Parallels to country's racist past haunt age of Obama - very interesting what happend in 1870

Feb 22, 2005
6,884
9
#1
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012...rys-racist-past-haunt-age-of-obama/?hpt=hp_t2

In 1870, Hiram Rhodes Revels, became the first American elected to the US Senate.

His election and that of many other African-Americans to public office triggered a white backlash that helped destroy Reconstruction, America’s first attempt to build an interracial democracy in the wake of the Civil War.

"When white Americans helped put this African-American in the Senate, it seemed that they were really welcoming African-Americans and they wanted them to have full equality,", however, That period, known as the Jim Crow era, saw the establishment of American apartheid: segregated public facilities, race riots and white racists murdering blacks and their white allies with impunity.

-----

The most commonly cited link revolves around the debate over voter ID laws. Since Obama's election, 34 states have considered adopting legislation requiring photo ID for voters, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University. Seven have passed such laws, which typically require voters to present a government-issued photo ID at the polls.

During the post-Reconstruction era, many white Southerners viewed the onset of black voting power in apocalyptic terms. They created a thicket of voting barriers - "poll taxes," "literacy tests" and "understanding clauses" - to prevent blacks from voting, said Dray.
"The idea was to invalidate the black vote without directly challenging the 15th Amendment," Dray said.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#3
This is the stupidest thing ever: requiring photo ID to vote is racist or anti-black??? Give me a break.
To understand this you must know what they think of black and minorities. A bunch of idiots who can barely get out of their house. Were it not for white liberals they would all starve to death with the fridge full of food.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
#4
Honestly, the democrats have been blowing this photo ID thing way out of proportion and if the fate of a country like the US was going to, or is going to, come down to a few people who can't even establish their identity, then you might as well have illegal Mexcian immigrants deciding the fate of your democracy! The arguments from hardcore democrats are just as aburd as the ones made by hardocre Republicans. If the fate of US democracy is going to come down to a few people who are unable or unwilling to get something as basic as a photo ID card, then you have much bigger problems than who's going to be the next president.
 

Natural

IPL Player
May 18, 2003
2,559
3
#6
Honestly, the democrats have been blowing this photo ID thing way out of proportion and if the fate of a country like the US was going to, or is going to, come down to a few people who can't even establish their identity, then you might as well have illegal Mexcian immigrants deciding the fate of your democracy! The arguments from hardcore democrats are just as aburd as the ones made by hardocre Republicans. If the fate of US democracy is going to come down to a few people who are unable or unwilling to get something as basic as a photo ID card, then you have much bigger problems than who's going to be the next president.
Bi-Honar jaan, Voting is a right not a privilege... its a fundamental right that should not be taken away from any citizen based on any criteria. these laws statistically speaking will affect the lower income portion of society.. and the only party thats advovating forit and will benefit from it are the republicans..

there has been extensive studies done on past elections.. the percentage of fraud is sooo low that it's almost insignificant..
 
Feb 22, 2005
6,884
9
#7
I am not surprised that these people who are born into well to do or middle class have no comprehension of what would be like for the poor people. This is the problem that our mostly republican friends have, inability to get beyond their own filters that they use to view every issue and realize poor have a much more difficult sets of situations than they do.

For example, some of the cities that are in question are so poor that people work locally, long hours, or travel far for very low paying jobs to survive. Requiring these people to take time off to go far to cities where they can get IDs are ridiculous especially so close to election. It is not possible for most. Such a task must be done through a year and government spending money to to make sure it can be done at local levels throughout.

Our good friends on this site fail to realize the only difference between many of these people and them is which family they are born into. And since people have already grabbed lands and put their name on it throughout centuries, these people born into poverty are F**ed and it will get worst as our Republican friends on this site scream for cutting costs, including those of education, and other ways that enables people to get themsevles out of poverty.

After all, for these people the world is made to serve them.

It's not stupid.. your nativity might be though. Watch and learn something:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20091451
 
Last edited:
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
#8
Bi-Honar jaan, Voting is a right not a privilege... its a fundamental right that should not be taken away from any citizen based on any criteria. these laws statistically speaking will affect the lower income portion of society.. and the only party thats advovating forit and will benefit from it are the republicans..

there has been extensive studies done on past elections.. the percentage of fraud is sooo low that it's almost insignificant..
I've been following the arguments on both sides closely. This is the way I see it:

1 - The provision of a photo ID card is not taking away anyone's right to vote, quite the contrary, it is establishing that person's right to vote. Weren't the dmoecrats complaining a couple of months ago that the same group was turned away from the voting stations in the last elections because they were listed as deceased or being in jail? Obviously under the old scenario, they didn't get to exercise their right, but under this scenario, no one can turn them away from the voting stations. Look, it's not that hard to get a photo ID card at this day and age and believe me, if anyone's going to cheat in the elections, it's going to be the Republicans, so as far as I'm concerned, they shot themselves in the foot with this one.

