Some republican asked to resign after show appearence

click me

So some republican was featured on a segment on the daily show. He has since been asked to resign his post.

Do you think that this was a understandable decision, or just too pc bull rearing its ugly head again?

Also do you think that it was fair if the decision was made on the segment alone? a segment that could have had selective editing and was clearly edited down to show the worst moments.

this question is more about what ideals we should have on this kind of situation, not that the guy in question is all that important or worth our attention.

The guy was asked to resign based on racist comments he made during the show that, regardless of context, are unacceptable even to Republicans. What's the problem here?

""lazy black people that wants the government to give them everything," one of a slew of racially inflammatory comments he made in the interview. "

If you want to get into politics, you should at very least attempt to hide your racism.

The guy explicitly states that voter ID laws are worse for democrats as its going to disenfranchise minorities and young college kids. Does anyone still believe these laws are intended to reduce fraud? Its a non-existent problem.

Given the fact we give Native Americans special treatment we should buy all African Americans a 1980s Monte Carlo, or Buick Regal for their suffrage of being treated like cattle for over 200+ years. Jokes aside, Native Americans shouldn't get any special treatment as their not the only demographic whose been screwd by Uncle Sam.

He also talked about lazy white people. Why is that comment being taken out of context?

Yeah voter Id laws seem to be ill intentioned.

The Republicans fired him for revealing the real motivation of their state voting rights law, to suppress the Democrat vote under the guise of voter integrity. Firing him doesn't get rid of the shit law though.

He became a danger that had to be dealt with I guess is what one scenario is

Why not just say "lazy people"? Why attribute laziness to race in the first place? He seems to have brought this on himself.

Race was probs brought up by the other guy first

The entire segment was about race. The questioning was regarding any possible racism. People seem to be taking this out of context and misunderstanding things. I could be wrong, though. If it can be proven that he is being racist, by all means, someone prove it.

Actually watched the interview. It seems like a joke interview to me.

What gave that away? The part where he called Martin Luther King Jr Denzel?

Certainly

Well yea. He was the party head of his local county GOP. If he didn't represent their views, they should replace him. Even if their views are "don't tell people the truth about our views," then they were still right to replace him.

That interview's not particularly surprising given some of the things I see and hear locally in my county government.

"Mama always says, stupid is as stupid does."

More confirmation that the voter ID laws are just about voter suppression.

I'm sorta relieved that there is some low a republican politician can go to that will get him called out by his own party for him to resign. Of course I could be speaking too soon, I mean they did call for Todd Akin's resignation and then about two weeks later held a fundraiser for him so we'll see.

He's a highly incompetent politician who explicitly revealed on TV that the true purpose of GOP-backed voter I.D. laws is to make Republicans more likely to win elections. He also did this while looking like an uneducated redneck racist. Why the **** should the G.O.P. keep him in that spot?

I'm perplexed why he's getting all the attention and not the whole damn Republican party in that state, or other states where they're doing the same shit for that matter.

.

It's still not very smart, even when talking about race, to group entire ethnic groups together as a collective.

If he was talking about lazy black people in one part, and lazy white people in another, why would there be any need to differentiate the two groups? Aren't they just lazy people?

Considering many of our 'founders', only a few generations ago, essentially took the entirety of North America from them, raped their women, killed most of their men, spread disease and forced religious conversion on them, it's a bit stupid to say we shouldn't treat them any differently. Put yourself in their position.

What you're saying is that 'people get screwed' so we should therefore ignore recent history? At the very least we should acknowledge the disadvantages many black and native communities face directly BECAUSE of the slave trade, or the European conquest of North America.

Why should we compensate people over what happened to their ancestors?

That depends on how far you want to go back. I'm not saying we should go back thousands of years, but rather we should be conscious of the clear disadvantages certain groups face that directly stem from relatively 'recent' events in history (slavery, the conquest of the Americas..etc).

Should we, conversely, just ignore it all and convince ourselves that everyone has been equally screwed? I think it's foolish to try and put everyone on an even keel. We should definitely recognize the disadvantages faced by these communities that stems directly from these events in recent history, even if there's no monetary compensation given to them. To say that we're all equally 'screwed' by uncle sam is far too simplistic.

Yeah its not like they are the only ones in the United States that had the majority of their lands stolen, been systematically exterminated for centuries or other such things..

