• 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!

Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

Link

Read all four pages at the link.

So basically what the Justice Department is saying is that blacks are too stupid to vote for who they want unless it has the word "democrat" on the ballot....how F'd UP is that?
 
Link

Read all four pages at the link.

So basically what the Justice Department is saying is that blacks are too stupid to vote for who they want unless it has the word "democrat" on the ballot....how F'd UP is that?

I'm so sick of the Obama Administration stepping on are ****ing rights, in less then a year this administration has violated our 1st and 10th so many times.

So once again I ask you who want him is this the So-Called Hope and Change you wanted more federal Violation of OUR Constitutional Rights.
 
Non-partisan election would be a interesting thing to try since I would think the end result is people actually go a research their candidates instead of towing party lines. This story however is beyond ****ed up.
 
Sounds pretty messed up. I would love to read it from a source that at least pretends to be unbiased. This article hardly presents an objective view of the issue. Something tells me there may be more to the story.
 
Non-partisan election would be a interesting thing to try since I would think the end result is people actually go a research their candidates instead of towing party lines. This story however is beyond ****ed up.

Here Here, the little town I'm from in Maine has Non-Partisan Election it's rather interesting to sit down and actually listen to a person who doesn't preach the party line.

I've always thought that the Democrat and Republican Partys are in direct violation of Anti-Trust Law and should be ruled illegal.
 
Link

Read all four pages at the link.

So basically what the Justice Department is saying is that blacks are too stupid to vote for who they want unless it has the word "democrat" on the ballot....how F'd UP is that?
?

Pathetic, but true......:lamo
 
Moderator's Warning:
How about a vacation? Hate messages against race are unwelcome here. And you are quickly losing your welcome as well.


Sorry all, back to topic.
 
Sounds pretty messed up. I would love to read it from a source that at least pretends to be unbiased. This article hardly presents an objective view of the issue. Something tells me there may be more to the story.

Kandahar, you started so well... then it got funny.

"Hardly any objective views"? There are simple facts set out right at the start of the article, let's call it laying the foundation, and you look right past them.

Sure there is more to the story. When your favorite "sources" get done with it they'll have found a way to blame Bush or Rush for it... LOL.

.
 
Link

Read all four pages at the link.

So basically what the Justice Department is saying is that blacks are too stupid to vote for who they want unless it has the word "democrat" on the ballot....how F'd UP is that?

Pathetic, but true......:lamo

Your response to Kal'Stang's post should clear up any doubt about where you mind is at. You are a pathetic racist. This forum would do well if you were to simply leave for good.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar, you started so well... then it got funny.

"Hardly any objective views"? There are simple facts set out right at the start of the article, let's call it laying the foundation, and you look right past them.

Sure there is more to the story. When your favorite "sources" get done with it they'll have found a way to blame Bush or Rush for it... LOL.

.

The headline and the first paragraph clearly indicates that this article is pushing an agenda, thus making me question if they didn't leave out a few key details that completely change what happened. Has this story been published as a news article (I can't even tell if this is supposed to be an op-ed piece or a news article) that presents the issue neutrally?
 
Your response to Kal'Stang's post should clear up any doubt about where you mind is at. You are a pathetic racist. This forum would do well if you were to simply leave for good.

Lerxst, what is the Justice Dept. sending as a message?

Loretta King is twisted. Her judgment is race laden.

The following would be something you might get on SNL 30-years ago, when the show was hilarious... she missed her calling. Comedy writer. The best is in bold... what logic. Perfect fit for the Obama administration... she must be the architect of the "Jobs Saved" metric too!

Ms. King's letter in the Kinston case states that because of the low turnout black voters must be "viewed as a minority for analytical purposes," and that "minority turnout is relevant" to determining whether the Justice Department should be allowed a change to election protocol.

Black voters account for 9,702 of the city's 15,402 registered voters but typically don't vote at the rates whites do.

As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, "black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections."