2 - Yes, I've heard about those studies. How could they have accurately established the percentage of fraud when you weren't even required to show an ID - nevermind a photo ID? Also, didn't you just say a few posts earlier that the Bush/Gore race was decided by only 500+ votes? Obviously, you don't need 2 million fraudulent votes to change the results of an election and if you look at all those studies, the number of fraudulent votes (notwithstanding the ID issue) was in the 10's of thousands. Why resist good change when you know the Republicans can throw the results of future elections with only a few hundred votes like they did last time and put the world through 8 very dark years, the effects of which we're still feeling today.

3 - Although there's some validity in the democgraphics argument, I don't think it has as much weight as some people are suggesting. Just because you have a low income, it doesn't mean you can't get a photo ID IMHO. You either have to be really lazy or really don't care to participate in any part of the system not to have a photo ID card (since there are so many different ways and types of photo ID cards you can get) , which means you're likely too lazy to vote or aren't interested in participating in this either, so this makes no difference whatsoever. Plus, there are just as many low-income hilbillies supporting the Republicans as there are low-income inner city blacks or Hispanics voting for Democrats, and chances are that if you are an inner city voter, you have much easier access to some form of photo ID than a rural hillbillie!

At the end of the day, other countries with great democratic systems have the exact same requirements for voting and no issue has ever been made about it - including Canada the land of the Unferground Railroad, since we're going bacl to 19th century history! ;)
 
Last edited:

Ardesheer

Bench Warmer
Jun 30, 2005
1,580
1
#9
It's not stupid.. your nativity might be though. Watch and learn something:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20091451
Dude, you do NOT know what you are talking about in this case, and as usual, you use colorful words to hide your ignorance. I guess you meant "naivety" not "nativity". Anyhow, what a deep article you have posted. Some BBC article that is five lines long and has no support or any reference to U.S. laws and Constitution. I guess you accept any type garbage if it is in print (as long as it maches your belief system).

You don't know much about American legal system and how the country works. There is nothing to learn from you on this subject.

Let me tell you a bit about "fundemental rights" that you are throwing around and you don't know what it really means. In fact, "voting right" is not one of those fundamental rights that is expressly enumerated in the Constitution, but has been recognized by the Supreme Court. Another example of a fundamental right that is not enumerated by the Constitution but recognized by the Supreme Court is the right to marry. Do you follow me so far?

Every State in the U.S. has requirements before one can get a marriage license and marry. You must know this, or can check the web site of any State Government to see what the requirements are. At the very least you need to show an ID for getting married. I don't see any person, Democrat or Republican, saying that people should not have IDs for getting married. If low income people happen to have no IDs, one can also argue that State marriage requirements should be abolished too, because it is directed at low income people to make sure they cannot procreate, as opposed to rich whites that can marry and have more kids.

Also, the fundamental right to marry has been limited by States to one marriage at a time. That must also be a violation of a fundamental right. Look, States have the right to pass reasonable laws to make sure the system works. Asking for a person to prove their identity is as reasonable one can get. As I said it is the stupidest thing to say that States are discrminating against blacks by requesting IDs.

The counter argument is also that by letting someone who does not have an ID (and thus cannot prove to be even a citizen) to vote, because that vote dilutes and takes away the fundamental right of a citizen that can vote. In other words, if you vote for Obama, and a non-citizen votes for Romney, he has in effect taken away or cancelled out your vote. Now, go bring an article and say others don't understand because of their "nativity". LOL. In effect, the States are protecting the fundamental right of those who have the right to vote.
 
Feb 22, 2005
6,884
9
#10
On #1, you are assuming that if you have ID card, you can just go vote? They still have to check the list to make sure you have not deceased or gone to jail. It is the list that is the problem.

On #2, you currently have to show an ID (for example licene) and be registered to vote, in NY.

I've been following the arguments on both sides closely. This is the way I see it:

1 - The provision of a photo ID card is not taking away anyone's right to vote, quite the contrary, it is establishing that person's right to vote. Weren't the dmoecrats complaining a couple of months ago that the same group was turned away from the voting stations in the last elections because they were listed as deceased or being in jail? Obviously under the old scenario, they didn't get to exercise their right, but under this scenario, no one can turn them away from the voting stations. Look, it's not that hard to get a photo ID card at this day and age and believe me, if anyone's going to cheat in the elections, it's going to be the Republicans, so as far as I'm concerned, they shot themselves in the foot with this one.

2 - Yes, I've heard about those studies. How could they have accurately established the percentage of fraud when you weren't even required to show an ID - nevermind a photo ID? Also, didn't you just say a few posts earlier that the Bush/Gore race was decided by only 500+ votes? Obviously, you don't need 2 million fraudulent votes to change the results of an election and if you look at all those studies, the number of fraudulent votes (notwithstanding the ID issue) was in the 10's of thousands. Why resist good change when you know the Republicans can throw the results of future elections with only a few hundred votes like they did last time and put the world through 8 very dark years, the effects of which we're still feeling today.

3 - Although there's some validity in the democgraphics argument, I don't think it has as much weight as some people are suggesting. Just because you have a low income, it doesn't mean you can't get a photo ID IMHO. You either have to be really lazy or really don't care to participate in any part of the system not to have a photo ID card (since there are so many different ways and types of photo ID cards you can get) , which means you're likely too lazy to vote or aren't interested in participating in this either, so this makes no difference whatsoever. Plus, there are just as many low-income hilbillies supporting the Republicans as there are low-income inner city blacks or Hispanics voting for Democrats, and chances are that if you are an inner city voter, you have much easier access to some form of photo ID than a rural hillbillie!

At the end of the day, other countries with great democratic systems have the exact same requirements for voting and no issue has ever been made about it - Canada included!
 
Feb 22, 2005
6,884
9
#11
It if funny how you guys put anything to do with Europe down, yet the photo ID, one of the things that distinguishes US as being great not forcing people to have, where it will display info on the ID that can be used for Racism, you guys are for it. Just because it helps to get your candidate elected.

Dude, you do NOT know what you are talking about in this case, and as usual, you use colorful words to hide your ignorance. I guess you meant "naivety" not "nativity". Anyhow, what a deep article you have posted. Some BBC article that is five lines long and has no support or any reference to U.S. laws and Constitution. I guess you accept any type garbage if it is in print (as long as it maches your belief system).

You don't know much about American legal system and how the country works. There is nothing to learn from you on this subject.

Let me tell you a bit about "fundemental rights" that you are throwing around and you don't know what it really means. In fact, "voting right" is not one of those fundamental rights that is expressly enumerated in the Constitution, but has been recognized by the Supreme Court. Another example of a fundamental right that is not enumerated by the Constitution but recognized by the Supreme Court is the right to marry. Do you follow me so far?

Every State in the U.S. has requirements before one can get a marriage license and marry. You must know this, or can check the web site of any State Government to see what the requirements are. At the very least you need to show an ID for getting married. I don't see any person, Democrat or Republican, saying that people should not have IDs for getting married. If low income people happen to have no IDs, one can also argue that State marriage requirements should be abolished too, because it is directed at low income people to make sure they cannot procreate, as opposed to rich whites that can marry and have more kids.

Also, the fundamental right to marry has been limited by States to one marriage at a time. That must also be a violation of a fundamental right. Look, States have the right to pass reasonable laws to make sure the system works. Asking for a person to prove their identity is as reasonable one can get. As I said it is the stupidest thing to say that States are discrminating against blacks by requesting IDs.

The counter argument is also that by letting someone who does not have an ID (and thus cannot prove to be even a citizen) to vote, because that vote dilutes and takes away the fundamental right of a citizen that can vote. In other words, if you vote for Obama, and a non-citizen votes for Romney, he has in effect taken away or cancelled out your vote. Now, go bring an article and say others don't understand because of their "nativity". LOL. In effect, the States are protecting the fundamental right of those who have the right to vote.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
1
Canada
#12
On #1, you are assuming that if you have ID card, you can just go vote? They still have to check the list to make sure you have not deceased or gone to jail. It is the list that is the problem.
Lordi joon mauro gozashti sare kar lol? If you're standing there with a photo ID card, you're boviously neither dead, nor in jail! :confused-

On #2, you currently have to show an ID (for example licene) and be registered to vote, in NY
I think around 3/10 of the States have absolutely no ID laws, which means a tea-bagger can just show up and vote in your place.
Another 4/10 States require no photo ID, which means a tea-bagger can easily make up a fake ID that says he is Lordi and vote in your place.
Any study that would have tracked voter fraud would have had absolutely no ways of establishing if a tea-bagger did ineed show up and vote in your place. 540 of these tea-bagger types may very well have decided the fate of millions of people not just in the US, but in Iraq and Afghanistan and hundreds of millions people worldwide economically. Are you really comfortable with that going forward?!
 
