Why should blacks become republicans?

[Ghost of a Rider]

You didn't say "rhetoric" in your original post on the topic. I believe the word you used was "platform". Whatever extreme ideas some individual Republicans may have on the matter, it is not Republican policy or the Republican platform to bar immigration from non-white countries.

As for the troops on the border, I believe that is in response to the migrant caravan supposedly headed to our border.

As for the "shithole" countries remark, that was a stupid thing to say and is indefensible. I will say though that I've worked with former military a lot over the years and a couple of them were deployed to Haiti at one time or another and the general consensus among soldiers deployed there is that it is a shithole country. I don't say that to excuse the remark but when he said it, people conflated it to be racist. If I was to tell you right now that Haiti is a shithole country, it would be because of the poverty and political corruption, not because they're black.

Yes, Republicans do clean up their language better than the KKK. But their premise is the same, their enemies are the same, their policies aren’t that different
Look at the Klan position on the media. Same as Republican rhetoric except they blame the Jews. Republicans know better but their base does not disagree
Look what the klan says about “Special Priveleges” for homosexuals. Same words Republicans say today

I'm afraid I have to somewhat agree on things like the media. Unlike the KKK and what some Republicans may say on the matter, I will only go as far as to say that I think - as a lot of conservatives do - that there is a liberal bias in the media. And Republicans not disagreeing does not mean they agree. People tend to forget that the only ones they hear from are the most vocal and loudest ones. This forum is a perfect example. Most of the people I know are conservatives but none of them are as vocal or share the same ideas you see spouted here. And most of them have neither the time nor the inclination to make the effort to be heard on a forum or otherwise. The loud ones only represent a fraction of the overall group.

As for rights for homosexuals, this is where the Republican party and I diverge. I'm entirely in favor of gay rights, including marriage and adoption. Most people approach social and political issues from a standpoint of should/should not. My standpoint on gay rights is why/why not. While some may have religious reservations about it, I don't. So why not let them marry? There's no practical reason not to. And if allowing gays to adopt gets one kid out of the foster system and into a loving home, why not?

Practical reason to outlaw homosexual marriage?

Let's go back to race. As an employer, it would not be my job to guarantee a job to any specific individual. Yet the government mandates that I "give" jobs to the individuals they approve of. If hire too many whites, it's a problem. If you give a job to someone who doesn't have a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "Social Security Number," it's a problem. WTH???

Republicans have long held that you should never be taxed on what you make, yet they join the silly chorus that only "legal" Americans should have Rights in this country. Really? Why? If we stand by Republican principles, you run a nation by taxing consumption, not by what the individual produces. But, both sides don't like those who forego paying the income tax.

What does paying an income tax do? It finances that half of America that is dependent upon a government check for a living. So, gays, being unable to repopulate our nation are impractical as citizens with the Rights and privileges of those who must keep reproducing to keep the country going.

The alternative is give this country to the Muslims and let them stone the gays to death. Now, maybe in a Republic, if we follow the law, the gays might not get to marry, adopt kids, etc. but they can practice their behavior at their own expense.

You didn't say "rhetoric" in your original post on the topic. I believe the word you used was "platform". Whatever extreme ideas some individual Republicans may have on the matter, it is not Republican policy or the Republican platform to bar immigration from non-white countries.

As for the troops on the border, I believe that is in response to the migrant caravan supposedly headed to our border.

As for the "shithole" countries remark, that was a stupid thing to say and is indefensible. I will say though that I've worked with former military a lot over the years and a couple of them were deployed to Haiti at one time or another and the general consensus among soldiers deployed there is that it is a shithole country. I don't say that to excuse the remark but when he said it, people conflated it to be racist. If I was to tell you right now that Haiti is a shithole country, it would be because of the poverty and political corruption, not because they're black.

Yes, Republicans do clean up their language better than the KKK. But their premise is the same, their enemies are the same, their policies aren’t that different
Look at the Klan position on the media. Same as Republican rhetoric except they blame the Jews. Republicans know better but their base does not disagree
Look what the klan says about “Special Priveleges” for homosexuals. Same words Republicans say today

I'm afraid I have to somewhat agree on things like the media. Unlike the KKK and what some Republicans may say on the matter, I will only go as far as to say that I think - as a lot of conservatives do - that there is a liberal bias in the media. And Republicans not disagreeing does not mean they agree. People tend to forget that the only ones they hear from are the most vocal and loudest ones. This forum is a perfect example. Most of the people I know are conservatives but none of them are as vocal or share the same ideas you see spouted here. And most of them have neither the time nor the inclination to make the effort to be heard on a forum or otherwise. The loud ones only represent a fraction of the overall group.

