One Candidate For President Disqualified Themselves Today

[OKTexas]

No 57% of Americans said she should have been charged, so it makes criminal vs crass, so we'll see if Americans can actually pull the lever for some one they believe is a criminal.

No worries:


View attachment 92968

I see you didn't post a link for your fantasies. Who put it out, thinkprogress?

Nate Silver—the guy who predicted every state last time around…. I’m sure unskewedpolls.com will tell you what you want to hear though.

But hey, lets make it interesting.

Straight up avatar bet:

Hillary wins, you change your avatar to this until she is sworn in. From midnight election night to noon January 20:

Donald wins, I change my avatar to this until he is sworn in. from midnight election night to noon on January 20:
View attachment 92970

You sound confident…ready to back it up?

So you're trying to twist a "we'll see" to some degree of confidence? The way this elections is going I wouldn't bet on anything but how I and my immediate family will vote. Now run along child and try putting words in other peoples mouths.

Thats what I figured….all yammer, no hammer. Typical Trump Supporter.

I've said from the day it appeared Trump would be the nominee that he would get my vote for one reason, he ain't the hildabitch. That is still the case.

 

[candycorn]

Really? Says who?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

You do know why the 3/5ths clause was formed right? You do understand that it was meant as an action taken AGAINST the slave holding south right?

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

What's a

stick constitutionalists

?

Pathetic to be reduced to being a grammar cop….isn’t it?

 

[candycorn]

No worries:


View attachment 92968

I see you didn't post a link for your fantasies. Who put it out, thinkprogress?

Nate Silver—the guy who predicted every state last time around…. I’m sure unskewedpolls.com will tell you what you want to hear though.

But hey, lets make it interesting.

Straight up avatar bet:

Hillary wins, you change your avatar to this until she is sworn in. From midnight election night to noon January 20:

Donald wins, I change my avatar to this until he is sworn in. from midnight election night to noon on January 20:
View attachment 92970

You sound confident…ready to back it up?

So you're trying to twist a "we'll see" to some degree of confidence? The way this elections is going I wouldn't bet on anything but how I and my immediate family will vote. Now run along child and try putting words in other peoples mouths.

Thats what I figured….all yammer, no hammer. Typical Trump Supporter.

I've said from the day it appeared Trump would be the nominee that he would get my vote for one reason, he ain't the hildabitch. That is still the case.

It’s okay, we get it….you’re frustrated that life has passed you by and you’re marginalized (if you’re even still on the page). In any case, it’s hilarious seeing you reduced to calling women names because your messiah does so

 

[OKTexas]

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

You do know why the 3/5ths clause was formed right? You do understand that it was meant as an action taken AGAINST the slave holding south right?

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

What's a

stick constitutionalists

?

Pathetic to be reduced to being a grammar cop….isn’t it?

No, pathetic is trying to twist things people say into something they didn't say. I simply pointed out what you did say.

 

[OKTexas]

I see you didn't post a link for your fantasies. Who put it out, thinkprogress?

Nate Silver—the guy who predicted every state last time around…. I’m sure unskewedpolls.com will tell you what you want to hear though.

But hey, lets make it interesting.

Straight up avatar bet:

Hillary wins, you change your avatar to this until she is sworn in. From midnight election night to noon January 20:

Donald wins, I change my avatar to this until he is sworn in. from midnight election night to noon on January 20:
View attachment 92970

You sound confident…ready to back it up?

So you're trying to twist a "we'll see" to some degree of confidence? The way this elections is going I wouldn't bet on anything but how I and my immediate family will vote. Now run along child and try putting words in other peoples mouths.

Thats what I figured….all yammer, no hammer. Typical Trump Supporter.

I've said from the day it appeared Trump would be the nominee that he would get my vote for one reason, he ain't the hildabitch. That is still the case.

It’s okay, we get it….you’re frustrated that life has passed you by and you’re marginalized (if you’re even still on the page). In any case, it’s hilarious seeing you reduced to calling women names because your messiah does so

Awh, poor thing, reduced to projection. LMAO

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

That Article is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

Candy didn't lie Tex, you simply wanted to pretend you knew something SPECIAL and try to baffle with bullshit, but you remain a 5'3' runt re: the subject! You're all fucking smoke and no fire!

 

[OKTexas]

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

That Article is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

Candy didn't lie Tex, you simply wanted to pretend you knew something SPECIAL and try to baffle with bullshit, but you remain a 5'3' runt re: the subject! You're all fucking smoke and no fire!

You should try to keep up oh ignorant one. If you had actually read the thread you'd know neither of those subjects were related to that particular comment. Now run along till you get caught up.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

That Article is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

Candy didn't lie Tex, you simply wanted to pretend you knew something SPECIAL and try to baffle with bullshit, but you remain a 5'3' runt re: the subject! You're all fucking smoke and no fire!

You should try to keep up oh ignorant one. If you had actually read the thread you'd know neither of those subjects were related to that particular comment. Now run along till you get caught up.

Now YOU are truly lying as well as deflecting! Hey, you're the one who went off topic and I followed just knowing you were going to put both feet alternately in horseshit and in your mouth, and you didn't disappoint!!!!

I had been following your stupidity in your exchange with another, and your errors, to which I responded, were those being discussed, shit for brains. You are always trying to pretend you are knowledgeable of things Constitutional, but you just don't measure up to those tall dreams, shorty!

Remember, YOU are the one who is ALWAY CORRECT, except maybe for this inept prognostication from 15 months ago, which displays your competence in SPADES!

The hildabeast won't get the nomination.............................................Again!

 

[OKTexas]

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

That Article is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

Candy didn't lie Tex, you simply wanted to pretend you knew something SPECIAL and try to baffle with bullshit, but you remain a 5'3' runt re: the subject! You're all fucking smoke and no fire!

You should try to keep up oh ignorant one. If you had actually read the thread you'd know neither of those subjects were related to that particular comment. Now run along till you get caught up.

Now YOU are truly lying as well as deflecting! Hey, you're the one who went off topic and I followed just knowing you were going to put both feet alternately in horseshit and in your mouth, and you didn't disappoint!!!!

I had been following your stupidity in your exchange with another, and your errors, to which I responded, were those being discussed, shit for brains. You are always trying to pretend you are knowledgeable of things Constitutional, but you just don't measure up to those tall dreams, shorty!

Remember, YOU are the one who is ALWAY CORRECT, except maybe for this inept prognostication from 15 months ago, which displays your competence in SPADES!

The hildabeast won't get the nomination.............................................Again!

Ok, no more Mr nice guy.

We were discussing the 3/5ths clause in Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3.

Candyass said this"

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

My reply was this.

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

If you're too fucking stupid to go back a read the fucking thread, that's on you asshole. As for the rest of your fucking bullshit you can shove it up, what I'm very sure is your well used, fagot ass.

 

[OKTexas]

ThoughtCrimes did the truth chase your cowardly self away?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

That Article is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

Candy didn't lie Tex, you simply wanted to pretend you knew something SPECIAL and try to baffle with bullshit, but you remain a 5'3' runt re: the subject! You're all fucking smoke and no fire!

You should try to keep up oh ignorant one. If you had actually read the thread you'd know neither of those subjects were related to that particular comment. Now run along till you get caught up.

Now YOU are truly lying as well as deflecting! Hey, you're the one who went off topic and I followed just knowing you were going to put both feet alternately in horseshit and in your mouth, and you didn't disappoint!!!!

I had been following your stupidity in your exchange with another, and your errors, to which I responded, were those being discussed, shit for brains. You are always trying to pretend you are knowledgeable of things Constitutional, but you just don't measure up to those tall dreams, shorty!

Remember, YOU are the one who is ALWAY CORRECT, except maybe for this inept prognostication from 15 months ago, which displays your competence in SPADES!

The hildabeast won't get the nomination.............................................Again!

Ok, no more Mr nice guy.

We were discussing the 3/5ths clause in Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3.

Candyass said this"

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

My reply was this.

