Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

News of the Day II

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Donnie D
    And all 9 justices are republicans - so of course they approved voter suppression.
    You really need to read the link Donnie. This was not a 6-3 vote by the Texas Supreme Court, this was a 6-3 vote by the SCOTUS.

    Comment


    • He won't debate the merits of willful voter suppression because it's indefensible and reprehensible. All we get are Fox News talking points regurgitated and a bunch of hollow "I'm sorry we can't fix the system" cries. Lame.
      “Could I had posted cite a site?” — WWW dot Trump makes you dumb dot RU

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Bolthed View Post
        He won't debate the merits of willful voter suppression because it's indefensible and reprehensible. All we get are Fox News talking points regurgitated and a bunch of hollow "I'm sorry we can't fix the system" cries. Lame.
        from a typical left wing nut job.

        Cry when the courts don't vote the way you want.

        I do not like the laws that are going into place. I don't know what else I can say. But instead the left wing of a certain party can't seen to understand that.

        I have been saying that for a while now. I have also been saying that maybe if we could sit down and discuss the problem in a rational manner we could come up with something that works for all. But no, those on the left refuse to even talk about it other that to throw out insults. Sounds so much like Washington.

        I can see someone throwing out crap about the SCOTUS if the vote was 5-4. But it was not. It was 6-3.

        So what is the recourse now for the left? Get off your dead asses and try to negotiate a sensible voting law because as it is now the SCOTUS just gave the other States the right to pass a law if the model it after the 3 they just upheld.

        So sit back and whine, cry and throw insults and you will become more of a loser than you are today.

        And for the record Bolthed I did not link Fox News. It was USA Today. But hey, go ahead and spew those lies.
        WaiverWire
        Steven Stamkos' One Timer
        Last edited by WaiverWire; 10-19-2014, 11:35 PM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by WaiverWire View Post
          I have also been saying that maybe if we could sit down and discuss the problem in a rational manner we could come up with something that works for all. But no, those on the left refuse to even talk about it other that to throw out insults. Sounds so much like Washington.
          Really? The left isn't willing to talk? LOL.

          Comment


          • WW, are you a robot programmed to avoid the subject being put before you?

            We are trying to talk about what is fundamentally wrong with willful voter suppression. I'm sorry I got off track to poke at you because it aggravates the hell out of me (and others I suspect) that you keep dodging the issue.

            The Texas law is designed to discourage likely Democratic voters. How can you be in favor of something so obviously designed to tilt the scales? Look at the damn article YOU posted: Texans can use gun IDs but college IDs are no good. Are you fuckin kidding me??

            Listen man, you seem to be capable of independent thought. So please do the country a favor and look beyond the bullshit talking points that you're being fed about voter fraud. Even if it did exist in hundreds of cases (which it absolutely does not) is it worth denying TENS OF THOUSANDS a chance to participate?

            Also from your article:
            "The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters," Ginsburg said.
            That article was also chock full of awful developments that no American should be happy about or proud of. Like the turnout in Texas elections with that suppressive law in place — less than 10%. Is this what you want?
            Bolthed
            Steven Stamkos' One Timer
            Last edited by Bolthed; 10-20-2014, 01:55 AM.
            “Could I had posted cite a site?” — WWW dot Trump makes you dumb dot RU

            Comment


            • Boy you guys are still going? The bottom line is that there is zero evidence of the kind of voter fraud these laws will prevent from occurring is actually happening. Anyone who thinks this it's anything other than an attempt to eliminate democratic voters either is happy about it or just willfully doesn't care. As for the courts, yeah, guess I forgot they are infallible. Guess I should remember that with the aca

              Comment


              • OMG can you guys even see what the issues are with these laws. It is not about the suppression or the lack of anyone proving there is fraud. The issue is that these laws are here and have been given the stamp of approval by the SCOTUS.

                The issue is do we allow other states to copy the laws of the States given the blessing by the high court or do we get away from the suppression and fraud issue and sit down and try to appease both sides, this is more than just about voter fraud and vote suppression.

                With the make up of today's court any vote that is not 5-4 is a big issue and should make us take not. But no, we still see the bashing of the court.

                A 6-3 vote tells me that even the moderate side of the population sees some merit in these laws.

                Only 1 poster, Donnie, threw out an idea as to a possible change. I think it was a very good idea. The others just went back to the suppression talking points to the point it was like listening to a child crying and whining.

