Stupidity Of Hillary.Claims That Republicans Are Blocking Democrats From Voting?,Well,Explain How?

[ThoughtCrimes]

Here you go: Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee

The GOP is preventing Senate Democrats from voting up or down for a Supreme Court nominee, thus obstructing them from their Constitutional obligation.

Of course you can show where they are "required" to do that?

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

SWING and a miss. Once again, NOTHING in the Constitution says WHEN it must happen.

"Despite suggestions by the President, various Senators, and


numerous commentators that the Senate has a constitutional

obligation to act on judicial nominations, the text of the Constitution

contains no such obligation. Moreover, the suggestion

that the obligation is implicit in the Advice and Consent Clause

does not appear to comport with the Framers’ understanding

of the term."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf

I'm reposting this from another thread I placed it on to you yesterday. BTW, Adam J. White, the author of the paper you've cited multiple times now is not and has never been a Harvard professor as you have stated elsewhere. He is a lawyer and a part-time writer for the far right neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard and a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute think tank. White was a student at Harvard in 2004 when he wrote the piece you have been promoting. AVVO has him listed as licensed for nine years and with a 7.6 rating.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

First off, I truly doubt you read that "article", as the author named it. Do you really think that something written by a law student is a true example of an authoritative source? Even the author of the paper didn't think so and wrote in the notes on the first page, "This Article represents only the views of the author." [Emphasis Added]

I can see the appeal of the author's conclusion for those desiring to maintain the status quo and to continue the obstructionism through the Senate's proposed inaction, but one must read the paper in full to comprehend the lack of a VALID foundational argument. Here is a bit from the pre-conclusion summary (PDF pg. 44) with the bulk of the fundamental argument reduced to this, which allows for brevity to demonstrate the point;

"Just as the Constitution contains no explicit requirement that the President act in the pocket veto context, it contains no explicit obligation that the Senate act to demonstrate its lack of consent to a judicial nomination." [Emphasis Added]

In that sentence, the author tries to sell a classic Fallacy of Composition by inferring that B is true therefore A must be true. With that argument fatally flawed, the conclusion must also fail. Q.E.D.

The "pocket veto clause" is at Article I § 7 Cls 2 [in Bold and Underlined] and states;
"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall NOT be a law. [Emphasis Added]

That is nothing more that a check on the Congress to balance their power and the President's. The paper's author equates a possibility of the President's potential inability to read the legislation and take action on the bill to sign it or prepare a veto statement and return the bill to the Congress as required to INACTION.

In truth, it simply prevents the Senate from passing legislation and then adjourning the very next day for 10 days and ensuring passage of a bill which might be vetoed otherwise. The pocket veto clause is certainly not about INACTION! That student's conclusion disregards the facts involved in those circumstances to make an erroneous assumption that the "pocket veto" is a manifestation brought on by the President, and equates to a no action CHOICE on the President's part rather than a check and balance written into the Constitution is absurd. I'm sure you must have found that "source" out there in the Great Bit & Byte Bucket in the sky like many others have before you.

There are a number of truly AUTHORITATIVE sources out there regarding the advice and consent clause. Each and Every one I have read, save that one you cited, discussed the ACTIONS OF the Senate Judiciary and the body of the Senate during the confirmation process, and NEVER any option for either to just sit on their collective hands and refuse to act upon any nomination. To give Advise is to take an action. To Consent is to take an action. Refusing to take action is INACTION! When the Constitution mandates the Senate to take action regarding an appointment INACTION does NOT satisfy that Constitutional requirement. Q.E.D.

Here are three authoritative papers written and often cited. They are not a student's product, but those of professionals. Each of them discuss different as well as common aspects of the ACTION the of Senate's Constitutional responsibilities post nomination during the appointment "advice and consent" stage outlined in Article II § 2 Cls 2. They not only point out that the Senate must take an ACTIVE role during the process, but also discuss the political aspects of the process and the interplay between the political and Constitutional parts of the dance. They are certainly not flawed opinions of a student.

"The Senate, the Constitution, and the Confirmation Process"
David A. Strauss, 1992

"Advice and Consent: What the Constitution Says",
John McGinnis, 2005

"The Real Debate Over the Senate's Roll in the Confirmation Process"
Wm. Grayson Lambert, 2012

Hey dumbass?

He was refuting Bush's claim that the Constitution REQUIRES he Senate to take up an appointment right away.

Lesson to you, try and think one to two steps ahead.

Obviously, the paper was a COUNTER to Bush's position in 2004; a known quantity. That is precisely why you cited it, to support your position in the three following posts you made to me:

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that's says he Senate HAS to take up the nomination, let alone when.

LOL, ainchoo jus all tough and shit? Sorry kid, there is NO constitutional requirement for the Senate (whether held by Dems or Pubs) to take it up just because a Prez, ANY Prez says they should...I'm all eyes if you can prove me otherwise child.

"Despite suggestions by the President, various Senators, and numerous commentators that the Senate has a constitutional
obligation to act on judicial nominations, the text of the Constitution contains no such obligation."

Moreover, the suggestion that the obligation is implicit in the Advice and Consent Clause does not appear to comport with the Framers’ understanding of the term."
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf

Let's see Harvard Law professor , or you and Faun.....

It's damn clear that you were asserting, "There is NOTHING in the Constitution that's says he Senate HAS to take up the nomination... ." and using that paper by that law student at Harvard at the time to support your claim. And you call me a Dumnass?

You can attempt your dissembling to deflect from you faulty assertions, but that only displays and highlights your dishonesty and your cowardice to face up to your own errors and distortions; YOU OWN THEM, SMACK!. You simply let your mouth overload your credibility, lad, so eat shit and die!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Here you go: Senate GOP: No hearings for Supreme Court nominee

The GOP is preventing Senate Democrats from voting up or down for a Supreme Court nominee, thus obstructing them from their Constitutional obligation.

Of course you can show where they are "required" to do that?

Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text

SWING and a miss. Once again, NOTHING in the Constitution says WHEN it must happen.

"Despite suggestions by the President, various Senators, and


numerous commentators that the Senate has a constitutional

obligation to act on judicial nominations, the text of the Constitution

contains no such obligation. Moreover, the suggestion

that the obligation is implicit in the Advice and Consent Clause

does not appear to comport with the Framers’ understanding

of the term."

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf

I'm reposting this from another thread I placed it on to you yesterday. BTW, Adam J. White, the author of the paper you've cited multiple times now is not and has never been a Harvard professor as you have stated elsewhere. He is a lawyer and a part-time writer for the far right neoconservative magazine The Weekly Standard and a fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institute think tank. White was a student at Harvard in 2004 when he wrote the piece you have been promoting. AVVO has him listed as licensed for nine years and with a 7.6 rating.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

First off, I truly doubt you read that "article", as the author named it. Do you really think that something written by a law student is a true example of an authoritative source? Even the author of the paper didn't think so and wrote in the notes on the first page, "This Article represents only the views of the author." [Emphasis Added]

I can see the appeal of the author's conclusion for those desiring to maintain the status quo and to continue the obstructionism through the Senate's proposed inaction, but one must read the paper in full to comprehend the lack of a VALID foundational argument. Here is a bit from the pre-conclusion summary (PDF pg. 44) with the bulk of the fundamental argument reduced to this, which allows for brevity to demonstrate the point;

"Just as the Constitution contains no explicit requirement that the President act in the pocket veto context, it contains no explicit obligation that the Senate act to demonstrate its lack of consent to a judicial nomination." [Emphasis Added]

In that sentence, the author tries to sell a classic Fallacy of Composition by inferring that B is true therefore A must be true. With that argument fatally flawed, the conclusion must also fail. Q.E.D.

The "pocket veto clause" is at Article I § 7 Cls 2 [in Bold and Underlined] and states;
"If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall NOT be a law. [Emphasis Added]

That is nothing more that a check on the Congress to balance their power and the President's. The paper's author equates a possibility of the President's potential inability to read the legislation and take action on the bill to sign it or prepare a veto statement and return the bill to the Congress as required to INACTION.

In truth, it simply prevents the Senate from passing legislation and then adjourning the very next day for 10 days and ensuring passage of a bill which might be vetoed otherwise. The pocket veto clause is certainly not about INACTION! That student's conclusion disregards the facts involved in those circumstances to make an erroneous assumption that the "pocket veto" is a manifestation brought on by the President, and equates to a no action CHOICE on the President's part rather than a check and balance written into the Constitution is absurd. I'm sure you must have found that "source" out there in the Great Bit & Byte Bucket in the sky like many others have before you.

