Florida Republicans come clean and admit to suppressing Dem votes

giddy, this is a serious question. I wouldn't ask it to most people, but you can't seem to see reality. So this is serious.

Were literacy tests required for voting okay since they were required of both black and white voters?

Do you believe it wasn't really to keep blacks from voting since whites would take the tests as well?

The part in bold is a misrepresentation of the facts as admitted by Republicans who organized the whole strategy.

They have admitted they wanted to keep blacks (they specifically said blacks) from voting. They didn't say all Democrats, or all voters. They specifically said blacks.

There are many many people in this thread you are calling you out for refusing to see reality. Why do you think that is?

The bold part in your post might be part of it, since it's ignoring something that Republicans have admitted and is therefore reality. Yet you keep ignoring it and rationalizing it.

It's funny, sad, and disgusting all at the same time.

 

They are trying to challenge Democratic voters in a large bloc. The only way to do this is to curtail the convenient Sunday voting and force them to vote like everyone else: normal early voting opportunities and Election Day.

Is there any doubt that this particular early voting opportunity was installed with political motivations just so more black voters would vote? If the Sunday voters were prone to voting Republican, those who championed the law would probably not have done so. Would you consider that racist, too?

I'm not twisting. I'm pile-driving ahead with the obvious. It's a demographic issue not an ethnic one. Until you see the difference...

 

Here's the reality: "Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.

"The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates," Greer told The Post. "It's done for one reason and one reason only. ... 'We've got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,"' Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants."

This Greer guy is the guy you are attributing the motivation of all Republicans too.

There is no hint of white supremacy activity here. It's all about winning the election-- as was giving the Sunday voting privileges in the first place.

Reality. Smack!

The literacy tests were wrong. They truly prevented some from voting. That is not remotely true of this issue. BTW, your analogies are truly over the top: first rape and now literacy tests... and you questions my ability to recognize reality? You have such an extreme filter on everything.

This article quotes one Republican and you've extrapolated it to the party and you mischaracterize his comments to boot. Further you've intimated by playing the race card that it is about hate-mongering rather than simple demographics: how can we frustrate Democratic voter turnout with one fell swoop? Notice I said "frustrate" not "eliminate?" There were still tens of hours of opportunity to vote for EVERYONE.

 

Oh, this Jim Greer?

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/

 

The only smack of reality is you getting hit in the face by it.

What you've posted shows that you don't understand the difference between suppression and prohibition or elimination.

As I've said, Republicans tried to suppress the black vote because they vote Democratic, not because they have a hatred of black people. That doesn't make it okay, and it doesn't change that the fact they targeted black voters.

They've admitted doing that. I don't know why you'd try and argue that they aren't doing that, since they've admitted it! I will say it one more time, and hope that this time you can get it through your skull. Republicans admitted targeting black voters!

You're also wrong when you pretend that these things won't keep anyone from voting. It does. It's been shown to you again and again.

Here's a video that shows that. It also shows that Democrats voted to allow early voting even Republicans where the early votes would go against Democrats. Yet Republicans went against that.

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc8a3ef5" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=48603515^356229^952321&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc8a3ef5" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=48603515^356229^952321&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit NBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.nbcnews.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

Get a clue, pal.

 

Tell me where you teach, I will come tell you that your defense of these laws is despicable to your face.

 

Were you not the guy making whacked analogies to rape, Jim Crow laws and literacy tests?

 

Giddy Up
Pilot Elementary
Room 300
4701 Chimney Springs Drive
Greensboro, NC 27407

M-F: 7:15 AM to 3 PM

Get there by 10:55 and I'll buy your lunch!

 

Once the plutocrats get you to turn off your thinking cap and play team politics, you have already lost.

 

They weren't whacked. The fact that you can't tell an analogy from a claim that something is equivalent isn't surprising since you can't tell the difference between prohibition and suppression.

And even if the analogies were totally off, it's quite different than ignoring reality like you're doing.

 

Trying to have a discussion with giddy is only productive if you enjoy beating your head against a brick wall over and over and over again until it is bloody. He will defend whatever perceived position he's decided to hold until Hell freezes over, and will never admit to being wrong, will never change his position, and it doesn't matter how many posts you make providing information any rational person would accept as proving they were misinformed. Doesn't matter a damn bit. He'll keep repeating the same bizarre argument again and again, as long as you are willing to reply to the guy. Why people even bother is a mystery to me. I gave up long ago. He's fine in other forums, but here conversing with giddy is an exercise in self-flagellation. In my opinion, of course, based on a great deal of experience with him. For me, I'd rather go to the dentist and have a root canal.

But hey, if it turns you folks on, have at it.

 

You guys have entered...

The Giddy Zone!

 

you're right as he's proven once again in this thread. I was just curious to see how far he can take it.

It's fascinating really. I've never encountered someone so out of touch with reality that would still probably be considered sane. I guess that's because it's only on certain issues that he's that out of touch. I just wanted to see how out of touch he was.

 

So i missed the while Giggity Giggity portions of the thread, but why can't black voter get absentee ballots when they can't make the polls from work and other activities?

 

They can, of course, and they can also utilize any of the many other opportunities for early voting.

http://election.dos.state.fl.us/voting/early.shtml

According to the link above there are between 42 and 84 hours available for Early Voting, plus Absentee Voting.

Careful PC is run amok in here... and there's a madman on the loose!

 

Equivalent? So it's worse than I thought. The new early voting law is equivalent to trying to rape someone. Okay.... sure.

I can't tell the difference between prohibition and suppression? You are the ones who brought up the Literacy Test not me. That was an all-or-nothing hurdle designed to deny a voting right... and you are comparing that to a simple law which reduced the voting opportunity from 50-92 hours to 42-84 hours in a federal election!

 

like I said you can't tell the difference. That's the exact opposite of what I was saying, yet you misunderstood it.

I

The literacy test wasn't a total prohibition. And it was something that both whites and blacks could have to take.

Then you and try and argue that they aren't the same. Again, that's the point of an analogy. I was never trying to say that they are the same. I was pointing out that they are both wrong, and had bad goals.

You refuse to admit that the Florida law had the express goal of suppressing the black vote. The Republicans used the system and the law to try and make so that fewer black voters voted. They targeted black voters to try and make sure that fewer of them would vote.

You've gone out of your way to get around that fact, and yet the GOP have already admitted it.

It's why many people are pointing to your inability to recognize reality.

This post of yours that I'm quoting shows you don't understand that I was never trying to say things were equivalent, or the same, and that you can't understand that.

Keep digging yourself into the hole buddy.

 

It is possible if they knew how, had the access to do so, and possibly someone to help them. That's the point. It isn't keeping them from being able to vote. It's merely throwing more and more obstacles in the way. It's obstacles that are tailored to keeping black voters from voting.

 

You missed where I called them analogies-- copied above. You guys are the ones trying to draw analogies or equivalencies. The only comparitison I think I offered was the drill/hole-in-the-wall.

The literacy test was meant to eliminate people from voting-- especially uneducated which more usually meant black people.

Oh really, do you by chance mean the one where I called them analogies?