad neighborhoods and became a accomplished brain surgeon with h D work and intelligence. He proves that you don't need the slave masters of the democrat party to become successful.

Ben Carson is proving the truth us conservatives already knew that the oldest American hate group the democrat party has never really changed.

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Since Obama is half white devil, Carson would be the first official black President.

 

[Correll]

If someone had said, in 2000 that the democrats could not elect a black as President, would that have been true at that time?

Don't know. Probably not since Democrats had elected 36 blacks to that Congress compared to the Republicans one.

So, even though they had NOT yet elected a black to the office of President it wasn't because they couldn't.

I agree. ONly a fool would have said that about the Dems in 2000.

The Democratic Party was obviously ready and had been for some time.

Jesse Jackson for example, didn't lose because of his race. He lost because he was too radical.

Again, there is a difference. Democrats have demonstrated for many years now they don't have a problem electing blacks; whereas it's been a huge struggle for Republicans. When Democrats are electing 35-45 blacks to Congress, it's not a stretch to see where they could elect a black as president. When Republicans elect 0-3 blacks to Congress, it's a long shot bordering on not possible.

THere is a big difference between electing someone to a large congress and giving someone executive power.

There were people who were afraid that the White Dem voters would balk at that.

IMO, they were fools. It was obvious for many reasons that the Democratic Party and America people had been ready for some time.

Hell, the 96 exit polls showing Colin Powell beating Bill Clinton 50-38 showed that America as a whole was ready for a Black Candidate to be president. Especially when you consider that the core of his support was from the conservative wing of the party that, as you pointed out, has NOT been electing a lot of blacks.


I remember viciously ridiculing those libs who were preparing excuses for a possible Obama loss, so they could gin it up to further "evidence" of American Racism.


Are you old enough to remember that?

You're rewriting history. In 1996 Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Colin Powell for the GOP nomination,

but his listeners rebelled, mostly around the fact that Powell was pro-choice. There was never any groundswell of 'conservative wing' support for Colin Powell.

No, you're rewriting history because you need the Myth of the GOP as the Party of Racist because you cannot advance your lefty agenda honestly.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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[35] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[36] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[37] 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[38] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[39] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[40] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day."


Two of my best friends were big Powell supporters and they were the type of conservatives that you lefties love to hate, ex-military, religious, gun nuts and one even a COP!

 

[Correll]

Seriously someone who has been on this site that long hasn't noticed that that is no longer the way that word is used?

THat is not really credible.

Words change over time. We are just trying to catch up.

Part of that is holding dems accountable for their racist behavior.

Oh, and you too of course.

Totally brainwashed out of your tiny little mind.

NOpe. My point stands.

I am using the word as it has been used for quite some time.

Insulting me is not a challenge to my logic, it is a logical fallacy.

Is that all you have?

Your new Rush WHATEVER definition is ridiculous double talk.

Haven't listed to Rush in years. My definition is based on the way I see the word used.

If it is ridiculous double talk, then ask yourself why you libs did that.

As if it's not one big propaganda service lol...brought to you by 5 or 6 greedy idiot lying billionaires and the dupes.

Your remark doesn't make a lot of sense.

My point stands. You libs have redefined the word over the last several years.

Deal with it, racist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Don't know. Probably not since Democrats had elected 36 blacks to that Congress compared to the Republicans one.

So, even though they had NOT yet elected a black to the office of President it wasn't because they couldn't.

I agree. ONly a fool would have said that about the Dems in 2000.

The Democratic Party was obviously ready and had been for some time.

Jesse Jackson for example, didn't lose because of his race. He lost because he was too radical.

Again, there is a difference. Democrats have demonstrated for many years now they don't have a problem electing blacks; whereas it's been a huge struggle for Republicans. When Democrats are electing 35-45 blacks to Congress, it's not a stretch to see where they could elect a black as president. When Republicans elect 0-3 blacks to Congress, it's a long shot bordering on not possible.

THere is a big difference between electing someone to a large congress and giving someone executive power.

There were people who were afraid that the White Dem voters would balk at that.

IMO, they were fools. It was obvious for many reasons that the Democratic Party and America people had been ready for some time.

Hell, the 96 exit polls showing Colin Powell beating Bill Clinton 50-38 showed that America as a whole was ready for a Black Candidate to be president. Especially when you consider that the core of his support was from the conservative wing of the party that, as you pointed out, has NOT been electing a lot of blacks.


