It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

La Raza Promotes Washington Post Guide On Where People Can Vote Without An ID

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:59 PM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Well, you notice, I did you the courtesy of asking questions of you, rather than announcing my intuition that you were talking out of your hindquarters.

I see my intuition was correct.

So, no evidence for your spurious, racist claims, aside from your conflation of your experience with Latinos in general with this specific organiztion?

Well, if you'd like to actually learn something about the group you were condemning based on no evidence other than your admitted prejudices, here's a link to what their name actually means, for starters:

What does the term “La Raza” mean?
The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. Some people have mistranslated “La Raza” to mean “the race,” implying that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “la raza cósmica,” meaning “the cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.

National Council of La Raza - Frequently Asked Questions

Of course this is, you know, the groups actual website, with facts and stuff.
edit on 23Fri, 31 Oct 2014 23:00:09 -050014p1120141066 by Gryphon66 because: Spcae

posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 11:25 PM
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It was the Bush DOJ that conducted the five-year investigation into in-person voter fraud, and found virtually nothing.

NY Times - In Five Year Effort, Little Evidence of Voter Fraud

... and since I know what the response would be to the Times ...

Fox News - Voter ID Laws Target Rarely Occurring Voter Fraud

and ...

Houston News - Study: Voter Fraud Nonexistent, Partisanship at Heart of Voter Laws

and ...

How US Attorney's Were Used to Spread Voter Fraud Fears - Salon

but, no, that's not evidence for what's not happening, you're correct, speaking of ridiculous, but it IS evidence of what was found to be happening so rarely as to be "not happening."

Well, I'd have to start implying "that every person should have a way to vote that caters to their specific need" to stop implying it ... but as it happens, it is the State's responsibility to make certain that citizens are able to vote if they so choose without undue expense, complexity or burden.

Stop trying to be the arbiter of what "equal protection of the laws" means based on nothing more than your own prejudice.

That's like saying all lightning strikes are an issue, "regardless of the degree to which they happen." Or shark attacks. Or meteors dropping into living rooms. All of which happen at about the same rate as in-person voter fraud that might be stopped with one of the new IDs.

Frankly, who cares about your assessment of whether you think a person deserves to vote or not? Thankfully it's not up to you or your snide assessment of the situations of people you have no way of knowing.

Every voter is identified. Every voter is confirmed at the polls. The process as it was has worked as evidenced by the almost non-existent episodes of in-person voter fraud.

BUT, as I've said before, as long as the new IDs are made available at no cost with no hassle in multiple locations (like say every voting precinct) with reasonable identity documents accepted, then, sure bring on the new IDs.

Then at least the Republicans will have to move on to the next level of voter suppression, like say, what SOS Kemp is doing in Georgia.

edit on 23Fri, 31 Oct 2014 23:31:29 -050014p1120141066 by Gryphon66 because: NOted

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:38 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Look, I'm sure there are some honest and well-intentioned folks within La Raza I just happen to hold the opinion that it's not a majority.

When I hear things like, "man mike, you're awesome. Too bad you aren't mexican." And they mean it, on top of them talking about me in Spanish while I'm right there (I understand more of the language than I can speak), I can't help but have the impression that there isn't more than a small bit of a racial component to much of their thinking.

Many of these same people are very proud of La Raza as an organization.

And I know one does not equal the other, so spare me further of your intuition.

I hold the opinion that there are many examples if racism and bigotry in every culture in existence, no matter the skin tone and genetics involved. Many of these examples put themselves forward as leaders in their respective groups but really have personal power as their primary goal and use organizations such as La Raza for their own ends.

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:50 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't see where Jaded has said anything that implies he is racist. I feel like you just played the racism card perfectly though. Your debate skills are impressive and I'm not even being sarcastic.

I've actually been looking more into it and am beginning to side with you on who and why the laws are wanted.

Again though, I'm speaking from personal experience in SoCal and not as part of some grand republican conspiracy. I've witnessed, at least in my opinion, on several occasions what appears to be blatant illegal voting by non-citizens.

I know that democratic policies (the party) are causing the problems in Cali. Unions control the show and the state gives handouts it can't afford. This causes it to raise taxes almost every year, especially on corporations. Corporations are leaving Cali. SoCal still has a great economy, but it has become stagnant and will begin to decline if then free market continues to be stymied in that state.

So while I'm not a native to Cali, I do consider it my home. The OC especially has had a libertarian movement grow especially well over the last 5-10 years and it is painful to see it be eroded by potentially illegal votes in the county. What's sad is libertarians are all about personal liberty and freedom, as well as the american dream, which includes proper immigration for all.