Feb 22, 2005
6,884
9
#13
Bi-honar aziz, the photo ID card will be active. You can go to jail next year and then the following election your card will be good to go. There is no way they would do by the list. They still need the list to cross you out when you vote or check whether your card is real, etc. And the list is the real issue.

Photo ID thing can become a problem in the future. As it will extend into other parts such as getting stopped for tickets, getting jobs, etc.. What is great about US is we dont have it and it creates much less racism.

Lordi joon mauro gozashti sare kar lol? If you're standing there with a photo ID card, you're boviously neither dead, nor in jail! :confused-



I think around 3/10 of the States have absolutely no ID laws, which means a tea-bagger can just show up and vote in your place.
Another 4/10 States require no photo ID, which means a tea-bagger can easily make up a fake ID that says he is Lordi and vote in your place.
Any study that would have tracked voter fraud would have had absolutely no ways of establishing if a tea-bagger did ineed show up and vote in your place. 540 of these tea-bagger types may very well have decided the fate of millions of people not just in the US, but in Iraq and Afghanistan and hundreds of millions people worldwide economically. Are you really comfortable with that going forward?!
 

Ardesheer

Bench Warmer
Jun 30, 2005
1,580
1
#14
It if funny how you guys put anything to do with Europe down, yet the photo ID, one of the things that distinguishes US as being great not forcing people to have, where it will display info on the ID that can be used for Racism, you guys are for it. Just because it helps to get your candidate elected.
First of all, I don't care whether photo ID helps Democrats or Republicans. Nothing can be more common sense than this. You must show who you are and that you are eligible to vote. For Allah's sake, people go through many hurdles to become a citizen, and a key aspect of citizenship is being able to vote. How can you even argue about this is beyond me? I respectfully submit to you that you are the one who is giving up logic in this case, because you think it can hurt Obama. I do not care about the political ramifications. For all I care, they can do this after the election. But, they must put a system in place that proof of citizenship is required before you can vote. Let's get it in place in 2013. I don't care. It just defies logic that you can exercise the most important right a citizen has without proving that you are a citizen. Not having a photo ID to vote does not make a country great, it makes the country look stupid.
 

Flint

Legionnaire
Jan 28, 2006
7,016
0
United States
#15
If the fate of US democracy is going to come down to a few people who are unable or unwilling to get something as basic as a photo ID card, then you have much bigger problems than who's going to be the next president.
For this statement alone you'd be accused of the ugliest epithets, of which racism is just a small part, in the Democratic party. I see you mentioned elsewhere your affinity toward them but you have no idea who you are aligning yourself with.
 

Natural

IPL Player
May 18, 2003
2,559
3
#16
Dude, you do NOT know what you are talking about in this case, and as usual, you use colorful words to hide your ignorance. I guess you meant "naivety" not "nativity". Anyhow, what a deep article you have posted. Some BBC article that is five lines long and has no support or any reference to U.S. laws and Constitution. I guess you accept any type garbage if it is in print (as long as it maches your belief system).

You don't know much about American legal system and how the country works. There is nothing to learn from you on this subject.

Let me tell you a bit about "fundemental rights" that you are throwing around and you don't know what it really means. In fact, "voting right" is not one of those fundamental rights that is expressly enumerated in the Constitution, but has been recognized by the Supreme Court. Another example of a fundamental right that is not enumerated by the Constitution but recognized by the Supreme Court is the right to marry. Do you follow me so far?

Every State in the U.S. has requirements before one can get a marriage license and marry. You must know this, or can check the web site of any State Government to see what the requirements are. At the very least you need to show an ID for getting married. I don't see any person, Democrat or Republican, saying that people should not have IDs for getting married. If low income people happen to have no IDs, one can also argue that State marriage requirements should be abolished too, because it is directed at low income people to make sure they cannot procreate, as opposed to rich whites that can marry and have more kids.

