Heh. Why not say the Southern Strategy is a opinion and didn't really happen while you're at it? The two quotes I gave you were from high up Republican strategists who worked for Nixon, Reagan, Bush sr. and worked with Bush jr. They explain how Republicans get votes from racists.
You asked how I would punish them. Not what Canadian law was. Do not move the goal post.
So would I, thus my position that black people would be more affected if your discriminating law was passed. That was part of my point.
They are still humans with rights even if you put a label on them in an attempt to dehumanize them.
That is a strawman.
Oh, an ad hominem. Quality logic right there.
I have this awesome ability called multitasking. Like in the exchange with you I talked about black people's rights and prisoner's rights. I'm that good.
They are. Your opinion about apartheid is pretty clear.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Not exactly. I'm divided between protecting speech and protecting public good. Is there anyy optimal solution? Maybe not with the current justice system that is prevelent in the Western world.
That was humor. An hyperbole.Your only rebuttal being that expulsion = Labour Camps.
Whether it is free or not, the reality is that proportionally black people have less degrees than whites. A bigger proportion of them would be barred from running for office if your suggestion was to pass.
And? Do they represent 10% of elected officials?
I never said wealth and connections aren't in play. Just that adding an arbitrary barrier to the mix creates more limitations for no good reason, and will affect non-whites disproportionally.
Finally! Your quoting me appropriately!
You're talking about Israel? It has nothing to do with the current conversation. It is a distraction.
Yep.
DA did mention that this is considered a tuning point in the republican party. Still, Duke switched over to the republican party for a reason. He believed that he could win as a republican. Something made him think that.
Yes, the race was open to Republicans. He couldn't win as a Democrat not because he wouldn't get votes or that only Republicans would vote for a racist, but because it was an opportunity open to Republicans at the time.
It doesn't. If that's the argument -- that there are racists in the Republican party, then I can agree and we can be done: there are racists in the Republican party. If the argument is that some racists have had high positions, then we can agree and be done: there have been some racists holding high positions in the Republican party. I find neither of those statement objectionable or arguable.
He never one another one, and I'm not arguing that he didn't win an election. There's a 2 year old mayor of a town out there right now, so that's a benchmark of low quality. He won a special election to a state house, and lost it promptly the next election with stiff opprobrium from the party. Hardly a case of him being a solid representative of the Republican party as a whole.
Yes, and he even lampshaded that particular argument quite well by pointing out that it's guilt by association before he went on and made the guilt by association argument. Very well done, rhetorically, except that pointing out it's a bad argument before going on an making that argument doesn't magically absolve you of making a bad argument.
Really? It was talked about widely in the media, and many of the other candidates specifically called it out as racist. A trivial google search turns up loads of hits on this. Here's one.
What proof or signs of a party being racist or is cattering to racists would you accept? Explicite policies in the party's platform can't be one of them, as a mainstream party would avoid such explicite policies so it couldn't be easily labelled racist in the current era of PCism.