Mexico, Canada and the USA should have a partnership when it comes to extended stays and work permits among each other. Enforcing borders between ourselves is ridiculous.
edit on 1-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 10:52 AM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

And I asked you previously how you came to have your opinions about "La Raza" and you declined to answer beyond an equivalent response to "Well, there are Latinos involved."

You know that one doesn't equal the other, but you believe they're the same anyway. Who needs intuition?

You finally said something I can see the truth of: "everyone's a little racist" ... I agree, that's deep in primate mentality.

It's what we do with that innate xenophobia that measures the quality of our character, in my opinion.

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 07:46 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

Nothing implies Jaded is racist?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: raymundoko

La Raza is equal in stature to the KKK or the Black Panthers imho, and is as subversive an organization as I can imagine.

It mean "The Race" and determined to prmote 'brown dominance.'

To hear of them possbly promoting illegals to vote does not surprise me in the slightest.

Did you miss this opening quote?

La Raza is a hate group because ... I say they are. (I asked for proof about the similarities to either KKK or Panthers and received nothing in abundance. Both groups are (were) known for rampant racist remarks and behavior; La Raza is not.)

La Raza is subversive because ... (still no proof).

La Raza describes what is meant by it's name, and it is not "The Race" ... but that misrepresentation does make it sound like it is a racist organization. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “la raza cósmica,” meaning “the cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. (Source

So, their name doesn't mean what Jaded implied, and nowhere on the La Raza site will you find the words "brown dominance."

So, to summarize, in fewer lines than it took to describe it, Jaded implied that an organization working for Latino opportunities and equality is equivalent to racial-hatred groups like the KKK and the (old) Black Panthers with no evidence other than belief.

Quoted innumerable winger websites jumping on "the race" interpretation without even trying to follow up, because it makes sense to accuse people you don't even know as being racists ... based on what? The Latinos that Jaded knows personally. Even if his associates are racist (no proof) what do we call it when we project characteristics onto a whole cultural group based on our limited experience?

That's right, racism.

As far as the remainder of your post: I'm not going to debate "the free market" material with you as that's off topic here.

But, there is no evidence that illegal voting is significant enough to make a difference in any election anywhere in this country. If you notice the citations after investigation after investigation, you see that perhaps 10 people voted illegitimately, out of thousands and usually millions, and that's usually found to be a matter of confusion rather than calumny.

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 08:05 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

What I see there is an ignorance of La Raza, not racism...if anything he appears to have a distaste for racism as he appears to dislike other racist organizations.

I do not believe La Raza is a racist organization. I am quite familiar with where the name originates and "The Race" actually refers to a race created by the merging of White, Black, Brown and Red Native America.

This isn't that far off if you think about it.

The American Race

I think Jaded just may not be familiar with the organization.

Now where he is coming from on the Latino's are racist....some are, most aren't. Again, I speak it fluently so I got to sit quietly quite a bit in SoCal and hear their "private" conversations.
edit on 1-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 08:15 PM
May as well add to the empty lables that have been slung my way with that "r" word, based upon the filters emplaced by ones own biases and prejudices.

I'm full of unbased assumptions an incorrect interpretations, ray is well aware of my shortcomings. It's good to see that he recognizes that this bit of petty ignorance is not one of the numerous foibles of character and judgement I posses though.

Voter fraud?

It is that the politicians have everyone convinced that the two 'sides' are significant enough in the differences in the ways they go about currying favor and repay debts invurred acheivng their positions of power or that they actually work for the good of their constituencies rather than corporate intersts; I really liked this idea, that way we'd at least know who's being represented instead of us.

Not only am I thoroughly jaded, I am extremely cynical.

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 08:21 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

Okay, you don't see racism, don't point it out.

I do see racism, and I did.

Two different perceptions, yes? Made the world go 'round, or rather, it used to.

I think an organization gets to define itself and what its name means until its actions and the facts prove differently. Thus, I quoted what the NCLR site states.

We are all "mixed breeds." Anyone who does not realize that at this point is simply ... a dunce.

At the same time, we are all "a little racist" ... it is natural in our DNA/heritage/wiring/inherited cultures to view other groups with some degree of suspicion and to understand the world as between "us and them."

But, many of us can take those innate feelings and understand them for what they are and reuse that energy to actually promote equality rather than disparity and difference.
edit on 20Sat, 01 Nov 2014 20:21:57 -050014p0820141166 by Gryphon66 because: Dang apostrophes

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 08:38 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

We are all "mixed breeds." Anyone who does not realize that at this point is simply ... a dunce.

At the same time, we are all "a little racist" ... it is natural in our DNA/heritage/wiring/inherited cultures to view other groups with some degree of suspicion and to understand the world as between "us and them."