"It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice," she wrote.


Kandahar,
The headline and the first paragraph clearly indicates that this article is pushing an agenda, thus making me question if they didn't leave out a few key details that completely change what happened. Has this story been published as a news article (I can't even tell if this is supposed to be an op-ed piece or a news article) that presents the issue neutrally?
There are scores of facts. The agenda is called "informing the reader". But of course... there must be another motive... nobody could be this brash and this f***ing stupid! Sorry... we're talking about Hope, Change AND Unity.
 
Last edited:
Let me start by saying that observations of facts that point out racism are not racist.
If you look back over the history of the civil rights movement and start with who was for and against it you find the Democrat party was against for the most part. They were the group from which the KKK sprung to life. They are the ones who created public housing and told minorities it was a great place for them to live because it was new etc. when in fact as you look back in concentrated them in pockets in the cities. They were told they were owed things and they didn't have to wotk for them. They were given schools with teachers who were taught the same thing and it was Dim (no spell error) that brought all children the notion that everyone is equal and no one should fail in school so we'll just lower the standards and change the grading systems. It was the Dims who brought all children the notion that they are special even in sports if they lose they great praise and a trophy. It has been and continues to be the Dims who do everything they can to hold all minorities back and make them feel they have to have outside help from big bother Dims or they just can't make in life.
Sadly a lot of people find it easy to believe lies if in the process they hear how special they are and it's not their fault and others owe them. It makes them into sheeple once they buy into the self fulfilling prophecy they have pounded into them their whole lives.
Who wants to hear if you can't do something it's because you didn't try hard enough or you gave up. No one but it's what needs to be made clear to all children form the start. It's the one thing Obama was close on, he was just using it for the wrong reasons and sending the wrong message. He had people saying "YES WE CAN" to get there vote because they figured they were going to get the Obama Bucks thousands lined up for in Detroit, and not yes we can to make things better through hard work and doing for ourselves because that is the American way. As was said a long time ago don't give people a hand out show them the way with a hand up.

Obama wants to keep people down because if they are dependent they are easy to control and they will continue to believe the Dim Message that they have to have help every step of the way in life and only the Dims can do it for them.

The number of minority Conservatives is growing because people are not as stupid as The Democrat Party want them to believe. And that my fellow Americans is a good thing.
 
Last edited:
I think I found the ruling. I'm not sure what the article says about the ruling, but the OP certainly mischaracterizes it. IMO the reality is much worse

Images ahead - the pdf text is not selectable
Source [DOJ | Letter from Acting Assistant Attourney General Loretta King]

screenshot20091031at417.png


screenshot20091031at419.png

Basically they're saying that white people are racist, and won't vote for black candidates. If you include the party of the candidate, though, white people will vote for the black candidate without knowing it because they just choose straight party ticket. Since black people are the majority of the voting-age population (even though they're ususally a minority of the electorate), it's obviously unfair if the candidate they like (but don't vote for in sufficient numbers) loses. Therefore, removing party labels will cause white people to actually look at the candidates and, since white people are racist, cause the black candidates to lose, which violates the Voting Rights Act. The reason it violates the VRA is that making white people aware of who they are voting for has the effect "of denying or abriging the right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group"

Absolutely ridiculous
 
Kandahar,

There are scores of facts. The agenda is called "informing the reader". But of course... there must be another motive... nobody could be this brash and this f***ing stupid! Sorry... we're talking about Hope, Change AND Unity.

All I'm asking is for a relatively neutral presentation of what actually happened, before I render a judgment. I don't think that's too much to ask.
 
I think I found the ruling. I'm not sure what the article says about the ruling, but the OP certainly mischaracterizes it. IMO the reality is much worse

Images ahead - the pdf text is not selectable
Source [DOJ | Letter from Acting Assistant Attourney General Loretta King]

screenshot20091031at417.png


screenshot20091031at419.png

Basically they're saying that white people are racist, and won't vote for black candidates. If you include the party of the candidate, though, white people will vote for the black candidate without knowing it because they just choose straight party ticket. Since black people are the majority of the voting-age population (even though they're ususally a minority of the electorate), it's obviously unfair if the candidate they like (but don't vote for in sufficient numbers) loses. Therefore, removing party labels will cause white people to actually look at the candidates and, since white people are racist, cause the black candidates to lose, which violates the Voting Rights Act. The reason it violates the VRA is that making white people aware of who they are voting for has the effect "of denying or abriging the right to vote on account of race, color or membership in a language minority group"

Absolutely ridiculous

Thanks for the primary source of information! I agree that the original post is a gross mischaracterization of what actually happened, and I also agree that the ruling is still ridiculous.

They're arguing that removing party affiliation will result in fewer black candidates being elected, as though there was a compelling interest in more black candidates being elected to begin with. Even if that is true (and there is no evidence to suggest it is), it is still not a good enough reason to overturn the city's decision.
 
Moderator's Warning:
How about a vacation? Hate messages against race are unwelcome here. And you are quickly losing your welcome as well.


Sorry all, back to topic.


This is why I like it here! Racism is not tolerated. Cheers to vauge!! :beer:
 
Link

Read all four pages at the link.

So basically what the Justice Department is saying is that blacks are too stupid to vote for who they want unless it has the word "democrat" on the ballot....how F'd UP is that?

Everyone that hadn't already realized this, raise your hand. Welcome to the Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that allows racial gerrymandering.
 
Depends on the race.

This is why I like it here! Racism is not tolerated. Cheers to vauge!! :beer:

Racism isn't the issue. We all have different definitions of what racism actually is and that can be discussed and debated. A topic that might be worthy of its own thread.

However, one cannot post "hate messages" as defined by rule 18.

18. Hate Messages
Hate messages delivered via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a hate message as any willful wording intended to ridicule, debase, degrade, intimidate, or incite violence and/or prejudicial actions against a group of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. Determined violations of this rule will be subject to incur an immediate revocation of membership.


Again, my apologies for derailing this thread. I just wanted everyone to know that his post was a violation of our rules.

back to topic....
 
Here Here, the little town I'm from in Maine has Non-Partisan Election it's rather interesting to sit down and actually listen to a person who doesn't preach the party line.

I've always thought that the Democrat and Republican Partys are in direct violation of Anti-Trust Law and should be ruled illegal.

Washington did warn us against political parties.
 
Link

Read all four pages at the link.

So basically what the Justice Department is saying is that blacks are too stupid to vote for who they want unless it has the word "democrat" on the ballot....how F'd UP is that?

Pathetic, but true......:lamo

Absolutely ridiculous. It is indeed extremely pathetic that Obama thinks that blacks are that ****ing stupid.
 
Thanks for the primary source of information! I agree that the original post is a gross mischaracterization of what actually happened, and I also agree that the ruling is still ridiculous.

From the source quoted in your post.

It follows, therefore, that the elimination of party affiliation on the ballot will likely reduce the ability of blacks to elect candidates of choice.

What they said with this one line is that despite months of watching campaign ads and, even looking up the different peoples history, blacks will not be able to tell who they like with just a persons name on a ballot. It HAS to have party affiliation on those ballots. That to me is nothing short of calling them stupid. Especially when you consider that the party affiliation was only being taken away from the ballots. Not any ads or such.
 
What they said with this one line is that despite months of watching campaign ads and, even looking up the different peoples history, blacks will not be able to tell who they like with just a persons name on a ballot. It HAS to have party affiliation on those ballots. That to me is nothing short of calling them stupid. Especially when you consider that the party affiliation was only being taken away from the ballots. Not any ads or such.


There are not typically any ads for local races in my city of around 60k. I doubt there are any in a town of 15k. We also don't have party affiliation for local races on our ballots. It bugs me, I wish they did.
 
Back
Top Bottom