WWTBAM Bored

A home for the weary.
It is currently Fri May 26, 2017 2:44 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 4:25 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13334
Another setback for bigots and racists, this time in North Carolina. And it's not just me saying that, it's the decision of the Court itself, one of the more conservative appeals courts in the country: Here's the decision: http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/7-29-16% ... v%20NC.pdf

Pertinent quotes:

Quote:
Faced with this record, we can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent.


Quote:
Using race as a proxy for party may be an effective way to win an election. But intentionally targeting a particular race’s access to the franchise because its members vote for a particular party, in a predictable manner, constitutes discriminatory purpose. This is so even absent any evidence of race-based hatred and despite the obvious political dynamics. A
state legislature acting on such a motivation engages in intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act.


Quote:
The record is replete with evidence of instances since the 1980s in which the North Carolina legislature has attempted to suppress and dilute the voting rights of African Americans.


Quote:
When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, “politics as usual” does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers. The record evidence is clear that this is exactly what was done here.


Quote:
The State then elaborated on its justification, explaining that “[c]ounties with Sunday voting in 2014 were disproportionately black” and “disproportionately Democratic.” In response, SL 2013-381 did away with one of the two days of Sunday voting. Thus, in what comes as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times, the State’s very justification for a challenged statute hinges explicitly on race -- specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to the franchise.


Quote:
Rather, the General Assembly enacted [these laws] in the immediate aftermath of unprecedented African American voter participation in a state with a troubled racial history and racially polarized voting. The district court clearly erred in ignoring or dismissing this historical background evidence, all of which supports a finding of discriminatory intent.


Quote:
As noted above, the General Assembly completely revised the list of acceptable photo IDs, removing from the list the IDs held disproportionately by African Americans, but retaining those disproportionately held by whites.


Quote:
As explained in detail above, prior to and during the limited debate on the expanded omnibus bill, members of the General Assembly requested and received a breakdown by race of DMV-issued ID ownership, absentee voting, early voting, same-day registration, and provisional voting (which includes out-of precinct voting). This data revealed that African Americans disproportionately used early voting, same-day registration, and out-of-precinct voting, and disproportionately lacked DMV-issued ID. Not only that, it also revealed that African Americans did not disproportionately use absentee voting; whites did. SL 2013-381 drastically restricted all of these other forms of access to the franchise, but exempted absentee voting from the photo ID requirement. In sum, relying on this racial data, the General Assembly enacted legislation restricting all -- and only -- practices disproportionately used by African Americans.


Quote:
Our conclusion does not mean, and we do not suggest, that any member of the General Assembly harbored racial hatred or animosity toward any minority group. But the totality of the circumstances -- North Carolina’s history of voting discrimination; the surge in African American voting; the legislature’s knowledge that African Americans voting translated into support for one party; and the swift elimination of the tools African Americans had used to vote and imposition of a new barrier at the first opportunity to do so -- cumulatively and unmistakably reveal that the General Assembly used SL 2013-381 to entrench itself. It did so by targeting voters who, based on race, were unlikely to vote for the majority party. Even if done for partisan ends, that constituted racial discrimination.


Quote:
In sum, the array of electoral “reforms” the General Assembly pursued in SL 2013-381 were not tailored to achieve its purported justifications, a number of which were in all events insubstantial. In many ways, the challenged provisions in SL 2013-381 constitute solutions in search of a problem. The only clear factor linking these various “reforms” is their impact on African American voters. The record thus makes obvious that the “problem” the majority in the General Assembly sought to remedy was emerging support for the minority party. Identifying and restricting the ways African Americans vote was an easy and effective way to do so. We therefore must conclude that race constituted a but-for cause of SL 2013-381, in violation of the Constitutional and statutory prohibitions on intentional discrimination.



For the record, two of the judges who issued the decision were appointed by Obama, although one was originally named to the District Court by Bush, Jr. The other was appointed by Clinton. And it's very rare for a circuit court to overturn fact findings by a lower court, in this case very extensive fact findings. They have permanently enjoined the law, which means that unless the Supreme Court stays that decision by Election Day, it's out for this year's election.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:16 pm
Posts: 4826
Location: Charlotte, NC
We mostly all casually call it the Voter ID law but it was about more than just needing a picture ID to vote - it ended Sunday registration and put in a couple of other restrictions that made it very difficult for working class folks to vote early or get properly registered.

I do understand the dilemma over whether college students should vote at their college address or their permanent address. That's a valid problem but not worthy of the ugly shouting. We can have courteous conversations about things that matter.

I carefully followed all the FB comments on my paper's story with regard to voter fraud, and it is either nonexistent, or so minimal that it's not worth spending any more time on it. I don't see how anyone could vote multiple times when precinct workers do their jobs - mine always interact with me and would know if I came through again and used a different name and address. I guess you could go to another precinct, but why would anyone would risk a $50,000 fine and a year in prison for an extra vote?

_________________
If you fail to pilot your own ship, don't be surprised at what inappropriate port you find yourself docked. - Tom Robbins
--------
At the moment of commitment, the universe conspires to assist you. - attributed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Jul 29, 2016 11:14 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15177
Location: By the phone
I believe that a finding of intentional discrimination means that North Carolina will again be subject to preclearance. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 3:32 am 
Offline
Evil Genius
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 8310
Location: Garden Grove, CA
silverscreenselect wrote:
... one was originally named to the District Court by Bush, Jr. ...
There is no Bush, Jr. in that family. You apparently know your presidents as well as you know your flag.

_________________
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 9:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8581
Location: In Texas of course!
Estonut wrote:
silverscreenselect wrote:
... one was originally named to the District Court by Bush, Jr. ...
There is no Bush, Jr. in that family. You apparently know your presidents as well as you know your flag.


And he posts "..It's just part of the right's fascination with name calling..." when we shortcut Democratic for Democrat Party, even thouhgh they call themselves Democrats.

Yet, he and the media continue to this day to refer to GWB ad "Jr". Even when he was running against Al Gore, Jr. they, especially the media, used "Jr." to refer to Bush rather than Gore.

Its part of their pattern of not only denying their own faults, but painting the conservatives with those faults.

And the sad part is that a huge portion of their base is too stupid to realize it. And this decision furthers that point by saying minorities are either too stupid or too lazy to get proper IDs. Yet they are plenty smart to figure out how to maximize the government benefit system.

No, the liberal opposition to voter ID laws is not really because of the stupidity and laziness of a largepart of their base, though it is a factor, it is because that large portion of their base can't plan beyond next Friday and election day sneaks up on them. The Democrats need their base to be able to be vote on a whim.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 11:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 9:52 pm
Posts: 3224
Location: Merion, Pa.
This is a lot like the Pennsylvania voter ID law that was struck down a couple of years ago. Hunting licenses were valid IDs but not welfare cards. And college IDs were OK if they had an expiration date. The Repubs knew that the largest urban colleges, like Temple, had ID cards with no expiration date.

In case there was any doubt of the goal of this law, the House majority leader said it would allow Romney to win Pennsylvania.

Yes, every Dem voter could have gotten an ID with some effort. But in the aggregate, the effect of the law would have been to skew the election results in the GOP's favor.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 1:35 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13334
BackInTex wrote:

Its part of their pattern of not only denying their own faults, but painting the conservatives with those faults.


No, because Al Gore Sr. was never the Vice President of the United States, so a statement about VP Gore could only apply to Gore Jr.

Both George Bushes were President and both appointed federal judges, so a statement that a particular judge was appointed by Bush is ambiguous; there are still a number of judges appointed by Bush Sr. on the bench.

If Hillary is elected, we'll have to make similar statements to distinguish which President Clinton we're talking about if the context is ambiguous.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 1:43 pm 
Offline
Evil Genius
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:16 am
Posts: 8310
Location: Garden Grove, CA
BackInTex wrote:
And the sad part is that a huge portion of their base is too stupid to realize it.
Probably the same part of that base that would swear that Sarah Palin once said, "I can see Russia from my house!"

_________________
A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.
Groucho Marx


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 3:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8581
Location: In Texas of course!
BackInTex wrote:

Its part of their pattern of not only denying their own faults....


silverscreenselect wrote:
No, because ...


Thank you.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 8:51 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13334
BackInTex wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

Its part of their pattern of not only denying their own faults....


silverscreenselect wrote:
No, because ...


Thank you.


Do you actually read anything before you make inane posts?