I remember viciously ridiculing those libs who were preparing excuses for a possible Obama loss, so they could gin it up to further "evidence" of American Racism.


Are you old enough to remember that?

You're rewriting history. In 1996 Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Colin Powell for the GOP nomination,

but his listeners rebelled, mostly around the fact that Powell was pro-choice. There was never any groundswell of 'conservative wing' support for Colin Powell.

No, you're rewriting history because you need the Myth of the GOP as the Party of Racist because you cannot advance your lefty agenda honestly.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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[35] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[36] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[37] 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[38] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[39] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[40] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day."


Two of my best friends were big Powell supporters and they were the type of conservatives that you lefties love to hate, ex-military, religious, gun nuts and one even a COP!

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

 

[Correll]

So, even though they had NOT yet elected a black to the office of President it wasn't because they couldn't.

I agree. ONly a fool would have said that about the Dems in 2000.

The Democratic Party was obviously ready and had been for some time.

Jesse Jackson for example, didn't lose because of his race. He lost because he was too radical.

Again, there is a difference. Democrats have demonstrated for many years now they don't have a problem electing blacks; whereas it's been a huge struggle for Republicans. When Democrats are electing 35-45 blacks to Congress, it's not a stretch to see where they could elect a black as president. When Republicans elect 0-3 blacks to Congress, it's a long shot bordering on not possible.

THere is a big difference between electing someone to a large congress and giving someone executive power.

There were people who were afraid that the White Dem voters would balk at that.

IMO, they were fools. It was obvious for many reasons that the Democratic Party and America people had been ready for some time.

Hell, the 96 exit polls showing Colin Powell beating Bill Clinton 50-38 showed that America as a whole was ready for a Black Candidate to be president. Especially when you consider that the core of his support was from the conservative wing of the party that, as you pointed out, has NOT been electing a lot of blacks.


I remember viciously ridiculing those libs who were preparing excuses for a possible Obama loss, so they could gin it up to further "evidence" of American Racism.


Are you old enough to remember that?

You're rewriting history. In 1996 Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Colin Powell for the GOP nomination,

but his listeners rebelled, mostly around the fact that Powell was pro-choice. There was never any groundswell of 'conservative wing' support for Colin Powell.

No, you're rewriting history because you need the Myth of the GOP as the Party of Racist because you cannot advance your lefty agenda honestly.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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[35] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[36] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[37] 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[38] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[39] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[40] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day."


Two of my best friends were big Powell supporters and they were the type of conservatives that you lefties love to hate, ex-military, religious, gun nuts and one even a COP!

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

 

[NYcarbineer]

Again, there is a difference. Democrats have demonstrated for many years now they don't have a problem electing blacks; whereas it's been a huge struggle for Republicans. When Democrats are electing 35-45 blacks to Congress, it's not a stretch to see where they could elect a black as president. When Republicans elect 0-3 blacks to Congress, it's a long shot bordering on not possible.

THere is a big difference between electing someone to a large congress and giving someone executive power.

There were people who were afraid that the White Dem voters would balk at that.

IMO, they were fools. It was obvious for many reasons that the Democratic Party and America people had been ready for some time.

Hell, the 96 exit polls showing Colin Powell beating Bill Clinton 50-38 showed that America as a whole was ready for a Black Candidate to be president. Especially when you consider that the core of his support was from the conservative wing of the party that, as you pointed out, has NOT been electing a lot of blacks.


I remember viciously ridiculing those libs who were preparing excuses for a possible Obama loss, so they could gin it up to further "evidence" of American Racism.


Are you old enough to remember that?

You're rewriting history. In 1996 Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Colin Powell for the GOP nomination,

but his listeners rebelled, mostly around the fact that Powell was pro-choice. There was never any groundswell of 'conservative wing' support for Colin Powell.

No, you're rewriting history because you need the Myth of the GOP as the Party of Racist because you cannot advance your lefty agenda honestly.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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[35] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[36] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[37] 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[38] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[39] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[40] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day."


Two of my best friends were big Powell supporters and they were the type of conservatives that you lefties love to hate, ex-military, religious, gun nuts and one even a COP!

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

All I said was that Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Powell and that he got assailed by his conservative listeners because Powell is pro-choice.

