The southern strategy that was begun 50 years ago is still in place, as any black voter knows.
You're speaking for black voters now? Beyond that, there's no evidence whatsoever that it's the case.
It's not the Democrats who've repeatedly attempted to suppress the minority vote since the '80s.
Nor is it the Republicans. Not sure who you're actually talking about.
We women who disagree with you on this aren't basing it on what we've seen with our own eyes?
No, you're basing it on what you've been lead to believe on the matter, as opposed to using your own eyes to see what is right in front of you.
The Republicans, in fact, are ardent supporters of our right to decide for ourselves about abortion?
They're ardent supporters of the right to life. They're not really seeing how choice comes into it. Talk to a Republican sometime, you might learn something about their actual beliefs.
They support our access to contraception? To healthcare in general? That's why they've gone after Planned Parenthood?
Absolutely. They have issues with the government mandating or providing those things (thus the issue with giving government money to Planned Parenthood), of course, but the idea of access has not been controversial for some time.
So I just imagined that consent decree the Republicans were forced to sign back in the '80s, and that lawsuit over the 2000 presidential election the state of Florida settled out of court?
In a way, yes. You have misunderstood the intentions and the actions of those things, assuming racism and voter suppression without evidence.
Ed Rollins never boasted about suppressing the black vote at a breakfast back in 1993?
This was 20 years ago, and hearsay at that.
Tom Tancredo, in the wake of Obama's election, didn't complain about the lack of literacy tests that he believes would have blocked Obama voters?
There's nothing racially-tinged about this. It's a strong belief of many that we need more filters for a more informed electorate. I believe they are wrong, but this is again the whole "everything has a racist context" issue.
PA rep Mike Turzai didn't cite voter ID as a tool that would allow Romney to win Pennsylvannia?
Of course he did. Most people who can't get IDs, or won't get IDs, or would vote illegally, are believed to vote Democratic. Not a racial issue.
Ohio GOP chair Doug Preisse didn't explain cutting back early voting hours in Democratic districts while expanding them in Republican districts by saying " “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban—read African-American—voter-turnout machine.”
Are you saying there is not a concerted effort to get out the minority vote? That opening certain voting hours will help some groups and not others? Remember that this is the Huffington Post's spin on the response, not necessarily what the response was about.
All of that was a figment of our imagination?
Most of the interpretation is, yes.
Like the bits about banning abortion and same sex marriage?
no subject
You're speaking for black voters now? Beyond that, there's no evidence whatsoever that it's the case.
It's not the Democrats who've repeatedly attempted to suppress the minority vote since the '80s.
Nor is it the Republicans. Not sure who you're actually talking about.
We women who disagree with you on this aren't basing it on what we've seen with our own eyes?
No, you're basing it on what you've been lead to believe on the matter, as opposed to using your own eyes to see what is right in front of you.
The Republicans, in fact, are ardent supporters of our right to decide for ourselves about abortion?
They're ardent supporters of the right to life. They're not really seeing how choice comes into it. Talk to a Republican sometime, you might learn something about their actual beliefs.
They support our access to contraception? To healthcare in general? That's why they've gone after Planned Parenthood?
Absolutely. They have issues with the government mandating or providing those things (thus the issue with giving government money to Planned Parenthood), of course, but the idea of access has not been controversial for some time.
So I just imagined that consent decree the Republicans were forced to sign back in the '80s, and that lawsuit over the 2000 presidential election the state of Florida settled out of court?
In a way, yes. You have misunderstood the intentions and the actions of those things, assuming racism and voter suppression without evidence.
Ed Rollins never boasted about suppressing the black vote at a breakfast back in 1993?
This was 20 years ago, and hearsay at that.
Tom Tancredo, in the wake of Obama's election, didn't complain about the lack of literacy tests that he believes would have blocked Obama voters?
There's nothing racially-tinged about this. It's a strong belief of many that we need more filters for a more informed electorate. I believe they are wrong, but this is again the whole "everything has a racist context" issue.
PA rep Mike Turzai didn't cite voter ID as a tool that would allow Romney to win Pennsylvannia?
Of course he did. Most people who can't get IDs, or won't get IDs, or would vote illegally, are believed to vote Democratic. Not a racial issue.
Ohio GOP chair Doug Preisse didn't explain cutting back early voting hours in Democratic districts while expanding them in Republican districts by saying " “I guess I really actually feel we shouldn’t contort the voting process to accommodate the urban—read African-American—voter-turnout machine.”
Are you saying there is not a concerted effort to get out the minority vote? That opening certain voting hours will help some groups and not others? Remember that this is the Huffington Post's spin on the response, not necessarily what the response was about.
All of that was a figment of our imagination?
Most of the interpretation is, yes.
Like the bits about banning abortion and same sex marriage?
Yep.