Because it affects them to this day? Are people this dumb to not realize that there are Native Americans who are still alive who witnessed many of the abuses first hand by the govern between the 1930s through 1960s, and were affected directly by it?? This amount of ignorance is shocking.

lol.. the look aasif give the camera when the guy starts giving the "one of my best friends is black" line is perfect..

This is a joke piece. It looks to be a way to get John Lewis defensive and make the other guy look bad. Just take a look at the end of the piece about voting makes you gay. :rolleyes:

Shouldn't surprise anyone about that voter suppression thing. Just another Republican scam to try and shit on the poor and minorities. So sad that these same people and the middle class still vote for the GOP without knowing they're fvcking themselves.

"Edited down to show the worst moments."

No amount of editing could have changed what he literally said; lazy black people cannot be bothered to vote, yay for vote restrictions sticking it to the democrats!

Come on man. Everyone knows you don't say Republican thoughts in public. That's why he got fired.

This is what I think a significant portion of social cons actually believe. They would go back to before women and minorites could vote if they could. Instead they're using voter registration which is thinly veiled racism at best.

Also lol at the damage control in this thread.

I get the feeling that republican voters don't actually care. Or if they do it's not enough to actually advocate putting an end to something that would help the people that they see as the opposition.

Well, it's easy to see why the comment would come off as racist, so there may be some justification there.

A better way to manage voting would be to give a small quiz on what's being voted on. Nothing partisan, just enough to demonstrate that you have some grasp of what the issues are. It's a well known fact that the vast majority of voters are horribly ignorant, but democrats (little d) claim that in the end it doesn't matter without explaining how.

Because that's always worked well in the past, right?

Lol that worked out so great in the past with literacy tests...

Everything you said applies to black people.

What would the point of that be? since you still have to let them vote even if they fail

That's not recent at all. That's hundred's of years ago. There's nobody alive now that had anything to do with that. It's a stupid idea to compensate people for things that didn't even happen to them, or weren't caused by the ones compensating them.

Did you watch the video?

This is a serious question.

Even if in principle I agreed with this idea, what would be on it, and how would you prevent it from becoming partisan?

I am glad you are not in charge of the government otherwise white Americans would look like an apathetic people void of empathy. History would be much different and we most likely would not even have any black people in the Supreme Court. Far be it from me to think that giving a hand up to people who were nearly obliterated or enslaved for four hundred years do not need some help integrating into a society in which the actions of the past directly affect living conditions of over three hundred million people.

Void of empathy? Name 1 good reason why I should pay for something I had nothing to do with? My grandpa was in a concentration camp in ww2. Does that mean the German government should give compensate me?

I think it's stupid to act like there aren't any generational affects from slavery or the treatment of Native Americans in the last 150 years.

I'm not saying there aren't any, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't punish people for things that their ancestors did.

I was not saying you specifically need to or look like you are apathetic.

As I understand your post, you are unifying the Nazis with the American government under the pretense that both are respectively governed by the same people that performed atrocities. The reason why that is wrong is the United States has been governed by the same group of people since its foundation and has never been punished for its actions. The Nazi party commanded Germany for one generation. Minus those who came to work for NASA and some others, they were punished for their actions. Next, Germany is not a first world country because of the Nazi party. Contrastingly, America is a first world country because of taking over a big part of North America, nearly obliterating its inhabitants, and using a race of people as cattle for four hundred years.

We can compare what the two major ethnic groups received for their suffering since you seem to want to. One is Native American and the other is Jew. Native Americans have reservations that belong to the American government. Many Jews now live in the nation of Israel and America is a great world power allying itself with them.

I am not commenting on Black Americans unless you want to continue this questioning of yours.

That's the real takeaway from this segment, IMO.

Reps are losing ground demographically. Either redistrict or suppress voters who don't support you.

I mean, yes, from a strategic point of view they either have to do that or reform their platform - and they've shown a complete unwillingness to allow the latter.

But it's completely undemocratic, fraudulent, and nefarious. How anyone could support such measures, or vote for politicians who do, is beyond me.

What on earth is the point? Democracies are supposed to represent as much of the population as is feasible even if they're completely clueless, and by adding a "small quiz" for every person you're going to horribly slow down the voting process as well as further add to the difficulties of those voters who don't have much free time on their hands.