C:...Make America Great Again

[Fly Rod]

Trump uses phase, "Make America Great Again,: bill clinton now says it is racist.... bill used it four times in 1991 and it wasn't racist.....unbelieveable....

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...america-great/

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Trump uses phase, "Make America Great Again,: bill clinton now says it is racist.... bill used it four times in 1991 and it wasn't racist.....unbelieveable....

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presid...america-great/

WOW you really dont understand do you .. its never been about the words .. "Make America Great Again, its always been about the details on the How and why with Trump ..

another simplistic example from the right for their simple followers

this should be the trump campaign slogan "Make America Great Again But keep it simple stupid

[Fly Rod]

U R an idiot.....

[buckman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

WOW you really dont understand do you .. its never been about the words .. "Make America Great Again, its always been about the details on the How and why with Trump ..

another simplistic example from the right for their simple followers

this should be the trump campaign slogan "Make America Great Again But keep it simple stupid

Bill Clinton pretty much called all southern white people racist . To say that the slogan "Make America great again "is all about white power it's a stretch by any imagination .
Let's not forget to look into the history books and you'll find that Democrats founded the KKK and the Democrats fought for a states right to keep slavery while the Republicans fought to abolish it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

America is still great. Sorry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Nebe

America is still great. Sorry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Still the best 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by buckman

Bill Clinton pretty much called all southern white people racist . To say that the slogan "Make America great again "is all about white power it's a stretch by any imagination .
Let's not forget to look into the history books and you'll find that Democrats founded the KKK and the Democrats fought for a states right to keep slavery while the Republicans fought to abolish it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Another example of the simplistic View forwarded by Conservatives
can we talk current events.. not how things were 140 years ago

Historians say the KKK consisted of a group of Southern whites after the Civil War who were Democrats. But there’s no evidence the KKK was created by their political party.

It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party of the 1860s and 1870s bears no similarity to the party of today.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Another example of the simplistic View forwarded by Conservatives
can we talk current events.. not how things were 140 years ago

Historians say the KKK consisted of a group of Southern whites after the Civil War who were Democrats. But there’s no evidence the KKK was created by their political party.

It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party of the 1860s and 1870s bears no similarity to the party of today.

Which party supported segregation in the 1950s, which party worked to end segregation?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

can we talk current events.. not how things were 140 years ago

Historians say the KKK consisted of a group of Southern whites after the Civil War who were Democrats. But there’s no evidence the KKK was created by their political party.

It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party of the 1860s and 1870s bears no similarity to the party of today.

that was funny

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

can we talk current events.. not how things were 140 years ago

Maybe you should run that philosophy by The reparations folks....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Which party supported segregation in the 1950s, which party worked to end segregation?

again that was 66 years ago your getting closer it is 2016

todays republicans Party I stress TODAYS

A federal appeals court has blocked a proof-of-citizenship requirement on a federal mail voter registration form in Kansas, Alabama and Georgia.

Supreme Court Shuts Down Michigan’s Push To Eliminate ‘Straight-Ticket’ Voting

Republican-Authored Voting Laws in Wisconsin, Kansas, North Carolina Overturned

the new GOP we dont need to convince you to Vote for us we'll just make it harder in the hopes you don't vote for them

[buckman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

again that was 66 years ago your getting closer it is 2016

todays republicans Party I stress TODAYS

A federal appeals court has blocked a proof-of-citizenship requirement on a federal mail voter registration form in Kansas, Alabama and Georgia.

Supreme Court Shuts Down Michigan’s Push To Eliminate ‘Straight-Ticket’ Voting

Republican-Authored Voting Laws in Wisconsin, Kansas, North Carolina Overturned

the new GOP we dont need to convince you to Vote for us we'll just make it harder in the hopes you don't vote for them

The new GOP actually wants to do something to help those in urban areas . What's the new Democratic Party got? Maybe move a bunch of Syrian refugees into Detroits empty housing?
You people actually believe that calling for a photo ID to vote is racist. That's how far over the edge you have gone . I think college kids today should pursuing a career in psychological therapy, I see a very promising future in it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Another example of the simplistic View forwarded by Conservatives

There is a difference between simplistic and simplified. For purposes of brief discussion, such as on this forum, complex issues are usually simplified.

can we talk current events.. not how things were 140 years ago

We could. If we wish to be simplistic, we could say, in relation to race, that The Democrat Party of today is not the same as that of 140 years ago. It does not support actual slavery as that institution was known 140 years ago.

If we wish to simplify, we could say that, in many ways, there are similarities in racial attitudes between the Party then and now. After the Republicans destroyed that old notion of slavery, the notion of so-called white supremacy continued overtly in the Democrat Party for several decades. Then, in order to get the black vote which had become crucial, the racist attitude of the Party lessened its overt expression and became more subtle. There is now a parallel similarity in terms of dependence and control between Blacks and the Democrat party--to the extent that Blacks, to a great extent, fear actual freedom, fear to shape their own lives without government (Democrat) assistance.

Historians say the KKK consisted of a group of Southern whites after the Civil War who were Democrats. But there’s no evidence the KKK was created by their political party.

That group of Southern whites was not banned by the Democrat Party. There was sympathy in the Party toward the KKK movement. Several years after the KKK was established, Woodrow Wilson, though born in Virginia, was basically a Northerner, a Governor of New Jersey, and one of the first "Progressive" Presidents (and a Democrat), praised the movie "Birth of a Nation." He represented the still overt but more subtle face of White supremacy. Blacks should not be slaves, but they should know their place as the inferior race. To be fair, whites, in general, regardless of party, probably held that notion. But party policies have created a different view which can also be translated to race. Conservative policies and notional philosophy stress individual responsibility, and Progressive policies and philosophy tend toward dependence on government. Somehow, the Conservative view is supposed to be "racist." I suppose because Blacks are still supposed to be oppressed by the legacy of slavery and so cannot yet have the ability to be self-sufficient. Well, Republicans cannot be blamed for that legacy.

So, then, with FDR's "New Deal" and its labor movement, there was ushered into the American psyche, for all races, the need for powerful government intervention in all lives. This is actually an elitist rather than a racist view. But as various civil rights acts were being passed with majority Republican and minority Democrat support, it became apparent that to hold the growing black vote, Democrats had to stress race as one of its more important elitisms. LBJ's "Great Society" did that. And the subtlest white supremacy was ingrained into Democrat Party philosophy--Blacks are not at the level of Whites, and Whites must help them get there.

It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party of the 1860s and 1870s bears no similarity to the party of today.

There's this concocted notion of Nixon's Southern Strategy creating a massive switch in party allegiance from "Dixiecrat" to Republican. Actually, the vast majority of Democrat Party officials in power at the time, did not switch. And what is notable since the South became Republican is that it is less racist.

As for the similarity of the Party between then and now, see the above. The Democrat Party not only still holds a slave-like dependence of blacks to it, it has spread its controlling tentacles toward all the races in America. This coming election may clasp those tentacles more firmly around all of us.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

again that was 66 years ago your getting closer it is 2016

todays republicans Party I stress TODAYS

A federal appeals court has blocked a proof-of-citizenship requirement on a federal mail voter registration form in Kansas, Alabama and Georgia.

What is your objection to this? Is this supposed to be racist? Wouldn't the requirement be applied to all races?

Supreme Court Shuts Down Michigan’s Push To Eliminate ‘Straight-Ticket’ Voting

Straight ticket applies to both parties. This would affect Republican voters as well as Democrats. Although it's not necessary to vote straight ticket, voters are persuaded by political machines to do so, thereby dumbing them down to strict party lines--making it easier for either party to get bad candidates elected when there would be a better choice.

The "ease" of straight ticket voting makes it easier to dissuade voters from any critical thinking and into just being Party mules--easier just to, as you might say, carry the Party's water.

It makes it easier to control political thought. And the supposed difficulty in splitting a ticket (it's not difficult nor a hardship) in favor of a straight ticket actually makes it difficult, if not impossible, for instance, for a Republican to even run in any Detroit precincts. It's a version of your "we dont need to convince you to Vote for us we'll just make it harder [for Republicans] in the hopes you don't vote for them

Republican-Authored Voting Laws in Wisconsin, Kansas, North Carolina Overturned

This is a simplistic statement.

the new GOP we dont need to convince you to Vote for us we'll just make it harder in the hopes you don't vote for them

You could more justly apply this statement to the political concept of your party giving you more than the other party. There is no need to convince voters of the virtue of self-reliance and personal freedom if you can provide them with enough to get along. No need to convince you that it is destructive to a free civil society when government takes your place in shaping your life.

It is very difficult to have a rational political discussion with someone who wants free stuff. And it is almost impossible to convince that person that the stuff is not free.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

again that was 66 years ago your getting closer it is 2016

todays republicans Party I stress TODAYS

A federal appeals court has blocked a proof-of-citizenship requirement on a federal mail voter registration form in Kansas, Alabama and Georgia.

