Wait a sec. I agree that such “cultural pressure” may exist.
But you started off by saying that various murderers, such as those in gangs, are Democrats
Then you acknowledged that they may not actually be registered Democrats, but would still “align with Democrats.”
And that alignment with Democrats would be on the basis of their values mirroring those of elected Democrats and other rank and file Democrats in the party.
But now you say that instead, people don’t register necessarily on the base of shared values, but instead instead on the “cultural pressure,” which is something that one might feel even if they’re ignorant of party platforms.
And then in another post, you really gave us the chef’s kiss moment: after saying that they “align with Democrats” (apparently because of the values they share), you say that we would know this because someone else probably illegally registered them and votes in their stead, presumably, without their knowing.
ADolt could win a gold medal in mental gymnastics. It's truly awe-inspiring.
The Night of the Long Knives was an action undertaken by the Nazi regime to eliminate SA leaders and other long-time supporters of Hitler who were starting to accumulate too much power. Nazis murdering Nazis, in other words. In a modern Night of the Long Knives, you might not like which side you ended up on.
You have this weird belief that gang bangers not only vote, they also take the time out of their busy day to register for a politicalparty.
No, that’s not the case at all.
He said that they “ align with Democrats.”
The way you can tell they align with Democrats is that ballot harvesting occurred in their neighborhoods.
And so other people — probably family members — were very likely to have illegally registered them to vote.
Not only that, those family members probably voted on their behalf. Also illegally.
No, those family members have exactly the same values of the murderous thugs because murderous thugs share the same values as their family members.
Just like Tyler Robi—
Wait. Give me a minute.
you are confused. what the actual history is, is that republicans, as previously configured, were a northern party that supported civil rights. this plus a notion of behaving oneself appealed to some black voters, such as the famous jackie robinson.
however, just giving the right to vote was seen as tepid stuff when people had been enslaved, segregated, denied their rights, and largely rendered involuntarily poor. so the jackie robinsons of the world asked for economic help, reparations, something more than just the right to vote and the end of segregation.
at around this point, the GOP pivoted to chasing southern conservatives in the southern strategy (nixon) and decided doing a darned thing more for black people would not get southern white votes. they decided they had done all they were going to for black people.
you then had LBJ and co. offering the great society, affirmative action, and uplift. the black vote switched democratic.
you can try and spin this all you want but the basic deal is you decided to barely give black people basic rights, nothing more, and walk away. no surprise the black community felt sold out and before he died jackie robinson left the party.
the reality in this country is it took until 90-00 in the south to get the suburbs diversifying and desegregated. that's people who are still fairly young now.
there is no such "thing." it's like sanctioning the "alt-right." at which point, "which groups do you mean?" and "what specifically did that group do?"
otherwise it feels like a device for attacking anyone left of you protesting in a street, regardless of their particular beliefs, friends, affiliations.
get back to me when you -- and he -- can name me a left wing equivalent of "oath keepers," or "proud boys." groups, meetings, agendas, activities. oh, that group seems to always be around when violent stuff happens. maybe they are an actual problem.
