But that’s not my question. My question is about the white supremacist influence within the Republican party. Do you believe that it’s virtually nothing, and these accusations against the NC legislators are false? Or do you believe that they are extreme outliers, and virtually no other Republican legislators feel the same way? Or if you believe it’s significant, how does it make you feel as someone who generally supports this party? Do you agree with Martin Hyde’s characterization of the party?
I ask because I’m incredibly curious about how decent people who nonetheless support a party that I believe to be significantly infected by white supremacism feel about it. I’m not trying to pick on you or needle you. I love America and I want a good two party system. I want a good conservative party and a good liberal party. I want good Americans to not think the other side is evil (and I don’t believe that most Republicans are evil).
I’m still trying to figure out why the Democratic Party went from changing governments that are not doing the will of the people, to changing the people who aren’t doing the will of the government. It sure looks like Democrats want to change the voting base pretty much as soon as the existing one stopped voting for them.
The Democrats need the felons, they need the no information voters, they need the apathetic voters, and a few illegal votes wouldn’t hurt either. And if that fails, just automatically register them and mail ballots. And if that fails, well, automatic voting would be the logical next step.
Ah, so you would have supported the party that was against Social Security, against Medicare, and more hawkish because the other party was white supremacist? Sorry, don’t buy it. The Democratic Party has always been willing to throw some people under the bus for political expediency precisely because they felt things like Social Security were more important than civil rights. And that did not stop in the 1960s, nor has it even stopped today.
Given how Democrats treat minorities that dare to support the other party, it’s not hard to figure out how Democrats would react if whole minority groups went Republican. I recall Democrats weren’t all that nice to the Cuban community back when they were reliable Republicans. Couldn’t wait to send them back to Cuba.
I don’t agree there is significant white supremacist influence in the GOP.
Your conclusion that there is, in my opinion, mistakes cause and effect.
There is a strong GOP supremacist influence in the GOP. This manifests as a desire to advance GOP interests. The same is of course true for Democratic party politicians.
In this day and age, the clustered urban populations tend to be strongly Democratic, but this factor relates to poverty and support for entitlement programs, not race… although race correlates reliably to these factors. But race is not the cause; race is simply an also-present correlation for poverty and entitlements dependence.
Thank you for answering – this was what I was looking for (though I strongly disagree, and I think Martin Hyde correctly characterizes the party and its recent history).
I wish adaher would try to answer as thoughtfully instead of just lobbing silly partisan bombs like his last two posts.
Pointing something out constitutes braying and champing?
Or more simply that in this case, the legal decision simply aligns better with your opponents’ view of a moral application of law. From the way you describe it, opposition to an existing ruling with calls for revision is the sole purview of ungulates and I am confident you are wrong.
If you are referring to me (and I seem to be the only one discussing the preliminary injunction), (1) I certainly don’t analogize it to any historical figures handing down pronouncements, biblical or otherwise; I was merely discussing the merits of the decision with you, (2) I have neither brayed nor champed about the difference between moral and legal nor have I inveighed against reliance on Supreme Court precedent (i may have whinnied, but I would have the check the whole thread to be sure), so (3) I think you have me confused with someone else. So, I suppose I’m done here.
Like they were able to pay poll taxes (or avoid them by having a grandfather who voted) and pass literacy tests? Does it bother you that the NC legislators were motivated by the desire to make it more difficult for black people to vote?
The term “black people” doesn’t properly define a victim group here. Are there no successful ID holding Blacks in NC? Are there any other groups besides Blacks for which the proposed regulations would make it “more difficult” to vote?
As has already been brought up, voter registration, where required, makes it “more difficult” for everyone to vote. This is America–life is supposed to be difficult! No need to continue to blame people’s problems on history…
I found this very interesting, in an NPR story about the laws which have been struck down:
I have been arguing for years that vote-by-mail is terrible. It’s become very prevalent in the Pacific Northwest, and misguided progressives periodically advocate for expanding it. So glad to see some evidence for why that’s such a bad idea.
In this particular case, the NC legislators did specific research on how black people voted, and only targeted those provisions that black people utilized far more than white people. They got rid of the early voting days that black people disproportionately used, and made unacceptable forms of ID that black people were more likely to use. The legislator’s justification, in court, for these restrictions hinged explicitly on race – they said that African Americans had too much access to the vote.
They explicitly said that they made these changes because it was too easy, according to them, for black people to vote.
Kudos to Bricker, for voting against Trump, and not for the half-way measure of voting for Johnson. IIRC, Bricker lives in a swing state. If so, the chance his vote will save us from the short-fingered buffoon is much greater than the chance he’ll win the Powerball Lottery or be struck by lightning.
While Trump is a caricature of America’s present-day insanity, he wasn’t the only buffoon on the GOP stage. I wonder if Bricker would vote for Cruz? For Huckabee or Carson? (I suppose there’s no point in hoping he would have voted against an evil right-winger like Walker.)
But before we ask about his support for the “principles currently espoused by the Republican party” we should define what those are.
[QUOTE=Preamble to the 2016 National Republican Platform]
The Republican Party is energized to lead a turnaround from the failed policies of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and this platform provides a thorough look at how we will restore prosperity and security to our country.
[/QUOTE]
This inanity outdoes any comment by all but the stupidest Dopers. One wonders what it even means. Of course they reject Romneycare (ACA), though would love it with the original name. Do they also reject the apprehension of Osama bin Laden? “Prosperity”? Do they reject that the S&P 500 Index tripled under President Obama? (That’s a record, son!) What is Trump going to do? Triple it again?
No, for details we’d better turn to the GOP showcase state and show the Principles of the Republican Party of Texas, of which there are eleven:
[QUOTE=2014 Platform, Republican Party of Texas]
Strict adherence to the original intent of the Declaration of Independence and United States and Texas Constitutions.
The sanctity of human life, created in the image of God, which should be protected from fertilization to natural death.
Preserving American and Texas sovereignty and freedom.
Limiting government power to those items enumerated in the United States and Texas Constitutions.
Personal accountability and responsibility.
Self-sufficient families, founded on the traditional marriage of a natural man and a natural woman.
Having an educated population, with parents having the freedom of choice for the education of their children.
Americans having the right to be safe in their homes, on their streets, and in their communities; and the unalienable right to defend themselves.
A free enterprise society unencumbered by government interference or subsidies.
Honoring all of those that serve and protect our freedom.
And we believe in “The laws of nature and nature’s God” as our Founding Fathers believed.
[/QUOTE]
Of the eleven Principles, two embrace homophobia, one calls for the overthrow of Roe v Wade, one is for the NRA, one is a lie — Texas leads the way in subverting education — and the rest are just platitudes — I’m surprised they didn’t make it an even dozen “Principles” by embracing Motherhood or Apple Pie.
iiandyiiii has done an excellent job of addressing your ignorance. My question is:
Were you
[ul][li] Too lazy to read the summaries of the court ruling?[/li][li] Too arrogant to think the opinions of the judges were relevant?[/li][li] Too stupid to understand what you were reading?[/li][li] Dismayed that the facts didn’t fit your racist world-view?[/li][li] All of the above?[/li][/ul]
Please respond! Fighting ignorance is much harder than we’d hoped. Feedback from the ignorant would be a great help.
And I have to ask why you feel that the Republican Party is infected by “white supremasicm”, when looking at history shows clearly that the Democrats are the ones who have championed white supremacy from the post-Civil War days to the present.
The Democratic party championed white supremacy from the Civil War until the Civil Rights movement of the 60s, very roughly speaking. This post from Martin Hyde explains how things changed from Civil Rights on, pretty well: