Charles Barkley tells why Blacks are switching to Trump and the GOP
Basketball legend Charles Barkley – now cohost of “King Charles” on CNN – is not a fan of President Trump. He has made that clear in several segments of his new talk show. That is why he surprised folks in criticizing President Biden and Democrats on how they treat Black Americans. (Something I have noted for a long time.)
Barkley said that the reason Biden and Democrats are losing Black voters to Trump and the GOP is because “they (Democrats) only care about Black people every four years.” He chastised Democrats for not following through on campaign promises.
Barkley is not wrong. While Democrats have stopped seeing Blacks as slaves or inferior human beings they still have a tendency to treat Blacks as oppressed dependents and confine millions into segregated communities.
Democrats’ tendency to talk-the-talk, but not walk-the-walk is historic. Even in the darkest days of Jim Crow, when voter suppression was at its peak and lynching was the Democrats’ version of a rule-of-law — the Democratic Party’s 1940 platform said this in a plank, headed “Negros.”
“Our Negro citizens have participated actively in the economic and social advances launched by this Administration, including fair labor standards, social security benefits, health protection, work relief projects, decent housing, aid to education, and the rehabilitation of low-income farm families. We have aided more than half a million Negro youths in vocational training, education and employment. We shall continue to strive for complete legislative safeguards against discrimination in government service and benefits, and in the national defense forces. We pledge to uphold due process and the equal protection of the laws for every citizen, regardless of race, creed or color.”
This is nothing less than outrageous hypocrisy on the part of the Democratic Party. They put this in their platform even as Democrat regimes in the south are forcing Blacks into impoverished segregated communities … poor quality education … denial of voting rights … low and no income … unequal justice … and the murderous rampages of law enforcement agencies and such paramilitary wing of the Democratic Party, such as the KKK.
That same hypocrisy was in full bloom in terms of the Republican 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. The 1956 Democrat Platform stated:
“The Democratic Party is committed to support and advance the individual rights and liberties of all Americans. Our country is founded on the proposition that all men are created equal. This means that all citizens are equal before the law and should enjoy all political rights. They should have equal opportunities for education, for economic advancement, and for decent living conditions.”
And this.
“We are proud of the record of the Democratic Party in securing equality of treatment and opportunity in the nation’s armed forces, the Civil Service, and in all areas under Federal jurisdiction. The Democratic Party pledges itself to continue its efforts to eliminate illegal discriminations of all kinds, in relation to (1) full rights to vote, (2) full rights to engage in gainful occupations, (3) full rights to enjoy security of the person, and (4) full fights to education in all publicly supported institutions.”
These noble words were offered at a time when the Democrats in Congress were opposing and undermining the Republican civil rights bills of 1957 and 1960. Jim Crow still held sway in the solid Democrat southland — and Party leaders had mounted the Massive Resistance Movement against school desegregation after Brown v. The Board of Education.
President Kenney has a historic reputation as a promoter of civil rights despite his votes against the civil rights legislation of 1956 and his vote – along with the racist southern Democrat delegation — to weaken the 1960 civil rights bill. He campaigned on civil rights – and even proposed legislation during his 1960 and 1963 campaigns. In both cases, Kennedy had the bills referred to the House Rules Committee headed by segregationist Congressman Howard Smith, who promised to bury them – and they were never acted upon throughout Kennedy’s years in office.
Even the Kennedy Presidential Library website alludes to Kennedy’s reluctance to push civil rights legislation despite his rhetoric. It says:
“… Kennedy’s narrow election victory and small working margin in Congress contributed to his cautious navigation of civil rights issues. He was reluctant to lose southern support for legislation on many fronts by pushing too hard on civil rights legislation.”
Truth be known, it is unlikely that there would have been any civil rights legislation in a second Kennedy term. It was a case where perception was reality. The 1964 Civil Rights Act became law because (1) it was seen as a memorial to Kennedy’s words, if not his actions; (2) President Johnson put full support behind the legislation despite his historic congressional opposition as Senate Majority Leader; (3) the overwhelming support of the Republican Party that was key in defeating a Democrat filibuster and passing the legislation; (4) and ironically, all this was made doable by the assassination of Kennedy.
