nearly every post in this thread :rtfm:

it's amusing...keep going...you're on record pace

In my view it is totally different. You can think you can get elected w/o appealling to a certain group of people. Doesn't make you a racist to not appeal to them.

Had the Republican's gotten some immigration reform done, they prob. would be polling better and prob. in the lead now.

boom!

that's a very odd sentence

Sooooo....Basically, you got nuthin'

Actually your snarkiness is amusing. I'll get back to you when I need some customer service:laugha:

noooooo, basically you can't read.

glad you approve and find amusement....you know that I love you :love:

Thank you and I love you too:love:

Well, which is it? Can I not read or do I have bad reading comprehension?

Aren't they 2 different things?

There is a world of difference between...

(1) the GOP thinking they can win without the black vote, and
(2) the GOP introducing voting laws that are specifically designed to suppress the black vote.

#1 is not racist. You specifically accused the GOP, of #2. Trying to deny US citizens their constitutional rights based on skin color, could not be more racist.

"Had the Republican's gotten some immigration reform done, they prob. would be polling better and prob. in the lead now"

Not sure who you mean by "Republicans". Nationwide, the GOP currently controls both houses of Congress, and a huge majority of governorships and state legislatures.

If you are talking about just this one presidential election, if you think the GOP is way behind, then you haven't looked at polling that reflects Hilary's "pneumonia", or her deplorables comment. The most recent polling has Trump surging. CNN, which has all but endorsed Hilary in this election for God's sake, has him ahead in Ohio and Florida.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...nal-polls.html

Perhaps when your first instinct is to lie every single time you hit a bump in the road, and to describe almost 25% of the country you wish to lead as deplorable (half of Trump's supporters), that has ramifications.

Trying to follow your logic on this thread, is like following my dog's foot prints in new-fallen snow, and trying to find the logic in the path he followed. A real head-scratcher in either case.

For God's sakes, why did my side nominate this jerk? If we nominated anyone else, she would have written her concession speech by now. She couldn't beat Nixon right now.

The judge stated that #2 is exactly what the results of law were - to suppress the black vote.

But my point is, you are now saying that #2 isn't racist.

You accused the GOP of trying to deny blacks the right to vote. Then, you claim that you never said the GOP was racist. Therefore, that necessarily means that you don't consider it racist, to try to deny blacks the right to vote.

Can you show me where the judge stated that his ruling was made because it suppressed the black vote.

...and please don't say go look it up myself. because you already know where it is and should easily be able to go "Here ya Go"

nm

"Where did I say 1 way or the other whether it is racist or not?"

OK, I'll try to go slow...

First you said this: ""you can't tell me that those Repub. Legisl. put those restrictions in for any other reason than to keep minorities from being able to vote"

Then you said this: "Can you pls. point out where I accused conservatives of racism?"

Put those two statements together. What you said was, (1) the GOP is trying to suppress the black vote, and (2) you never said the GOP was racist.

If you didn't call them racist, that means that you don't think what they did, was racist.

There are judges who have said that it suppresses the black vote. Non of them say how it does so.

It probably does suppress the black vote. But not because of their skin color, but rather, because more of them freely choose not to get the id. That's their choice, it's not forced upon them, and therefore not racist.

I'd be curious to see if that actual judge worded it that way in the ruling, or went with the term "Disenfranchised Voter"

My recollection is that judges specifically said that id laws targeted the suppression of the black vote. Also from memory, their "evidence" was that after voter id laws are enacted, black voting drops more than white votes. The problem is, that doesn't come close to proving causality.

It's not any more racist than the NBA is. If I could shoot and rebound like Lebron, I'd play in that league. Similarly, if blacks choose to get the id, that will secure their voting rights.

If poor people are the ones that are prevented from going to the polls due to needing an ID , can't we just make EBT cards with a picture on them?
Anybody out with I shred of honesty will admit that this is not about suppressing black votes this is about suppressing noncitizen votes? You know the ones that shouldnt be voting anyways
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is really nonsensical I've never even heard it before. I think Buck is synthesizing conspiracy theories.

Interesting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So it's a conspiracy theory if it's to suppress the non-citizen vote......but it's Racism if it's to suppress the black vote?

Interesting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, because there's so much evidence of non citizens voting to sway elections.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And there's so much evidence of blacks who can't get an ID that don't vote....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think there's any evidence that requiring an ID with suppress any American citizens ability to vote . If I can recall last time we had this discussion , the only confirmed individual ,that could possibly be affected , that Spence could come up with ,was his mother ...I think
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device