                It is not only Washington that is divided, but the country is also. In all my years I have not seen anything like the politics of today. Nothing can be said about the good, it is all about the bad and the ugly. Too date I have seen 1, yes only 1 political ad, that is not an attack ad. Much like some here.
                WaiverWire
                Steven Stamkos' One Timer
                Last edited by WaiverWire; 10-20-2014, 08:07 AM.

                Comment


                • Yep, he's a robot.
                  “Could I had posted cite a site?” — WWW dot Trump makes you dumb dot RU

                  Comment


                  • But Donnie they allowed Ohio and one other state besides Texas to move forward with implementation for this election.

                    As for the other I will have to look into it. All I read was that the SCOTUS allowed the Texas law to take effect today.

                    And I will end with this on voter suppression. If you have to have a valid photo ID to register or provide enough information so that the election officials can say that you are who you claim you are I see no problem with the elections officials issuing a voters card with your photo.

                    Everything would remain the same. if you do not have a valid ID you would have to vote by provisional ballot. The elections officials then verify who you are. So if you go to the polls you will be allowed to vote no matter what.

                    Out of State and will look into it more when I get back from Williamsburg Thursday.

                    Comment


                    • Hats off to Paul Allen

                      Paul Allen has donated $100,000,000 to help fight Ebola

                      http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2...bola/17781811/


                      Allen is also working with the University of Massachusetts Medical School to donate funds to offer training, medical workers and equipment in Liberia, one of the nations hardest hit by the Ebola epidemic.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Donnie D
                        To elaborate on the Wisconsin decision.

                        The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who declared the Wisconsin voter ID law constitutional. The Supreme Court issued a one-page order that vacated the appeals court ruling pending further proceedings. This action blocked Wisconsin from implementing a law requiring voters to present photo IDs.
                        From what I am reading Donnie, and I may not have this right, but the court blocked Wisconsin only because early voting had started and they did not want to disrupt the process.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Donnie D
                          WW - you are misreading what the court did. There wasn't a 6-3 vote to approve voter ID laws - far from it.

                          The plaintiffs in the Texas Case asked that the Texas changes be blocked from taking effect next week because they had not received federal approval under the 1965 Voter Rights Act. You may recall that the court has gutted the Voters Right Act in 2013. So all the courts said by not accepting the case was that the Voter's Right Act could not be used as a mechanism to challenge voter ID laws - at least in the short term. 3 justices dissented and said that the Voter's Right Act could be used as a basis to challenge the law.

                          It also doesn't mean that the 6 agreed with the Texas law. This now goes to trial in District Court in a few months. Then it may work its way up to the Supreme Court - but that isn't assured. The Supreme Court has not heard arguments nor have they rendered a final decision on the case.

                          By the way, the Supreme Court did block the Wisconsin voter ID law from taking effect during the past month - but they didn't rely on the Voter's Right Act as the basis of making that decision. It would appear that the Supreme Court is open to preventing voter ID laws from being established (even the republican ones) provided you use the right legal argument to make the challenge.
                          I think what you are missing is that the SCOTUS in 2008 by a 6-3 vote ruled that states could mandate voter ID laws when they ruled for the State of Indiana.

                          http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/scotus.voter.id/

                          The issue for the Democratic Party of Texas was not the ID law, but what Texas limited which ID could be shown. The State will not allow college ID and the party wanted college ID.

                          I look for the SCOTUS to up hold the Wisconsin law once voting is over.


                          http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...-the-election/

                          And on a side note about the Texas law, I believe the reason the SCOTUS did what they did was because the Texas law has been in effect for several local elections, Wisconsin's has not.
                          WaiverWire
                          Steven Stamkos' One Timer
                          Last edited by WaiverWire; 10-23-2014, 05:37 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Wouldn't mandating voter ID's be considered a poll tax, which is illegal?
                            Gudas Priest

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by ChaseSpace View Post
                              Wouldn't mandating voter ID's be considered a poll tax, which is illegal?
                              Don't you have to show ID or have the elections office valid who you are when you register. That is the way it is done n Florida.

                              And when you vote by mail and your signature has changed to the point that the election officials can't verify it is your signature guess what.......your vote gets tossed.

                              But all of this bitching about showing ID is a moot point. If a state wants a law to mandate ID at the poll all they have to do is take the Indiana law and replace Indiana with their states name as this law was upheld in 2008.

                              Comment


                              • NY Doctor Tests Positive for Ebola

                                Breaking news. He returned to the States last week after treating Ebola patients.

                                http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ours/17786777/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X