If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   You know all those GOP efforts to supress the black vote in 2012? They failed-spectacularly. New data shows that for the first time ever, black voter turn-out rates exceeded those of whites-and provided Obama his entire margin of victory   (usatoday.com) divider line 238
    More: Interesting, GOP, obama, Michael McDonald, white people  
•       •       •

1320 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2013 at 11:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



238 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-29 11:23:29 AM
*Nelson laugh*
 
2013-04-29 11:26:18 AM
Amazing what voter fraud can accomplish.

/runs away
 
2013-04-29 11:33:38 AM
Looks like we need to purge the voter rolls again.

/and again
//and again
 
2013-04-29 11:35:41 AM
DAMN YOU ACORN!
 
2013-04-29 11:38:41 AM
www.usefulidiots.net
 
2013-04-29 11:44:05 AM

Diogenes: Amazing what voter fraud can accomplish.

/runs away


actually, despite their best efforts, the GOP voter fraud campaign fell short in 2012.
 
2013-04-29 11:50:36 AM
pre-November GOP: What can we do to suppress the black vote?

post-November GOP: Why do so few black people vote for us?
 
2013-04-29 11:54:22 AM
So you are saying that Paul Ryan was right??
 
2013-04-29 11:54:43 AM

FlashHarry: Diogenes: Amazing what voter fraud can accomplish.

/runs away

actually, despite their best efforts, the GOP voter fraud campaign fell short in 2012.


Thank god they aren't very good at it.  Or rather that we have a system in place that prevents the worst cases of voter abuse.


in before but but that black panther guy!
 
2013-04-29 11:57:01 AM

Lionel Mandrake: pre-November GOP: What can we do to suppress the black vote?

post-November GOP: Why do so few black people vote for us?


Romney's reception in North Philly was the best indicator of how many African American votes the GOP could anticipate. None!
 
2013-04-29 11:57:24 AM
Can you imagine how many would have voted if we hadn't suppressed them?
 
2013-04-29 11:57:34 AM
At times Like this, I know many of my GOP friends like to turn to Scripture for comfort and solace.  May i suggest the following text for their edification

"As Ye sow, So shall ye reap. If you sow the wind, ye shall reap the whirlwind"

or in the modern vernacular of kids these days "your FACE!"
 
2013-04-29 11:59:00 AM
Saul Alinsky.
 
2013-04-29 11:59:16 AM
This wouldn't happen if the GOP would just reinstate the 3/5 adjustment. Turtle-boy McConnell probably has a draft of the bill on his desk.
 
2013-04-29 11:59:25 AM

Lionel Mandrake: pre-November GOP: What can we do to suppress the black vote?

post-November GOP: Why do so few black people vote for us?


Simple and succinct. +1
 
2013-04-29 12:00:23 PM

Lionel Mandrake: pre-November GOP: What can we do to suppress the black vote?

post-November GOP: Why do so few black people vote for us?



Clearly the GOP needs to give out presents like free deluxe 0bamaphones, and extra govt cheese wheels, just like taxfarthussin0bongo did to win.
 
2013-04-29 12:00:30 PM
Kind of sad that a presidential candidate can do the rhetorical equivalent of spitting in the face of nearly half (47%) of the country and still go on to to come within single-digits of winning the election.
 
2013-04-29 12:01:10 PM
While giving black people the right to vote *may* have been unwise, I think we can all agree the bigger problem was giving women the right to vote.
 
2013-04-29 12:02:05 PM
Well I'm sure those trends will continue when the Dems run a white person in 2016.
 
2013-04-29 12:02:24 PM

nocturnal001: FlashHarry: Diogenes: Amazing what voter fraud can accomplish.

/runs away

actually, despite their best efforts, the GOP voter fraud campaign fell short in 2012.

Thank god they aren't very good at it.  Or rather that we have a system in place that prevents the worst cases of voter abuse.


in before but but that black panther guy!


the worst cases of voter abuse are done through redistricting
 
2013-04-29 12:02:26 PM
Good. Fark you GOP, you vote-surpressing fascists. Excellent to see your cunning plan backfired spectacularly.

Oh, and by thethe way, how's that minority outreach going?
 
2013-04-29 12:03:10 PM

The Name: Kind of sad that a presidential candidate can do the rhetorical equivalent of spitting in the face of nearly half (47%) of the country and still go on to to come within single-digits of winning the election.


That's because many of that 47% are too stupid to know they are in the 47%.
 
2013-04-29 12:03:37 PM
Which means they'll just try harder next time.
 
2013-04-29 12:03:42 PM

Lionel Mandrake: pre-November GOP: What can we do to suppress the black vote?

post-November GOP: Why do so few black people vote for us?


This. Anybody darker than a caramel qualifies as 'black'.
 
2013-04-29 12:04:51 PM

AnEvilGuest: nocturnal001: FlashHarry: Diogenes: Amazing what voter fraud can accomplish.

/runs away

actually, despite their best efforts, the GOP voter fraud campaign fell short in 2012.

Thank god they aren't very good at it.  Or rather that we have a system in place that prevents the worst cases of voter abuse.


in before but but that black panther guy!

the worst cases of voter abuse are done through redistricting

Unfortunately it seems like that ship has sailed.
 
2013-04-29 12:06:11 PM
There was no voter suppression.
 
2013-04-29 12:07:05 PM

nocturnal001: The Name: Kind of sad that a presidential candidate can do the rhetorical equivalent of spitting in the face of nearly half (47%) of the country and still go on to to come within single-digits of winning the election.

That's because many of that 47% are too stupid to know they are in the 47%.


they just assumed it was another dog whistle term to describe black people and had nothing to do with their hard earned benefits
 
2013-04-29 12:08:37 PM

LargeCanine: There was no voter suppression.


i.crackedcdn.com
 
2013-04-29 12:09:45 PM

Nattering Nabob: While giving black people the right to vote *may* have been unwise, I think we can all agree the bigger problem was giving women the right to vote.


You joke but I have seen variants of this argument, being advanced in dead earnest, by the section of the punditariat favored by folks who frequent Free Republic, all the way back to July of last year when Romney was revealed to have a ten point Gender Gap with Obama.

Without the slightest race of a blush, these commentators and columnists explained that women, bless their big hearts and tiny little brains, were hormally incapable of seeing the big picture and voting for the best candidate and the correct fiscal policy, instead, they would always be drawn to the "sugar daddy" candidate who promises to care for them and provide for them the best.  they don't WANT to be moochers, you see, they are just biologically hard-wired that way, so clearly shouldn't be allowed to do something that requires rational, dispassionate thought, like exercising the franchise.
 
2013-04-29 12:11:10 PM

Magorn: Nattering Nabob: While giving black people the right to vote *may* have been unwise, I think we can all agree the bigger problem was giving women the right to vote.

You joke but I have seen variants of this argument, being advanced in dead earnest, by the section of the punditariat favored by folks who frequent Free Republic, all the way back to July of last year when Romney was revealed to have a ten point Gender Gap with Obama.

Without the slightest race of a blush, these commentators and columnists explained that women, bless their big hearts and tiny little brains, were hormally incapable of seeing the big picture and voting for the best candidate and the correct fiscal policy, instead, they would always be drawn to the "sugar daddy" candidate who promises to care for them and provide for them the best.  they don't WANT to be moochers, you see, they are just biologically hard-wired that way, so clearly shouldn't be allowed to do something that requires rational, dispassionate thought, like exercising the franchise.


Plus, how can you trust something that bleeds for 7 days and doesn't die?

Amirite fellas?
 
2013-04-29 12:15:20 PM

Magorn: Nattering Nabob: While giving black people the right to vote *may* have been unwise, I think we can all agree the bigger problem was giving women the right to vote.

You joke but I have seen variants of this argument, being advanced in dead earnest, by the section of the punditariat favored by folks who frequent Free Republic, all the way back to July of last year when Romney was revealed to have a ten point Gender Gap with Obama.

Without the slightest race of a blush, these commentators and columnists explained that women, bless their big hearts and tiny little brains, were hormally incapable of seeing the big picture and voting for the best candidate and the correct fiscal policy, instead, they would always be drawn to the "sugar daddy" candidate who promises to care for them and provide for them the best.  they don't WANT to be moochers, you see, they are just biologically hard-wired that way, so clearly shouldn't be allowed to do something that requires rational, dispassionate thought, like exercising the franchise.


I actually find this to be a fairly common complaint among Conservative women. It always comes off as somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but with at least a hint of earnestness behind it.
 
2013-04-29 12:15:44 PM

LargeCanine: There was no voter suppression.


succinct, you should get a few hits
 
2013-04-29 12:17:32 PM
It's because black people are the real racists, and they're oppressing white people now.

Gotta be.
 
2013-04-29 12:18:02 PM
"black voter turn-out rates exceeded those of whites-and provided Obama his entire margin of victory "

So how many times did white voters push the white candidate over the margin of victory in the first 55 presidential elections?
 
2013-04-29 12:18:08 PM

LargeCanine: There was no voter suppression.


LOL
 
2013-04-29 12:20:54 PM
Does this mean we can stop whining about voter ID now?
I mean everyone. STFU. It's neither the worst thing in the world since 3/5 and hosing off the Undesireables, nor absolutely necessary to protect the sacred rights of both Fartbongolian and Real American PatriotTM Voters. It is a stupid wedge issue with little relevance and negligable pratical impact.
 
2013-04-29 12:20:54 PM

Magorn: Nattering Nabob: While giving black people the right to vote *may* have been unwise, I think we can all agree the bigger problem was giving women the right to vote.

You joke but I have seen variants of this argument, being advanced in dead earnest, by the section of the punditariat favored by folks who frequent Free Republic, all the way back to July of last year when Romney was revealed to have a ten point Gender Gap with Obama.

Without the slightest race of a blush, these commentators and columnists explained that women, bless their big hearts and tiny little brains, were hormally incapable of seeing the big picture and voting for the best candidate and the correct fiscal policy, instead, they would always be drawn to the "sugar daddy" candidate who promises to care for them and provide for them the best.  they don't WANT to be moochers, you see, they are just biologically hard-wired that way, so clearly shouldn't be allowed to do something that requires rational, dispassionate thought, like exercising the franchise.


July of last year? Pfft. Hipster Ann Coulter was saying women shouldn't be allowed to vote way before it was cool.
 
2013-04-29 12:21:54 PM
www.yourblackworld.net


Republicans take'n a lick'n? DY-NO-MITE!!!

 
2013-04-29 12:23:51 PM
Magorn,

I've seen those threads.  I once saw a massive wingnut circle-jerk on some random site where they talked amongst themselves and agreed to the following:

Yeah, man, if you're just voting for someone because you're black and he's black, that shouldn't count.

Yeah, man, if you're voting for someone just because you expect to benefit in the form of aid of any sort, that shouldn't count.

Yeah, man, if you're an atheist and not a Christian, you don't really care for the world and your vote shouldn't count.

Yeah, man, if you don't own your own house/business/stock portfolio then you have no skin in the game, and your vote shouldn't count.

At that point, they decided that they had perfected the voting process, and hoped that everyone would assume that they all had houses, business, and loads and loads of stocks.
 
2013-04-29 12:24:03 PM

Diogenes: Amazing what voter fraud can accomplish.

/runs away


Ha!  Black + latino vote on the upswing while white voters are decreasing.

It's gonna be a long decade or so for the GOP.  Either they implode or someone gets their head on straight and say "Y'know, if we actually stopped talking out of both sides of our mouth when it comes to minorities, some of them would actually vote for us."

/doubt it
//my money's on them imploding
 
2013-04-29 12:24:39 PM
i39.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-29 12:24:46 PM
That's cuz they didn't allow the white people to vote.

encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com


Don't hate me cuz i'm white bro,
 
2013-04-29 12:24:50 PM
The increased black voter turnout only proves that efforts by conservatives to eliminate voter fraud are not actually attempts at voter suppression, as claimed, and thus that these efforts should be continued and expanded because clearly they will not prevent legitimate voters from casting votes.

/Has that argument yet been put forward by actual "true the vote" advocates?
 
2013-04-29 12:25:17 PM
They only voted for Obama because he was black and because they hate white people and that he promised them all sorts of free stuff and etc etc.
 
2013-04-29 12:26:06 PM
Wait! So Romney was RIGHT?

/I think I need a moment...
 
2013-04-29 12:26:34 PM

LargeCanine: There was no voter suppression.


Also: I'm the queen of England.
 
2013-04-29 12:27:35 PM
Voter Suppression shouldn't be measured in terms of how many people actually cast a vote successfully (that is a product of the overall number who attempted more than anything else).  It should be measured in terms of how many people attempted to vote and were denied.  Where are those numbers?
 
2013-04-29 12:27:43 PM

Magorn: Nattering Nabob: While giving black people the right to vote *may* have been unwise, I think we can all agree the bigger problem was giving women the right to vote.

You joke but I have seen variants of this argument, being advanced in dead earnest, by the section of the punditariat favored by folks who frequent Free Republic, all the way back to July of last year when Romney was revealed to have a ten point Gender Gap with Obama.

Without the slightest race of a blush, these commentators and columnists explained that women, bless their big hearts and tiny little brains, were hormally incapable of seeing the big picture and voting for the best candidate and the correct fiscal policy, instead, they would always be drawn to the "sugar daddy" candidate who promises to care for them and provide for them the best.  they don't WANT to be moochers, you see, they are just biologically hard-wired that way, so clearly shouldn't be allowed to do something that requires rational, dispassionate thought, like exercising the franchise.


Why not go "whole hog" and only allow white, male "Property Owners" to vote?
 
2013-04-29 12:27:44 PM
media.avclub.com
How is that back in the day southern strategy working out for ya, GOP? If you want something to outreach, I have a sack of nuts for you to find.
 
2013-04-29 12:27:58 PM

Satanic_Hamster: They only voted for Obama because he was black and because they hate white people

...

Well... who doesn't hate white people?
 
2013-04-29 12:28:29 PM
Please continue GOP...
 
2013-04-29 12:30:58 PM

Branch Dravidian: Satanic_Hamster: They only voted for Obama because he was black and because they hate white people...

Well... who doesn't hate white people?


I only hate crackers.
 
2013-04-29 12:31:36 PM
They voted for Obama because the Democrat party has committed the most heinous ever act of racism by enabling their dependence on government simply to sustain a voting block. Instead of voting for more economic opportunity (by giving rich people more money to create jobs) they voted for more freebees...more handouts...thus further perpetuating dependence on government which locks them into voting against rich white guys who only want to see them succeed and live prosperous, happy lives free of the public dole, which will instill racial pride in their accomplishment.

THIS is what Republicans really believe...
 
2013-04-29 12:32:50 PM

daveUSMC: Does this mean we can stop whining about voter ID now?
I mean everyone. STFU. It's neither the worst thing in the world since 3/5 and hosing off the Undesireables, nor absolutely necessary to protect the sacred rights of both Fartbongolian and Real American PatriotTM Voters. It is a stupid wedge issue with little relevance and negligable pratical impact.


Yeah those 4 hour lines to vote in Florida are pretty irrelevant.

www.esquire.com
 
2013-04-29 12:32:55 PM
Before voting against the [1965 Voting Rights] bill, Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who had switched his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican in September 1964, eulogized the Senate as the "final resting place of the Constitution and the rule of law, for it is here that they will have been buried with shovels of emotion under piles of expediency, in the year of our Lord, 1965."
 
2013-04-29 12:33:01 PM

monoski: Lionel Mandrake: pre-November GOP: What can we do to suppress the black vote?

post-November GOP: Why do so few black people vote for us?

Romney's reception in North Philly was the best indicator of how many African American votes the GOP could anticipate. None!


While the GOP doesn't have to win the Black/Hispanic/Asian/Female/Urban/Educated vote they just need to keep it close. And reducing outward hostility to Blacks/HispanicsAsians might not increase the share of those votes, it will work in getting "Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal" white folks who've been morally offended by the GOP's blatant hostility to not only vote Republican, but to admit they vote Republican. 

The big question, and it's why the GOP is having such difficutly, is can they do this while keeping their dominance with the Elderly/Rural/Confederate voters? I'm guessing the answer is no.
 
