Obama spied on Trump?

[warpus]

That's doesn't change the fact that it's race baiting, and it is harmful. The scale may be a lot smaller compared to if you were a Democrat politician, but the act is the same.

A lot less harmful than the way the Republicans have been treating Obama and other people of his race *shrug*

Again, I am not your problem, your politicians are

 

[onejayhawk]

1. For a change you are not windmilling... nicely done.
2. Not so fast. You have ZERO proof of this claim, whereas there is substantial proof to the contrary... the fact that Republicans have never nominated a black Presidential candidate is conclusive proof that you are wrong.

That are many more black Democrats than Republicans. It took until 2008 for the Democrats to nominate one and only the one. Far from conclusive. You would do better noting that there is only one black Cabinet member. Still, Someone like Condaleezza Rice would do well if she ran.

J

 

[civver_764]

A lot less harmful than the way the Republicans have been treating Obama and other people of his race *shrug*

And how is that?

 

[rah]

Wasn't there a time when the repugs were considering running Colin Powell?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A lot less harmful than the way the Republicans have been treating Obama and other people of his race *shrug*

Again, I am not your problem, your politicians are

Republican politicians are probably on average less racist than their republican constituents. Blatant racism has a certain amount of genuine idiocy as a prerequisite. That genuine idiocy requirement that so many rank and file Republicans meet is less likely to be met by their representatives, who generally at least have enough intellect to acquire some amount of education.

 

[warpus]

I wouldn't doubt that, but I have seen some pretty vile stuff come from Republican politicians. I have no doubt that a lot of them would say a lot more than what they are saying, if it was more acceptable to do so for someone in their position.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I wouldn't doubt that, but I have seen some pretty vile stuff come from Republican politicians. I have no doubt that a lot of them would say a lot more than what they are saying, if it was more acceptable to do so for someone in their position.

Oh, no doubt they say all sorts of vile stuff, and are limited by the less vile humans that they can't afford to blow off completely. But if you observe the rank (and I emphasize rank) and file republicans you will see that a huge number of them are not satisfied because they think their representatives aren't vile enough. That's a core element in the ...and they are even losing patience with Trump because he has "caved."

 

[Gori the Grey]

Obama spied on Trump?

The proper verb is "wiretapp."

 

[JollyRoger]

Is that what this is about? What is "unmasking"?

Don't rely on Hannity. Watch the hearing for yourself:

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I watched a good chunk of that hearing. The thing that amazed me the most is that Chuck Grassly apparently is just hearing about Russia and has not yet learned the proper pronunciation.

 

[JollyRoger]

I liked how the Texas Senators repeatedly volunteered for Yates to take them to the woodshed.

 

[Sommerswerd]

What happens at the woodshed stays at the woodshed...

 

[Sommerswerd]

That are many more black Democrats than Republicans. It took until 2008 for the Democrats to nominate one and only the one. Far from conclusive. You would do better noting that there is only one black Cabinet member. Still, Someone like Condaleezza Rice would do well if she ran.

I disagree with your analysis for many reasons.

1. Consider the reason that there "are many more black Democrats than Republicans." It is obviously not your position that this is a coincidence, so your position is either:
a) black people are too stupid to know what's good for them;
b) black people are too stupid to see through the Democrat's propaganda;
c) the Republicans are alienating black people intentionally;
d) the Republicans are alienating black people through indifference;
e) the Republicans are alienating black people through incompetence;
f) the Republicans are alienating black people maliciously;
g) the Democrats are doing a better job at courting black people;
h) black people have determined that the Democrats are the lesser of two evils from their perspective.

So which one is it? Some? All? And I am asking you... not "some people"... Notice (assuming a black Republican would need black voters' support) that all the reasons are all indicative of a political environment that makes it unlikely that the Republicans would nominate someone black for POTUS.

2. Obama is conclusive. Obama's nomination and subsequent election is conclusive, irrefutable proof that the Democrats are capable of nominating and electing a black POTUS. No such proof exists for the Republicans. Those are the cold hard facts. I realize it is inconvenient to your worldview, but that isn't relevant to the truth of the matter.

3. Your claim that "Condaleezza Rice would do well" is rank speculation. Wishful thinking at best, misdirection at worst. The fact is Condaleezza Rice has never run for POTUS. There is a reason for this, and the reason is not that she shies away from the White House or national politics. I think that her record indicates that she has an appetite for high office, because she has served at the highest levels of government. The fact that she has not run suggests to me that she is skeptical that she would stand any chance of winning. I share that skepticism for the following reasons:
a. She is female. I am skeptical after this last race that America would elect a female POTUS, and Condi may share this skepticism.
b. There is substantial proof that the Republicans would not nominate a black candidate, as they have never done so despite numerous opportunities.
c. I am skeptical that black Democrats would support a black Republican candidate, and I am skeptical that Condi could win without a majority of black voters supporting her.
d. I am skeptical that America would elect an unmarried candidate as it has only happened twice, and both times were very long ago, before television. I think the optics of an unmarried candidate would be impossible to overcome, the speculation of homosexuality that would result alone would be fatal to a Republican candidate.

 

[civver_764]

1. Consider the reason that there "are many more black Democrats than Republicans." It is obviously not your position that this is a coincidence, so your position is either:
a) black people are too stupid to know what's good for them;
b) black people are too stupid to see through the Democrat's propaganda;
c) the Republicans are alienating black people intentionally;
d) the Republicans are alienating black people through indifference;
e) the Republicans are alienating black people incompetence;
f) the Republicans are alienating black people maliciously;
g) the Democrats are doing a better job at courting black people;
h) black people have determined that the Democrats are the lesser of two evils from their perspective.

How about
i) Black people are not a homogeneous group but rather individuals that can think for themselves.

 

[JollyRoger]

Like feminists?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How about
i) Black people are not a homogeneous group but rather individuals that can think for themselves.

That has no bearing at all on the conversation at hand. I'm sure everyone already recognized this, but I'm trying to help you out.

 

[Sommerswerd]

How about
i) Black people are not a homogeneous group but rather individuals that can think for themselves.

What Tim said

 

[civver_764]

I'm just calling it like I see it. Every single one of those options made generalizations about black people based solely on their race.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm just calling it like I see it.

Indeed... I think you've said as much before...

Moderator Action: Obnoxious image deleted. FP

 

[civver_764]

That's pretty much the gist of it.