The next Republican President hasn't been born yet

[Correll]

WQ is ignorning numbers, trends, and personalities.

NightFox knows he is going to get creamed, so is playing dumb.

Correll does not want the world to change.

I do not want the world to change for the worse.

Which it is certainly doing.

Or barring that, we need to be prepared for what is to come.

Oh, please, sir. Let me be the first to guess.

What is a One Party dictatorship. What is my prize, Alec? What did I win?

Actually in that instance I was thinking about vastly increased racial tension and animosity fueled by Democratic overreach and Disparate Impact Theory.

 

[Correll]

Easy....... Name any blue states you think will go Red in 2016
Name the swing states that Republicans will take in 2016 that they didn't take in 2012

Sorry my friend, I, unlike you don't operate under the illusion that I'm clairvoyant which would be especially silly since we're not even certain who's going to be running. Therefore making such predictions on such a micro scale is foolish in the extreme and is likely to come back and bite you right in the rear end.

Fortunately you seem to take being made fun of with a healthy sense humor so I suspect you'll be no worse for the wear if a Republican wins 2016 and all the right wingers bring back this thread and rub your nose in it.

For the record, I have no idea which party will take the White House in 2016, all that is certain is that modern Presidential history (since the end of WW II) has shown a strong propensity for the White House to change parties after no more than 2 terms (Reagan being the only exception) so history suggests that the Republicans have the odds in their favor. Personally I think it's natural that after 8 years of eating one flavor of partisan bullshit the America people want a change and choose to dine on the other flavor of partisan bullshit for a while. I also think if the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate her Highness the Marquees of Corruption and Scandal it will just improve the Republicans odds but that's just my opinion.

It doesn't take clairvoyance. All it takes is looking at how states have voted over the last six elections. It doesn't take a crystal ball to figure out that California and New York will go blue and that Texas and Alabama will go Red

You are welcome to bookmark this thread and rub my nose in it if a Republican wins. I may just keep bumping the thread till Election Day to remind Republicans that their task is futile

Reagan won 49 states.

REagan could not win California today.

 

[JakeStarkey]

WQ is ignorning numbers, trends, and personalities.

NightFox knows he is going to get creamed, so is playing dumb.

Correll does not want the world to change.

I do not want the world to change for the worse.

Which it is certainly doing.

Or barring that, we need to be prepared for what is to come.

Oh, please, sir. Let me be the first to guess.

What is a One Party dictatorship. What is my prize, Alec? What did I win?

Actually in that instance I was thinking about vastly increased racial tension and animosity fueled by Democratic overreach and Disparate Impact Theory.

"increased racial tension" is racialist discourse.

 

[Correll]

WQ is ignorning numbers, trends, and personalities.

NightFox knows he is going to get creamed, so is playing dumb.

Correll does not want the world to change.

I do not want the world to change for the worse.

Which it is certainly doing.

Or barring that, we need to be prepared for what is to come.

Oh, please, sir. Let me be the first to guess.

What is a One Party dictatorship. What is my prize, Alec? What did I win?

Actually in that instance I was thinking about vastly increased racial tension and animosity fueled by Democratic overreach and Disparate Impact Theory.

"increased racial tension" is racialist discourse.

Err, how do you figure that?

Dems want MORE AA, and have a far more aggressive view on how it should be implemented than most whites, ie Disparate Impact Theory as shown in at least one important Supreme Court case.

Disparate impact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As dems gain more power they will reverse precedent and increase efforts to benefit "traditionally disadvantaged groups".

As whites have been supportive of rolling back such efforts, instead increasing them will piss them off. As actual discrimination increases that will piss them off.

Blacks and browns and libs who support this will, as we see in this thread, interpret any resistance as racism and react strongly.

Result, vastly increased racial tension and animosity.

I know that you will deny this. Could you be so kind as to share with me the reasons you think that won't happen?

 

[JakeStarkey]

WQ is ignorning numbers, trends, and personalities.

NightFox knows he is going to get creamed, so is playing dumb.

Correll does not want the world to change.

I do not want the world to change for the worse.

Which it is certainly doing.

