How sad. How very, very sad.

 

Here is some interesting info from YOUR link that you conveniently omitted...

More than nine in 10 would vote for a Catholic, black, or woman

• Ninety-one percent would vote for a Jewish or Hispanic candidate

• Americans show most bias toward socialists (47%), atheists (58%)
  
  WASHINGTON, D.C. -- As the 2016 presidential election field takes shape, more than nine in 10 Americans say they would vote for a qualified presidential candidate who is Catholic, a woman, black, Hispanic or Jewish. Less than half of Americans would vote for a candidate who is a socialist.
  
  Cherry picking your cut and paste posts again DL?
  

 

What matters is socialism is becoming more popular.

 

I am voting for Bernie in My Dem Primary (Fla) I like the way He is taking a stand against Goldman Sachs , AIG. Countrywide , and GM saying "NO MORE BAILOUTS"

 

Never mind clarise's poll. These are polls that matter.

Every poll I have looked at says that Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton in the debate. With five Democrats debating, Sanders usually gets over 50 percent of the votes.

*not_secure_link*www.drudgereport.com/now.htm

*not_secure_link*myfox8.com/2015/10/14/poll-who-won-the-cnn-democratic-debate/

*not_secure_link*www.advocate.com/election/2015/10/14/poll-who-won-democratic-debate

Real Clear Politics lists the four most recent polls between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Sanders wins by an average of 4.3%.

On the NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, Sanders beats Trump by 16%.

On Quinnipiac Sanders beats Trump by 5%.
*not_secure_link*www.realclearpolit...s/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

It is ironic that Bernie Sanders is the national front runner, but seems to be behind on what is (I blush to admit it) a pornographic internet forum. I would think posters on a pornographic website would be liberal on social issues, and at least moderate on economic issues.

Sanders might be our next president folks. He might even have coattails.

 

How would you define a Communist? Even if he or she is not a member of CPUSA, I would define a Communist as one who thinks a dictatorship is an acceptable government for a socialist economy.

A democratic socialist is on one who agrees with me that a dictatorship is an unacceptable government for a socialist economy.

That is a big difference. Those who pretend that it does not matter are trying to slander democratic socialists.

 

Fidel Castro didn't declare himself a Communist until he was in power....

 

Fidel Castro achieved power violently in a country with a weak tradition of democracy. A Communist dictatorship is not possible in the United States. A peaceful transition to a more socialist economy is possible. The only violence would come from right wing militia types. Their efforts would discredit the right, help the left, and be quickly put down by the U.S. military and law enforcement agencies.

Think of the Oklahoma City Bombing by Timothy McVeigh. Even though McVeigh was not a member of a militia, that discredited the militia movement.

 

This poll is a perfect example of a leading question.

 

What matters is whether or not a socialist thinks a dictatorship is an acceptable government for a socialist economy. Hardly anyone on the left in the West thinks that any more.

The Bolshevik takeover in Russia was controversial among orthodox Marxists at the time. They thought that there could be no transition to socialism without an economy of abundance. The Marxian criticism of capitalism was not that it did not create wealth, but that it distributed wealth poorly. Also, by 1917 most orthodox Marxists in the West had abandoned the belief that a violent revolution was necessary.

The Communist Manifesto did call for violent revolution. It was written in 1847. One should consider that in 1847 factory workers were only allowed to vote in the United States. In 1917 factory workers were allowed to vote in nearly every industrial country.

 

As can be expected with polls....socks. Mallowtits? Blocked profile. Never posted in any forum. Yet, shows up here for a vote. Riiiiiiight.

 

As usual, you have nothing important to say. The polls that had Bernie Sanders ahead of Donald Trump were taken before Sanders' impressive debate with Hillary Clinton. It will be interesting to see how the debate has changed things.

At any rate, the two to watch for now are Sanders and Trump.

 

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump each owe their popularity to apprehensions about the economy. The other Democratic candidates would be doing well if the economy was thriving under President Obama. The other Republican candidates would be doing well if the economy was thriving under a Republican president finishing his second term.

Millions of Americans want drastically new departures. The old ways do not seem to be working anymore.

 

Even when I have nothing to say, it's still more interesting than anything coming from the Racist-in-Chief of XNXX.

By the way, did you see Bernie's answer Tuesday night to the question of "Black lives matter? Or all lives matter?" Every one of the panderers, with the exception of Webb, said, "Back lives matter" , instead of "all lives matter."

 

My racism consists of recognizing intractable racial differences in average ability levels and behavior, and posting these differences. No one disputes my facts. They just yell "Racist!" at me. Everybody knows that what I say is true.

When Black Lives Matter activists interrupted a speech by Bernie Sanders I was disappointed. That was the time for Sanders to have a Sister Souljah moment. He needed to tell the activists that blacks are far more likely to be killed by black criminals than white police officers.

Also, if black lives matter, why do so few black men marry the mothers of their children? That is a question, if not for a political campaign, then certainly for an honest conversation on race.

The Democrats dominated the United States until blacks betrayed them with five years of black ghetto rioting and more enduring increases in black social pathology.

 

Oh bullshit.
I have refuted your "facts" as have several others.Just about every time you've trotted the tired old things out.

Now you know the drill........
run, yet again

 

You only think you have.

Refute these facts:

From 1986-87 to 2012-2012 the race gap between whites and blacks in SAT scores grew.

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

In 2003 there was a similar gap in 2003 ACT scores.

*not_secure_link*www.blackexcel.org/06-sat-act-scores-by-race-ethnicity.htm

"Based on available data from 1980 to 2008...The [murder] rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites."
*not_secure_link*www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

"Yesterday the federal government released its latest figures on births in the United States, including out-of-wedlock births. The numbers are very close to last year’s: 72.3 percent of non-Hispanic blacks are now born out-of-wedlock; 66.2 percent of American Indians/Alaska Natives; 53.3 percent of Hispanics; 29.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites; and 17.2 percent of Asians/Pacific Islanders. That’s 40.7 percent overall: a disaster."
*not_secure_link*www.nationalreview...st-statistics-illegitimate-births-roger-clegg

According to the United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime, there is a strong correlation between the racial composition of a country and the murder rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

With the exception of Bermuda, which has a population slightly over 64,000 there is nowhere a black majority country with a high standard of living, regular contested elections, and a low crime rate. Even Bermuda has a higher murder rate than the U.S.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda#Demographics

OK Big Guy. Refute those facts.

Notice that I keep posting the same facts. This is because they have never been refuted, and the truth about racial differences does not change, however much you like to pretend that it does.

 

Every "fact" in every one of your "studies" starts with the assumption that the classification of "race" is accurate.
Of interest, not one of them details the methodology for classifying subjects by race, or for that matter, the definition of the various groups; for example, at what point does a mixed race individual become "African American" as opposed to "non Hispanic white"? What classification does Vanessa Williams fall into? Is it consistently applied across all of your source studies, or have differences been accounted for by you?

Since the entire point of these studies is to detail differences among racial groups, one would expect the methodology for grouping them to be fully explained and defended.
They are not.

Your "facts" cannot be confirmed or even clearly defined.
You are doing little more than shouting
"niggers is violent and stupid"
with no more basis for your statement than these studies have to support whatever conclusion they purport to arrive at.

You keep quoting the same tired "facts" even though this community long ago recognized them for what they are; cherry picked, inaccurate, irrelevant numbers touted by a bigot to justify an irrational fear of minorities.

Cmon big guy, define the "race" gene. Point to it.

 

You've stooped to a new low when you start using anything from the huffington post.

 

OI! DL
some music to listen to while you compose your next "fact filled" response