North Carolina Party leader admits Voter ID is about Democrats

[Panacea]

One of our illustrious leaders of the GOP in North Carolina (runs the party machine in Buncombe County) was interviewed by the Daily Show and proudly proclaimed that Republicans were going to kick Democratic butt because of the Voter ID law.

He tried to justify it by saying, "“If [the law] hurts the whites so be it. If it hurts a bunch of lazy blacks that want the government to give them everything, so be it.”

The link below include a clip of the interview he did. I never laughed so hard.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/24/gop_...iew/singleton/

[lordlundar]

Probably the best part about that interview was when he guest tried to pull the classic "I'm not racist, I have a black friend." argument, stopped himself for a moment, then decided to finish it.

[Panacea]

Update. Mr. Yelton was forced to resign. State GOP have been quick to distance themselves from this nutjob.

[DGoddess]

Only here can we have racists speaking out of both sides of their mouths . . .

I heard the other day that the DOJ has filed a lawsuit against North Carolina over the Voter ID law.

I really don't see the law as sound anyways - it's going to hurt poor and minorities, no better than the literacy tests that a lot of southern states required before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed.

[Lady_Foxfire]

My favorite part was when Aasif said "You do realize you're being recorded, right?"

It reminds me of what Jon Stewart said about Rick Santorum back during the 2012 election coverage; that his problem was that he spelled out what the other GOP nominees only implied, like that opposition to birth control and abortion were about their religious views, and not the good of society.

[Panacea]

I heard the other day that the DOJ has filed a lawsuit against North Carolina over the Voter ID law.

I really don't see the law as sound anyways - it's going to hurt poor and minorities, no better than the literacy tests that a lot of southern states required before the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed.

The latter is exactly why the DOJ is suing. Yelton has handed the DOJ its argument on a silver platter. And he still doesn't get it.

[smileyeagle1021]

I loved his reply to this scandal where he claimed that he was being taken out of context... I am unable to conceive of any context though that would be much better.

[Jetfire]

Yeah. The smart politicians, (and smart people in general) try not to get into the situation where they give those words in the first place.

The dumb ones end up on shows like the Daily Show, and then claim they were taken out of context, when any context short of "Read these lines or we shoot a puppy." would be a bad one.

If you don't want your words to be taken out of context, don't say those words in the first place.

[lordlundar]

You know you're being stupid when middle school students are calling you a moron for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CRSK0HItoI#t=0

[s_stabeler]

To be honest, what " It was taken out of context" is implying, to me, is that they weren't really saying that- for example, someone might say " all puppies with X disease should be shot because they won't live for more than a couple of days, and would be in pain"- which is more or less uncontroversial ( I could see argument about if shooting is the appropriate means of euthanasia, but that's about it) can be twisted into "all puppies with X disease should be shot" -which, absent the detail about what X disease IS, certainly is controversial. Or, with about as much accuracy, "all puppies should be shot"- which is uncontroversial for the entirely opposite reason. ( namely that everyone would think you were bad) So to me, a simple claim of " It was out of context" isn't enough- explain the context. (for example, in the case I said, explain what you actually said)

[lordlundar]

It doesn't help matters that when they've been saying it lately someone always finds the full statement in context and it makes it even worse.