Why do blacks vote for democrats over 90% of the time?

Every time the KKK marches, the police bring in the National Guard to protect them from the hordes of blacks that descend on them. Blacks have NOTHING to fear from the white race. The KKK struggles to fill a minivan. Whites simply do not have the unity, determination nor the pride it takes to be a threat to anyone - except maybe a disabled homeless woman in a wheelchair.

 

We've been through this crap at least a dozen times....bottom line is that our gov't has ALWAYS made law regarding weapon ownership (determining who can have what type of weapon) for over 200 years. To date, you have a plethora of handguns, rifles, shotguns and semi-automatics in all 3 categories available to all law abiding citizens that meet the criteria of state and federal requirements for ownership (if they can afford them). Outright confiscation for the general population hasn't been done in my lifetime that I'm aware of.

I don't know how in the world you could have a "mandatory" buy back that wouldn't be akin to outright confiscation of designated assault weapons that were grandfathered or reinstated by law...the most she could do, even with executive orders, would be to attempt to ban specific assault weapons as previously done through Congress. I would love to hear her explanation of that.....one of the reasons I'm not thrilled about her being VP.

But

Since she has NOT advocated for general disarming of Americans, your exaggerated premise is based wholly on supposition and conjecture and/or pure speculation that every member of NAAGA is against her nomination.

 

If that were indeed the case, then all those documented cased of gerrymandering in Red States, Barr's bias and Dump's latest attack on the USPS via his stooge appointee would be unnecessary, as the conservative vote would be overwhelming.

History tells a different story. Your little cartoon is NOT nationwide, as the coverage of demonstrations and protests over these last few months have shown. https://www.civicsnation.org/2018/03/02/black-lives-matter-media-coverage-shows-racial-bias/

 

Southern Strategy
Dixiecrats

Look it up, get informed.

 

In short, critical thinking, logic and facts trump "belief", which is a nice starting point, but not the be all, end all.

As for the right to vote, it's true that it wasn't set in the original Constitution as "inalienable", but https://www.collegesoflaw.edu/blog/...onstitutional-guarantee-or-privilege/?_page=3

 

I have done extensive research and posts on this forum on the subject. I would suggest that you are thoroughly misinformed on the subject.

 

Duplicate post

 

A dodge.

Either NAAGA will be amenable to a "mandatory gun buyback" of their assault weapons in support of Harris,

or

Harris is not representative of NAAGA members. This was my claim that you challenged. Given Harris' and NAAGAs own words on the issue, as I've provided, either argue why you still think Harris' represents black NAAGA members or cede the argument.

This isn't a debate on the legitimacy of gun laws. Its whether Harris 'represents black people' because of her skin color or not.

 

I wish this board had a thumbs down feature.

 

Still don't understand how that applies to me. Carry on.

 

A very selective listing. Here's what you left out:

https://www.thenation.com/article/a...rs-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

https://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article229170649.html

Nixon did what he had to do (from his standpoint) to get into office.

translation: Resistance is futile!

 

Get an adult to explain it to you or stop being stubborn, as feigning confusion doesn't jibe with your posts.

 

I didn't dodge anything. You just can't BS past my response, so you repeat speculation in an attempt to connect it to fact which has not been established as such. Since you haven't produced any type of polling or statement to support your claim, you can't make an assertion about what I "think" since I made no such claim either way. Follow the chronology of the posts, it was YOU who started down this road....I merely question the validity of your assertions.

I recall similar claims made about NRA members and Obama. When it came to light that around 80% of the membership supported universal background checks (of which the leadership was steadfast against), your assertion is dubious at best.

 

So, lets start from the basics here.

Do you think NAAGA supports a mandatory gun buyback program?

 

That article talks about the context of that quote. If you listen to the entire interview of Lee Atwater, you will understand that he is saying that the GOP is the home of blacks, that we live in a post racist world, and that the democrat's past use of racism ("You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*gger, n*gger, n*gger.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*gger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*gger, n*gger.”)

Who in 1954 was abusing blacks in the South and using that hate to win votes? DEMOCRATS! So obviously he was talking about democrats not republicans. Here is what he said about republicans and blacks, "My generation,” he insists, “will be the first generation of Southerners that won’t be prejudiced.” That was in the same interview but has been hidden for decades.

The 2nd article blames Barry Goldwater, one of the few GOP politicians opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He was also not a racist, and was in favor of desegregation, in fact he desegregated the Arizona Air National Guard.

As for Nixon, he pushed through the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts that JFK and LBJ gutted as it passed through Congress.

How desegregating schools and passing historic pro-black policies in his first term was an appeal to Southern racist Democrats escapes me completely.

 

The founders of this country disproved that.

 

You mistake me. I'm not confused. You just fail to make any coherent points. Do you always get away with breaking the rules and insulting people? That is against the rules here, BTW. You insult my ability to read, but you seem to have a harder time processing information. That is projection.

 

Here's a portion of Nixon's 1968 acceptance speech at the RNC Convention.

 

and your point?

 

Do you comprehend what I wrote? You wasted enough time and space repeating our exchange, but obviously you don't understand (or don't want to understand) what is said. Let's try it again, "I don't know how in the world you could have a "mandatory" buy back that wouldn't be akin to outright confiscation of designated assault weapons that were grandfathered or reinstated by law...the most she could do, even with executive orders, would be to attempt to ban specific assault weapons as previously done through Congress. I would love to hear her explanation of that.....one of the reasons I'm not thrilled about her being VP.
But
Since she has NOT advocated for general disarming of Americans, your exaggerated premise is based wholly on supposition and conjecture and/or pure speculation that every member of NAAGA is against her nomination.

You ASSUME that every member of NAAGA would not support a mandatory buy back OF ASSAULT WEAPONS ONLY. I'll joint you in speculation...the leadership might not, but you may have some members who don't have a problem with that. As I stated before, a similar contention by folks similar to your mindset was asserted regarding background checks....but the membership had other ideas. We can only speculate, but your initial statement I can think of nearly 40,000 blacks she demonstrably does not represent right off the top of my head... Is only your OPINION, NOT FACT.

 

Posts #469 & #473 were the original points of contention in keeping with the subject title and OP of this thread. After that, the chronology of the posts shows you veering off course, to which I aptly countered each contention/assertion of yours WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE OP AND SUBJECT TITLE. You can continue on your failed course, but you do so in vain. As for "insults", I don't put up with folk's subtle condescending attitudes (especially when they deny what's in print). I'll make a deal with you in the words of the late, great James Brown, "Don't start none, won't be none". Okay?

 

Sorry, but your revisionist clap trap does NOT stand up to historical, documented history. Atwater " In 1981, Atwater, after a decade as South Carolina’s most effective Republican operative, was working in Ronald Reagan’s White House when he was interviewed by Alexander Lamis, a political scientist at Case Western Reserve University.
….In the lead-up to the infamous remarks, it is fascinating to witness the confidence with which Atwater believes himself to be establishing the racial innocence of latter-day Republican campaigning: “My generation,” he insists, “will be the first generation of Southerners that won’t be prejudiced.” He proceeds to develop the argument that by dropping talk about civil rights gains like the Voting Rights Act and sticking to the now-mainstream tropes of fiscal conservatism and national defense, consultants like him were proving “people in the South are just like any people in the history of the world.

Your attempt to take things out of context doesn't work when ALL the information is easily available. https://www.thenation.com/article/a...rs-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

This is just a prime example of your lame propagandistic approach. The objective reader will read carefully and comprehensively the link and check your assertions, only to find them flawed and false. Carry on.

 

That's nice...here's what else went down in history. Nixon was no fool, he was a political pragmatist, hence his use of the 'southern strategy' and the following:


1960: Declined to commit to a black Cabinet member
On Oct. 19, a group of 75 African-Americans had politely asked for service at a whites-only restaurant in Atlanta. Among those arrested was the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
Coretta Scott King feared with good reason that her husband, a black man, might not get out of jail alive. [Kennedy called Coretta]; the press quickly learned about John Kennedy's expressions of sympathy.

Nixon, meanwhile, was silent. For his failure to act, Nixon would pay dearly. A pamphlet, "The Case of Martin Luther King," laid out the story 'No Comment Nixon' Versus a Candidate with a Heart, two million copies were printed on light blue paper and delivered to black churches the Sunday before the election, and would be dubbed "the blue bomb". In a silent coup, black America was being moved overnight to the Democratic side of the ballot, from the party of Lincoln to that of the Kennedys.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...ans-racist-conversation-richard-nixon/595102/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksh...blacks-and-protesters-continues/#236f5f8a42c8

 

Why don't you go through the transcript and read it. He asserts that we want the black votes in the GOP column. I don't have time now to go through it as it is quite long. But democrats have made hay out of this interview for years because he used the n-word. The fact is, Atwater was not a racist and had in fact many famous black musician friends with whom he regularly jammed with. He was a jazz guitarist as a hobby on the side. Not exactly the work of some white supremacist. You can actually find him jamming with them on YouTube.

 

He lost in 1960. Did Kennedy commit to a black cabinet member? Not that I'm aware of. But once elected, Nixon did appoint 2 black men to head the EEOC.