Barkley is not the first to suggest Democrat hypocrisy on civil rights. When running for President in 2003, minister/political activist/MSNBC host Al Sharpton criticized the Democratic Party for taking Black voters for granted. In 2022, Sharpton underscored his concern by drawing attention to Black defections to the GOP. He said, “As incremental as it was, Trump and the Republicans made some increases among Black male voters. We didn’t see that coming. We need to be really very careful not to ignore that.”
In 1964, activist Malcolm X called Blacks who voted for Democrats “political chumps.” He would later double down and say that Blacks who voted Democrat were traitors to their race. 1960s civil rights Icon Roy Innis – head of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) – switched to the GOP in the 1980s after bitter disappointment with Democrats.
Hypocrisy on civil rights is in still full view today in America’s Democrat-controlled major cities, in which millions of Blacks are racially segregated and oppressed by the deprivation of education, jobs, safe housing, healthcare, equal justice, safe streets, municipal services and upward mobility.
Some see the shift of Black voters from the Democratic to the Republican Party as the beginning of a much more fundamental transformational shift. How far it may go can be fairly debated, but the fact that significant numbers of Black voters — enough to affect some election outcomes – are leaving the Democratic Party is an indisputable fact.
I close with Barkley’s words.
“They come into our neighborhoods and say, ‘We’re going to make stuff better. We’re going to do this, do this, do this,’ And then finally us Black people are like, ‘Yo man, other than our ability to dunk a basketball, all my neighborhoods are still the same, our schools are still the same.’ And that’s why I think Black people are leaving, disappointed in the Democratic Party.”
So there ‘tis.
Smarter and better educated. Tired of democrats bullshit. Especially the white ones that think they know about being black
Dan, I go with smarter, better, educated, and better spoken which I first noticed in the St. Louis Ferguson riots. Assimilation really helps. But for Barkley and Horist……
I can’t quite put my finger on it, yet this story is somehow weirder than Horist’s Biden goes back to black with fried chicken and watermelon story. Now Hoirst competes in humor with his “CHARLES BARKLEY TELLS WHY BLACKS ARE SWITCHING TO TRUMP AND THE GOP”
Why Charles Barkley, what are his qualifications that Horist feels makes him the expert. For some reason, Horist has decided that Charles Barkley speaks for and about all blacks. What ever could it be? Celebrity? Race? Education? Experience? Has Barkly ever done anything that makes him the person to speak for all blacks, or any blacks for that reason. What about Barley’s life even rings out as a typical black story? Could Biden even be more black, possibly? What is it that drew Horist’s attention?
– Perhaps because Charles is a champion basketball player and athlete playing at a level few will ever achieve, in a class by himself, special, unique, pampered, and not quite a common man? Is anything about his life even typical?
– Perhaps his education which seems to be attended, but left to play NBA in third year
– Perhaps because he has a low rated talk show about to be cancelled
– Golf? NBA analyst (good one), spitting on fans (bad one),
Whatever could it be? Wait, because he’s Black? Can any Black man speak for all black men? Does he like fried chicken and watermelon too? Can a pampered basketball player with no educational background or work experience background beyond basketball, a failed tv show, and other celebrity status give him reason to speak? Don’t get me wrong, Barkley is a basketball legend, he’s fun and outspoken, human, but seems pretty good guy. But an expert on blacks, the black experience, and politics — bring on the watermelon! Larry’s telling jokes again.
Or is Horist basically saying: this guy’s black so obviously speaks for all blacks. It’s a club you know.
Frank Stetson … You know better — or should. This is where you obsession to be the anti-Horist pushes you into the intellectual abyss. Barkley is a major black figure and influence on public policy by virtue of his past advocacy. He hosts a prime time opinion show. Obviously CNN considers his opinion to have importance — as do many viewers. And yes, he does have a Black perspective. By your standard … we can reject Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, several Black cable news hosts and contributors from saying anything about … Blacks. Do they speak for all Blacks? No. But they do offer their opinions on Black issues. Even considering your obsession, I find it hard to believe that even you would write such utter nonsense.
