Jump to content
270soft Forum
Rarename91

Will they ever be a black republican president?

Recommended Posts

You think we ever see a black republican president and if so in our lifetimes perhaps? ( i think we will see a hispanic republican president before a black republican) if not when do you think one going to become president?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Presidentinsertname said:

((and i posted in the wrong section)

Wait this is general, where did you mean to post this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Presidentinsertname said:

on nevermind. thought it was in result.

Either way I'd say no. The only African-American Republican I think could have even an inkling of a chance is Tim Scott but I'd say he would be to right wing for many Americans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Either way I'd say no. The only African-American Republican I think could have even an inkling of a chance is Tim Scott but I'd say he would be to right wing for many Americans. 

@Presidentinsertname

Exactly. Tim Scott is beloved by the TEA party wing of the GoP- hell he took pride in writing the recent tax overhaul bill(make what you want from that). I know some conservative commentators have toyed with the idea of him possibly running, and he could; but I doubt he would win. He is probably just as to the right as Ted Cruz- minus the Christian undertones Cruz is famous for- and also lacks the charisma of Cruz. One of the controversial decisions Scott made that could haunt him(if current demographic trends continue the way they are going now) is signing a letter urging Trump to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement. With Millennials and Gen Z becoming an larger share of the voting bloc, and they are much more likely to view climate change as a pertinent issue than their parents/grandparents, I doubt he will win the General Election. Sure he could possibly win the primaries- the party is moving ever so more to the right, and he might one day be a "moderate" cause of that. But I doubt he could seriously win the GE unless he somehow shifted to center on a dime, or picked one of the few remaining centrists left in 2024(the earliest he could possibly run without primarying Trump).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

@Presidentinsertname

Exactly. Tim Scott is beloved by the TEA party wing of the GoP- hell he took pride in writing the recent tax overhaul bill(make what you want from that). I know some conservative commentators have toyed with the idea of him possibly running, and he could; but I doubt he would win. He is probably just as to the right as Ted Cruz- minus the Christian undertones Cruz is famous for- and also lacks the charisma of Cruz. One of the controversial decisions Scott made that could haunt him(if current demographic trends continue the way they are going now) is signing a letter urging Trump to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement. With Millennials and Gen Z becoming an larger share of the voting bloc, and they are much more likely to view climate change as a pertinent issue than their parents/grandparents, I doubt he will win the General Election. Sure he could possibly win the primaries- the party is moving ever so more to the right, and he might one day be a "moderate" cause of that. But I doubt he could seriously win the GE unless he somehow shifted to center on a dime, or picked one of the few remaining centrists left in 2024(the earliest he could possibly run without primarying Trump).  

Actually, Ami Horowitz asked Bernie supporters on what they thought about Trump's tax plan while saying it was Bernie's and they approved of it, so not all hope is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Actually, Ami Horowitz asked Bernie supporters on what they thought about Trump's tax plan while saying it was Bernie's and they approved of it, so not all hope is lost.

Yeah he put the I think it was 3 good parts of the bill in his argument while ignoring the tax increase on low income earners or the permanent tax cut for the rich while the rest have a sunset date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Yeah he put the I think it was 3 good parts of the bill in his argument while ignoring the tax increase on low income earners or the permanent tax cut for the rich while the rest have a sunset date.

They could only chose to make one permanent due to buget rules so they opted to make the more substantial and economically effective corporate tax.

According to studies middle-class families will not see a tax increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

@Presidentinsertname

Exactly. Tim Scott is beloved by the TEA party wing of the GoP- hell he took pride in writing the recent tax overhaul bill(make what you want from that). I know some conservative commentators have toyed with the idea of him possibly running, and he could; but I doubt he would win. He is probably just as to the right as Ted Cruz- minus the Christian undertones Cruz is famous for- and also lacks the charisma of Cruz. One of the controversial decisions Scott made that could haunt him(if current demographic trends continue the way they are going now) is signing a letter urging Trump to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement. With Millennials and Gen Z becoming an larger share of the voting bloc, and they are much more likely to view climate change as a pertinent issue than their parents/grandparents, I doubt he will win the General Election. Sure he could possibly win the primaries- the party is moving ever so more to the right, and he might one day be a "moderate" cause of that. But I doubt he could seriously win the GE unless he somehow shifted to center on a dime, or picked one of the few remaining centrists left in 2024(the earliest he could possibly run without primarying Trump).  

the tea party can win election the centrist cant *cough* 2012* cough*. m2024 most likely not depending if trump wins in 2020 no because of the trend where the two party will switch every 2 terms.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WVProgressive said:

Yeah he put the I think it was 3 good parts of the bill in his argument while ignoring the tax increase on low income earners or the permanent tax cut for the rich while the rest have a sunset date.

 

1 hour ago, NYrepublican said:

They could only chose to make one permanent due to buget rules so they opted to make the more substantial and economically effective corporate tax.

According to studies middle-class families will not see a tax increase.