Or barring that, we need to be prepared for what is to come.

Oh, please, sir. Let me be the first to guess.

What is a One Party dictatorship. What is my prize, Alec? What did I win?

Actually in that instance I was thinking about vastly increased racial tension and animosity fueled by Democratic overreach and Disparate Impact Theory.

"increased racial tension" is racialist discourse.

Err, how do you figure that?

Dems want MORE AA, and have a far more aggressive view on how it should be implemented than most whites, ie Disparate Impact Theory as shown in at least one important Supreme Court case.

Disparate impact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As dems gain more power they will reverse precedent and increase efforts to benefit "traditionally disadvantaged groups".

As whites have been supportive of rolling back such efforts, instead increasing them will piss them off. As actual discrimination increases that will piss them off.

Blacks and browns and libs who support this will, as we see in this thread, interpret any resistance as racism and react strongly.

Result, vastly increased racial tension and animosity.

I know that you will deny this. Could you be so kind as to share with me the reasons you think that won't happen?

You are a disguised racialist, but now the pressure is bringing it out in you.

 

[Correll]

I do not want the world to change for the worse.

Which it is certainly doing.

Or barring that, we need to be prepared for what is to come.

Oh, please, sir. Let me be the first to guess.

What is a One Party dictatorship. What is my prize, Alec? What did I win?

Actually in that instance I was thinking about vastly increased racial tension and animosity fueled by Democratic overreach and Disparate Impact Theory.

"increased racial tension" is racialist discourse.

Err, how do you figure that?

Dems want MORE AA, and have a far more aggressive view on how it should be implemented than most whites, ie Disparate Impact Theory as shown in at least one important Supreme Court case.

Disparate impact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As dems gain more power they will reverse precedent and increase efforts to benefit "traditionally disadvantaged groups".

As whites have been supportive of rolling back such efforts, instead increasing them will piss them off. As actual discrimination increases that will piss them off.

Blacks and browns and libs who support this will, as we see in this thread, interpret any resistance as racism and react strongly.

Result, vastly increased racial tension and animosity.

I know that you will deny this. Could you be so kind as to share with me the reasons you think that won't happen?

You are a disguised racialist, but now the pressure is bringing it out in you.

What are you talking about?

What did I say that was "racialist"?

Do you deny that democrats support more Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact Theory?

Do you deny that republicans, ie most whites, are tired of it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, please, sir. Let me be the first to guess.

What is a One Party dictatorship. What is my prize, Alec? What did I win?

Actually in that instance I was thinking about vastly increased racial tension and animosity fueled by Democratic overreach and Disparate Impact Theory.

"increased racial tension" is racialist discourse.

Err, how do you figure that?

Dems want MORE AA, and have a far more aggressive view on how it should be implemented than most whites, ie Disparate Impact Theory as shown in at least one important Supreme Court case.

Disparate impact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As dems gain more power they will reverse precedent and increase efforts to benefit "traditionally disadvantaged groups".

As whites have been supportive of rolling back such efforts, instead increasing them will piss them off. As actual discrimination increases that will piss them off.

Blacks and browns and libs who support this will, as we see in this thread, interpret any resistance as racism and react strongly.

Result, vastly increased racial tension and animosity.

I know that you will deny this. Could you be so kind as to share with me the reasons you think that won't happen?

You are a disguised racialist, but now the pressure is bringing it out in you.

What are you talking about? What did I say that was "racialist"? Do you deny that democrats support more Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact Theory? Do you deny that republicans, ie most whites, are tired of it?

And that is racialist discourse when you put it in those words. You clearly imply that you favor the whites, that they have right on their side. i have no use for either black or white racism in either party, and I call it out.

"On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four margin, upheld the application of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. While upholding the theory, the Court imposed significant limitations on its application in practice." Symposium: The Supreme Court recognizes but limits disparate impact in its Fair Housing Act decision

AA is not runaway rampant, Correll.

 

[Jackson]

An HONEST Democratic president has been born yet.

 

[Correll]

Actually in that instance I was thinking about vastly increased racial tension and animosity fueled by Democratic overreach and Disparate Impact Theory.