I became a registered Democrat voter and auto worker after returning to Michigan from army duty in Vietnam. I’m from a white family but my dad joined the NAACP in the 50s. While growing up he told me to make sure some of my friends were black. But, it’s not easy to do when the neighborhoods I lived in and the schools I attended in the 50s and 60s didn’t have any blacks in them! But I took my Dad’s words to heart and have been “colorblind” all of my life. I share Agapic love for all mankind. I guess that is one of the reasons I joined the LaRouche political movement in the 70s. I was fascinated with LaRouche’s campaign to convert a small percentage of auto production to tractors for export to Africa as part of LaRouche’s develop plan to industrialize African nations. Since then LaRouche’s ideas have taken hold among nations in the global south who have allied with the BRICS to do just what LaRouche envisioned 50 years ago. Deeds do speak louder than words, so Barkley is partly right. But expecting paradigmatic changes that all Americans are begging for from today’s Republican Party is woefully wanting. What is called for today, is an axiomatic change in the way we think. That is, our collective commitment, to, and obligation to defend, scientific and technological progress. Both have been eclipsed because of an overwhelming assault on the US physical economy by Wall Street and City of London financier, rentier class of greedy bankers and hedge fund managers. Members of our society has been kept at each other’s throats while this samer financial class loots the wealth of nations in order to keep their failed usurious, debt system going. They ran out of physical plant and equipment to loot in the US, and western Europe. So after the Soviet collapse they turned their attention to looting Russia and China. Well, Russia and China had different ideas about that. So the financial oligarchy turned once again to geopolitics and war to achieve their goals. This strategic view of things is what most Americans especially are missing. Europeans think differently than we do on such matters. Because they live next to other cultures and languages, they tend to be more mature in their outlook. But this is the case of where we are headed unless we grow up as mature citizens and stop looking at the world through the prism of dog eat dog….Right vs Left…black vs white. We are one humanity and nations should all unite behind a new International security and development architecture that guarantees both to all nations. It has been proposed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche of the International Schiller Institute of which she and her husband Lyndon H. LaRouche founded in 1984.
Well, only took two sentences to get personal, I admire the restraint.
OK – I will go slow: I said: “Barkley is a basketball legend, he’s fun and outspoken, human, but seems pretty good guy. But an expert on blacks, the black experience, and politics — bring on the watermelon! Larry’s telling jokes again.”
He’s a good guy, as Tom notes, a great philanthropist, helps many a person and does a lot personally one-on-one (where he is THE world’s expert….) and as Hoirst (and I) noted, major black figure, celebrity, advocates and comments on many issues, including politics and policy. And I am certain, as Hoirst says, he has a black perspective. But to say he speaks for the black people, that he speaks for political demographics or the rationale is Horist’s claim. I don’t see it.
Look, anyone can talk, say anything, look at everyone here. But just because you are a celebrity, bring in bucks just for being there, even that your words have meaning —– does not make one an expert. Having a big mouth, or writing long passages does not make one an expert either.
Horist says, but wait, he has a talk show on CNN. According to CNN, it’s “personality-based programming.” Bring in the clowns. Sorry man, but you were set up. The show premiered with the lowest CCN ratings in a decade. That might be negative, but was 500K. NewsNight premiered higher. The next week it lost viewers…. Think it’s down about 20% of it’s premier night.
Using Horstian logic: If ratings bad, then commentator is stupid…. Not true, but the show is not attracting viewers —– black or white.
Horist says: “by virtue of his past advocacy, he’s an influence on public policy.” Name one, Mr. Horist.
Using Horstian logic: “By your standard … we can reject Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, several Black cable news hosts and contributors from saying anything about … Blacks. Do they speak for all Blacks? No.”
First, I never said that. Nor would I. They are social activists with agendas. However, if Horist is comparing Sharpton, Jackson, and I do not know the rest, Horist does not specify, but Barkley is not even in the same circle in the Venn Diagram of knowledge of the Black Experience. Jackson is dead to begin with. However, when living he had a couple of degrees, apprenticed at the side of MLK, Jr., created Rainbow/Push, US Senator for six years a(shadow senator), did 8 years on CNN, and more. I could list accomplishments but it’s clear Barkley has a big mouth and Jackson has education, accomplishment, organizations, and a very long career of social activism. Not even in the same boats.
Nope, good guy, big celebrity, big mouth, not even so big a following, but no expert on speaking for the black man in America. Not even the ones he wants to punch in the mouth for wearing Trump merch.
