Democrats playing race card

[Tgo01]

Even NPR sees it. NPR! (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/04/18/304571750/are-democrats-trying-to-energize-the-base-with-the-race-card)

[Jeril]

They left out something, it doesn't just get the minorities to vote it also affects the white guilt crowd. They paint the GOP as people who hate minorities and thus they are the 'bad guys', and no one wants to be or wants to side with the 'bad guys'. Thond said it somewhere and it is often a shame, Republicans usually are better when it comes to financial matters and things of that nature, while Democrats are better about the social issues. What this means is that it is incredibly hard for us to have the best of both worlds which is something we should be working towards.

[cwolff]

I love it. Fight Fire with Fire. Put it out there OB and call these fucks out on their new age southern strategy.


Few mixtures in American life are more emotionally combustible than the one formed by the combination of politics and race.

That helps explain why Democrats, in general, and President Obama, in particular, have tended to steer clear of overtly raising race as an issue to explain some of the opposition to Obama's presidency and agenda.

There seems to be a shift in recent days, however.

[Tgo01]

Me: "Hey gais! Here's an article describing how Democrats are playing the race card to rile up their base so they can get reelected on emotions instead of on the issues!"

cwolff: "I love it! That's how it should be done! Fuck the issues! This is all about race!"

[Warriorbird]

I hear that Republicans have never riled up the base with emotions rather than issues.

[Parkbandit]

Me: "Hey gais! Here's an article describing how Democrats are playing the race card to rile up their base so they can get reelected on emotions instead of on the issues!"

cwolff: "I love it! That's how it should be done! Fuck the issues! This is all about race!"

WB: Republicans do it too!!

Fixed that for you.

[Tgo01]

I hear that Republicans have never riled up the base with emotions rather than issues.

I heard that too!

[Warriorbird]

I heard that too!

You just get bothered, as do most Republicans, when the Democrats use your playbook.

[cwolff]

Me: "Hey gais! Here's an article describing how Democrats are playing the race card to rile up their base so they can get reelected on emotions instead of on the issues!"

cwolff: "I love it! That's how it should be done! Fuck the issues! This is all about race!"

Oh no buddy. That's not it at all. I'm saying that if Obama thinks folks are fighting him with race he should point it out. Don't keep it in just to be polite. Get out there and Testify.

[Taernath]

Even NPR sees it. NPR! (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/04/18/304571750/are-democrats-trying-to-energize-the-base-with-the-race-card)

Holy shit, my blood went cold when I saw Al Sharpton with the "attorney general" placecard in front of him.

[cwolff]

Here's another snippet from the article TG posted. I fucking love this! Good Job Barry, get out the vote. Remind people what was fought for and what the GOP is trying to take away.


"You think about Brown v. Board of Education, and the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and Freedom Summer," Obama said. "And with those anniversaries, we have new reason to remember those who made it possible for us to be here." He mentioned three civil rights workers who became famous after they were killed registering Mississippi blacks to vote.

"James Chaney and Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner believed so strongly that change was possible they were willing to lay down their lives for it," Obama said. "The least you can do is take them up on the gift that they have given you. Go out there and vote. You can make a change. You do have the power."

"People died so you can vote" is a powerful emotional appeal. Come November, we'll see if it was powerful enough.

[Warriorbird]

While I think this stuff is usually to stir up the rabid, Tgo01, what party arranged for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to get partially struck down again?

[Tgo01]

Holy shit, my blood went cold when I saw Al Sharpton with the "attorney general" placecard in front of him.

It's because he's black, isn't it?


Here's another snippet from the article TG posted. I fucking love this! Good Job Barry, get out the vote. Remind people what was fought for and what the GOP is trying to take away.

It's almost as if cwolff doesn't understand the purpose of this article.


While I think this stuff is usually to stir up the rabid, Tgo01, what party arranged for the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to get partially struck down again?

You mean the part where only some states had to get federal permission before they changed the way they did things?

[Jeril]

And of course both sides use emotion to get you to vote, they don't want you to start actually thinking about things.

[cwolff]

It's almost as if cwolff doesn't understand the purpose of this article.

I'm just not seeing the phrase Race Card and jumping to negative connotations. Call it what you like, but I love that Obama's speaking his mind on this. Sure it sells articles, but i like to read the body of the piece and I'm finding some great news in it. Thanks again for posting this.

[Tgo01]

And of course both sides use emotion to get you to vote, they don't want you to start actually thinking about things.

I try not to think. I once did an internal survey and found that my skins per hour in GS took a significant hit if I ever started to think.


I'm just not seeing the phrase Race Card and jumping to negative connotations. Call it what you like, but I love that Obama's speaking his mind on this. Sure it sells articles, but i like to read the body of the piece and I'm finding some great news in it. Thanks again for posting this.

Remember folks, cwolff claims to be a centrist. Almost as funny as Latrin claiming to be a Republican. Almost.

[Jeril]

I try not to think. I once did an internal survey and found that my skins per hour in GS took a significant hit if I ever started to think.

How does that work exactly when you script it all anyway? Or do you pause those while you contemplate the morality of what you are doing?

[Tgo01]

How does that work exactly when you script it all anyway? Or do you pause those while you contemplate the morality of what you are doing?

Yes.

[Warriorbird]

You mean the part where only some states had to get federal permission before they changed the way they did things?

Now why exactly would that be? They've certainly done their best to prove that it should be that way too.

[Tgo01]

Now why exactly would that be? They've certainly done their best to prove that it should be that way too.

Because states are people too! Why do you want to treat certain states differently than other states? Would you treat your children differently? No.

It was stupid to begin with. If the federal government really wanted to help protect minorities while at the same time wanting to appear "fair" they should have required every state to seek their permission before they changed their voting laws. The fact that they didn't do this and that Democrats didn't fight to make this the case just shows that Democrats wanted to retain control over red states while they were in power.

That's racist.

[cwolff]

More from the article. Thank Friggin' (insert FoM deity here) someone's out there making these points.


The Democrats' use of voting rights strikes the same chord. Voting rights and race have been so inextricably linked in the nation's history, and in the African-American experience, that Obama can send a resonant message to many minority voters without ever explicitly mentioning race.

He did exactly that when he spoke to the same Sharpton group as Holder, a few days after the attorney general.

Obama portrayed Republican voter ID efforts as attempts to undo civil and voting rights protections enacted during the Johnson administration — protections won at the price of blood.

Not to put a fine point on it but even NPR is saying that the nationwide GOP attack on voting rights is a defacto attack on minorities.

[Tgo01]

Is cwolff really the only person on the PC who doesn't understand what's going on in this article?

[Warriorbird]

Because states are people too! Why do you want to treat certain states differently than other states? Would you treat your children differently? No.

It was stupid to begin with. If the federal government really wanted to help protect minorities while at the same time wanting to appear "fair" they should have required every state to seek their permission before they changed their voting laws. The fact that they didn't do this and that Democrats didn't fight to make this the case just shows that Democrats wanted to retain control over red states while they were in power.

That's racist.

It mighta had a teensy bit to do with state actions. They've certainly justified it with their actions after removal too.

[Tgo01]

It mighta had a teensy bit to do with state actions. They've certainly justified it with their actions after removal too.

Simple solution. Make all states require federal permission before they change things. Or would that possibly give Republicans power over blue states when they are in charge and that would be bad? :O

[cwolff]

Is cwolff really the only person on the PC who doesn't understand what's going on in this article?

This is what's happening in the article. I'll break it down for you but they do tell you about in the first few sentences.


Democrats, in general, and President Obama, in particular, have tended to steer clear of overtly raising race as an issue to explain some of the opposition to Obama's presidency and agenda.

