Blacks fed up, leaving Dems in 'Blexit' to GOP
Category: News & Politics
Via: heartland-american • 5 years ago • 139 commentsBy: Michael F. Haverluck
Blexit is real. African Americans are fed up with being taken for granted each election cycle by the party of slavery and Jim Crow. They are tired of having places they live show no improvement despite decades of non stop democrat rule. They are tired of the secular party always being against their religious beliefs and liberty. They have seen Trump bring them their lowest unemployment ever, rising wages, more school choice, opportunity zones, and prison reform like no democrat has done. It’s time for a return to the party of Lincoln and Trump.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Most African Americans are getting tired of the Democratic Party’s lip service, with more and more blacks switching from blue to red at the ballot box in a growing movement known as “Blexit.”
“[A] majority [of black voters] (54%) believe that the Democratic Party has not done enough for the African American community,” the latest Politico poll revealed .
Not yesterday’s black voter
Hillary Clinton receiving 89% of the black vote against Republican challenger Donald Trump in the 2016 election – and former President Barack Obama drawing 93% of black’s ballots – was indicative of a decades-long trend of African Americans voting Democrat, but black conservative commentator Candace Owens says things are changing. The founder of the Blexit movement – which has chapters in several states – says many black voters are now saying no to the status quo.
"Black Americans are waking up," Owens asserted on the Mike Huckabee Show . "They're realizing they've been sleeping at the wheel, and really, what I'm saying is just to embrace your future – you can be in the driver seat of your future."
Blexit’s North Carolina director, Danielle Robinson, argues that many African Americans have had enough of pledging allegiance to a party that mostly delivers nothing but empty promises while knocking Trump and the Republican Party who have done more for the black community than the Democratic politicians they have traditionally supported for decades on end.
"This is not a quiet time at all," Robinson told CBN News . "It is an all-in time, and those that are fighting this battle – those of us that are part of Blexit – we are all in because we've got nothing to lose because we've lost too much already."
As a devoted Christian and new Republican, Robinson is more than pleased with the gains Trump has worked to produce for the black community, such as all-time-low unemployment for African Americans, prison reform and an unprecedented amount of federal funds being allocated to traditionally black colleges in the United States.
"Regardless of if you like him or not, his results are undeniable," Robinson added. "I never expected to have a president deliver in such a way."
Even left-leaning CNN Analyst Van Jones recognized the gains Trump has made for the African American community after the president delivered his State of the Union speech last month.
"We've got to wake up, folks – there's a whole bubble thing that goes on," Jones – an African American – warned, according to RealClearPolitics . "We say, 'Well he said [derogatory term] nations, therefore all black people are going to hate him forever.' That ain't necessarily so. I think what you're going to see him do, 'You may not like my rhetoric, but look at my results and my record for black people.' If he narrow-casts that, it's going to be effective."
Results or empty promises?
African Americans were advised by Black Voices for Trump advisory board member Paris Dennard to look at the facts and examine what the president has done for blacks in America, compared to the virtually zero progress – or even worsening conditions – in America’s largest Democrat-run cities.
"When you look at the impact on the ground – Baltimore and Detroit – there is high crime," Dennard pointed out to CBN News. "There's a lot of problems that are there, but there is an opportunity that's growing because of President Trump, and I think more and more black Americans are waking up to the fact that we might have to give Donald Trump another chance, and we might have to give the Republican Party – not just at the president, but down ballot a first look."
Because of Robinson’s conservative stance on political issues, she has received much backlash, but she encourages fellow black Christians to reexamine their values, which should be rooted in the Bible – not the Democratic Party’s secular agenda often attacking Christian beliefs and teachings.
"They have fooled us every election into voting against God or voting diminishing freedom of religion,” Robinson contended. “They cause us to forget what's not working, and we're not doing that anymore. As a community, as Christians, we're coming into alignment."