"increased racial tension" is racialist discourse.

Err, how do you figure that?

Dems want MORE AA, and have a far more aggressive view on how it should be implemented than most whites, ie Disparate Impact Theory as shown in at least one important Supreme Court case.

Disparate impact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As dems gain more power they will reverse precedent and increase efforts to benefit "traditionally disadvantaged groups".

As whites have been supportive of rolling back such efforts, instead increasing them will piss them off. As actual discrimination increases that will piss them off.

Blacks and browns and libs who support this will, as we see in this thread, interpret any resistance as racism and react strongly.

Result, vastly increased racial tension and animosity.

I know that you will deny this. Could you be so kind as to share with me the reasons you think that won't happen?

You are a disguised racialist, but now the pressure is bringing it out in you.

What are you talking about? What did I say that was "racialist"? Do you deny that democrats support more Affirmative Action and Disparate Impact Theory? Do you deny that republicans, ie most whites, are tired of it?

And that is racialist discourse when you put it in those words. You clearly imply that you favor the whites, that they have right on their side. i have no use for either black or white racism in either party, and I call it out.

1. In this case, who is right is irrelevant as my point was that the two sides will be in increasingly bitter conflict of perceptions and interests.

(I do favor the white side in this as I view AA, especially as defined by Disparate Impact Theory as anti-white discrimination. )

2. This is part of the way I see the US getting "crappy" as demographics change.

 

[JakeStarkey]

On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four margin, upheld the application of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. While upholding the theory, the Court imposed significant limitations on its application in practice." Symposium: The Supreme Court recognizes but limits disparate impact in its Fair Housing Act decision

AA is not runaway rampant, Correll. And your comments above mean that you judge by the color of skin. That's a shame. We did not let employees, black or brown or white, stay long on our payroll once we could determine that had such problems.

 

[Zander]

Trump

/thread

 

[Correll]

On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four margin, upheld the application of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. While upholding the theory, the Court imposed significant limitations on its application in practice." Symposium: The Supreme Court recognizes but limits disparate impact in its Fair Housing Act decision

AA is not runaway rampant, Correll. And your comments above mean that you judge by the color of skin. That's a shame. We did not let employees, black or brown or white, stay long on our payroll once we could determine that had such problems.

Yep. 5-4.

Give the dems control and they will reverse that with all it entails.

How am I judging people by the color of their skin? I am judging them by their voting patterns and their self interest.

 

[Conservative65]

On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four margin, upheld the application of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. While upholding the theory, the Court imposed significant limitations on its application in practice." Symposium: The Supreme Court recognizes but limits disparate impact in its Fair Housing Act decision

AA is not runaway rampant, Correll. And your comments above mean that you judge by the color of skin. That's a shame. We did not let employees, black or brown or white, stay long on our payroll once we could determine that had such problems.

AA judges by the color of skin. It uses the mindset that denying someone on race is wrong but benefiting because of the same race is OK.

 

[JakeStarkey]

On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four margin, upheld the application of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. While upholding the theory, the Court imposed significant limitations on its application in practice." Symposium: The Supreme Court recognizes but limits disparate impact in its Fair Housing Act decision

AA is not runaway rampant, Correll. And your comments above mean that you judge by the color of skin. That's a shame. We did not let employees, black or brown or white, stay long on our payroll once we could determine that had such problems.

AA judges by the color of skin. It uses the mindset that denying someone on race is wrong but benefiting because of the same race is OK.

We all know employers who will discriminate based on race if they get the chance. Not acceptable.

 

[Conservative65]

On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four margin, upheld the application of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. While upholding the theory, the Court imposed significant limitations on its application in practice." Symposium: The Supreme Court recognizes but limits disparate impact in its Fair Housing Act decision

AA is not runaway rampant, Correll. And your comments above mean that you judge by the color of skin. That's a shame. We did not let employees, black or brown or white, stay long on our payroll once we could determine that had such problems.

AA judges by the color of skin. It uses the mindset that denying someone on race is wrong but benefiting because of the same race is OK.

We all know employers who will discriminate based on race if they get the chance. Not acceptable.

You know that? Then you should find it easy to provide PROOF of that claim.

AA discriminates based on race each and every time it's used. The problem is you think that's OK.

 

[JakeStarkey]

On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four margin, upheld the application of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. While upholding the theory, the Court imposed significant limitations on its application in practice." Symposium: The Supreme Court recognizes but limits disparate impact in its Fair Housing Act decision

AA is not runaway rampant, Correll. And your comments above mean that you judge by the color of skin. That's a shame. We did not let employees, black or brown or white, stay long on our payroll once we could determine that had such problems.

AA judges by the color of skin. It uses the mindset that denying someone on race is wrong but benefiting because of the same race is OK.

We all know employers who will discriminate based on race if they get the chance. Not acceptable.

You know that? Then you should find it easy to provide PROOF of that claim.

AA discriminates based on race each and every time it's used. The problem is you think that's OK.

If you don't believe it, then you are an idiot. An AA is not race discriminaion in the sense you discuss it. You have no cred on this. No racialistsdoes.

 

[Conservative65]

On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four margin, upheld the application of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. While upholding the theory, the Court imposed significant limitations on its application in practice." Symposium: The Supreme Court recognizes but limits disparate impact in its Fair Housing Act decision

AA is not runaway rampant, Correll. And your comments above mean that you judge by the color of skin. That's a shame. We did not let employees, black or brown or white, stay long on our payroll once we could determine that had such problems.

AA judges by the color of skin. It uses the mindset that denying someone on race is wrong but benefiting because of the same race is OK.

We all know employers who will discriminate based on race if they get the chance. Not acceptable.

You know that? Then you should find it easy to provide PROOF of that claim.

AA discriminates based on race each and every time it's used. The problem is you think that's OK.

If you don't believe it, then you are an idiot. An AA is not race discriminaion in the sense you discuss it. You have no cred on this. No racialistsdoes.

When the same factor that you say is wrong if used to deny is used to place someone above another person, it's discrimination.

If you want to have a double standard on the same factor, go for it. We're used to it from you guys.

 

[rightwinger]

The next Republican President hasn't been born yet

How can that be possible?

Right now, Republicans have an extremely low chance of getting 270 electoral votes when Dems start with 242 and Repubs start at 179. Republicans have to pitch a perfect game and I don't think they have it in them

But why would they not be able to elect a President for the next 40-50 years?

Because demographics are leaving them behind. Rather than moving to take back swing states, they will be fighting to retain Red States, Surging Hispanic populations and Republicans abandoning the Hispanic vote will cost them Florida within the next decade. Georgia and North Carolina with large black populations could go blue also within the next decade
Texas and Arizona will take longer. Texas will be over 50% Hispanic within ten years but will probably take 20-25 years to go blue ....same with Arizona

When that happens, Dems will not start with 242 electoral votes, they will start with 325-350 and the race will be over before it begins

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN
these are the same idiots that insisted Republicans wouldnt see a House or Senate majority for 40 years


idiots and hypocrites

 

[JakeStarkey]

On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court, by a five-to-four margin, upheld the application of disparate impact under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) in Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. While upholding the theory, the Court imposed significant limitations on its application in practice." Symposium: The Supreme Court recognizes but limits disparate impact in its Fair Housing Act decision

AA is not runaway rampant, Correll. And your comments above mean that you judge by the color of skin. That's a shame. We did not let employees, black or brown or white, stay long on our payroll once we could determine that had such problems.

AA judges by the color of skin. It uses the mindset that denying someone on race is wrong but benefiting because of the same race is OK.

We all know employers who will discriminate based on race if they get the chance. Not acceptable.

You know that? Then you should find it easy to provide PROOF of that claim.

AA discriminates based on race each and every time it's used. The problem is you think that's OK.

If you don't believe it, then you are an idiot. An AA is not race discriminaion in the sense you discuss it. You have no cred on this. No racialistsdoes.

When the same factor that you say is wrong if used to deny is used to place someone above another person, it's discrimination.

If you want to have a double standard on the same factor, go for it. We're used to it from you guys.

You start with a fallacy of false premise.