As for rights for homosexuals, this is where the Republican party and I diverge. I'm entirely in favor of gay rights, including marriage and adoption. Most people approach social and political issues from a standpoint of should/should not. My standpoint on gay rights is why/why not. While some may have religious reservations about it, I don't. So why not let them marry? There's no practical reason not to. And if allowing gays to adopt gets one kid out of the foster system and into a loving home, why not?

Practical reason to outlaw homosexual marriage?

Let's go back to race. As an employer, it would not be my job to guarantee a job to any specific individual. Yet the government mandates that I "give" jobs to the individuals they approve of. If hire too many whites, it's a problem. If you give a job to someone who doesn't have a Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops, "Social Security Number," it's a problem. WTH???

Republicans have long held that you should never be taxed on what you make, yet they join the silly chorus that only "legal" Americans should have Rights in this country. Really? Why? If we stand by Republican principles, you run a nation by taxing consumption, not by what the individual produces. But, both sides don't like those who forego paying the income tax.

What does paying an income tax do? It finances that half of America that is dependent upon a government check for a living. So, gays, being unable to repopulate our nation are impractical as citizens with the Rights and privileges of those who must keep reproducing to keep the country going.

The alternative is give this country to the Muslims and let them stone the gays to death. Now, maybe in a Republic, if we follow the law, the gays might not get to marry, adopt kids, etc. but they can practice their behavior at their own expense.

The inability to procreate is the reason you deny gay marriage?

Gays cannot procreate whether they are married or not. Allowing gay marriage will not reduce the number of children. It will increase adoptions and births through artificial inseminations....so there is a net gain for society

Yeah and the adoptions encourage non-Americans which ultimately poses a threat to culture.

Encourage them to do what?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I did and I still don't get it. There were parts I found unnecessary such as nullifying the votes of those who voted at the wrong polling station and barring registration on election day but overall, I don't see the problem.

If they imposed this law only on minorities then I would be right there with them yelling "Discrimination!" But the law applies to everybody so I don't agree with their assessment that it is discriminatory or an attempt at voter suppression. The law was aimed at reducing voter fraud.

The federal appeals COURT made the decision.

I understand the Federal Appeals COURT made the decision, I just don't agree with it.

And based the evidence they saw, the law was not aimed at reducing voter fraud. There is no voter fraud.

Of course there's voter fraud. There are documented cases of voter fraud across the country, including 15 cases in North Carolina between 1986 and 2017.

If the measures in the law were implemented then it would have reduced the chances of voter fraud. They just chose to interpret it as voter suppression. Problem is, there's nothing in the law that would suppress minority voting.

Whether or not voter fraud is as pervasive as some claim, one fraudulent vote is one too many. We've been told since grade school that the right to vote is sacrosanct, that each vote is important and each American's patriotic duty. "One man, one vote" has been the rallying cry for those fighting for voting rights here and in South Africa and is a principle upon which the government redistricts areas to make voter representation more fair, i.e., to make each vote count.

If each vote truly does count as we've been told then, as I said, one fraudulent vote is one too many. If we were to compromise that principle for the convenience of a few, we might as well quit lecturing on the importance of exercising that right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Humorme]

You didn't say "rhetoric" in your original post on the topic. I believe the word you used was "platform". Whatever extreme ideas some individual Republicans may have on the matter, it is not Republican policy or the Republican platform to bar immigration from non-white countries.

As for the troops on the border, I believe that is in response to the migrant caravan supposedly headed to our border.

As for the "shithole" countries remark, that was a stupid thing to say and is indefensible. I will say though that I've worked with former military a lot over the years and a couple of them were deployed to Haiti at one time or another and the general consensus among soldiers deployed there is that it is a shithole country. I don't say that to excuse the remark but when he said it, people conflated it to be racist. If I was to tell you right now that Haiti is a shithole country, it would be because of the poverty and political corruption, not because they're black.