You call that a rewrite of history.

 

[Correll]

THere is a big difference between electing someone to a large congress and giving someone executive power.

There were people who were afraid that the White Dem voters would balk at that.

IMO, they were fools. It was obvious for many reasons that the Democratic Party and America people had been ready for some time.

Hell, the 96 exit polls showing Colin Powell beating Bill Clinton 50-38 showed that America as a whole was ready for a Black Candidate to be president. Especially when you consider that the core of his support was from the conservative wing of the party that, as you pointed out, has NOT been electing a lot of blacks.


I remember viciously ridiculing those libs who were preparing excuses for a possible Obama loss, so they could gin it up to further "evidence" of American Racism.


Are you old enough to remember that?

You're rewriting history. In 1996 Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Colin Powell for the GOP nomination,

but his listeners rebelled, mostly around the fact that Powell was pro-choice. There was never any groundswell of 'conservative wing' support for Colin Powell.

No, you're rewriting history because you need the Myth of the GOP as the Party of Racist because you cannot advance your lefty agenda honestly.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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[35] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[36] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[37] 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[38] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[39] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[40] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day."


Two of my best friends were big Powell supporters and they were the type of conservatives that you lefties love to hate, ex-military, religious, gun nuts and one even a COP!

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

All I said was that Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Powell and that he got assailed by his conservative listeners because Powell is pro-choice.

You call that a rewrite of history.

YOu said I lied. IN the context of replying to my previous post, I took that to mean you said I was lying about my religious friends being Pro-Powell.

If I misunderstood your intent, perhaps you should be clearer.

Some of Rush's listeners disagreeing with him on POwell in no way challenged my point at all.

What was your point then?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're rewriting history. In 1996 Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Colin Powell for the GOP nomination,

but his listeners rebelled, mostly around the fact that Powell was pro-choice. There was never any groundswell of 'conservative wing' support for Colin Powell.

No, you're rewriting history because you need the Myth of the GOP as the Party of Racist because you cannot advance your lefty agenda honestly.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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[35] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[36] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[37] 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[38] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[39] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[40] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day."


Two of my best friends were big Powell supporters and they were the type of conservatives that you lefties love to hate, ex-military, religious, gun nuts and one even a COP!

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

All I said was that Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Powell and that he got assailed by his conservative listeners because Powell is pro-choice.

You call that a rewrite of history.

YOu said I lied. IN the context of replying to my previous post, I took that to mean you said I was lying about my religious friends being Pro-Powell.

If I misunderstood your intent, perhaps you should be clearer.

Some of Rush's listeners disagreeing with him on POwell in no way challenged my point at all.

What was your point then?

My point was that Colin Powell is pro-choice and that's why the Christian Right was not about to support him for president,

and you responded with a looney post claiming that was my way of accusing the GOP of being racist.

 

[Correll]

No, you're rewriting history because you need the Myth of the GOP as the Party of Racist because you cannot advance your lefty agenda honestly.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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[35] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[36] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[37] 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[38] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[39] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[40] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day."


Two of my best friends were big Powell supporters and they were the type of conservatives that you lefties love to hate, ex-military, religious, gun nuts and one even a COP!

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

All I said was that Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Powell and that he got assailed by his conservative listeners because Powell is pro-choice.

You call that a rewrite of history.

YOu said I lied. IN the context of replying to my previous post, I took that to mean you said I was lying about my religious friends being Pro-Powell.

If I misunderstood your intent, perhaps you should be clearer.

Some of Rush's listeners disagreeing with him on POwell in no way challenged my point at all.

What was your point then?

My point was that Colin Powell is pro-choice and that's why the Christian Right was not about to support him for president,

and you responded with a looney post claiming that was my way of accusing the GOP of being racist.

THe polls at the time including the Gold Standard of Polls, the Exit polls said otherwise, as did my personal observations.

 

[Faun]

Of course it's true. Democrats can elect a black as president. Republicans can't. Democrats have elected 42 blacks to Congress, Republicans have elected 3. And 3 is in one session is a record for them going back to the days of Reconstruction when most Republicans were in the north.

If someone had said, in 2000 that the democrats could not elect a black as President, would that have been true at that time?

Don't know. Probably not since Democrats had elected 36 blacks to that Congress compared to the Republicans one.

So, even though they had NOT yet elected a black to the office of President it wasn't because they couldn't.