Tags
Who is online
85 visitors
many African Americans have had enough of pledging allegiance to a party that mostly delivers nothing but empty promises while knocking Trump and the Republican Party who have done more for the black community than the Democratic politicians they have traditionally supported for decades on end.
"This is not a quiet time at all," Robinson told CBN News . "It is an all-in time, and those that are fighting this battle – those of us that are part of Blexit – we are all in because we've got nothing to lose because we've lost too much already."
As a devoted Christian and new Republican, Robinson is more than pleased with the gains Trump has worked to produce for the black community, such as all-time-low unemployment for African Americans, prison reform and an unprecedented amount of federal funds being allocated to traditionally black colleges in the United States.
"Regardless of if you like him or not, his results are undeniable," Robinson added. "I never expected to have a president deliver in such a way."
Paris Dennard of Black Voices for Trump says it's time for African Americans to compare the president's results to the lack of progress in big cities run by Democrats.
"When you look at the impact on the ground - Baltimore, and Detroit, there is high crime," Dennard told CBN News. "There's a lot of problems that are there. But there is an opportunity that's growing because of President Trump and I think more and more black Americans are waking up to the fact that we might have to give Donald Trump another chance and we might have to give the Republican Party - not just at the president but down ballot a first look."
Meanwhile, Robinson, who has faced backlash for her conservative political views, urges other African American believers to consider their values.
"They have fooled us every election into voting against God or voting diminishing freedom of religion. They cause us to forget what's not working. And we're not doing that anymore. As a community, as Christians, we're coming into alignment,"
God's people are not "bought" or "sold out" people to this world's manna. God's people are principled. We believe after this fashion, "For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?" Matthew 16:26.
This sounds like some highfalutin propaganda. That is this devout ladies first mistake of misreading her people/church. If Ms. Danielle Robinson is as "devout" a Christian as she suggests she is, she needs to explain all of Trump's sixteen-thousand plus lies, misleading statements, obstructions, and deceptions in context of Christian values.
Donald Trump is a pagan. Donald Trump admits to not asking God for repentance or forgiveness. He thinks he does not need either (from God). That's another lie from the perspective of a believer. We all needs repentance and forgiveness.
Right-wing evangelicals have in Machiavellian fashion rendered Trump as their leader in order to push a man-made agenda of lies, cheats, and thefts intended to put liberals under their feet! No slight to pagans intended. But, Christians need to be clear-minded on this above all else.
God is not in what Trump is doing!
Black Christians will not abandon peace for strife on account of some so-called "blackreligious leaders" who want a seat at the right-hand of Trump.
NOTE: The article photo includes Omarosa, who left the Trump Administration and got called, "a dog" for doing so. Omarosa is not a black Christian standing for Trump!
Democrats are of the world, the anti religion secularist party. The world view of the democrat party and religious African Americans are polar opposites.
Untrue. If you don't know what you are writing about you should ASK somebody. Furthermore, when you see a myriad of videos of democratic party candidates (including Pete Buttigieg) standing in pulpits around, across, and through the country, Washington State to Florida, do you DARE to suggest those faithful people in the pews are "of the world"?
"Beware, and be on our guard against every form of greed; for not even when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions." Luke 12:15.
Question - Are you a practicing Christian?
And how about you? Are you living out your Christian service?
If they want to support someone who claims they are born inherently lazy, let them.
You're not talking about Trump, are you?
On the other hand, we do have good, recent video of Joe Biden insisting that
Does that seem like a better choice?
Didn’t Biden say that Obama was a clean and articulate African American?
You are correct that Trump never said that exactly.
It is a partial quote from the book Trumped by John 'Donnell from 1992.
Here's the statement from Trump that I found interesting in that link:
Note that Trump didn't say anything about the employment rate, he cited INCOME LEVELS. A quick review of Trump's record on AA income levels shows that they have flat lined since Trump took office.
so did many people but the reality was that the first black President would not and probably could not favor any one group over another for obvious reasons. Having said that I have never heard black relatives disparage him for not having done more.