Yes, Republicans do clean up their language better than the KKK. But their premise is the same, their enemies are the same, their policies aren’t that different
Look at the Klan position on the media. Same as Republican rhetoric except they blame the Jews. Republicans know better but their base does not disagree
Look what the klan says about “Special Priveleges” for homosexuals. Same words Republicans say today

Under Trump the true racist has learned how to say "illegal alien" (ignoring the concept of a presumption of innocence) instead of mud people, spics, sand N word, beaner, etc.

An immigrant who is here illegally is by definition, an illegal immigrant. It's basic immigration law that every country on this planet shares.

You cannot presume a person to be illegal. You have to prove it. Social Civics 101

Who said anything about presuming? If they're here illegally, they're here illegally. It goes without saying that they have to determine this. Why are you stating the obvious?

Are you being facetious? If you have a fully automatic machine gun in the trunk of your car, it requires probable cause for the LEOs to look for it. Undocumented foreigners have that same, exact Right. It is called a presumption of innocence.

 

[Humorme]

January 11th 2018:
"President Trump on Thursday balked at an immigration deal that would include protections for people from Haiti and some nations in Africa, demanding to know at a White House meeting why he should accept immigrants from “shithole countries” rather than from places like Norway, according to people with direct knowledge of the conversation."

The above sounds VERY similar to the Klans stance on immigration, in fact, it is even more emphatic than how the Klan phrased it.

What Trump said is irrelevant. These ideas do not conform to the Republican platform on immigration.

Trump is A REPUBLICAN and he is POTUS.His ideas absolutely do "conform" to those of his party, and are totally relevant

No, they do not and they are not. As a Republican who has conversed with may other Republicans on the matter of immigration, I can tell you most assuredly that the conservative position on immigration is merely to stop illegal immigration. I personally will not be held responsible for any stupid comments made by Trump or the KKK or any racists.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Humorme]

The federal appeals COURT made the decision.

I understand the Federal Appeals COURT made the decision, I just don't agree with it.

And based the evidence they saw, the law was not aimed at reducing voter fraud. There is no voter fraud.

Of course there's voter fraud. There are documented cases of voter fraud across the country, including 15 cases in North Carolina between 1986 and 2017.

If the measures in the law were implemented then it would have reduced the chances of voter fraud. They just chose to interpret it as voter suppression. Problem is, there's nothing in the law that would suppress minority voting.

Whether or not voter fraud is as pervasive as some claim, one fraudulent vote is one too many. We've been told since grade school that the right to vote is sacrosanct, that each vote is important and each American's patriotic duty. "One man, one vote" has been the rallying cry for those fighting for voting rights here and in South Africa and is a principle upon which the government redistricts areas to make voter representation more fair, i.e., to make each vote count.

If each vote truly does count as we've been told then, as I said, one fraudulent vote is one too many. If we were to compromise that principle for the convenience of a few, we might as well quit lecturing on the importance of exercising that right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Yes, Republicans do clean up their language better than the KKK. But their premise is the same, their enemies are the same, their policies aren’t that different
Look at the Klan position on the media. Same as Republican rhetoric except they blame the Jews. Republicans know better but their base does not disagree
Look what the klan says about “Special Priveleges” for homosexuals. Same words Republicans say today

Under Trump the true racist has learned how to say "illegal alien" (ignoring the concept of a presumption of innocence) instead of mud people, spics, sand N word, beaner, etc.

An immigrant who is here illegally is by definition, an illegal immigrant. It's basic immigration law that every country on this planet shares.

You cannot presume a person to be illegal. You have to prove it. Social Civics 101

Who said anything about presuming? If they're here illegally, they're here illegally. It goes without saying that they have to determine this. Why are you stating the obvious?

Are you being facetious? If you have a fully automatic machine gun in the trunk of your car, it requires probable cause for the LEOs to look for it. Undocumented foreigners have that same, exact Right. It is called a presumption of innocence.

So I ask again; why are you stating the obvious? No one said anything about just walking around arresting Hispanics.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What Trump said is irrelevant. These ideas do not conform to the Republican platform on immigration.

