• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why are Republicans so loath to attand civil rights ceremonies?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I agree. Republicans should've made a stronger showing. National Review said the same thing.
This. It really shouldn't be much of a debate. Lots of Republicans agree this was handled poorly by GOP leadership. It's only the most die-hard RNC apologists who are compelled to deny and divert and excuse. They cannot acknowledge any errors by their party, no matter how modest. It is their religion.
 
McCarthy attended.
You're being disingenuous. McCarthy attended at the last minute, only after the issue became a PR nightmare for the GOP. Even party pundits were publicly calling their leaders out for missing the boat on Selma.


So what does all this outrage really boil down to...that Boehner and McConnell passed despite Reid, Durbin and Schumer also not attending? It now appears that this is all about media "optics" and how slanted they've become.
You're diverting. The issue was that none of the GOP leaders who were invited accepted the invitation. There's no mystery or ambiguity there, no matter how desperately you need to muddy the issue.


Some say this is just one more clear example of media bias....while others will say with utter conviction that only Fox News is capable of such treachery.
Yawn. These constant attacks on the so-called liberal media are really so played. It's time for a new schtick, something with a little more integrity than blaming the media every time your party gets caught with its pants down. That's a childish response that only serves to enable your party's cruft.
 
This. It really shouldn't be much of a debate. Lots of Republicans agree this was handled poorly by GOP leadership. It's only the most die-hard RNC apologists who are compelled to deny and divert and excuse. They cannot acknowledge any errors by their party, no matter how modest. It is their religion.

Might as well argue with the Pope about virgin birth.
 
Look...you're the one who quoted me and started your response with a personal insult...and then proceeded with a lie in your very next sentence. Why would you or anyone who's genuinely interested in "progress" insult a person and then post a lie without making any effort to admit your error or retract? And now you have the audacity to criticize me for calling you out on your bullshit? If you truly would like to see "progress" as you imply, you might may want to make some attempt at reasonable discussion BEFORE coming out of the box with insults. Surely you're intelligent enough to get this...no? But if you want to trade insults, I can do that too.

Thank You. You done? Now tell me what reasonable discussion you brought to this thread, besides apologizing and rambling about Bush being not in a picture (I'm still not sure what point you were trying to make). What point have you made in this thread?

It seems every sort of thread like this is the same from you. You are ok with the status quo and defend it vehemently or apologize for the GOP in how they handle it. You enable them. Like I said you are an impediment to progress.
 
You're being disingenuous. McCarthy attended at the last minute, only after the issue became a PR nightmare for the GOP. Even party pundits were publicly calling their leaders out for missing the boat on Selma.
Disingenuous? I was being factual. If merely stating a fact is somehow disingenuous in your mind, then that's your problem....not mine. You really should look into how you arrived at such a conclusion.

You're diverting. The issue was that none of the GOP leaders who were invited accepted the invitation. There's no mystery or ambiguity there, no matter how desperately you need to muddy the issue.
I've been looking for the invite list and couldn't find it. Please link.

Yawn. These constant attacks on the so-called liberal media are really so played. It's time for a new schtick, something with a little more integrity than blaming the media every time your party gets caught with its pants down. That's a childish response that only serves to enable your party's cruft.
Sorry to bore you, but human beings are notorious for showing bias when it comes to what information they choose to absorb. We tend to focus on most everything that agrees with our world view and disregard most everything that conflicts with it. This is fundamental to the human condition. But this is most likely a "childish response" in your world. I get that.
 
Last edited:
Did you know black people used to vote for the republican party about 50 years ago?

Some still do.

Some white people vote for the republican party when its against their best interests also.

Well, a shitload actually.

Go figure.

😛
 
Last edited:
Thank You. You done? Now tell me what reasonable discussion you brought to this thread, besides apologizing and rambling about Bush being not in a picture (I'm still not sure what point you were trying to make). What point have you made in this thread?

It seems every sort of thread like this is the same from you. You are ok with the status quo and defend it vehemently or apologize for the GOP in how they handle it. You enable them. Like I said you are an impediment to progress.
No...I'm not done. If you genuinely want reasonable dialogue, you owe me answers to my questions which you have consistently ignored. I will treat you with respect when you start treating me with respect. This really isn't that hard....at least not for sincere people.
 
Many black people will not show up to GOP tea party events either. Who really cares? Maybe they are just scared of black people and their gangs and drugs and guns? Who wants to commemorate white on black racism? We should be moving on.

You cannot be possibly comparing a Tea Party event with the 50th anniversary of Bloody Sunday. Are you ignorant of history or are you just trying to diminish the entire Civil Rights movement?

As for moving on did you read the Ferguson report. Same shit happening in 2015 as back in 1965.
 
Or that it's unnecessary. Do we see examples of voters being widely disenfranchised to anywhere near the extent they were 40 years ago?

I always found this argument to be really confusing. As pointed out in the dissenting opinion, it's baffling logic. Basically it's saying that because the Voting Rights Act was effective at preventing minority disenfranchisement that's evidence that we don't need the Voting Rights Act anymore. (?!?) By this logic, the only circumstances under which we could have kept the VRA would have been if it were ineffective.

The blizzard of new voting restrictions that were enacted after the VRA went away pretty much shows why it was still necessary.
 
It was a GOP effort that was behind the Shelby case.

Yes, and it completely crippled the voting right act by...striking down a formula that dates back to the civil rights era. The SCOTUS said that for a formula to have current effects, it needs to address current needs. Civil rights problems in 2013 are not in the same galaxy as civil rights problems in the 60s and 70s.

It's ironic that conservatives are the ones criticized for living in the past.
 
