Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, GOP, obama, Michael McDonald, white people  
•       •       •

1428 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2013 at 11:52 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 238 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report