You contionue to ignore that it was the Southern Conservatives and Indiana who did this.
They are now GOPs and have made the switch since the 1920s, 1960s and now--and you know it .
Yes, but the 2nd Amendment is much more prescriptively specific than are references to the right to vote. Regardless, the state ID laws that cause you such pain seem to have passed the test.
Both parties have gerrymandered, and there's no downside or upside for anyone in an honest vote. There is only the right side.
The key is winning.
Harry Reid's "encouragement of Obama was unequivocal. He was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a "light-skinned" African American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one," as he said privately. Reid was convinced, in fact, that Obama's race would help him more than hurt him in a bid for the Democratic nomination". - See more at: Reid Once Called Obama Light-skinned With 'No Negro Dialect', Media Mostly Mum
Joe Biden - "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Welfare dependency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
When leftists talk about the poor voting what they really mean are those who are dependent on government handouts to continue the social programs on which they've become dependent. Millions of more food stamps recipients since Obama came into office means millions more votes for the Democrats, and it's no secret that this is their intention.It has to do with CONTROL, one way or the other. Slavery is little different from total Government dependence and institutionalized poverty. Places like Cabrini Green, Robert Taylor Homes and Magnolia Place in New Orleans weren't born out of Conservative principles.
I think we're going off point. They're both rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
I've read enough of the gun threads on here to know that the conservatives do not accept regulations imposed on gun rights without protest, which you did with voting rules. The implication was when the legislature passes new restrictions on voting rights, the public just needs to accept, move on, and deal with it. But with gun regulations, 2A folks point out that registration and gun bans don't work, and are a burden on our rights to own a firearm, oppose closing the gun show loophole and registration of firearms, etc. And a lot of that opposition is simply based on the notion that such rules do not have any effect on gun deaths and crime, and so burdens on the right to own a firearm don't pass common sense or Constitutional tests.
But these same people expect everyone to accept restrictions on the right to vote with no questions asked, no evidence such restrictions are necessary or will do anything to reduce "voter" fraud. Most important, you were completely indifferent to rules that prevented 4 cases of fraud, but that disenfranchised 4,000 eligible, registered voters from casting a vote. Well, what is the purpose of voting rules? Is it 1) to only count the votes of people that jump through arbitrary hoops passed by any legislature, or 2) to restrict votes to eligible citizens of the U.S.? If it's the latter, which is the only reasonable goal of voting rules, and rules changes do nothing to prevent fraud, but cause 4,000 citizens to lose their ability to vote, how can you support that result?
It's not a defensible position for someone who doesn't reflexively accept government edicts without a second thought, and I know there is no other instance that I've seen that indicates you or other conservatives take that position as the default.
And whether the Texas rules pass Constitutional muster hasn't been decided. It's sort of a mixed bag out there as far as the courts go in other states.
When leftists talk about the poor voting what they really mean are those who are dependent on government handouts to continue the social programs on which they've become dependent. Millions of more food stamps recipients since Obama came into office means millions more votes for the Democrats, and it's no secret that this is their intention.
"Rights" play no role in any of this. It's about bringing in the vote for those dependent on government handouts, and their friends.
Linkless as usual--yet those Dems are now GOPs in the House.Funny thing is...the liberals absolutely loved
gerrymandering during the time it benefited them for nearly five decades.
wrong again--it started after the 1990 midterms--are you forgetting the embarrassment of Texas arresting their Dem politicians?It did not become a republican advantage until the 2010 midterms
Then you agree it's okay today--along with voter suppression to keep the minority in power.when the GOP won somewhere in the neighborhood of 600 state legislative seats. Now they are crying about it.
A Democrat by any other name ( Dixiecrat ) is STILL a Democrat.
Its your parties History, so you need to own it.
Personally I don't care much about gun rights either. You'll have to find another line of attack.
Linkless as usual--yet those Dems are now GOPs in the House.
Good thing TR got rid of the gerrymandered Senate with the 17th amendment.
wrong again--it started after the 1990 midterms--are you forgetting the embarrassment of Texas arresting their Dem politicians?
Then you agree it's okay today--along with voter suppression to keep the minority in power.
Very little Present Moment Awareness here .
There is a parade of conservatives that do care about gun rights and support the new voting rules, so I'm talking to them, too.
And you're intentionally missing the point. Do you normally accept government regulations without regard to the downside of them? Not unless you're stupid, and I don't believe you are. So why would you accept any policy from government that had a 1/1,000 ratio of benefit/harm ratio, that cost citizens and government millions of dollars, millions of hours in time?
If I said some EPA rule MIGHT save 4 lives, do you think ANY measure to save those lives is worth the cost? $100 million in direct costs, plus the regulatory burden? $1 billion? $10 Billion? Etc. Of course not, and you know it.
Because I think the integrity of the vote is worth that sacrifice.
And you increase the "integrity of the vote" by disenfranchising 4,000 eligible citizens to prevent 4 cases of "voter fraud?"
I think the integrity of the vote is also important, and therefore oppose rules changes that have no discernible effect on nearly non-existent 'voter fraud' at the polls, but do make properly registered citizens jump through pointless and costly hoops to exercise their RIGHT to vote.
And you increase the "integrity of the vote" by disenfranchising 4,000 eligible citizens to prevent 4 cases of "voter fraud?"
I think the integrity of the vote is also important, and therefore oppose rules changes that have no discernible effect on nearly non-existent 'voter fraud' at the polls, but do make properly registered citizens jump through pointless and costly hoops to exercise their RIGHT to vote.
And when right wingers talk about 'voter fraud' they're talking about those dependent on government handouts and do not want them to vote, and so have implemented rules to make it more difficult for them TO vote, to drive down their voting population. We all know this is true, so why deny it?
I can just as easily claim that gun "rights" have nothing to do with the NRA, etc. The 2A stuff is all about getting the votes of a bunch of redneck gun owners. Pick any issue and the same claims can be made - abortion, religion, contraception, etc.
And you increase the "integrity of the vote" by disenfranchising 4,000 eligible citizens to prevent 4 cases of "voter fraud?"
And you increase the "integrity of the vote" by disenfranchising 4,000 eligible citizens to prevent 4 cases of "voter fraud?"
I think the integrity of the vote is also important, and therefore oppose rules changes that have no discernible effect on nearly non-existent 'voter fraud' at the polls, but do make properly registered citizens jump through pointless and costly hoops to exercise their RIGHT to vote.
Sure, why not. The downside is it won't be hard to track you down since the money is going to YOU, and so it will be quite easy to convict you of a felony. Good plan! Give it a go and see how it works out for you!!
If you say so. I just noticed you didn't put in the obvious so ...Sure, there were democrats then and are republicans now.
Well, yeah, that's pretty much the key for any party, any politician. What's the point?
I'm missing the point. The racist party votes for policies that help blacks? That makes a lot of sense...... :shock::roll::lamo
Not all Democrats are the same.What I see are Democrats, something you want to ignore, now they are Southern and Northern Democrats as if Southern and Northern mean a thing. What is it about party loyalty that creates people like you? Looks to me like it as the Republicans that got the Civil Rights Bill passed and it looks like to me you are out of touch with reality.
As the politics of the land continued to evolve in the middle to late 1800s, some Southern Democrats became more liberal and embraced more middle-of-the-road political views. A significant number of other Southern Democrats, however, were bound together more closely by opposition to the Civil Rights Movement. These people formed ultra-conservative factions such as the Dixiecrats and right-wing vigilante groups such as the White League and the Ku Klux Klan.
I wouldn't trust too much in anything "the wise geek" has to say. They may try to change the name from Democrat to "right wing" or "ultra conservative", but Democrats they were and their racist history, which continues today, tells it all.Not all Democrats are the same.Southern Democrats:Not the same as today's Democrats.
People can make any claim they want, but not in court, if they do that it is perjury.That's not actually an estimate of the number of Texas registered voters without a Photo ID, and apparently refers to a different trial. It's a cherry picked bunch of out of context quotes and testimony.
In the district court, recently decided, the state didn't even pretend to do an estimate of the number. Several experts did, however, and the best the state could do was lob weak objections to some small parts of the very large and comprehensive efforts. Bottom line is several people went through thorough efforts to determine the number, and the result was somewhere around 600k without ID, and about 500k that didn't qualify for a disability exception. Some of them were elderly and could vote by absentee, which is more likely to generate fraudulent votes than voting in person.
But NO ONE testified in court, or presented any estimate in court, that there aren't hundreds of thousands of Texans, registered to vote, who will need to get new IDs. Partisan hacks can make any claim they want when it's not under oath and falsehoods and misleading half truths can't be challenged and have consequences. Get back to me with court testimony in any state backs up the view that few don't have the required ID. I won't be holding my breath, you can't produce such testimony.
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?