Obama DOJ: Black voters too dumb to vote w/o party affiliation

No, there are several points that can be taken from the article. Yours isn't one of them and is offensive.

By the way a frank discussion about race doesn't mean making up conclusions about blacks being too dumb.

 

I'm giving you the opportunity to support your argument based on the material you provided. I have already stated my view based upon the source material. I'm not flaming you, at least as I understand the term, but asking for you to argue your position.

If you feel that is telling because you feel you are being persecuted then that is your own business but I am treating you the same way I would treat any other poster regarding debating a controversial subject.

Perhaps though this is a waste and you would prefer to continue complain that people are ganging up on you while you throw rhetorical bombs. If so then I will leave it to you.

 

Again racism was shown in form of Bush appointees to the Justice department and the head of the civil rights department within the Justice department and you refused any discussion on the matter.

Clear evidence was presented about their racism, and as usual you ignored it... Just like you ignoring Judoka's discussion now.

 

that might be possible if you'd quit contending the article said ANYTHING about black voters except that they don't turn up to vote.

 

yeah be honest, what's DOJ's exact quote from which you inferred that blacks are too dumb

 

I kind of see what basso is saying, actually. While I wouldn't go so far as to say the DOJ is calling black voters dumb, it does seem to imply that black voters would be clueless as to whom to vote for if there was no party affiliation (more specifically, no Democratic party to vote for).

They're pigeon-holing black voters into a category that primarily votes for black Democrats, and without the Democratic moniker, they claim they won't know who to vote for since their "candidate of choice" (black Democrat) is not there.

It's a bit of a stretch nonetheless, but I can see his point at least.

 

FWIW, I disagree with the DOJ in this case as well.

Why can't there be a non-partisan election? I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, just like the city agreed to, and assume people will still know who they want to vote for even if there is no party affiliation. It would seem the DOJ disagrees and thinks black voters, specifically, won't know so there won't be "equal rights".

Is there something I missed? Is there some other reason that "equal rights" wouldn't be achieved with non-partisan elections?

 

I must be as dumb as a NC black man because I can't figure this out.

The article seemed pretty clear on the contention that the Black candidates needed white voters to be elected, and that the white folks would base their vote on race if not for the D, but I didn't see anywhere in the article about Black voters inability to tell black from white. Or on their voting patterns other then lack of participation in the process.

 

The entire reason that this branch of the DOJ exists is because white voters are too racist. It isn't offensive, it's reality.

 

Yes, it is telling that a half dozen or more people have read that article and understand that your thread title was simply not supported by the text.

It is also telling that only one person in this forum thinks the thread title is accurate. It tells us that you have your head up your a$$.

 

The article is confusing, I'll admit, just like the DOJ's reasoning for overturning the idea of non-partisan elections. Let me highlight a few passages that led me to a similar implication as basso:

The DOJ basically says that black voters go for Democrats, generally the black ones specifically. This is direct. However, this does not directly imply that they are unable to vote for someone else. Yet, if they are still able to vote for their "candidate of choice" without partisanship, why is the DOJ claiming a lack of "equal rights"?

This is where basso is getting his implication, I think: the "equal rights" are violated because the DOJ doesn't think black voters will vote unless their "candidate of choice" (a Democrat, generally black) is on the ballot.

That's one implication, a stretch, but at least you can see some logic behind it. However, the very next paragraph essentially implies that "equal rights" are being violated because white people won't vote for a black candidate unless they're Democrat:

So here, it seems the DOJ is saying that white voters won't vote for black candidates if there's no partisanship, and because of this, black voters won't be able to get their "candidate of choice" without the white vote.

However, I think this is ridiculous:

- First of all, the city is two thirds black. If the black voters want the black candidate, they can get him if they show up.

- Second, this essentially says the white voters are racist. The DOJ feels necessary to pass judgment on the racial proclivities of voters, which they shouldn't. If they're using this as their argument for overturning the non-partisan election (which they are), it's ridiculous.

- Third, it was completely unnecessary to mention that black voters' "candidate of choice" are Democrats (generally black ones). If this is not part of your reasoning for overturning the non-partisan election, why mention it at all? This gives clout to basso's supposition.

Anyway, the semantics of things are frivolous -- to me, the bottom line is that the DOJ is using ridiculous reasoning to overturn something that voters voted FOR.

 

You need to re-read the article as well. That's not remotely close to what the DOJ is saying. The DOJ didn't say black votes would change at all without the party-based elections. In fact, they said exactly the opposite.

 

Golly, and I was thinking that folks ought to be able to see the party affiliation of those they are choosing from at the ballot box. Whether the candidate, Black or White or Whatever, belongs to the political party they support and (gasp!) might even belong to. Folks who live busy lives and haven't had a chance to delve into the background of the candidates, a flaw, yes, but far too many people suffer from it, from all political parties, or from no political parties. Clearly, this is all too deep for the Blade Runner.

 

That's the basis of the Voting Rights Act. It was implemented specifically in and for voting districts with a history of racism. In those districts, the laws cannot be changed in such a way that would hurt the minority with DOJ approval. Whether or not this fit the bill and whether the DOJ should have intervened in this case is a legit point of discussion. But it has nothing to do with black voters being too dumb to vote w/o party affiliation. In fact, it has nothing at all with black voters voting at all.

That's not at all what the article says. It has nothing to do with whether black voters will vote or not.

This is a better discussion.

True - but that's irrelevant to the DOJ's role in the Voting Right Act. Your problem here is with the act, not the decision.

Except that's the entire purpose of the VRA. It's to federally monitor voting districts with a history of racism.

It gives clout to the idea that perhaps this was a partisan decision. It gives no such clout to the idea that black voters are too dumb to vote without party affiliation.

But again - that's the entire purpose behind the VRA. Voters in racist areas were voting for things to make voting laws more favorable to white candidates. The VRA was to protect from that. This may not fit the bill, but the idea that it's OK because the local community voted for it is entirely against what the VRA is for.

 

Please give me examples that support your contention that I am dishonest, crying racism, and ignoring it. Thanks.

(For the record, I think you copied a headline from a racist blog without thinking and now you're stuck defending it when there is absolutely no defense.)

 

Who said anything about taking their ball home? I'm giving you the chance to make a substantial argument. Its your call if you want to.

Point 1 I agree is supported by the article but point 2 isn't. No where in the article or DOJ ruling does it state that blacks are too dumb to vote for candidates that represent their interests.

From the article:
[rquoter]The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.
[/rquoter]

That is a clear argument that the DOJ sees racism in the actions of voters. The second part of that statement is stating that because of that racism black voters wouldn't have a chance to elect candidates they want which the clear implication is black candidates since white racism would hold them back.

That isn't a statement regarding intelligence but that racism might affect the ability of black candidates and black voters the ability to see those candidates elected.

Now as I said I think there is a very valid question about whether the Voting Rights Act should apply here and in that respect I am skeptical about the DOJ's reasoning but only you are the one injecting any question about intelligence of the electorate here.

Its your thread and if you put in an unsubtantiated inference in it why shouldn't it be challenged? Are you saying we should consider your opinion untouchable?

 

I think you have it backwards. Its not saying that black voters would only vote for Democrats but that white voters would more likely vote for blacks if they were Democrats.