• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law

Grant said:
All States have a history of racism. It's what's happening today that counts. [...]
Click to expand...
They you will agree that all felons, who have completed their sentence, should be allowed to vote.

After all, it's what's happening today that counts. Correct?
 
taxigirl said:
What "grounds" are there to believe the affidavit is false? "grounds" seems vague. This allows too much wiggle room and allows for individuals to judge. This does not say that they have proven the affidavit is false, but that they believe it to be.
Click to expand...

Um, no ID....? They are allowed to vote, no one is disenfranchised. Period.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Um, no ID....? They are allowed to vote, no one is disenfranchised. Period.
Click to expand...
Oops... you fell off the truth train there:

Voters who don't provide an excuse for not having a photo ID can vote, but the vote wouldn't count until they return to the board of registration and elections to provide a photo ID, according to the complaint.

from your USA Today link (post #622)
Click to expand...

Better run so you can catch it . . . .
train2.gif
 
Karl said:
Oops... you fell off the truth train there:



Better run so you can catch it . . . .
train2.gif
Click to expand...


Or they can sign an affidavit and vote in a provisional ballot.

Catch your own train....

j-mac
 
Grant said:
Without the clueless and undereducated the Democrats would be very unlikely to win elections, and they know that. Of course the unspoken line here from the Democrats is that these people are too ignorant to get an ID card without government assistance and supervision. Yet they want to be sure these same people get out and vote. It's funny, isn't it.
Click to expand...

Really? Here all this time I thought that the educational institutions were all hotbeds of liberal thought and indoctrination. How is it, then, that it is the uneducated who vote Democratic?

It seems to me that it is the uneducated who vote party line, whether it is R or D, without thought as to who they're voting for or what the issues are.
 
j-mac said:
Or they can sign an affidavit and vote in a provisional ballot.

Catch your own train....
Click to expand...
Oh my... caught red handed and you can't admit it, but you can make it worse by denying it. Priceless! :lamo

Voters who don't provide an excuse for not having a photo ID can vote, but the vote wouldn't count until they return to the board of registration and elections to provide a photo ID, according to the complaint.
Click to expand...

Oh, the tangled web we weave, when we first begin to deceive . . . . .
 
j-mac said:
Um, no ID....? They are allowed to vote, no one is disenfranchised. Period.


j-mac
Click to expand...

All provisional ballots are kept separate and not counted on election night. It will be counted if your registration is verified.
Click to expand...

http://www.vote411.org/bystateresult.php?state=

Once an election is "called" provisional votes are most often not counted. So instead of providing ID, you get to sign an affidavit to cast a vote that most likely won't be counted. I'd say that is pretty disenfranchising.
 
taxigirl said:
http://www.vote411.org/bystateresult.php?state=

Once an election is "called" provisional votes are most often not counted. So instead of providing ID, you get to sign an affidavit to cast a vote that most likely won't be counted. I'd say that is pretty disenfranchising.
Click to expand...


The Department of Motor Vehicles says nearly 700 people have called about getting a free ride to get a photo identification card to comply with South Carolina's new voter ID law. According to the DMV, only 25 rides are scheduled for the one-day only free ride program, happening Wednesday, and most of the people who called the DMV were not interested in getting a ride.

"The vast majority of the calls we received were from citizens who simply wanted to know what they had to do to get an identification card," said DMV Executive Director Kevin Shwedo. And it wasnt about politics. It was about helping people get the photo IDs they need to conduct business in their everyday lives."

In late August, Gov. Nikki Haley unveiled the free-ride program during a news conference with DMV director Kevin Shwedo, telling voters they could call to schedule a ride to their local DMV office.. Residents had to qualify by September 22.
Despite the low turnout for the program, Haley feels she is helping alleviate the problem.

"We wanted everybody that wanted a state ID to get one. We got 25 appointments, that's 25 people we're helping so I'm pleased with that," said Haley. "Should it have been more? You know, there were a lot of people that said they were thousands of people that were not able to get to the DMV. None of us knew what we were walking into, but, we were prepared whether it was 25 or 2,500."

Gov. Haley and supporters of the voter ID law argue the measure will help stop voter fraud and secure South Carolina's elections.

"If you have to show a picture ID to buy Sudafed, if you have to show a picture ID to get on an airplane, you should show a picture ID when you vote," Haley said.