Trump is A REPUBLICAN and he is POTUS.His ideas absolutely do "conform" to those of his party, and are totally relevant

No, they do not and they are not. As a Republican who has conversed with may other Republicans on the matter of immigration, I can tell you most assuredly that the conservative position on immigration is merely to stop illegal immigration. I personally will not be held responsible for any stupid comments made by Trump or the KKK or any racists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

I understand the Federal Appeals COURT made the decision, I just don't agree with it.

Of course there's voter fraud. There are documented cases of voter fraud across the country, including 15 cases in North Carolina between 1986 and 2017.

If the measures in the law were implemented then it would have reduced the chances of voter fraud. They just chose to interpret it as voter suppression. Problem is, there's nothing in the law that would suppress minority voting.

Whether or not voter fraud is as pervasive as some claim, one fraudulent vote is one too many. We've been told since grade school that the right to vote is sacrosanct, that each vote is important and each American's patriotic duty. "One man, one vote" has been the rallying cry for those fighting for voting rights here and in South Africa and is a principle upon which the government redistricts areas to make voter representation more fair, i.e., to make each vote count.

If each vote truly does count as we've been told then, as I said, one fraudulent vote is one too many. If we were to compromise that principle for the convenience of a few, we might as well quit lecturing on the importance of exercising that right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Humorme]

The federal appeals COURT made the decision.

I understand the Federal Appeals COURT made the decision, I just don't agree with it.

And based the evidence they saw, the law was not aimed at reducing voter fraud. There is no voter fraud.

Of course there's voter fraud. There are documented cases of voter fraud across the country, including 15 cases in North Carolina between 1986 and 2017.

If the measures in the law were implemented then it would have reduced the chances of voter fraud. They just chose to interpret it as voter suppression. Problem is, there's nothing in the law that would suppress minority voting.

Whether or not voter fraud is as pervasive as some claim, one fraudulent vote is one too many. We've been told since grade school that the right to vote is sacrosanct, that each vote is important and each American's patriotic duty. "One man, one vote" has been the rallying cry for those fighting for voting rights here and in South Africa and is a principle upon which the government redistricts areas to make voter representation more fair, i.e., to make each vote count.

If each vote truly does count as we've been told then, as I said, one fraudulent vote is one too many. If we were to compromise that principle for the convenience of a few, we might as well quit lecturing on the importance of exercising that right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Humorme]

Trump is A REPUBLICAN and he is POTUS.His ideas absolutely do "conform" to those of his party, and are totally relevant

No, they do not and they are not. As a Republican who has conversed with may other Republicans on the matter of immigration, I can tell you most assuredly that the conservative position on immigration is merely to stop illegal immigration. I personally will not be held responsible for any stupid comments made by Trump or the KKK or any racists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, Explain this:

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

GOP nominates Trump, now standard-bearer for party

Maybe you should argue with journalists and political science professors.

 

[Humorme]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's do Civics 101:

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

Thomas Jefferson, on this subject, stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MarathonMike]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

Do you want more opportunities for Blacks or more entitlements? Donald Trump views Black people as an underutilized resource. The GOP wants more workers and more taxpayers. The DEMs want more government dependents so Blacks will vote to keep their checks coming. The GOP wants you making your own money so you can contribute to the economy and pay taxes.

 

[IM2]

I understand the Federal Appeals COURT made the decision, I just don't agree with it.

Of course there's voter fraud. There are documented cases of voter fraud across the country, including 15 cases in North Carolina between 1986 and 2017.

If the measures in the law were implemented then it would have reduced the chances of voter fraud. They just chose to interpret it as voter suppression. Problem is, there's nothing in the law that would suppress minority voting.

Whether or not voter fraud is as pervasive as some claim, one fraudulent vote is one too many. We've been told since grade school that the right to vote is sacrosanct, that each vote is important and each American's patriotic duty. "One man, one vote" has been the rallying cry for those fighting for voting rights here and in South Africa and is a principle upon which the government redistricts areas to make voter representation more fair, i.e., to make each vote count.