Pretty much my thinking exactly. I understand where those feelings originate from; ones tribe was safe and anyone from elsewhere was not necessarily so.

It's the same underlying programming that is manipulated by politicians and power brokers, the same mentality that drives sports fanatacism and gang allegiance.

To all outward appearances I am a caucasian (which to many people, automatically makes me racist), though I am adopted so I literally have no idea what my actual genetic heritage is.
edit on 1-11-2014 by jadedANDcynical because: typos, hate this tiny phone keyboard

posted on Nov, 1 2014 @ 08:58 PM
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Yep, genetics proves the rest.

I will say this, from your first post on this issue, it did seem to me to have an overly racist tone. I'm not one of those people that don't believe that there are characteristics that are recognizable: ie. white men can't jump*, etc.

*EDIT: I include this as a hopefully humorous example.

Many if not all of these are not genetic restrictions or physical limitations, but rather, are cultural differences.

And cultural differences do indeed exist.

So, if I misunderstood your position based on your first post, you have my apology. We all make instant judgements that can prove to be incorrect in time.

edit on 21Sat, 01 Nov 2014 21:18:01 -050014p0920141166 by Gryphon66 because: noted

posted on Nov, 3 2014 @ 02:09 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

I continue to research this, and unfortunately I can't really see that there is an attempt to suppress votes with a voter ID law. Many states already require photo ID and they have found no suppression of votes in those states. What is your comment on that? I have found plenty of good commentary and statistics looking at this from both sides and I still feel pretty strongly that an ID as a requirement to vote would not be burdensome to anyone.

Comparing it to literacy tests or poll taxes (which specifically targeted blacks) is ridiculous. Voter ID laws are not racist.

Nelson Mandela Supported Voter ID Laws

There seems to be plenty of good arguments from both sides, but I have to agree with Jimmy Carter on this one:

Jimmy Carter on Voter ID Laws

n 2005, we led a bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform and concluded that both parties' concerns were legitimate — a free and fair election requires both ballot security and full access to voting. We offered a proposal to bridge the partisan divide by suggesting a uniform voter photo ID, based on the federal Real ID Act of 2005, to be phased in over five years. To help with the transition, states would provide free voter photo ID cards for eligible citizens; mobile units would be sent out to provide the IDs and register voters. (Of the 21 members of the commission, only three dissented on the requirement for an ID.)

posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 07:39 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

I've actually found plenty of issues with Texas voter laws now that the election is happening...

posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 08:14 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

If there is any cost in the process of acquiring an ID, and the ID is required to vote, it is the equivalent of a poll tax; that's just not that hard.

As to the rest, for the most part you've just made a series of general statements that support your position.

What states did you take your sample from? How did you determine that there was "no evidence of suppression."?

Most states require identification to vote although not all require a Photo ID. This has been shown multiple times. In most states there is a process of identification, check-in, etc. before being allowed to vote.

As previously stated, I have no personal issue with requiring photo ID to vote, so long as there is no cost associated with it, the dispensaries for the IDs are made equally accessible to all voters (like say, at the polls themselves), and reasonable documentation is accepted for proving identity (alternatives to birth certificates only, etc.)

I've repeatedly stated that I'm in favor of a National ID for exactly this purpose.

posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 08:30 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Are you even familiar with what a poll tax was?

It was a tax that only black people had to pay...

The law was written in such a way that anyone who's father/grandfather voted before abolition was exempt...meaning pretty much all whites were exempt from paying a poll tax. They also did not enforce the tax against whites.

This is not even close to the same thing.

posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 08:38 PM
a reply to: raymundoko

Are you?

Easy citation - Wikipedia - Poll Tax

In the United States, payment of a poll tax was a prerequisite to the registration for voting in a number of states. The tax emerged in some states of the United States in the late 19th century as part of the Jim Crow laws. After the right to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, many Southern states enacted poll tax laws as a device for restricting voting rights. The laws often included a grandfather clause, which allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax. These laws, along with unfairly implemented literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation,achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising African-American and Native American voters, as well as poor whites.

The poll tax requirements applied to whites as well as blacks, and also adversely affected poor citizens. Many states required payment of the tax at a time separate from the election, and then required voters to bring receipts with them to the polls. If they could not locate such receipts, they could not vote. In addition, many states surrounded registration and voting with complex record-keeping requirements. These were particularly difficult for sharecropper and tenant farmers to comply with, as they moved frequently.

The act of requiring a specific ID which can require considerable cost, considerable travel to dispensary locations, or only allowing a narrow scope of identity documentation ... is EXACTLY similar to the intent of the poll taxes.