Supreme Court Shuts Down Michigan’s Push To Eliminate ‘Straight-Ticket’ Voting

Republican-Authored Voting Laws in Wisconsin, Kansas, North Carolina Overturned

the new GOP we dont need to convince you to Vote for us we'll just make it harder in the hopes you don't vote for them

"again that was 66 years ago your getting closer it is 2016"

OK. In 2016, most states run by liberals for decades (CT, RI, Mass, IL) are on the verge of bankruptcy, but liberals deny it or ignore it. Today in 2016, cities run by liberals for decades (Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Milwaukee are uninhabitable sh*tholes, where thanks to liberalism, huge numbers of blacks are stuck in poverty with no way to lift themselves out. Liberals deny it, or ignore it. Here in 2016, after years of Obama, we have the slowest recovery from a recession ever, with median wages that are down since he's been in office, and pathetic GDP growth, and staggering increases to his debt. Here is 2016, thanks to liberalism, schools can't give chocolate milk or soda to little kids, but they hand out condoms.

" federal appeals court has blocked a proof-of-citizenship requirement on a federal mail voter registration form in Kansas, Alabama and Georgia.

Supreme Court Shuts Down Michigan’s Push To Eliminate ‘Straight-Ticket’ Voting"

OK, Obama was successfully sued by Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of The Poor for trampling on their First Amendment Rights. What is your point?

Here in 2016, the GOP controls both houses of Congress (for now, the Senate is up for grabs)) and has a huge majority of governorships and state legislatures.

[wdmso]

Seems you guys need to see and understand why the courts are are ruling against all theses NEW laws most enacted primary by republican in those states ..

or is your answer going to be the same as all your other answers it is the liberal and progressive Judges Fault

I love the fantasy... these laws are to protect the voting process ...

to use your guys need for past history theses laws where fine 15 ,20 ,30 even 60 years ago .. but now there not

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seems you guys need to see and understand why the courts are are ruling against all theses NEW laws most enacted primary by republican in those states ..

or is your answer going to be the same as all your other answers it is the liberal and progressive Judges Fault

Seems you need to see and understand why the courts are ruling the way they do. Oh wait, however courts rule, for you that's just the way it is and is supposed to be. No need for you to question court rulings.

Your model of citizenship for a free civil society is frightening.

I love the fantasy... these laws are to protect the voting process ...

The proposed laws which were struck down were designed to protect the voting process. Requiring ID, for instance, is designed to protect the voting process. But if some Judge has a different opinion, a different agenda, then the laws ain't no good.

Leave the process up to a few Judges. Scary.

to use your guys need for past history theses laws where fine 15 ,20 ,30 even 60 years ago .. but now there not

So past history is good if it is not more than 60 years old. Anything over 60 years ago is no good. If its less than 60 years ago, it is written in temporary stone and must not be touched.

A lot happened in those 60 years that needed fixing. So long as any change is Constitutional, and the people approve, no Judge should have the power to disapprove. However, when Judges rule by philosophical or personal agenda, as Progressive Judges do, then neither Congress nor The People have their Constitutional right to make necessary adjustments to political process.

You don't like that same old argument. But it is the only argument which will protect you and the rest of us from despotisms, even the ones that promise nice sounding things.

Leaving the power in the hands of a few judges who do not respect the overall Constitutional process to decide what protects the voting process, is the surest way of achieving a corrupted voting process.

[Fly Rod]

WD....so u say it was stupid for Trump to use, "Make America Great Again," but U seem to think it was great that billy boy said it and it ment different back then, but racist today.

U must have loved it when hillary said that half of trump voters were deploreable etc:.....her statement was no better then rommney's 47 percent....she should B ashamed and should apologise to the country.....remember she has a larger % of uneducated voting for her....repubs R in the 20-25 % and hillary is over the 60% of uneducated....

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

WD....so u say it was stupid for Trump to use, "Make America Great Again," but U seem to think it was great that billy boy said it and it ment different back then, but racist today.

U must have loved it when hillary said that half of trump voters were deploreable etc:.....her statement was no better then rommney's 47 percent....she should B ashamed and should apologise to the country.....remember she has a larger % of uneducated voting for her....repubs R in the 20-25 % and hillary is over the 60% of uneducated....

why should she apologize to the country for what not being politically correct .. I thought you guys liked people who tell it like it is she may have been wrong on How many were deplorable for their views but she wasn't wrong that theses people exist ...

