WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't have it both ways. The Republican party is opposed to slavery. I can quote Woodrow Wilson, telling black men that they were dumb for voting for him.

[Wisconsin+17]

Woodrow Wilson:

"I stand for the national policy of exclusion. The whole question is one of assimilation of diverse races. We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race...Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve, and surely we have had our lesson."

[Wisconsin+17]

You're citing Newt Gingrich? Really? He's badly mistaken.

[DrScholl]

Can't have it both ways. The Republican party is opposed to slavery. I can quote Woodrow Wilson, telling black men that they were dumb for voting for him.

Slavery is not a modern issue and back then, the Democrats pretty much were the conservative party. The parties right now are the exact opposite of what they were all those years ago. If you have to go back a hundred years to prove that your party doesn't have race issues, then you have a problem.

[Landslide Lyndon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't Obama say he was running on revenge?

No.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Can't have it both ways. The Republican party is opposed to slavery. I can quote Woodrow Wilson, telling black men that they were dumb for voting for him.

Slavery is not a modern issue and back then, the Democrats pretty much were the conservative party. The parties right now are the exact opposite of what they were all those years ago. If you have to go back a hundred years to prove that your party doesn't have race issues, then you have a problem.

He's not 'proving that his party doesn't have race issues'. He knows he can't do that, so instead he's proving that the other one did and claiming that it therefore still does.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the parties are not the 'exact opposite'. They are the same parties they've always been. The Democrats were the party of slavery - and they still don't believe in racial equality. They don't believe that black people are equal to everyone else. They believe in racial quotas - they believe in making it easier for black people because they don't believe that black people are equally capable. They believe in congressional 'black' seats, because they don't believe that if seats were drawn in a neutral manner that black people would be capable of winning seats.

Why did the Republicans appoint Clarence Thomas - if they have a race problem? The only ones who think the Republicans have a race problem are Democrats, and why would you trust the democrats? They don't understand what racial equality actually is. They seem to think that just because you treat them differently that this means you see them as equal.

Please - if you want to tell me that you believe in racial equality - why is it that you discriminate against people in your hiring decisions, in your accommodation into university. Why is it a black man with worse grades gets in ahead of a white student with better ones?

Why is this, oh party of Slavery?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why did the Republicans appoint Clarence Thomas - if they have a race problem?

Oh my God are you even serious

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yessir, answer the question please.

Remember I'm a minority too - just not one the democrats care about. So I 'don't exist' in this bold new world.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, he did.

He said you should vote out of revenge.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yessir, answer the question please.

A better question is would anybody have appointed Clarence Thomas if the country as a whole didn't have a race problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What minority, if you don't mind my asking, and what is that even supposed to mean?

Yeah, he did.

He said you should vote out of revenge.

You and your cohort's pretense at being gravely offended by a single instance of unusual but innocuous idiomatic English is cute but really transparent.

[DrScholl]

Again, the parties are not the 'exact opposite'. They are the same parties they've always been. The Democrats were the party of slavery - and they still don't believe in racial equality. They don't believe that black people are equal to everyone else. They believe in racial quotas - they believe in making it easier for black people because they don't believe that black people are equally capable.

Why did the Republicans appoint Clarence Thomas - if they have a race problem? The only ones who think the Republicans have a race problem are Democrats, and why would you trust the democrats? They don't understand what racial equality actually is.

History can't be rewritten and it is indisputable that both parties are completely different from many years past. Going on about quotas and how Democrats think black people are incapable won't get Republicans anywhere. Most of the Republican caucus in the House is white, while Democrats have a diverse caucus. That doesn't sound like inequality to me.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Answer the question, nathan.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Answer mine and I'll answer yours.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When a presidential candidate takes a direct attack at my livelihood and then talks about revenge, then yes, I am going to be upset. His policies are terrible. His policies are designed to hurt me and many other Americans struggling to make ends meet.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'm sorry. I assumed the question was rhetorical, since a single Supreme Court appointment twenty years ago as your triumphant counterargument is such an obvious and ridiculous derail.

The first black justice was retiring and Bush replaced him with another black justice because there were at the time no other minorities on the court. Nobody at the time really questioned or had a problem with this reasoning as far as it went, even though Bush said that Thomas was the most qualified candidate he could find, which was absurd because he'd been a federal judge for eighteen months.  At least according to Jeffrey Toobin the Bush people specifically went in looking for a 'plausible' black nominee would who be reliably conservative as they understood it, which isn't something that an inveterately racist administration does but which also doesn't inspire confidence in the society that gives birth to such a situation or their own assessment of their relative diversity.

But you knew all this, which is why the same repertoire of specific individuals is always trotted out, along with tales from the hoary past of the Jim Crow Democratic machine states or their wonderful representatives in Congress. Anything not to discuss current policies, demographics, or rhetoric.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When a presidential candidate takes a direct attack at my livelihood and then talks about revenge, then yes, I am going to be upset. His policies are terrible. His policies are designed to hurt me and many other Americans struggling to make ends meet.
[/quote]

Seriously, what on Earth is your livelihood that you perceive the President as having taken a 'direct attack' at it? Unless you're a big-shot financier or involved in fossil fuels or some sort of abstruse religious work what could you possibly do for a living and what minority could you belong to that you would have any reason to believe Obama has any interest in intentionally hurting you?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But why Clarence Thomas? It's not like he's less qualified than any of the other members of the court. That's my point - Thomas was qualified and was selected for the position by the president because of his qualifications first.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not so. Go through the archives and look at the previous responses to Supreme Court Nominees. It didn't used to be political - but the Democrats drug Thomas through the mud (see the whole Anita Hill nonsense). This was after Bork and they tried their best to actually deny Thomas the nomination. That's right - the party of Slavery voted en masse against Clarence Thomas. Isn't that the sign that the Democrats have a racism problem?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you think Thomas has been a disgrace to the court in the 20 years that he's served? I think he's proven that he was eminently well-qualified for the position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, it's not about race then. That's what I'm saying. Thomas was chosen because he was a qualified justice who didn't have a long record (remember the crap that Bork got tossed out), who was a conservative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So show me where the present republican party is being racist - or is opposition to Obama automatically racist?

