- Joined
- Nov 11, 2011
- Messages
- 9,372
- Reaction score
- 3,242
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Was I talking to you? If you have trouble with a specific post that wasn't directed at you, perhaps you might take it upon yourself to follow the bread crumbs back to where the exchange began. If you expect a slight sidetrack to explain itself as such with background info in each mildly sidetracked post, you're in for a big disappointment.Then be more specific with your posts.
Was I talking to you?
It seems likely I would be talking to the person I was quoting.You were apparently talking to yourself.
Your pots are not only BS, they're nonsensical to boot.
You don't live in the real world, my friend. Or, you're lying to yourself.
In his newly-released book, "GOP 2.0," the lieutenant governor laid out a case for a more independent and inclusive party, while also acknowledging the consequences of Republican mistrust in voting systems, especially as the 2021 legislative session began in the Peach State.
- In a new book, GA Lt Gov. Geoff Duncan said that GOP leaders pushing restrictive voting laws are "scared."
- "Many held to the theory that if more people vote, Republicans will lose," he wrote.
"Many held to the theory that if more people vote, Republicans will lose," he wrote. "Is that true? No. But the former president and other leaders convinced many in our party that is true."
Which would have been a much better response, even if not true, then claiming the judges are racist.Actually, he said they gave no discriminatory reason at all.
The left is no different. "Right wing corrupt court" blah blah blah...Which would have been a much better response, even if not true, then claiming the judges are racist.
Again, my point being, right wingers claim to be patriots who love America, but any decision, ruling or election that doesn't go their way, and they attack it like rabid dogs with the same old canned narratives.
It has gotten predictable and tiring to be quite frank.
None of them are prevented in any way from obtaining an IDExcept, of course, all the ones I listed earlier.
And then there is that arguement.The left is no different. "Right wing corrupt court" blah blah blah...
Not willing to read, I take it. So be it.None of them are prevented in any way from obtaining an ID
Not willing to read, I take it. So be it. Kind of amazing all these dozens of posts not based upon the decision or the law, just canned responses based upon supposition and predetermined outcome.None of them are prevented in any way from obtaining an ID
So you're reduced to a simple special pleading. "My side's commission of the same behavior is different because reasons."And then there is that arguement.
Hard to counter as I am sure examples of such are readily available.
I would argue that not only do I hear terms that serve to tear down America's institutions; for example, "deep state" or "activist judge" or "enemy of the people" (referring to the press) more from Trump supporters but I would argue that Trump and his supporters in Congress themselves, have taken these terms mainstream on the federal government level much more then democrats.
So hear we are.
Your arguement could well be and likely is, the oppisate.
America in snapshot.
You don't live in the real world, my friend. Or, you're lying to yourself.
If you didn't read and understand my post you could definitely think that.So you're reduced to a simple special pleading. "My side's commission of the same behavior is different because reasons."
Nah.
Or, I read and understood what you're saying, but just don't buy your special pleading.If you didn't read and understand my post you could definitely think that.
Otherwise you are just proving my point.
read it. there isn't a single one who is unable to obtain an IDNot willing to read, I take it. So be it.
I read it. not a single person is unable to obtain an ID.Not willing to read, I take it. So be it. Kind of amazing all these dozens of posts not based upon the decision or the law, just canned responses based upon supposition and predetermined outcome.
Foolish statement. Unless you define crooked elections by minorities voting.Shame on those North Carolina judges for refusing to support laws that prevent crooked elections.
The United States Supreme Court may not have the courage to support the law because the conservative justices are already shaking in their boots at the possibility of court packing.
So the judges believe that only blacks are criminals?You can always look up the 211 page ruling.
Court strikes down North Carolina voter ID law as racially biased
A panel of state judges in North Carolina struck down a voter ID law Friday, saying the law made it more difficult for Black voters to cast ballots.The judges said in their 211-page ruling that whi…thehill.com
A different 3 judge panel ruled last month that the state’s felon disenfranchisement rules are unconstitutional.
NC court grants voting rights to thousands of people on probation or parole for a felony
PS. An ID is not the same as a NC required photo ID.
How about this. Go find evidence that NC has had statistically significant voter fraud issues in the past.FWIW, here's the NC Voter Registration Form. You have to provide a name, an address and a DOB. If you've never voted before you also need to provide something to verify your name and address. That "something" can be as little as a pay stub. For those that aren't aware, you can use any number of sites to simply make up a pay stub. Once you're registered you can request a mail in ballot and no ID is required for filing that either.
Now, with that information, how secure do you really think the NC voter system is? How difficult, with these meager controls, would it be for someone to just make up a fake name and fake DOB but use a real address and provide a fake pay stub or, better yet (in case someone thinks of that) use the online pay stub site to re-create a pay stub from a real employer but just use the fake name?
Then, obviously DIDN'T read it (at least not for comprehension). Moreover, impossible is not the same as unconstitutional. Do the difficulties of obtaining an ID a) impose a burden on those who wish to vote? b) do those burdens have a disparate impact? THAT is the constitutional standard, and the law didn't meet it.read it. there isn't a single one who is unable to obtain an ID
The weight of posts would indicate that is exactly the problem.Foolish statement. Unless you define crooked elections by minorities voting.
"impossible is not the same as unconstitutional. Do the difficulties of obtaining an ID a) impose a burden on those who wish to vote? b) do those burdens have a disparate impact? THAT is the constitutional standard, and the law didn't meet it."You seem to be saying that in "the real world"....blacks are incapable of securing ID for themselves?
Why do you see them as incapable of doing that?
There are standards? We just thought we could say anyone can get an ID."impossible is not the same as unconstitutional. Do the difficulties of obtaining an ID a) impose a burden on those who wish to vote? b) do those burdens have a disparate impact? THAT is the constitutional standard, and the law didn't meet it."
If you can't address the actual standards, don't post. You're wasting everyone's time.
Look more Racist Libs trying to cheat a voting by saying other people are Racist !.....North Carolina judges block voter ID law, saying it discriminates against Black people
A panel of North Carolina judges in a split decision blocked the state's voter ID law, saying it discriminates against Black people.www.cnbc.com
Whether by discriminatory Jim Crow voting laws or by racial gerrymandering, Republicans are always working to stifle the votes of people of color.
If they put as much energy into formulating policies that appeal to all voters, they wouldn't need to rig the election process.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?