If each vote truly does count as we've been told then, as I said, one fraudulent vote is one too many. If we were to compromise that principle for the convenience of a few, we might as well quit lecturing on the importance of exercising that right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[IM2]

I would like a logical explanation from one of you white republicans as to why blacks should join your party. Please do not regurgitate the lame story about the 1860 democratic party. After all, every time we blacks talk about what occurred during that time none of you were there. The history of things were not important to you in this regard, so since you weren't around in 1860 and history is not important you in other situations, it's not important now. So please explain why blacks should join the republican party.

Do you want more opportunities for Blacks or more entitlements? Donald Trump views Black people as an underutilized resource. The GOP wants more workers and more taxpayers. The DEMs want more government dependents so Blacks will vote to keep their checks coming. The GOP wants you making your own money so you can contribute to the economy and pay taxes.

The GOP is against everything that has created the opportunity for blacks to do the things you describe. The leadership of the party tell you idiots this and you believe it, but I live in a republican state, worked in an organization that was working to create jobs in the black community and the republican congressman at the time would not even accept a free membership to the black business network where he could get a discount for purchasing products and services from black businesses.

 

[rightwinger]

The federal appeals COURT made the decision.

I understand the Federal Appeals COURT made the decision, I just don't agree with it.

And based the evidence they saw, the law was not aimed at reducing voter fraud. There is no voter fraud.

Of course there's voter fraud. There are documented cases of voter fraud across the country, including 15 cases in North Carolina between 1986 and 2017.

If the measures in the law were implemented then it would have reduced the chances of voter fraud. They just chose to interpret it as voter suppression. Problem is, there's nothing in the law that would suppress minority voting.

Whether or not voter fraud is as pervasive as some claim, one fraudulent vote is one too many. We've been told since grade school that the right to vote is sacrosanct, that each vote is important and each American's patriotic duty. "One man, one vote" has been the rallying cry for those fighting for voting rights here and in South Africa and is a principle upon which the government redistricts areas to make voter representation more fair, i.e., to make each vote count.

If each vote truly does count as we've been told then, as I said, one fraudulent vote is one too many. If we were to compromise that principle for the convenience of a few, we might as well quit lecturing on the importance of exercising that right.

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

It is a trade off not worth making

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

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

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

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

Well, not everything in life is hunky dory

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

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

 

[rightwinger]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone trying to vote under someone else’s name.

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

All to cast one vote

 

[Correll]

More of the same old dumb ass white racist republican propaganda.

Says the moron that can't refute a single point.

Really?

Prove when racism ended .....

I've repeatedly shown that racism today is primarily about discriminating in favor of blacks, mandated by federal law.

Tucker Carson did an eye opening piece related to what you are referring to this evening. It highlights college entrance exams and how American Universities are accepting inordinate numbers of FOREIGN BORN black people, those from wealthy Nigerian, Ethiopian, Sudanese and so forth families in order to fall within parameters of having acceptable levels of Black students - who suffers ! And who gets the short end of the stick --- The African American - Screwed Again !

Tucker Carlson? The king of disingenuous and fake news. LOL!

If you researched the subject, you would find out that he is correct.


Black Americans, due to a number of factors, just do not produce a proportionate number of Ivy League candidates.


So, the liberal schools, driven by AA, Title IV, and fears of being called racist, do everything they can to fudge the numbers.


Carlson did not discover this, it has been reported on before.

 

[Correll]

Says the moron that can't refute a single point.

Really?

Prove when racism ended .....

I've repeatedly shown that racism today is primarily about discriminating in favor of blacks, mandated by federal law.

Tucker Carson did an eye opening piece related to what you are referring to this evening. It highlights college entrance exams and how American Universities are accepting inordinate numbers of FOREIGN BORN black people, those from wealthy Nigerian, Ethiopian, Sudanese and so forth families in order to fall within parameters of having acceptable levels of Black students - who suffers ! And who gets the short end of the stick --- The African American - Screwed Again !

Well, the problem for the liberal universities is that broken black families and broken black schools are not preparing blacks students for higher education.


IN order to get the "diversity" they want, ...


NO.


In order to LOOK like they are getting the "diversity" they want, they have to use foreign born black students to pump up their "black" numbers.


On the other hand, accepting students into a school they are not prepared to handle, is not doing them any favors.

LOL!

What I said was obviously correct. What you said was what you expect from a moron trying to understand something well beyond him.

 

[Correll]

Steele an establishment republican who is dead wrong.


His faction in the GOP lost in the primary for a reason.


Playing the vile games of the Left is part of it.

Please save such nonsense for someone who is dense enough to actually believe it..

He had the courage to not defend an indefensible comment by #45.

Was not even recognized at a recent awards ceremony, endured a public comment by another crazy wingnut who actually stated that:

"He was only appointed to lead the GOP , because he was black"

And he still remains in the party? Really?

That is blind loyalty in the face of abject stupidity.

"Party of Lincoln"? What a fucking joke.
It's not 1860 anymore, but some of those nuts sure believe that it is.

I don't who said that, but I certainly hope it is not true.


Though, liberals, constant say shit like we republicans need to reach out or try to get more diversity, so, if that was true, why would you be offended?


Why would Steele NOT being the republican party? Because some random guy said that he didnt' deserve his job?


LOL!

Much more than "just a random guy"

CPAC Official Says Michael Steele Was Chosen to Lead G.O.P. Because He’s ‘a Black Guy’

SOunds like CPAC isn't standing by his words. And he apologized.


And besides, IF it was true, this is the type of thing that liberals are CONSTANTLY telling republicans we have to do to reach out to minorities.


Something I always have disagreed with.


But it is telling that this guy claims to have done what so many liberals keep telling us we have to do, and then he is attacked by liberals for it.


Steele, like all Establishment republicans, need to stop letting vile, filthy, lying liberals, set the parameters of the debate.


EVERY TIME they mention race in any context with the republican party, it is a propaganda ploy to keep the myth of republicans being evul and racist alive.


EVERY TIME they do that, we just need to attack them for being racial demagogues.

EVERY TIME.



Because otherwise, they win.

LOL! This is some stump stupid bullshit.

All you have to do is spend time in a place like this and it shows you exactly what republicans are. Here is an idiot who told me that blacks should be grateful to whites freeing blacks from slavery talking about racial demagoguery.

Nice and vague.


Because my point is completely true.


IF it was true, this is the type of thing that liberals are CONSTANTLY telling republicans we have to do to reach out to minorities.


Something I always have disagreed with.


But it is telling that this guy claims to have done what so many liberals keep telling us we have to do, and then he is attacked by liberals for it.

 

[Correll]

Please save such nonsense for someone who is dense enough to actually believe it..

He had the courage to not defend an indefensible comment by #45.

Was not even recognized at a recent awards ceremony, endured a public comment by another crazy wingnut who actually stated that:

"He was only appointed to lead the GOP , because he was black"

And he still remains in the party? Really?

That is blind loyalty in the face of abject stupidity.

"Party of Lincoln"? What a fucking joke.
It's not 1860 anymore, but some of those nuts sure believe that it is.

I don't who said that, but I certainly hope it is not true.


Though, liberals, constant say shit like we republicans need to reach out or try to get more diversity, so, if that was true, why would you be offended?


Why would Steele NOT being the republican party? Because some random guy said that he didnt' deserve his job?


LOL!

Much more than "just a random guy"

CPAC Official Says Michael Steele Was Chosen to Lead G.O.P. Because He’s ‘a Black Guy’

SOunds like CPAC isn't standing by his words. And he apologized.


And besides, IF it was true, this is the type of thing that liberals are CONSTANTLY telling republicans we have to do to reach out to minorities.


Something I always have disagreed with.


But it is telling that this guy claims to have done what so many liberals keep telling us we have to do, and then he is attacked by liberals for it.


Steele, like all Establishment republicans, need to stop letting vile, filthy, lying liberals, set the parameters of the debate.


EVERY TIME they mention race in any context with the republican party, it is a propaganda ploy to keep the myth of republicans being evul and racist alive.


EVERY TIME they do that, we just need to attack them for being racial demagogues.

EVERY TIME.



Because otherwise, they win.

LOL! This is some stump stupid bullshit.

All you have to do is spend time in a place like this and it shows you exactly what republicans are. Here is an idiot who told me that blacks should be grateful to whites freeing blacks from slavery talking about racial demagoguery.

Comments about blacks on USMB are representative of the true feelings of conservatives. In public conservatives hide their racism with code words. But on an anonymous message board, we see how they really feel

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

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

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


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


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