(1) In national elections, is it the politician or his party and platform that are more relevant to a voter?
(2) Is the quoted statement of yours true, or is it something you found convenient to pretend to believe?
(Warning: Each of these questions has a correct answer; the correct answers are clear to most intelligent people; if you answer incorrectly we’ll be certain you cannot be simultaneously intelligent and truthful.)
“Welfare queens”, claims that minorities are taking the jobs due to racial quotas, and the like are not the same rhetoric they were always using. The rhetoric changed in the decades following Civil Rights.
Feel free to continue to believe the Republicans never tried to appeal to racists- I suppose all those code-words (and the uncoded words of those like Helms) were just coincidence.
This is incoherent, and doesn’t appear to be related to any claims I’m making. And I think you’re implying that black people are dupes for the Democratic party, which seems to be what you’re (falsely) criticizing me for.
Thanks! That’s high praise. I was a little worried that it was over the top for a non-Pit forum, but figured that since it attacked the post(s) not the poster, I’d be ok.
The statement is absolutely true, although judging by your warning it would appear you disagree. Apparently you think that being smart makes one generally superior no matter what the subject to one less educated and intelligent. But in the real world, outside of the TV representations, well educated people tend to be specialists with nothing more than layman’s knowledge of anything outside their field. If politics tended to come down to one issue, say climate change, then absolutely I’d think climatologists were the most likely to pick the best President. But it doesn’t. Climatologists understand little of fiscal issues, crime, national security, or the 100 other things that are important to voters.
Welfare queens did not emerge until after the Civil Rights Act, and again, it was an issue that Republicans turned out to be right about, thus the Democrats adopting the substance of Republican welfare policy if not the rhetoric.
They did try to appeal to racists, which in the 1970s pretty much meant most of the South. But they didn’t tailor their policies or rhetoric to do it, they tailored the message. “You may not like our history, southerners, and we don’t agree with you on segregation, but we do agree with you about welfare, busing, law and order issues, and quotas.”
What I meant is that whenever Democrats lose, you get excuses about how Republicans appealed to baser emotions, usually ignorance, but also fear and hatred. That’s why I find the thread wondering if Republicans will ever figure out why they lost so amusing. Democrats never feel that they lose, only that elections are stolen from them by lies, fearmongering, and base appeals to the rubes.
No, they were wrong also. And it shows why you they have a blind spot in statistics and polling.
As the OP case tell us, that “no show” appeals to racists too.
Not the case, those things are important factors, and having a bad candidate is one. Having to deal with the fear-mongering from the base is a problem now for the Republicans. Right now in Hispanic TV they are discussing why the immigration reform is stalled in the House, it is producing yet again an ugly image for the Republicans that all Hispanics and Asians with relatives with immigration issues can see.
That soft popping noise you just heard was the last, tattered shreds of your credibility disappearing in a puff of a smoke.[/QUOTE
First understand that the scientific research program of “Intelligent Design” investigates the effects of intelligence and not intelligence as such.
Second, if you’re hearing noises, it could be affecting your ability to focus. You may want to see an ear, nose & throat specialist for that.
I don’t know a single scientist who wouldn’t cringe at that description which is as foolish as thinking that Leonard and Sheldon are accurate depictions.
They’re certainly more knowledgable in certain areas than most, but that hardly means they’re “the smartest of the smart”.
He’s probably going to argue something like “they don’t say ‘God did it’ they say that it was too complex to happen on it’s own so there had to be a designer which could have been a being we might call ‘God’ or it could have been aliens or time travel.”
Even so, that’s at best a hypothesis not a theory as understood by science.
The latter – back when both parties had their conservative and liberal wings. The Southern Strategy, and the rise of movement conservatism, ultimately put an end to that.
How’s about we first prove the central claim of this thread, that Republicans are racists. The original evidence offered was that they didn’t participate in the MLK speech anniversary program. Pretty tepid stuff. It hasn’t gotten any better in the last 6 pages.
Most, and even I made the point that this was a political disaster, it does not mean that all Republicans are racists, only that they are not doing much in the area of cleanups of racist spills [del]in the supermarket[/del] and they go for very dumb talking points to explain their absence from the celebration.
As Kevin Drum puts it, “Even with Eric Cantor twisting arms he couldn’t find a single Republican willing to attend. I guess they were all afraid that Fox News would televise it and some of their constituents might find out they were there.”
I can grant you that it is likely that it was not due to any racism from the part of the leaders, but this sounds to me as just fear bordering on panic of the ones refusing to attend. They are protecting their political careers in front of the good chunk of racists that would get inconvenient “photo opportunities” or to allow them to compile a list that the racists among the Republicans would use as a guide to vote out the “impure” ones in the next primaries.
I certainly concede the first part, and did not know the second part. My question–“cite?”–isn’t intended to suggest you’re lying but is more because I’d like to learn more about this.