Frank Stetson… Jesse Jackson will be surprised to known that he is dead. He is not well, but definitely not dead. It is obvious that YOU should not be talking about Black people. You distinguish between Black folks who are “experts” on the subject of Black people and other Black people who are too stupid to talk about Black people. Did your experts get a degree in “talking about Black people?” LOL
And as far as Jackson, you apparently only know him from his own resume. I actually know Jackson from working with and against him over the years. The man is a con. You know nothing about him. When my book comes out, you can educate yourself about Jackson — and a lot of other stuff.
Hey, Horseshit. I made a mistake and offed Jackson, my bad . But you had to be a dick. Nice choice.
And again your anecdotal data does not mean crap.
Yes, I went from resume. You say you know him and his resume is a lie. That’s your factual pushback. I read your resume too.
Frank Stetson … LOL You just do not understand much. The term “bromance” is NOT based on agreeing with another person. That is your straw man to refute. It refers to a more personal relations of uncritical mutual admiration. You and Tom tend to fawn over each other with long exchanges on political and personal subjects. Your relationship is unique among those who comment here. I call it a “bromance.” Obviously from your repeated protestation, it offends you. Hey … if the shoe fits, you know what you can do with it.
I love how you try to find ways to spin my name into an insult. LOL When someone told you to get in touch with the child in you, you obviously took it very serious. My advice to you is to man-up … or at least grow up.
I agree Frank, Barkley’s basketball comments can be fun to listen to, and he sure does have basketball expertise for which he can be admired by basketball fans. Like you, I do not see him as being a spokesman for Black Americans. Nope, that is a bridge too far for me to consider! Good post Frank. enjoyable to read! Its back on! :>))
Tom … My signature close is “So, there ’tis.” I see you have a signature opening, “I agree Frank.” And Frank refuses to call it a bromance. LOL
Horse head says I have a bromance. Other times he says I am obsessed. He says we make up fictional Horist’s and divine his inner thoughts. He judges black people but feels we are inferior to him and shouldn’t judge black folks.
But he avoids saying anything factual except generalities and platitudes as to why Barkley is an expert on black life in America.
Then writes an entire book why Hollywood cannot speak as expertly as him on Isreal.
He even feels Barkley’s low rated and dropping talk show on cnn makes him an expert. That’s right folks, when it fits his spin, he touts cnn as the place for experts. Didn’t hypocrite Horist tell us only losers work there?
Horist,
So, if you agree with another man, it’s a bromance? I guess that means a pugnacious prick like yourself does not have that issue, right?
Or maybe it’s your penchant for personal attacks instead of professional responses?
Frank, we all know that Larry has great respect for African American pro basketball players. Remember that legend Jordan played in his hometown. To me it’s obvious, Larry feels Barkley is an expert on Blacks simply because he can dunk a basketball. End of story!
But the polls do show a migration to the GOP. *https://news.gallup.com/poll/609776/democrats-lose-ground-black-hispanic-adults.aspx* So Dems need to fix this, and it will take more than words. The upside is that the Dem party is getting smarter. Dem party has increased quite a bit in favor-ability among people with college educations.
On Barkley, he has been rather giving to Black education and causes, but most of this is after the SCOTUS repeal of Affirmative Action. He is a generous man to this regard despite being rather recent. I think Barley’s comments are more a condemnation of the Dem party rather than an endorsement of the GOP, since recently as last week he said he would slug any black person he finds wearing a Trump shirt. What I found amazing was not a one pundant, nor writer like Larry (including Larry) denounced Barkley’s statement as an endorsement of black on black violence and crime. As an Independent / Unaffiliated voter, I denounce anyone punching someone because of a political tee-shirt. This Barkley statement is just another example of sanctioned intolerance, and the institution allowed it when they should have made sure it did not get out on tv and news articles..
Tom …. Why do you keep making up ignorant straw man bs? ” … we all know that Larry has great respect for African American pro basketball players. Remember that legend Jordan played in his hometown. To me it’s obvious, Larry feels Barkley is an expert on Blacks simply because he can dunk a basketball. End of story!” Utter bs. In fact, I am not a fan of basketball at all. Everyone who KNOWS me knows that. You are not just wrong. You blatantly lying to make a point.
