C:...Make America Great Again [Archive] - Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

buckman

09-11-2016, 10:24 AM

again that was 66 years ago your getting closer it is 2016

todays republicans Party I stress TODAYS

A federal appeals court has blocked a proof-of-citizenship requirement on a federal mail voter registration form in Kansas, Alabama and Georgia.

Supreme Court Shuts Down Michigan’s Push To Eliminate ‘Straight-Ticket’ Voting

Republican-Authored Voting Laws in Wisconsin, Kansas, North Carolina Overturned

the new GOP we dont need to convince you to Vote for us we'll just make it harder in the hopes you don't vote for them

The new GOP actually wants to do something to help those in urban areas . What's the new Democratic Party got? Maybe move a bunch of Syrian refugees into Detroits empty housing?
You people actually believe that calling for a photo ID to vote is racist. That's how far over the edge you have gone . I think college kids today should pursuing a career in psychological therapy, I see a very promising future in it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

detbuch

09-11-2016, 10:52 AM

Another example of the simplistic View forwarded by Conservatives

There is a difference between simplistic and simplified. For purposes of brief discussion, such as on this forum, complex issues are usually simplified.

can we talk current events.. not how things were 140 years ago

We could. If we wish to be simplistic, we could say, in relation to race, that The Democrat Party of today is not the same as that of 140 years ago. It does not support actual slavery as that institution was known 140 years ago.

If we wish to simplify, we could say that, in many ways, there are similarities in racial attitudes between the Party then and now. After the Republicans destroyed that old notion of slavery, the notion of so-called white supremacy continued overtly in the Democrat Party for several decades. Then, in order to get the black vote which had become crucial, the racist attitude of the Party lessened its overt expression and became more subtle. There is now a parallel similarity in terms of dependence and control between Blacks and the Democrat party--to the extent that Blacks, to a great extent, fear actual freedom, fear to shape their own lives without government (Democrat) assistance.

Historians say the KKK consisted of a group of Southern whites after the Civil War who were Democrats. But there’s no evidence the KKK was created by their political party.

That group of Southern whites was not banned by the Democrat Party. There was sympathy in the Party toward the KKK movement. Several years after the KKK was established, Woodrow Wilson, though born in Virginia, was basically a Northerner, a Governor of New Jersey, and one of the first "Progressive" Presidents (and a Democrat), praised the movie "Birth of a Nation." He represented the still overt but more subtle face of White supremacy. Blacks should not be slaves, but they should know their place as the inferior race. To be fair, whites, in general, regardless of party, probably held that notion. But party policies have created a different view which can also be translated to race. Conservative policies and notional philosophy stress individual responsibility, and Progressive policies and philosophy tend toward dependence on government. Somehow, the Conservative view is supposed to be "racist." I suppose because Blacks are still supposed to be oppressed by the legacy of slavery and so cannot yet have the ability to be self-sufficient. Well, Republicans cannot be blamed for that legacy.

So, then, with FDR's "New Deal" and its labor movement, there was ushered into the American psyche, for all races, the need for powerful government intervention in all lives. This is actually an elitist rather than a racist view. But as various civil rights acts were being passed with majority Republican and minority Democrat support, it became apparent that to hold the growing black vote, Democrats had to stress race as one of its more important elitisms. LBJ's "Great Society" did that. And the subtlest white supremacy was ingrained into Democrat Party philosophy--Blacks are not at the level of Whites, and Whites must help them get there.

It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party of the 1860s and 1870s bears no similarity to the party of today.

There's this concocted notion of Nixon's Southern Strategy creating a massive switch in party allegiance from "Dixiecrat" to Republican. Actually, the vast majority of Democrat Party officials in power at the time, did not switch. And what is notable since the South became Republican is that it is less racist.

As for the similarity of the Party between then and now, see the above. The Democrat Party not only still holds a slave-like dependence of blacks to it, it has spread its controlling tentacles toward all the races in America. This coming election may clasp those tentacles more firmly around all of us.

detbuch

09-11-2016, 11:48 AM

again that was 66 years ago your getting closer it is 2016

todays republicans Party I stress TODAYS

A federal appeals court has blocked a proof-of-citizenship requirement on a federal mail voter registration form in Kansas, Alabama and Georgia.

What is your objection to this? Is this supposed to be racist? Wouldn't the requirement be applied to all races?

Supreme Court Shuts Down Michigan’s Push To Eliminate ‘Straight-Ticket’ Voting

Straight ticket applies to both parties. This would affect Republican voters as well as Democrats. Although it's not necessary to vote straight ticket, voters are persuaded by political machines to do so, thereby dumbing them down to strict party lines--making it easier for either party to get bad candidates elected when there would be a better choice.

The "ease" of straight ticket voting makes it easier to dissuade voters from any critical thinking and into just being Party mules--easier just to, as you might say, carry the Party's water.

It makes it easier to control political thought. And the supposed difficulty in splitting a ticket (it's not difficult nor a hardship) in favor of a straight ticket actually makes it difficult, if not impossible, for instance, for a Republican to even run in any Detroit precincts. It's a version of your "we dont need to convince you to Vote for us we'll just make it harder [for Republicans] in the hopes you don't vote for them

Republican-Authored Voting Laws in Wisconsin, Kansas, North Carolina Overturned

This is a simplistic statement.

the new GOP we dont need to convince you to Vote for us we'll just make it harder in the hopes you don't vote for them

You could more justly apply this statement to the political concept of your party giving you more than the other party. There is no need to convince voters of the virtue of self-reliance and personal freedom if you can provide them with enough to get along. No need to convince you that it is destructive to a free civil society when government takes your place in shaping your life.

It is very difficult to have a rational political discussion with someone who wants free stuff. And it is almost impossible to convince that person that the stuff is not free.

Jim in CT

09-11-2016, 12:10 PM

again that was 66 years ago your getting closer it is 2016

todays republicans Party I stress TODAYS

A federal appeals court has blocked a proof-of-citizenship requirement on a federal mail voter registration form in Kansas, Alabama and Georgia.

Supreme Court Shuts Down Michigan’s Push To Eliminate ‘Straight-Ticket’ Voting

Republican-Authored Voting Laws in Wisconsin, Kansas, North Carolina Overturned

the new GOP we dont need to convince you to Vote for us we'll just make it harder in the hopes you don't vote for them

"again that was 66 years ago your getting closer it is 2016"

OK. In 2016, most states run by liberals for decades (CT, RI, Mass, IL) are on the verge of bankruptcy, but liberals deny it or ignore it. Today in 2016, cities run by liberals for decades (Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Chicago, Milwaukee are uninhabitable sh*tholes, where thanks to liberalism, huge numbers of blacks are stuck in poverty with no way to lift themselves out. Liberals deny it, or ignore it. Here in 2016, after years of Obama, we have the slowest recovery from a recession ever, with median wages that are down since he's been in office, and pathetic GDP growth, and staggering increases to his debt. Here is 2016, thanks to liberalism, schools can't give chocolate milk or soda to little kids, but they hand out condoms.

" federal appeals court has blocked a proof-of-citizenship requirement on a federal mail voter registration form in Kansas, Alabama and Georgia.

Supreme Court Shuts Down Michigan’s Push To Eliminate ‘Straight-Ticket’ Voting"

OK, Obama was successfully sued by Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of The Poor for trampling on their First Amendment Rights. What is your point?

Here in 2016, the GOP controls both houses of Congress (for now, the Senate is up for grabs)) and has a huge majority of governorships and state legislatures.

wdmso

09-11-2016, 12:36 PM

detbuch

09-11-2016, 03:44 PM

Seems you guys need to see and understand why the courts are are ruling against all theses NEW laws most enacted primary by republican in those states ..

or is your answer going to be the same as all your other answers it is the liberal and progressive Judges Fault

Seems you need to see and understand why the courts are ruling the way they do. Oh wait, however courts rule, for you that's just the way it is and is supposed to be. No need for you to question court rulings.

Your model of citizenship for a free civil society is frightening.

I love the fantasy... these laws are to protect the voting process ...

The proposed laws which were struck down were designed to protect the voting process. Requiring ID, for instance, is designed to protect the voting process. But if some Judge has a different opinion, a different agenda, then the laws ain't no good.

Leave the process up to a few Judges. Scary.

to use your guys need for past history theses laws where fine 15 ,20 ,30 even 60 years ago .. but now there not :huh:

So past history is good if it is not more than 60 years old. Anything over 60 years ago is no good. If its less than 60 years ago, it is written in temporary stone and must not be touched.

A lot happened in those 60 years that needed fixing. So long as any change is Constitutional, and the people approve, no Judge should have the power to disapprove. However, when Judges rule by philosophical or personal agenda, as Progressive Judges do, then neither Congress nor The People have their Constitutional right to make necessary adjustments to political process.

You don't like that same old argument. But it is the only argument which will protect you and the rest of us from despotisms, even the ones that promise nice sounding things.

Leaving the power in the hands of a few judges who do not respect the overall Constitutional process to decide what protects the voting process, is the surest way of achieving a corrupted voting process.

Fly Rod

09-12-2016, 06:22 AM

wdmso

09-12-2016, 11:14 AM

WD....so u say it was stupid for Trump to use, "Make America Great Again," but U seem to think it was great that billy boy said it and it ment different back then, but racist today.

U must have loved it when hillary said that half of trump voters were deploreable etc:.....her statement was no better then rommney's 47 percent....she should B ashamed and should apologise to the country.....remember she has a larger % of uneducated voting for her....repubs R in the 20-25 % and hillary is over the 60% of uneducated....:)

why should she apologize to the country for what not being politically correct .. I thought you guys liked people who tell it like it is she may have been wrong on How many were deplorable for their views but she wasn't wrong that theses people exist ...

I never said it was a stupid slogan
its actually very good .. But it seem people such as your self dont understand its not the slogan thats the issue ...

its the message behind the slogan and how he intends to follow thru

maybe it should read .. make America white again ..to avoid being politically correct because thats his supporters demographic in a nut shell.. I see it here I see it at work I see it with my 71 year old Mother

Trump’s supporters are a bit older, less educated and earn less than the average Republican. Slightly over half are women. About half are between 45 and 64 years of age, with another 34 percent over 65 years old and less than 2 percent younger than 30.

not sure if He can win just with those voters .. But unlike most here if the Donald or Hillary win the election ..they will My POTUS

wdmso

09-12-2016, 11:22 AM

So past history is good if it is not more than 60 years old. Anything over 60 years ago is no good. If its less than 60 years ago, it is written in temporary stone and must not be touched.

