Who’s your source?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i didn’t attribute that to “the democratic base.

i can admit i made that up. Based on an accurate summary of liberal policies toward blacks

time was, democrats used public policy to control blacks on plantations. Today, democrats use public policy to control blacks in disgusting urban cities. We substituted cotton fields for urban blight and failing sh*thole schools
and a staggering, crippling, mind-blowing fatherlessness rate.

but unlike others, i’m not going to lie and say that democrats actually said that. but it’s what they do.

Make that wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stop posting demonstrably false, incoherent, partisan, nonsensical gibberish

The only path forward for conservatives is pounding a square peg into a round hole !

Because admission of failure isn’t allowed

Like Trump won the election or there was voter fraud or Jan 6th was an insurrection


Just look how they support the white Canada Truckers blocking highways a vocal minority yell freedom and Covid .

Anti-Protest Conservatives Sure Do Love the Trucker Blockade Causing ‘Deep Pain’ to American Companies

But if BLM or any liberals block a road or highway all the comments are just run them over

Fox News, Daily Caller delete posts encouraging people to drive through protests

Conservatives have no historical memory they have integrity amnesia
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Conservatives would say the truckers have a point, as conservatives as a rule, aren't big fans of mandates.

BLM doesn't have a point. It was literally founded on a complete lie ("hands up, don't shoot", which Brown never said), there's absolutely no data to suggest that police have waged war against American blacks. And BLM explicitly says they're in favor of attacking the nuclear family, when that's literally the exact opposite thing that any pro-black person should be saying.

Finally, the truckers aren't looting, burning down stores, or murdering people. Unlike BLM and Antifa.

You never miss a right wing trope
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i agree it’s right wing.

What about it, was wrong?

I’ll wait.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All, start with this
Following the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the core bases of the two parties shifted, with the Southern states becoming more reliably Republican in presidential politics and the Northeastern states becoming more reliably Democratic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

which disputes exactly nothing that was in my post.

republicans want blacks to get ahead.

democrats want to cripple blacks,,keep them addicted to
welfare, alive but utterly unable to escape poverty. keep them in the cities in lousy schools, pumping out babies with no dad around, creating a permanent underclass, but a reliable voting block.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about a quote from one of Nixon’s top advisors explaining their decision to launch the “War on Drugs.”
“You understand what I’m saying? We couldn’t make it illegal to be against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and the blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing them heavily, we could disrupt those communities.
We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings and vilify them on the nightly news.
Did we know we were lying about the drugs, of course we did.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wow an unnamed Nixon advisor.

How about president Lyndon Johnson saying “I’ll have those n*ggers voting for Democrats for 200 years”?

Pete, look at what i posted above in terms of democrat policy impacting blacks. and tell me what i said, which is wrong.

all you can do, is respond to something i never said.

look at what each side says about school choice. At Trump’s SOTU, republicans were going berserk at the news of low black unemployment. Remember how the democrats reacted? They sat on their hands, scowling.

If they want blacks to succeed,, please explain why they were miserable at low black unemployment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain why Republicans sat and didn’t rejoice when Barack Obama was President
Explain why Republicans think that no black woman is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice

Explain why there are roughly 100k elected positions in the U.S.
and Republicans announced that 40 Blacks are running as GOPers, that is closer to zero than to even 1%. It's more likely that you'll be struck by lightning than represented by a Black Republican.

And the spectacular halfime show sure did rattle the GOP incel crowd.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain why Republicans think that no black woman is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE]

again, what does it say that you cannot EVER answer the question that i asked?

no republican ever said that ( hearing voices again). what they’re saying, is that it’s wrong ( and obviously illegal) to ignore potentially better candidates based on gender and skin color

Lindsay Graham has come out and said that there’s one black woman a bunch or republicans would vote for.

I dare you to post evidence that any influential republican said that no black roman is qualified.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did they say that when Trump said he would only pick a candidate approved by the Federalist Society?

yeah, it would probably be wrong to discriminate based on whether or not a judge is a Constitutionalist or not when nominating one for the Supreme Court

again, what does it say that you cannot EVER answer the question that i asked?

no republican ever said that ( hearing voices again). what they’re saying, is that it’s wrong ( and obviously illegal) to ignore potentially better candidates based on gender and skin color

Lindsay Graham has come out and said that there’s one black woman a bunch or republicans would vote for.

I dare you to post evidence that any influential republican said that no black roman is qualified.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE]


Jim keep convincing yourself Republicans push back against a Black SJC pick is about “ a better candidate “

Just like changing for voter laws were for “ election integrity “ even in states Trump won. More like they are afraid of Turn out.

Texas counties reject unprecedented numbers of mail ballots ahead of March 1 primary under restrictive new law

To be eligible to vote early by mail in Texas, you must:

be 65 years or older;
be sick or disabled;
be out of the county on election day and during the period for early voting by personal appearance; or
be expected to give birth within three weeks before or after Election Day; or
be confined in jail, but otherwise eligible.