More SC voters than first thought don't have photo ID : News : MidlandsConnect.com
Click to expand...


Look, it just sounds to me like you liberals are crying about every hurdle being overcome...IF you don't have ID you can sign and affidavit and vote, if you don't have a ride to the DMV you can call and get a free ride there and back...etc. The problem is that we IMHO, will never hear the REAL reason you are against this type of law which is that you liberals can't use illegals, and other non registered people to commit fraud in elections.

It's ok though, I am sure that now that Holder refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for wielding billy clubs outside polling places, maybe this time we will see some real beat downs by the Obama SS for non Obama voters, that really isn't intimidation either.....


j-mac
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I've suggested from the very beginning that the local DMV's set up booths for ID card creation near polling centers in poorer neighborhoods. I'm normally very against anything that'll cost the government, but considering how little effort it would really take for a few DMV workers to throw a few computers and the ID card machine into a van and to set up a booth in their local area, the cost would be almost nothing to the government. Let's face it, it doesn't actually cost the government $50 per ID card.
Click to expand...
If all states took this to heart there may not be a problem but it's going to take a lot more than some promise by a politician. These needs have to be addressed in the voter law itself or addressed in writing before the voter laws are passed, otherwise they're worthless. I've seen no such commitment in writing and, quite honestly, I don't expect to see it unless it's forced by the ACLU, the Fed, or whoever.

RabidAlpaca said:
As far as the person who earlier attacked this idea because the "poor can't get transportation to the voting stations", that sounds like a personal problem. The government isn't here to wipe your a** for you, you have to take some responsibility in your own life. I think it'd be very fair to offer free ID cards to poor families in order to facilitate voting.
Click to expand...
I agree with this assessment. 30 years ago when I was driving a cab we had a voting day program where we helped older people get to the polls to vote. This kind of charity has been on-going for decades and I don't know why it would be brought up. I didn't see the specific post but maybe the poster's intent was voter registration instead of voting place? I don't know, it's just a guess.

To me free ID cards are a must regardless of economic position - though I can see not issuing them to someone that already has a driver's license.
 
j-mac said:
Look, it just sounds to me like you liberals are crying about every hurdle being overcome...IF you don't have ID you can sign and affidavit and vote, if you don't have a ride to the DMV you can call and get a free ride there and back...etc. The problem is that we IMHO, will never hear the REAL reason you are against this type of law which is that you liberals can't use illegals, and other non registered people to commit fraud in elections.

It's ok though, I am sure that now that Holder refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for wielding billy clubs outside polling places, maybe this time we will see some real beat downs by the Obama SS for non Obama voters, that really isn't intimidation either.....


j-mac
Click to expand...

It is a one day only free ride program and you had to be registered for it by Sept 22.

You do not have a response to my post explaining what a provisional ballot is. Would you want to vote if you knew yours would not be counted? That is called disenfranchisement.
 
j-mac said:
[...] IF you don't have ID you can sign and affidavit and vote,
Click to expand...
Well, the lies are coming fast and furious now. If you don't have a valid excuse for not having a valid photo ID, you can vote, but it won't count (unless you show up later with -- a valid photo ID). This has been proven twice now, but this particular lie, it keeps on a comin'.

j-mac said:
if you don't have a ride to the DMV you can call and get a free ride there and back...etc.
Click to expand...
According to your own quote, that was a one day program. And you had to pre-register. So, here we have a lie by omission.

j-mac said:
The problem is that we IMHO, will never hear the REAL reason you are against this type of law which is that you liberals can't use illegals, and other non registered people to commit fraud in elections.
Click to expand...
Ah. The propaganda portion of our program. How many times has the right been asked to provide evidence of this voter fraud? At least four times in this thread alone, IIRC.

And how many times has that evidence been provided?

j-mac said:
It's ok though, I am sure that now that Holder refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for wielding billy clubs outside polling places, [....]
Click to expand...
There was one billy club. Singular. Chalk up another lie. Check that -- there was also one polling place. Singular. Change that chalk mark to two lies.

j-mac said:
maybe this time we will see some real beat downs by the Obama SS for non Obama voters, that really isn't intimidation either.....
Click to expand...
And we close out with a racist Nazi reference. All around, a stellar, intellectual post -- pretty much totally devoid of truth, and what little truth was provided was twisted.
 