A lot happened in those 60 years that needed fixing. So long as any change is Constitutional, and the people approve, no Judge should have the power to disapprove. However, when Judges rule by philosophical or personal agenda, as Progressive Judges do, then neither Congress nor The People have their Constitutional right to make necessary adjustments to political process.

You don't like that same old argument. But it is the only argument which will protect you and the rest of us from despotisms, even the ones that promise nice sounding things.

Leaving the power in the hands of a few judges who do not respect the overall Constitutional process to decide what protects the voting process, is the surest way of achieving a corrupted voting process.

Thanks again for your another installment of fight the power by detbuch

from 1 of the ruling states its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black
turnout at the polls.

whos protecting who?

Jim in CT

09-12-2016, 11:34 AM

But unlike most here if the Donald or Hillary win the election ..they will My POTUS

There is a big difference. Some people (Bill Clinton, and George W Bush) never gave the impression that they had no use for everyone who didn't vote for them. Obama (with his bitter clingers comment) and Hilary (with her deplorable comment) could not be more clear that they don't feel that anything I believe, has any positive value.

The reason why I don't feel like Obama is my president, and why Hilary won't be my president if she wins...didn't start with me...it's because they made it clear they have no use for anyone who believes what I believe. Trump just said that he respects her supporters (he may well not mean it, but he said it). She, like Obama, has nothing but contempt for people like me, so I respond in kind, because she deserves no better.

The Dad Fisherman

09-12-2016, 12:39 PM

from 1 of the ruling states its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black
turnout at the polls.

How?

Jim in CT

09-12-2016, 01:14 PM

How?

I have asked 1,000 times, why it's more of a burden for blacks to get an id card than whites. Can't get an answer.

I would imagine that a higher % of whites register to vote than blacks. Why don't the courts strike down registration requirements as being discriminatory against blacks?

buckman

09-12-2016, 01:26 PM

I have asked 1,000 times, why it's more of a burden for blacks to get an id card than whites. Can't get an answer.

I would imagine that a higher % of whites register to vote than blacks. Why don't the courts strike down registration requirements as being discriminatory against blacks?

You have to think The way liberals and Democrats in general feel . Because of the oppression blacks have had to deal with, they are not as capable as white people . I personally don't feel that way and there are millions of examples of successful black people that should put that theory to rest , but why let a good oppression go to waste, especially if you can gain a little power, make a little money, and irrationally feel good about yourself, while they feel good you are "helping" .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

09-12-2016, 01:29 PM

You have to think The way liberals and Democrats in general feel . Because of the oppression blacks have had to deal with, they are not as capable as white people . I personally don't feel that way and there are millions of examples of successful black people that should put that theory to rest , but why let it a good oppression waste, especially if you can gain a little power, make a little money, and irrationally feel good about helping poor black folk .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think liberals truly feel this is discriminatory against blacks, they just like to throw that label around every time we are on the winning side of an argument. Which is quite often.

wdmso

09-12-2016, 04:19 PM

How?

I dont know ? try research.. I am not the judge who made the ruling

but it seems they saw How..

detbuch

09-12-2016, 09:30 PM

Thanks again for your another installment of fight the power by detbuch

Your welcome.

from 1 of the ruling states its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black
turnout at the polls.

Putting on a black robe and being referred to as "Your Honor" does not give someone magic powers, doesn't transform one from a flawed human to some God-like figure. As a group, Judges are no less flawed, nor more virtuous than elected officials. Some Judges may be, most are not. Some tend to be pompous asses full of themselves. Some are political hacks and toadies to the party that appoints them. I'm sure you know this. I'm sure you know that some Judges have been downright evil. Many have had rulings overturned, even generations later.

Which makes me wonder why you unquestioningly accept what they say and even admit that "I dont know ? try research.. I am not the judge who made the ruling but it seems they saw How.."

Is this another installment of your lemming-like submit to the power by wdmso?

whos protecting who?

It seems that you are protecting the power.

The Dad Fisherman

09-13-2016, 06:58 AM

from 1 of the ruling states its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black
turnout at the polls.

So you make a statement that it targets African-Americans

How?

I ask How? as in "How does it target them, specifically?"

I think it would target all people who can't produce proof of citizenship, not just blacks. which has absolutely nothing to do with race

I dont know ? try research.. I am not the judge who made the ruling

but it seems they saw How..

so your answer is....You don't know....

If your going to make a statement, shouldn't you, at the very least, know why you're making it...I mean, if you were my crazy uncle in the nursing home I might let you slide on why you say the things you say.

but you made that statement with such conviction....you may want to know why

....and you also told me to look it up....so I did.

they....not he (it was a 3 person appeals court) Ruled that the person who made the change to the form, requiring proof of citizenship, wasn't authorized to do so. Nowhere in their ruling did they say that it was going to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” just that he didn't have the right to make the change.

and of the 2-1 decision....one judge was a Democrat and one was a Republican

But feel free to insert Racism between the lines.....it's so 2016 now

so, again, how does requiring proof of citizenship to vote "“target African-Americans with almost surgical precision”?

Jim in CT

09-13-2016, 07:35 AM

If your going to make a statement, shouldn't you, at the very least, know why you're making it...

All they need to know, is that they are hurling charges of racism at the right. Details, shmeetails...

wdmso

09-14-2016, 11:45 AM

So you make a statement that it targets African-Americans

I ask How? as in "How does it target them, specifically?"

I think it would target all people who can't produce proof of citizenship, not just blacks. which has absolutely nothing to do with race

so your answer is....You don't know....

If your going to make a statement, shouldn't you, at the very least, know why you're making it...I mean, if you were my crazy uncle in the nursing home I might let you slide on why you say the things you say.

but you made that statement with such conviction....you may want to know why

....and you also told me to look it up....so I did.

they....not he (it was a 3 person appeals court) Ruled that the person who made the change to the form, requiring proof of citizenship, wasn't authorized to do so. Nowhere in their ruling did they say that it was going to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” just that he didn't have the right to make the change.

and of the 2-1 decision....one judge was a Democrat and one was a Republican

But feel free to insert Racism between the lines.....it's so 2016 now

so, again, how does requiring proof of citizenship to vote "“target African-Americans with almost surgical precision”?

only a blind white guy wouldn't see Racism but it seem the courts saw things differently all over the county .. must be another liberal conspiracy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/court-north-carolina-voter-id-law-targeted-black-voters/ same phrase Discrimination with “almost surgical precision”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/opinion/campaign-stops/turning-the-tide-on-voting-rights.html

In the last few weeks, voting rights groups, in some instances working with the Department of Justice, have posted a series of victories that seemed unlikely when their cases against these laws were first brought. The rights of hundreds of thousands of voters are at stake.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, perhaps the most conservative federal appeals court, ruled 9-6 last month that Texas’ strict voter identification law had a racially discriminatory effect on African-American and Latino voters. Not only did the Fifth Circuit send the case back to the trial court to establish a procedure to make it easier for those who lacked one of the narrow forms of identification to be able to vote, but also to decide if Texas had acted with racially discriminatory intent. Such a finding could lead the courts to put Texas back under direct federal supervision.

Last Friday, a Fourth Circuit panel ruled that a North Carolina voting law, possibly the largest rollback of voting rights since the 1965 Voting Rights Act, was enacted with racially discriminatory intent. The court threw out not only the state’s strict voter ID law, but also other voting restrictions that could make it especially hard for minorities to vote.

In the Seventh Circuit, a panel of conservative judges gave a trial court permission to soften Wisconsin’s strict voter identification law. In response, the trial court recently issued an order giving people who lacked one of the few IDs accepted for voting in Wisconsin the chance to vote by filling out an affidavit of identity. Then last week another federal court threw out more of Wisconsin’s strict voting laws. On Monday, a federal court told North Dakota to soften its ID law, which adversely affected Native Americans.

Meanwhile, over in the Sixth Circuit, two federal judges have held that Ohio’s rollbacks of early voting violate the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act by making it harder for African-Americans and others to vote. Another case on appeal challenges Ohio’s planned voter purge. In Michigan, a district court judge rejected the state’s elimination of straight-ticket voting. Finally, in Kansas, federal and state courts have beaten back numerous attempts by Secretary of State Kris Kobach to make voter registration harder in the name of preventing noncitizen voting (a minor problem in Kansas, to say the least).

These battles are not over, and further appeals could still lead to reversals. But there are two reasons to be optimistic that we are nearing the end of an era of increasingly restrictive voting rules imposed just about exclusively by Republican legislators and election officials over the objections of Democrats and voting rights groups.

wdmso

09-14-2016, 11:57 AM

It seems that you are protecting the power.

unquestioningly accept what they say ... thats funny

I'll questions a judge when I have the knowledge of law and the facts of the case when it is on par with His Knowledge and experience

the same go's for a builder a plumber or an electrician un like you I wont questions for the pleasure of questioning .. But facts dont seem to be part of your tool bag, its appears always to be about the feelings and fighting the system against a hidden enemy that only you can see :btu:

Jim in CT

09-14-2016, 11:57 AM

only a blind white guy wouldn't see Racism but it seem the courts saw things differently all over the county .. must be another liberal conspiracy

.

WDMSO, I have no doubt that you can post dozens of links, to stories that claim voter id laws are racist.

But the question is, why? Why do those laws disproportionately target blacks?

What is it, about getting a voter id card, that makes it harder for poor blacks to get, than for poor whites, or poor Latinos?

buckman

09-14-2016, 12:01 PM

WDMSO, I have no doubt that you can post dozens of links, to stories that claim voter id laws are racist.

But the question is, why? Why do those laws disproportionately target blacks?

What is it, about getting a voter id card, that makes it harder for poor blacks to get, than for poor whites, or poor Latinos?