There seems to be a shift in recent days, however.

So what's going in this article is that Dems and Obama avoided talking about race because it's such a hot-button issue. Going forward, it seems (at least according to NPR) they will now address racism clearly and openly. That's good news for all of us. No more dog whistle bullshit.

[Taernath]

It's because he's black, isn't it?

Yes, of course. The day we get a black attorney general is the day I'm leaving for Canadia.

[Warriorbird]

Simple solution. Make all states require federal permission before they change things. Or would that possibly give Republicans power over blue states when they are in charge and that would be bad? :O

You really are entirely unaware of history. Its adorable.

[Tgo01]

You really are entirely unaware of history. Its adorable.

Are you suggesting things are anywhere near as bad now as they were 50 years ago? Are you also saying that any state that didn't previously require federal permission couldn't have started doing bad things in regards to voting laws?

Otherwise you aren't making much sense.

[Warriorbird]

Are you suggesting things are anywhere near as bad now as they were 50 years ago? Are you also saying that any state that didn't previously require federal permission couldn't have started doing bad things in regards to voting laws?

Otherwise you aren't making much sense.

When a floodgate of racially motivated legislation immediately poured forth your perceived higher moral ground isn't so high. I know it's not actual racism, just politics. It'd be complete and total idiocy for the Democrats not to use it in turn.

[Tgo01]

When a floodgate of racially motivated legislation immediately poured forth

Examples? I would consider a floodgate to be worth at least 20 examples.

[Warriorbird]

Examples? I would consider a floodgate to be worth at least 20 examples.

Since you're unaware of history you I'm also unsurprised that you're unaware of modern times. Here's a map because you probably like pictures. There's many more.

http://www.propublica.org/article/voting-rights-by-state-map

[cwolff]

Examples? I would consider a floodgate to be worth at least 20 examples.

Here's (http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2013-voting-laws-roundup) 92.


Since the beginning of 2013, and as of December 18, 2013, restrictive voting bills have been introduced in more than half the states:

At least 92 restrictive bills were introduced in 33 states.
Of those, 13 restrictive bills are still pending in 5 states.
Of those, 5 restrictive bills are currently active in 2 states, [1] in that there has been legislative activity beyond introduction and referral to committee (such as hearings, committee activity, or votes).
8 states have already passed 9 restrictive bills this session.

[Wrathbringer]

Me: "Hey gais! Here's an article describing how Democrats are playing the race card to rile up their base so they can get reelected on emotions instead of on the issues!"

cwolff: "I love it! That's how it should be done! Fuck the issues! This is all about race!"

Lol

[Warriorbird]

Here's (http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2013-voting-laws-roundup) 92.

He doesn't want to do all that reading. Pictures! Pictures!

[Jarvan]

Is cwolff really the only person on the PC who doesn't understand what's going on in this article?

I came to the conclusion that Cwolff isn't really. He is just a bot made by the Liberal left to promote it's views. For a moderate, he believes every single thing the left tells him.

[cwolff]

He doesn't want to do all that reading. Pictures! Pictures!

Ok, we'll try this one.

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/images/Restrictive_Voting_2013.jpg

[Warriorbird]

I came to the conclusion that Cwolff isn't really. He is just a bot made by the Liberal left to promote it's views. For a moderate, he believes every single thing the left tells him.

Remember when you claimed to be Independent?


Ok, we'll try this one.

http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/images/Restrictive_Voting_2013.jpg

It is the simplified version of what was in my article. Maybe he'll even look at it.

[cwolff]

I came to the conclusion that Cwolff isn't really. He is just a bot made by the Liberal left to promote it's views. For a moderate, he believes every single thing the left tells him.

I'm not surprised. All of your conclusions are false. Why should expect anything different in this thread.

