N.C. Republican activist resigns after Voter ID remarks


I believe that I said “avowed”, which means that term is what he, Mr. Van Jones, proudly applied to himself. Many communists and socialists have migrated into the Green movement, and he has a long track record to show for it. Something he is quite proud of, but led to his untimely departure from the White House. (which reminds me, how much does being a Czar pay these days? And what’s the going rate for shills?) :slight_smile:

Calling the president “centrist” in the midst of his socialism, if not outright fascism, is very amusing, and in the same sentence that you called “W” a “conservative” too! :smiley:

I see that you are one with a keen sense of wit and humor! Kudos!

Unless of course you are deluded by the propaganda, and if that’s the case, then my apologies. :shrug:

I doff my hat if the case is the former and not the latter, sir. :tiphat:

Thanks for the Joke of the Day! :smiley:



Is being a bigot any worse than advocating for the murder of children?


^^^ This.

I don’t mind voter ID laws, generally. But to think there’s no racism involved here is naive, they are the ideological descendants of the Jim Crow crowd.

No, the murder of children is clearly worse. So let’s use that as an excuse to be bigots! :stuck_out_tongue:


You do realize that a Washington Post survey showed that 60% of Democrats are in favor of voter id laws:


The poster referred to “serious historians”…are you one, by any chance? :wink:


You evidently have little or no knowledge of Jim Crow Laws.To claim asking people to prove who they are to vote harkens to Jim Crow says minimizes the evil of Jim Crow


No.But I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express Last night…


OMG - Are you for real? :eek: :eek: :eek:

You seem to have skipped a few crucial details in your history lesson!

In the 1970s, a slew of “Dixiecrats” (segregationist Democrats) went “Republican” in protest over the Democratic Party’s emphasis on Civil Rights. Richard Nixon courted them as part of his “Southern Strategy”.

Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) is a good example:

An unreconstructed Southern conservative, he began his political career in the Democratic Party in the days when many white Southern politicians championed racial segregation. He moved to the Republican party in the 1970s. Helms was the most stridently conservative politician of the post-1960s era,[4] especially in opposition to federal intervention into what he considered state affairs (integration, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act). Helms tried, with a 16-day filibuster, to stop the Senate from approving a federal holiday to honor Martin Luther King, Jr.

Yankee Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller are a dying breed in the GOP - where they have not been pushed out, they are labelled as “RHINOs”.

So, the bottom line is that the same folks who were actively suppressing the black vote in North Carolina under Jim Crow may have changed party affiliation, but they certainly haven’t changed their world view.

Having said that, I do not think voter suppression laws are meant to be racist. Republicans would welcome Black voters - if they voted Republican. It is not the fact of their race, but the fact that non-whites tend to vote Democratic that makes them a target for voter suppression. This poor guy just got caught telling the truth when he said that the laws was meant to “kick the Democrats in the butt”.

Voter ID laws are just one form of voter suppression. This website looks at the entire playbook:
Spreading Suppression: Restrictive Voting Laws Across the United States




Actually want is really racist is the idea minorities are too stupid to know how to get a picture ID


If you look at a tally for which party voted more in support of civil rights legislation starting from the 1800s to 20th century, the Republicans come out on top as you can see from the following article


Why would Dixiecrats oppose the Democrats but go to the Republicans when Republican party had supported far more civil rights legisltion than Democrats?


I am fairly certain that he is indeed real. For one thing, he’s right. For another, he is not linking to Watch Manchester United Live (for example).


Do you have any other “proof” of your theory of a southern strategy by Republicans? Because one senator changing parties does not prove anything. Jesse Helms was very anti-communist. He could just as likely have switched because of how weak the Democrat party became on foreign policy. Was Helms a member of the KKK? Robert Byrd was - and he stayed on with the Democrats. So you’ll have to come up with a more persuasive case. Just saying something is so, does not make it so. While Helms opposed MLK holiday, were you aware that Helms’ press secretary was black?

Regarding the Rockefeller Republicans - I think they were driven out by the conservatives under Goldwater and Reagan. You’ll remember that Reagan won 2 landslides. Also, it was the conservatives who helped the GOP gain control of the Senate in the 80’s and all of congress in the 90’s. The Rockefeller Republicans didn’t accomplish much.

Just some facts for you to consider. I hope you can consider these facts, but your slightly unhinged response to the earlier poster would seem to imply that you’re not very objective.



How then do you account for men like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond switching to the Republican party? Apparently, the 1964 Civil Rights Act had something to do with it:

James Strom Thurmond (December 5, 1902 – June 26, 2003) was an American politician who served for 48 years as a United States Senator. He ran for president in 1948 as the States Rights Democratic Party (Dixiecrat) candidate, receiving 2.4% of the popular vote and 39 electoral votes. Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican. He switched because of his opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, disaffection with the liberalism of the national party, and his support for the conservatism and opposition to the Civil Rights bill of the Republican presidential candidate Senator Barry Goldwater. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

Whatever caused the switch, the reality is that the Old Secessionist South is now Red. The irony is incredible, given that it was this item on the Republican Party platform of 1860 that sparked the “War of Northern Aggression”

Republican Party Platform 1860:
3. That to the Union of the States this nation owes its unprecedented increase in population, its surprising development of material resources, its rapid augmentation of wealth, its happiness at home and its honor abroad; and we hold in abhorrence all schemes for disunion, come from whatever source they may. And we congratulate the country that no Republican member of Congress has uttered or countenanced the threats of disunion so often made by Democratic members, without rebuke and with applause from their political associates; and we denounce those threats of disunion, in case of a popular overthrow of their ascendancy as denying the vital principles of a free government, and as an avowal of contemplated treason, which it is the imperative duty of an indignant people sternly to rebuke and forever silence.

In 1860, Northern Republicans invaded the South to force them to remain in the Union and now Tea Party Republicans talk about secession. How ironic:
GOP Senate Candidate Addressed Conference Hosted by Neo-Confederate Group That Promotes Secessionism


It’s not that simple. No one is saying they are too stupid. It’s based on statistical behavior. Minorities have a tendency to vote democrat, so the republicans want to prevent them from voting… So they require photo ID to vote.

Will this prevent them from voting because they are too stupid to get an ID? No. The other key piece of information the republicans are taking into account is that minorities are more likely to have lower income, are more likely to have a second job, and are more likely to have a job with hours that prevent them from getting to the DMV during their operating hours.

They also know that they are less likely to have the disposable income to pay for the ID. Now I know that you’ll say the IDs are often inexpensive, if not free. While that may be the case, the supporting documents required to get an ID are by no means cheap. I lost my birth cirtificate recently… That was $70. Passports are accepted, but those aren’t free, and you have to be able to make an appointment during business hours.

While this may not seem like a big deal to many on here, it is a huge deal for those who are working those shift work jobs, or have two or even three jobs to deal with. I would understand it if there was a huge problem with voter fraud, but all there really is is isolated incidents. There is literally no way that the current incidence of voter fraud is going to change the outcome of an election… But the effects of these voter ID laws most certainly has the potential to do so… And if it does change the results, it will almost certainly be the Republican candidates who benefit.


Yep. Right as rain.






Read post #35. 60% of Democrats support Voter ID laws. You are in the minority in your own party.


If that is the case then why do 60% of Democrats support Voter ID? See post #35.


Whether they support it or not is irrelevant… That doesn’t change the motivation behind those passing these laws (all republican legislatures). It also doesn’t change the outcome.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.