You say “I think Barley’s comments are more a condemnation of the Dem party rather than an endorsement of the GOP, … ” Well duh! I made that clear in the first graph. That is why Barkley’s observation is both correct and notable.
And with your condemnation of Barkley’s punching a Trump supporter you are showing your self not only to be arrogant but as a snowflake as well. Do you really think he would punch someone. Check out the term “figure of speech.” When I did something my mother disapproved of, she said she could kill me. It never even remotely entered my mind that she meant it. LOL And the solution to your whiney grievance is censorship. Figures.
You keep saying your are an independent/unaffiliated voter. I assume that means you are registered as independent. You remind me of that saying however…. if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. From your PBP quacking, all I “hear” is a liberal Democrat. LOL
Larry, its always lovely getting your mouth diarrhea! This time I got four paragraphs, a real dump for you. Your mother and Barkley are much different, just another irrational equivalency. The thrust of that statement was Barkley being a public figure, Black kids look up to him, he is on TV a lot, etc. His comments make a difference, your mother’s do not.
Yes I am a registered Independent / unaffiliated voter. Maybe my PBP posts seem Dem because you write so much BS that is spun or flat out lie that I feel I need to correct you to balance the reader’s overall opinion of the issue! If your writing was more truthful and balanced, I would appear less Dem to you. In many ways you have created PBP Tom!!! In many ways I am helping you see both sides of the issue and be a better you. This is why I created the STS – Rating. As you are a political opine and influence on readers, I feel it my sacred and civic duty to make sure that you are correct and presenting both sides so Americans can make a totally informed decision. Despite the STS rating always know that the bromance between you and I is still on as a “bromance without limits”. LOL
Tom … How dare you say my mother’s comments do not matter. If she were here, she would probably want to kill you for saying that. Figuratively, of course. Ah … You are taking on your “sacred and civic duty” to respond to me. Sacred? Have you been hearing the voice of God? Isn’t that a bit of a stretch? And you still haven’t figured that your reach in terms of influence does not go much further than a few folks on PBP — the ankle biters club — who already share your views about me, PBP, the site owner and any number of the other writers. No matter how much you try to pump relevancy into your silly rating system, it is still merely an expression of your own opinions and biases. A gimmick. And … I think my mother may have had more influence than you. But if it makes you feel good, go for it.
Tom … “mouth diarrhea.” Is that our best shot? LMAO You should submit that for a literary award. It is perfect. The use is its own example. Fiendishly clever. LOL
Frank Stetson … Instead of wallowing in trash talk against Barkley, why don’t YOU explain why Blacks are moving to the GOP. Especially, since you think Barkley is too stupid and too unqualified to have an informed opinion? And while you are at it, explain why you believe there is no segregation and oppression of Blacks in the major Democrat-run cities. Explain how that happens. What keeps Blacks confined and impoverished in ghetto neighborhoods for generations. If you want to dispute me, try something more than mindless knee-jerk platitudes and personal insults based on bias, ignorance and obsession. I’ll be waiting. LOL
The issue here is in the word People. When Biden went to a Black Family and ate Chicken with them
that said it all. That was about as Racist as it can get. Not because it was chicken with Black people
but did he visit White people? would he bring them chicken? And why didn’t he visit any White people?
And what would he have brought?
People are people, color and stereo types should not matter. Sincerity is what makes the difference.
Bide is an Ancient Old Paste White Guy who Oozes KKK. The last thing he needed to do was a stunt like that.
George Burns said it the best. SINCARITY, ONE YOU CAN FAKE THAT, YOU GOT EM!
Yes Charles! A least 15-25 % of blacks are tired of being stupid and used!
This article earns an Stop The Spin rating of STS-1, it is mostly true, just a bit of spin and slightly overblown.
Gallup polls do show an increase in Black GOP vote. Same polls show a significant increase in Educated Voter preferences for Dem Party. It seems as if the more educated a population becomes, the more it seems to go Dem. A January USA TODAY/Suffolk University poll found that Trump’s support among Black Americans has stayed consistently low since 2020. While other polls show Trump’s support among Black Americans has slightly increased since 2020, he’s nowhere close to earning a majority of the Black vote.
It appears an aggregate of several popular polls seems to show an uptick in Black GOP voters by about 4-5 % which is the source of glee for Larry. Overall, Black vote is still well within the Dem camp at about 84%. And to keep it all in perspective, that is 84% of the eligible voters from 13% of the overall population. Significant, yes, game changing, doubtful. But yes, it is an indicator of a Dem demographic problem.
Overall, yes, Dems have a minor problem with Black voters. While Larry appears to acknowledge Barkley’s star pop and that Barkley is not wrong about his statement of Black voters migrating to the GOP, he fails to make any mention of the recent statement of Barkley. As recently as last week Barkley said he would slug any black person he finds wearing a Trump shirt. What I found amazing was not a one GOP pundant, nor writer like Larry (including Larry) denounced Barkley’s statement as an endorsement of black on black violence and crime. As an Independent / Unaffiliated voter, I denounce anyone punching someone because of a political tee-shirt. This Barkley statement is just another example of sanctioned intolerance, and the institution allowed it when they should have made sure it did not get out on tv and news articles.. Nor have I heard of any Black voters speaking out against it.
Tom …. Did you forget you already posted much of what you wrote here?
No, I just figured it would take you reading twice to understand it and sink it in a little!! LOL
Tom’s story is just perfect, not so much that I like it, but that my saying that just bugs Horist to no end….. and I’m obsessed with bugging Horist. Because it’s so damn easy for him to forget the facts and fight the person. Pricless.
Some parts of this story are so funny as Horist sets the stage by having Barkley speak for all Blacks about the Black experience with Democrats. Then Horist humorously continues by going down memory lane linking actions from the dark ages to the modern Democratic party where he basically says: current politicians, many of whom are black, enslave modern blacks, none of whom are black like Barkley. The funny party is while no one remembers whatever Horist is incoherently mumbling about, the fact that Horist was actually there is typical, all he seems to know seems to be from the dark ages long, long ago…. Not to matter, according to Horist, the dark ages, from slavery to Jim Crow to the KKK, were all created by and still exist in the modern Democratic party and it’s policies. Slavery, Jim Crow, KKK, you name it, the modern Democratic party did it. And Horist was there :>)
FYI: I am a Democrat. I never stopped anyone from voting, I never wore a white sheet, I never lynched anyone, I never owned a slave, I do not know any living Democrats who did, and I don’t know anyone who created the humorous linkages that Horist does for his oft announced, never delivered book on the subject.
But I do know this: Horist’s Republican party bans books, bans trans, ban drag shows, bans abortions, bans black history, puts teachers in curriculum slavery, bans any material from crt, and now they want to ban AARP as a leftist communist plot. Horist was there :>) He’s a Republican.
Horist says: “Even in the darkest days of Jim Crow, when voter suppression was at its peak and lynching was the Democrats’ version of a rule-of-law — the Democratic Party’s 1940 platform said this in a plank, headed “Negros” because not only does this typify the modern Democratic party, but it’s a history Horist knows because he was there. He lived it :>)
Then he describes the modern Democratic party by its actions in the 57 and 60 civil rights laws, I was not in double digits in age then. He also leaves out 64 Johnson part as if 57/60 typifies the modern Democratic party, 64 is not relevant, it’s a history that Horist knows because he was there. He is part of that history :>)
I am not sure who “President Kenny” is, but Horist was there too in 56. I was crawling.
And then he gets to his oft repeated, tired old punchline: “Hypocrisy on civil rights is in still full view today in America’s Democrat-controlled major cities, in which millions of Blacks are racially segregated and oppressed by the deprivation of education, jobs, safe housing, healthcare, equal justice, safe streets, municipal services and upward mobility.” Ok folks. We get Horist. Democrats bad, Modern Democrats responsible for slavery, lynching, KKK, Jim Crow, Dixiecrats. No one knows the mind of Horist and you can’t tell what he thinks by his writing. On this one, he can disagree, he can say I am projecting, but he seems to feel that the modern Democratic party is all of this ancient history that Horist was there for. Worse yet, Horist feels that Democrats are still segregating and oppressing blacks in urban areas.
Does Horist ever answer the big question for Republicans. The one that Black expert Barkley did not answer. That is, don’t you wonder why blacks just don’t move to Republican areas? Horist does not answer that because he is not all there anymore. Sigh. That’s as funny as describing blacks in terms of chicken and watermelon, Horist was there when that stereotype was invented by Democrats too :>) He brought the Okra.
White powder.
LOL Good post Frank! Be careful on the okra comment, Larry will probably say he does not like Okra so you are creating a strawman Larry.
Hey, interesting comment about AARP! Is the GOP really thinking of banning AARP too? Holy crap!! Maybe they should just ban everyone over 55 – but that would mean Larry too!
From Steven Moore, proving the adage that Moore is Less. “On the big stage at CPAC talking about why AARP members should rip up their membership cards because they are a liberal advocacy group that never saw a social spending program or a tax increase it didn’t like.” He’s a Heritage Foundation hump who has worked hard right economics since Reagan and is the co-architect of Trump’s tax cut. He’s behind a lot of Republican economic efforts, quite the economic force and, unlike Horist, he’s in WIKI.
Frank Stetson…. Are you saying that Black in the Democrat controlled cities are NOT segregated and oppressed. Either you have never been in a major city … been in a segregated neighborhood … or you are lying in an effort to make a point. It is called systemic or institutional racism. I wish you could join me at a Black inner city church and hear you tell them they are not segregated and oppressed. You will have them rolling in the aisles at hour profound ignorance.
Mr Horist, what I said was: ” On this one, he can disagree, he can say I am projecting, but he seems to feel that the modern Democratic party is all of this ancient history that Horist was there for. Worse yet, Horist feels that Democrats are still segregating and oppressing blacks in urban areas.
Does Horist ever answer the big question for Republicans. The one that Black expert Barkley did not answer. That is, don’t you wonder why blacks just don’t move to Republican areas? Horist does not answer that because he is not all there anymore. Sigh. That’s as funny as describing blacks in terms of chicken and watermelon, Horist was there when that stereotype was invented by Democrats too.”
What I was attempting to convey is that you tagging Democrats based on ancient history, sins of the father and all that, is a bogus tag. And that YOU feel that Democras are still segregating and oppressing blacks in urban areas. I did not say black are not still segregated or oppressed. However, as you know, I believe that’s across the nation. Urban, rural, red, blue —– systemic racism is everywhere. We have done this before, you must have Biden-mind.
And, of course, you did not respond to the big question. As is your way. And you are right, I have not really made friends with inner city folk, although I do frequent all parts of many cities. I like cities — to visit. I need a bigger sky.
But answer: if it’s as bad as you say, and totally urban, totally democratic —— why don’t black move to beautiful red areas where this does not occur —- in your opinion. Better yet, why doesn’t DeSantic and Abbott bus them there on the bus return post dropping off the asylum seekers?
There’s a joke about when the titanic sank. The story goes that some of the crew didn’t know what to say in a prayer as they wasn’t very religious. So they go find a black crew member who happened to be a minister. So the preacher knelt down and said “Lord when I was a boy in Alabama my mama took me to enroll in school. The sign said whites only. I went to use the public toilet and the sign said whites only. I wanted a drink of water from the public water fountain. The sign said whites only. So Lord let this ship sink. With whites only.”
Before the prayer, I heard his last words were “hey, I’m going down to get some ice, anyone want some?”
Never apologize for being white
Charles Barkley says he knows why blacks are leaving DNC for GOP; Horist believes him as expert on the Black electorate in America.
Charles Barkley says he will punch black trump t-shirt wearing folk, Horist does not believe him to be telling the truth; it’s just locker room talk says Horist.
Tom agrees with Frank Stetson, Horist believes it’s a bromance without knowing either man.
Donald Trump hollows out the RNC, Horist likes strong men, he will vote for him for the third time, Horist believes in his own bromance that he wants to take to the next level. He once worked with Dick. He said so. He must have liked Dick. A Dick bromance. Dick quit. He was not believable. Horist cried.
Horist is a dick, I said so, Tom did not agree, yet. Is the fake bromance over?
Trump is a dick, Horist liked Dick.
Calm down. It’s not the fault of republicans that you idiots are running a moron for president. Just try harder to steal. Who knows? You might get lucky. Then it will be our turn
RIchard, there is the case that YOU are indeed forcing us to run Joe by running Don……
As to the steal: either we did not steal OR you are too STUPID to prove it. Why you continue to try to achieve both is beyond me.
Your turn? For what say you?