My use of Jr. was to avoid ambiguity. There's no ambiguity involved in referring to the Democrat party or Barack Hussein Obama; it's meant simply to belittle.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2016 10:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8581
Location: In Texas of course!
silverscreenselect wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
BackInTex wrote:

Its part of their pattern of not only denying their own faults....


silverscreenselect wrote:
No, because ...


Thank you.


Do you actually read anything before you make inane posts?

My use of Jr. was to avoid ambiguity. [BULLSHIT] There's no ambiguity involved in referring to the Democrat party or Barack Hussein Obama; it's meant simply to belittle.


George W, Bush 43 or simply 43 all work. Jr. is disrespectful and an insult. Period.

More so than adding Hussein to Barack Obama, it IS his name after all and what HE called himself when he took the oath of office. Jr. is NOT part of George W Bush's name.

Calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party is not an insult. It is, admittedly lazy, but no intent to insult. It is too easy to say Demoncrat or if you insist the Demoncratic Party. or Demorat.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:56 am 
Offline
Dumbass
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Posts: 28946
Location: Between the Suavitel and Fabuloso
BackInTex wrote:
George W, Bush 43 or simply 43 all work. Jr. is disrespectful and an insult. Period.



Me and my Dad share a nickname, but have different legal first and middle names. I am not a Junior, but am often called "Bill, Jr." by those who know both me and my Dad to keep us straight. I have never considered this to be anything other than a practical way of someone to specify which person they are referring to in regards to a father/son who each go by the same first name, and honestly have no idea why you are getting your skivvies in a bunch over Bush Sr./Jr other than SSS said it (And you know I never stick up for SSS). I'm sure you realize there are plenty of truly insulting terms out there for GWB, so I don't think anyone really trying to insult him would pick something as benign as "Jr."...

lb13

_________________
Thursday comics! Squirrel pictures! The link to my CafePress store! All kinds of fun stuff!!!!

Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:43 pm
Posts: 8581
Location: In Texas of course!
littlebeast13 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
George W, Bush 43 or simply 43 all work. Jr. is disrespectful and an insult. Period.



Me and my Dad share a nickname, but have different legal first and middle names. I am not a Junior, but am often called "Bill, Jr." by those who know both me and my Dad to keep us straight. I have never considered this to be anything other than a practical way of someone to specify which person they are referring to in regards to a father/son who each go by the same first name, and honestly have no idea why you are getting your skivvies in a bunch over Bush Sr./Jr other than SSS said it (And you know I never stick up for SSS). I'm sure you realize there are plenty of truly insulting terms out there for GWB, so I don't think anyone really trying to insult him would pick something as benign as "Jr."...

lb13


It goes back to the 2000 election. It was used to disrespect him. There were two candidates. Bush and Gore. Everyone knew who the Bush running was. There was no need to use Jr.

No explain to me how saying the Democrat Party is in anyway insulting.

_________________
In the end, they will all pretty much taste the same.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 7:32 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13334
BackInTex wrote:
It goes back to the 2000 election. It was used to disrespect him. There were two candidates. Bush and Gore. Everyone knew who the Bush running was. There was no need to use Jr.


Well, "it" may have gone back to the 2000 election but viewing both presidents in a historical perspective dates after that. And, when people post things on internet boards, where the rules of grammar and style are a lot less formal, they tend to abbreviate where possible. I'm sure that if I had referred to "W" there, you would have had just as much of a fit, and it's a bit silly to mention "George W. Bush" in the same sentence as "Clinton" and "Obama" for reasons of parallelism. Certainly, in a formal news article or commentary, I would have spelled out the name, but I tried to cut things a bit short. And I've never used the term "Bush Jr." in any context in which there wasn't a legitimate possibility that a reference to "Bush" by itself would be ambiguous, as it was here. I've never said "Bush Jr. ignored intelligence about 9/11." But both Bushes appointed federal judges to the Courts of Appeal and a statement that "Bush" appointed a particular judge who heard this case is ambiguous. And my comment wasn't even a criticism of Bush's choice of judges; it was merely an attempt to give anyone reading the post a better idea of the possible political makeup of the judges who decided the case.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 8:20 am 
Offline
Dumbass
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 7:20 pm
Posts: 28946
Location: Between the Suavitel and Fabuloso
BackInTex wrote:
No(w) explain to me how saying the Democrat Party is in anyway insulting.