I never said it was a stupid slogan
its actually very good .. But it seem people such as your self dont understand its not the slogan thats the issue ...

its the message behind the slogan and how he intends to follow thru

maybe it should read .. make America white again ..to avoid being politically correct because thats his supporters demographic in a nut shell.. I see it here I see it at work I see it with my 71 year old Mother

Trump’s supporters are a bit older, less educated and earn less than the average Republican. Slightly over half are women. About half are between 45 and 64 years of age, with another 34 percent over 65 years old and less than 2 percent younger than 30.

not sure if He can win just with those voters .. But unlike most here if the Donald or Hillary win the election ..they will My POTUS

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So past history is good if it is not more than 60 years old. Anything over 60 years ago is no good. If its less than 60 years ago, it is written in temporary stone and must not be touched.

A lot happened in those 60 years that needed fixing. So long as any change is Constitutional, and the people approve, no Judge should have the power to disapprove. However, when Judges rule by philosophical or personal agenda, as Progressive Judges do, then neither Congress nor The People have their Constitutional right to make necessary adjustments to political process.

You don't like that same old argument. But it is the only argument which will protect you and the rest of us from despotisms, even the ones that promise nice sounding things.

Leaving the power in the hands of a few judges who do not respect the overall Constitutional process to decide what protects the voting process, is the surest way of achieving a corrupted voting process.

Thanks again for your another installment of fight the power by detbuch


from 1 of the ruling states its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black
turnout at the polls.

whos protecting who?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

But unlike most here if the Donald or Hillary win the election ..they will My POTUS

There is a big difference. Some people (Bill Clinton, and George W Bush) never gave the impression that they had no use for everyone who didn't vote for them. Obama (with his bitter clingers comment) and Hilary (with her deplorable comment) could not be more clear that they don't feel that anything I believe, has any positive value.

The reason why I don't feel like Obama is my president, and why Hilary won't be my president if she wins...didn't start with me...it's because they made it clear they have no use for anyone who believes what I believe. Trump just said that he respects her supporters (he may well not mean it, but he said it). She, like Obama, has nothing but contempt for people like me, so I respond in kind, because she deserves no better.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

from 1 of the ruling states its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black
turnout at the polls.

How?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How?

I have asked 1,000 times, why it's more of a burden for blacks to get an id card than whites. Can't get an answer.

I would imagine that a higher % of whites register to vote than blacks. Why don't the courts strike down registration requirements as being discriminatory against blacks?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I have asked 1,000 times, why it's more of a burden for blacks to get an id card than whites. Can't get an answer.

I would imagine that a higher % of whites register to vote than blacks. Why don't the courts strike down registration requirements as being discriminatory against blacks?

You have to think The way liberals and Democrats in general feel . Because of the oppression blacks have had to deal with, they are not as capable as white people . I personally don't feel that way and there are millions of examples of successful black people that should put that theory to rest , but why let a good oppression go to waste, especially if you can gain a little power, make a little money, and irrationally feel good about yourself, while they feel good you are "helping" .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

You have to think The way liberals and Democrats in general feel . Because of the oppression blacks have had to deal with, they are not as capable as white people . I personally don't feel that way and there are millions of examples of successful black people that should put that theory to rest , but why let it a good oppression waste, especially if you can gain a little power, make a little money, and irrationally feel good about helping poor black folk .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think liberals truly feel this is discriminatory against blacks, they just like to throw that label around every time we are on the winning side of an argument. Which is quite often.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How?

I dont know ? try research.. I am not the judge who made the ruling

but it seems they saw How..

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Thanks again for your another installment of fight the power by detbuch

Your welcome.

from 1 of the ruling states its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black
turnout at the polls.

Putting on a black robe and being referred to as "Your Honor" does not give someone magic powers, doesn't transform one from a flawed human to some God-like figure. As a group, Judges are no less flawed, nor more virtuous than elected officials. Some Judges may be, most are not. Some tend to be pompous asses full of themselves. Some are political hacks and toadies to the party that appoints them. I'm sure you know this. I'm sure you know that some Judges have been downright evil. Many have had rulings overturned, even generations later.

Which makes me wonder why you unquestioningly accept what they say and even admit that "I dont know ? try research.. I am not the judge who made the ruling but it seems they saw How.."

Is this another installment of your lemming-like submit to the power by wdmso?

whos protecting who?

It seems that you are protecting the power.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

from 1 of the ruling states its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black
turnout at the polls.