I agree. ONly a fool would have said that about the Dems in 2000.

The Democratic Party was obviously ready and had been for some time.

Jesse Jackson for example, didn't lose because of his race. He lost because he was too radical.

Again, there is a difference. Democrats have demonstrated for many years now they don't have a problem electing blacks; whereas it's been a huge struggle for Republicans. When Democrats are electing 35-45 blacks to Congress, it's not a stretch to see where they could elect a black as president. When Republicans elect 0-3 blacks to Congress, it's a long shot bordering on not possible.

THere is a big difference between electing someone to a large congress and giving someone executive power.

There were people who were afraid that the White Dem voters would balk at that.

IMO, they were fools. It was obvious for many reasons that the Democratic Party and America people had been ready for some time.

Hell, the 96 exit polls showing Colin Powell beating Bill Clinton 50-38 showed that America as a whole was ready for a Black Candidate to be president. Especially when you consider that the core of his support was from the conservative wing of the party that, as you pointed out, has NOT been electing a lot of blacks.


I remember viciously ridiculing those libs who were preparing excuses for a possible Obama loss, so they could gin it up to further "evidence" of American Racism.


Are you old enough to remember that?

My recollection is that Powell never ran for president, so who knows what exit polls you speak of?

Jackson did run; and had he not been caught using the derogatory term, "hymetown," he might have won the Democrat nomination. Regardless of this speculation, a black candidate had made a serious run for the Democrat party. That, plus Democrats electing 35 members to Congress, I don't see how it would have been true to say Democrats would not elect a black for president.

 

[Faun]

Thanks, I always get a good laugh when some Conservative declares himself the winner.

I get no laughs when racists such as yourself have no clue.

Yeah, that really hurts coming from a rightie, who've elected a grand total of 9 blacks Republicans to Congress over the last 140 years. Democrats elected 43 this past election alone.

I didn't vote for any of them, they weren't running in my district. Tough to vote for those not in your district. I know you probably commit voter fraud and vote early and often. Most Democrats commit voter fraud and as this thread has proven, Democrats are very racist.

You're delirious now. Who said anything about voting in districts one does not live in??

You said a right who've elected. You have no clue to who I have or have not voted for. Again, the left making up shit. The fact is the voting public votes for elected officials, not the party's. Pretty simple to understand, for most people.

Your one vote is meaningless when compared to the tens of millions of other righties who vote.

 

[Papageorgio]

I get no laughs when racists such as yourself have no clue.

Yeah, that really hurts coming from a rightie, who've elected a grand total of 9 blacks Republicans to Congress over the last 140 years. Democrats elected 43 this past election alone.

I didn't vote for any of them, they weren't running in my district. Tough to vote for those not in your district. I know you probably commit voter fraud and vote early and often. Most Democrats commit voter fraud and as this thread has proven, Democrats are very racist.

You're delirious now. Who said anything about voting in districts one does not live in??

You said a right who've elected. You have no clue to who I have or have not voted for. Again, the left making up shit. The fact is the voting public votes for elected officials, not the party's. Pretty simple to understand, for most people.

Your one vote is meaningless when compared to the tens of millions of other righties who vote.

So that makes us individuals who make up the voting populous, not democrats, not republicans, not lefties or righties, American people elect Presidents, not parties.

 

[Faun]

Again, there is a difference. Democrats have demonstrated for many years now they don't have a problem electing blacks; whereas it's been a huge struggle for Republicans. When Democrats are electing 35-45 blacks to Congress, it's not a stretch to see where they could elect a black as president. When Republicans elect 0-3 blacks to Congress, it's a long shot bordering on not possible.

THere is a big difference between electing someone to a large congress and giving someone executive power.

There were people who were afraid that the White Dem voters would balk at that.

IMO, they were fools. It was obvious for many reasons that the Democratic Party and America people had been ready for some time.

Hell, the 96 exit polls showing Colin Powell beating Bill Clinton 50-38 showed that America as a whole was ready for a Black Candidate to be president. Especially when you consider that the core of his support was from the conservative wing of the party that, as you pointed out, has NOT been electing a lot of blacks.


I remember viciously ridiculing those libs who were preparing excuses for a possible Obama loss, so they could gin it up to further "evidence" of American Racism.


Are you old enough to remember that?

