Could Be A Death Knell....

[Rightguide]

Do I hear the bell tolling for the Democrats in the distance?


Post-Debate Poll Shows Trump Support Skyrocketing Among Latino and Black Voters
By Randy DeSoto
Published October 2, 2020 at 6:42pm

A poll taken following the first 2020 presidential debate shows President Donald Trump is enjoying significantly higher support among both Latinos and African-Americans than he had 2016.

CNN exit polling from the 2016 election showed Trump taking 28 percent of the Latino vote and just 8 percent among black voters in his race against Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

A new Investors Business Daily/TIPP poll conducted following Tuesday’s presidential debate finds the president’s support among Hispanics at 36.5 percent, an 8.5 percentage point jump from 2016.

Meanwhile, his backing among African-Americans has nearly doubled to 15 percent. The IBD/TIPP survey also found Trump narrowing Joe Biden’s lead overall to less than 3 percentage points nationwide, with 48.6 percent supporting the Democratic nominee and 45.9 percent supporting the president among likely voters.

More details here:

https://www.westernjournal.com/post...pport-skyrocketing-among-latino-black-voters/

A mere 12% of the black vote will spell the demise of the Democrat Party.

 

[LLCox]

lol, the right LOVE to claim the minorities are coming to the, "BIG TENT". It happens every election and after the election not a peep.

 

[neakman]

lol, the right LOVE to claim the minorities are coming to the, "BIG TENT". It happens every election and after the election not a peep.

Name one positive thing the Liberal Democrats have done for minorities in the past 50 years.

1_____________________
2_____________________
3_____________________

just put the blanks there for fun, not necessary.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Name one positive thing the Liberal Democrats have done for minorities in the past 50 years.

1_____________________
2_____________________
3_____________________

just put the blanks there for fun, not necessary.

Well you only went back 50 years, which is after most of the dramatic changes have occurred...but...

"70s and 1980s have seen the Supreme Court rule
in favor of the special status of American Indians and in the
use of race and ethnicity in overcoming past discrimination.
There were several landmark decisions during this period.
In the Bakke case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was
acceptable under certain circumstances to take race into
account, but that numerical quotas of the kind used at the
University of California at Davis were unconstitutional. In
United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, the Court in 1979
upheld a voluntary affirmative action plan that gave blacks
priority for training over white workers with more seniority.
And in Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980), the Court upheld the
minority set-aside program that required 10 percent of public
construction funds to go to minority contractors."


A couple above anyhow....


https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc102c.pdf

 

[Wrong Element]

Oh, I assumed "death knell" was referring to something else.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Oh, I assumed "death knell" was referring to something else.

Right? The thread creator really knows how to clickbait tease people into reading trash, I swear!

 

[LLCox]

Name one positive thing the Liberal Democrats have done for minorities in the past 50 years.

1_____________________
2_____________________
3_____________________

just put the blanks there for fun, not necessary.

You believing the Blacks will vote for white supremacist trump is all we need to know.

 

[icanhelp1]

Well you only went back 50 years, which is after most of the dramatic changes have occurred...but...

"70s and 1980s have seen the Supreme Court rule
in favor of the special status of American Indians and in the
use of race and ethnicity in overcoming past discrimination.
There were several landmark decisions during this period.
In the Bakke case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was
acceptable under certain circumstances to take race into
account, but that numerical quotas of the kind used at the
University of California at Davis were unconstitutional. In
United Steelworkers of America v. Weber, the Court in 1979
upheld a voluntary affirmative action plan that gave blacks
priority for training over white workers with more seniority.
And in Fullilove v. Klutznick (1980), the Court upheld the
minority set-aside program that required 10 percent of public
construction funds to go to minority contractors."


A couple above anyhow....


https://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc102c.pdf

I think the question was " WHAT DID LIBERAL DEMOCRATS " not SCOTUS

 

[silver gurl]

Oh, I assumed "death knell" was referring to something else.

Me too. Considering the POTUS is in the hospital with Covid.

 

[silver gurl]

Name one positive thing the Liberal Democrats have done for minorities in the past 50 years.

1_____________________
2_____________________
3_____________________

just put the blanks there for fun, not necessary.

Elect the first African American POTUS

 

[JackLuis]

Let us say that the Black and Brown voters go for Trump 20%. that means that ~80% go for BIden

80% vs 20% Hmmm. Not advantageous for Trumpski.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I think the question was " WHAT DID LIBERAL DEMOCRATS " not SCOTUS

I think you need to look at at the wider picture, who appointed all those "liberal" judges?

After all you are now trying so desperate to see those "conservative" ones appointed....

Who appoints them? Liberal Democrats? No I don't think so....

 

[icanhelp1]

I think you need to look at at the wider picture, who appointed all those "liberal" judges?

After all you are now trying so desperate to see those "conservative" ones appointed....

Who appoints them? Liberal Democrats? No I don't think so....

POTUS appoints, the senate provides advice and consent!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

POTUS appoints, the senate provides advice and consent!

Are you sure you are an American???

The President nominates, the Senate confirms...just go ask Tyler...

Why do I even bother...

 

[icanhelp1]

Are you sure you are an American???

The President nominates, the Senate confirms...just go ask Tyler...

Why do I even bother...

Correction nominates, my mistake! However bighead! The POTUS APPOINTS ALL FEDERAL JUDGES, Ambassadors and other federal officials and the senate confirms.

Might want to read up on the appointment clause which is an executive function

 

[Rightguide]

You believing the Blacks will vote for white supremacist trump is all we need to know.

He got 8% in 2016, if he gets as little as 12% this time the Dems are all done.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

I think the question was " WHAT DID LIBERAL DEMOCRATS " not SCOTUS

I think you need to look at at the wider picture, who appointed all those "liberal" judges?

After all you are now trying so desperate to see those "conservative" ones appointed....

Who appoints them? Liberal Democrats? No I don't think so....

So, back to the point, SCOTUS nominees are nominated by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate, that is the mechanism. It is not what you wrote below.

POTUS appoints, the senate provides advice and consent!

Correction nominates, my mistake! However bighead! The POTUS APPOINTS ALL FEDERAL JUDGES, Ambassadors and other federal officials and the senate confirms.

Yes it was your mistake, and a mistake is called "being wrong".

However bighead! The POTUS APPOINTS ALL FEDERAL JUDGES, Ambassadors and other federal officials and the senate confirms.
Might want to read up on the appointment clause which is an executive function

^^^^^^
You brought up the SCOTUS point, not me, I never mentioned any appointment method of judges, except for SCOTUS, so quit moving the goal post to deflect from your incorrect original statement about how SCOTUS judges are appointed and confirmed.

 

[icanhelp1]

So, back to the point, SCOTUS nominees are nominated by the POTUS and confirmed by the Senate, that is the mechanism. It is not what you wrote below.







Yes it was your mistake, and a mistake is called "being wrong".




^^^^^^
You brought up the SCOTUS point, not me, I never mentioned any appointment method of judges, except for SCOTUS, so quit moving the goal post to deflect from your incorrect original statement about how SCOTUS judges are appointed and confirmed.

My mistake was not realizing your complete ignorance of American politics and law. The process from start to finish is **nomination to consent**, after the process is complete and the individual passes muster ( the final product ) that individual is an appointee of POTUS, NOT AN APPOINTEE OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY. See: you're problem is you see goal post moving all over the place.

The Appointments Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which empowers the President of the United States to nominate and, with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate, appoint public officials.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

My mistake was not realizing your complete ignorance of American politics and law. The process from start to finish is **nomination to consent**, after the process is complete and the individual passes muster ( the final product ) that individual is an appointee of POTUS, NOT AN APPOINTEE OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY. See: you're problem is you see goal post moving all over the place.

The Appointments Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, which empowers the President of the United States to nominate and, with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the United States Senate, appoint public officials.

I never said he was an appointee of the Senate did I?

I said the Senate confirms, or denies the nominee of the POTUS. It is not a rubber stamp, just ask Tyler....who nominated 9 justices, but only had one confirmed.

 

[Adre]

Do I hear the bell tolling for the Democrats in the distance?

A mere 12% of the black vote will spell the demise of the Democrat Party.

Still hearing that bell?

 

[YDB95]

Still hearing that bell?

He probably is. The right's ability to delude themselves about racism knows no depths whatsoever.

 

[Philthy_Phil]

Who ended up winning the election?

 

[schism666]

Who ended up winning the election?

according to the op, trump.