So you make a statement that it targets African-Americans

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How?

I ask How? as in "How does it target them, specifically?"

I think it would target all people who can't produce proof of citizenship, not just blacks. which has absolutely nothing to do with race

Originally Posted by wdmso

I dont know ? try research.. I am not the judge who made the ruling

but it seems they saw How..

so your answer is....You don't know....

If your going to make a statement, shouldn't you, at the very least, know why you're making it...I mean, if you were my crazy uncle in the nursing home I might let you slide on why you say the things you say.

but you made that statement with such conviction....you may want to know why


....and you also told me to look it up....so I did.

they....not he (it was a 3 person appeals court) Ruled that the person who made the change to the form, requiring proof of citizenship, wasn't authorized to do so. Nowhere in their ruling did they say that it was going to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” just that he didn't have the right to make the change.

and of the 2-1 decision....one judge was a Democrat and one was a Republican

But feel free to insert Racism between the lines.....it's so 2016 now

so, again, how does requiring proof of citizenship to vote "“target African-Americans with almost surgical precision”?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

If your going to make a statement, shouldn't you, at the very least, know why you're making it...

All they need to know, is that they are hurling charges of racism at the right. Details, shmeetails...

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

So you make a statement that it targets African-Americans



I ask How? as in "How does it target them, specifically?"

I think it would target all people who can't produce proof of citizenship, not just blacks. which has absolutely nothing to do with race



so your answer is....You don't know....

If your going to make a statement, shouldn't you, at the very least, know why you're making it...I mean, if you were my crazy uncle in the nursing home I might let you slide on why you say the things you say.

but you made that statement with such conviction....you may want to know why


....and you also told me to look it up....so I did.

they....not he (it was a 3 person appeals court) Ruled that the person who made the change to the form, requiring proof of citizenship, wasn't authorized to do so. Nowhere in their ruling did they say that it was going to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” just that he didn't have the right to make the change.

and of the 2-1 decision....one judge was a Democrat and one was a Republican

But feel free to insert Racism between the lines.....it's so 2016 now

so, again, how does requiring proof of citizenship to vote "“target African-Americans with almost surgical precision”?

only a blind white guy wouldn't see Racism but it seem the courts saw things differently all over the county .. must be another liberal conspiracy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/ar...-black-voters/ same phrase Discrimination with “almost surgical precision”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/op...ng-rights.html

In the last few weeks, voting rights groups, in some instances working with the Department of Justice, have posted a series of victories that seemed unlikely when their cases against these laws were first brought. The rights of hundreds of thousands of voters are at stake.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, perhaps the most conservative federal appeals court, ruled 9-6 last month that Texas’ strict voter identification law had a racially discriminatory effect on African-American and Latino voters. Not only did the Fifth Circuit send the case back to the trial court to establish a procedure to make it easier for those who lacked one of the narrow forms of identification to be able to vote, but also to decide if Texas had acted with racially discriminatory intent. Such a finding could lead the courts to put Texas back under direct federal supervision.

Last Friday, a Fourth Circuit panel ruled that a North Carolina voting law, possibly the largest rollback of voting rights since the 1965 Voting Rights Act, was enacted with racially discriminatory intent. The court threw out not only the state’s strict voter ID law, but also other voting restrictions that could make it especially hard for minorities to vote.

In the Seventh Circuit, a panel of conservative judges gave a trial court permission to soften Wisconsin’s strict voter identification law. In response, the trial court recently issued an order giving people who lacked one of the few IDs accepted for voting in Wisconsin the chance to vote by filling out an affidavit of identity. Then last week another federal court threw out more of Wisconsin’s strict voting laws. On Monday, a federal court told North Dakota to soften its ID law, which adversely affected Native Americans.

Meanwhile, over in the Sixth Circuit, two federal judges have held that Ohio’s rollbacks of early voting violate the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act by making it harder for African-Americans and others to vote. Another case on appeal challenges Ohio’s planned voter purge. In Michigan, a district court judge rejected the state’s elimination of straight-ticket voting. Finally, in Kansas, federal and state courts have beaten back numerous attempts by Secretary of State Kris Kobach to make voter registration harder in the name of preventing noncitizen voting (a minor problem in Kansas, to say the least).

These battles are not over, and further appeals could still lead to reversals. But there are two reasons to be optimistic that we are nearing the end of an era of increasingly restrictive voting rules imposed just about exclusively by Republican legislators and election officials over the objections of Democrats and voting rights groups.