C:...Make America Great Again

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, if you say that the GOP has no use for minorities, how is that different from calling them racist?

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The judge stated that #2 is exactly what they did.

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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

You accused the GOP of trying to deny blacks the right to vote. That is what I believe that real reason for the law was absense any real fraud Then, you claim that you never said the GOP was racist.I said there was some racism within the birther movement. You're the one who blew the racism whistle (and before the birther movement was even brought up.) Therefore, that necessarily means that you don't consider it racist, to try to deny blacks the right to vote.

nm

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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"

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.