As so many POC have said, just seeing someone that 'looks like me' on TV inspired them. Obama inspired POC all over the world.
Angry grandpa and shotgun Joe will never be able to out work the Donald. Hillary found that out the hard way.
So true! Biden will turn the White House living quarters into a convalescent Hospital
Yep, having spent about 300 days at his own properties, no one else could own and bill the government from their hotels.
True, most others have been 100% on the government dole most of their adult lives. Bernie, Biden, etc. Trump has been on it less than four years now.
So true!
Why do you view government employees as being on 'the dole'?
Yep. Much better to screw thousands of vendors out of money, declare bankruptcies and turn it all around once elected by having us now pay his hotels and have his children running around the world making millions off of his position.
Trump donates his paychecks.
Trump donates 3rd-quarter salary to help fight opioid crisis
Donald Trump Donates His Presidential Paycheck to Coronavirus Response
I agree. These [insert word here ] think that anybody who works for the government is "on the dole," and yes this includes those who serve in the military too. Except these [insert word here] use selecto.vision when it comes to negatively calling out the men and women of the armed services.
Yes, Trump takes his little tax deduction all while profiting millions.
The public pay Trump is salary. He 'paid' others. An important distinction. He can give to small babies to tear up if he wants. His contract calls for a salary and that is what he has been provided for.
Note. Point of clarification. The "dole" is not a paycheck, salary, or contract payment. It is properly benefits given in a form of welfare.
What a pointless comment.
Of course, but even if philosophically people see government salaries as some kind of unearned entitlement, Trump is notable in that he is giving it away to help the American people.
Oh and maybe Trump should take those paychecks and pay his fucking bills with it. There are cities all over the country that Trump has failed to pay for the security services for his rallies.
What an unfounded opinion.
From your link.
Maybe they should pay their fucking bills, too, huh?
deleted
Why yes Tacos!, YES they should. Yet you wouldn't give Trump a pass just because others owe money would you?
BTFW, since you're into whataboutism, Beto paid his bills for his El Paso rally, Trump STILL owes big bucks.
I'm into whataboutism? You're the one who seems to think billing disputes between cities and the Trump campaign has some relevance to anything anyone has been talking about here. It's like walking into a room and throwing a diarrhea-filled balloon.
That's nice of Trump to do: Anybody in the country, local or nationally, can give away money and wealth, it is considered an 'act of love' - what we do not do is speak of this in the wrong vernacular or spirit of the thing. Trump is paid from the public treasury according to the legal law and policy of the United States regarding presidential compensation. He is not working for free; he is not receiving welfare.
Yes! Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders should not have their good spoken ill of, by being bill deadbeats. If it so, then by all means pay up! Or, get the heaven out of 'business.'
TDS reigns supreme with some no matter what.
The next 4.5 years is gonna be really tough on them.
Seems so.
Well gee, it must not have been that irrelevant since you dipped your hand right into the balloon and quoted content from my 'diarrhea-filled' link.
Your action and comment are contradictory.
No answer for my 3.2.4 question?
Reportedly in 2019 Trump was over 1 million in arrears for rally security to municipalities.
Sanders was behind $449,000 in 2016 but when he closed that campaign, by law there could be no payments owed. Same is true of the HRC campaign.
One has to wonder if Trump is successful for a second term, do the constant rallies stop on the day after the inauguration?
Oh hell NO the rallies won't stop. Trump is a narcissist that NEEDS the adulation. They have to give him something to do that has the least impact. Keep him golfing and spewing bullshit that no one believes at rallies is the best way to keep him from doing more damage.
Nope, didn't feel like arguing endlessly with you about it.
Still don't .....
[A little shy boy stands up in the back of the room]: "Does this mean black liberals are becoming black conservatives?!" "An- and - in droves?"