He will check his tool bag and get back to you on that ...............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

09-14-2016, 12:20 PM

I guess you would have to say it is bc Repub. have no use for minorities. Why else would the Repub. do it if there is no fraud?

What did the judge who threw out the NC law say - something like it targeted African-Americans with almost surgical precision. The only reason to do it would be to depress black turnout at the polls.

Yup, they should try conservatism :rotflmao:

"I guess you would have to say it is bc Repub. have no use for minorities"

Yes, you would say that. And it's laughable. I wonder, then, why George Bush heroically rammed his AIDS relief plan through Congress, and is credited with saving over one million lives of AIDS patients in Africa? Or why he promoted Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, and Colin Powell?

"Why else would the Repub. do it if there is no fraud?"

One reason is because there is, in fact, some fraud. Not a lot, naturally. But not "no fraud", either.

"it targeted African-Americans with almost surgical precision"

But WHY??? I honestly want to know, because I have no idea, why this is more of a burden for blacks than it is for other races? Why? If blacks can go through the same process to get an id, but freely choose not to, is THAT racist? Just because voter id laws reduce black voting turnout more than they restrict white voter turnout, that doesn't mean it's racist. It could mean that whites are more likely to care enough about voting, to go through the hassle of getting the id. If the process is more burdensome to blacks, that's racist. If it's not more burdensome for blacks, that means they are freely choosing not to get the id, which would not be racist.

"they should try conservatism "

Tell the blacks in Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Chicago, Milwaukee, Baltimore, and St Louis, that liberalism has been a positive influence. My God, how could it be worse?

Paul, here is the thing...Bill Clinton did a lot of the economic things that conservatives endorse...he kicked millions of blacks off welfare. Do you know what happened? They went to work. And he is a liberal hero. But if I suggest the same thing, his wife says I am a racist. If you can explain that hypocrisy, I would love to hear it.

Jim in CT

09-14-2016, 12:23 PM

He will check his tool bag and get back to you on that ...............
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Buckman, I have asked the question 50 times, why is getting an id more burdensome for blacks. The only answer I ever get is "because this judge said so".

What is it about the process of getting an id, that is inherently more burdensome for blacks?

buckman

09-14-2016, 12:33 PM

Buckman, I have asked the question 50 times, why is getting an id more burdensome for blacks. The only answer I ever get is "because this judge said so".

What is it about the process of getting an id, that is inherently more burdensome for blacks?

Does anyone here know anybody that does not have some form of ID and can you please give me a legitimate reason why they don't have one ?
I actually do know a few and they are doing a demolition job for a sub contractor , as I type this this . The reason ... Well let's just say they won't be voting for Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

09-14-2016, 01:28 PM

So the Repub. will disenfranchise lots of minorities bc there is "some fraud". In some of the states these types of laws have been enacted, there is been 0 fraud.[/COLOR]
"it targeted African-Americans with almost surgical precision"

But WHY??? We have discussed this numerous times - pls go back and read those postings. And that is a different issue. The issue her is why did the Repub. legisl. in many states pass these type of laws. The reason is to prevent minorities from voting..

I deleted my original post bc I didn't read the 1st page. So I responded and then saw wdmso brought up the same "surgical precision".

buckman

09-14-2016, 01:49 PM

I deleted my original post bc I didn't read the 1st page. So I responded and then saw wdmso brought up the same "surgical precision".

Finally, someone who can tell us how this affects African Americans more then others .
Go ahead . The stage is all yours .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

09-14-2016, 01:59 PM

We have discussed this numerous times - pls go back and read those postings. And that is a different issue. The issue her is why did the Repub. legisl. in many states pass these type of laws. The reason is to prevent minorities from voting".

Paul, remind me.

THERE IS NO WAY ANYONE CAN CLAIM THE PROCESS IS DIFFERENT, OR INHERENTLY MORE BURDENSOME, FOR ONE RACE.

Come on.

PaulS

09-14-2016, 03:15 PM

Jim in CT

09-14-2016, 03:22 PM

And you can't tell me that those Repub. Legisl. put those restrictions in for any other reason than to keep minorities from being able to vote. And they go well beyond voter id.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You made the claim that the id requirement us racist. Your 'proof' is:

(1) some judge said so, apparently without clarifying how it targets blacks
(2) the GOP endorsed the notion, and they are all racists, so it must be racist

Paul, do you have any evidence that he process is different (harder) for blacks? Or are you saying that there skin color means they are less able to get the id?

The Dad Fisherman

09-14-2016, 03:28 PM

only a blind white guy wouldn't see Racism but it seem the courts saw things differently all over the county .. must be another liberal conspiracy

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/court-north-carolina-voter-id-law-targeted-black-voters/ same phrase Discrimination with “almost surgical precision”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/opinion/campaign-stops/turning-the-tide-on-voting-rights.html

Let me clarify, I'm asking YOU, not PBS or the NY Times, how requiring an ID to vote is going to dis-proportionately affect Blacks over Whites

I know I'm just a blind-ass "Cracker"....so now's YOUR chance to enlighten me.

