>>11
What points? Blacks will vote for Hillary if she wins the nom.? You're WRONG. There's nothing to debate or address.
That's exactly what happens with Blacks and the Democrat Party. They line up and resignedly vote for the rich White globalist since he is the endorsed Democrat. They did it for the rich White globalist Gore in 2000, and the rich White globalist Kerry in 2004. They did it for the semi-rich White globalist Clinton in 92 and 96.
WAKE UP.
It seems that you're denying fucking reality and history. Good luck with that, since you're DEMONSTRABLY WRONG. And Obama's defeat and endorsement of Clinton is only going to rub your nose in my extreme correctness.
According to you, Blacks just sat at home in 2000 and 2004 instead of voting. PROVE THEY SAT AT HOME OR ADMIT I'M CORRECT.
You agreed with me that McCain will be president. What's to address or debate if you agree with me?
You're still PROVABLY WRONG about Obama. Obama has ZERO chance to win, since he can't be the endorsed Dem since he's not a rich White globalist. Apparently you've never heard of the DNC, either.
Past being DEAD WRONG about Obama, McCain is still likely to win the Presidential election, as you imply. My particular reasoning is that he still tickles the
racist and
fear and
class organs in the American public. We already know a full 50% of the voting public will pull the Republican lever no matter who runs. But the Dems can't play the critical Fear Factor without demonstrating they are just bastardized forms of the Republican Party ... and why vote for half a Republican when you can just vote for the full Republican in McCain?
>>13
You don't have the equipment or expertise to detect the FREQUENCY OF WIN that I deliver with some regularity.