2013-04-29 12:33:52 PM
Yeah, it turns out that when you try to openly take away rights from people, they get upset and use those rights more. The more effective tactic is to make them not want to exercise those rights in the first place. See: guns, birth control, etc, etc. 


Half the angry protesters around the country could be cured by letting them onto a stage with a microphone. Ensure the crowd remains silent and simply lets them speak. One at a time. 


/a few comedians have done this to hecklers
//mitch hedburg springs to mind, but there was another who did it even better. Can't think of the name.
 
2013-04-29 12:34:39 PM

js34603: Well I'm sure those trends will continue when the Dems run a white person in 2016.


Black voter turnout was bigger because the GOP made a concerted effort to suppress the black vote, and the black community knew it. If the GOP makes the same mistake again, the color of the Democratic nominee will be irrelevant.
 
2013-04-29 12:35:31 PM

Fart_Machine: Which means they'll just try harder next time.


The real question is will the black vote show up to vote Democrat again.  Have they really taken an interest in politics, or just to prove their last two votes weren't racially motivated.  So how do you measure if the voter suppression worked, many of the measures were delayed until the 2014 election cycle.

/I realize I would really hate to hear this being pointed out by the opposing party.
 
2013-04-29 12:37:12 PM
 
2013-04-29 12:37:48 PM
This is what "intelligent conservatives" of the 1960s actually believed:

Mr. Kilpatrick also took aim at the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the April 20, 1965 issue. "Must We Repeal the Constitution to Give the Negro the Vote?" he asked, accusing the bill's supporters of "perverting the Constitution." He thought certain blacks should be given the right to vote but notes, "Over most of this century, the great bulk of Southern Negroes have been genuinely unqualified for the franchise." He also defended segregation as rational for Southerners. "Segregation is a fact, and more than a fact; it is a state of mind. It lies in the Southern subconscious next to man's most elementary instincts, for self-preservation, for survival, for the untroubled continuation of a not intolerable way of life."
Mr. Buckley softened his position on civil rights in the 1960s but to a point that would still be intolerable for conservatives today. In a column written five months before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and called "The Issue at Selma," he called for giving blacks the vote but perhaps restricting the franchise to high school graduates. He sympathized with the Southern position writing, "In much of the South, what is so greatly feared is irresponsible, mobocratic rule, and it is a fear not easily dissipated, because it is well-grounded that if the entire Negro population in the South were suddenly given the vote, and were to use it as a bloc, and pursuant to directives handed down by some of the more demagogic leaders, chaos would ensue." He also warned of "a suddenly enfranchised, violently embittered Negro population which will take the vote and wield it as an instrument of vengeance, shaking down the walls of Jericho even to their foundations, and reawakening the terrible genocidal antagonisms that scarred the Southern psyche during the days of Reconstruction."


http://www.amren.com/news/2012/04/the-decline-of-national-review/
 
2013-04-29 12:38:34 PM
While we are discussing taking the right to vote away from people I want to add a republican line I heard once.  I believe it went something like this:  This one vote per person business has got to stop.  The idea that my vote can be cancelled out by some welfare queen who is just gaming the system by having 6 kids with 4 different father's is just outrageous.  Only people who hold down decent jobs and don't receive any welfare should be allowed to vote.

/I believe it was roughly along those lines.
 
2013-04-29 12:41:43 PM

daveUSMC: Does this mean we can stop whining about voter ID now?
I mean everyone. STFU. It's neither the worst thing in the world since 3/5 and hosing off the Undesireables, nor absolutely necessary to protect the sacred rights of both Fartbongolian and Real American PatriotTM Voters. It is a stupid wedge issue with little relevance and negligable pratical impact.


Are you really this ignorant or is this an example of Poe's law?
 
2013-04-29 12:42:00 PM

zappaisfrank: They voted for Obama because the Democrat party has committed the most heinous ever act of racism by enabling their dependence on government simply to sustain a voting block. Instead of voting for more economic opportunity (by giving rich people more money to create jobs) they voted for more freebees...more handouts...thus further perpetuating dependence on government which locks them into voting against rich white guys who only want to see them succeed and live prosperous, happy lives free of the public dole, which will instill racial pride in their accomplishment.

THIS is what Republicans really believe...


I think the real test will be whether the black vote comes out in the same numbers when it's a white guy running as a Democrat. I know we all want to believe that we are seeing an upswell of socially conscious, enlightened and informed politically active black voters, but I have a sinking feeling that we really just have a lot more black people motivated to vote for the black guy, and a well-oiled political machine capable of getting them to the booths. Something akin to the Irish Catholic vote for JFK. I think there is little risk that blacks will suddenly start voting Republican in 2014 or 2016, but I think it highly probable that black voter turnout will devolve right back down to pre-Obama levels.

And since it has become clear that the Democrats NEED that additional voting block to reliably win against Republicans, that shoudl make everyone a bit nervous about upcoming years. Republicans don't need to convert blacks and hispanics to vote for them so much as they need them NOT to be motivated to go out and vote.
 
2013-04-29 12:46:07 PM

BojanglesPaladin: And since it has become clear that the Democrats NEED that additional voting block to reliably win against Republicans, that shoudl make everyone a bit nervous about upcoming years.


I think that they did a pretty good job of pissing off many women or anyone who cares about a woman. If they keep that up the Dems could continue to win the big race.
 
2013-04-29 12:47:25 PM

Gergesa: While we are discussing taking the right to vote away from people I want to add a republican line I heard once.  I believe it went something like this:  This one vote per person business has got to stop.  The idea that my vote can be cancelled out by some welfare queen who is just gaming the system by having 6 kids with 4 different father's is just outrageous.  Only people who hold down decent jobs and don't receive any welfare should be allowed to vote.

/I believe it was roughly along those lines.


I'm ok with that as long as we create an intelligence, education, and means test also.  As a high earner with a master's degree my vote should be worth a hell of a lot more than some yokel that drives a lifted pickup.

Stupid democracy, getting in our way...
 
2013-04-29 12:48:59 PM

Gergesa: While we are discussing taking the right to vote away from people I want to add a republican line I heard once.  I believe it went something like this:  This one vote per person business has got to stop.  The idea that my vote can be cancelled out by some welfare queen who is just gaming the system by having 6 kids with 4 different father's is just outrageous.  Only people who hold down decent jobs and don't receive any welfare should be allowed to vote.

/I believe it was roughly along those lines.


It would certainly be interesting to see the electoral effects of not allowing retirees to vote.
 
2013-04-29 12:49:10 PM

BojanglesPaladin: zappaisfrank: They voted for Obama because the Democrat party has committed the most heinous ever act of racism by enabling their dependence on government simply to sustain a voting block. Instead of voting for more economic opportunity (by giving rich people more money to create jobs) they voted for more freebees...more handouts...thus further perpetuating dependence on government which locks them into voting against rich white guys who only want to see them succeed and live prosperous, happy lives free of the public dole, which will instill racial pride in their accomplishment.

THIS is what Republicans really believe...

I think the real test will be whether the black vote comes out in the same numbers when it's a white guy running as a Democrat. I know we all want to believe that we are seeing an upswell of socially conscious, enlightened and informed politically active black voters, but I have a sinking feeling that we really just have a lot more black people motivated to vote for the black guy, and a well-oiled political machine capable of getting them to the booths. Something akin to the Irish Catholic vote for JFK. I think there is little risk that blacks will suddenly start voting Republican in 2014 or 2016, but I think it highly probable that black voter turnout will devolve right back down to pre-Obama levels.

And since it has become clear that the Democrats NEED that additional voting block to reliably win against Republicans, that shoudl make everyone a bit nervous about upcoming years. Republicans don't need to convert blacks and hispanics to vote for them so much as they need them NOT to be motivated to go out and vote.


Like forcing them to re-register after voter roll purges or understaffing polling places in urban areas to make the wait 4hrs?
 
2013-04-29 12:49:12 PM

HighOnCraic: r. Kilpatrick also took aim at the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the April 20, 1965 issue. "Must We Repeal the Constitution to Give the Negro the Vote?" he asked, accusing the bill's supporters of "perverting the Constitution." He thought certain blacks should be given the right to vote but notes, "Over most of this century, the great bulk of Southern Negroes have been genuinely unqualified for the franchise." He also defended segregation as rational for Southerners. "Segregation is a fact, and more than a fact; it is a state of mind. It lies in the Southern subconscious next to man's most elementary instincts, for self-preservation, for survival, for the untroubled continuation of a not intolerable way of life."
Mr. Buckley softened his position on civil rights in the 1960s but to a point that would still be intolerable for conservatives today. In a column written five months before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and called "The Issue at Selma," he called for giving blacks the vote but perhaps restricting the franchise to high school graduates. He sympathized with the Southern position writing, "In much of the South, what is so greatly feared is irresponsible, mobocratic rule, and it is a fear not easily dissipated, because it is well-grounded that if the entire Negro population in the South were suddenly given the vote, and were to use it as a bloc, and pursuant to directives handed down by some of the more demagogic leaders, chaos would ensue." He also warned of "a suddenly enfranchised, violently embittered Negro population which will take the vote and wield it as an instrument of vengeance, shaking down the walls of Jericho even to their foundations, and reawakening the terrible genocidal antagonisms that scarred the Southern psyche during the days of Reconstruction."


Aside from the archaic use of the word "negro" and time-period specific attitudes, could you articulate which parts of this you think are wrong? For instance, do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education? Do you NOT think that the black vote is currently a "bloc" being weilded as an instrument by a particular political party?
 
2013-04-29 12:57:19 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: r. Kilpatrick also took aim at the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the April 20, 1965 issue. "Must We Repeal the Constitution to Give the Negro the Vote?" he asked, accusing the bill's supporters of "perverting the Constitution." He thought certain blacks should be given the right to vote but notes, "Over most of this century, the great bulk of Southern Negroes have been genuinely unqualified for the franchise." He also defended segregation as rational for Southerners. "Segregation is a fact, and more than a fact; it is a state of mind. It lies in the Southern subconscious next to man's most elementary instincts, for self-preservation, for survival, for the untroubled continuation of a not intolerable way of life."
Mr. Buckley softened his position on civil rights in the 1960s but to a point that would still be intolerable for conservatives today. In a column written five months before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and called "The Issue at Selma," he called for giving blacks the vote but perhaps restricting the franchise to high school graduates. He sympathized with the Southern position writing, "In much of the South, what is so greatly feared is irresponsible, mobocratic rule, and it is a fear not easily dissipated, because it is well-grounded that if the entire Negro population in the South were suddenly given the vote, and were to use it as a bloc, and pursuant to directives handed down by some of the more demagogic leaders, chaos would ensue." He also warned of "a suddenly enfranchised, violently embittered Negro population which will take the vote and wield it as an instrument of vengeance, shaking down the walls of Jericho even to their foundations, and reawakening the terrible genocidal antagonisms that scarred the Southern psyche during the days of Reconstruction."

Aside from the archaic use of the word "negro" and time-period specific attitudes, could you articulate which parts of this you think are wrong? For instance, do you think it ...


Pretty sure you are just doing some trolling, but how about...It's wrong that these standards were only being applied to some people, based solely on the color of their skin?  That author didn't say "oh well we also should disenfranchise any whites that do not have a high school eduation".
 
2013-04-29 12:57:38 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: r. Kilpatrick also took aim at the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the April 20, 1965 issue. "Must We Repeal the Constitution to Give the Negro the Vote?" he asked, accusing the bill's supporters of "perverting the Constitution." He thought certain blacks should be given the right to vote but notes, "Over most of this century, the great bulk of Southern Negroes have been genuinely unqualified for the franchise." He also defended segregation as rational for Southerners. "Segregation is a fact, and more than a fact; it is a state of mind. It lies in the Southern subconscious next to man's most elementary instincts, for self-preservation, for survival, for the untroubled continuation of a not intolerable way of life."
Mr. Buckley softened his position on civil rights in the 1960s but to a point that would still be intolerable for conservatives today. In a column written five months before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and called "The Issue at Selma," he called for giving blacks the vote but perhaps restricting the franchise to high school graduates. He sympathized with the Southern position writing, "In much of the South, what is so greatly feared is irresponsible, mobocratic rule, and it is a fear not easily dissipated, because it is well-grounded that if the entire Negro population in the South were suddenly given the vote, and were to use it as a bloc, and pursuant to directives handed down by some of the more demagogic leaders, chaos would ensue." He also warned of "a suddenly enfranchised, violently embittered Negro population which will take the vote and wield it as an instrument of vengeance, shaking down the walls of Jericho even to their foundations, and reawakening the terrible genocidal antagonisms that scarred the Southern psyche during the days of Reconstruction."

Aside from the archaic use of the word "negro" and time-period specific attitudes, could you articulate which parts of this you think are wrong? For instance, do you think it ...


Let's start with using the fear of white Southerners to justify denying blacks the right to vote.

Oh, heck, if you think there's nothing wrong with that way of thinking, go ahead with your bad self.

I think Republicans should continue thinking that this type of argument is rational.  This is a great method of outreach.

Proceed, Republicans!
 
2013-04-29 01:00:03 PM

HighOnCraic: This is what "intelligent conservatives" of the 1960s actually believed:

Mr. Kilpatrick also took aim at the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the April 20, 1965 issue. "Must We Repeal the Constitution to Give the Negro the Vote?" he asked, accusing the bill's supporters of "perverting the Constitution." He thought certain blacks should be given the right to vote but notes, "Over most of this century, the great bulk of Southern Negroes have been genuinely unqualified for the franchise." He also defended segregation as rational for Southerners. "Segregation is a fact, and more than a fact; it is a state of mind. It lies in the Southern subconscious next to man's most elementary instincts, for self-preservation, for survival, for the untroubled continuation of a not intolerable way of life."
Mr. Buckley softened his position on civil rights in the 1960s but to a point that would still be intolerable for conservatives today. In a column written five months before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and called "The Issue at Selma," he called for giving blacks the vote but perhaps restricting the franchise to high school graduates. He sympathized with the Southern position writing, "In much of the South, what is so greatly feared is irresponsible, mobocratic rule, and it is a fear not easily dissipated, because it is well-grounded that if the entire Negro population in the South were suddenly given the vote, and were to use it as a bloc, and pursuant to directives handed down by some of the more demagogic leaders, chaos would ensue." He also warned of "a suddenly enfranchised, violently embittered Negro population which will take the vote and wield it as an instrument of vengeance, shaking down the walls of Jericho even to their foundations, and reawakening the terrible genocidal antagonisms that scarred the Southern psyche during the days of Reconstruction."


http://www.amren.com/news/2012/04/the-decline-of-national-review/


That actually sounds more like what happened to White Southern America.

// that's the definition of the word i-ron-eeeeeeeeeeeee
 
2013-04-29 01:01:28 PM
What's really funny is the hard line against education after this. The story I heard (DNRTFA, so I didn't get it there), was that black churches in Florida basically stood on the sidewalk and taught every single black person they could find the laws, so that any black person on the street could quote you section and chapter of the laws, what "voter ID" they actually needed, when to vote, how to vote, so on and so forth. They ended up turning the black population in Florida into the most electorally educated population in the U.S.

Any surprise at all the calls about elitist education? The underclass might start thinking for themselves.
 
2013-04-29 01:02:31 PM

nocturnal001: It's wrong that these standards were only being applied to some people, based solely on the color of their skin? That author didn't say "oh well we also should disenfranchise any whites that do not have a high school eduation".


I beliieve you will find that Buckly DID favor a minimum educational standard for all voters.

HighOnCraic: Let's start with using the fear of white Southerners to justify denying blacks the right to vote.


Let's not. There is nothing to be served by re-fighting a political battle from another era that is long since over. Yes, there are vestiges today, but this is not that.

Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education? Do you NOT think that the black vote is currently a "bloc" being weilded as an instrument by a particular political party?
 
2013-04-29 01:07:30 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Do you NOT think that the black vote is currently a "bloc" being weilded as an instrument by a particular political party?


That's because so many noteworthy conservative leaders spouted things like:  "Segregation is a fact, and more than a fact; it is a state of mind. It lies in the Southern subconscious next to man's most elementary instincts, for self-preservation, for survival, for the untroubled continuation of a not intolerable way of life."

And it's not like James Kilpatrick was some fringe figure in the conservative movement.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Kilpatrick

/Most of us remember the character from "Airplane" that spoofed him--"I say, 'Let 'em crash!'"--or Dan Akroyd's version--"Jane, you ignorant slut!"
 