Jim in CT

09-14-2016, 03:40 PM

Let me clarify, I'm asking YOU, not PBS or the NY Times, how requiring an ID to vote is going to dis-proportionately affect Blacks over Whites

I know I'm just a blind-ass "Cracker"....so now's YOU'RE chance to enlighten me.

Here is the honest, thoughtful response...since you will never get it from a liberal on this issue.

The id requirement, obviously, is no more burdensome for one race than another. So it's not, in and of itself, even a teeny bit racist.

However, the more hoops you have to jump through to vote, the less likely that disenfranchised citizens will be, to vote.

A higher % of blacks are disenfranchised than whites.

Therefore, voter id requirements will likely have the effect of decreasing black votes more than they decrease white votes. I don't doubt that's the effect. But the underlying cause has absolutely nothing to do with race, and everything to do with culture and behavior. It's a free choice for blacks to make.

Are some GOP legislators counting on that, and that's why they support id laws, and hide their true intent by saying they are trying to eliminate voter fraud? I am sure that thought crossed the minds of some of the Republicans who support these laws. But the fact is, and it's probably irrefutable (since none of you bothered to refute it) that it's not racist.

There was a famous case a few years ago of firefighters in New Haven taking a test for promotion. It was a test certified to be racially neutral, whatever the hell that means. A bunch of white guys got the highest scores, and earned the promotion. The city then nullified the test, saying that because not enough blacks got high scores, it therefore had to be racist. It went to the Supreme Court, who ruled that there was no racism, that the white guys won fair and square. Just because all the top scorers were white, doesn't mean it's racist.

Is the NBA racist? Or the US Track and Field team, I didn't see a lot of white guys in the 100 meter sprint in the Olymoics. Is that, therefore, racist?

PaulS

09-14-2016, 05:17 PM

Finally, someone who can tell us how this affects African Americans more then others .
Go ahead . The stage is all yours .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Go back and look at prior threads - this issue was covered multiple times.

buckman

09-14-2016, 07:47 PM

Go back and look at prior threads - this issue was covered multiple times.

I'm too lazy .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim in CT

09-14-2016, 07:52 PM

Go back and look at prior threads - this issue was covered multiple times.

No, it has been asked multiple times. It has been answered, zero times. Because the burden of getting the id, obviously, is not a function of race.

detbuch

09-14-2016, 08:33 PM

unquestioningly accept what they say ... thats funny

I'm not aware that you asked questions or had any regarding the list of decisions you've cited. You did say you didn't know why, but the Judges said so . . .

So what questions do you have re the decisions. Or is it enough, simply and completely, that the judges said so. Did you unquestioningly accept what they said?

I'll questions a judge when I have the knowledge of law and the facts of the case when it is on par with His Knowledge and experience

Are you unable to know what is racist? Is racism too difficult for average Americans to understand, and only Judges are intelligent enough to know it? And how do you distinguish which judges are intelligent enough to know it? What about the dissenting opinions? Did you read those?

the same go's for a builder a plumber or an electrician

There are lots of builders and plumbers. How do you know which one to choose? Do you actually believe that working on standardized utilities with standardized methods, which have no intellectual, philosophical, moral, or civic content, is analogous to judging law?

And do you know how the Constitution works as well as you know how to turn on a light switch, or flush a toilet? If you don't, why not? It used to be taught in schools. Maybe not anymore. It is not difficult to read. Do you read the instructions when you get a new appliance?

un like you I wont questions for the pleasure of questioning ..

Perhaps you mean for the sake of questioning. And I don't ask them for the sake of doing so. I do it in order to learn something about that which I question. Sometimes knowing something that I was not aware of is critical. As for the pleasure of questioning, that is a part of the pleasure of learning. If learning about something that is not relevant or critical to me is painful or boring, I won't waste my time asking questions about it.

But facts dont seem to be part of your tool bag, its appears always to be about the feelings and fighting the system against a hidden enemy that only you can see :btu:

I used facts in my previous responses to you. And they were facts that just lay around the surface of our society. It is not necessary to store them in a tool bag, nor is there a tool bag big enough to contain them.

What feelings did I express to which you refer?

And Progressivism, socialism, totalitarianism are not hidden enemies. And I am not the only one who can see them.

PaulS

09-15-2016, 06:25 AM

No, it has been asked multiple times. It has been answered, zero times. Because the burden of getting the id, obviously, is not a function of race.

How about this. If I pull up a thread where we discussed this exact same issue from now on every time you bring up a topic that has been discussed before and someone points it out, you don't particpate in the rest of that thread?

Funny you mention Colin Powell - he just said the whole Birther movement was racist.

The Dad Fisherman

09-15-2016, 06:56 AM

Funny you mention Colin Powell - he just said the whole Birther movement was racist.

Just because he said it doesn't make it so....

Was it Idiotic? Yes. Was it Misguided? Yes. Was it one Party trying to defame the other party's candidate? Yes

Was it Racist? Absolutely not....

that term has gotten sooooo over-used it has completely lost its validity in most arguments.

Please tell me how asking someone to produce their birth certificate, or claiming they're not a US citizen, meets the definition of racism.

rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
noun: racism

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

PaulS

09-15-2016, 07:14 AM

Jim in CT

09-15-2016, 07:17 AM

How about this. If I pull up a thread where we discussed this exact same issue from now on every time you bring up a topic that has been discussed before and someone points it out, you don't particpate in the rest of that thread?