You're rewriting history. In 1996 Rush Limbaugh briefly supported Colin Powell for the GOP nomination,

but his listeners rebelled, mostly around the fact that Powell was pro-choice. There was never any groundswell of 'conservative wing' support for Colin Powell.

No, you're rewriting history because you need the Myth of the GOP as the Party of Racist because you cannot advance your lefty agenda honestly.

Colin Powell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"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[35] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[36] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[37] 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[38] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[39] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[40] Powell defeated Clinton 50-38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day."


Two of my best friends were big Powell supporters and they were the type of conservatives that you lefties love to hate, ex-military, religious, gun nuts and one even a COP!

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

When was Powell running against Clinton? I don't recall Powell ever running against anyone.

 

[Faun]

Yeah, that really hurts coming from a rightie, who've elected a grand total of 9 blacks Republicans to Congress over the last 140 years. Democrats elected 43 this past election alone.

I didn't vote for any of them, they weren't running in my district. Tough to vote for those not in your district. I know you probably commit voter fraud and vote early and often. Most Democrats commit voter fraud and as this thread has proven, Democrats are very racist.

You're delirious now. Who said anything about voting in districts one does not live in??

You said a right who've elected. You have no clue to who I have or have not voted for. Again, the left making up shit. The fact is the voting public votes for elected officials, not the party's. Pretty simple to understand, for most people.

Your one vote is meaningless when compared to the tens of millions of other righties who vote.

So that makes us individuals who make up the voting populous, not democrats, not republicans, not lefties or righties, American people elect Presidents, not parties.

The right votes mostly for Republicans, the left votes mostly for Democrats. Very few Republican candidates win without the right voting for them, very few Democrat candidates win without the left voting for them.

Now ya know. Will you learn? No, you're ineducable. But now you know.

 

[Correll]

If someone had said, in 2000 that the democrats could not elect a black as President, would that have been true at that time?

Don't know. Probably not since Democrats had elected 36 blacks to that Congress compared to the Republicans one.

So, even though they had NOT yet elected a black to the office of President it wasn't because they couldn't.

I agree. ONly a fool would have said that about the Dems in 2000.

The Democratic Party was obviously ready and had been for some time.

Jesse Jackson for example, didn't lose because of his race. He lost because he was too radical.

Again, there is a difference. Democrats have demonstrated for many years now they don't have a problem electing blacks; whereas it's been a huge struggle for Republicans. When Democrats are electing 35-45 blacks to Congress, it's not a stretch to see where they could elect a black as president. When Republicans elect 0-3 blacks to Congress, it's a long shot bordering on not possible.

THere is a big difference between electing someone to a large congress and giving someone executive power.

There were people who were afraid that the White Dem voters would balk at that.

IMO, they were fools. It was obvious for many reasons that the Democratic Party and America people had been ready for some time.

Hell, the 96 exit polls showing Colin Powell beating Bill Clinton 50-38 showed that America as a whole was ready for a Black Candidate to be president. Especially when you consider that the core of his support was from the conservative wing of the party that, as you pointed out, has NOT been electing a lot of blacks.


I remember viciously ridiculing those libs who were preparing excuses for a possible Obama loss, so they could gin it up to further "evidence" of American Racism.


Are you old enough to remember that?

My recollection is that Powell never ran for president, so who knows what exit polls you speak of? :duuno:

Jackson did run; and had he not been caught using the derogatory term, "hymetown," he might have won the Democrat nomination. Regardless of this speculation, a black candidate had made a serious run for the Democrat party. That, plus Democrats electing 35 members to Congress, I don't see how it would have been true to say Democrats would not elect a black for president.

Do you need a specific link to that exit poll? DO you truly doubt it, or are you just dismissing information that doesn't fit your agenda?


Regardless you see my point about Jackson. ONly a jerk would try to claim that the lack of a Jesse Jackson win was proof that the dems would not elect a black president.

Jackson's problems as a candidate did not include his skin color. His antisemitism was one, as was his far left political positions.

Herman's Cain problems as a candidate did not include his skin color. His campaign was sunk by a smear campaign run by the media. His lack of any political background did not help, of course. But his skin color was not the reason he was not nominated or elected.

Only a jerk would say that the lack of a Cain Presidency is proof that the republicans would not elect a black president.

Ditto the lack of a Powell Presidency.

DItto the lack of a Keys Presidency.