Grant said:
Admit it every time? I'm pointing it out frequently. The clueless and uneducated vote for Democrats and more responsible people vote for Republicans. The fact that this has to be pointed out to you yet again strongly indicates into which category you fall.
Click to expand...

This speaks volumes about you. You just said it again -- stop Democrats from voting. It's interesting how acccording to you guys, all colllege professors are raging lefties, yet only the uneducated vote for Democrats....how's that work?


Of course every responsible person wants its citizenry to be better educated, with the exception of the Democrats. Why else do you suppose BHO canceled the Opportunity Scholarship Program funding while his own children go to a private school?

President
Click to expand...

As is constantly pointed out by the right, we can't just afford to have the government paying for everything. So which is it? Keep every program and keep deficit spending? Or is it just the programs you like?

And if educated, responsible people vote Republican, why is Rick Santorum so against higher education? You'd think it would create more Republican voters. You're full of contradictions


Fairness and equal opportunity is "crap". Spoken like a true Democrat,
Click to expand...

Fairness and equal opportunity is wonderful. Let's have some. The thought that requiring ID for voting creates that...is crap.

And how is stopping Democrats from voting, which you clearly admit is what you want, fair?
 
Last edited:
j-mac said:
Absolutely...outcries against this are phony, and meant to keep the flaws in the system in place to be

j-mac
Click to expand...

False, out cries over this are happening because most states that are trying to enact said law aren't following SCs lead

That and SCs help isn't very good. The obstacles to voting should be done in such a way that anyone, regardless of position can over come them.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
This speaks volumes about you. You just said it again -- stop Democrats from voting. It's interesting how acccording to you guys, all colllege professors are raging lefties, yet only the uneducated vote for Democrats....how's that work?
Click to expand...

I said "stop Democrats from voting"? Where?

Do you think that being a college professor implies intelligence about things outside their field? These very often are ridiculously insulated people and repeat only what they learned at their leftist professors knee while still dewy eyes innocents. I just had dinner with a couple of them last night. The miseducation is reflected in the absence of debate on college campuses and the thugs and mugs who are hired.

As is constantly pointed out by the right, we can't just afford to have the government paying for everything. So which is it? Keep every program and keep deficit spending? Or is it just the programs you like?
Click to expand...

The Constitution served the American people well until judicial activism took hold and judges began reading things into the Constitution which weren't there.'When they began usurping State Rights then the gradual decline began.
And if educated, responsible people vote Republican, why is Rick Santorum so against higher education? You'd think it would create more Republican voters. You're full of contradictions
Click to expand...

Firstly you would need to support what you just claimed with an in-context quote. Secondly Rick Santorum does not speak for Republicans. He is a political candidate and holds no office at all.
Fairness and equal opportunity is wonderful. Let's have some. The thought that requiring ID for voting creates that...is crap.
Click to expand...

How does demonstrating that an individual has the legal right to vote constitute unfairness? If anything the reverse is true because it is only fair that only those Americans who are legally allowed to vote should be voting. Are you one of those who will not only not protect your borders but not protect your electoral system as well? A lot of lives have been lost in vain if that is the case.



And how is stopping Democrats from voting, which you clearly admit is what you want, fair?
Click to expand...

If I "clearly admitted it" then provide the quote. That way you'll have some creds.

Maybe an intelligence test should also be made mandatory before voting privileges are allowed.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Really? Here all this time I thought that the educational institutions were all hotbeds of liberal thought and indoctrination. How is it, then, that it is the uneducated who vote Democratic?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're confusing education with indoctrination. We can call a Marxist economics professor "educated" but we can also question the value of that education when it applies to the reality of daily life. A professor specializing in quantum physics may not understand municipal budgets or other aspects of life that the most people deal with on a regular basis. They tend to do better in theory than reality. So do those on the bottom end of the scale who also have little contact with the middle class.

It seems to me that it is the uneducated who vote party line, whether it is R or D, without thought as to who they're voting for or what the issues are.
Click to expand...

I'm more interested in how we define "uneducated" and what that means in the larger sense.

I'm among those who are not terribly impressed with the quality of the product the education system has been turning out and international grading systems support the idea that a great deal of money has been going to waste. At the same time political leaders like Barrack Obama, as well as most Democrats, want the power for the unions, not for genuine education where the student comes first.
 