2013-04-29 01:08:40 PM

BojanglesPaladin: zappaisfrank: They voted for Obama because the Democrat party has committed the most heinous ever act of racism by enabling their dependence on government simply to sustain a voting block. Instead of voting for more economic opportunity (by giving rich people more money to create jobs) they voted for more freebees...more handouts...thus further perpetuating dependence on government which locks them into voting against rich white guys who only want to see them succeed and live prosperous, happy lives free of the public dole, which will instill racial pride in their accomplishment.

THIS is what Republicans really believe...

I think the real test will be whether the black vote comes out in the same numbers when it's a white guy running as a Democrat. I know we all want to believe that we are seeing an upswell of socially conscious, enlightened and informed politically active black voters, but I have a sinking feeling that we really just have a lot more black people motivated to vote for the black guy, and a well-oiled political machine capable of getting them to the booths. Something akin to the Irish Catholic vote for JFK. I think there is little risk that blacks will suddenly start voting Republican in 2014 or 2016, but I think it highly probable that black voter turnout will devolve right back down to pre-Obama levels.


My impression is that black voters (like most Democratic voters) aren't super enamored with Mr. Obama. But it was clear that Romney would be a lot worse. But, since there was a lot of noise around GOP attempts to suppress the vote, black voters were pissed off, and weren't going to let them get away with it, so they turned out in record numbers.
 
2013-04-29 01:13:11 PM

HighOnCraic: And it's not like James Kilpatrick was some fringe figure in the conservative movement.


I don't believe anyone said he was. But again, that was literaly a lifetime ago. I'm not interested in re-fighting a political battle from another era that is long since over. Yes, there are vestiges today, but this is not that.

Zasteva: But it was clear that Romney would be a lot worse. But, since there was a lot of noise around GOP attempts to suppress the vote, black voters were pissed off, and weren't going to let them get away with it, so they turned out in record numbers


Except that black voter turn-out was less in 2008 than in 2004, wasn't it? MORE blacks came out to vote for Obama BEFORE the Teabagger nonsense, didn't they?
 
2013-04-29 01:18:23 PM

Dinki: js34603: Well I'm sure those trends will continue when the Dems run a white person in 2016.

Black voter turnout was bigger because the GOP made a concerted effort to suppress the black vote, and the black community knew it. If the GOP makes the same mistake again, the color of the Democratic nominee will be irrelevant.


Not sure if serious.
 
2013-04-29 01:19:44 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I think the real test will be whether the black vote comes out in the same numbers when it's a white guy running as a Democrat.


Not really. Obama's GOTV efforts were leagues better than anyone before him. If the same (or continuously improved) set-up is retained for the Democratic nominee for 2016, it could be comparable, but I doubt it will be offered for use for any candidate during the primary, which is where a lot of the set-up work for the general is done (or, was, for Obama, in both 2008 and 2012).
 
2013-04-29 01:21:17 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: And it's not like James Kilpatrick was some fringe figure in the conservative movement.

I don't believe anyone said he was. But again, that was literaly a lifetime ago. I'm not interested in re-fighting a political battle from another era that is long since over. Yes, there are vestiges today, but this is not that.



That's funny, didn't some Republican just recently play the "Look to the past at the heroic acts of Republican civil rights activists in the early 1900s!" card as a way of reaching out to black voters?  Isn't "We're the Party of Lincoln!" the standard response from Republicans when racial issues get brought up.   I guess only certain parts of the past should be discussed. . .
 
2013-04-29 01:26:16 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: r. Kilpatrick also took aim at the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the April 20, 1965 issue. "Must We Repeal the Constitution to Give the Negro the Vote?" he asked, accusing the bill's supporters of "perverting the Constitution." He thought certain blacks should be given the right to vote but notes, "Over most of this century, the great bulk of Southern Negroes have been genuinely unqualified for the franchise." He also defended segregation as rational for Southerners. "Segregation is a fact, and more than a fact; it is a state of mind. It lies in the Southern subconscious next to man's most elementary instincts, for self-preservation, for survival, for the untroubled continuation of a not intolerable way of life."
Mr. Buckley softened his position on civil rights in the 1960s but to a point that would still be intolerable for conservatives today. In a column written five months before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and called "The Issue at Selma," he called for giving blacks the vote but perhaps restricting the franchise to high school graduates. He sympathized with the Southern position writing, "In much of the South, what is so greatly feared is irresponsible, mobocratic rule, and it is a fear not easily dissipated, because it is well-grounded that if the entire Negro population in the South were suddenly given the vote, and were to use it as a bloc, and pursuant to directives handed down by some of the more demagogic leaders, chaos would ensue." He also warned of "a suddenly enfranchised, violently embittered Negro population which will take the vote and wield it as an instrument of vengeance, shaking down the walls of Jericho even to their foundations, and reawakening the terrible genocidal antagonisms that scarred the Southern psyche during the days of Reconstruction."

Aside from the archaic use of the word "negro" and time-period specific attitudes, could you articulate which parts of this you think are wrong? For instance, do you think it ...


Wow. you really went there.  Well let's start with this: He was afraid that "the Negro", if given the franchise, would "take revenge" for Jim Crow laws that relgated them to second class status legally in the south and would take an axe to such legal edifices root and branch...well, DUH. That's what democracy is FOR, after all, creating laws amenable to the MAJORITYof the population.

And why is it that people only seem to worry about bloc voting and manipulation by demagogues when it is blacks doing the voting?  The poltical history of the American south is RIFE with demagogues who manipulated white mobs into voting en masse for them (does the name Huey P. Long. or George Wallace ring a bell?). But suddenly it's a problem if blacks do it?

 And if you have similar interests to other people,isn't it likely that you will vote the same way they do?  If southern Whites hadn't gone out of thier way to MAKE black voters a bloc, by deciding their skin color was the most important thing about them and classifying them, and denying them rights and privileges on its basis, then maybe blacks wouldn't all feel a soldiarity with one another based on that skin color, neh?
 
2013-04-29 01:36:59 PM

Neeek: Not really. Obama's GOTV efforts were leagues better than anyone before him. If the same (or continuously improved) set-up is retained for the Democratic nominee for 2016, it could be comparable,


I agree that Obama's vote machine (which will definately continue past his preseidency) will have an impact, but I think it's worth noting what this analysis said:

"The 2012 data suggest Romney was a particularly weak Republican candidate, unable to motivate white voters let alone attract significant black or Latino support. Obama's personal appeal and the slowly improving economy helped overcome doubts and spur record levels of minority voters in a way that may not be easily replicated for Democrats soon.
Romney would have erased Obama's nearly 5 million-vote victory margin and narrowly won the popular vote if voters had turned out as they did in 2004, according to Frey's analysis. Then, white turnout was slightly higher and black voting lower.
 
2013-04-29 01:37:00 PM

js34603: Well I'm sure those trends will continue when the Dems run a white person in 2016.


Ol' Bill Clinton got 89% of the Black vote.
 
2013-04-29 01:37:16 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Do you NOT think that the black vote is currently a "bloc" being weilded as an instrument by a particular political party?


Hmmm . . . How did that happen?

"From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

"From Day One, Nixon and I talked about creating a new majority," Buchanan told me recently, sitting in the library of his Greek-revival house in McLean, Virginia, on a secluded lane bordering the fenced grounds of the Central Intelligence Agency. "What we talked about, basically, was shearing off huge segments of F.D.R.'s New Deal coalition, which L.B.J. had held together: Northern Catholic ethnics and Southern Protestant conservatives-what we called the Daley-Rizzo Democrats in the North and, frankly, the Wallace Democrats in the South." Buchanan grew up in Washington, D.C., among the first group-men like his father, an accountant and a father of nine, who had supported Roosevelt but also revered Joseph McCarthy. The Southerners were the kind of men whom Nixon whipped into a frenzy one night in the fall of 1966, at the Wade Hampton Hotel, in Columbia, South Carolina. Nixon, who was then a partner in a New York law firm, had travelled there with Buchanan on behalf of Republican congressional candidates. Buchanan recalls that the room was full of sweat, cigar smoke, and rage; the rhetoric, which was about patriotism and law and order, "burned the paint off the walls." As they left the hotel, Nixon said, "This is the future of this Party, right here in the South."
Nixon was coldly mixing and pouring volatile passions. Although he was careful to renounce the extreme fringe of Birchites and racists, his means to power eventually became the end. Buchanan gave me a copy of a seven-page confidential memorandum-"A little raw for today," he warned-that he had written for Nixon in 1971, under the heading "Dividing the Democrats." Drawn up with an acute understanding of the fragilities and fault lines in "the Old Roosevelt Coalition," it recommended that the White House "exacerbate the ideological division" between the Old and New Left by praising Democrats who supported any of Nixon's policies; highlight "the elitism and quasi-anti-Americanism of the National Democratic Party"; nominate for the Supreme Court a Southern strict constructionist who would divide Democrats regionally; use abortion and parochial-school aid to deepen the split between Catholics and social liberals; elicit white working-class support with tax relief and denunciations of welfare. Finally, the memo recommended exploiting racial tensions among Democrats. "Bumper stickers calling for black Presidential and especially Vice-Presidential candidates should be spread out in the ghettoes of the country," Buchanan wrote. "We should do what is within our power to have a black nominated for Number Two, at least at the Democratic National Convention." Such gambits, he added, could "cut the Democratic Party and country in half; my view is that we would have far the larger half."

http://http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_p ac ker?c ur rentPage=all
 
2013-04-29 01:39:09 PM

Dinki: js34603: Well I'm sure those trends will continue when the Dems run a white person in 2016.

Black voter turnout was bigger because the GOP made a concerted effort to suppress the black vote, and the black community knew it. If the GOP makes the same mistake again, the color of the Democratic nominee will be irrelevant.



WRONG.
 
2013-04-29 01:39:43 PM

Magorn: And why is it that people only seem to worry about bloc voting and manipulation by demagogues when it is blacks doing the voting?


That is not my experience. I think bloc voting based on anything is dangerous to democracy. That being said, is there another voting block that divides exactly on race lines that reliably votes 95% for a particular political party?
 
2013-04-29 01:40:14 PM

Rwa2play: Diogenes: Amazing what voter fraud can accomplish.

/runs away

Ha!  Black + latino vote on the upswing while white voters are decreasing.

It's gonna be a long decade or so for the GOP.  Either they implode or someone gets their head on straight and say "Y'know, if we actually stopped talking out of both sides of our mouth when it comes to minorities, some of them would actually vote for us."

/doubt it
//my money's on them imploding


THat assumes that the Black + Latino voting block continues in mid-terms and for other candidates.
 
2013-04-29 01:45:56 PM

HighOnCraic: How did that happen?


I now how it happened. That does not make it a good thing. And while we could argue about just how "helpful" 60 years of Democratic allegience has been for the African American community, that is not the to[ic I am discussing.

The question to you is whether he was WRONG when he predicted that the black vote would become a solid voting block automatically at the disposal of a particualr political party.  I think we can look at the last few decades of voting, loong before the teabaggers, and before Obama and see that it has become exactly that.

And do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?

 

HighOnCraic: That's funny, didn't some Republican just recently play the "Look to the past at the heroic acts of Republican civil rights activists in the early 1900s!" card as a way of reaching out to black voters? Isn't "We're the Party of Lincoln!" the standard response from Republicans when racial issues get brought up. I guess only certain parts of the past should be discussed. . .


I don't know. You should probably take that up with some Republicans. I simply asked you some relatively simple questions to better understand your position. You keep quoting dead people.
 
2013-04-29 01:46:16 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: And why is it that people only seem to worry about bloc voting and manipulation by demagogues when it is blacks doing the voting?

That is not my experience. I think bloc voting based on anything is dangerous to democracy. That being said, is there another voting block that divides exactly on race lines that reliably votes 95% for a particular political party?


It's less important to find another such bloc as it is to realize WHY it is such a unified front.

According to people like Ben Carson (M.D.!), it's because black voters are too dumb to realize they're being played by Democrats. According to Democrats, it's because the GOP favors policies that disproportionately impact their communities (as well as being closet racists, sometimes noncloseted).

But this is a really tricky issue. Lotta ins, lotta outs, what-have-yous...
 
2013-04-29 01:48:06 PM

Dr Dreidel: According to people like Ben Carson (M.D.!), it's because black voters are too dumb to realize they're being played by Democrats.


Which seems fair enough, considering that is the most often cited reason for why poor white people vote Republican.
 
2013-04-29 01:48:15 PM

Gergesa: While we are discussing taking the right to vote away from people I want to add a republican line I heard once.  I believe it went something like this:  This one vote per person business has got to stop.  The idea that my vote can be cancelled out by some welfare queen who is just gaming the system by having 6 kids with 4 different father's is just outrageous.  Only people who hold down decent jobs and don't receive any welfare should be allowed to vote.

/I believe it was roughly along those lines.


No Representation Without Taxation!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/no_representation_without_tax at ion.html

The duty to pay taxes -- the obligation to put earning into the revenue pot before one can vote on how it is used -- has vanished in America.  The sorts of taxes which once made up the bulk of federal revenue were transactional and proportional.  This did not mean that the wealthy did not still pay a larger share of the tax burden than the poor, but it meant that the relative burden on all Americans was about the same.  One consequence of that was that all Americans had a more or less equal interest in prudent spending, fiscal solvency, and honest appropriations.  Taxation was linked to representation in the same way that representation was linked to taxation.

What we have today is something horribly different.  An implicit acceptance of Marxist dogma infests political thinking.  The rich are rich on the backs of the poor, this reasoning goes, so the poor have the right, essentially, to expropriate the money of the rich by use of greater voting power.  Politicians, of course, luxuriate in this foul myth; it lets them buy votes and to pay for those votes with the money of producers.

Honesty would require, instead, that the unproductive pay the productive -- that is, that the ones who sweat and prosper be given money by those who sloth and panhandle.  Men like Andrew Carnegie, Sam Walton, and Howard Hughes created far more wealth in America than they would ever consume.  Historical foundations of American government, however, do not see the wisdom in or the need for that redistribution of wealth from consumers to creators.

In much the same spirit, the property qualifications of voting have been progressively evaporated in American states to the point that even modest property barriers to voting have now been banished.  Even a head tax, or "Poll Tax," to insure that voters have at least some general, rather than selfish, interest in how tax monies are spent, has been constitutionally banned.

Paying taxes, like serving in a posse or a militia or serving on a jury, has been a minimal required duty for the right to participate in our representative democracy.  Simply being bound by our laws, or worse, "serving" our government by being a politician or voting in elections, takes a right and mystically transforms that right into a duty.

The only solution to our current political woes is to connect the right to vote with a duty to pay taxes.  Voting other people's money into your own pocket is not just bad government; it is a sin.  It is stealing, and it is coveting.  What we see in the ugly surrealism of Occupy Wall Street and sibling demons is not so much dumb, destructive politics as the glorification of wicked intent, and that is intolerable.
 
2013-04-29 01:51:20 PM

BojanglesPaladin: That is not my experience. I think bloc voting based on anything is dangerous to democracy. That being said, is there another voting block that divides exactly on race lines that reliably votes 95% for a particular political party?


Obviously, it's because the blacks are the REAL racists, not members of the Republican Party.
 
2013-04-29 01:52:20 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Which seems fair enough, considering that is the most often cited reason for why poor white people vote Republican.


Might have something to do with the fact that the GOP tends to frown upon on the poor. But hey Jesus, guns and gays gets you some poor white votes.
 
2013-04-29 01:53:02 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: How did that happen?

I now how it happened. That does not make it a good thing. And while we could argue about just how "helpful" 60 years of Democratic allegience has been for the African American community, that is not the to[ic I am discussing.

The question to you is whether he was WRONG when he predicted that the black vote would become a solid voting block automatically at the disposal of a particualr political party.  I think we can look at the last few decades of voting, loong before the teabaggers, and before Obama and see that it has become exactly that.

And do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?

 HighOnCraic: That's funny, didn't some Republican just recently play the "Look to the past at the heroic acts of Republican civil rights activists in the early 1900s!" card as a way of reaching out to black voters? Isn't "We're the Party of Lincoln!" the standard response from Republicans when racial issues get brought up. I guess only certain parts of the past should be discussed. . .

I don't know. You should probably take that up with some Republicans. I simply asked you some relatively simple questions to better understand your position. You keep quoting dead people.


I was citing Rand Paul's visit to Howard University.  As far as I know, he's still alive, and the event happened fairly recently.

I don't recall conservatives coming up with the idea of a high school diploma as a necessity for voting until black Southerners began marching for civil rights.
 
2013-04-29 01:53:17 PM

Satanic_Hamster: BojanglesPaladin: That is not my experience. I think bloc voting based on anything is dangerous to democracy. That being said, is there another voting block that divides exactly on race lines that reliably votes 95% for a particular political party?

Obviously, it's because the blacks are the REAL racists, not members of the Republican Party.


BP is concerned? I have never seen that before.
 
2013-04-29 01:53:26 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Obviously, it's because the blacks are the REAL racists, not members of the Republican Party.


Your post reads like nonsense. Can you clarify? Who's even talking about racism?
 
2013-04-29 01:55:18 PM

HighOnCraic: I don't recall conservatives coming up with the idea of a high school diploma...


So? Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?

Was he right when he said that the black vote would become a solid voting block wielded by a single party?
 
2013-04-29 01:55:19 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: According to people like Ben Carson (M.D.!), it's because black voters are too dumb to realize they're being played by Democrats.

Which seems fair enough, considering that is the most often cited reason for why poor white people vote Republican.


A different sort of "playing", but point taken.
 
2013-04-29 01:56:37 PM

Halli: BP is concerned? I have never seen that before.


So very, very concerned.  So much so that I'm concerned for him.  That much concern might eat a man up inside.  Turn him into a bitter tortured shell of a man that has nothing left going for him but trolling on the internet.

By God, I'm not going to let that happen to him.
 
2013-04-29 01:58:08 PM

Dr Dreidel: A different sort of "playing", but point taken.


Just curious. In your opinion, do you think that 50-60 years of near total voting allegience to the democratic party has been good for the African-American community on the whole?
 
2013-04-29 01:59:08 PM

Satanic_Hamster: By God, I'm not going to let that happen to him.


Does that mean you can clarify your earlier post? I'm very "concerned" about what you have to say.
 
2013-04-29 02:01:45 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: I don't recall conservatives coming up with the idea of a high school diploma...

So? Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?



I think it was wrong to come up with that new requirement only after the civil rights movement began.

Was he right when he said that the black vote would become a solid voting block wielded by a single party?

Did that justify preventing blacks in the South from being able to vote?

Weren't white southerners a solid voting block wielded by a single party (Democrats) at the time? 

Aren't white southerners a solid voting block wielded by a single party (Republicans) right now?
 
2013-04-29 02:03:36 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: A different sort of "playing", but point taken.

Just curious. In your opinion, do you think that 50-60 years of near total voting allegience to the democratic party has been good for the African-American community on the whole?


So you really think they would have been better off voting for a party that has actively demonized them for the last 50 years?

Good luck with that Rand Paul.
 
2013-04-29 02:04:47 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: A different sort of "playing", but point taken.

Just curious. In your opinion, do you think that 50-60 years of near total voting allegience to the democratic party has been good for the African-American community on the whole?


I'm not touching that with a 10-meter cattle prod. I've lived on the East Coast my whole life, in mostly middle-class suburbs - now, I live in DC, the furthest south I've ever lived (also the least middle-class neighborhood). I'm qualified neither anecdotally nor observationally to make any sort of speculative offer.

This being Fark, though, I've gotta say something: the country as a whole is doing better than 40-60 years ago, and the GOP does itself no favors by reminding everyone who was on the other end of the firehoses and dog-leashes back then. That "allegiance" may be more out of necessity than out of any sort of ideological kinship.

// also, 90% of registered black people vote for Democrats
// if turnout was closer to 70% (in that community, let's shoot for 50%, though), would it still be that same 90/10 split? If Election Day was a Federal Holiday, and the GOP wasn't constantly emptying their lungs into every available dog whistle? I could easily see 30% support in 2 cycles.
 
2013-04-29 02:06:48 PM

HighOnCraic: I think it was wrong to come up with that new requirement only after the civil rights movement began.


So? Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?

HighOnCraic: Did that justify preventing blacks in the South from being able to vote?


I don't see anyone trying to justify anything. Was he wrong in his prediction?

HighOnCraic: Aren't white southerners a solid voting block wielded by a single party (Republicans) right now?


No. They may trend Republican, but they are nowhere near 95% or more. There are plenty of union Democrats, Social Justice Catholics, liberals, etc. The "White South" is not a uniform voting bloc weilded by a single political party.
 
2013-04-29 02:07:02 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Halli: BP is concerned? I have never seen that before.

So very, very concerned.  So much so that I'm concerned for him.  That much concern might eat a man up inside.  Turn him into a bitter tortured shell of a man that has nothing left going for him but trolling on the internet.

By God, I'm not going to let that happen to him.


Is it the best possible outcome? No.

Is it far superior to the alternatives? Yes.
 
2013-04-29 02:07:41 PM

qorkfiend: Satanic_Hamster: Halli: BP is concerned? I have never seen that before.

So very, very concerned.  So much so that I'm concerned for him.  That much concern might eat a man up inside.  Turn him into a bitter tortured shell of a man that has nothing left going for him but trolling on the internet.

By God, I'm not going to let that happen to him.

Is it the best possible outcome? No.

Is it far superior to the alternatives? Yes.


Wait, what? Quote failure on qorkfiend's part.
 
2013-04-29 02:11:17 PM

TheGogmagog: Fart_Machine: Which means they'll just try harder next time.

The real question is will the black vote show up to vote Democrat again.  Have they really taken an interest in politics, or just to prove their last two votes weren't racially motivated.  So how do you measure if the voter suppression worked, many of the measures were delayed until the 2014 election cycle.

/I realize I would really hate to hear this being pointed out by the opposing party.


Maybe the opposition party's constant demeaning of black and Latino voters finally came back to haunt them.
 
2013-04-29 02:12:23 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: I don't recall conservatives coming up with the idea of a high school diploma...

So? Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?

Was he right when he said that the black vote would become a solid voting block wielded by a single party?


define " a high school education", and who gets to determine what qualfies?  If I want a pass fail question on the age of the earth and a true false on whether evolution is real do I get it?  And can I also require a minimum Bachelor's degree to own a gun?  Why not?  If we can set minimal education requirements before you are entitled to one right, why not another?

Back when the south had "literacy tests" for voting they were routinely failed by black people with PhD's,, but whites all mysteriously passed (or didn;t have to take them because anyone whose grandfather was allowed to vote didn;t have to take it because they were "grandfathered in")
 
2013-04-29 02:12:52 PM

MFAWG: Lionel Mandrake: pre-November GOP: What can we do to suppress the black vote?

post-November GOP: Why do so few black people vote for us?

This. Anybody darker than a caramel qualifies as 'black'.


i.accesshw.com
 
2013-04-29 02:14:09 PM

Lackofname: js34603: Well I'm sure those trends will continue when the Dems run a white person in 2016.

Ol' Bill Clinton got 89% of the Black vote.


Did he get record numbers of black voters to turn out and win the election based on that record turnout?
 
2013-04-29 02:14:12 PM

qorkfiend: qorkfiend: Satanic_Hamster: Halli: BP is concerned? I have never seen that before.

So very, very concerned.  So much so that I'm concerned for him.  That much concern might eat a man up inside.  Turn him into a bitter tortured shell of a man that has nothing left going for him but trolling on the internet.

By God, I'm not going to let that happen to him.

Is it the best possible outcome? No.

Is it far superior to the alternatives? Yes.

Wait, what? Quote failure on qorkfiend's part.


I should say.  So you WANT him to remain a poor sad little pathetic troll?

Also, apparently my sister is on a plane right now sitting behind the actress who plays Carol from the Walking Dead.
 
2013-04-29 02:16:05 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: I think it was wrong to come up with that new requirement only after the civil rights movement began.

So? Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?


Yes, it's wrong.

HighOnCraic: Did that justify preventing blacks in the South from being able to vote?

I don't see anyone trying to justify anything. Was he wrong in his prediction?


The whole farking point of most National Review editorials of that era was justifying the maintenance of segregation and denying voting rights to black Southerners.

HighOnCraic: Aren't white southerners a solid voting block wielded by a single party (Republicans) right now?

No. They may trend Republican, but they are nowhere near 95% or more. There are plenty of union Democrats, Social Justice Catholics, liberals, etc. The "White South" is not a uniform voting bloc weilded by a single political party.


White Southerners may not hit the 90% mark, but they are the most reliable block of Republican voters.

Not sure how many pro-union voters live in the South; are they mostly right-to-work states?
 
2013-04-29 02:17:40 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Wait! So Romney was RIGHT?

/I think I need a moment...


You mean blacks won't vote for the guy who is patronizing and claims they only want "free stuff"? I'm shocked really.
 
2013-04-29 02:17:42 PM

Halli: BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: A different sort of "playing", but point taken.

Just curious. In your opinion, do you think that 50-60 years of near total voting allegience to the democratic party has been good for the African-American community on the whole?

So you really think they would have been better off voting for a party that has actively demonized them for the last 50 years?


It seems to be working for dumb poor white rednecks.


/not really
 
2013-04-29 02:17:43 PM

Dr Dreidel: who was on the other end of the firehoses and dog-leashes back then.


You mean leftist radicals? Or do you mean the Democrat establishment holding the hoses? :)
(kidding. Couldn't resist)

Dr Dreidel: I'm not touching that with a 10-meter cattle prod. ...I'm qualified neither anecdotally nor observationally to make any sort of speculative offer.


Fair enough. I grew up in a mostly black town still reeling from the economic devestation of desegregation, and while it is certainly a complex issue, I find it fascinating.
 
2013-04-29 02:21:09 PM

Magorn: define " a high school education", and who gets to determine what qualfies?


Having recieved a high school diploma certifying completion of a high school education. And the same people who determine it today.

So, is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?
 
2013-04-29 02:22:45 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: define " a high school education", and who gets to determine what qualfies?

Having recieved a high school diploma certifying completion of a high school education. And the same people who determine it today.

So, is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?


Because tests or qualifcations for voting have been abused in the past.
 
2013-04-29 02:26:07 PM

Halli: BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: define " a high school education", and who gets to determine what qualfies?

Having recieved a high school diploma certifying completion of a high school education. And the same people who determine it today.

So, is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?

Because tests or qualifcations for voting have been abused in the past.


But it won't happen again this time...we promise!
 
2013-04-29 02:26:51 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Branch Dravidian: Satanic_Hamster: They only voted for Obama because he was black and because they hate white people...

Well... who doesn't hate white people?

I only hate crackers.


"The white race is the cancer of human history."
-- Susan Sontag
 
2013-04-29 02:29:05 PM

HighOnCraic: The whole farking point of most National Review editorials of that era was justifying the maintenance of segregation and denying voting rights to black Southerners.


And? Again, Only you are trying to re-fight the civil rights battles of the 60s. I am asking you about today.

Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?

HighOnCraic: Not sure how many pro-union voters live in the South; are they mostly right-to-work states?


I'm not going to be snotty, but the two are not mutually exclusive. Unions are weaker everywhere than they used to be, but especially in right to work states, they have a firm foothold. I grew up in a refinery town, and believe me, the overwhelming majority of white people were both union and lifelong Democrats... and usually really, really racist.
www.siteselection.com
vielmetti.typepad.com
 
2013-04-29 02:29:28 PM

Satanic_Hamster: BojanglesPaladin: That is not my experience. I think bloc voting based on anything is dangerous to democracy. That being said, is there another voting block that divides exactly on race lines that reliably votes 95% for a particular political party?

Obviously, it's because the blacks are the REAL racists, not members of the Republican Party.


"I mean, you got the first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice looking guy."
- Joe Biden
 
2013-04-29 02:30:32 PM

Halli: BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: define " a high school education", and who gets to determine what qualfies?

Having recieved a high school diploma certifying completion of a high school education. And the same people who determine it today.

So, is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?

Because tests or qualifcations for voting have been abused in the past.


Wonder how this would go over if we made this a requirement for firearm ownership. For the lulz.
 
2013-04-29 02:30:37 PM
I resent the notion that the GOP singles out blacks to suppress their votes. The GOP suppresses votes of all minorities equally
 
2013-04-29 02:30:56 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: define " a high school education", and who gets to determine what qualfies?

Having recieved a high school diploma certifying completion of a high school education. And the same people who determine it today.

So, is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?


My friend's mother has no high school diploma, but knows algebra better than most high school students, can quote Shakespeare better than a lot of English majors, and read Dante's Divine Comedy (all three books) in her spare time.

Yet you think she's less qualified to vote than Romney? GTFO and go DIAF.
 
2013-04-29 02:32:06 PM

Mrtraveler01: Because tests or qualifcations for voting have been abused in the past.

But it won't happen again this time...we promise!


I'm not asking about implementation. Simple question: Is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high-school education?
 
2013-04-29 02:34:47 PM

Peki: Yet you think she's less qualified to vote than Romney? GTFO and go DIAF.


I did not say that.

But I do appreciate that you not only made a huge leap and assumed a position on my behalf, you wished me dead for a position I did not take, but you projected onto me. Nice. Very reasoned and rational response there.
 
2013-04-29 02:37:28 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: who was on the other end of the firehoses and dog-leashes back then.

You mean leftist radicals? Or do you mean the Democrat establishment holding the hoses? :)
(kidding. Couldn't resist)


RIGHT after I hit "submit", I knew that was coming. I would expect nothing less.

// seriously, are you Rand Paul, sent here to fark with us?
 
2013-04-29 02:38:22 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: define " a high school education", and who gets to determine what qualfies?

Having recieved a high school diploma certifying completion of a high school education. And the same people who determine it today.

So, is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?


Are you seriously suggesting that someone who works for a living and pays taxes, but doesn't have a HS diploma, has no right to a voice in elections?

I am of the opinion that our civics education in the country is awful and needs to be improved, and we would all benefit from more people finishing school.

Ultimately, however, the uneducated should have just as many rights as the educated. Perhaps you ought to concern yourself more with improving and expanding education than arguing for ways to restrict voting in a society that (theoretically) values democratic ideals.
 
2013-04-29 02:38:59 PM

Raharu: Lionel Mandrake: pre-November GOP: What can we do to suppress the black vote?

post-November GOP: Why do so few black people vote for us?


Clearly the GOP needs to give out presents like free deluxe 0bamaphones, and extra govt cheese wheels, just like taxfarthussin0bongo did to win.



The sad truth is that there is a vocal portion of the GOP right that truly believe that more black people came out to vote because of Obamaphones (that started before Obama was elected). Fox News has told them that black and young people are enjoying their obamaphones as a reward for voting him into office.
 
2013-04-29 02:39:59 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Mrtraveler01: Because tests or qualifcations for voting have been abused in the past.

But it won't happen again this time...we promise!

I'm not asking about implementation. Simple question: Is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high-school education?


Yes.
 
2013-04-29 02:41:36 PM
Maybe the GOP loves america so much they just wanted us to think they were trying to suppress the vote, so that they could actually get the everyday person off their ass and to be more inclined to go make their voice heard.
 
2013-04-29 02:43:16 PM
Holy Crap!  Black people voted en masse for a black Democrat?

NO FREAKING WAY!!!

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

/did you know that water is wet as well?
//it's true!  I swear!
 
2013-04-29 02:43:51 PM

Dr Dreidel: RIGHT after I hit "submit", I knew that was coming. I would expect nothing less.


Yeah. Low-hanging fruit. Like I said, couldn't resist. And I like to point out to Farkers of a younger vintage that political parties are not static, and todays good guys were yesterday's bad guys. Which is why it is sooooooo important to never give blind allegience to any political party.

Dr Dreidel: // seriously, are you Rand Paul, sent here to fark with us?


Nope. I'm more of a Zombie William F Buckley fan :)
obscurantist.com
 
2013-04-29 02:44:47 PM

DeArmondVI: Are you seriously suggesting that someone who works for a living and pays taxes, but doesn't have a HS diploma, has no right to a voice in elections?


No. Where did I say any such thing?
 
2013-04-29 02:44:59 PM

Peki: BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: define " a high school education", and who gets to determine what qualfies?

Having recieved a high school diploma certifying completion of a high school education. And the same people who determine it today.

So, is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?

My friend's mother has no high school diploma, but knows algebra better than most high school students, can quote Shakespeare better than a lot of English majors, and read Dante's Divine Comedy (all three books) in her spare time.

Yet you think she's less qualified to vote than Romney? GTFO and go DIAF.


Anecdotal proof. The best kind of proof.
/flavored with self righteous indignation and violence
//fark sized!
 
2013-04-29 02:46:55 PM

DeArmondVI: Are you seriously suggesting that someone who works for a living and pays taxes, but doesn't have a HS diploma, has no right to a voice in elections?


Wait. Are YOU seriously suggesting that only people who are employed and who pay federal taxes has a right to a voice in the elections?

/see?
 
2013-04-29 02:47:04 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Simple question: Is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high-school education?


Oh, and just to weigh in on this:
It's not conceptually wrong. It's a fine goal to ensure that everyone who reaches voting age has finished HS or the equivalent (FYI, some kids may hit age 18 during their senior year. They'd still be allowed to vote, yes?), and to encourage that through free public schools, etc.

It's not OK to deny someone a right to vote because they don't meet some arbitrary set of standards (knowing when The Brest-Litovsk Treaty was was necessary to graduate; to vote, probably not). I'd like some VERY basic skills tests to be administered - make sure they can read in whatever language, they know who the candidates are, know what a vote is and what it means - but the two hurdles are enforcement and selection (what is "essential information" and what isn't).

Hell, I'd settle for weeding out the busfuls of drug-addled seniors pulling the levers for Ike for the 15th time.
 
2013-04-29 02:47:17 PM

daveUSMC: Does this mean we can stop whining about voter ID now?
I mean everyone. STFU. It's neither the worst thing in the world since 3/5 and hosing off the Undesireables, nor absolutely necessary to protect the sacred rights of both Fartbongolian and Real American PatriotTM Voters. It is a stupid wedge issue with little relevance and negligable pratical impact.


I'm sorry, but if you oppose voter-ID, then you automatically support bussing millions of illegal aliens, welfare queens, and libby-Soshlist Commie college students to the polls and letting them vote as often as they want, and posting gangs of armed Black Panther ex-con rapist crack-heads outside the polling places set aside for honest jebus-loving normal (white) people.
 
2013-04-29 02:52:29 PM

BojanglesPaladin: DeArmondVI: Are you seriously suggesting that someone who works for a living and pays taxes, but doesn't have a HS diploma, has no right to a voice in elections?

Wait. Are YOU seriously suggesting that only people who are employed and who pay federal taxes has a right to a voice in the elections?

/see?


BojanglesPaladin: DeArmondVI: Are you seriously suggesting that someone who works for a living and pays taxes, but doesn't have a HS diploma, has no right to a voice in elections?

No. Where did I say any such thing?


BojanglesPaladin: I'm not asking about implementation. Simple question: Is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high-school education?


So you are just asking questions?

Very stupid questions.
 
2013-04-29 02:54:30 PM

Dr Dreidel: It's not OK to deny someone a right to vote because they don't meet some arbitrary set of standards (knowing when The Brest-Litovsk Treaty was was necessary to graduate; to vote, probably not). I'd like some VERY basic skills tests to be administered - make sure they can read in whatever language, they know who the candidates are, know what a vote is and what it means - but the two hurdles are enforcement and selection (what is "essential information" and what isn't).


I find it cute that you state it is wrong to deny someone a right to vote because they don't meet some arbitrary set of standards, then give some arbitrary set of standards that you would like people to meet before they can vote.
 
2013-04-29 02:56:25 PM

Dr Dreidel: It's not conceptually wrong. It's a fine goal to ensure that everyone who reaches voting age has finished HS or the equivalent (FYI, some kids may hit age 18 during their senior year. They'd still be allowed to vote, yes?), and to encourage that through free public schools, etc.


(I was one of those.) Implementation aside, the question is simply "Is it wrong to want a voter to have a high-school education" While you actually answered it (with obligatory, obvious caveats), I find it interesting how many Farkers seem reluctant to even grant such a common sense answer for fear of some potential slippery slope scenario in which it might theoretically be abused. I didn;t say a single word about denying anyone anything, but nearly every single Farker "filled in the gap" and jumped to some sort of "Jim Crow 2 electric bugaloo" scenario where none was presented.

Which is why it is so difficult to have a simple rational discussion on boards like Fark. Too many people to intent on "Gotcha!" to be able to say somenthing as simple as "Yes, I think it would be good if all voters had a high-school education. In fact, I would like all Americans period to have that education, so the point would be moot."
 
2013-04-29 02:56:29 PM

jst3p: Dr Dreidel: It's not OK to deny someone a right to vote because they don't meet some arbitrary set of standards (knowing when The Brest-Litovsk Treaty was was necessary to graduate; to vote, probably not). I'd like some VERY basic skills tests to be administered - make sure they can read in whatever language, they know who the candidates are, know what a vote is and what it means - but the two hurdles are enforcement and selection (what is "essential information" and what isn't).

I find it cute that you state it is wrong to deny someone a right to vote because they don't meet some arbitrary set of standards, then give some arbitrary set of standards that you would like people to meet before they can vote.


In every election, millions of people are denied the right to vote because they don't meet the arbitrary standard of being at least 18 years old.
 
2013-04-29 02:57:51 PM

give me doughnuts: jst3p: Dr Dreidel: It's not OK to deny someone a right to vote because they don't meet some arbitrary set of standards (knowing when The Brest-Litovsk Treaty was was necessary to graduate; to vote, probably not). I'd like some VERY basic skills tests to be administered - make sure they can read in whatever language, they know who the candidates are, know what a vote is and what it means - but the two hurdles are enforcement and selection (what is "essential information" and what isn't).

I find it cute that you state it is wrong to deny someone a right to vote because they don't meet some arbitrary set of standards, then give some arbitrary set of standards that you would like people to meet before they can vote.

In every election, millions of people are denied the right to vote because they don't meet the arbitrary standard of being at least 18 years old.


Thank God for that at least.
 
2013-04-29 02:59:56 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Which is why it is so difficult to have a simple rational discussion on boards like Fark. Too many people to intent on "Gotcha!" to be able to say somenthing as simple as "Yes, I think it would be good if all voters had a high-school education. In fact, I would like all Americans period to have that education, so the point would be moot."


You weren't asking if it was good or not. You were asking for it to be a requirement. The thing about you is that you are just patently dishonest and play the concern troll angle every single time.
 
2013-04-29 03:01:09 PM

thenewmissus: Raharu: Lionel Mandrake: pre-November GOP: What can we do to suppress the black vote?

post-November GOP: Why do so few black people vote for us?


Clearly the GOP needs to give out presents like free deluxe 0bamaphones, and extra govt cheese wheels, just like taxfarthussin0bongo did to win.


The sad truth is that there is a vocal portion of the GOP right that truly believe that more black people came out to vote because of Obamaphones (that started before Obama was elected). Fox News has told them that black and young people are enjoying their obamaphones as a reward for voting him into office.



You're just jealous because your gifts haven't arrived yet.

img545.imageshack.us
 
2013-04-29 03:04:51 PM

studs up: give me doughnuts: jst3p: Dr Dreidel: It's not OK to deny someone a right to vote because they don't meet some arbitrary set of standards (knowing when The Brest-Litovsk Treaty was was necessary to graduate; to vote, probably not). I'd like some VERY basic skills tests to be administered - make sure they can read in whatever language, they know who the candidates are, know what a vote is and what it means - but the two hurdles are enforcement and selection (what is "essential information" and what isn't).

I find it cute that you state it is wrong to deny someone a right to vote because they don't meet some arbitrary set of standards, then give some arbitrary set of standards that you would like people to meet before they can vote.

In every election, millions of people are denied the right to vote because they don't meet the arbitrary standard of being at least 18 years old.

Thank God for that at least.


I'd rather have a 15 year old voter who cares about the issues and educated him/herself on the candidates' positions,  than an ignorant 35 year old whose only standard is "I ain't votin' fer the niBONG!/woman/Messican/Cracker/Gringo/whatever!"
 
2013-04-29 03:07:39 PM

jst3p: I find it cute that you state it is wrong to deny someone a right to vote because they don't meet some arbitrary set of standards, then give some arbitrary set of standards that you would like people to meet before they can vote.


Well, for those with good reading comprehension, I supplied an example of "arbitrary standard" - knowing when the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed - and some examples of "non-arbitrary standards" - like knowing what a vote is (or where you are).

The non-arbitrary ones are related to the act of voting and knowledge of what participating in a democracy is (as well as implying that being of sound mind is a good thing, too). Knowing the multiplication tables (or not) has very little bearing on voting.

Perhaps we might benefit from a short reading-comp test for responding...

// WARNING: there is heavy sarcasm in the above
// those allergic to sarcasm should not read the above, or have it read to them
 
2013-04-29 03:08:04 PM
Republicans forgot one very important thing about human nature - efforts to prevent someone from doing something only increases their desire to do it.

"Don't EVER tell me I can't, because I WILL." - seen on handmade sign at voter rally in 2012 here in california
 
2013-04-29 03:12:50 PM

Lionel Mandrake: pre-November GOP: What can we do to suppress the black vote?

post-November GOP: Why do so few black people vote for us?


Thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis. Such flagrant suppression can have a galvanizing effect, ensuring that those you try to disenfranchise try doubly hard to stick it to you. Thank GOD they'll never realize this.
 
2013-04-29 03:14:44 PM

rewind2846: Republicans forgot one very important thing about human nature - efforts to prevent someone from doing something only increases their desire to do it.


And yet the numbers seem to indicate that FEWER people (black or otherwise) showed up to vote in 2012 than in 2008. I believe that even among black voters, fewer voted in 2012 even after years of TeaBagger Derp and "vote suppression" or whatever.
 
2013-04-29 03:21:32 PM
I'll be happily surprised if the turnout is the same for the next election. That will show to me that more people are actually interested in being a part of the democratic process and this wasn't just a fluke due to one of the candidates being a black man.
 
2013-04-29 03:24:27 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: A different sort of "playing", but point taken.

Just curious. In your opinion, do you think that 50-60 years of near total voting allegience to the democratic party has been good for the African-American community on the whole?


Let's see, the Democrats got me the Civil Rights Act and promoted programs that help poor folks, most of whom are disproportionately minorities, so yeah, it's been great for me.

On the other hand, the Republicans shifted the tax burden on to poor folks, most of whom are disproportionately minorities, and they try to cut the same programs that help those same poor minorities, so I can answer a definitive YES, THE DEMOCRATS ARE BETTER FOR US, and no, that's not just my opinion. This is before even getting into Satan's War on Black People Reagan's War on Drugs.
 
2013-04-29 03:30:29 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: RIGHT after I hit "submit", I knew that was coming. I would expect nothing less.

Yeah. Low-hanging fruit. Like I said, couldn't resist. And I like to point out to Farkers of a younger vintage that political parties are not static, and todays good guys were yesterday's bad guys. Which is why it is sooooooo important to never give blind allegience to any political party.

Dr Dreidel: // seriously, are you Rand Paul, sent here to fark with us?

Nope. I'm more of a Zombie William F Buckley fan :)
[obscurantist.com image 285x233]


Ironic, since we're discussing a topic that he admitted to being wrong about.

Asked by Time in 2004 whether he regretted any positions he had taken in the past, Buckley said simply, "Yes. I once believed we could evolve our way up from Jim Crow. I was wrong: federal intervention was necessary."

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1543/article_detail.asp
 
2013-04-29 03:32:34 PM
  What happened is the republicans figured they had the Southern Stratagy on stereoids as the opposition but completely failed to take into account the internet. The started tweeting the dog wistle and their base turned the freq up where everyone could hear it and amplified it so loud that it worried, not just black people, but all the opposition and even some of the party faithful who were not comfortable with that route. It will be interesting to see if the Republican party recovers or  splits over this.

Hypnozombie
/a split would be a bit scary unless the crazy racist got less than 1/3
 
2013-04-29 03:33:00 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: define " a high school education", and who gets to determine what qualfies?

Having recieved a high school diploma certifying completion of a high school education. And the same people who determine it today.

So, is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?


You really keep hammering on this b.s. "requirement."

Should election materials be only in English? Gee, why not?
Should only property owners be allowed to vote? Gee, why not?
Should only people with a driver's license/government ID be allowed to vote? Gee, why not?
What should be the maximum amount of time you have to wait in line to vote? Is 4 hours, 6 hours OK?
After all, we could all vote by mail or using our computers.
Basically, there's a million little "reasonable" ways you can suppress poor peoples' votes.
 
2013-04-29 03:33:26 PM

Lackofname: Rwa2play: Diogenes: Amazing what voter fraud can accomplish.

/runs away

Ha!  Black + latino vote on the upswing while white voters are decreasing.

It's gonna be a long decade or so for the GOP.  Either they implode or someone gets their head on straight and say "Y'know, if we actually stopped talking out of both sides of our mouth when it comes to minorities, some of them would actually vote for us."

/doubt it
//my money's on them imploding

THat assumes that the Black + Latino voting block continues in mid-terms and for other candidates.


So long as the GOP keep flapping their gums against minorities, that won't be a problem.
 
2013-04-29 03:37:32 PM

Smelly McUgly: Let's see, the Democrats got me the Civil Rights Act


Be sure to check the party membership of the viotes on that one.

Flaming Yawn: You really keep hammering on this b.s. "requirement."


Actually, I do not. I have said nothing about any requirement.

But thank you for proving my point that " I didn't say a single word about denying anyone anything, but nearly every single Farker "filled in the gap" and jumped to some sort of "Jim Crow 2 electric bugaloo" scenario where none was presented."
 
2013-04-29 03:43:00 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Magorn: define " a high school education", and who gets to determine what qualfies?

Having recieved a high school diploma certifying completion of a high school education. And the same people who determine it today.

So, is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?


Yes, because education doesn't happen just in a classroom.  Education is everywhere...

Lemme repeat that for you; Education is EVERYWHERE.

Also:  You really want to take out half or more of the GOP voters by putting some type of education requirement in there?
 
2013-04-29 03:44:17 PM

HighOnCraic: Ironic, since we're discussing a topic that he admitted to being wrong about.


It's not ironic. Your own quote prefaced and said "Mr. Buckley softened his position on civil rights in the 1960s "
Yet another reason why it is a waste of time to re-fight a fifty year old political battle with quotes from dead people.

/Also pointed out above that Buckley advocated for a minimum education level for ALL voters.

So was he WRONG about the black vote being a solid bloc weilded by a single party? Do you thinik it is wrong to want a voter to have a high school education?
 
2013-04-29 03:45:27 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Ironic, since we're discussing a topic that he admitted to being wrong about.

It's not ironic. Your own quote prefaced and said "Mr. Buckley softened his position on civil rights in the 1960s "
Yet another reason why it is a waste of time to re-fight a fifty year old political battle with quotes from dead people.

/Also pointed out above that Buckley advocated for a minimum education level for ALL voters.

So was he WRONG about the black vote being a solid bloc weilded by a single party? Do you thinik it is wrong to want a voter to have a high school education?


So lemme ask you something:  How would one be qualified as having a HS-level education?
 
2013-04-29 03:46:02 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Smelly McUgly: Let's see, the Democrats got me the Civil Rights Act

Be sure to check the party membership of the viotes on that one.


Maybe you should check the numbers again.  A higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, but in terms of sheer numbers, more Democrats voted for it than Republicans.  The Democrats had a large numerical advantage over the Republicans in those years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88th_United_States_Congress

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/89th_United_States_Congress
 
2013-04-29 03:48:08 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Smelly McUgly: Let's see, the Democrats got me the Civil Rights Act

Be sure to check the party membership of the viotes on that one.


LBJ (D-TX) calling in favors, twisting arms, and straight up intimidating fools to get people to vote for it gets my credit on that one.
 
2013-04-29 03:49:29 PM

Rwa2play: Yes, because education doesn't happen just in a classroom. Education is everywhere...

Lemme repeat that for you; Education is EVERYWHERE.


Not sure what you mean exactly. Clarify?

Rwa2play: You really want to take out half or more of the GOP voters by putting some type of education requirement in there?


Again. I have not called for any requirement. Nor do I see why any of us should change our mind about matters of civil rights based on how it would theoretically affect political affiliations. Also, I am pretty sure that well over half of voters that typically vote Republican have a high school education, as do the majority of black voters. Becasue the majority of AMERICANS have at least a high school education. Since it is both compulsory and free.

What was the point you were making?
 
2013-04-29 03:50:47 PM

Rwa2play: How would one be qualified as having a HS-level education?


Read up.

Smelly McUgly: LBJ (D-TX) calling in favors, twisting arms, and straight up intimidating fools to get people to vote for it gets my credit on that one.


So.. you believe LBJ was a friend to the black man?
 
2013-04-29 03:53:14 PM
BojanglesPaladin:

So.. you believe LBJ was a friend to the black man?

No, but I KNOW that LBJ put in hustle to get the CRA done. I don't really care what he thought of my skin color personally. He was part of the party that has actually helped us, if incrementally, join the middle- and upper-classes as opposed to the party that tries to disenfranchise and jail us at any costs.
 
2013-04-29 03:56:11 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Ironic, since we're discussing a topic that he admitted to being wrong about.

It's not ironic. Your own quote prefaced and said "Mr. Buckley softened his position on civil rights in the 1960s "
Yet another reason why it is a waste of time to re-fight a fifty year old political battle with quotes from dead people.

/Also pointed out above that Buckley advocated for a minimum education level for ALL voters.

So was he WRONG about the black vote being a solid bloc weilded by a single party? Do you thinik it is wrong to want a voter to have a high school education?


Well, it's important to understand that he softened his positions AFTER the Brown v. Board of Education case was settled and after civil rights act and the voting rights act were passed, and he spent a great deal of time strenuously arguing against them before all that happened.

/I'd like to see a citation where Buckley called for a minimum education for all voters, and I'm curious about whether that idea occurred before the civil rights movement.
//And I've answered both of your questions already, but just to be clear:  no, he wasn't wrong, but that was a horrible argument to use against the voting rights act, and yes, Buckley was wrong to want to change the rules regarding who is allowed to vote based on the idea that letting black people vote was getting more popular.
 
2013-04-29 03:59:09 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Rwa2play: Yes, because education doesn't happen just in a classroom. Education is everywhere...

Lemme repeat that for you; Education is EVERYWHERE.

Not sure what you mean exactly. Clarify?


I.e. Homeschooling.

Rwa2play: You really want to take out half or more of the GOP voters by putting some type of education requirement in there?

Again. I have not called for any requirement. Nor do I see why any of us should change our mind about matters of civil rights based on how it would theoretically affect political affiliations. Also, I am pretty sure that well over half of voters that typically vote Republican have a high school education, as do the majority of black voters. Becasue the majority of AMERICANS have at least a high school education. Since it is both compulsory and free.

What was the point you were making?


See above; that's a hornets nest that maybe no one wants to knock over.
 
2013-04-29 04:01:35 PM

HighOnCraic: Maybe you should check the numbers again.


I am familiar with the numbers. I think you have demonstrated that the passing of the Civil Rights Act was done over Democratic opposition through a coalition of forward thinking Democrats and Republicans. More of the Democratic majority opposed it than in the Republican minority. The Civil Rights act was passed by Congressmen of both parties.

But the point (to me at least) is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans of the 60s line up exactly with the parties as they are today. The demographics and allegiences, even the ideologies were very different a generation or two ago. It is useful to review the history for some context, but this is not that. Statements made in a segregated America fifty years ago are not terribly indicative of the political landscape today.
 
2013-04-29 04:04:20 PM

Smelly McUgly: He was part of the party that has actually helped us, if incrementally, join the middle- and upper-classes as opposed to the party that tries to disenfranchise and jail us at any costs.


And so were many Republicans.
 
2013-04-29 04:09:48 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Statements made in a segregated America fifty years ago are not terribly indicative of the political landscape today.


Not terribly indicative, but very informative. Especially as the party affiliation of the South changed entirely, but not much of the rhetoric.
 
2013-04-29 04:09:53 PM

BojanglesPaladin: . I think you have demonstrated that the passing of the Civil Rights Act was done over Democratic opposition through a coalition of forward thinking Democrats and Republicans. More of the Democratic majority opposed it than in the Republican minority.


I have to put this bullshiat to an end right now:

By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87   (7-93%)Southern Republicans: 0-10   (0-100%)Northern Democrats: 145-9   (94-6%)Northern Republicans: 138-24   (85-15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20   (5-95%) (only Southern Republicans: 0-1   (0-100%) (Northern Democrats: 45-1   (98-2%) (only Northern Republicans: 27-5   (84-16%)

Northern Democrats favored it moreso than Northern Republicans. The South was predominantly Democrat so obviously that's why there are more Southern Democrats that opposed it compared to Southern Republicans. Southerners of both parties were opposed to this.

Stop rewriting history. It's getting annoying.
 
2013-04-29 04:12:01 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Smelly McUgly: He was part of the party that has actually helped us, if incrementally, join the middle- and upper-classes as opposed to the party that tries to disenfranchise and jail us at any costs.

And so were many Republicans.


Yeah. So many, in fact, that many of them (and their voters) ended up leaving the party around the same time the Democrats who preferred the disenfranchisement route left to become Republicans.

Funny how the last big party switch we have had in our history meant that most Republicans in favor of things like treating everyone the same under the Constitution being slowly purged from their own party.
 
2013-04-29 04:17:22 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Maybe you should check the numbers again.

I am familiar with the numbers. I think you have demonstrated that the passing of the Civil Rights Act was done over Democratic opposition through a coalition of forward thinking Democrats and Republicans. More of the Democratic majority opposed it than in the Republican minority. The Civil Rights act was passed by Congressmen of both parties.

But the point (to me at least) is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans of the 60s line up exactly with the parties as they are today. The demographics and allegiences, even the ideologies were very different a generation or two ago. It is useful to review the history for some context, but this is not that. Statements made in a segregated America fifty years ago are not terribly indicative of the political landscape today.


There were still more Democrats who were in favor of the Civil Rights Act than Democrats who were against it.  In the Senate, the yes votes came from 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans, and while the House vote was less lopsided, the Democrats were still the larger part of the coalition that passed the civil rights act.

The vote on the voting rights act was even more lopsided in the House, because Republicans had lost seats in the 1964 congressional elections.
 
2013-04-29 04:19:33 PM

BojanglesPaladin: But thank you for proving my point that " I didn't say a single word about denying anyone anything, but nearly every single Farker "filled in the gap" and jumped to some sort of "Jim Crow 2 electric bugaloo" scenario where none was presented."


So basically you yammered on forever about a hypothetical high school diploma requirement to vote, pointlessly.
 
2013-04-29 04:21:55 PM
I am a Republican, and I will freely admit to trying to supress votes.  I tried to suppress 5 of Melowese Richardson's 6 votes, but alas I was unsuccessful.

I don't give a damn if you think 6 votes are inconsequential, why should her voice count more than mine?  What gives her the right to decide that her candidate deserves to be the Boss any more than mine?

Let me be clear, I despise voter fraud on both sides of the issue.  But I support voter ID laws because everyone should play by the same set of rules that I do.  One person gets one vote, end of story.
 
2013-04-29 04:23:44 PM

Dr Dreidel: Not terribly indicative, but very informative. Especially as the party affiliation of the South changed entirely, but not much of the rhetoric.


That's my point. Even 20 years ago, if you wanted to find the guys most likely to have hoods and sheets under thier beds, you looked for the Southern Democrat Union Members. And for the longest time, Republicans couldn't get elected to dog catcher in many parts of the South becasue they were the party of "carpet baggers and reconstructionist yankee busybodies". Now the South is almost entirely GOP territory, and those same racist assholes who were lifelong Democrats when I was in high school, vote GOP now. Some because they were driven away by the perception of a gay-friendly DNC agenda, or an anti-religious agenda, or a welfare queen agenda, or whatever perception, right or wrong. I think the Republicans have as much courted Southern vioters as the DNC has eschewed them for their own political calculations of building a 'coalition of subgroups'). Regardkless, these things shift and change over time. Which is why people trying to "prove" something about the GOP or the DNC today, by pointing to something from LBJ ior even FDR's era is... well.. mostly pointless.

Perhaps, having a longer political lifespan so far than many Farkers here, I simply do not share the absolutist nonsense view that "GOP = racists forever / DNC = black champions forever" because that has not been historically true, and my own history goes back far enough to have seen the shift that many Farkers seem to be to young to even see.
 
2013-04-29 04:25:25 PM

someonelse: So basically you yammered on forever about a hypothetical high school diploma requirement to vote, pointlessly.


No. If you really want to know, the thread is there for the reading.
 
2013-04-29 04:25:52 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: Not terribly indicative, but very informative. Especially as the party affiliation of the South changed entirely, but not much of the rhetoric.

That's my point. Even 20 years ago, if you wanted to find the guys most likely to have hoods and sheets under thier beds, you looked for the Southern Democrat Union Members. And for the longest time, Republicans couldn't get elected to dog catcher in many parts of the South becasue they were the party of "carpet baggers and reconstructionist yankee busybodies". Now the South is almost entirely GOP territory, and those same racist assholes who were lifelong Democrats when I was in high school, vote GOP now. Some because they were driven away by the perception of a gay-friendly DNC agenda, or an anti-religious agenda, or a welfare queen agenda, or whatever perception, right or wrong. I think the Republicans have as much courted Southern vioters as the DNC has eschewed them for their own political calculations of building a 'coalition of subgroups'). Regardkless, these things shift and change over time. Which is why people trying to "prove" something about the GOP or the DNC today, by pointing to something from LBJ ior even FDR's era is... well.. mostly pointless.

Perhaps, having a longer political lifespan so far than many Farkers here, I simply do not share the absolutist nonsense view that "GOP = racists forever / DNC = black champions forever" because that has not been historically true, and my own history goes back far enough to have seen the shift that many Farkers seem to be to young to even see.


So the southern strategy didn't happen because of your anecdotal evidence. Good to know.
 
2013-04-29 04:28:57 PM

Spammertime: I am a Republican, and I will freely admit to trying to supress votes.  I tried to suppress 5 of Melowese Richardson's 6 votes, but alas I was unsuccessful.

I don't give a damn if you think 6 votes are inconsequential, why should her voice count more than mine?  What gives her the right to decide that her candidate deserves to be the Boss any more than mine?

Let me be clear, I despise voter fraud on both sides of the issue.  But I support voter ID laws because everyone should play by the same set of rules that I do.  One person gets one vote, end of story.


What she did was obviously wrong, but voter ID laws wouldn't have prevented her illegal use of absentee ballots.
 
2013-04-29 04:33:36 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: Not terribly indicative, but very informative. Especially as the party affiliation of the South changed entirely, but not much of the rhetoric.

That's my point. Even 20 years ago, if you wanted to find the guys most likely to have hoods and sheets under thier beds, you looked for the Southern Democrat Union Members. And for the longest time, Republicans couldn't get elected to dog catcher in many parts of the South becasue they were the party of "carpet baggers and reconstructionist yankee busybodies". Now the South is almost entirely GOP territory, and those same racist assholes who were lifelong Democrats when I was in high school, vote GOP now. Some because they were driven away by the perception of a gay-friendly DNC agenda, or an anti-religious agenda, or a welfare queen agenda, or whatever perception, right or wrong. I think the Republicans have as much courted Southern vioters as the DNC has eschewed them for their own political calculations of building a 'coalition of subgroups'). Regardkless, these things shift and change over time. Which is why people trying to "prove" something about the GOP or the DNC today, by pointing to something from LBJ ior even FDR's era is... well.. mostly pointless.

Perhaps, having a longer political lifespan so far than many Farkers here, I simply do not share the absolutist nonsense view that "GOP = racists forever / DNC = black champions forever" because that has not been historically true, and my own history goes back far enough to have seen the shift that many Farkers seem to be to young to even see.


Actually, a big part of the realignment of the black vote goes as far back as FDR; he didn't go as far as some wanted him to go (particularly in regard to the Costigan-Wagner anti-lynching bill), but both he and Eleanor had a strong relationship with NAACP president Walter White.  Tthe tension between the NAACP and the GOP goes back to Hoover's attempt to put an avowed white supremacist on the Supreme Court.

Read more here:

http://books.google.com/books/about/Farewell_to_the_Party_of_Lincoln .h tml?id=P_TBRyqLTDwC
 
2013-04-29 04:39:37 PM

BojanglesPaladin: someonelse: So basically you yammered on forever about a hypothetical high school diploma requirement to vote, pointlessly.

No. If you really want to know, the thread is there for the reading.


I've read the entire thread. Your endless comments about high school diplomas led nowhere. You asked the question over and over, and when people asked you why, you pretended that everyone was afraid of the question (rather than just thinking it was dumb). And you smugly acted as if you proved something, which you did not. The whole exercise was entirely pointless.
 
2013-04-29 04:42:19 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Perhaps, having a longer political lifespan so far than many Farkers here, I simply do not share the absolutist nonsense view that "GOP = racists forever / DNC = black champions forever" because that has not been historically true, and my own history goes back far enough to have seen the shift that many Farkers seem to be to young to even see.


As HoC put it, that was an arc in a longer-running shift (from Wilson to Reagan, fittingly). You were there when it became more pronounced (or finalized, whatever). As I opined earlier, the GOP could be winning 30-40% of the black vote by 2024 if they actually tried.

The "informative" part is that the GOP doesn't appear too concerned with trying to win over these "historically Democratic" blocs - which aren't really "historically" anything. They've got access to the same history books we do, and they consume the same media - it's not like it's some big secret that only Democrats know. The GOP is well aware of their shortcomings on race relations, and the fact that every attempt at outreach is either "Why are y'all blindly following the party that wants to keep you on the plantation?" or "Stop voting for Democrats just because they'll give you welfare and food stamps."

What's informative is that the GOP appears to not understand how to talk to people that aren't already in the GOP and that despite having been - as recently as 25-30 years ago - the party of wonky, pointy-headed academics like Carnegie and Buckley.
 
2013-04-29 04:45:40 PM

someonelse: BojanglesPaladin: someonelse: So basically you yammered on forever about a hypothetical high school diploma requirement to vote, pointlessly.

No. If you really want to know, the thread is there for the reading.

I've read the entire thread. Your endless comments about high school diplomas led nowhere. You asked the question over and over, and when people asked you why, you pretended that everyone was afraid of the question (rather than just thinking it was dumb). And you smugly acted as if you proved something, which you did not. The whole exercise was entirely pointless.


"The whole exercise was entirely pointless"

Has there ever been a more apt and succinct description of the Politics tab?
 
2013-04-29 04:47:19 PM

someonelse: The whole exercise was entirely pointless.


I don't think so.  And if you had read the thread as you say, you would have seen this:

BojanglesPaladin: the question is simply "Is it wrong to want a voter to have a high-school education" ...I find it interesting how many Farkers seem reluctant to even grant such a common sense answer for fear of some potential slippery slope scenario in which it might theoretically be abused. I didn't say a single word about denying anyone anything, but nearly every single Farker "filled in the gap" and jumped to some sort of "Jim Crow 2 electric bugaloo" scenario where none was presented.

Which is why it is so difficult to have a simple rational discussion on boards like Fark. Too many people to intent on "Gotcha!" to be able to say somenthing as simple as "Yes, I think it would be good if all voters had a high-school education. In fact, I would like all Americans period to have that education, so the point would be moot."



I don't know if it "proved" anything, but if it did, it re-affirmed my long running assesment that too many Farkers are distracted by the gamesmanship of internet posting to engage in a discussion. There are always a few exceptions, and it is those exceptions that I feel make all the noise worth putting up with.

I do not post on Fark to gain your (or anyone's) approval, and I notice that pointless though you think it was, you nonetheless felt the need to throw in your two cents worth, NOT to discuss the question, but to lob a few insults. I hope that you got what you wanted out of your posts.
 
2013-04-29 04:49:04 PM

Dinki: js34603: Well I'm sure those trends will continue when the Dems run a white person in 2016.

Black voter turnout was bigger because the GOP made a concerted effort to suppress the black vote, and the black community knew it. If the GOP makes the same mistake again, the color of the Democratic nominee will be irrelevant.


THIS. The Freepers (and other republicans) are too stupid to have made this mental connection - black people didn't vote for the black guy in 2008 and 2012, the voted for the democrat. A simple examination of voting patterns going back to FDR will prove this.
It will make no difference if the democrat candidate is orange with green spots, if the republicans keep farking up the way they have been, the black vote (and the LGBT vote and the hispanic vote and the female vote and the poor peoples vote and the young peoples vote and the student vote and etc etc etc) will continue to favor the democrats.

Republicans keep trying to change the sack, but it still contains the same old sh*t. The smell gives it away.
 
2013-04-29 04:50:54 PM

Dr Dreidel: What's informative is that the GOP appears to not understand how to talk to people that aren't already in the GOP and that despite having been - as recently as 25-30 years ago - the party of wonky, pointy-headed academics like Carnegie and Buckley.


AGREE, What is broken with the current GOP is less about political strategy and much, much more about a pronounced anti-intlellectualism. It is no longer the party of Buckley, Will and Reagan. It is the party of Palin, Limbaugh, and Bachman. Less about pragmatic, principled policy and replaced largely by ideological rigidity and blind, reactionary demogoguery.

Ugh.
 
2013-04-29 04:57:38 PM
BojanglesPaladin:

Which is why it is so difficult to have a simple rational discussion on boards like Fark. Too many people to intent on "Gotcha!" to be able to say somenthing as simple as "Yes, I think it would be good if all voters had a high-school education. In fact, I would like all Americans period to have that education, so the point would be moot."

Did...did I just learn something in bravery from a troll?
I think I've had enough internet for today...
 
2013-04-29 04:59:28 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: What's informative is that the GOP appears to not understand how to talk to people that aren't already in the GOP and that despite having been - as recently as 25-30 years ago - the party of wonky, pointy-headed academics like Carnegie and Buckley.

AGREE, What is broken with the current GOP is less about political strategy and much, much more about a pronounced anti-intlellectualism. It is no longer the party of Buckley, Will and Reagan. It is the party of Palin, Limbaugh, and Bachman. Less about pragmatic, principled policy and replaced largely by ideological rigidity and blind, reactionary demogoguery.

Ugh.


Hmm. . . And just how did they become the anti-intellectual party?

Oh right:  "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University," said some unknown Yale man.

/And Reagan?  Seriously?!
 
2013-04-29 05:04:15 PM

HighOnCraic: And Reagan? Seriously?!


Yes seriously. Why do you ask?

Do YOU think today's GOP would accomodate someone like Reagan? I mean the actual, pragmatic, worked across the aisle and accomodated opposition Reagan, not the selectively remembered idealized caricature that Coultier and other morons THINK was president in the 80s. The one who granted amnesty to immigrants for instance.
 
2013-04-29 05:06:11 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: r. Kilpatrick also took aim at the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the April 20, 1965 issue. "Must We Repeal the Constitution to Give the Negro the Vote?" he asked, accusing the bill's supporters of "perverting the Constitution." He thought certain blacks should be given the right to vote but notes, "Over most of this century, the great bulk of Southern Negroes have been genuinely unqualified for the franchise." He also defended segregation as rational for Southerners. "Segregation is a fact, and more than a fact; it is a state of mind. It lies in the Southern subconscious next to man's most elementary instincts, for self-preservation, for survival, for the untroubled continuation of a not intolerable way of life."
Mr. Buckley softened his position on civil rights in the 1960s but to a point that would still be intolerable for conservatives today. In a column written five months before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and called "The Issue at Selma," he called for giving blacks the vote but perhaps restricting the franchise to high school graduates. He sympathized with the Southern position writing, "In much of the South, what is so greatly feared is irresponsible, mobocratic rule, and it is a fear not easily dissipated, because it is well-grounded that if the entire Negro population in the South were suddenly given the vote, and were to use it as a bloc, and pursuant to directives handed down by some of the more demagogic leaders, chaos would ensue." He also warned of "a suddenly enfranchised, violently embittered Negro population which will take the vote and wield it as an instrument of vengeance, shaking down the walls of Jericho even to their foundations, and reawakening the terrible genocidal antagonisms that scarred the Southern psyche during the days of Reconstruction."

Aside from the archaic use of the word "negro" and time-period specific attitudes, could you articulate which parts of this you think are wrong? For instance, do you think it ...


He was definitely wrong to warn that giving blacks the vote would lead to "genocidal antagonisms," and he was wrong to use that kind of fear-mongering in his argument against the voting rights act.  Honestly, I thought most of that passage was so obviously wrong that no one but a bored contrarian would try to defend it.  Oh wait.
 
2013-04-29 05:11:00 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: And Reagan? Seriously?!

Yes seriously. Why do you ask?

Do YOU think today's GOP would accomodate someone like Reagan? I mean the actual, pragmatic, worked across the aisle and accomodated opposition Reagan, not the selectively remembered idealized caricature that Coultier and other morons THINK was president in the 80s. The one who granted amnesty to immigrants for instance.


Somehow Reagan doesn't leap to mind when I think of intellectual conservatives.  Sure, he was charming and folksy, but he was very much an "I know I'm right because I feel it my gut!" kinda guy.  "Facts are stupid things," yadda yadda yadda. . .  There are many who believe he'd begun suffering from Alzheimer's early in his second term.

Certainly George Will was spot on.
 
2013-04-29 05:13:52 PM

HighOnCraic: He was definitely wrong to warn that giving blacks the vote would lead to "genocidal antagonisms," and...

 

...
"Aside from the archaic use of the word "negro" and time-period specific attitudes, could you articulate which parts of this you think are wrong?

You sailed right over that part. And as we have gone over a few times now, (including the original post and your own subsequent posts) he listedTHIS specific position as something he was wrong about.

So no one is disputing - not even Buckley himself -  that there were wrong things in the quote. My question was about two items in there that were potentially CORRECT. By now, I think you do agree that it would be better if every voter had at least a high school education, and that the black vote has, in fact, become a solid bloc weilded by a single political party.

So I think we have come to a conclusion on that particular topic. Was there some OTHER aspect you wanted to cover?
 
2013-04-29 05:15:05 PM

BojanglesPaladin: someonelse: The whole exercise was entirely pointless.

I don't think so.  And if you had read the thread as you say, you would have seen this:

BojanglesPaladin: the question is simply "Is it wrong to want a voter to have a high-school education" ...I find it interesting how many Farkers seem reluctant to even grant such a common sense answer for fear of some potential slippery slope scenario in which it might theoretically be abused. I didn't say a single word about denying anyone anything, but nearly every single Farker "filled in the gap" and jumped to some sort of "Jim Crow 2 electric bugaloo" scenario where none was presented.

Which is why it is so difficult to have a simple rational discussion on boards like Fark. Too many people to intent on "Gotcha!" to be able to say somenthing as simple as "Yes, I think it would be good if all voters had a high-school education. In fact, I would like all Americans period to have that education, so the point would be moot."

I don't know if it "proved" anything, but if it did, it re-affirmed my long running assesment that too many Farkers are distracted by the gamesmanship of internet posting to engage in a discussion. There are always a few exceptions, and it is those exceptions that I feel make all the noise worth putting up with.

I do not post on Fark to gain your (or anyone's) approval, and I notice that pointless though you think it was, you nonetheless felt the need to throw in your two cents worth, NOT to discuss the question, but to lob a few insults. I hope that you got what you wanted out of your posts.


Yes, I saw that you repeatedly asked whether people SHOULD NEED a high school diploma to vote, and then made the bold statement that you thought it would be neat if everyone had one.
 
2013-04-29 05:16:02 PM

HighOnCraic: Somehow Reagan doesn't leap to mind when I think of intellectual conservatives. Sure, he was charming and folksy, but he was very much an "I know I'm right because I feel it my gut!" kinda guy.


I think, perhaps, you may also have your own selectively remembered idealized caricature of Reagan...

But I used the phrase "pragmatic, principled policy".
 
2013-04-29 05:17:23 PM

someonelse: Yes, I saw that you repeatedly asked whether people SHOULD NEED a high school diploma to vote, and then made the bold statement that you thought it would be neat if everyone had one.


Good. You are all caught up. Anything you wanted to add to the conversation?
 
2013-04-29 05:20:52 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Somehow Reagan doesn't leap to mind when I think of intellectual conservatives. Sure, he was charming and folksy, but he was very much an "I know I'm right because I feel it my gut!" kinda guy.

I think, perhaps, you may also have your own selectively remembered idealized caricature of Reagan...

But I used the phrase "pragmatic, principled policy".


Yeah, just like Reagan's son.

The younger Reagan recalls how his father became uncharacteristically lost for words and looked "lost and bewildered" during the 1984 presidential debates with Democratic rival Walter Mondale. He says his father may have suspected the onset of Alzheimer's in 1986 when he was flying over familiar canyons north of Los Angeles and became alarmed that he could no longer remember their names.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/15/reagan-had-alzheimers-as-_n _8 09473.html
 
2013-04-29 05:24:33 PM

HighOnCraic: Yeah, just like Reagan's son.


I'm sorry. I should have realized you were looking for an excuse to pull a "Regan had alzshiemer's!" clip from your cut-n-paste archive.

We get it. Reagan had alzheimers.

That is utterly and completely unrelated to the point about the GOP going off the rails into derp-dom.
 
2013-04-29 05:27:11 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: He was definitely wrong to warn that giving blacks the vote would lead to "genocidal antagonisms," and...  

...
"Aside from the archaic use of the word "negro" and time-period specific attitudes, could you articulate which parts of this you think are wrong?

You sailed right over that part. And as we have gone over a few times now, (including the original post and your own subsequent posts) he listedTHIS specific position as something he was wrong about.

So no one is disputing - not even Buckley himself -  that there were wrong things in the quote. My question was about two items in there that were potentially CORRECT. By now, I think you do agree that it would be better if every voter had at least a high school education, and that the black vote has, in fact, become a solid bloc weilded by a single political party.

So I think we have come to a conclusion on that particular topic. Was there some OTHER aspect you wanted to cover?


Fine, wave your hands and make the time-period specific attitudes disappear.  After all, nobody thinks like that anymore. . .

i.huffpost.com
 
2013-04-29 05:31:32 PM

Halli: BojanglesPaladin: Dr Dreidel: A different sort of "playing", but point taken.

Just curious. In your opinion, do you think that 50-60 years of near total voting allegience to the democratic party has been good for the African-American community on the whole?

So you really think they would have been better off voting for a party that has actively demonized them for the last 50 years?

Good luck with that Rand Paul.


Romney: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48-he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people-I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the 5 to 10 percent in the center that are independents that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other depending upon in some cases emotion, whether they like the guy or not, what it looks like. I mean, when you ask those people...we do all these polls-I find it amazing-we poll all these people, see where you stand on the polls, but 45 percent of the people will go with a Republican, and 48 or..."

...so vote for me!

Telling people to their faces that you don't like them will not encourage them to vote for you or your party, particularly if you've been doing it for several generations.
 
2013-04-29 05:32:06 PM
Glad subby agrees that requiring a photo ID does not suppress votes and we can make this a national requirement.  I love when Americans can agree on things.
 
2013-04-29 05:33:07 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Yeah, just like Reagan's son.

I'm sorry. I should have realized you were looking for an excuse to pull a "Regan had alzshiemer's!" clip from your cut-n-paste archive.

We get it. Reagan had alzheimers.

That is utterly and completely unrelated to the point about the GOP going off the rails into derp-dom.


I'd say that Reagan's reputation for relying on silly anecdotes helped lead the GOP off the rails.

From Murray Rothbard (by no means a liberal):

Sometimes, Reagan's retentive memory - important for an actor - gave his handlers trouble. Evidently lacking the capacity for reasoned thought, Reagan's mind is filled with anecdotes, most of them dead wrong, that he has soaked up over the years in the course of reading Reader's Digest or at idle conversation. Once an anecdote enters Reagan's noodle, it is set in concrete and impossible to correct or dislodge. (Consider, for example, the famous story about the "Chicago welfare queen": all wrong, but Reagan carried on regardless.)

In the early years of Reagan rule, the press busily checked out Reagan's beloved anecdotes, and found that almost every one of them was full of holes. But Reagan never veered from his course. Why? God knows there are plenty of correct stories about welfare cheats that he could have clasped to his bosom; why stick to false ones? Evidently, the reason is that Reagan cares little about reality; he lives in his own Hollywood fantasy world, a world of myth, a world in which it is always Morning in America, a world where The Flag is always flying, but where Welfare Cheats mar the contentment of the Land of Oz. So who cares if the actual story is wrong? Let it stand, like a Hollywood story, as a surrogate for the welfare cheats whom everyone knows do exist.

The degree to which Reagan is out of touch with reality was best demonstrated in his concentration camp story. This was not simply a slip of the tongue, a Bushian confusion of December with September. When the Premier of Israel visited Reagan at the White House, the President went on and on for three quarters of an hour explaining why he was pro-Jewish: it was because, being in the Signal Corps in World War II, he visited Buchenwald shortly after the Nazi defeat and helped to take films of that camp. Reagan repeated this story the following day to an Israeli ambassador. But the truth was 180-degrees different; Reagan was not in Europe; he never saw a concentration camp; he spent the entire war in the safety of Hollywood, making films for the armed forces.

Well, what are we to make of this incident? This little saga stayed in the back pages of the press. By that point the media had realized that virtually nothing - no fact, no dark deed - could ever stick to the Teflon President.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html
 
2013-04-29 05:34:22 PM

HighOnCraic: Fine, wave your hands and make the time-period specific attitudes disappear. After all, nobody thinks like that anymore. . .


I didn't say they disappeared. Those statements were related to a specific point in the civil rights struggle and are contextually within a society, culture and worldview that (thankfully) does not exist in the same way today. But since we all (including the man who said them) recognize them as being wrong, there is no point is debating them.

What, exactly, are you beating this horse for? As I said above, I think this sub-topic has been addressed.
 
2013-04-29 05:38:43 PM

HighOnCraic: From Murray Rothbard (by no means a liberal):


Again. I get that you want to dog on Reagan, and you have a whole slew of nifty cut-n-pastes ready to go. It's all very impressive, and all very irrlevant.
 
2013-04-29 05:40:28 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: Fine, wave your hands and make the time-period specific attitudes disappear. After all, nobody thinks like that anymore. . .

I didn't say they disappeared. Those statements were related to a specific point in the civil rights struggle and are contextually within a society, culture and worldview that (thankfully) does not exist in the same way today. But since we all (including the man who said them) recognize them as being wrong, there is no point is debating them.

What, exactly, are you beating this horse for? As I said above, I think this sub-topic has been addressed.


I'd say the issue of conservative attitudes about the voting rights act (and the supposed horrors its passage would lead to) is relevant to why black voters became such a reliable voting block for the Democratic Party.
 
2013-04-29 05:40:35 PM

Smelly McUgly: BojanglesPaladin: Smelly McUgly: Let's see, the Democrats got me the Civil Rights Act

Be sure to check the party membership of the viotes on that one.

LBJ (D-TX) calling in favors, twisting arms, and straight up intimidating fools to get people to vote for it gets my credit on that one.


He also caused a schism within his own party to pass it.
 
2013-04-29 05:43:45 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: From Murray Rothbard (by no means a liberal):

Again. I get that you want to dog on Reagan, and you have a whole slew of nifty cut-n-pastes ready to go. It's all very impressive, and all very irrlevant.


It's not so much that I want to dog on Reagan, I'm just surprised that you would bring him up as an example of an intellectual conservative, when most people on both sides of the aisle would strongly disagree.
 
2013-04-29 05:45:33 PM

jpo2269: Glad subby agrees that requiring a photo ID does not suppress votes and we can make this a national requirement.  I love when Americans can agree on things.


Huh?
 
2013-04-29 05:46:01 PM

HighOnCraic: I'd say the issue of conservative attitudes about the voting rights act (and the supposed horrors its passage would lead to) is relevant to why black voters became such a reliable voting block for the Democratic Party.


I don't think anyone is disputing that blacks don't vote Republican because they see the Republican as adverserial.  No one is arguing that the "Southern Strategy" didn't happen.
 