Also, the fundamental right to marry has been limited by States to one marriage at a time. That must also be a violation of a fundamental right. Look, States have the right to pass reasonable laws to make sure the system works. Asking for a person to prove their identity is as reasonable one can get. As I said it is the stupidest thing to say that States are discrminating against blacks by requesting IDs.

The counter argument is also that by letting someone who does not have an ID (and thus cannot prove to be even a citizen) to vote, because that vote dilutes and takes away the fundamental right of a citizen that can vote. In other words, if you vote for Obama, and a non-citizen votes for Romney, he has in effect taken away or cancelled out your vote. Now, go bring an article and say others don't understand because of their "nativity". LOL. In effect, the States are protecting the fundamental right of those who have the right to vote.
Dude, that was a VIDEO, and not an article.. so watch it before commenting on the depth of it.. I clearly said WATCH not read.

you argument is just irrational.. Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare.. voter fraud is a singularly foolish way to attempt to win an election. Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - but only allows at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price.

Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud problem. although voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. Americans are struck and killed by lightning about just as often. so there is your upside.. whats the downside? the downside is that 5-10 million people will be affected by these laws.. and during elections that are so divided that only a few votes can determine its outcome, this is the perfect tactic.

if the people who wouldn't get to vote were old and white instead of black and hispanic then this wouldn't even be an issue. and people like you wouldn't even know there is a problem to begin with..
 

Ardesheer

Bench Warmer
Jun 30, 2005
1,580
1
#17
Dude, that was a VIDEO, and not an article.. so watch it before commenting on the depth of it.. I clearly said WATCH not read.

you argument is just irrational.. Fraud by individual voters is both irrational and extremely rare.. voter fraud is a singularly foolish way to attempt to win an election. Each act of voter fraud risks five years in prison and a $10,000 fine - but only allows at most one incremental vote. The single vote is simply not worth the price.

Because voter fraud is essentially irrational, it is not surprising that no credible evidence suggests a voter fraud problem. although voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. Americans are struck and killed by lightning about just as often. so there is your upside.. whats the downside? the downside is that 5-10 million people will be affected by these laws.. and during elections that are so divided that only a few votes can determine its outcome, this is the perfect tactic.

if the people who wouldn't get to vote were old and white instead of black and hispanic then this wouldn't even be an issue. and people like you wouldn't even know there is a problem to begin with..
You did not respond to a single point I made. Others can judge. You are just talking about chance of fraud and lightening. There are many laws that are violated very infrequently. So, your solution is to wipe them out. Also, who died and made the representative of black people. You think you are some kind of poor and disadvantaged defender. I am against racism and have done a lot more than you can think of or done, but you just don't see simple solutions for problems, because you are blinded by conspiracy theories and think there are always ulterior motives for people that take a position. That's why you come down so strong by forming wrong perceptions. No ID, no vote, whether black or white. No ID, no marriage license, whether black or white.
 
Aug 26, 2005
16,771
4
#19
This is stupid...for two reasons. A) The Comparison. B) It affects everybody, not just blacks. The conservatives (especially the Libertarian wing) are vehemently against these kinds of things.

[video=youtube_share;n9CZ5OUet3s]http://youtu.be/n9CZ5OUet3s[/video]
 
Last edited:

Natural

IPL Player
May 18, 2003
2,559
3
#20
You did not respond to a single point I made. Others can judge. You are just talking about chance of fraud and lightening. There are many laws that are violated very infrequently. So, your solution is to wipe them out. Also, who died and made the representative of black people. You think you are some kind of poor and disadvantaged defender. I am against racism and have done a lot more than you can think of or done, but you just don't see simple solutions for problems, because you are blinded by conspiracy theories and think there are always ulterior motives for people that take a position. That's why you come down so strong by forming wrong perceptions. No ID, no vote, whether black or white. No ID, no marriage license, whether black or white.
And you still failed to watch the video but are accusing me for not getting back to you about your non-sense comparison...

blinded by conspiracy theories lol.. even BBC News, one of the most mainstream news sites, has a comprehensive video up explaining the situation.. you're pretty much blinded by your first, uneducated, instinct.. sometimes your first instincts are wrong when you learn more about a situation.. cuz the truth lies somewhere in the gray area, not in the black nor in the white.

representative of the black ppl? lol no I call it as I see it.. I can call you a representative of the republicans because these laws only help republicans.. but of course you are not one.. you are just stating your opinion, and so am I.
 
Last edited: