Conservatives are racist
Crimadella wrote:
... the KKK was founded by people who called themselves democrats.
Since 1965, when Brown v. Board of Education, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act caused the Dixiecrats to defect en masse to the Republican Party (and good riddance), racism has increasingly been the sole purview of the GOP. With the GOP's "Southern Strategy" of the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, white supremacy became an integral plank in the Republican platform, and has been ever since. Everyone with more than an 8th Grader's grasp of American History and Social Studies knows this.
They also know that the leader of the Republican party was endorsed by neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. You're known by the company you keep.
HEIL TRUMP!
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Antrax wrote:
Disclaimer I didn't read the article as I'm pretty sure it would distress for either: A) including examples of actual white supremacists getting the time of day or B) falsely equivalently some race neutral policies with racism.
A is disgusting but B makes combating A that much more difficult. If you paint every position that might disproportionately negatively affect a minority population as racism it makes it more difficult to combat truly racist policies. To some the distinction is not clear which is why I will provide examples.
Example 1: Voter ID Laws. There is nothing inherently racist about requiring voters to provide ID to vote. Morally it is the equivalent of casting a nation-wide roll call vote in which you call each person by name and they provide their vote. I've yet to see someone claim a senate roll call vote was racist against the minority senate members. Furthermore IDs are required to purchase liquor, cigarettes, or board an airplane and few have ever claimed these laws are racist.
However, when applied to voting people raise hell about it disproportionately affecting minorities which may be true. However, a disproportionate effect does not make a law inherently racist. In fact it is nearly impossible to construct any policy that does not disproportionately affect one group or another. The question becomes will it ALWAYS harm a certain group. For example a policy enforcing a racial quota in hiring processes will ALWAYS harm a certain group and is justly prohibited in this country. A voter identification law will do no such things as the presumed disproportionate impact is due entirely to current circumstances.
A is disgusting but B makes combating A that much more difficult. If you paint every position that might disproportionately negatively affect a minority population as racism it makes it more difficult to combat truly racist policies. To some the distinction is not clear which is why I will provide examples.
Example 1: Voter ID Laws. There is nothing inherently racist about requiring voters to provide ID to vote. Morally it is the equivalent of casting a nation-wide roll call vote in which you call each person by name and they provide their vote. I've yet to see someone claim a senate roll call vote was racist against the minority senate members. Furthermore IDs are required to purchase liquor, cigarettes, or board an airplane and few have ever claimed these laws are racist.
However, when applied to voting people raise hell about it disproportionately affecting minorities which may be true. However, a disproportionate effect does not make a law inherently racist. In fact it is nearly impossible to construct any policy that does not disproportionately affect one group or another. The question becomes will it ALWAYS harm a certain group. For example a policy enforcing a racial quota in hiring processes will ALWAYS harm a certain group and is justly prohibited in this country. A voter identification law will do no such things as the presumed disproportionate impact is due entirely to current circumstances.
It is racist if underprivileged minorities are less likely to have proper ID, if the state doesn't provide ID to them for the sake of their constitutional right to cast a vote, or if the state closes licensing offices in poor and minority neighborhoods (which was done). That, and the times where certain states have closed down polling places for said poor and minority voters, or have made voting even more difficult for students attending traditionally black colleges is all racist.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Piobaire wrote:
Crimadella wrote:
... the KKK was founded by people who called themselves democrats.
Since 1965, when Brown v. Board of Education, the Voting Rights Act, and the Civil Rights Act caused the Dixiecrats to defect en masse to the Republican Party (and good riddance), racism has increasingly been the sole purview of the GOP. With the GOP's "Southern Strategy" of the presidential elections of 1968 and 1972, white supremacy became an integral plank in the Republican platform, and has been ever since. Everyone with more than an 8th Grader's grasp of American History and Social Studies knows this.
They also know that the leader of the Republican party was endorsed by neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. You're known by the company you keep.
HEIL TRUMP!
White supremacists supporting Trump doesn't mean Trump supports white supremacists. Apparently you are the conspiracy theory expert. I'm not convinced that all, or even the majority, of conservatives are white supremacists. I may not be educated, but there are plenty of black conservatives who are. I would imagine that out of all the very intelligent and educated black conservatives that exist, someone would have caught on to your theory. I'm sure plenty of them have a pretty good grasp on history and would have sought out to inform the world. Reality doesn't match up with your suggestions. The very funny thing is, the majority of black conservatives are very intelligent and educated, I wounder why that is? Perhaps you should look into that, I'm not buying what you are selling.
Last edited by Crimadella on 04 Mar 2019, 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
VegetableMan wrote:
Posts like this only widen the political divide that is tearing our country apart. The OP is just a useful tool for the oligarchs. I'm sure they would give this post a big thumbs up.
Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner!
I watched a news broadcast with Morgan Freeman that was great, the guy was trying to tell him how blacks are kept down by systemic racism or something like that and Morgan replied, "BS!", lol.
It gets very old, very quick. It's very damaging, with all the false claims people are going to get tired of researching things to find that it's made up crap, they will just wrap all the claims as BS, therefor when something real comes along, it will slip threw the cracks because of so many false claims. The fact that I caught snopes fact-check spreading a Trump lie was extremely shocking and disappointing. How the hell can you have something called fact check that spreads false media reports?? I sure can't wait until Elon Musk gets his journalism rating site up, news is becomming garbage not worth watching or reading. What's the point if you have to research everything yourself?
Kraichgauer wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Disclaimer I didn't read the article as I'm pretty sure it would distress for either: A) including examples of actual white supremacists getting the time of day or B) falsely equivalently some race neutral policies with racism.
A is disgusting but B makes combating A that much more difficult. If you paint every position that might disproportionately negatively affect a minority population as racism it makes it more difficult to combat truly racist policies. To some the distinction is not clear which is why I will provide examples.
Example 1: Voter ID Laws. There is nothing inherently racist about requiring voters to provide ID to vote. Morally it is the equivalent of casting a nation-wide roll call vote in which you call each person by name and they provide their vote. I've yet to see someone claim a senate roll call vote was racist against the minority senate members. Furthermore IDs are required to purchase liquor, cigarettes, or board an airplane and few have ever claimed these laws are racist.
However, when applied to voting people raise hell about it disproportionately affecting minorities which may be true. However, a disproportionate effect does not make a law inherently racist. In fact it is nearly impossible to construct any policy that does not disproportionately affect one group or another. The question becomes will it ALWAYS harm a certain group. For example a policy enforcing a racial quota in hiring processes will ALWAYS harm a certain group and is justly prohibited in this country. A voter identification law will do no such things as the presumed disproportionate impact is due entirely to current circumstances.
A is disgusting but B makes combating A that much more difficult. If you paint every position that might disproportionately negatively affect a minority population as racism it makes it more difficult to combat truly racist policies. To some the distinction is not clear which is why I will provide examples.
Example 1: Voter ID Laws. There is nothing inherently racist about requiring voters to provide ID to vote. Morally it is the equivalent of casting a nation-wide roll call vote in which you call each person by name and they provide their vote. I've yet to see someone claim a senate roll call vote was racist against the minority senate members. Furthermore IDs are required to purchase liquor, cigarettes, or board an airplane and few have ever claimed these laws are racist.
However, when applied to voting people raise hell about it disproportionately affecting minorities which may be true. However, a disproportionate effect does not make a law inherently racist. In fact it is nearly impossible to construct any policy that does not disproportionately affect one group or another. The question becomes will it ALWAYS harm a certain group. For example a policy enforcing a racial quota in hiring processes will ALWAYS harm a certain group and is justly prohibited in this country. A voter identification law will do no such things as the presumed disproportionate impact is due entirely to current circumstances.
It is racist if underprivileged minorities are less likely to have proper ID, if the state doesn't provide ID to them for the sake of their constitutional right to cast a vote, or if the state closes licensing offices in poor and minority neighborhoods (which was done). That, and the times where certain states have closed down polling places for said poor and minority voters, or have made voting even more difficult for students attending traditionally black colleges is all racist.
I agree purposefully closing polling places and licensing in certain neighborhoods is wrong, but that frankly has nothing to do with a voter id law itself. The point is there is nothing in the law itself that is racist. People ascribe racist intentions to politicians who back said laws. Calling people racist for supporting something that makes a lot of intuitive sense to many people only serves to alienate those people and make everything more difficult.
_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Antrax wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Disclaimer I didn't read the article as I'm pretty sure it would distress for either: A) including examples of actual white supremacists getting the time of day or B) falsely equivalently some race neutral policies with racism.
A is disgusting but B makes combating A that much more difficult. If you paint every position that might disproportionately negatively affect a minority population as racism it makes it more difficult to combat truly racist policies. To some the distinction is not clear which is why I will provide examples.
Example 1: Voter ID Laws. There is nothing inherently racist about requiring voters to provide ID to vote. Morally it is the equivalent of casting a nation-wide roll call vote in which you call each person by name and they provide their vote. I've yet to see someone claim a senate roll call vote was racist against the minority senate members. Furthermore IDs are required to purchase liquor, cigarettes, or board an airplane and few have ever claimed these laws are racist.
However, when applied to voting people raise hell about it disproportionately affecting minorities which may be true. However, a disproportionate effect does not make a law inherently racist. In fact it is nearly impossible to construct any policy that does not disproportionately affect one group or another. The question becomes will it ALWAYS harm a certain group. For example a policy enforcing a racial quota in hiring processes will ALWAYS harm a certain group and is justly prohibited in this country. A voter identification law will do no such things as the presumed disproportionate impact is due entirely to current circumstances.
A is disgusting but B makes combating A that much more difficult. If you paint every position that might disproportionately negatively affect a minority population as racism it makes it more difficult to combat truly racist policies. To some the distinction is not clear which is why I will provide examples.
Example 1: Voter ID Laws. There is nothing inherently racist about requiring voters to provide ID to vote. Morally it is the equivalent of casting a nation-wide roll call vote in which you call each person by name and they provide their vote. I've yet to see someone claim a senate roll call vote was racist against the minority senate members. Furthermore IDs are required to purchase liquor, cigarettes, or board an airplane and few have ever claimed these laws are racist.
However, when applied to voting people raise hell about it disproportionately affecting minorities which may be true. However, a disproportionate effect does not make a law inherently racist. In fact it is nearly impossible to construct any policy that does not disproportionately affect one group or another. The question becomes will it ALWAYS harm a certain group. For example a policy enforcing a racial quota in hiring processes will ALWAYS harm a certain group and is justly prohibited in this country. A voter identification law will do no such things as the presumed disproportionate impact is due entirely to current circumstances.
It is racist if underprivileged minorities are less likely to have proper ID, if the state doesn't provide ID to them for the sake of their constitutional right to cast a vote, or if the state closes licensing offices in poor and minority neighborhoods (which was done). That, and the times where certain states have closed down polling places for said poor and minority voters, or have made voting even more difficult for students attending traditionally black colleges is all racist.
I agree purposefully closing polling places and licensing in certain neighborhoods is wrong, but that frankly has nothing to do with a voter id law itself. The point is there is nothing in the law itself that is racist. People ascribe racist intentions to politicians who back said laws. Calling people racist for supporting something that makes a lot of intuitive sense to many people only serves to alienate those people and make everything more difficult.
The same state governments who are making it legal only to vote with ID are the same ones who are making it difficult to get licenses, and for closing polling places. It's these state governments who are using this law for racist reasons.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Kraichgauer wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Disclaimer I didn't read the article as I'm pretty sure it would distress for either: A) including examples of actual white supremacists getting the time of day or B) falsely equivalently some race neutral policies with racism.
A is disgusting but B makes combating A that much more difficult. If you paint every position that might disproportionately negatively affect a minority population as racism it makes it more difficult to combat truly racist policies. To some the distinction is not clear which is why I will provide examples.
Example 1: Voter ID Laws. There is nothing inherently racist about requiring voters to provide ID to vote. Morally it is the equivalent of casting a nation-wide roll call vote in which you call each person by name and they provide their vote. I've yet to see someone claim a senate roll call vote was racist against the minority senate members. Furthermore IDs are required to purchase liquor, cigarettes, or board an airplane and few have ever claimed these laws are racist.
However, when applied to voting people raise hell about it disproportionately affecting minorities which may be true. However, a disproportionate effect does not make a law inherently racist. In fact it is nearly impossible to construct any policy that does not disproportionately affect one group or another. The question becomes will it ALWAYS harm a certain group. For example a policy enforcing a racial quota in hiring processes will ALWAYS harm a certain group and is justly prohibited in this country. A voter identification law will do no such things as the presumed disproportionate impact is due entirely to current circumstances.
A is disgusting but B makes combating A that much more difficult. If you paint every position that might disproportionately negatively affect a minority population as racism it makes it more difficult to combat truly racist policies. To some the distinction is not clear which is why I will provide examples.
Example 1: Voter ID Laws. There is nothing inherently racist about requiring voters to provide ID to vote. Morally it is the equivalent of casting a nation-wide roll call vote in which you call each person by name and they provide their vote. I've yet to see someone claim a senate roll call vote was racist against the minority senate members. Furthermore IDs are required to purchase liquor, cigarettes, or board an airplane and few have ever claimed these laws are racist.
However, when applied to voting people raise hell about it disproportionately affecting minorities which may be true. However, a disproportionate effect does not make a law inherently racist. In fact it is nearly impossible to construct any policy that does not disproportionately affect one group or another. The question becomes will it ALWAYS harm a certain group. For example a policy enforcing a racial quota in hiring processes will ALWAYS harm a certain group and is justly prohibited in this country. A voter identification law will do no such things as the presumed disproportionate impact is due entirely to current circumstances.
It is racist if underprivileged minorities are less likely to have proper ID, if the state doesn't provide ID to them for the sake of their constitutional right to cast a vote, or if the state closes licensing offices in poor and minority neighborhoods (which was done). That, and the times where certain states have closed down polling places for said poor and minority voters, or have made voting even more difficult for students attending traditionally black colleges is all racist.
I agree purposefully closing polling places and licensing in certain neighborhoods is wrong, but that frankly has nothing to do with a voter id law itself. The point is there is nothing in the law itself that is racist. People ascribe racist intentions to politicians who back said laws. Calling people racist for supporting something that makes a lot of intuitive sense to many people only serves to alienate those people and make everything more difficult.
The same state governments who are making it legal only to vote with ID are the same ones who are making it difficult to get licenses, and for closing polling places. It's these state governments who are using this law for racist reasons.
And if you want to make the argument that the state governments of Texas, Wisconsin, North Carolina et. al are racist you can make that argument and I would be more receptive to those arguments. Claiming a law that has nothing to do with race is racist gains you nothing.
_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
Antrax wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Antrax wrote:
Disclaimer I didn't read the article as I'm pretty sure it would distress for either: A) including examples of actual white supremacists getting the time of day or B) falsely equivalently some race neutral policies with racism.
A is disgusting but B makes combating A that much more difficult. If you paint every position that might disproportionately negatively affect a minority population as racism it makes it more difficult to combat truly racist policies. To some the distinction is not clear which is why I will provide examples.
Example 1: Voter ID Laws. There is nothing inherently racist about requiring voters to provide ID to vote. Morally it is the equivalent of casting a nation-wide roll call vote in which you call each person by name and they provide their vote. I've yet to see someone claim a senate roll call vote was racist against the minority senate members. Furthermore IDs are required to purchase liquor, cigarettes, or board an airplane and few have ever claimed these laws are racist.
However, when applied to voting people raise hell about it disproportionately affecting minorities which may be true. However, a disproportionate effect does not make a law inherently racist. In fact it is nearly impossible to construct any policy that does not disproportionately affect one group or another. The question becomes will it ALWAYS harm a certain group. For example a policy enforcing a racial quota in hiring processes will ALWAYS harm a certain group and is justly prohibited in this country. A voter identification law will do no such things as the presumed disproportionate impact is due entirely to current circumstances.
A is disgusting but B makes combating A that much more difficult. If you paint every position that might disproportionately negatively affect a minority population as racism it makes it more difficult to combat truly racist policies. To some the distinction is not clear which is why I will provide examples.
Example 1: Voter ID Laws. There is nothing inherently racist about requiring voters to provide ID to vote. Morally it is the equivalent of casting a nation-wide roll call vote in which you call each person by name and they provide their vote. I've yet to see someone claim a senate roll call vote was racist against the minority senate members. Furthermore IDs are required to purchase liquor, cigarettes, or board an airplane and few have ever claimed these laws are racist.
However, when applied to voting people raise hell about it disproportionately affecting minorities which may be true. However, a disproportionate effect does not make a law inherently racist. In fact it is nearly impossible to construct any policy that does not disproportionately affect one group or another. The question becomes will it ALWAYS harm a certain group. For example a policy enforcing a racial quota in hiring processes will ALWAYS harm a certain group and is justly prohibited in this country. A voter identification law will do no such things as the presumed disproportionate impact is due entirely to current circumstances.
It is racist if underprivileged minorities are less likely to have proper ID, if the state doesn't provide ID to them for the sake of their constitutional right to cast a vote, or if the state closes licensing offices in poor and minority neighborhoods (which was done). That, and the times where certain states have closed down polling places for said poor and minority voters, or have made voting even more difficult for students attending traditionally black colleges is all racist.
I agree purposefully closing polling places and licensing in certain neighborhoods is wrong, but that frankly has nothing to do with a voter id law itself. The point is there is nothing in the law itself that is racist. People ascribe racist intentions to politicians who back said laws. Calling people racist for supporting something that makes a lot of intuitive sense to many people only serves to alienate those people and make everything more difficult.
The same state governments who are making it legal only to vote with ID are the same ones who are making it difficult to get licenses, and for closing polling places. It's these state governments who are using this law for racist reasons.
And if you want to make the argument that the state governments of Texas, Wisconsin, North Carolina et. al are racist you can make that argument and I would be more receptive to those arguments. Claiming a law that has nothing to do with race is racist gains you nothing.
Of course those stage governments are racists. But they're the ones who are using the law for racist purposes.
In my own Washington state, every registered voter gets a voter ID card at the expense of the state. If every state would do this instead of playing sh***y little games, then the law itself wouldn't be associated with the bigger picture of state sponsored racism.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
group attacks are not allowed on WP
_________________
BOLTZ 17/3 2012 - 12/11 2020
Beautiful, sweet, gentle, playful, loyal
simply the best and one of a kind
love you and miss you, dear boy
Stop the wolf kills! https://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeact ... 3091429765
