Will Blacks Abandon the Democrat Party?

[mudwhistle]

I would think blacks would abandon the democratic party for the reason of their harrowing struggles as a race being compared to butt sex, legally. I can't really think of a more offensive comparison. Oh sure, the mouthpiece for the democratic party [MSNBC] can line up a bunch of lisping black dudes in pastel lapels who say they're perfectly fine with the comparison. But I assure you the majority of regular black people aren't happy with the comparison. And since the word "democratic party" is now synonymous with "The Gay Agenda", blacks, hispanics and moderates of all walks and descriptions will be doing at least crossover voting this Fall and two from it.

I warned the dems about the Gay Albatross around their necks. And now the stink is driving off even the most loyal of former members.

People tend to think in terms of linear relationships that then come full circle with a conclusion. If dems are the party of the LGBTs and LGBTs have picked a pedophile as their iconic leader [Harvey Milk, a man who sodomized a teen boy while officiating as his father figure/guardian], then, logically, the democratic party is seen as "the party of pedophile-lovers". Or"the party that forced gay marriage/gay adoptions on my state against our Will and ability to protect our orphans".

It's just off-putting. Long story short.

Your post is a perfect example of when someone out of the mainstream mistakenly thinks he's in the mainstream.

So you must think porking boys is mainstream.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Will African Americans be attracted to a party of angry White men? A party that promises to set them adrift without largess for food, shelter and clothing? A party that fights tooth and nail to repress wages for working families?

Figure it out.

So you think black people are too stupid to figure out ways to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves? This is why you are a Democrat. Democrats: The Party of Slaveowners.

That is an absolutely batshit-crazy, fact-free thing to say.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[mudwhistle]

Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama both times. In return they have suffered more during this economy than whites. Most blacks are socially conservative and are horrified at the gay marriage business. Recall that black churches were instrumental in defeating the ballot measure in CA.

So having been screwed financially, having been promised a bunch of stuff that still hasnt been delivered on, having their values crapped all over, will blacks get the idea that Democrats are the party to exploit them and at least stay home on election day?

We've heard this schtick before.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Schtick?

As in razor?

 

[Statistikhengst]

Blacks voted overwhelmingly for Obama both times. In return they have suffered more during this economy than whites. Most blacks are socially conservative and are horrified at the gay marriage business. Recall that black churches were instrumental in defeating the ballot measure in CA.

So having been screwed financially, having been promised a bunch of stuff that still hasnt been delivered on, having their values crapped all over, will blacks get the idea that Democrats are the party to exploit them and at least stay home on election day?

They've overwhelmingly voted for pretty much any democratic presidential candidate for quite a while. Kerry, the whitest guy I know, got only a slightly lower percentage of the black vote than Obama.

What Obama did for blacks, however, is mobilize them. With significantly higher turn outs by blacks in both 2008 and 2012. I doubt you'll see quite the same turn out in 2016. But its extremely likely you'll see similar percentages of blacks voting democrat.

How has that mobilization made them any better off? Voting for people and policies that have made their financial situations worse, and who have promised them the sky and delivered nothing hasnt worked out well.
Unless you think blacks are too stupid to realize this.

You write a lot of bullshit.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Toro]

Why is this simple concept so hard for you to grasp?

Ban voting by mail and set up voting booths on foreign military bases where voters have to show ID and I'm with you.

But Republicans don't support either of those because it will mean less votes for them. That is one reason why they are accused of suppressing the vote.

Vote by mail. You're listening to too much Democratic propaganda. Here's an impartial observer:

As of Wednesday, October 29, nearly 1.7 million voters – 27 percent of all registered voters – had cast their votes early at one-stop locations statewide. There have been significant differences in turnout by party and race: 22 percent of Republican and 21 percent of unaffiliated voters have turned out, compared to 33 percent of Democratic voters; 24 percent of white voters have turned out, compared to 36 percent of African American voters.
​

Your suggestion is fine with me. How though do you plan to deal with retired voters who vacation or elderly people who are not mobile?

As for militiary voting, when elections are usually called within hours after polls closing, how will an on-site voting requirement at a base in Germany sort out 435 different congressional district, 50 different state races, god knows how many in-state races and get the ballots cast in Germany or Afghanistan to the vote counters in time to be counted?

Those numbers you quoted are for early voting.

Here in Florida, they originally didn't allow early voting on Sunday. Why? Because black churches organized buses to take voters to the polls on Sunday. That's one of many reasons why the GOP has been accused of voter suppression.

I don't have a solution for military voting. But the Republicans offer no solutions either. With the military voting 2:1 Republican, it's not a surprise they haven't made much if an effort. There are lots of very smart people in the Republican Party. Since they are the ones pushing voter ID, they can come up for a solution. Perhaps those in a war zone don't need an ID. But for those who aren't, there should be a solution.