It isn't. I say a lot of things that people find to be insulting, and they can just go get fucked for all I care because it wasn't meant to be insulting. I'm intentions trump perceptions all the way (and since I'm not a public/media figure, I can actually get away with that), and I don't think SSS was being demeaning with "Bush Jr." anymore than you would be calling the donkeys the "Democrat Party". Anyone finding insult in either term in just digging for reasons to be offended...

lb13

_________________
Thursday comics! Squirrel pictures! The link to my CafePress store! All kinds of fun stuff!!!!

Visit my Evil Squirrel blog here: http://evilsquirrelsnest.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2016 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20353
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
littlebeast13 wrote:
BackInTex wrote:
George W, Bush 43 or simply 43 all work. Jr. is disrespectful and an insult. Period.



Me and my Dad share a nickname, but have different legal first and middle names. I am not a Junior, but am often called "Bill, Jr." by those who know both me and my Dad to keep us straight. I have never considered this to be anything other than a practical way of someone to specify which person they are referring to in regards to a father/son who each go by the same first name, and honestly have no idea why you are getting your skivvies in a bunch over Bush Sr./Jr other than SSS said it (And you know I never stick up for SSS). I'm sure you realize there are plenty of truly insulting terms out there for GWB, so I don't think anyone really trying to insult him would pick something as benign as "Jr."...

lb13

Robert was my father's middle name but he went by Bob. I was always Bob, Jr.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 2656
Location: Lacey, Washington
Ritterskoop wrote:
We mostly all casually call it the Voter ID law but it was about more than just needing a picture ID to vote - it ended Sunday registration and put in a couple of other restrictions that made it very difficult for working class folks to vote early or get properly registered.

I do understand the dilemma over whether college students should vote at their college address or their permanent address. That's a valid problem but not worthy of the ugly shouting. We can have courteous conversations about things that matter.

I carefully followed all the FB comments on my paper's story with regard to voter fraud, and it is either nonexistent, or so minimal that it's not worth spending any more time on it. I don't see how anyone could vote multiple times when precinct workers do their jobs - mine always interact with me and would know if I came through again and used a different name and address. I guess you could go to another precinct, but why would anyone would risk a $50,000 fine and a year in prison for an extra vote?


Voter Fraud doesn't exist? Here's one example, that came to light because of the tragic shooting in my home state. Just as an aside, in a state with 7 million people, there has NEVER been one charge filed for illegal voting. I think there's a big problem with voter fraud, it's just not enforced. You would think the state government would go after this problem more ardently. It could raise a lot of revenue with all the $10,000 fines for voting illegally. We need voter ID laws and more.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/29/accus ... n-citizen/

This guy has already confessed to shooting people in the mall. Cetin is a legal resident, but he is not a citizen and therefore is not supposed to vote in any elections. According to reports, he has voted 3 times. (btw, he is an ardent Democrat according to his facebook posts). How many others are there that do not go to malls and randomly shoot people?

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 11:05 am 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15177
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Ritterskoop wrote:
We mostly all casually call it the Voter ID law but it was about more than just needing a picture ID to vote - it ended Sunday registration and put in a couple of other restrictions that made it very difficult for working class folks to vote early or get properly registered.

I do understand the dilemma over whether college students should vote at their college address or their permanent address. That's a valid problem but not worthy of the ugly shouting. We can have courteous conversations about things that matter.

I carefully followed all the FB comments on my paper's story with regard to voter fraud, and it is either nonexistent, or so minimal that it's not worth spending any more time on it. I don't see how anyone could vote multiple times when precinct workers do their jobs - mine always interact with me and would know if I came through again and used a different name and address. I guess you could go to another precinct, but why would anyone would risk a $50,000 fine and a year in prison for an extra vote?


Voter Fraud doesn't exist? Here's one example, that came to light because of the tragic shooting in my home state. Just as an aside, in a state with 7 million people, there has NEVER been one charge filed for illegal voting. I think there's a big problem with voter fraud, it's just not enforced. You would think the state government would go after this problem more ardently. It could raise a lot of revenue with all the $10,000 fines for voting illegally. We need voter ID laws and more.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/29/accus ... n-citizen/

This guy has already confessed to shooting people in the mall. Cetin is a legal resident, but he is not a citizen and therefore is not supposed to vote in any elections. According to reports, he has voted 3 times. (btw, he is an ardent Democrat according to his facebook posts). How many others are there that do not go to malls and randomly shoot people?
This is somebody writing a letter claiming that he voted. At least the letter-writer cited her sources so she can be fact-checked.

But the fact remains that we know that these Republican initiatives are keeping thousands and thousands of legitimate voters away from the polls. I'm still nowhere near convinced that there's a disease at all, but I'm quite certain that the Republicans' cure is much worse than the disease. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 2656
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Ritterskoop wrote:
We mostly all casually call it the Voter ID law but it was about more than just needing a picture ID to vote - it ended Sunday registration and put in a couple of other restrictions that made it very difficult for working class folks to vote early or get properly registered.

I do understand the dilemma over whether college students should vote at their college address or their permanent address. That's a valid problem but not worthy of the ugly shouting. We can have courteous conversations about things that matter.

I carefully followed all the FB comments on my paper's story with regard to voter fraud, and it is either nonexistent, or so minimal that it's not worth spending any more time on it. I don't see how anyone could vote multiple times when precinct workers do their jobs - mine always interact with me and would know if I came through again and used a different name and address. I guess you could go to another precinct, but why would anyone would risk a $50,000 fine and a year in prison for an extra vote?


Voter Fraud doesn't exist? Here's one example, that came to light because of the tragic shooting in my home state. Just as an aside, in a state with 7 million people, there has NEVER been one charge filed for illegal voting. I think there's a big problem with voter fraud, it's just not enforced. You would think the state government would go after this problem more ardently. It could raise a lot of revenue with all the $10,000 fines for voting illegally. We need voter ID laws and more.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/29/accus ... n-citizen/

This guy has already confessed to shooting people in the mall. Cetin is a legal resident, but he is not a citizen and therefore is not supposed to vote in any elections. According to reports, he has voted 3 times. (btw, he is an ardent Democrat according to his facebook posts). How many others are there that do not go to malls and randomly shoot people?
This is somebody writing a letter claiming that he voted. At least the letter-writer cited her sources so she can be fact-checked.

But the fact remains that we know that these Republican initiatives are keeping thousands and thousands of legitimate voters away from the polls. I'm still nowhere near convinced that there's a disease at all, but I'm quite certain that the Republicans' cure is much worse than the disease. --Bob


I'm sorry, but how do you KNOW? Because of Democrat talking points citing commissioned studies to come to that conclusion? Many other studies cite just the opposite, but they are not credible to you because they don't agree with what you believe, or because one particular judge or other happens to believe that black people are not competent enough to obtain a photo ID, when they have to have one for many other important transactions.


Look, we all know there is and has always been voter fraud. It is pretty much an accepted truth that Kennedy got elected using voter fraud. LBJ had some shenanigans in Texas. Here are some others. It says they are documented, but you can do the research yourself to make sure.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/09/14/7_examples_that_show_voter_fraud_is_a_huge_problem
If it is shown this guy Cetin voted illegally, will you acknowledge there is a problem? Not that voter ID is the big cure all, but that we need to get some kind of control over the process?

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:33 pm
Posts: 1935
Location: Richmond VA
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
If it is shown this guy Cetin voted illegally, will you acknowledge there is a problem? Not that voter ID is the big cure all, but that we need to get some kind of control over the process?

A silly question -- if he's a landed immigrant with a green card and has a driver's license, wouldn't his driver's license be sufficient enough to (illegally) vote using any state's photo ID criteria?

_________________
#ignorehashtags


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:58 am
Posts: 20353
Location: Oro Valley, Arizona
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
Look, we all know there is and has always been voter fraud. It is pretty much an accepted truth that Kennedy got elected using voter fraud. LBJ had some shenanigans in Texas. Here are some others. It says they are documented, but you can do the research yourself to make sure.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/09/14/7_examples_that_show_voter_fraud_is_a_huge_problem
If it is shown this guy Cetin voted illegally, will you acknowledge there is a problem? Not that voter ID is the big cure all, but that we need to get some kind of control over the process?

Gee, I wish people thought the same way about gun violence.

_________________
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)

Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

Teach a child to be polite and courteous in the home and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to drive in New Jersey.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 3:00 pm 
Offline
Bored Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 12:02 pm
Posts: 15177
Location: By the phone
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
If it is shown this guy Cetin voted illegally, will you acknowledge there is a problem? Not that voter ID is the big cure all, but that we need to get some kind of control over the process?
No one denies that there are occasional incidents of voter fraud. But Voter ID does nothing to address what little voter fraud actually occurs, while turnout figures alone demonstrate that it quite clearly prevents thousands upon thousands of legitimate voters from voting.

As but one example, if New York were to adopt a Voter ID law, my great aunt most likely could not vote for the same reason she can't get a passport -- she can provide neither documentary evidence nor a witness to prove that she was born in this country in 1910.

Then there are all the people (think rural Texas), often people who don't own cars, who are hours away from the nearest office where they can get the necessary documentation. And that's if they have all their ducks in a row in the first instance.

And that's leaving aside the finding of the Fourth Circuit (traditionally one of the more conservative Circuit Courts in the country) that North Carolina targeted black voters with almost surgical precision, and the finding of the Fifth Circuit (neck and neck with the Fourth for the title of most conservative) that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a similar finding, if the trial judge chooses to make such a finding on remand.

For once I agree with Bob Juch. If people had the same attitude toward gun violence that you're expressing here, I'd be a much happier camper. --Bob

_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 2656
Location: Lacey, Washington
Bob78164 wrote:
flockofseagulls104 wrote:
If it is shown this guy Cetin voted illegally, will you acknowledge there is a problem? Not that voter ID is the big cure all, but that we need to get some kind of control over the process?
No one denies that there are occasional incidents of voter fraud. But Voter ID does nothing to address what little voter fraud actually occurs, while turnout figures alone demonstrate that it quite clearly prevents thousands upon thousands of legitimate voters from voting.

As but one example, if New York were to adopt a Voter ID law, my great aunt most likely could not vote for the same reason she can't get a passport -- she can provide neither documentary evidence nor a witness to prove that she was born in this country in 1910.

Then there are all the people (think rural Texas), often people who don't own cars, who are hours away from the nearest office where they can get the necessary documentation. And that's if they have all their ducks in a row in the first instance.

And that's leaving aside the finding of the Fourth Circuit (traditionally one of the more conservative Circuit Courts in the country) that North Carolina targeted black voters with almost surgical precision, and the finding of the Fifth Circuit (neck and neck with the Fourth for the title of most conservative) that there was sufficient evidence in the record to support a similar finding, if the trial judge chooses to make such a finding on remand.

For once I agree with Bob Juch. If people had the same attitude toward gun violence that you're expressing here, I'd be a much happier camper. --Bob


You need to watch yourself agreeing with BJ. He never quite thinks things through. YES Bob, I, and every other sane person, acknowledge there's a problem with gun violence. But I also believe the remedies you want to implement are unconstitutional, destructive of the liberties of law-abiding people, and would do nothing to reduce gun violence, and probably increase the number of fatalities that result from gun violence. The guns are not the problem.

You know deep in your heart that the main reason democrats don't want voter ID or any other reform of the voting process is that they want to increase their voting base. The only type of voting reform they push makes it easier for fraud to happen, like mail voting and motor-voter. This murderer who DID (Mainstream media outlet KING-5 news is reporting it as a fact, so that should be enough for you) vote 3 times illegally shows there is a problem and there is no effort to enforce the laws that exist.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 6:04 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:21 pm
Posts: 13334
flockofseagulls104 wrote:


You know deep in your heart that the main reason democrats don't want voter ID or any other reform of the voting process is that they want to increase their voting base. The only type of voting reform they push makes it easier for fraud to happen, like mail voting and motor-voter.


And you know deep in your heart that the main reason Republicans want these types of "reform" of the voting process is to keep minorities from registering and voting. And it's not just me and the Bobs who are saying this, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals who found specifically that the reason the North Carolina legislature enacted those laws was to suppress black registration.

Read the opinion. It's filled with findings of fact, most of it from actual legislative records.

_________________
Check out our website: http://www.silverscreenvideos.com
Our Silver Screen Central blog is now live. Check it out (and join the discussion): http://www.silverscreenvideos.com/central


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 8:07 pm
Posts: 2656
Location: Lacey, Washington
Quote:
And you know deep in your heart that the main reason Republicans want these types of "reform" of the voting process is to keep minorities from registering and voting.


I know in my heart that is bullshit.

_________________
Arkansas Gulls -2007 BBBL Champions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kroxquo, silverscreenselect and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Americanized by Maël Soucaze.