There are a number of truly AUTHORITATIVE sources out there regarding the advice and consent clause. Each and Every one I have read, save that one you cited, discussed the ACTIONS OF the Senate Judiciary and the body of the Senate during the confirmation process, and NEVER any option for either to just sit on their collective hands and refuse to act upon any nomination. To give Advise is to take an action. To Consent is to take an action. Refusing to take action is INACTION! When the Constitution mandates the Senate to take action regarding an appointment INACTION does NOT satisfy that Constitutional requirement. Q.E.D.

Here are three authoritative papers written and often cited. They are not a student's product, but those of professionals. Each of them discuss different as well as common aspects of the ACTION the of Senate's Constitutional responsibilities post nomination during the appointment "advice and consent" stage outlined in Article II § 2 Cls 2. They not only point out that the Senate must take an ACTIVE role during the process, but also discuss the political aspects of the process and the interplay between the political and Constitutional parts of the dance. They are certainly not flawed opinions of a student.

"The Senate, the Constitution, and the Confirmation Process"
David A. Strauss, 1992

"Advice and Consent: What the Constitution Says",
John McGinnis, 2005

"The Real Debate Over the Senate's Roll in the Confirmation Process"
Wm. Grayson Lambert, 2012

"Adam J. White"
Adam J. White

Son you jus ain't ready for me.

AND? From your own source one can read that Adam J. White got his J.D. from Harvard while a student there in 2004, the same year he graduated. He was not a "Harvard Constitutional Law Professor" as you claimed below in an earlier post.

Yeah yeah yeah, I've already used a Harvard Constitutional Law Professor to discount that argument.

You tried to sell a student as a "Harvard Constitutional Law Professor". You fucked up big time lying like that. So just where is your credibility now, lad?

 

[OnePercenter]

And if you are older, widowed, never driven, doesn't travel out of the country, had the same bank account for 60 years?

Right, and how many hundreds of thousands of people would you have to go through to find somebody like that? And what bank has been around for 60 years anyway?

You people on the left believe any BS your leaders tell you to believe. This has nothing to do with race, nothing to do with neanderthals that don't live in the current century, it has to do with being able to cheat elections with felons, foreigners and liars.

Right, and how many hundreds of thousands of people would you have to go through to find somebody like that?

It doesn't matter. If a rule precludes one person from voting it's a bad rule.

And what bank has been around for 60 years anyway?

You've got to be kidding.

You people on the left believe any BS your leaders tell you to believe. This has nothing to do with race, nothing to do with neanderthals that don't live in the current century, it has to do with being able to cheat elections with felons, foreigners and liars.

Really?

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

My mother never drove a car in her life. My mother never went outside of the country. But to participate in a modern society, even she got a state ID because it's required in various transactions it takes to live in the real world. From time to time, she does fly to another part of the country which requires valid ID.

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

It doesn't matter. If there is one person that the law would effect then it shouldn't be law.

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

Illegal aliens pay $1.6B in federal tax every year. What make you think they don't have ID? Neither side is going to do anything about illegal workers, so why don't you concentrate your effort on improving pay for the middle class.

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Voting Republican is against your own best interest.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Employees are commodities? Very Republican thinking of you.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Bust employers

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

When consumers are fed the bullshit of higher wages lead to higher prices sure. But prices are going to go up regardless of wages.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right, and how many hundreds of thousands of people would you have to go through to find somebody like that? And what bank has been around for 60 years anyway?

You people on the left believe any BS your leaders tell you to believe. This has nothing to do with race, nothing to do with neanderthals that don't live in the current century, it has to do with being able to cheat elections with felons, foreigners and liars.

Right, and how many hundreds of thousands of people would you have to go through to find somebody like that?

It doesn't matter. If a rule precludes one person from voting it's a bad rule.

And what bank has been around for 60 years anyway?

You've got to be kidding.

You people on the left believe any BS your leaders tell you to believe. This has nothing to do with race, nothing to do with neanderthals that don't live in the current century, it has to do with being able to cheat elections with felons, foreigners and liars.

Really?

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

My mother never drove a car in her life. My mother never went outside of the country. But to participate in a modern society, even she got a state ID because it's required in various transactions it takes to live in the real world. From time to time, she does fly to another part of the country which requires valid ID.

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

It doesn't matter. If there is one person that the law would effect then it shouldn't be law.

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

Illegal aliens pay $1.6B in federal tax every year. What make you think they don't have ID? Neither side is going to do anything about illegal workers, so why don't you concentrate your effort on improving pay for the middle class.

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Voting Republican is against your own best interest.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Employees are commodities? Very Republican thinking of you.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Bust employers

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

When consumers are fed the bullshit of higher wages lead to higher prices sure. But prices are going to go up regardless of wages.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Employees are commodities? Very Republican thinking of you.

Employees aren't subject to the Law of Supply and Demand? Very Democrat thinking of you.

 

[rightwinger]

Right, and how many hundreds of thousands of people would you have to go through to find somebody like that?

It doesn't matter. If a rule precludes one person from voting it's a bad rule.

And what bank has been around for 60 years anyway?

You've got to be kidding.

You people on the left believe any BS your leaders tell you to believe. This has nothing to do with race, nothing to do with neanderthals that don't live in the current century, it has to do with being able to cheat elections with felons, foreigners and liars.

Really?

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

My mother never drove a car in her life. My mother never went outside of the country. But to participate in a modern society, even she got a state ID because it's required in various transactions it takes to live in the real world. From time to time, she does fly to another part of the country which requires valid ID.

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

It doesn't matter. If there is one person that the law would effect then it shouldn't be law.

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

Illegal aliens pay $1.6B in federal tax every year. What make you think they don't have ID? Neither side is going to do anything about illegal workers, so why don't you concentrate your effort on improving pay for the middle class.

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Voting Republican is against your own best interest.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Employees are commodities? Very Republican thinking of you.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Bust employers

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

When consumers are fed the bullshit of higher wages lead to higher prices sure. But prices are going to go up regardless of wages.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Employees are commodities? Very Republican thinking of you.

Employees aren't subject to the Law of Supply and Demand? Very Democrat thinking of you.

Republicans atack the ability of workers to collectively bargain and undermine union activities

Employers love supply and demand when they can muscle individual employees. When supply and demand applies to their entire workforce, they call in the Republicans to change the rules

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

My mother never drove a car in her life. My mother never went outside of the country. But to participate in a modern society, even she got a state ID because it's required in various transactions it takes to live in the real world. From time to time, she does fly to another part of the country which requires valid ID.

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

It doesn't matter. If there is one person that the law would effect then it shouldn't be law.

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

Illegal aliens pay $1.6B in federal tax every year. What make you think they don't have ID? Neither side is going to do anything about illegal workers, so why don't you concentrate your effort on improving pay for the middle class.

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Voting Republican is against your own best interest.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Employees are commodities? Very Republican thinking of you.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Bust employers

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

When consumers are fed the bullshit of higher wages lead to higher prices sure. But prices are going to go up regardless of wages.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Employees are commodities? Very Republican thinking of you.

Employees aren't subject to the Law of Supply and Demand? Very Democrat thinking of you.

Republicans atack the ability of workers to collectively bargain and undermine union activities

Employers love supply and demand when they can muscle individual employees. When supply and demand applies to their entire workforce, they call in the Republicans to change the rules

No, they just hire foreigners that this administration lets it. They work for next to nothing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Right, and how many hundreds of thousands of people would you have to go through to find somebody like that? And what bank has been around for 60 years anyway?

You people on the left believe any BS your leaders tell you to believe. This has nothing to do with race, nothing to do with neanderthals that don't live in the current century, it has to do with being able to cheat elections with felons, foreigners and liars.

Right, and how many hundreds of thousands of people would you have to go through to find somebody like that?

It doesn't matter. If a rule precludes one person from voting it's a bad rule.

And what bank has been around for 60 years anyway?

You've got to be kidding.

You people on the left believe any BS your leaders tell you to believe. This has nothing to do with race, nothing to do with neanderthals that don't live in the current century, it has to do with being able to cheat elections with felons, foreigners and liars.

Really?

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

My mother never drove a car in her life. My mother never went outside of the country. But to participate in a modern society, even she got a state ID because it's required in various transactions it takes to live in the real world. From time to time, she does fly to another part of the country which requires valid ID.

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

It doesn't matter. If there is one person that the law would effect then it shouldn't be law.

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

Illegal aliens pay $1.6B in federal tax every year. What make you think they don't have ID? Neither side is going to do anything about illegal workers, so why don't you concentrate your effort on improving pay for the middle class.

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Voting Republican is against your own best interest.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Employees are commodities? Very Republican thinking of you.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Bust employers

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

When consumers are fed the bullshit of higher wages lead to higher prices sure. But prices are going to go up regardless of wages.

Nope, that's why companies leave the country--for cheaper labor. Cheaper labor, less regulations and less taxes get passed on to the consumer because businesses compete with each other.

Yes, labor is a commodity.

 

[dcbl]

what? something wrong with needing photo ID to vote?

it's racist to ask people to show ID

apparently, our friends on the left feel that African Americans aren't smart enough to figure out how to get a driver's license, social security card or state issued ID

#voterIDlawsmatter

 

[rightwinger]

Yes really. You jokers on the left buy into this notion that there are people living in a modern society that have no valid form of photo-id. They don't cash checks, they don't take out loans for homes, they don't rent apartments, they don't buy cigarettes or alcohol, they never get asked for their ID at voting places, they never leave the country, they don't apply for jobs. Who are these people anyway?

It doesn't matter. If there is one person that the law would effect then it shouldn't be law.

But instead of being concerned about the hundreds if not thousands who are voting illegally because we don't have theses safeguards in place, you worry about the one or two in a state that actually live this kind of isolated lifestyle.

Illegal aliens pay $1.6B in federal tax every year. What make you think they don't have ID? Neither side is going to do anything about illegal workers, so why don't you concentrate your effort on improving pay for the middle class.

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Voting Republican is against your own best interest.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Employees are commodities? Very Republican thinking of you.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Bust employers

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

When consumers are fed the bullshit of higher wages lead to higher prices sure. But prices are going to go up regardless of wages.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Employees are commodities? Very Republican thinking of you.

Employees aren't subject to the Law of Supply and Demand? Very Democrat thinking of you.

Republicans atack the ability of workers to collectively bargain and undermine union activities

Employers love supply and demand when they can muscle individual employees. When supply and demand applies to their entire workforce, they call in the Republicans to change the rules

No, they just hire foreigners that this administration lets it. They work for next to nothing.

Show me the employment numbers of number of foreigners hired to replace union workers or STFU

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

Because I have no control over that besides voting Republican.

Voting Republican is against your own best interest.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Employees are commodities? Very Republican thinking of you.

Over the last decade or more, when demand goes up, illegals come to this country and take the jobs, therefore there will never be a real shortage of workers. That's not just for illegals alone, foreigners of legal and illegal status come here to take our jobs, so of course wages never increase for the middle-class.

Bust employers

Add to that the American consumer not supporting higher wages, and you have all the makings to create the situation we currently have.

When consumers are fed the bullshit of higher wages lead to higher prices sure. But prices are going to go up regardless of wages.

Pay works like anything else: supply and demand. When the demand is high and supply is low, wages go up. When demand is low and supply is high, wages lower.

Employees are commodities? Very Republican thinking of you.

Employees aren't subject to the Law of Supply and Demand? Very Democrat thinking of you.

Republicans atack the ability of workers to collectively bargain and undermine union activities

Employers love supply and demand when they can muscle individual employees. When supply and demand applies to their entire workforce, they call in the Republicans to change the rules

No, they just hire foreigners that this administration lets it. They work for next to nothing.

Show me the employment numbers of number of foreigners hired to replace union workers or STFU

Union workers? Are there places that still have those?

I was talking about your average every day company. When places can't find American employees or their current employees start demanding too much money, foreigners come in and take the jobs. That's exactly what's happening in my industry.

 

[mikegriffith1]

The argument is that requiring people to show a photo ID to vote is "intimidating." And I keep asking, Do these people who are supposedly "intimidated" never buy alcohol, never buy tobacco products, never fly on an airplane, never use a credit card at stores that verify ID before completing purchases, never rent cars, never open bank accounts, etc.? You need a valid photo ID to do all of those things. How are they able to do those things but suddenly feel "intimidated" when asked to show a photo ID to vote?

 

[Rexx Taylor]

it seems that according to the loony left that many minorities have gone through life without any form of ID,,,right? and then the left starts crapping their depends because minorities over 18 are being deemed victims of racism?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The argument is that requiring people to show a photo ID to vote is "intimidating." And I keep asking, Do these people who are supposedly "intimidated" never buy alcohol, never buy tobacco products, never fly on an airplane, never use a credit card at stores that verify ID before completing purchases, never rent cars, never open bank accounts, etc.? You need a valid photo ID to do all of those things. How are they able to do those things but suddenly feel "intimidated" when asked to show a photo ID to vote?

Well, if Democrats were honest, they would admit it has nothing to do with that.

If some of these Democrat voters had to put any effort into voting, they simply wouldn't vote. Too much trouble.

That's why Democrats are so against any kind of complication for their voters. They want the ballot to come right to their door if they had their way, and in some places like my state, that's exactly what takes place.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

The argument is that requiring people to show a photo ID to vote is "intimidating." And I keep asking, Do these people who are supposedly "intimidated" never buy alcohol, never buy tobacco products, never fly on an airplane, never use a credit card at stores that verify ID before completing purchases, never rent cars, never open bank accounts, etc.? You need a valid photo ID to do all of those things. How are they able to do those things but suddenly feel "intimidated" when asked to show a photo ID to vote?

Well, if Democrats were honest, they would admit it has nothing to do with that.

If some of these Democrat voters had to put any effort into voting, they simply wouldn't vote. Too much trouble.

That's why Democrats are so against any kind of complication for their voters. They want the ballot to come right to their door if they had their way, and in some places like my state, that's exactly what takes place.

right, and it wouldnt surprise any if us that in states like cally and new nork,,,they dont even care for ID in close races. so long as they vote for the dumbass

 

[rightwinger]

The argument is that requiring people to show a photo ID to vote is "intimidating." And I keep asking, Do these people who are supposedly "intimidated" never buy alcohol, never buy tobacco products, never fly on an airplane, never use a credit card at stores that verify ID before completing purchases, never rent cars, never open bank accounts, etc.? You need a valid photo ID to do all of those things. How are they able to do those things but suddenly feel "intimidated" when asked to show a photo ID to vote?

A signature has worked effectively for hundreds of years
Easier to get a fake ID than to fake a signature on the spot

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The argument is that requiring people to show a photo ID to vote is "intimidating." And I keep asking, Do these people who are supposedly "intimidated" never buy alcohol, never buy tobacco products, never fly on an airplane, never use a credit card at stores that verify ID before completing purchases, never rent cars, never open bank accounts, etc.? You need a valid photo ID to do all of those things. How are they able to do those things but suddenly feel "intimidated" when asked to show a photo ID to vote?

Well, if Democrats were honest, they would admit it has nothing to do with that.

If some of these Democrat voters had to put any effort into voting, they simply wouldn't vote. Too much trouble.

That's why Democrats are so against any kind of complication for their voters. They want the ballot to come right to their door if they had their way, and in some places like my state, that's exactly what takes place.

right, and it wouldnt surprise any if us that in states like cally and new nork,,,they dont even care for ID in close races. so long as they vote for the dumbass

In California, they are using motor voter to register people to vote. Sure, you can opt out, but the default is automatic registration.

That isn't the worst part. The worst part is they give illegals drivers licenses there. Right now in NYC, they are debating whether to give illegals voting rights for local elections such as Mayor or City Council. It's only a stones throw away from illegals being able to sneak in and vote in a national election.

 

[rightwinger]

The argument is that requiring people to show a photo ID to vote is "intimidating." And I keep asking, Do these people who are supposedly "intimidated" never buy alcohol, never buy tobacco products, never fly on an airplane, never use a credit card at stores that verify ID before completing purchases, never rent cars, never open bank accounts, etc.? You need a valid photo ID to do all of those things. How are they able to do those things but suddenly feel "intimidated" when asked to show a photo ID to vote?

Well, if Democrats were honest, they would admit it has nothing to do with that.

If some of these Democrat voters had to put any effort into voting, they simply wouldn't vote. Too much trouble.

That's why Democrats are so against any kind of complication for their voters. They want the ballot to come right to their door if they had their way, and in some places like my state, that's exactly what takes place.

right, and it wouldnt surprise any if us that in states like cally and new nork,,,they dont even care for ID in close races. so long as they vote for the dumbass

In California, they are using motor voter to register people to vote. Sure, you can opt out, but the default is automatic registration.

That isn't the worst part. The worst part is they give illegals drivers licenses there. Right now in NYC, they are debating whether to give illegals voting rights for local elections such as Mayor or City Council. It's only a stones throw away from illegals being able to sneak in and vote in a national election.

The more Americans that vote, the better off our country is

Why stop at motor voter? That only registers drivers.
Register for welfare......you get registered to vote
Register for senior citizen benefits.......you get registered to vote
Hunting or fishing license........you get registered to vote
Register for college......you get registered to vote

Scares you doesn't it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The argument is that requiring people to show a photo ID to vote is "intimidating." And I keep asking, Do these people who are supposedly "intimidated" never buy alcohol, never buy tobacco products, never fly on an airplane, never use a credit card at stores that verify ID before completing purchases, never rent cars, never open bank accounts, etc.? You need a valid photo ID to do all of those things. How are they able to do those things but suddenly feel "intimidated" when asked to show a photo ID to vote?

Well, if Democrats were honest, they would admit it has nothing to do with that.

If some of these Democrat voters had to put any effort into voting, they simply wouldn't vote. Too much trouble.

That's why Democrats are so against any kind of complication for their voters. They want the ballot to come right to their door if they had their way, and in some places like my state, that's exactly what takes place.

right, and it wouldnt surprise any if us that in states like cally and new nork,,,they dont even care for ID in close races. so long as they vote for the dumbass

In California, they are using motor voter to register people to vote. Sure, you can opt out, but the default is automatic registration.

That isn't the worst part. The worst part is they give illegals drivers licenses there. Right now in NYC, they are debating whether to give illegals voting rights for local elections such as Mayor or City Council. It's only a stones throw away from illegals being able to sneak in and vote in a national election.

The more Americans that vote, the better off our country is

Why stop at motor voter? That only registers drivers.
Register for welfare......you get registered to vote
Register for senior citizen benefits.......you get registered to vote
Hunting or fishing license........you get registered to vote
Register for college......you get registered to vote

Scares you doesn't it?

Sure it does because the biggest problem we have with our elections is too many people not knowing WTF they are even voting on. We should expand that?

Well.........the Democrats would love it, but it only makes the system much worse.

People go to vote because they think it's the patriotic thing to do. But if you have no idea what you're even voting on, the most patriotic thing you can do on election day is stay home and let the people in the know vote.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

cutting the extended voting days, where working class hourly people can vote on their day off, instead of just Tuesday/election day....where they lose pay, in order to vote.
cutting gvt student id's as an id acceptable for students who live in their university's state 9 months of the year....that want to vote there.

cutting out the Sunday before election day as a day to vote where churches bused their parishioners to the polls to vote

reducing voting machines in democratic precincts, so people have to wait hours in line in order to vote vs. increasing voting machines in republican leaning precincts...

restrictions on voter registration drives

THAT is just the TIP of the iceberg on what Republicans have done to disenfranchise primarily democratic voting citizens

Churches busing people to the polls is illegal political activity. That isn't a church, but a political action group in hiding.

If you can't get to the polls during the time period that the polls are open, you should not be voting because you are obviously mentally incompetent to handle your own affairs. All you have to do is get there before they close.

You liberals just like to parrot what some other liberal just makes up so that you will sound informed when all you do is confirm that liberalism is a mental defect.

Liberals don't just take the tip, they get the whole shaft and take it willingly.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The argument is that requiring people to show a photo ID to vote is "intimidating." And I keep asking, Do these people who are supposedly "intimidated" never buy alcohol, never buy tobacco products, never fly on an airplane, never use a credit card at stores that verify ID before completing purchases, never rent cars, never open bank accounts, etc.? You need a valid photo ID to do all of those things. How are they able to do those things but suddenly feel "intimidated" when asked to show a photo ID to vote?

Well, if Democrats were honest, they would admit it has nothing to do with that.

If some of these Democrat voters had to put any effort into voting, they simply wouldn't vote. Too much trouble.

That's why Democrats are so against any kind of complication for their voters. They want the ballot to come right to their door if they had their way, and in some places like my state, that's exactly what takes place.

right, and it wouldnt surprise any if us that in states like cally and new nork,,,they dont even care for ID in close races. so long as they vote for the dumbass

In California, they are using motor voter to register people to vote. Sure, you can opt out, but the default is automatic registration.

That isn't the worst part. The worst part is they give illegals drivers licenses there. Right now in NYC, they are debating whether to give illegals voting rights for local elections such as Mayor or City Council. It's only a stones throw away from illegals being able to sneak in and vote in a national election.

The more Americans that vote, the better off our country is

Why stop at motor voter? That only registers drivers.
Register for welfare......you get registered to vote
Register for senior citizen benefits.......you get registered to vote
Hunting or fishing license........you get registered to vote
Register for college......you get registered to vote

Scares you doesn't it?

How many of those people are here illegally?