- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Future GOP Minority Rule and South Africa — is this the GOPS 30 year game plan ?
Posted on 4/18/20 at 11:23 am to BobbyLenMoore
Posted on 4/18/20 at 11:23 am to BobbyLenMoore
quote:
People y’all defend but would never associate with in your own personal lives
Like Dems and released felons?
0
Posted on 4/18/20 at 11:24 am to FearlessFreep
I never made that assumption. I’m speaking about this from a western, prominent culture perspective.
Stop goal post moving and topic switching
Stop goal post moving and topic switching
Posted on 4/18/20 at 11:31 am to BobbyLenMoore
Within 30 years the GOP will no longer be the Bitter Boomer party. Its current demographics that enforce that paradigm.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 11:31 am to BobbyLenMoore
quote:Two wrongs definitely make it right. As I noted yesterday, Leftists don’t hate fascism, racism, bigotry or even segregation. They love it. They just want to point it the other way.
Yes having your rights and humanity denied to you for most of your groups existence in the country will surely give you a common area to bond.
This post was edited on 4/18/20 at 11:38 am
Posted on 4/18/20 at 11:35 am to BobbyLenMoore
quote:Here’s your exact quote:
I never made that assumption. I’m speaking about this from a western, prominent culture perspective.
Stop goal post moving and topic switching
quote:What is the moral difference between the expansion of the Zulu Kingdom into geographic areas where they didn’t originate, exclusively through warfare and conquest, and similar expansion by the Dutch and English? Other than the color of the invaders’ skin?
South African and largely all of Africa was perfectly fine before the west invaded it. Has ruled and governed itself and tribes autonomously for millions of years.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 11:35 am to Degrelle
quote:Some, clearly. Many of their policy desires are. They say Trump administrations is too male, too christian, and too white. What about being male, christian, and/or white makes a person incapable? It’s a pure racial/religious/sexist prejudice.
Dems are the real racists??
And look how they treat conservative-minded minorities.
“Diversity” to them is one-of-every-color-other-than-white thinking the exact same way. It never includes ideas that differ from theirs.
This post was edited on 4/18/20 at 11:43 am
Posted on 4/18/20 at 11:50 am to Taxing Authority
And if you ever have any doubt about how bigoted and prejudiced the modern democrat party has become—go back and listen/read Some MLK. Stark, naked differences from what’s being spouted today.
This post was edited on 4/18/20 at 11:52 am
Posted on 4/18/20 at 11:51 am to FearlessFreep
quote:
What is the moral difference between the expansion of the Zulu Kingdom into geographic areas where they didn’t originate, exclusively through warfare and conquest, and similar expansion by the Dutch and English? Other than the color of the invaders’ skin?
Nothing. And that’s exactly what happened. Blacks from other parts of Africa have claimed South Africa for no other reason than skin color.
No different than an Indian from Montana trying to claim Florida.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 12:10 pm to BobbyLenMoore
quote:
South African and largely all of Africa was perfectly fine before the west invaded it. Has ruled and governed itself and tribes autonomously for millions of years.
no one in the third world is “perfectly fine”Posted on 4/18/20 at 12:16 pm to Degrelle
quote:
Blacks haven't and they've been here 400 years
Yes, that is very much a different case.
The OP assumes that what is considered "minority" today never changes in the future. That is simply untrue with one very big exception.
Of course it can take a LONG time to change some of these voting patterns. Catholic immigrants like Irish and Italians voted Democrat from 1928 (thanks to Al Smith) to around 1980 (thanks to Roe v Wade and Reagan). 50 years is a long time. But it isn't forever. That's why I said 2-3 generations.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 12:24 pm to BobbyLenMoore
The boers in SA were like 5% of the population.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 12:28 pm to Degrelle
OP is wrong for a few key reasons
1) we are a two party system. If things go south in the country when one party is in power, voters will vote for the other party. The idea that a democratic president would be re-elected during a recession because of “muh demographics” is stupid. Democrats do not “own” non-white voters.
2) parties adapt. Look at the dems in the 90s. They lost 3 landslides in the 80s and decided to change. It worked.
3) If the OP is correct, why did the gop get more EC votes in 2016, with the least white electorate in American history, than they did in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012?
1) we are a two party system. If things go south in the country when one party is in power, voters will vote for the other party. The idea that a democratic president would be re-elected during a recession because of “muh demographics” is stupid. Democrats do not “own” non-white voters.
2) parties adapt. Look at the dems in the 90s. They lost 3 landslides in the 80s and decided to change. It worked.
3) If the OP is correct, why did the gop get more EC votes in 2016, with the least white electorate in American history, than they did in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012?
Posted on 4/18/20 at 12:28 pm to Powerman
quote:
The paradigm shift has to happen. The GOP has to adapt and attract different voters. It's clearly possible
Dude, the thumpers have conceded almost all their seriously bitchy points.
The rest of us are a mix of conservatives, libertarians, classical liberals, and anti-globalists...
It's not wypipo...
So if anyone feels philosophically like those above, GRAB A COAT.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 12:41 pm to Strannix
The GOP with Trump started to attract more diverse voters and I think the future is bright. I tell my Black friends don't count on all these illegal immigrants and their children becoming Democrats. As long as the illegal immigrant families stay in tact the GOP will be attractive. And, many and more educated Blacks are voting Republican even if they don't outwardly support the party.
This post was edited on 4/18/20 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 4/18/20 at 12:41 pm to Degrelle
quote:
Even if Chang, Kim, Goldstein, Sanchez, and Hernandez voted the same way I did I DONT WANT THEM IN MY COUNTRY
Arrogant scum. It’s not your country and you have no more claim to it than Chang, Kim, Goldstein, Sanchez or Hernandez. Entitlement reeks through your ideology. That’s how we end up with the entitlement president 45
Posted on 4/18/20 at 12:45 pm to BobbyLenMoore
quote:And the rat shows his fangs at last.
Arrogant scum. It’s not your country and you have no more claim to it than Chang, Kim, Goldstein, Sanchez or Hernandez. Entitlement reeks through your ideology.
You would rather see this nation reduced to third world levels of poverty and ignorance, than to let the descendants of the people who carved it out of the wilderness thrive and prosper.
Props to you for admitting it.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 12:46 pm to BobbyLenMoore
We were getting an entitled president 45 either way you voted. The difference is that one earned his entitlements in the business world, while the other earned hers through the government world.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 12:46 pm to BobbyLenMoore
Question for you.
Why is the onus on the GOP?
Why don’t you think democrats need to be better at winning over white blue collar workers, which is the reason you lost in 2016?
Blue states like penn, wisc, and Mich are now purple states because dems are bleeding badly among white working class voters. Bill Clinton *won* white working class voters in 1996. His wife got 25% of them In 2016.
Why don’t you think your party needs to work to appeal to them?
Why is the onus on the GOP?
Why don’t you think democrats need to be better at winning over white blue collar workers, which is the reason you lost in 2016?
Blue states like penn, wisc, and Mich are now purple states because dems are bleeding badly among white working class voters. Bill Clinton *won* white working class voters in 1996. His wife got 25% of them In 2016.
Why don’t you think your party needs to work to appeal to them?
Posted on 4/18/20 at 12:51 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
If the OP is correct, why did the gop get more EC votes in 2016, with the least white electorate in American history, than they did in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012?
The lost the popular vote but won the states that added up for a win?
It’s pretty simple. Mix a little collusion, cheating , lying shaky candidate and u get a mediocre person you all admire as president.
Posted on 4/18/20 at 12:54 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
OP is wrong for a few key reasons
1) we are a two party system. If things go south in the country when one party is in power, voters will vote for the other party. The idea that a democratic president would be re-elected during a recession because of “muh demographics” is stupid. Democrats do not “own” non-white voters.
2) parties adapt. Look at the dems in the 90s. They lost 3 landslides in the 80s and decided to change. It worked.
3) If the OP is correct, why did the gop get more EC votes in 2016, with the least white electorate in American history, than they did in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012?
Yeah pretty much all this.
Might quibble with this:
quote:
Democrats do not “own” non-white voters.
Not sure this is true with black voters. Dems consistently get 90-95% support regardless of the candidates.
If anything you might say that blacks "own" the democratic party.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News