Southern Slavery Turns White People Into Republicans 150 Years Later

[TimG]

For instance, a student ID is not valid and yet a NRA membership card is... If you don't find that terribly biased and more than a little obviously partisan, then you are well and truly a partisan hack.

You don't help your case by making crap up. An NRA card is not valid ID - a Texas government carry permit is. See http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/pamphlets/largepamp.shtml

I don't see anything partisan in the list of acceptable IDs under the Texas law.

They even have a special EIC which appears to be free for any that need it.

The nonsense about the NRA card is an example of the unethical and partisan behavior of id law opponents.

Expecting people show ID at the polls is a reasonable requirement - just like expecting people to show ID if they are driving a car. There are obviously variations in the ID requirements but people who reject the principle that ID should be required are the real partisans seeking to manipulate the vote.

Edited September 22, 2013 by TimG

[Accountability Now]

A recent study by three University of Rochester political scientists found that:

"Whites who currently live in Southern counties that had high shares of slaves population in 1860 are less likely to identify as Democrat, more likely to oppose to affirmative action policies, and more likely to express racial resentment toward blacks."

Sorry...jumped on this one late. I won't pretend to know much about black history or US history but if my movie memory is correct and the writers of the Lincoln movie are correct, then wasn't it the Republicans that abolished slavery against the will of the Democrats? I remember watching this movie thinking how weird it was that the Democrats were so against it but yet now they have the first black President.

If what I'm saying is factual, then wouldn't you think these white voters would tend to side more with the Democrats?

[Mighty AC]

Michael Hardner covered this. Check out his comments on the first page of the thread.

[Accountability Now]

Michael Hardner covered this. Check out his comments on the first page of the thread.

No...his comments on the first page were about the votes in the 1960s....not 1863.

[Wilber]

Sorry...jumped on this one late. I won't pretend to know much about black history or US history but if my movie memory is correct and the writers of the Lincoln movie are correct, then wasn't it the Republicans that abolished slavery against the will of the Democrats? I remember watching this movie thinking how weird it was that the Democrats were so against it but yet now they have the first black President.

If what I'm saying is factual, then wouldn't you think these white voters would tend to side more with the Democrats?

They did until the Kennedy's and Johnson backed the civil rights movement during the sixties. See Civil Rights Act 1964.

[Accountability Now]

They did until the Kennedy's and Johnson backed the civil rights movement during the sixties. See Civil Rights Act 1964.

Fair enough. Thanks Wilber

[kimmy]

You don't help your case by making crap up. An NRA card is not valid ID - a Texas government carry permit is. See http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/pamphlets/largepamp.shtml

I don't see anything partisan in the list of acceptable IDs under the Texas law.

They even have a special EIC which appears to be free for any that need it.

The nonsense about the NRA card is an example of the unethical and partisan behavior of id law opponents.

Expecting people show ID at the polls is a reasonable requirement - just like expecting people to show ID if they are driving a car. There are obviously variations in the ID requirements but people who reject the principle that ID should be required are the real partisans seeking to manipulate the vote.

Voter ID is in itself a reasonable requirement. People can just go get official ID.

In practice, it's not that easy. Paperwork hoops to jumps through, long lineups, DMV locations that are only convenient for people who already have drivers licenses. These voter ID laws come at a time when states are closing DMV offices and consolidating their operations to mega-centers in the suburbs for efficiency.

And voter ID laws are just part of an approach that is aimed at making it harder for people to vote. The North Carolina law that was in the news earlier also limits early voting and where college students can vote and limits voter registration and eliminates programs to get highschool students to pre-register as voters.

You can look at other tactics like voter roll purges and voter "caging", and drawing peculiar district boundaries with political goals in mind. And you can look at the 6-hour lineups to vote in minority-heavy locations in Florida.

So... while in and of itself voter ID is a reasonable requirement... do you sincerely feel that there's not an overall effort at work in trying to reduce the number of votes cast by people they don't like?

-k

[Argus]

Complete BS. Requiring ID is the normal expectation

Parroting FOX news doesn't make your views any more fair and balanced -- or even lucid, than them.

No one other than the white sheet brigade thinks that suddenly, for no reason at all, a whole pile of Republicans took it into their heads all at the same time that their state really, really needed voter ID laws. God spoke to them in a dream, perhaps? Sorry, not buying your BS. The news laws are anti-democratic and designed to make it more difficult for poorer people to vote.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Argus

[Mighty AC]

So... while in and of itself voter ID is a reasonable requirement... do you sincerely feel that there's not an overall effort at work in trying to reduce the number of votes cast by people they don't like?

Great question. I think, if honest, everyone knows there was a political agenda behind the reasonable requirement.