Funny you mention Colin Powell - he just said the whole Birther movement was racist.

This is surreal. We keep asking why the id process is more burdensome for blacks, and you will not answer. You dodge. You re-direct. You insult. But you cannot answer the question directly.

Colin Powell? Now that his emails were hacked, we really know what he thinks of Hilary (ambitious, full of hubris) and her pervert husband (still di*king bimbos in his home!!!).

Of course, some racists were birthers. That doesn't mean questioning his birth, was necessarily racist. Some of them weren't racist, just paranoid or stupid or uninformed.

Anyway, one final time...please tell us why it's harder for blacks to get this id, than whites.

The Dad Fisherman

09-15-2016, 07:19 AM

However, since you brought it up. - It's crazy to think the Birther movement didn't have any racism involved w/it.

Well, Explain it to me?

Jim in CT

09-15-2016, 07:20 AM

Have I mentioned Racism in my posts other than to mention what Colin Powell thinks of the birther movement (and I guess the Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump).

However, since you brought it up. - It's crazy to think the Birther movement didn't have any racism involved w/it.

But back to the orginal point - in that absense of any real voter fraud do you agree that the NC voter ID law (and the other aspects like closing polling places, shorting voting times, etc.) was meant to prevent Blacks from voting?

"Have I mentioned Racism in my posts "

Are you feeling OK? Seriously, are you OK? Because you have said a couple of times lately, that "Republicans have no use for minorities. "

"It's crazy to think the Birther movement didn't have any racism involved w/it"

Ah, but you didn't say there was "some" racism. You said the movement itself was racist. Two very different things. I don't think liberals even notice anymore, when they accuse conservatives of racism. It's like breathing to them (and you) now. You don't even notice when you are doing it anymore.

Jim in CT

09-15-2016, 07:21 AM

Well, Explain it to me?

(1) Colin Powell said so.
(2) it makes conservatives look hateful

That, to liberals, more than suffices as evidence of racism.

spence

09-15-2016, 07:23 AM

Was it Racist? Absolutely not....

that term has gotten sooooo over-used it has completely lost its validity in most arguments.

Please tell me how asking someone to produce their birth certificate, or claiming they're not a US citizen, meets the definition of racism.
Use the brain Luke!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Dad Fisherman

09-15-2016, 07:23 AM

the only good thing about Hilary getting elected is that I won't be called a racist because I'm white.

I'll get to be called Sexist and a Misogynist because I'm male :hihi:

but regardless, all the ills in this country are going to be my fault :wall:

The Dad Fisherman

09-15-2016, 07:24 AM

Use the brain Luke!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Use Common Sense, Jar Jar

scottw

09-15-2016, 07:32 AM

Have I mentioned Racism in my posts?

when you don't in some form or fashion, it's a shocker :hihi:

PaulS

09-15-2016, 08:09 AM

Well, Explain it to me?

The many, many racist signs which were so prevelant early on.

Nebe

09-15-2016, 08:12 AM

Re structuring voting precincts, closing polling areas in urban areas could be used as an example.
Personally I don't think that blacks are suppressed from voting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

PaulS

09-15-2016, 08:16 AM

This is surreal. We keep asking why the id process is more burdensome for blacks, and you will not answer. You dodge. You re-direct. You insult. But you cannot answer the question directly.This is sureal - As I said (and I'll repeat again) we have already discussed this exact same issue previously.

Colin Powell? Now that his emails were hacked, we really know what he thinks of Hilary (ambitious, full of hubris) and her pervert husband (still di*king bimbos in his home!!!).yes,he does and he thinks Trump is a clown.

Of course, some racists were birthers. That doesn't mean questioning his birth, was necessarily racist. Some of them weren't racist, just paranoid or stupid or uninformed.

Anyway, one final time...please tell us why it's harder for blacks to get this id, than whites.See above

See above and earlier post.

What about the point that the reason the laws were passed is to prevent minorities from voting.

PaulS

09-15-2016, 08:23 AM

"Have I mentioned Racism in my posts "

Are you feeling OK? Seriously, are you OK? Because you have said a couple of times lately, that "Republicans have no use for minorities. "So you think my saying that is saying they are racist?

"It's crazy to think the Birther movement didn't have any racism involved w/it"

Ah, but you didn't say there was "some" racism.Actually I think you need to go back and read what I wrote I never mentioned racism 1 way or the other. I repeated what the person you hold up to show the Repubs. appeal to minorities said about the birher movement. You said the movement itself was racist. Pls. point out where I said that. Two very different things. I don't think liberals even notice anymore, when they accuse conservatives of racism. It's like breathing to them (and you) now. You don't even notice when you are doing it anymore.

Can you pls. point out where I accused conservatives of racism?

The Dad Fisherman

09-15-2016, 08:25 AM

The many, many racist signs which were so prevelant early on.

were any of those signs being held by elected officials?

there are kooks and a-holes in all walks of life.....just because some racist nut cases show up in support of something doesn't make that initial thing racist.