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

If you're too fucking stupid to go back a read the fucking thread, that's on you asshole. As for the rest of your fucking bullshit you can shove it up, what I'm very sure is your well used, fagot ass.

Good! I don't have to lay it all out for you stupid deflecting fucks! To be redundant, I'll repeat your last bit above to Candy along with my response to that bullshit you bloody IDIOT!

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

I responded to YOUR POINTS DIRECTLY ABOVE;

Candy didn't lie Tex, you simply wanted to pretend you knew something SPECIAL and try to baffle with bullshit, but you remain a 5'3' runt re: the subject! You're all fucking smoke and no fire!

You stated;

Article 5 was used to change it [amend the Constitution], meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

My response to that was this;

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

That Article is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

So how the fuck is my explaining the actual function of Article V and the 3/5ths compromise during the Constitutional Convention, WHICH WERE BROUGHT UP BETWEEN YOU AND CANDY, AND TO WHICH I RESPONDED CORRECTING YOUR IGNORANCE, NOT RESPONDING TO THE TOPICS IN YOUR POSTS, DUNCE?

You're a bloody idiot, Tex, and most likely to remain in that condition short a brain transplant!!

 

[oreo]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Hillary Clinton will pick a moderate, why? Because they're the only ones that will pass the scrutiny of Senate confirmation.

Republicans couldn't get another Justice Scalia appointed to the courts if their lives depended on it.

In fact there are Republicans who were much more concerned as to who Donald Trump would pick over Hillary Clinton.
I’ll Take Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump

 

[OKTexas]

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

That Article is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

Candy didn't lie Tex, you simply wanted to pretend you knew something SPECIAL and try to baffle with bullshit, but you remain a 5'3' runt re: the subject! You're all fucking smoke and no fire!

You should try to keep up oh ignorant one. If you had actually read the thread you'd know neither of those subjects were related to that particular comment. Now run along till you get caught up.

Now YOU are truly lying as well as deflecting! Hey, you're the one who went off topic and I followed just knowing you were going to put both feet alternately in horseshit and in your mouth, and you didn't disappoint!!!!

I had been following your stupidity in your exchange with another, and your errors, to which I responded, were those being discussed, shit for brains. You are always trying to pretend you are knowledgeable of things Constitutional, but you just don't measure up to those tall dreams, shorty!

Remember, YOU are the one who is ALWAY CORRECT, except maybe for this inept prognostication from 15 months ago, which displays your competence in SPADES!

The hildabeast won't get the nomination.............................................Again!

Ok, no more Mr nice guy.

We were discussing the 3/5ths clause in Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3.

Candyass said this"

SO?
The constitution says it.So according to stick constitutionalists, you guys though a black person was 3/5 of a human. Dance all you want; you can’t have it both ways.

My reply was this.

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

If you're too fucking stupid to go back a read the fucking thread, that's on you asshole. As for the rest of your fucking bullshit you can shove it up, what I'm very sure is your well used, fagot ass.

Good! I don't have to lay it all out for you stupid deflecting fucks! To be redundant, I'll repeat your last bit above to Candy along with my response to that bullshit you bloody IDIOT!

You're a liar dumbass, Article 5 was used to change it, meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

I responded to YOUR POINTS DIRECTLY ABOVE;

Candy didn't lie Tex, you simply wanted to pretend you knew something SPECIAL and try to baffle with bullshit, but you remain a 5'3' runt re: the subject! You're all fucking smoke and no fire!

You stated;

Article 5 was used to change it [amend the Constitution], meaning it is no longer operative and not part of the Constitution. They did it the proper way.

My response to that was this;

Article V was not "USED" to change/AMEND the Constitution, slick! That's like saying Article III was used to enable SCOTUS to decide Roe v. Wade or Citizens United or that Article I is used to make LAWS!

That Article is nothing more than the Constitutional process to actually AMENDING the Constitution from time to time as the People see fit! Amendment XIV, § 2, upon ratification, became the altering instrument which removed the 1787 3/5ths compromise from the Constitution brokered during the Constitutional Convention and became part of the Law of the Land, NOT ARTICLE V!!!!

So how the fuck is my explaining the actual function of Article V and the 3/5ths compromise during the Constitutional Convention, WHICH WERE BROUGHT UP BETWEEN YOU AND CANDY, AND TO WHICH I RESPONDED CORRECTING YOUR IGNORANCE, NOT RESPONDING TO THE TOPICS IN YOUR POSTS, DUNCE?

You're a bloody idiot, Tex, and most likely to remain in that condition short a brain transplant!!

And that alters the fact that your response had absolutely nothing to do with the subject we were discussing, HOW? You came in deflecting, no one was discussing Roe or Citizens in the string you replied to. We were discussing the 3/5ths clause and how it was changed buy a subsequent amendment via Article 5, which you didn't even acknowledge in your first reply. When I pointed that fact out you decided to get more ignorant. You want to reply to a post, stay on the topic of that post. Oh FYI, I'm 6'-2", 233 pounds, hardly a runt.

 

[OKTexas]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Hillary Clinton will pick a moderate, why? Because they're the only ones that will pass the scrutiny of Senate confirmation.

Republicans couldn't get another Justice Scalia appointed to the courts if their lives depended on it.

In fact there are Republicans who were much more concerned as to who Donald Trump would pick over Hillary Clinton.
I’ll Take Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump

So you consider Sotomayor or Kagan moderates? LMAO Their just more Ginsbergs.

 

[Big Black Dog]

You're right! I listened to her answer closely and she never mentioned the Constitution at all. I found that to be very telling.

 

[Norman]

You're right! I listened to her answer closely and she never mentioned the Constitution at all. I found that to be very telling.

I wouldn't mention it either if this was the way I used it:

 

[HnL]

Agreed. I commented on that to my children as we sat watching. The only answer should have been I will nominate judges who apply the constitution to their decisions.

Show me in the constitution where it says this is the only thing a candidate should say.

Or are you like an extra-constitutional god, who is above all else?

 

[OKTexas]

Agreed. I commented on that to my children as we sat watching. The only answer should have been I will nominate judges who apply the constitution to their decisions.

Show me in the constitution where it says this is the only thing a candidate should say.

Or are you like an extra-constitutional god, who is above all else?

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8

They swear not to pick judges who will not follow the Constitution.

 

[JQPublic1]

You read it and you still don't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID? You are either a liar or a moron… but that explains your party affiliation… typical GOPer. Don't let facts get in your way… nosireee!

You must have take the short bus to school or you're just not paying attention. I said you regressives call voter ID voter suppression, get it. So you might want to explain the difference to them.

Aww,stop squirming…you got caught red handed trying to distort and change the narrative.

RDEAN SAID: ↑
Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

Then you tried to make it solely about voter ID:
OKTEXAS SAID: ↑
Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.


Again, stop squirming and accept the cloak of defeat that I have placed around your shoulders. It fits you so well.

So this isn't you claiming voter ID is voter suppression? You don't seem to be drawing any distinctions. Typical regressive, tries to play semantics game and loses. GOOD JOB REGRESSIVE!!!!!!!

There is an agenda here and at least one prominent republican has stated so. That agenda is to keep those Obama supporters who are most likely to have difficulty obtaining an ID in time for the election from voting.

Aw cut out the BS, we all know what the GOP is doing with their voter ID antics. The North Carolina Court decision has exposed that strategy already. But if that isn't proof enough of the GOP national agenda to suppress voting rights, here is more:

Oh, that is me, alright. I am pointing out that the CONS are using voter ID as one of many weapons in their goal of selective voter suppression. Voter ID has always been part of the system validated by signature comparisons and more recently by photo ID. So Voter ID isn't suppression in and of itself. But when voter ID is used in the manner explained in the court decision ( the one I linked to earlier) it becomes one of many cogs in the wheels of voter suppression.

So my original statement that you regressives see voter ID as voter suppression was correct, as demonstrated by your own statements, even though the supreme court says otherwise. Now if you want to expand on the subject, start your own thread.

I don't see myself as a regressive first of all. I see YOU as one. That is what you neoConservatives want…to turn back the hands of time to some perceived golden age. CHANGE is your Kryptonite.
Progress means change geared to more diversity and inclusiveness for all Americans in all aspects of American life. While I do seek change in ways that will benefit me and mine, I don't see myself as a progressive either. I am conservative in most of my views but progressive in civil issues. In other words, I cannot be easily pigeonholed; and there are millions like me.

Now that I have defined myself, whether you agree with it or not, I'll address your 2nd illusion. Your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. You seem to have a mental block that keeps your confusion centered on voter ID as an adjunct to your illusion that democrats or liberals equate it to voter suppression. Some left wingers may think like that but the American CIVIL RGHTS UNION, a decidedly liberal front, clearly disagrees.

If voter ID laws are part of a sinister conspiracy to deny blacks the right to vote, why do a majority of African Americans support them? In an April 2012 FOX News poll, 70% of all Americans favored requiring voters to show “state or federally issued photo identification” to prove their identity prior to voting. This included 58% of non-whites, as well as 52% of both liberals and Democrats.44

In another FOX poll released in March 2014, 70 percent overall approved of voter ID laws, including majorities of all age groups and by race, sex and party affiliation.45

In a national poll46 by Rasmussen Reports released in August 2014, 74% overall approved of voter-ID laws, including 64 percent of blacks, 56 percent of Democrats and 76 percent of independents.47

So, the federal appeals court in NC didn't object to the prerequisite of having to present a voter ID to vote. The objection focused on the selective means of carrying out the law in a manner that clearly showed discrimination in practice. For instance:

In North Carolina, for instance, the judges at oral arguments noted that government-issued driver’s licenses are an acceptable form of identification but that government-issued public assistance cards — used disproportionately by minorities in the state — are not.
-------- SNIP-----
Legislators quickly eliminated same-day voter registration, rolled back of a week of early voting and put an end to out-of-precinct voting. The appeals court’s ruling reinstates those provisions that civil rights groups, led by the state NAACP, said were used disproportionately by African American voters.
—————SNIP————————

The panel seemed to say it found the equivalent of a smoking gun. “Before enacting that law, the legislature requested data on the use, by race, of a number of voting practices,” Motz wrote. “Upon receipt of the race data, the General Assembly enacted legislation that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans.”

The panel found the law was passed with racially discriminatory intent, violating the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. It said that “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.”

Hopefully now you can see that voter ID and voter suppression are two different things but voter ID laws can be used to foster voter suppression if used selectively. Agreed?

 

[JQPublic1]

I am full of shit???? I didn't make that court ruling…. I am just the messenger trying to educate your dumb ass!

What court ruling?

Damn, SON… how many times do I have to post the link? See that NCvote in my sig line? That explains it all.

You mean the link that didn't even have a single example of any US citizen who can't vote?

All it said was the opinion of one judge is that blacks are too stupid and lazy to get a free ID, it didn't have even an accusation of anyone who couldn't get an ID. It just said blacks aren't going to do it because they spend too much time eating watermelon and fried chicken. They will vote, but they won't get a free ID to do it. The judge is a knuckle dragger. He's probably in the KKK.

Whether you agree with the judge or not, the article didn't say any legal US citizen has been or will be denied the right to vote. It was just his perception that blacks aren't motivated and won't follow up.

Name a US citizen who is being denied the right to vote. You can't do it because there isn't one

Your crass assessment of the court's judgement reflects who you are: an unsavory lowlife filled with hate and anger.Logic is alien to you and reason is lost in the windmills of your mind. Vent as you will. I will join the others in watching the deplorable spectacle you've become from a distance.

Tissue?

In the meantime, name any American citizens who weren't able to vote because the meanie Republicans stopped them. You're 0 fer so far ...

Toilet paper? You need plenty with all the BS you spew!

If you want names read the court case I cited. Also read post #159 which impugns your notion that leftists are against fair voter ID laws. It is the accompanying discriminatory practices that drew the ire of the court and the petitioners for justice.