From the first page of the Politico poll linked in the article-
HAHAHAHA! How in fuck does that translate to a "Blexit" of black voters to Trump?
Wait until the election and learn that you've been existing on false hope. Trump only needs another few percent of the black vote, and it's all over for the Democrats.
Holy flaming shit balls! How does showing the premise of the article a lie with the very same facts it uses translate to me hoping anything?
Uh oh ..... not only are the balls on fire ..... but they are made of shit .... not good, not good at all!
I don't know if he needs it, but I'm guessing he gets 16% of it this time. It would be refreshing to see people vote as individuals rather than as a group.
I'm pretty sure flaming shit balls smell as bad as the propaganda this article is peddling. LOL!
Here come the balls, they are on fire and they are made of shit
Now you are on fire AND P U !!
Not good!
I can only hope that evangelicals feel the same.
Let's see, they can vote for someone who is hardly one of them yet advances their interests or vote for either a Socialist or a proxy, either of which will seek to diminish the role of religion in American life. Gee, I wonder which way they'll vote? /s.
You implying that black Americans vote as a 'pack'? How rude. How crude.
Riddle me this: What do republicans vote as individuals or a pack? What do Right-wing evangelicals vote as individuals or a pack? What do conservative NRA membership vote as individuals or a bloc? And lastly, in the House and Senate Trump Hearings did you want republicans to vote as individuals or as a group? Why is Senator Mitt Romney 'out in the wilderness' of Republican-land now?
I call out selecto.vision when I find it.
But it would still be 'refreshing' right?
Is that supposed to be a comparison? Barak Obama got 43% of the white vote in 2008 and 39% of the white vote in 2012. On the other hand, he got 95% of the black vote in 2008 and 93% of the black vote in 2012. That's the comparison to be made.
There is nothing crude or rude about it. It's called facts!
False choice. By the way, are you going to answer my question above @2.1.4? Are you living out your Christian service?
Christians do not have to "hire out" a low-life, deceiving and seducing spirit, in order to accomplish the work of 'kingdom building.' That is a lie out of the pit of Hell and I rebuke it! This cold-calculating personality some right-wing evangelicals have appointed to commit foul treatment on others, so they can appear clean-handed, is not loss on the body of Christ. Right-wing evangelicals are a small and diminishing sect in America and in politics. Keep abusing this faith and this Gospel and the entire church will determine it has been given no choice except to turn against this sect!
There you go with that selecto.vision again.
'Brag' about yourselves for a chance why don't you:
Riddle me this: What do republicans vote as individuals or a pack ? What do Right-wing evangelicals vote as individuals or a pack ? What do conservative NRA membership vote as individuals or a bloc ? And lastly, in the House and Senate Trump Hearings did you want republicans to vote as individuals or as a group ? Why is Senator Mitt Romney 'out in the wilderness' of Republican-land now?
Republicans vote for Conservative principles. Republicans are of different races and creeds.
The real question is should a race or ethnicity vote as a group? The definition of identity politics.
All of these "identities" vote as a group for republicans politicians (and those guys and gals live in fear and loathing of them). Conservatives ( ← identifier) do not get to tell democrats they can not have their party affiliations, simply because conservatives will "give them a mean name."
The makeup of the republican party in congress certainly doesn't show much diversity, nor does the republican party in general.
Great points! It all about content of character for us. All people of good character and moral values are welcome in the GOP regardless of all the separation factors democrats use to try to divide us
Just keep 'confirming' yourselves. The rest of us, are not going to be demonized by man-induced delusions. Truth must win. It may as well do so now!
It's so sad that anyone would try and justify voting based upon race/ethnicity/gender!
What in the heck do you think the seeded article is about?
Vic will be happily content as long as he can identify as a male, white, right-wing evangelical, NRA member. Or, something relatable issue-driven narrative like this.
The "Dreamers" in our country are sadder than you. People in banned Muslim countries who are not terrorists but must endure discriminatory vetting processes are sadder than you. Asylum seekers at our southern border are saddest, because they have no recourse since Trump took away their ability to legally enter the country (for the time being).
Vic Eldred, your being sad is irrelevant to any of the dynamics involved in the above issues, and there are many more issues besides. I suggest you turn off Selecto.vision for once and view the world 'naked' as it is.
One more addition: (Checking nearly every conservative policy box) Vic will most definitely identify as a: Heterosexual.
[deleted]
This whole article is simply not true.
From the Pew:
Independent voter Perrie, thank you for calling and pointing out a lie some of us might have fallen for, but for your attention to fact and detail!
Separate and apart from the above: I am sad and not surprised that some republicans and conservatives will try to lie, manipulate, cheat, steal, and even "chump out" people in order to get an advantage over another person.
We indies just do a lot of fact-checking. The Pew is a very reliable source when you want to know about such things.
Every non-biased source I can find backs up what the Pew says. Hell the very same poll linked in the article proves this "opinion" article a lie.
It is definitely false information.
Sorry Perrie, but that is not fact checking.
It was an opinion!!!!
It is disinformation. Once more some republicans and conservatives are attempting to create a false narrative in an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Epic fail.
First of all, it's posted as 'News and Politics'.
Secondly, the author links multiple sources in an attempt to bolster his credibility.
Thirdly, some of the links cited by the author do NOT support the claims made in the article.
Case in point:
While the 54% is accurate the source is FALSE. It isn't a 'Politico poll', it was conducted by Cornell Belcher @ Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies. I guess that onenewsnow thought that a politico link would lend it more credibility to their readers.
BTFW, there is some very interesting data in that survey, like this:
Hardly an argument. It was an opinion piece. Iv'e heard Senator Tim Scott say something similar. Above I gave you my opinion - I say 16% this time around for Trump.
Oh, no!.....Gee, I would have never have known it was opinion based on that /s.
Secondly, the author links multiple sources in an attempt to bolster his credibility.
Um-hum....And?
While the 54% is accurate the source is FALSE. It isn't a 'Politico poll', it was conducted by Cornell Belcher @ Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies.
Um-hum....And that makes the poll somehow skewed?
BTFW, there is some very interesting data in that survey, like this:
And we shall find out how accurate all of that was come election day. Until then it is polling & opinion.
So based on your scenario, even though the author though it was decisive, that 54% thingy may not be accurate. Got ya.
This is your attempt at, 'Calm down folks, nothing to see here. . . keep moving.' You're a dime late and a nickle short. We've done the work required already!
Indies is all too often a way of saying democrat light or people who Agee with them and their media most of the time but don’t want to overtly associate with them.
Are you claiming that Perrie is not an independent thinker but rather a disguised D?
As a Democrat who is an independent thinker I think I might take umbrage to that statement.
"Democratic Light" probably sounds to your and Perrie's minds, if I can be so bold, as when the seeder referred to liberal Christians as "Christian Lite" thereabouts several 'cycles' ago.
I felt the phrase as an attack on my belief system. It startled me, too. As it is a 'statement' I never thought a fellow brother or sister would ever fix his or her words to deliver to a main-stream believer. Christian's do not 'kid' each other in this manner, and I knew it was not a throw-away remark. This same seeder meant it: And, I did not know what to make of that, then. By now, I know s/he is seriously doubting a liberal Christian's capability to be a person in the Christian faith.
Right-wing evangelicals have cut themselves off from us in spirit. We are "petty" in their view of the faith. Disturbing.
So, when I read the phrase rendered in the direction of "Indies". . . .
Rightly so.
I know I have explained this concept here on NT (but that does not mean people listen).
There are D independents, R independents, L independents, etc. And there are unaffiliated independents. The concept of independent means that the individual does not simply follow the lead of a particular party but rather does his/her own thinking.
Apparently some people do not understand the concept of a political independent.
It projects utter ignorance of the concept of political independent.
Don’t personalize things. Indies plural is about a group in general not a single person
Perrie identified as an indie and you replied to that very comment with a disparaging comment on indies.
Claiming you were not applying this to Perrie does not work.
Think you meant Dems/Libs. Rethink your comment.
What doesn’t work is you trying to take a general statement about independents as a whole in general that I believe to be true and like an instigator make it personal between two other members. I don’t care for independents as a group and like the two party system which marginalizes those not within it. Independents should work toward the change they seek within the two parties. Leaving them only polarizes each further to the left and right.
Rethink your comment.
Are you making the ridiculous claim that independents as a whole aren't made up of individuals?
The majority of voters self identify as independents and either party would be stupid to 'marginalize' them.
They do by expressing their opinions and trying to find common ground.
After the 2008 election, I watched as the GOP created a 'loyalty' test for their candidates and pushed the moderates out of the party. It has only gotten worse since then. Independents had NOTHING to do with that.
Oh and BTW, many Independents have never been registered members of a political party so the haven't 'left' anything.
Now there is an oxymoron if i've ever heard one.
Nobody made you do that. If you misspoke then clear it up rather than pretend you did not write the reply and attempt to pass the blame to me.
Do you seriously hold that a person registered as a D cannot be an independent thinker?
I didn't say that no matter how hard you'll likely try to rationalize that i have.
But yeah, oxymoron does work. Especially in this case.
Then explain what you mean because the obvious interpretation of this:
... reads as though you think a Democrat who is an independent thinker is an oxymoron.
Given the meaning of the word 'oxymoron', it is reasonable for anyone to ask the qualifying question:
Now if you meant something else you could have simply corrected my misinterpretation. Instead you pretend that I am in some way purposely trying to misrepresent what you wrote.
You even add on in a way that seems to validate my interpretation:
So what, specifically, were you trying to say?
My original post and the one that followed were clear enough for normal inspection here on NT.
That said I'd be happy to share more "specifics" for our NT post analysts here but then you and/or others might get the satisfaction of mining another unneeded COC violation.
But feel free to respond to me in private if you really need more detailed information to help fill up your data cup and i'll be happy to elaborate.
Why?
Avoiding my request for clarity twice tells me that my interpretation was spot on.
There are plenty of D, R, L, etc. voters who are independent thinkers. Party affiliation does not necessarily make an individual a blind partisan.
That is for certain! 🗽🇺🇸🦅
Avoiding my offer to discuss privately proves the very clear and obvious ill intent here.
SOSDD TiG .... your shtick is getting old ..... very old
Not proven to date.
The "Media" only reports on those that "AIN'T" !
Apparently...."Independent thinker" folks "AIN'T" news worthy. Ya never know what answer you're gonna get from them, especially if one is ONLY looking for that certain single answer !
it's Trump like s;peak.
You need an interpreter for them to tell you what they really mean, after their own words,
reveal,
what they really mean.
Yeah, asking for clarification is outrageous.
How was his comment disparaging? Perrie's comment claims we indies do a lot of fact checking so in your world all indies do fact checking. See how easy it is do use your train of thought?
CB comment...
Yup see no outrage from you on that sweeping comment.
DJT made a comment that indies all to often.... I don't see in anyway that is putting down Perrie but hey we all know that's your schtick.
Lol and again, as i have clearly stated several times now you can have your answer if you really want it but i guess you'd rather ..... do whatever the hell it is you're doing here. Grandstanding? Tooting your own horn? Goading? Whatever dude ......
Like i said, the game you're playing here is getting very old
holding people accountable to their own words is now a game ?
Why? Because this article is an example of this very thing! It is lies and manipulation run amok! Shame on anybody who dishonor themselves spreading this propaganda!!!
What is your complain about my remark about right-wing evangelicals? Bring it to me for clarification. And when you do, come with your reason (not victim-hood) for why you're coming! That is, open with a clarification: Are you a right-wing evangelical? Yes or No? Because if you are not, there is a strong probability that you won't know enough about what I am getting after there!