 

[mudwhistle]

Will African Americans be attracted to a party of angry White men? A party that promises to set them adrift without largess for food, shelter and clothing? A party that fights tooth and nail to repress wages for working families?

Figure it out.

So you think black people are too stupid to figure out ways to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves? This is why you are a Democrat. Democrats: The Party of Slaveowners.

That is an absolutely batshit-crazy, fact-free thing to say.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Nosmo king or Rabbi?

I'm confused.

 

[Toro]

US Voter ID (AKA "Voter Suppression")

Twelve states, including the battleground state of Virginia, now require voters to show some form of photo identification (see table below), with approximately thirteen other states pursuing similar legislation.

Canada Voter ID (aka REAL VOTER SUPPRESSION)

In Canada the Federal government will send out, by mail, an Elections Canada registration confirmation card, which the voter takes to the polling station, in advance detailing the where and when that individual should vote. To vote, one must prove their identity and address. A voter has three options:[5]

(1) Show one original piece of identification with photo, name and address like a driver's license or a health card. It must be issued by a government agency.

(2) Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have a name and one must also have an address. Examples: student ID card, birth certificate, public transportation card, utility bill, bank/credit card statement, etc.

(3) Take an oath and have an elector who knows the voter vouch for them (both of which will be required to make a sworn statement). This person must have authorized identification and their name must appear on the list of electors in the same polling division as the voter. This person can only vouch for one person and the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector.​

I like that procedure.

Does that make me a racist now?

I'd be very happy to have Canadian election officials come down to the US and run our elections for us based on Canadian laws.

In Canada, the person running the election isn't an elected official of a political party.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

US Voter ID (AKA "Voter Suppression")

Twelve states, including the battleground state of Virginia, now require voters to show some form of photo identification (see table below), with approximately thirteen other states pursuing similar legislation.

Canada Voter ID (aka REAL VOTER SUPPRESSION)

In Canada the Federal government will send out, by mail, an Elections Canada registration confirmation card, which the voter takes to the polling station, in advance detailing the where and when that individual should vote. To vote, one must prove their identity and address. A voter has three options:[5]

(1) Show one original piece of identification with photo, name and address like a driver's license or a health card. It must be issued by a government agency.

(2) Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have a name and one must also have an address. Examples: student ID card, birth certificate, public transportation card, utility bill, bank/credit card statement, etc.

(3) Take an oath and have an elector who knows the voter vouch for them (both of which will be required to make a sworn statement). This person must have authorized identification and their name must appear on the list of electors in the same polling division as the voter. This person can only vouch for one person and the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector.​

I like that procedure.

Does that make me a racist now?

I'd be very happy to have Canadian election officials come down to the US and run our elections for us based on Canadian laws.

I'd like to see us move to online voting. You can't tell me we can't come up with a secure system based on social security numbers to ensure that each person only votes one time. No need for voter ID after the initial sign up. If some crack head wants to sell his vote, who cares? Voting by proxy is honestly no big deal as long as each person can only have one proxy.

 

[Toro]

US Voter ID (AKA "Voter Suppression")

Twelve states, including the battleground state of Virginia, now require voters to show some form of photo identification (see table below), with approximately thirteen other states pursuing similar legislation.

Canada Voter ID (aka REAL VOTER SUPPRESSION)

In Canada the Federal government will send out, by mail, an Elections Canada registration confirmation card, which the voter takes to the polling station, in advance detailing the where and when that individual should vote. To vote, one must prove their identity and address. A voter has three options:[5]

(1) Show one original piece of identification with photo, name and address like a driver's license or a health card. It must be issued by a government agency.

(2) Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have a name and one must also have an address. Examples: student ID card, birth certificate, public transportation card, utility bill, bank/credit card statement, etc.

(3) Take an oath and have an elector who knows the voter vouch for them (both of which will be required to make a sworn statement). This person must have authorized identification and their name must appear on the list of electors in the same polling division as the voter. This person can only vouch for one person and the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector.​

Why is this simple concept so hard for you to grasp?

Ban voting by mail and set up voting booths on foreign military bases where voters have to show ID and I'm with you.

But Republicans don't support either of those because it will mean less votes for them. That is one reason why they are accused of suppressing the vote.

It would not mean less military votes.

That's great.

 

[Ibentoken]

Bad news for democrats.

Major Event for Black Conservatives in Connecticut

 

[Toro]

US Voter ID (AKA "Voter Suppression")

Twelve states, including the battleground state of Virginia, now require voters to show some form of photo identification (see table below), with approximately thirteen other states pursuing similar legislation.