These must be the fraudsters Texas is after , most over 65 I would bet vote Republican
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim keep convincing yourself Republicans push back against a Black SJC pick is about “ a better candidate “

Just like changing for voter laws were for “ election integrity “ even in states Trump won. More like they are afraid of Turn out.

Texas counties reject unprecedented numbers of mail ballots ahead of March 1 primary under restrictive new law

To be eligible to vote early by mail in Texas, you must:

be 65 years or older;
be sick or disabled;
be out of the county on election day and during the period for early voting by personal appearance; or
be expected to give birth within three weeks before or after Election Day; or
be confined in jail, but otherwise eligible.

These must be the fraudsters Texas is after , most over 65 I would bet vote Republican
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE]

i answered that question exactly as it was asked. i’m
sorry if you couldn’t comprehend it, but here is the answer again….no influential republican ever said that. To repeat, no influential republican said anything close to what pete claimed they are saying.

If there’s a highly qualified black female candidate, fine. buts it’s discrimination to say ahead of time that you’re excluding a huge number of people based on skin color and gender. How is that not discrimination?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Every black candidate was eliminated from the list until 1967 and the same baloney was claimed then, much like 81 when the first woman was nominated.
There’s plenty of candidates more qualified than Kavanaugh or Barrett unless you can only pick from the Federalist Society list.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and by what logic do we punish white men today, for the fact that democrats prevented blacks from getting ahead for so long?

if a white male judge alive today, happens to be a descendent of someone who was killed fighting for the north in the civil
war, how on earth could
you conclude that he is responsible for the sins of the past?

you, and your liberal ilk, are talking about “collective guilt”, the idea that everyone who looks like past criminals, is guilty for what the criminal did.

That’s the exact opposite of the foundation of our system of justice.

Why not an asian woman? We have a black in the court, but we have no Asians. Why is that?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You can feel guilty if you want.

The right wing’s infatuation with white grievance and increasing attraction to civil unrest at the expense of ordinary Americans is leading the GOP to increasingly perverse positions. Now, Republicans and their media cohorts root for economic distress, violence and disorder.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll ask again. Did they say that when Trump said he would only pick a candidate approved by the Federalist Society?

And how about when Reagan said he would only pick a woman? Was it obviously illegal then?

saying you’ll pick one that conservatives will like, is a little different than saying your pick will be a certain gender and color.

does any president pick one whose politics aren’t similar to the presidents?

i was a tad young when reagan made that announcement. but it was a stupid thing for him to declare. it’s blatantly unconstitutional.

You asked this already, and I gave the same answer, which answers your question as it was asked, and is consistent with my view on Biden. If you'd care to ask the same question again, perhaps you can flag my response here and just refer back to it, that'll save us both some time.

Picking someone of a certain gender or race for political reasons (like Trump picking Barrett) is one thing. Declaring way ahead of time that only one race/gender will be considered, is something else. It's stupid when Reagan did it, and it's stupid fo Biden to do it.

Does anyone here, or on Bidens team, ask themselves why his approval ratings are where they are?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, thus the President may nominate any individual to serve on the Court.

But obviously conservatism is the principle that in groups are protected but not bound by law and out groups are not protected but bound.

Because, originalism…….

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’ll make it as simple as i can…

if it’s ok for Biden to say white men can’t apply for this job, it’s equally ok for someone else to say that blacks can’t apply for another job.

Unless whites are not equal
to blacks.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are two types of people in this country.

1. People who see opportunities for minority populations as progress that makes us proud.

2. People who see minority populations gaining equality as a threat.

Group 1 are Americans.
Group 2 are Republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right. That's why Republicans are in favor of school choice, and why democrats hate school choice. This is why Republicans make the case for the benefit of intact families, and why liberals incentivize fatherlessness.

Second time, why did Democrats get so miserable when Republicans were celebrating the lowest black unemployment ever? If what you posted is even a little bit true, wouldn't congressional democrats celebrate that?

For Gods sake, even the congressional black caucus acted like someone just ran over their dog. Even they couldn't celebrate that. Because democrats care about winning, not about blacks getting ahead.

All you have is hyper-partisan nonsense Pete. Things that make great bumper stickers for thoughtless liberal livestock, but which are laughable.

Trump said he would pick someone "choosen" by the Federalist society. Reagan said a woman. You and your ilk (I think that is a scummy word but one you throw out there frequently so I'll use it) shows the hypocrisy of the Rs.

Exactly.

At least you're good for a laugh here.

School choice is about moving my tax dollars to private institutions, just like for profit prisons.
Republicans claim to be for intact families but oppose any help that doesn’t have a cliff at the upper end.
Republicans consistently oppose healthcare reform, claiming that it will cost too much, but we already pay for it, I just want the money to pay for health care not an insurance executive's third mansion.
That the Republican Party thinks that a minuscule number of black candidates is worth bragging about should tell you all you need to know
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

seems like paul and pete are hitting the crack pipe pretty hard....

leftists will be full racism till november...should be fun and uniting