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

[CrusaderFrank]

The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.

He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?

All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.

Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second

More debunked bullshit.

LOLz. It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it

It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower

The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.

Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years. Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked. They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher? They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography. Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.

Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:

During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"

Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Look, whites need to stop thinking they can determine who blacks decide are our leaders. The black republicans put out there in leadership do not represent the best interests of the black community. They often parrot the rhetoric of white supremacists.

Agreed. That said, rarely have the Democrats or Republicans offered anyone I felt comfortable supporting. The entire system is geared to promote fork tongued opportunists rather than true public servants. The fight never seems to get easier for any of us. Supporting the "lesser evil" guarantees maintenance of the current level of evil at best.

 

[Correll]

If I had voted for Obama in a primary would that have entitled me to a non-racist card?

The issue here is that your assumption of Evul Wacism in your enemies, is not based on any reality, but circular logic and self delusion.


YOu KNOW that your enemies are Evul Wacist. So anything you see, such as a lack of black republican presidents, becomes proof of Evul Wacism.


If I point out high levels of support at certain times for certain black republicans for President,


That does NOT refute the idea, because you just know, that it is not what it looks like, because Evul Wacism.


You are full of blind faith. YOur mind is completely closed to any information that challenges your assumptions about people who are different than you.


And none of this seems self serving to you. Indeed, it is likely that you are not "hearing" this at all.

Oh, the irony

There is no irony.

YOu are delusional, ignoring information you don't like, while I am pointing out information to support my position.

 

[Correll]

Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.

And that was it for Cain.

Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.

Liar.

You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.

1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.

2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.

It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.

At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.

Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.

But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Bully for you.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.

Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

Cain was.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.

LOL

Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.

Real serious.

He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.


That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,


is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.


THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.

Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.

What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?

 

[Correll]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:

During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"

Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.

Because you defer to them based on their race.

 

[Correll]

Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?

Seems relevant to me, that a man who wanted to be President of this country, was ashamed to be born in this country to the point he lied about it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Example, Tulsi Gabbard seemed like a great candidate to me. Dropped out and endorsed Biden. Wtf?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.

And that was it for Cain.

Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.

Liar.

You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.

1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.

2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.

It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.

At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.

Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.

But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Bully for you.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.

Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

Cain was.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.

LOL

Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.

Real serious.

He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.


That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,


is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.


THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.

Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.

What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?

it says that Cain didn't run again because there were no "REPUBLICANS" urging him to run......

You do understand that people can run for president more than once right? Especially when there is a ground swell of support for that person running...

Cain had ZERO after his first campaign

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?

Seems relevant to me, that a man who wanted to be President of this country, was ashamed to be born in this country to the point he lied about it.

Ahh...the racists still pushing the birther conspiracy...

How come the investigators Trump supposedly hired never presented all of this "proof" they had??

This is why I have ZERO respect for lying ass cowards such as yourself...this is also why you are a sycophant for lying ass cowards like Trump....

 

[Grumblenuts]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:

During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"

Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.

Because you defer to them based on their race.

Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

 

[Correll]

Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.

And that was it for Cain.

Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.

Liar.

You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.

1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.

2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.

It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.

At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.

Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.

But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Bully for you.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.

Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

Cain was.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.

LOL

Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.

Real serious.

He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.


That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,


is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.


THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.

Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.

What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?

it says that Cain didn't run again because there were no "REPUBLICANS" urging him to run......

You do understand that people can run for president more than once right? Especially when there is a ground swell of support for that person running...

Cain had ZERO after his first campaign

As a former Cain supporter, I'm reading your words, and I don't see what the "bad thing" being said about Cain, is.


I still regret the way the stupid voters, listened to bullshit allegations from the vile media, and I still think the world would have been a better place if he had won the Presidency in 2012.

 

[Correll]

Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?

Seems relevant to me, that a man who wanted to be President of this country, was ashamed to be born in this country to the point he lied about it.

Ahh...the racists still pushing the birther conspiracy...

How come the investigators Trump supposedly hired never presented all of this "proof" they had??

This is why I have ZERO respect for lying ass cowards such as yourself...this is also why you are a sycophant for lying ass cowards like Trump....

Because we look at the words of black dem candidates and actually talk about the shit they said?

Yes, I can see why that would make you very angry.


But, in our defense, we do the same to the white dem candidates, and that makes you just as mad.


So, you can shove your false accusations of Evul Wacism, back up your ass where you pulled them from.

 

[Correll]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:

During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"

Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.

Because you defer to them based on their race.

Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.


When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.


YOu are the racist here, not I.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.

And that was it for Cain.

Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.

Liar.

You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.

1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.

2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.

It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.

At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.

Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.

But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Bully for you.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.

Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

Cain was.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.

LOL

Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.

Real serious.

He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.


That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,


is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.


THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.

Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.

What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?

it says that Cain didn't run again because there were no "REPUBLICANS" urging him to run......

You do understand that people can run for president more than once right? Especially when there is a ground swell of support for that person running...

Cain had ZERO after his first campaign

As a former Cain supporter, I'm reading your words, and I don't see what the "bad thing" being said about Cain, is.


I still regret the way the stupid voters, listened to bullshit allegations from the vile media, and I still think the world would have been a better place if he had won the Presidency in 2012.

Don't change the fact that those "stupid voters" didn't want Cain to ever run for president again....

But something tells me that those "stupid voters" would support the following.....Let's go thru them again....

Jesse Lee Peterson -- He would be a great candidate because he is famous for believing that not only does racism against blacks NOT exist....but it has NEVER existed...he also believes that the only people discriminated against in this country has been whites.....that type of minstrel talk really gets the sheet wearers going...he also feels women shouldn't be allowed to vote....that plays well with the incel and MGTOW crowd..

KingFace -- He is new on the scene, he famously said he became a Trump supporter because it made him money to do so......He doesn't really have any policy positions, but he does provide that "I'm a thug, but I'm a thug for Trump" appeal.....


Candace Owens -- She also became a Trumper relatively late...she was anti-Trump before..and not long before that, she was a "liberal" -- she is also famous for saying racism doesn't exist -- even tho she asked the NAACP to help her sue her school for racism.....


Michael The Black Man -- he is a staunch opponent of "identity politics" and thinks it is stupid to get attention or praise just for being a black this, or a black that....He was also a long time member of the black israelites and Yahweh Ben Yahweh cult and was even arrested on murder charges, but was found not innocent....that cult background could be huge for him if he runs for president....


So why don't you support any of these strong conservatives to be president?? Face it, Cain is over with.....and you hate Colin Powell...time to get with the wave of the new conservative future.....

 

[Correll]

Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent to Romney's lead, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.

And that was it for Cain.

Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.

Liar.

You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.

1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.

2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported. You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.

It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either. At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.

At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.

Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.

But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Bully for you.

Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.

And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.

Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.

Cain was.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.

LOL

Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.

Real serious.

He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.


That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,


is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.


THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.

Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.

What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?

it says that Cain didn't run again because there were no "REPUBLICANS" urging him to run......

You do understand that people can run for president more than once right? Especially when there is a ground swell of support for that person running...

Cain had ZERO after his first campaign

As a former Cain supporter, I'm reading your words, and I don't see what the "bad thing" being said about Cain, is.


I still regret the way the stupid voters, listened to bullshit allegations from the vile media, and I still think the world would have been a better place if he had won the Presidency in 2012.

Don't change the fact that those "stupid voters" didn't want Cain to ever run for president again....

....

so what was the supposed "BAD THING" it said about Cain?


Or was that just some shit you were saying and now you move on to the next serving of shit?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:

During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"

Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.

Because you defer to them based on their race.

Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.


When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.


YOu are the racist here, not I.

So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?

 

[Correll]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:

During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"

Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.

Because you defer to them based on their race.

Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.

All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.

You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.


When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.


YOu are the racist here, not I.

So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?

Deferring to them, and dismissing and ignoring white interests, while discussing something that is "explicitly about that minority",


yes, is the text book definition of racism.


THat you can't see that,is because you are in the grip of a form of irrationality.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk

The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....

How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:

During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"

Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.

I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.

That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.

After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.