Canada Voter ID (aka REAL VOTER SUPPRESSION)

In Canada the Federal government will send out, by mail, an Elections Canada registration confirmation card, which the voter takes to the polling station, in advance detailing the where and when that individual should vote. To vote, one must prove their identity and address. A voter has three options:[5]

(1) Show one original piece of identification with photo, name and address like a driver's license or a health card. It must be issued by a government agency.

(2) Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have a name and one must also have an address. Examples: student ID card, birth certificate, public transportation card, utility bill, bank/credit card statement, etc.

(3) Take an oath and have an elector who knows the voter vouch for them (both of which will be required to make a sworn statement). This person must have authorized identification and their name must appear on the list of electors in the same polling division as the voter. This person can only vouch for one person and the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector.​

Why is this simple concept so hard for you to grasp?

Ban voting by mail and set up voting booths on foreign military bases where voters have to show ID and I'm with you.

But Republicans don't support either of those because it will mean less votes for them. That is one reason why they are accused of suppressing the vote.

Hey Toro

http://www.fvap.gov/uploads/FVAP/Forms/fpca2013.pdf


This is the form that EVERY service member serving overseas must fill out in order to cast a ballot. You will notice that it contains the same sort of wording pinky promising that you are who you say are that regular citizens who simply can't produce ID are allowed to make in every state that has voter ID.

Set up a voting booth in war zone bases, you're too funny.

Can you tell me the name of even a single Republican who has suggested that NO exceptions to voter ID should be made? However, there is a large difference between someone living in PA who is just too lazy to go get ID and someone who is fighting in a war overseas and can't get somewhere to show ID to vote.

Oh, also. Believe it or no, there ARE Democrats in the military.

Toro seems to be some kind of Canadian liberal who gets his news entirely from American liberals. Look at how he fundamentally buys into the bullshit of voter suppression when his own damn country has a FAR MORE stringent Voter ID apparatus in place.

I think Republicans would jump for joy if we could have honest elections like they do in Canada.

I've been a member of four political parties - the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the Reform Party of Canada, the Conservative Party in the UK, and the Republican Party. Those are all right wing parties. And I will call bullshit on any political party if they are doing stupid things.

 

[mudwhistle]

Why is this simple concept so hard for you to grasp?

Ban voting by mail and set up voting booths on foreign military bases where voters have to show ID and I'm with you.

But Republicans don't support either of those because it will mean less votes for them. That is one reason why they are accused of suppressing the vote.

Vote by mail. You're listening to too much Democratic propaganda. Here's an impartial observer:

As of Wednesday, October 29, nearly 1.7 million voters – 27 percent of all registered voters – had cast their votes early at one-stop locations statewide. There have been significant differences in turnout by party and race: 22 percent of Republican and 21 percent of unaffiliated voters have turned out, compared to 33 percent of Democratic voters; 24 percent of white voters have turned out, compared to 36 percent of African American voters.
​

Your suggestion is fine with me. How though do you plan to deal with retired voters who vacation or elderly people who are not mobile?

As for militiary voting, when elections are usually called within hours after polls closing, how will an on-site voting requirement at a base in Germany sort out 435 different congressional district, 50 different state races, god knows how many in-state races and get the ballots cast in Germany or Afghanistan to the vote counters in time to be counted?

Those numbers you quoted are for early voting.

Here in Florida, they originally didn't allow early voting on Sunday. Why? Because black churches organized buses to take voters to the polls on Sunday. That's one of many reasons why the GOP has been accused of voter suppression.

I don't have a solution for military voting. But the Republicans offer no solutions either. With the military voting 2:1 Republican, it's not a surprise they haven't made much if an effort. There are lots of very smart people in the Republican Party. Since they are the ones pushing voter ID, they can come up for a solution. Perhaps those in a war zone don't need an ID. But for those who aren't, there should be a solution.

Here's a clue: The Whitehouse controls military voting.

It falls under Department of Defense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I think the author of this thread is the guy who once said that blacks aren't suited for leadership. Because they're black.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I'd like to see us move to online voting. You can't tell me we can't come up with a secure system based on social security numbers to ensure that each person only votes one time. No need for voter ID after the initial sign up. If some crack head wants to sell his vote, who cares? Voting by proxy is honestly no big deal as long as each person can only have one proxy.

We worked very hard to destroy vote buying enterprises. See Tammany Hall. That's exactly the reason it's problematic. It's a civic duty to vote, so all of this effort to make it more convenient and LESS SECURE is wrong. Election results have to have high legitimacy in order to be accepted by both parties.

The ideal system is to have all in-person voting. Make exceptions for those who can't be present in-person for some valid reason. Inconvenience is not a valid reason.

 

[mudwhistle]

I think the author of this thread is the guy who once said that blacks aren't suited for leadership. Because they're black.

Yeah, it must be true.

Racist bastard!!!!!

