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 41
    More: Interesting, GOP, obama, Michael McDonald, white people  
•       •       •

1323 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-29 11:50:36 AM  
10 votes:
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 12:03:10 PM  
8 votes:

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 12:09:45 PM  
4 votes:

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 12:33:52 PM  
3 votes:
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 12:02:26 PM  
3 votes:
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 11:57:34 AM  
3 votes:
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 02:12:23 PM  
2 votes:

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 12:23:51 PM  
2 votes:
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 11:57:24 AM  
2 votes:
Can you imagine how many would have voted if we hadn't suppressed them?
2013-04-29 11:57:01 AM  
2 votes:

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 05:43:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:04:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:50:54 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:49:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:53:14 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:46:02 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:43:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:21:32 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:08:04 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:04:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:38:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:30:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:30:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:22:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:37:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:26:16 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:57:38 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:48:59 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:37:12 PM  
1 votes:
2013-04-29 12:34:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:32:50 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:31:36 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:24:50 PM  
1 votes:
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 12:24:39 PM  
1 votes:
i39.tinypic.com
2013-04-29 12:24:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:00:30 PM  
1 votes:
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 11:59:16 AM  
1 votes:
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 11:59:00 AM  
1 votes:
Saul Alinsky.
2013-04-29 11:54:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:38:41 AM  
1 votes:
www.usefulidiots.net
2013-04-29 11:23:29 AM  
1 votes:
*Nelson laugh*
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report