Yes, making the corporate tax cut permanent and thrusting the tax burden on the middle- and lower-classes. As I've said a few times here before, the corporate, lobbyist, and special interest donors are the real master U.S. lawmakers answer to now, far over their own constituents, especially now that bribery of elected officials and those running for elected office is now effectively fully legal with the Citizen's United case in the U.S. Supreme Court, the most horrible decision passed down by court since Dred Scott. It's effects are already becoming manifest. Perhaps the horrid, open, undisguised, and overt corporate dictatorships of in the backdrops of some of the dark and even dystopian '80's science fiction like Blade Runner, the Running Man, the Robocop Trilogy, the Cyberpunk 2020 series, and others in that mold aren't so far fetched in reality to come as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

...especially now that bribery of elected officials and those running for elected office is now effectively fully legal with the Citizen's United case in the U.S. Supreme Court, the most horrible decision passed down by court since Dred Scott. 

Since Dred Scott is a pretty high standard

You have

-Buck v. Bell

-The civil rights cases(1880's)

-Hans v. Louisiana

-Baker v. Carr 

-Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. / Runyon v. McCrary (1968 / 1976) (Declared that Congress's power to ban slavery includes a broad power to ban virtually anything that could conceivably be deemed discriminatory, including private individuals refusing to sell private houses or admit students to private schools based on race, and thus transformed the power to stop slavery into a broad power to restrict private and voluntary choices.)

-NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

They could only chose to make one permanent due to buget rules so they opted to make the more substantial and economically effective corporate tax.

According to studies middle-class families will not see a tax increase.

Which studies, both for trickle-down working and Middle Class families not seeing a tax increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Since Dred Scott is a pretty high standard

You have

-Buck v. Bell

-The civil rights cases(1880's)

-Hans v. Louisiana

-Baker v. Carr 

-Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. / Runyon v. McCrary (1968 / 1976) (Declared that Congress's power to ban slavery includes a broad power to ban virtually anything that could conceivably be deemed discriminatory, including private individuals refusing to sell private houses or admit students to private schools based on race, and thus transformed the power to stop slavery into a broad power to restrict private and voluntary choices.)

-NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) 

 

I believe that removing all limits on donors and private campaigners for candidates for elected office and lobbying funding and donor activity to elected officials (a.k.a. legal bribery), will end up being FAR more destructive to the fabric of the American Constitutional legal, electoral, governmental, and judicial systems, and even civil rights of potentially EVERYONE, not just necessarily traditionally "disadvantaged" demographics) in the long, perhaps even utterly destroying, over time, the United States as a Constitutional Republic with truly and honestly electorally-determined leaders and lawmakers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WVProgressive said:

Which studies, both for trickle-down working and Middle Class families not seeing a tax increase.

The CBS study on the CBS morning news

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

The CBS study on the CBS morning news

Can you link me to the study, I'd like to fact check this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WVProgressive said:

Can you link me to the study, I'd like to fact check this.

I saw it on the morning news

I found something about that claim of tax increases on the poor here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I saw it on the morning news

I found something about that claim of tax increases on the poor here

Linking to Daily Wire and trying to say it's unbiased is like me linking you here and telling you it's neutral on reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I saw it on the morning news

I found something about that claim of tax increases on the poor here

Ah, I see trickle-down stats are far safer and more in your comfort zone to address, or even acknowledge as a topic, than my grim forecast of the demise of U.S. Constitutional government to corporate control and dictatorship, so brushing aside such an unpleasant topic - an elephant in the room - seems like a better strategy, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WVProgressive said:

Linking to Daily Wire and trying to say it's unbiased is like me linking you here and telling you it's neutral on reporting.

I didn't say it was unbiased I jsut linked to the first thing I found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Ah, I see trickle-down stats are far safer and more in your comfort zone to address, or even acknowledge as a topic, than my grim forecast of the demise of U.S. Constitutional government to corporate control and dictatorship, so brushing aside such an unpleasant topic - an elephant in the room - seems like a better strategy, eh?

WIth People's pledges beginning I somehow doubt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

WIth People's pledges beginning I somehow doubt that.

Your faith is too easily earned and reassured. I am not quite so optimistic (read: naïve).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Your faith is too easily earned and reassured. I am not quite so optimistic (read: naïve).

The Govt. being controlled by Verizon just sounds so ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

Actually, Ami Horowitz asked Bernie supporters on what they thought about Trump's tax plan while saying it was Bernie's and they approved of it, so not all hope is lost.

There's also polls saying people support the bombing of Argrabah. But that aside, if one party is saying their policy will do X, while media reporting says otherwise; no amount of spin will change that. A prime example would be the infamous, "you can keep your doctor" line from Barack Obama. Despite his claims of it being accurate, the Democratic party took a huge hit for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

The Govt. being controlled by Verizon just sounds so ridiculous.

Well, since you put is that way, I guess I'm beaten hands down in this debate. :S

Just in case the lack of tone in that text fails to give it away, that sentence above was doused in sarcasm. I REALLY wish you would stop throwing specific examples, instances, or anecdotes as though they automatically proved your point outright or disproved someone else's in a broader, wider-scope topic, when said specific point is counter to, even an exception to, often a marginal, fringe one, at that, the issue at hand. It's really bugging me, and it's a poor and annoying debating tactic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×