The Future President, Donald Trump

Be that as it may, it's not the most important thing about his candidacy and it's not even one of the top 3 reasons to oppose the guy, so I see that as mostly a distraction, personally.

Cycloptichorn

As a minority in this country, I totally disagree with you. Trump's racism disqualifies him to be our president.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I feel that his absolute and total lack of experience, his poor temperament, and his proposed policies all make him unfit to lead the country, no matter what one's opinion of his level of racist or bigoted beliefs is.

Cycloptichorn

I have to laugh at people who try to say Donald Trump is a racist because David Duke supports him... Not that he's associated with David Duke but because David Duke supports him. But let's say for the sake of argument that somehow intelligently we could find some nebulous loose association between the two in that statement... Then by that thinking if Hillary wins the White House there will be a child molester living there... Because there was no loose association between Bill Clinton and Mr. Epstein there was a direct association between the two. And knowing Bill Clinton's penchant for young girls is well-documented so......

Blacks supported the GOP for nearly a hundred years, and what did that get them?

Freedom?

All you whites who live in the comfort of your skin can uptick Cyclo all you want.

The Civil Rights Act.

You two would feel comfortable in your skin if you didn't Harbor some Antiquated nebulous notion of victimization that has no validity in modern society.

Not really. Free blacks who voted for the GOP already had their freedom, and enslaved blacks couldn't vote for anybody. So that doesn't go in the "what have blacks received by supporting the GOP?" column.

After being freed from slavery?

I haven't researched it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't much at all, as time went by.

One of the very big problems with indiscriminate, monolithic support of any political party...eventually the bloc gets lip service and nothing else.

You're right!

I should have thought of that, but I still think it's stupid for a bloc to be so reliable in their voting that they are taken for granted by any party

Thanks

Which one?

At least the one in 1964

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/10/whos-really-responsible-for-the-civil-rights-act/

That's a fair point, and I agree that blacks would do better if both parties actively sought their support by advocating policies that appealed to significant segments of the black electorate. That, however, hasn't been the case since at least 1964. To suggest, then, that blacks would do better by leaving the Democrats, who at least promise blacks something, and vote for the GOP, which doesn't even do that, is a bit like saying that gay rights opponents would be better off if they just voted for some Democrats once in a while.

1964

Well, it's a bit of the chicken and the egg.

On a national basis, the question is how much effort and resources should be spent in trying to woo away a voting bloc that is so utterly locked into one party?

Personally, I think the GOP can and should do a better job on this score, but I understand why a candidate for president might not.

Trump is, obviously, making a pitch for the African-American vote, and it's not as if he's not making "promises." Whether or not he can deliver on the promises of jobs and neighborhood safety, clearly, remains to be seen, but he's making promises. They just don't, for now, happen to involve social programs which is the Democrats' favorite carrot.

BTW I never suggested they would "do better," I asked "What do they have to lose?"

Eugene Robinson: "Your candidate is a flake. A fraud. A bag of air. A con man. A joke."

Donald Trump’s supporters can pretend otherwise, but deep down they must know the truth: Trump has been playing them for fools all along.

...............

Attempts by allies to explain the complete reversal have been comic. My favorite came from Trump campaign spokeswoman Katrina Pierson, who said this on CNN: “He hasn’t changed his position on immigration, he’s changed the words that he is saying.”

That absurdist formulation sounds like something from the experimental writings of author Gertrude Stein — who, come to think of it, gave us the perfect blanket description of the entire Trump campaign: “There is no there there.”


..................

I realize that most of Trump’s ardent fans do not take kindly to being lectured by the likes of me. But it is with a certain degree of genuine sympathy that I say what has to be said: Your candidate is a flake. A fraud. A bag of air. A con man. A joke.

..............

In a sense, spokeswoman Pierson was right: Trump doesn’t actually have positions. He only has words.

MORE:
http://topstoriesbreak.com/donald-trump-is-a-flake-and-fraud/
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/8/25/1563941/-Eugene-Robinson-Donald-Trump-is-a-flake-and-a-fraud

Well, two problems with that: (1) even though it is true that a large number of Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it was the Johnson administration that was responsible for the act itself and for pushing it through congress; and (2) by 1964 blacks had largely abandoned the GOP anyway, completing a process that had begun under FDR - Goldwater's nakedly racist campaign was the final nail in that coffin