2013-04-29 05:48:51 PM

HighOnCraic: m just surprised that you would bring him up as an example of an intellectual conservative,


I did not say Reagan was an intellectual. I said the modern GOP is anti-intellectual.

Read up or more slowly. Again:

BojanglesPaladin: But I used the phrase "pragmatic, principled policy" to describe Reagan and others.

 
2013-04-29 05:51:46 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: I'd say the issue of conservative attitudes about the voting rights act (and the supposed horrors its passage would lead to) is relevant to why black voters became such a reliable voting block for the Democratic Party.

I don't think anyone is disputing that blacks don't vote Republican because they see the Republican as adverserial.  No one is arguing that the "Southern Strategy" didn't happen.


Not you personally, but I can pull up a bunch of citations of Republicans who actually have made that argument.  It's the main topic of Ann Coulter's latest book.  There's something on the National Review Online about Goldwater being a civil rights hero in Phoenix (never mind that he's the one who advised the GOP to "go hunting where the ducks are" in the early 60s).  It happens a lot here on Fark, as well.
 
2013-04-29 05:57:18 PM

HighOnCraic: I can pull up a bunch of citations of Republicans who actually have made that argument.


And I can pull up a bunch of citations of Democrats who actually advocate segregation.

I'm not at all interested in playing "dueling quotes of cut-n-paste".

I don't think there is anything being said here.
 
2013-04-29 06:03:02 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: I can pull up a bunch of citations of Republicans who actually have made that argument.

And I can pull up a bunch of citations of Democrats who actually advocate segregation.

I'm not at all interested in playing "dueling quotes of cut-n-paste".

I don't think there is anything being said here.


Sure you could. Except those comments would be from 1964.
 
2013-04-29 06:04:33 PM

Fart_Machine: Except those comments would be from 1964.


Many of the ones from HoC have been. Did you have a point?
 
2013-04-29 06:08:10 PM

HighOnCraic: Evidently, the reason is that Reagan cares little about reality; he lives in his own Hollywood fantasy world, a world of myth, a world in which it is always Morning in America, a world where The Flag is always flying, but where Welfare Cheats mar the contentment of the Land of Oz. So who cares if the actual story is wrong? Let it stand, like a Hollywood story, as a surrogate for the welfare cheats whom everyone knows do exist.



Having been through the 80's myself ( I was in my 20's) after the crap that came down in the 70's with the death of disco, the Watergate scandal and Nixon/Agnew, the gas crisis and the rise of Middle East power, and Jimmy Carter truthfully telling them that they had better get their sh*t together, too many americans just wanted to "feel good" again. That feel-good-ism was embodied in the person and the PR of one Ronald Wilson Reagan, a b-movie actor who knew just what lines to say and more importantly how to say them.
As you point out with the "morning in America" campaign, which contains no concrete statements of policy but wheat fields and tractors and flags and well-scrubbed white people and sunrises a-plenty, that is what those americans wanted... that hollywoodized idea of what they thought this country should be.
A country like they remembered, or at least thought they did. Little did they realize who was really pulling the strings.
 
2013-04-29 06:10:10 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Fart_Machine: Except those comments would be from 1964.

Many of the ones from HoC have been. Did you have a point?


My citations would be from this year.
 
2013-04-29 06:14:48 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Fart_Machine: Except those comments would be from 1964.

Many of the ones from HoC have been. Did you have a point?


Democrats comment in favor of segregation during the 60s. Republicans in denial the Southern Strategy ever took place - today. Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad.
 
2013-04-29 06:15:59 PM

HighOnCraic: No one is arguing that the "Southern Strategy" didn't happen.


As a side note, I think that there is a valid argument to be made that the shift was not entirely due to the "Southern Strategy". As a reaction to, or symbiotic with, the attempts of the GOP to pull Southern conservatives, the DNC also engaged in a systematic effort to form a coalition of the miniorites with specific outreaches to minorities, special interest groups like the gays, intellectual liberals, etc. on the (correct) premise that enough small groups combined with a section of the majority white vote would be enough to maintian (and regain) control. Even if the GOP was able to pull away a significant portion of their previous reliable southern base.

This strategy had a side effect of accelerating the shift. Even into the 80s, much of the south was still firmly democrat. But as the 80s and 90s passed, the DNCs own percieved open embracing of gay agenda platforms, sometime apparant disdain and hostility toward evengelicals, and decided pro-abortion stance, "urban" centered policy, rampant social spending, etc.  and a variety of other "wedge issues" began to drive away some of the DNC base as surely as the GOP was trying to attract them.

The DNC calculated that they needed the high-density urban and more liberal/prigressive populations more than they need the "fly-over state" voters, and seemed willing to let the questionably loyal bible belt go in order to secure the full loyalty of a coalition of smaller blocs.
 
2013-04-29 06:17:54 PM

HighOnCraic: My citations would be from this year.


Buckly has been dead for a long time, and the quote was from the CRA era.

Fart_Machine: Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad.


I don't think I made that comparison.
 
2013-04-29 06:19:05 PM
I'm done for the day.

You two guys should be able to carry on fine without me.
 
2013-04-29 06:23:32 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: My citations would be from this year.

Buckly has been dead for a long time, and the quote was from the CRA era.

Fart_Machine: Your comparison is bad and you should feel bad.

I don't think I made that comparison.


My quotes of Republicans denying the Southern Strategy would be from this year (and last year, when Coulter's latest book came out.  There's an article on NRO, published today, that describes Goldwater's efforts to end segregation at the local level, while ignoring his opposition the Warren Court's decision to end segregation through Federal action (in his chapter on civil rights in "The Conscience of a Conservative").

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/346861/desegregation-brown
 
2013-04-29 07:31:05 PM

BojanglesPaladin: HighOnCraic: ...In a column written five months before the passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and called "The Issue at Selma," he called for giving blacks the vote but perhaps restricting the franchise to high school graduates.

...could you articulate which parts of this you think are wrong?

For instance, do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?

Buckley wasn't merely advocating for voters having a high school education as a matter of principle, but as a matter of law. You cannot divorce Buckley's argument from its legal implication, because the entire purpose of Buckley's argument rested on it being a legal matter, not one to simply banter about over tea.

In the previous election the GOP in the states used laws to try to prevent voting from demographics that would most likely vote for the Democratic Party. They weren't arguing positions in the abstract, they were passing laws.

Also, I answered your question previously and you didn't bother to address it. So here it is again:

DeArmondVI: I am of the opinion that our civics education in the country is awful and needs to be improved, and we would all benefit from more people finishing school.

Ultimately, however, the uneducated should have just as many rights as the educated.

 
2013-04-29 09:47:04 PM
www.my-english-courses.com
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-04-29 09:49:04 PM
s-ak.buzzfed.com
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-29 09:52:41 PM
uploads.neatorama.com
 
2013-04-29 10:44:37 PM

Peki: What's really funny is the hard line against education after this. The story I heard (DNRTFA, so I didn't get it there), was that black churches in Florida basically stood on the sidewalk and taught every single black person they could find the laws, so that any black person on the street could quote you section and chapter of the laws, what "voter ID" they actually needed, when to vote, how to vote, so on and so forth. They ended up turning the black population in Florida into the most electorally educated population in the U.S.

Any surprise at all the calls about elitist education? The underclass might start thinking for themselves.


Republicans are strange creatures who exist in a world where they think they're the best people around.  For this illusion to work, the other has to be stupid until they are needed to be a threat.  As such, Republicans wildly underestimate their opponents by nature.  Combine this with their true lack of party stances and meaning (what do they stand for besides being a dumping pot for milquetoast Klan members, again?) and reliance on constant propaganda and you have one hell of a recipe for disaster:  a party that is rabid, illogical, uncompromising, and immensely stupid to the point of comedy.

And you can see with your example, this is why they're empowering minorities of all sorts to take to battle.  The Republicans fail to grasp that they do scare people into action.  Now, it just happens that they scare people to vote against them.
 
2013-04-30 01:23:41 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: And do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: So? Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: So? Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to at least have a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: So, is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: Do you think it is wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: Simple question: Is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high-school education?


BojanglesPaladin: DeArmondVI: Are you seriously suggesting that someone who works for a living and pays taxes, but doesn't have a HS diploma, has no right to a voice in elections?

No. Where did I say any such thing?


BojanglesPaladin: Do you thinik it is wrong to want a voter to have a high school education?


BojanglesPaladin: someonelse: Yes, I saw that you repeatedly asked whether people SHOULD NEED a high school diploma to vote, and then made the bold statement that you thought it would be neat if everyone had one.

Good. You are all caught up. Anything you wanted to add to the conversation?


10/10

Main Entry: broken record Part of Speech: n Definition: someone or something that annoyingly repeats itself, as a vinyl record with a scratch Example: You are starting to sound like a broken record. Etymology: 1940
 
2013-04-30 11:45:31 AM

DeArmondVI: You cannot divorce Buckley's argument from its legal implication, because the entire purpose of Buckley's argument rested on it being a legal matter, not one to simply banter about over tea.


Sure I can. That's what I did. I am not Buckley, nor is anyone here, and I specifically stated that I had no desire to re-hash obsolete arguments made in a different time that the author himself states were in error. I simply used the reference to his statements as a jumping off point to discuss the idea that we should want an educated constituancy.

 

MacWizard: Main Entry: broken record Part of Speech: n Definition: someone or something that annoyingly repeats itself, as a vinyl record with a scratch Example: You are starting to sound like a broken record. Etymology: 1940


I had to keep repeating the exact question specifically because so many people kept trying to 'translate' it into some sort of requirement, where none was stipulated. All that quoting and you missed a key one (ALSO repeated many times since some Farkers like you kept missing it:

BojanglesPaladin: Implementation aside, the question is simply "Is it wrong to want a voter to have a high-school education" ...I find it interesting how many Farkers seem reluctant to even grant such a common sense answer for fear of some potential slippery slope scenario in which it might theoretically be abused. I didn't say a single word about denying anyone anything, but nearly every single Farker "filled in the gap" and jumped to some sort of "Jim Crow 2 electric bugaloo" scenario where none was presented.

 
2013-04-30 01:45:19 PM
So, is it wrong to want a voter to have at least a high school education?

YES. good lord. yes.
 
2013-04-30 03:01:06 PM

LookForTheArrow: YES. good lord. yes.


OUt of curiosity, Why would you NOT want a voter to have at least a basic education?
 
2013-04-30 04:11:34 PM
because a citizen is a citizen and no one gets to "bless" them into their citizenship as an adult in this country, least of all, local government.
 
2013-04-30 04:36:42 PM

BojanglesPaladin: LookForTheArrow: YES. good lord. yes.

OUt of curiosity, Why would you NOT want a voter to have at least a basic education?


DeArmondVI: Also, I answered your question previously and you didn't bother to address it. So here it is again:

DeArmondVI: I am of the opinion that our civics education in the country is awful and needs to be improved, and we would all benefit from more people finishing school.

Ultimately, however, the uneducated should have just as many rights as the educated.


I see that you moved your goal post from "high school" to "basic education." Bravo, sir.

Since you clearly have no interest in actually enganging me on the answer I gave to your "concerned" question (thrice now), all I can say is:

10/10
 
2013-04-30 05:39:24 PM

DeArmondVI: Since you clearly have no interest in actually enganging me on the answer I gave to your "concerned" question (thrice now), all I can say is:


Yeah, I can't figure it out.

We all want everyone to have an high school degree, we just don't want it to be a requirement of voting. It seems like he's trying to get someone to say "No, I don't want voters educated" or some shiat like that so then he can go "A-ha!"

Only no one took the bait the way he wanted.

/if you go fishing for tuna, but only get salmon, are you a 10/10 troll?
 
2013-04-30 06:31:56 PM

DeArmondVI: I see that you moved your goal post from "high school" to "basic education."


Not really. I think most people consider a high school education to be basic education. Perhaps you consider grade school to be enough, but generally speaking, a high school diploma or equivelancy is regarded as 'minimum education' nowadays.

DeArmondVI: I am of the opinion that our civics education in the country is awful and needs to be improved, and we would all benefit from more people finishing school. Ultimately, however, the uneducated should have just as many rights as the educated.

---Since you clearly have no interest in actually enganging me on the answer I gave


I apologize, lotta posters on this one. I thought I HAD responded to both of your points when I said:

BojanglesPaladin: Too many people to intent on "Gotcha!" to be able to say somenthing as simple as "Yes, I think it would be good if all voters had a high-school education. In fact, I would like all Americans period to have that education, so the point would be moot."


BojanglesPaladin: I didn't say a single word about denying anyone anything, but nearly every single Farker "filled in the gap" and jumped to some sort of "Jim Crow 2 electric bugaloo" scenario where none was presented.



I'm sorry if I didn't specifically address you, but I have posted this more than THRICE.
 
2013-04-30 06:37:54 PM

Peki: It seems like he's trying to get someone to say "No, I don't want voters educated" or some shiat like that so then he can go "A-ha!"


Pretty much the exact opposite of that really. Most of this thread was just me repeatedly saying "Nooo.... I am NOT asking for a voting requirement, just saying that surely we can all agree that it is a good and desirable thing for voters to have at least a high school education".

But you just provided an excellent example of exactly what I was talking about:

BojanglesPaladin: I find it interesting how many Farkers seem reluctant to even grant such a common sense answer for fear of some potential slippery slope scenario in which it might theoretically be abused...Which is why it is so difficult to have a simple rational discussion on boards like Fark. Too many people to intent on "Gotcha!" to be able to say somenthing as simple as "Yes, I think it would be good if all voters had a high-school education.

 
2013-04-30 09:17:41 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Peki: It seems like he's trying to get someone to say "No, I don't want voters educated" or some shiat like that so then he can go "A-ha!"

Pretty much the exact opposite of that really. Most of this thread was just me repeatedly saying "Nooo.... I am NOT asking for a voting requirement, just saying that surely we can all agree that it is a good and desirable thing for voters to have at least a high school education".

But you just provided an excellent example of exactly what I was talking about:

BojanglesPaladin: I find it interesting how many Farkers seem reluctant to even grant such a common sense answer for fear of some potential slippery slope scenario in which it might theoretically be abused...Which is why it is so difficult to have a simple rational discussion on boards like Fark. Too many people to intent on "Gotcha!" to be able to say somenthing as simple as "Yes, I think it would be good if all voters had a high-school education.



and yet I did answer you in a very concise way that belies the concept that school education == responsible citizenry.  In fact, even illiterate folk are pretty damned smart, and are quite aware of "people problems"..

but you dont really care about that, huh? You just want to get a "libs! libs! libs!" to say they want an "educated voter" so you can spooge off about how voter ID will ensure that.

you're a piece of work, ogre

/trolls do it for entertainment, ogres do it to manipulate
 
2013-04-30 09:31:43 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Peki: It seems like he's trying to get someone to say "No, I don't want voters educated" or some shiat like that so then he can go "A-ha!"

Pretty much the exact opposite of that really. Most of this thread was just me repeatedly saying "Nooo.... I am NOT asking for a voting requirement, just saying that surely we can all agree that it is a good and desirable thing for voters to have at least a high school education".

But you just provided an excellent example of exactly what I was talking about:

BojanglesPaladin: I find it interesting how many Farkers seem reluctant to even grant such a common sense answer for fear of some potential slippery slope scenario in which it might theoretically be abused...Which is why it is so difficult to have a simple rational discussion on boards like Fark. Too many people to intent on "Gotcha!" to be able to say somenthing as simple as "Yes, I think it would be good if all voters had a high-school education.


That's where you lost it though. You're tying voting to education. Look at these two sentences:

All humans should have a high-school education.
All voters should have a high-school education.

One sounds like a great humanitarian goal, the second sounds like the start to an elitist democracy argument. In truth, they are very similar statements, but the impact, context, and subtext are vastly different.
 
2013-04-30 11:29:32 PM
Is it time for the Alt shift change?

Both of you, I've said what I mean, and I've repeated it many times. Saying I'm saying something different  that you want to hear, or think you hear, or need to hear so you have something to fight about may be entertaining for you, but it boors me. This horse is dead, buried and rotting.

So save the pixels with the baiting and insulting posts. No slap-fighting fit me tonight.
 
Displayed 238 of 238 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report