You forgot the part about gerrymandering. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's true, parties in charge always do that. That doesn't explain governorships or the us senate, which are statewide races.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You forgot about voter suppression
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Michigan!!

Was this sarcasm?

So I guess I never heard oboma called the divider in chief from consertive doomsayers right leaning amnesia of facts

Mmm-hmmm. Because it's a different (harder) process for blacks to get voter ids, than it is for whites.

You forgot CNN giving Hilary debate questions ahead of time, and 95% of the media being in the bag for the democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not remotely sarcastic. You don't think liberals make a habit out of emphasizing racial divides and gender divide?

You missed my point entirely. Yes we called Obama a divider. Because he was. The Cambridge police acted stupidly, republicans have to sit in the back of the bus, my son would look like Michael brown, republicans gotta stop just hating all the time.

What he meant by that last one, is that we have to stop winning all the time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Several red state supreme courts would disagree with you.
It is about more than ID. I have zero issue with the ID portion, but they have found in NC, TX and maybe others that the targeted changes to early voting and other items were racially and or politically motivated.

I have zero doubt that some
Policies are rooted
In voter suppression, and we need to root out anyone who would support that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I get it .. Trump is the great unifier... Ok if you say so :laugha:

Thing is, I didn't say so. Never said anything like it. I am an ardent critic of Trump.

It's funny, I debate this stuff in a few different places, and it seems like you can always count on a liberal, eventually responding to something he claims you said, but doesn't even resemble anything you ever said. I notice that the people who do this, are generally people who are losing an argument, but cannot bring themselves to admit it.

I can say that Obama was divisive (and provide irrefutable, verifiable examples of his acting in such a way), and that says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about my view of Trump. They are different people, not inherently connected by every comment I make about one or the other.

There is very little that's unifying about Trump. There was very little that was unifying about Obama. Is that going too fast for you?

I read one state requires drivers license or maybe I should say allows drivers license. The article showed that every County where there is a black majority later had all of the licensing centers closed making it harder to get a driver's license. If I have time maybe I'll look to see if I could find that article
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All of the special elections this year were in heavily Republican areas with a majority incumbent Republican I believe. The dems. though they would take him back and did not. So what does that show bc I'm not sure.

As far as Trump voters being racist certainly not every Trump voter is racist and certainly there are democratic voters who are racist. But I believe there was a backlash by the white middle-class whose skills have not kept up with a new economy and had fallen behind and view that the last 8 years with Obama minorities did better than they did. I also feel that a higher percentage of racists support the Republicans versus the Democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The "language" of numbers is devoid of emotion, morality, fairness, isms and ists, politics, race, personality, doctrine, belief, conscience, motivation, conjecture, or any form of the fog of human vagueness. It is precise, without connotation or contradiction. Applying numbers to those things which numbers are devoid of, without precise, verifiable data, is, as you implied for yourself, an exercise in vague personal "belief." As such, that is not reliable, and the inherent certainty of numbrs can be misused to "imply" something that may not exist.

"Racists," whatever and whomever you mean by that term may predominantly like watermelon. That does not mean that watermelon is bad or racist. "Racists" like, support, a great deal of things that non-racists do. The thing being supported does not have to be racist for a "racist" to support it. Republicans, as a party, don't espouse racism. Some may be racist. The Republican platform differs in some fundamental ways from the Democrat platform. It is no wonder that a "racist," or any other fringe group, would support the individual freedoms that Republicans supposedly espouse. Small fringe groups would prefer to have the ability to live their own lives without government dictating that they cannot.

I don't doubt that a majority of racists ( at least a majority of white racists) who vote , vote republican. That shows you how stupid that are ( because I believe that liberalism has done far for damage to blacks than conservatism ever could), and the influence of the media, all of whom, except foxnews, claim that the republican platform is racist

As a conservative, I want to give poor blacks all the tools they need, to escape poverty. That goal , for them to escape poverty, has no political payoff for me, I want them to escape poverty bevlcause no one should be poor. Lacks who cannot help themselves, I am more than happy to help out with social programs. That's the conservative position, and it's not racist.

Liberals? They tell blacks it's not their fault, and make it impossible for them to escape poverty by crippling them, making them addicted to welfare, and paying young girls to have babies out of wedlock.

That's what liberalism has done for blacks. Whether or not it's intentionally racist is a anyone's guess, but it has been a disaster. Liberals propose more of the same for blacks. Conservatives suggest a different path. You go ahead and tell me how the latter, is racist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device