Anyways, I'm deaf. The Obama administration doesn't care about me, which is just fine. I just wish he would leave me alone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By cutting Obamacare's threshold to 30 hours. I lost 4 hours a week thanks to the President.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then Democrats should support neutral redistricting. You and I both know - that they have attempted to carve out enclaves.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But why Clarence Thomas? It's not like he's less qualified than any of the other members of the court.

This is a point that can be argued.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not so. Go through the archives and look at the previous responses to Supreme Court Nominees. It didn't used to be political - but the Democrats drug Thomas through the mud (see the whole Anita Hill nonsense). This was after Bork and they tried their best to actually deny Thomas the nomination. That's right - the party of Slavery voted en masse against Clarence Thomas. Isn't that the sign that the Democrats have a racism problem? [/quote]

Feel perfectly free to ascribe that motivation to them, but the other possibility was that they had a problem with him because he was (a) extremely conservative and (b) accused, possibly not without reason, of being a pervert. Of course, it's possible racism could have exacerbated this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you think Thomas has been a disgrace to the court in the 20 years that he's served?[/quote]

Yes, for all the usual reasons (using the office for even more blatantly political ends than the other justices, not saying anything in oral argument for over half a decade...).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, it's not about race then. That's what I'm saying. Thomas was chosen because he was a qualified justice who didn't have a long record (remember the crap that Bork got tossed out), who was a conservative. [/quote]

Eh, again, you can definitely debate that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So show me where the present republican party is being racist - or is opposition to Obama automatically racist?[/quote]

The problem is more with Hispanics than blacks, at this point. A lot of the nativist angst surrounding Obama is vaguely racist in import, but that's really more of a base/Tea Party thing than anything else. Accusations of odd tokenism aside, the Republican establishment doesn't have as much of a problem with black people as black people by and large have with the Republican establishment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, sorry. I wasn't aware of this. Is the Obama administration actually worse than administrations past, or just not any better? (I don't know nearly as much about issues facing deaf people as I'd like to.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By cutting Obamacare's threshold to 30 hours. I lost 4 hours a week thanks to the President.
[/quote]

I'm sorry that happened to you but I doubt that was the intended result.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I find his opinions to be well-written and well-argued. You're free to disagree - but I think he's been one of the better justices, and certainly better than the current crop. He's better than Roberts, Alito, Kagan and Sotomayer.

He's going to be the best remembered black supreme court justice fwiw.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, for starters, your contraception is covered in Obamacare, but my hearing aids, and hearing tests are not covered. The recommendation is to get a new one every 10 years or so (because technology marches on, and it becomes difficult to find old-style batteries). That costs upwards of a grand per. If you're lucky.

Bush was better than Obama has been - when I graduated there was some funding, I actually owe my first laptop to President Bush - since I qualified for assistive learning devices (laptops are incredibly helpful to deaf people who communicate through typing).

From what I understand those programs are no longer available, and wouldn't get someone like me a laptop.

So not only is Obama making things harder for me - he just doesn't care. We aren't on his radar.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I ask that question genuinely, because black people get a better deal than I do - I don't qualify for welfare (because I've worked), and I don't qualify for UI (because I'm not union), and same with EBT. I don't get disability (because I have a degree and more qualifications than most), despite the fact that I should qualify.

So I really fall between the cracks, but then Obamacare comes around and I'm losing hours with my job because Obama changed it. And yes, it is because of the policy change - it was announced and the next day my hours were cut. I believe I even predicted that in a thread here where I read that. .

I don't make much, but that's a 1/7th cut in my wages, AND my taxes are going up. So, yeah, I'm not a happy camper.

[DrScholl]

Then Democrats should support neutral redistricting. You and I both know - that they have attempted to carve out enclaves.

Not that this is a thread about redistricting, but Republicans controlled most of the redistricting last year, they drew mostly white districts because those are the only ones they can win, let's not pretend otherwise. Democrats would benefit if districts were not drawn like that.

[Wiz in Wis]

He's going to be the best remembered black supreme court justice fwiw.

He isn't even good enough to clean Thurgood Marshall's cat's litterbox

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quick, name an opinion he wrote that people still quote.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, that's because they aren't drawn to preserve minorities to create a 'congressional black district'. That's what some people used to call segregation back in the day. How does that convey an attitude of racial integration and harmony?

[DrScholl]

Right, that's because they aren't drawn to preserve minorities to create a 'congressional black district'. That's what some people used to call segregation back in the day. How does that convey an attitude of racial integration and harmony?

You're not getting it. Most of these minority districts were drawn by Republicans to preserve their own seats. Republicans don't even object to those seats because it benefits them.

[Wisconsin+17]

So you're saying that Democrats are willing to hurt minorities?

[All Along The Watchtower]

So you're saying that Democrats are willing to hurt minorities?

where did he say that