Also, I have never stated that voter suppression is directed only at specific races. The efforts are also directed at young voters, elderly voters, etc.

posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 09:49 PM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nothing you posted disagrees with what I said...

And they did not enforce the tax against white voters...the amount of white people effected was so minimal it didn't even matter. The law was specifically written to disenfranchise black voters and the way they saw, it if a few white people got screwed in the process, big deal. The second part of your second quote has nothing to do with a poll tax. That had to do with records and that was to disenfranchise blacks further as sharecroppers were predominantly black or poor white man.

To compare voter ID laws to a poll tax is a gross misrepresentation of US history.

I think you reading the Wiki is probably your only exposure to the history associated with Jim Crow laws.
edit on 4-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 10:45 PM
Actually, EVERYTHING I posted disagrees with what you have said, from the definition of what a poll tax is, to how it was historically used, to the de facto "poll tax" under discussion.

You seem obsessed with claiming that the poll tax was ONLY used to disenfranchise black voters, as if, even if true (and it isn't) that changes the basic definition of what a poll tax is ... a cost imposed in order to suppress voting.

It was not, as the source I cited proved, as well as what you have admitted here, only used against blacks.

The entirity of the article I posted is describing the concept of poll tax. You focus on the last sentence of my second quote and tactically ignore the first (that I bolded for your convenience):

The poll tax requirements applied to whites as well as blacks, and also adversely affected poor citizens.

To claim that sentence says anything other than what is says, is simply disingenuous.

Here's another statement from a generally accepted source ( "Poll Tax")

In the aftermath of the political upheaval of populism (a social movement of southern and western farmers and workers) in the late 1890s, the poll tax also became a device used by the southern political elite to decrease the influence of poor whites on southern politics. By 1908, all of the southern states had enacted a poll tax. By the 1930s, as a result of the poll tax, it was estimated that white electoral participation dropped to less than a third of the total voting age population.

Emphasis, of course, mine.

You're merely countering commonly accepted facts (as exemplified in Wikipedia and with your own opinions (unsupported). Got to any other resource ... academic papers, textbooks, etc. ... and you will find the same facts and the same definition and the same history.

ADDED IN EDIT: I cited Wikipedia because it is the easiest most accessible source to corroborate COMMON KNOWLEDGE. As opposed to any sources to back up anything that you stated, which I have to admit, is just basically ignoring the facts of the matter.

I see no point in continuing the conversation as we are far away from the topic of the thread.

TL; DR: If there is a direct cost of any kind imposed between the voter and the act of voting by the State that is effectively and essentially, a poll tax.
edit on 22Tue, 04 Nov 2014 22:47:35 -060014p1020141166 by Gryphon66 because: Added citation for

edit on 22Tue, 04 Nov 2014 22:53:56 -060014p1020141166 by Gryphon66 because: Noted.

posted on Nov, 4 2014 @ 11:06 PM
Additional proof:

Encyclopedia Britannica - Poll Tax

When payment of the poll tax was made a prerequisite to voting, impoverished blacks and often poor whites, unable to afford the tax, were denied the right to vote.]Encyclopedia Britannica

J. Morgan Kousser, The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910 (Yale UP, 1974) (p. 67-8)

Georgia initiated the poll tax in 1871, and made it cumulative in 1877 (requiring citizens to pay all back taxes before being permitted to vote). Every former confederate state followed its lead by 1904. Although these taxes of $1-$2 per year may seem small, it was beyond the reach of many poor black and white sharecroppers, who rarely dealt in cash. The Georgia poll tax probably reduced overall turnout by 16-28%, and black turnout in half.

The Atlantic - "Should the Poor Be Allowed to Vote"

For most of the 20th century, southern states imposed “poll taxes” that effectively barred not only African Americans from voting but some poor whites as well.

edit on 23Tue, 04 Nov 2014 23:08:48 -060014p1120141166 by Gryphon66 because: Noted

posted on Nov, 5 2014 @ 07:55 AM
a reply to: Gryphon66

Again, nothing you've posted disagrees with me... I already said a few white people got screwed, the purpose of the law was to target the suppression of black votes...

Do you really think the purpose of the law was for anything else than that?

You can have fun googling this all day, but actually read some books by people who grew up in that era.

It would also appear you don't even know the black population total percentage for Georgia back then as they accounted for nearly all of the voter decline.

What you're doing is trying to tie voter ID laws into a very racist era in order to instill guilt into those who support them, or make others feel that those people are racist. You've already pulled the racism card several times in this thread, so your intent is clear.
edit on 5-11-2014 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6   >>

log in