[Tgo01]

Since you're unaware of history you I'm also unsurprised that you're unaware of modern times. Here's a map because you probably like pictures. There's many more.

http://www.propublica.org/article/voting-rights-by-state-map

Ah we're the playing the Democratic song of "If ANY red state changes their voting laws it's automatically racist!!!!"


Here's (http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2013-voting-laws-roundup) 92.

At least 92 restrictive bills were introduced in 33 states.

Hey cwolff, I wonder if you realize you just totally destroyed both yours and WB's argument? You do realize the preclearance part of the voting rights act only affected nine entire states and parts of seven other states, right? Let's see...9+7 = 16...33 states introduced "restrictive" bills...33-16 = 17...that means at least 17 states that were never affected by the preclearance voting rights act introduced "restrictive" voting laws.

But wait, it's only racist when those nine (16) states did it and it's totally cool when any other state does it.

It's like I don't even have to try anymore around here :(

[Warriorbird]

Ah we're the playing the Democratic song of "If ANY red state changes their voting laws it's automatically racist!!!!"



Hey cwolff, I wonder if you realize you just totally destroyed both yours and WB's argument? You do realize the preclearance part of the voting rights act only affected nine entire states and parts of seven other states, right? Let's see...9+7 = 16...33 states introduced "restrictive" bills...33-16 = 17...that means at least 17 states that were never affected by the preclearance voting rights act introduced "restrictive" voting laws.

But wait, it's only racist when those nine (16) states did it and it's totally cool when any other state does it.

It's like I don't even have to try anymore around here :(

I knew you wouldn't actually read it. Newsflash for you. I don't actually think any of this IS racist by the Republican Party. It's designed to target minorities, but only because they want votes. On the other hand, and there's more than enough in just pre clearance states, as what I linked shows, it's precisely what the act existed to prevent.

[cwolff]

Hey cwolff, I wonder if you realize you just totally destroyed both yours and WB's argument? You do realize the preclearance part of the voting rights act only affected nine entire states and parts of seven other states, right? Let's see...9+7 = 16...33 states introduced "restrictive" bills...33-16 = 17...that means at least 17 states that were never affected by the preclearance voting rights act introduced "restrictive" voting laws.

But wait, it's only racist when those nine (16) states did it and it's totally cool when any other state does it.

It's like I don't even have to try anymore around here :(

You don't have to try if you want to be wrong, which, let's face it, that's really your comfort zone. The GOP's pushing it across the country. That's why they brought the challenge to the Voting Rights Act in much the same way Hobby Lobby brought the abortaficient SCOTUS case to attack ACA.

[Tgo01]

I knew you wouldn't actually read it. Newsflash for you. I don't actually think any of this IS racist by the Republican Party. It's designed to target minorities, but only because they want votes. On the other hand, and there's more than enough in just pre clearance states, as what I linked shows, it's precisely what the act existed to prevent.

But you said this supreme court ruling led to a flood of these types of laws yet as cwolff so kindly points out at least half of the states these laws were introduced in were never affected by the preclearance voting rights act so...I mean...what?


You don't have to try if you want to be wrong, which, let's face it, that's really your comfort zone. The GOP's pushing it across the country. That's why they brought the challenge to the Voting Rights Act in much the same way Hobby Lobby brought the abortaficient SCOTUS case to attack ACA.

Let's recap again.

Me: "The preclearance part of the voting rights act was stupid because it didn't require all states to seek federal approval."
cwolff: "That's because without it those racist states would have passed racist laws! SEE!"
Me: "But at least half of those states were never affected by the voting rights act."
cwolff: "You just don't get it, do you!"
Me: "Let's recap."
cwolff (in a future post in this thread): "Social Security will never become insolvent!"

[Warriorbird]

But you said this supreme court ruling led to a flood of these types of laws yet as cwolff so kindly points out at least half of the states these laws were introduced in were never affected by the preclearance voting rights act so...I mean...what?