 

[Rikurzhen]

I've been a member of four political parties - the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the Reform Party of Canada, the Conservative Party in the UK, and the Republican Party. Those are all right wing parties. And I will call bullshit on any political party if they are doing stupid things.

That puts you in a bit of a pickle then, because only 12 states require people to show photo ID to vote and you called this requirement "voter suppression." Makes you look very uninformed.

 

[mudwhistle]

US Voter ID (AKA "Voter Suppression")

Twelve states, including the battleground state of Virginia, now require voters to show some form of photo identification (see table below), with approximately thirteen other states pursuing similar legislation.

Canada Voter ID (aka REAL VOTER SUPPRESSION)

In Canada the Federal government will send out, by mail, an Elections Canada registration confirmation card, which the voter takes to the polling station, in advance detailing the where and when that individual should vote. To vote, one must prove their identity and address. A voter has three options:[5]

(1) Show one original piece of identification with photo, name and address like a driver's license or a health card. It must be issued by a government agency.

(2) Show two original pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have a name and one must also have an address. Examples: student ID card, birth certificate, public transportation card, utility bill, bank/credit card statement, etc.

(3) Take an oath and have an elector who knows the voter vouch for them (both of which will be required to make a sworn statement). This person must have authorized identification and their name must appear on the list of electors in the same polling division as the voter. This person can only vouch for one person and the person who is vouched for cannot vouch for another elector.​

I like that procedure.

Does that make me a racist now?

I'd be very happy to have Canadian election officials come down to the US and run our elections for us based on Canadian laws.

I'd like to see us move to online voting. You can't tell me we can't come up with a secure system based on social security numbers to ensure that each person only votes one time. No need for voter ID after the initial sign up. If some crack head wants to sell his vote, who cares? Voting by proxy is honestly no big deal as long as each person can only have one proxy.

Sure, good idea.

Then the Chinese and Russians would be deciding our elections.

 

[Toro]

I've been a member of four political parties - the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the Reform Party of Canada, the Conservative Party in the UK, and the Republican Party. Those are all right wing parties. And I will call bullshit on any political party if they are doing stupid things.

That puts you in a bit of a pickle then, because only 12 states require people to show photo ID to vote and you called this requirement "voter suppression." Makes you look very uninformed.

It also makes you look very uninformed when you keep repeating the same straw man over and over.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Why is this simple concept so hard for you to grasp?

Ban voting by mail and set up voting booths on foreign military bases where voters have to show ID and I'm with you.

But Republicans don't support either of those because it will mean less votes for them. That is one reason why they are accused of suppressing the vote.

Vote by mail. You're listening to too much Democratic propaganda. Here's an impartial observer:

As of Wednesday, October 29, nearly 1.7 million voters – 27 percent of all registered voters – had cast their votes early at one-stop locations statewide. There have been significant differences in turnout by party and race: 22 percent of Republican and 21 percent of unaffiliated voters have turned out, compared to 33 percent of Democratic voters; 24 percent of white voters have turned out, compared to 36 percent of African American voters.
​

Your suggestion is fine with me. How though do you plan to deal with retired voters who vacation or elderly people who are not mobile?

As for militiary voting, when elections are usually called within hours after polls closing, how will an on-site voting requirement at a base in Germany sort out 435 different congressional district, 50 different state races, god knows how many in-state races and get the ballots cast in Germany or Afghanistan to the vote counters in time to be counted?

Those numbers you quoted are for early voting.

Here in Florida, they originally didn't allow early voting on Sunday. Why? Because black churches organized buses to take voters to the polls on Sunday. That's one of many reasons why the GOP has been accused of voter suppression.

I don't have a solution for military voting. But the Republicans offer no solutions either. With the military voting 2:1 Republican, it's not a surprise they haven't made much if an effort. There are lots of very smart people in the Republican Party. Since they are the ones pushing voter ID, they can come up for a solution. Perhaps those in a war zone don't need an ID. But for those who aren't, there should be a solution.

Here's a clue: The Whitehouse controls military voting.

It falls under Department of Defense.

WRONG

States control voting, not the federal government, not even for military members. That is in fact why there are no voting booths on overseas bases. You'd literally have to have one for each state.

The federal government merely assists military members in voting, but the states control the voting.

 

[JQPublic1]

RIGHT WING GROUPTHINK AT THE WATER FOUNTAIN!:

Romney wont the white male vote, the white youth vote, and the white women vote.

Are you disputing the accuracy of my statement? If so, show me to be wrong.

If I dispute something I leave no doubt. No, I don't dispute that Romney got more of the White vote but he did not win a damn thing!

That's the strategy to future wins. Republicans are going to have an easier job shifting 1% of the white vote over to the Republicans than 4% of Hispanics or 5% of blacks to achieve the same effect.

I wouldn't be too sure of that. With unemployment down and with better national economic news, the Republicans might get a shock come November!