Yes, and it completely crippled the voting right act by...striking down a formula that dates back to the civil rights era. The SCOTUS said that for a formula to have current effects, it needs to address current needs. Civil rights problems in 2013 are not in the same galaxy as civil rights problems in the 60s and 70s.

It's ironic that conservatives are the ones criticized for living in the past.

As noted here, Congress compiled a huge pile of evidence that showed the formula was still quite good and highly applicable.

http://www.motherjones.com/documents/717254-ginsberg-vra-dissent

Although covered jurisdictions account for less than 25 percent of the country’s population, the Katz study revealed that they accounted for 56 percent of successful §2 litigation since 1982. Impact and Effectiveness 974. Controlling for population, there were nearly four times as many successful §2 cases in covered jurisdictions as there were in noncovered jurisdictions. 679 F. 3d, at 874. The Katz study further found that §2 lawsuits are more likely to succeed when they are filed in covered jurisdictions than in noncovered jurisdictions. Impact and Effectiveness 974. From these findings—ignored by the Court—Congress reasonably concluded that the coverage formula continues to identify the jurisdictions of greatest concern.

ie: the places covered by the formula still display significant, ongoing attempts to enact racially discriminatory voting practices.
 
I always found this argument to be really confusing. As pointed out in the dissenting opinion, it's baffling logic. Basically it's saying that because the Voting Rights Act was effective at preventing minority disenfranchisement that's evidence that we don't need the Voting Rights Act anymore. (?!?) By this logic, the only circumstances under which we could have kept the VRA would have been if it were ineffective.

...the voting rights act was not struck down. The section that requires certain states to get preclearance before changing their election laws was struck down because it penalized certain states for conditions that in the SCOTUS' opinion (and in the opinion of common sense) no longer applied.

The blizzard of new voting restrictions that were enacted after the VRA went away pretty much shows why it was still necessary.

Not all of the changes since Shelby have been restrictions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-voting-changed-since-shelby-county-v-holder/

State legislatures have been far more active since Shelby County v. Holder. Some of the laws passed since the ruling were unquestionably beneficial to voters -- like online voter registration, which 20 states now have. Many of these election changes were prompted by suggestions made by the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, which released a comprehensive evaluation of America's electoral systems this January. The Brennan Center for Justice counts 16 states that have passed laws that improve access to the vote in the past two years.

Other laws have seen their support split on partisan lines. These new changes, mostly passed in conservative state legislatures, were designed to counter voter fraud or help shrink budgets. There have been changes that shift early voting and voter registration times, and new voter-ID requirements. The opponents of these laws say that their only effect will be limiting the right to vote -- mostly among low-income and minority voters who may not own government identification or have enough flexibility with their employment to vote on Election Day.

Since 2010, new voting legislation that curtails the options available for voters to cast ballots is in place in 22 states, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

So, we're back to the furor over voter ID. That doesn't seem quite on par with the kind of oppression black voters faced 40 years ago.
 
I always found this argument to be really confusing. As pointed out in the dissenting opinion, it's baffling logic. Basically it's saying that because the Voting Rights Act was effective at preventing minority disenfranchisement that's evidence that we don't need the Voting Rights Act anymore. (?!?) By this logic, the only circumstances under which we could have kept the VRA would have been if it were ineffective.

The blizzard of new voting restrictions that were enacted after the VRA went away pretty much shows why it was still necessary.
Using your rationale it looks like the VRA needs to be expanded well beyond just the Southern states!

voting_2011.png
 
...the voting rights act was not struck down. The section that requires certain states to get preclearance before changing their election laws was struck down because it penalized certain states for conditions that in the SCOTUS' opinion (and in the opinion of common sense) no longer applied.

I would check my other post. Common sense and the evidence pretty clearly shows that it still applied, unless you view the areas under the preclearance section being 400% more likely to be found to have enacted discriminatory policies than areas not covered.

How much more likely would it have to be to satisfy you? 500% more likely? 1,000% more likely?
 
Using your rationale it looks like the VRA needs to be expanded well beyond just the Southern states!

voting_2011.png

Voting restrictions are not necessarily racially discriminatory voting restrictions. How did you get the two confused?

I do agree though that state legislatures have been frequently enacting shitty voting restrictions in recent years though. Glad to see you're of a similar mind.
 
As noted here, Congress compiled a huge pile of evidence that showed the formula was still quite good and highly applicable.

http://www.motherjones.com/documents/717254-ginsberg-vra-dissent



ie: the places covered by the formula still display significant, ongoing attempts to enact racially discriminatory voting practices.

So, what? Voters who are disenfranchised can no longer seek legal redress?

And what did Ginsburg mean by racially discriminator voting practices? Were laws passed that said blacks can't vote?
 
I would check my other post. Common sense and the evidence pretty clearly shows that it still applied, unless you view the areas under the preclearance section being 400% more likely to be found to have enacted discriminatory policies than areas not covered.

How much more likely would it have to be to satisfy you? 500% more likely? 1,000% more likely?

Then we'd better define what Ginsburg meant by "racially discriminatory policies." Because if all she meant was voter ID laws, that's pretty thin.
 
No...I'm not done. If you genuinely want reasonable dialogue, you owe me answers to my questions which you have consistently ignored. I will treat you with respect when you start treating me with respect. This really isn't that hard....at least not for sincere people.

The point is you are incapable of a reasonable dialogue. In fact if I want to know what you think about any issue, I'll just take the GOP response and 99% of the time, that'll be where you lie.
 
Voting restrictions are not necessarily racially discriminatory voting restrictions. How did you get the two confused?

I do agree though that state legislatures have been frequently enacting shitty voting restrictions in recent years though. Glad to see you're of a similar mind.
How does one tell the difference?
 
Back
Top