You are on a public forum. Instead of simply clarifying your comment you deflect and require a private discussion.
If you cannot stand a differing opinion then a forum is probably a poor venue for you.
It seems to be a trend lately.
With all the words in your protests you could have answered my question multiple times.
See @6.1.25
This is basically a ridiculous comment. There are millions of Democrats , and some Republicans, who support a political party yet "do their own thinking". The Democratic Party establishment wants Biden to be the nominee, that has been obvious for a long while now. Yet, millions of Democrats have voted for Sanders or Warren, candidates who are fairly far off the Democrat establishment path.
I almost always vote for the Democratic candidate in the general election, but it is not because I don't think for myself, it is because I know that the Party platform stands for things I believe in, and we have a two party political system.
Yes John, that is exactly the point I was making. Did you misunderstand what I wrote?
One can be a member of a political party and still be an independent thinker.
What? Gaslighting peoples posts TG?
No, deflection and cries of foul play rather than standing up and engaging in debate or addressing a logical challenge.
Seems to me, if someone willingly opines on a public forum then they should not cry foul if the opinion is challenged by another. And certainly if one feels s/he has been misunderstand, it is reasonable to simply correct the misunderstanding rather than engage in tactics.
Did that answer your question?
You have all the responses you need. If you're having trouble comprehending the content within perhaps a public forum is not for you.
Now run along and lecture someone else who cares what you think.
In case I was not clear, here is what you should have quoted from me, not just the last sentence:
Did you read the part in blue?
No but trying to goad people into COC violations is.
Its very sophomoric really.
What to debate when people purposefully misconstrue some ones words because they had the audacity to address their friend?
When the challenge is just more gaslighting from the usual suspects they have every right to cry foul.
What correct the misunderstanding to agree with the perpetually offended?
Is that what you think I am doing?
That explains why you are deflecting on even a question for clarity. Nothing to be paranoid about, my interest has always been debate. I almost never flag comments unless they are egregious.
Besides, if you make a comment that could be taken as a CoC violation you should blame yourself; you have control over what you write. That said, the comment in question could IMO at the very best be a sweeping generalization (even then it would be a weak one). No reason to deflect from clarifying and move into snark.
Well if you are implying I did that then you did not read my comment. I interpreted his words directly (no spin) and asked him if that is what he meant to say? Easy response: yes, no, silence, ... Snark just turns things ugly.
This is incoherent.
Nope, wrong again.
Since you clearly don't want the answers that have been offered multiple times and apparently just want to play word games like usual, i'll leave you to it. Likely with another one your fine, thinly veiled insults as the last word.
Enjoy now ya hear!
I know you are more than capable of spinning it to whatever you want it to mean. Have at it.
Cheers.
Best anyone can do is guess if one is afraid to deliver a straight answer to a question.
Where did you answer my question? To be clear, here is the sequence:
So what was your answer?:
Was your answer 1, 2, 3 or something else? Do you have a link to your answer?
That is a chart/poll showing how respondents identified politically vs an opinion piece. The basis of any poll can be questioned just like we can question the opinion. Only the demographics of the 2020 election results will show us who had it right. Nobody knows how people will vote until they actually vote.
Well the "story" is two years old.......................whoops
Right a poll from 2018. I guess there are some like LBJ that think those sentiments will last for 200 years.
The charts don't necessarily make the claim untrue. Those charts show party identification. The claim is about how people are voting. I was a registered Democrat for most of my adult life, but I voted all over the place.
Anyway, the claim in this story is:
Absent some actual data, it does seem to be based on wishful thinking. I'm not saying it's wrong, but the fact is that most people haven't yet had the chance this year to vote for a Democrat vs a Republican yet. For those who have (in congressional or local races for example), I'm not seeing data here on how they have voted.