Let me know when he posts for me. Just because a trend happens across the country doesn't mean that laws that the Voting Rights Act were meant to protect against almost immediately were proposed in the effected states. That they happened elsewhere too suggests that the law should have been broader to begin with.

[Tgo01]

That they happened elsewhere too suggests that the law should have been broader to begin with.


It was stupid to begin with. If the federal government really wanted to help protect minorities while at the same time wanting to appear "fair" they should have required every state to seek their permission before they changed their voting laws.


Simple solution. Make all states require federal permission before they change things.

.

[Warriorbird]

.

Note your quotes around fair. You don't believe it. You're also still pretending there wasn't a reason the law was put on those states and that they didn't turn around to do what it meant to prevent.

[Tgo01]

Note your quotes around fair.

My quotes were around fair because they only subjected certain states to these extra laws.


You're also still pretending there wasn't a reason the law was put on those states and that they didn't turn around to do what it meant to prevent.

No I'm pretending that it was stupid to only subject certain states to these laws for over 50 years while pretending the rest of the country was some sort of racial harmony bliss.

[cwolff]

It's a shame. I don't mind stiff competition and strong arm politics. It makes for a healthy system. Working to disenfranchise people who are already vote in low percentages is disgusting.

Either double down on your ideas and get the vote through tenacity of message or get some new ideas.

[Warriorbird]

My quotes were around fair because they only subjected certain states to these extra laws.



No I'm pretending that it was stupid to only subject certain states to these laws for over 50 years while pretending the rest of the country was some sort of racial harmony bliss.

So you're saying that the idea of the law was good but it was good to strike it down because it should've been broader. Got it. I mean it wasn't like one part of the country disenfranchised more people then or anything. We should be free to disenfranchise as many people as possible now and those mean nasty Democrats shouldn't suggest that it might kind of appear racist to get their party to donate and vote.

[cwolff]

My quotes were around fair because they only subjected certain states to these extra laws.

No I'm pretending that it was stupid to only subject certain states to these laws for over 50 years while pretending the rest of the country was some sort of racial harmony bliss.

They've been on the honor system for the past 50 years while those 9 had already demonstrated that we couldn't trust them. It turns out that maybe we shouldn't have trusted all the states. Then again, they are just composed of citizens and as we know racism isn't bound by geographic boundaries. There are racists everywhere. I just didn't expect the right to seize on it for short term election gains. It's like the GOP led states are all in a race to see who can sink to lowest levels.

[Tgo01]

So you're saying that the idea of the law was good but it was good to strike it down because it should've been broader. Got it.

Hey, Democrats had decades to try to make the law broader. Maybe the supreme court wouldn't have struck it down if it was broader. But Democrats love having power over Republicans as long as Republicans have no power over Democrats. Am I right?

[Warriorbird]

Hey, Democrats had decades to try to make the law broader. Maybe the supreme court wouldn't have struck it down if it was broader. But Democrats love having power over Republicans as long as Republicans have no power over Democrats. Am I right?

It's cool when you believe that this isn't just about votes.

[cwolff]

Hey, Democrats had decades to try to make the law broader. Maybe the supreme court wouldn't have struck it down if it was broader. But Democrats love having power over Republicans as long as Republicans have no power over Democrats. Am I right?

You're right. If anyone had any idea that the GOP would actually go this route we could have pre-emptively addressed. Frankly, I think most people who understand what this is about are shocked. Who would have thought that we had to protect people from this type of stuff in 2014. I certainly never did.

[Candor]

It's cool when you believe that this isn't just about votes.

As I have stated, I believe there are extremists in both major parties that are far more interested in winning elections than in ensuring that the elections are run fairly. The Republicans just get more press on the subject.

[Warriorbird]

As I have stated, I believe there are extremists in both major parties that are far more interested in winning elections than in ensuring that the elections are run fairly. The Republicans just get more press on the subject.

I tend to agree. Some crazy stuff went down in the Democratic parts of Louisiana while I was down there.