Karl said:
They you will agree that all felons, who have completed their sentence, should be allowed to vote.

After all, it's what's happening today that counts. Correct?
Click to expand...

This deflection has nothing to do with the thread but yes, I believe those who have paid their debt to society should be allowed to vote.

Back to the topic now?
 
Grant said:
The Constitution served the American people well until judicial activism took hold and judges began reading things into the Constitution which weren't there.'When they began usurping State Rights then the gradual decline began.
Click to expand...

If that was what you thought, you would be applauding Obama for removing this federal program and removing the federal intrusion and letting the District of Columbia decide it's own business. Instead, you attacked him for doing so. So which is it? Get the Feds out or not? If it's get them out, then this should never have been Obama's responsibility in the first place. You can't attack the "usurping of State Rights" and be mad about the President ending this particular "usurpation." I suspect you're just looking for any avenue to attack him.


Firstly you would need to support what you just claimed with an in-context quote. Secondly Rick Santorum does not speak for Republicans. He is a political candidate and holds no office at all.
Click to expand...

You said this:

Grant said:
Admit it every time? I'm pointing it out frequently. The clueless and uneducated vote for Democrats and more responsible people vote for Republicans. The fact that this has to be pointed out to you yet again strongly indicates into which category you fall.
Click to expand...

If we assume that your hyper-partisan vitriol is accurate, you want to keep the "clueless and uneducated" from voting. If you are correct that they all vote for Democrats, then you want to stop Democrats from voting. At least your version of what a Democrat is. I can only assume that this is because then only the "more responsible" people would vote, which in your mind would give Republicans an advantage since the "more responsible" people invariably vote fro

How does demonstrating that an individual has the legal right to vote constitute unfairness?
Click to expand...

It doesn't constitute unfairness. If you read what I said, I said that requiring ID does not constitute fairness. It does not make unfair system fair. In fact, it solves nothing at all. Since you seem to have a strong libertarian bent, I ask you why we need 50 state regulations that don't solve a problem that usually comes out to less than 1% of votes cast? To me, it seems like unnecessary governmental regulation of individuals.

Are you one of those who will not only not protect your borders but not protect your electoral system as well? A lot of lives have been lost in vain if that is the case.
Click to expand...

That's a big assumption about me, that I ask you to back up with evidence. Since you have none, that's just dishonest.
 
Last edited:
rocket88 said:
If that was what you thought, you would be applauding Obama for removing this federal program and removing the federal intrusion and letting the District of Columbia decide it's own business. Instead, you attacked him for doing so. So which is it? Get the Feds out or not? If it's get them out, then this should never have been Obama's responsibility in the first place. You can't attack the "usurping of State Rights" and be mad about the President ending this particular "usurpation." I suspect you're just looking for any avenue to attack him.
Click to expand...

You see the inconsistency also?

Yes, i believe the States should be running their education system in order that politicians like BHO cannot play these games on a national level. That is giving the Feds too much power.. The Feds have politicized education, as we can see, and that is to no ones benefit.

You suspect I'm looking for another avenue to attach him? Are you his baby sitter or something?




If we assume that your hyper-partisan vitriol is accurate, you want to keep the "clueless and uneducated" from voting.
Click to expand...

It's not clear whether you're being deliberately thick here or not but nowhere did i say that. Even when you use the quote you cannot understand what I said. I suppose I should have added that when you use a quote, you should respond to what is actually in the quote, and not what''s in your imagination. That can be your next challenge.

If you are correct that they all vote for Democrats, then you want to stop Democrats from voting. At least your version of what a Democrat is. I can only assume that this is because then only the "more responsible" people would vote, which in your mind would give Republicans an advantage since the "more responsible" people invariably vote fro
Click to expand...

Your assumptions are of no interest to me, nor do I want to make assumptions about you or your own education.

It doesn't constitute unfairness. If you read what I said, I said that requiring ID does not constitute fairness. It does not make unfair system fair. In fact, it solves nothing at all. Since you seem to have a strong libertarian bent, I ask you why we need 50 state regulations that don't solve a problem that usually comes out to less than 1% of votes cast? To me, it seems like unnecessary governmental regulation of individuals.
Click to expand...

They are not regulating individuals. If you can explain how having an ID to vote is regulating an individual please explain how that is being done. What they are trying to do is regulate the system in order that only those who are allowed to vote may vote. It is a system that is already regulated but obviously ineffectively. What they are trying to do is make the system in place more effective. What is wrong with that?

That's a big assumption about me, that I ask you to back up with evidence. Since you have none, that's just dishonest.
Click to expand...

This is getting depressing. I asked a question, added an ïf", and made no assumptions. Re-read what was written and then respond if you choose.
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
You see the inconsistency also?

Yes, i believe the States should be running their education system in order that politicians like BHO cannot play these games on a national level. That is giving the Feds too much power.. The Feds have politicized education, as we can see, and that is to no ones benefit.

You suspect I'm looking for another avenue to attach him? Are you his baby sitter or something?
Click to expand...

Yes, I see the inconsistency. I think it's very intellectually dishonest to say "Damn that Obama for wanting Federal control," and then "Damn that Obama for getting the Feds out of this program." He ended a Federal regulation. In principle, you should be agreeing with him. You can't have it both ways.

Go ahead and attack him any way you want, but attacking him no matter what he does exposes quite a bit about you.






It's not clear whether you're being deliberately thick here or not but nowhere did i say that. Even when you use the quote you cannot understand what I said. I suppose I should have added that when you use a quote, you should respond to what is actually in the quote, and not what''s in your imagination. That can be your next challenge.
Click to expand...

Then you need to make yourself clearer. You leave your meaning to the imagination of the reader, then get bitchy about "that's not what I said." So what did you say? You had said that Democrats are against this because they rely on ...well, we'll go back to your own words.

Grant said:
And we also know the reasons why Democrats are against any voter ID, but they cannot say it out loud.

How can any Democrat admit they rely on the clueless and undereducated for their votes?
Click to expand...

So what do you mean? Democrats are against it because...they rely on stupid people? Stupid people have IDs too. So that couldn't be it. Against it because it makes it harder for them to rig the vote? Maybe, but I suspect that Republicans favor it because it'll make it easier for them to rig the vote rather than Democrats.

Whenever one side says, "They've figured out how to game the system, here's a different system..." I automatically think that they just want to change the rules so that they can game the system. The Republicans care about fair elections as much as the Democrats do. It's fair and good if they win.

If you follow baseball at all, you know that teams tailor their parks to their advantage -- how long is the grass, how wet is the dirt, how far are the walls, what are the ground rules about what's in play. In Houston, there's even a slight incline in front of the wall. Talk about not having a "level playing field." ID requirements are just the political equivalent of that. The Republicans feel like they've been playing in the Democrats' ballpark. Now they want to play a home game. That's understandable, but not "fair."
 
rocket88 said:
Yes, I see the inconsistency. I think it's very intellectually dishonest to say "Damn that Obama for wanting Federal control," and then "Damn that Obama for getting the Feds out of this program." He ended a Federal regulation. In principle, you should be agreeing with him. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Again you are using quotes in a post directed at me but these quotes are not mine, nor do you say where they originated. And while doing so you accuse me of intellectual dishonesty.
 
Grant said:
Perhaps you're confusing education with indoctrination. We can call a Marxist economics professor "educated" but we can also question the value of that education when it applies to the reality of daily life. A professor specializing in quantum physics may not understand municipal budgets or other aspects of life that the most people deal with on a regular basis. They tend to do better in theory than reality. So do those on the bottom end of the scale who also have little contact with the middle class.



I'm more interested in how we define "uneducated" and what that means in the larger sense.

I'm among those who are not terribly impressed with the quality of the product the education system has been turning out and international grading systems support the idea that a great deal of money has been going to waste. At the same time political leaders like Barrack Obama, as well as most Democrats, want the power for the unions, not for genuine education where the student comes first.
Click to expand...

interesting twist on facts.

So, how would you define education?
 
Dittohead not! said:
interesting twist on facts.

So, how would you define education?
Click to expand...

If i twisted the facts I'd like to know where. Perhaps I'm just looking at them from a different approach.

There is more than one kind of education, many kinds in fact, and you would probably agree. We also tend to attach status and importance according to the direction our education has taken.

Someone who graduated in Political Science, for instance, following four years of study might have more status than a person who studied the same length of time to become an electrician. Both are educated in different areas and consequently might be quite different in their approaches to life and their environment but both are certainly educated. Yet for some reason we attach more importance to the former than the latter.

Right now education in colleges is directed more toward the white collar trades, if we can look at education where a livelihood in the field of study is expected, as a 'trade'. Or we invent patterns of behaviour, manners and mannerisms, that suggest sophistication, and thus education. Yet dig a little deeper, or remove these people from their environment, and we can see that these "educations" are often rather superficial.

I live in a different environment t the moment in Central America and some of these people, by common definition, would be uneducated but of course in their environment they might be quite well educated. Natural ability also plays a part of course.

Its a big subject and I only wanted look at education from a different perspective than one many might be used to.
 
Grant said:
If i twisted the facts I'd like to know where. Perhaps I'm just looking at them from a different approach.

There is more than one kind of education, many kinds in fact, and you would probably agree. We also tend to attach status and importance according to the direction our education has taken.

Someone who graduated in Political Science, for instance, following four years of study might have more status than a person who studied the same length of time to become an electrician. Both are educated in different areas and consequently might be quite different in their approaches to life and their environment but both are certainly educated. Yet for some reason we attach more importance to the former than the latter.

Right now education in colleges is directed more toward the white collar trades, if we can look at education where a livelihood in the field of study is expected, as a 'trade'. Or we invent patterns of behaviour, manners and mannerisms, that suggest sophistication, and thus education. Yet dig a little deeper, or remove these people from their environment, and we can see that these "educations" are often rather superficial.

I live in a different environment t the moment in Central America and some of these people, by common definition, would be uneducated but of course in their environment they might be quite well educated. Natural ability also plays a part of course.

Its a big subject and I only wanted look at education from a different perspective than one many might be used to.
Click to expand...


OK, there are different ways to become educated. Not every educated person has spent a lot of time in school, and not everyone is educated in the same field. On that, we agree.

When you say than uneducated people are more likely to vote for a particular party, that's where we part company. That sort of a statement implies that you think "educated" means someone who agrees with your point of view, and anyone else has been "indoctrinated" or is simply ignorant.

Basic hallmarks of an educated person are:
an in depth understanding of his/her native language, and the ability to understand at least one other.
an ability to separate fact from fiction, and fact from opinion.
an understanding of the basic workings of science
a working knowledge of the history, literature, and institutions of his/her native culture.
an ability to understand and get along with people who are different from himself culturally, racially, and/or religiously
the ability to use mathematics to solve real world problems,


Do you disagree with the above? have anything to add?

and what would make people with those abilities more or less likely to belong to a particular political party?
 
Dittohead not! said:
OK, there are different ways to become educated. Not every educated person has spent a lot of time in school, and not everyone is educated in the same field. On that, we agree.

When you say than uneducated people are more likely to vote for a particular party, that's where we part company. That sort of a statement implies that you think "educated" means someone who agrees with your point of view, and anyone else has been "indoctrinated" or is simply ignorant.
Click to expand...

It doesn't mean that at all. You disagree with me but I don't doubt that you are well educated.

Basic hallmarks of an educated person are:
an in depth understanding of his/her native language, and the ability to understand at least one other.
an ability to separate fact from fiction, and fact from opinion.
an understanding of the basic workings of science
a working knowledge of the history, literature, and institutions of his/her native culture.
an ability to understand and get along with people who are different from himself culturally, racially, and/or religiously
the ability to use mathematics to solve real world problems,


Do you disagree with the above? have anything to add?
Click to expand...

I think that's not a bad definition in our culture.


and what would make people with those abilities more or less likely to belong to a particular political party?
Click to expand...

Which party do you think this fellow is going to vote for?

More Jew-Hatred at Obama-Endorsed #OWS Protests (Video) | The Gateway Pundit
 
Grant said:
It doesn't mean that at all. You disagree with me but I don't doubt that you are well educated.



I think that's not a bad definition in our culture.




Which party do you think this fellow is going to vote for?
Click to expand...
Which party is any ignorant bigot more likely to vote for? I suppose that depends on where his bigotry has taken him.

I think you would have a difficult time showing that people who lack the abilities I just listed would be more likely to vote for a Democrat than those who don't. Other than an extreme example or two, do you have some evidence that your supposition is correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom