More complete and unsupported bullshit. I’m not going to dignify this pathetic, worthless, Sean Hannity diarrhea with any sort of response.
Just pathetic if you actually believe this crap.
It’s just as supportable as “Republicans are racist and employ dog whistle politics to win racist white voters.”
That’s an article of faith among liberals, even liberal Dopers. Don’t like it to be turned around on you?
But hey, we can get back to the subject of “Hope for the Republican party” if you want. Hope for the GOP involves something fairly simple: more rich Americans, fewer poor Americans.
Has the GOP come up with some new ideas to accomplish that? Because we’ve had lower taxes and fewer regulations for ten years, and it hasn’t done squat.
I’ve never said this about “Republicans”. I may have said it about individuals, and it is true for some individuals.
Turned around on me? I haven’t done it. And if you’re saying you believe a big pile o’ bullshit just because some liberals believe a different big pile o’ bullshit, then that doesn’t reflect particularly well on you.
This is hope for America. I don’t believe this would necessarily benefit the Republican party, unless the party changes in a major way.
Exit polling shows that even minorities increase their likelihood of voting Republican when they have money.
Correlation does not equal causation. If you believe the crap you spewed before, then that’s pathetic.
People vote their interests. If your primary interest is not having your money taken away in taxes, you’ll vote Republican.
That would require Republicans supporting policies that increase the wealth of poor people. The cognitive dissonance must be excruciating!
Finally, some agreement. Yes, for people whose primary interest is getting their taxes as low as possible, they will probably support the Republican party.
Thankfully, this is not the primary interest of most Americans.
Bill Maher got his guests good making the same point I made. He made them think a Michelle Obama quote was a Paul Ryan quote:
Interesting reply from one of the guests: Bell then defended Michelle Obama’s comments, saying “she was talking to black people — we talk to each other differently than we talk in front of you.”
Okay, so Ryan wasn’t being racist, he was being presumptious.
Michelle’s quote was different from what Ryan said, and in any case, has nothing to do with whether it was reasonable to interpret Ryan’s statement as racist and objectionable.
It is different, but it demonstrated that who the speaker is matters to the listener when determining whether something is racist or not. Although it does not matter objectively.
The panel thought that what she said was racist when they didn’t know she said it.
Who cares about the panel?
It demonstrates that perceptions of racism have more to do with who says something than what is actually said. It’s not like Democrats never make racially-based gaffes, but the fallout is much more limited because of who they are.
It demonstrates the perceptions of no one except for that panel (or the one guy on that panel).
I don’t think it’s a secret that white people have to be more careful than black people in choosing their words when discussing black people. Nor is that necessarily a bad thing.