I asked how does asking somebody for a birth certificate or proof of citizenship meet the definition of racism.

was it racist for people to ask for Ted Cruz's proof?

scottw

09-15-2016, 08:26 AM

was it racist for people to ask for Ted Cruz's proof?

and John McCain

scottw

09-15-2016, 08:27 AM

Re structuring voting precincts, closing polling areas in urban areas could be used as an example.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if you can find one that is not controlled by democrats :jester:

Jim in CT

09-15-2016, 08:45 AM

See above and earlier post.

What about the point that the reason the laws were passed is to prevent minorities from voting.

"This is sureal - As I said (and I'll repeat again) we have already discussed this exact same issue previously. "

OK. Let's pretend that I am as dumb as you think I am, and that I can't recall the previous discussion. Because my recollection, is that previous discussion was a lot like this one - many requests for clarification on why the id burden is higher for blacks, with zero actual reasons provided by you and Spence. Please provide actual examples of why blacks, by virtue of their skin color, have a harder time getting that id.

"he (Powell)thinks Trump is a clown. "

here's the thing. I agree with Powell that Trump is a clown. Do you agree with Powell, that Hilary is prone to hubris, and that her husband is a pervert who could spit into a petri dish and start a whole new civilization?

""So you think my saying that is saying they are racist?"

Umm, yes. If you say Republicans have no use for minorities, that is saying they are racist. You are saying that the GOP has derogatory opinions of people based on skin color. Last time I checked, that's the textbook definition of racism.

"I never mentioned racism 1 way or the other. I repeated what the person you hold up to show the Repubs. appeal to minorities said about the birher movement"

OK, so if you use Colin Powell's accusations of racism, to suggest that racism exists, that's not you mentioning racism.

Cue the Twilight Zone music...

PaulS

09-15-2016, 08:46 AM

I asked how does asking somebody for a birth certificate or proof of citizenship meet the definition of racism.

Why don't you ask someone who claimed it meet the defintion of racism?

Jim in CT

09-15-2016, 08:53 AM

Can you pls. point out where I accused conservatives of racism?

Do you have a concussion?

You said that the GOP has no use for minorities.

Here are some other things you said on this thread, these are exact quotes...

"you can't tell me that those Repub. Legisl. put those restrictions in for any other reason than to keep minorities from being able to vote"

"Funny you mention Colin Powell - he just said the whole Birther movement was racist. "

"The many, many racist signs which were so prevelant early on. "

90% of your posts accuse conservatives of racism. The other 10% of your posts, consist of you stubbornly saying that you never accused anyone of racism.

George Bush - saved a million lives in Africa, promoted many blacks to very high profile positions (but he was called a racist by your side)

John McCain - adopted an orphaned girl from Bangladesh (the New York Times published a front page story, totally false, that he fathered the girl with a mistress). Read that again. Adopting an orphan from Bangladesh, is one of the finest expressions of love a human being can contemplate. And instead of giving him credit for that, it was used as a club against him.

Mitt Romney - has a black grandson. For that, the family was ridiculed by a black host at MSNBC who has her own program and is paid a king's ransom, that's how highly she is thought of.

If these GOP leaders are racists, they really stink at being racist. They need to take some lessons on how to really be racist.

PaulS

09-15-2016, 08:53 AM

OK. Let's pretend that I am as dumb as you think I am, and that I can't recall the previous discussion. Because my recollection, is that previous discussion was a lot like this one - many requests for clarification on why the id burden is higher for blacks, with zero actual reasons provided by you and Spence. Please provide actual examples of why blacks, by virtue of their skin color, have a harder time getting that id.

I made you an offer earlier - if I show you a link where we discussed the EXACT SAME THING, you agree that anytime you bring up the EXACT SAME THING that has been discussed previously and someone provides a link, you refrain from posting in that thread.

Jim in CT

09-15-2016, 08:57 AM

Why don't you ask someone who claimed it meet the defintion of racism?

For Gods sake man, you said those id laws were put in, specifically to suppress black voter turnout.

So now you are claiming, that suppressing black votes, is not racist?

Jim in CT

09-15-2016, 08:59 AM

I made you an offer earlier - if I show you a link where we discussed the EXACT SAME THING, you agree that anytime you bring up the EXACT SAME THING that has been discussed previously and someone provides a link, you refrain from posting in that thread.

No.

I'm not interested in re-examining another link, where we kept asking the question, and you kept dodging.

So just tell us why voter id laws are more burdensome for blacks than they are for whites.

The Dad Fisherman

09-15-2016, 09:06 AM

Why don't you ask someone who claimed it meet the defintion of racism?

I did...

However, since you brought it up. - It's crazy to think the Birther movement didn't have any racism involved w/it.

PaulS

09-15-2016, 09:19 AM

No.

I'm not interested in re-examining another link, where we kept asking the question, and you kept dodging.

So just tell us why voter id laws are more burdensome for blacks than they are for whites.

And I'm not interesting in discussing the same thing over and over and over with you.

JohnR

09-15-2016, 09:23 AM

This is surreal. We keep asking why the id process is more burdensome for blacks, and you will not answer. You dodge. You re-direct. You insult. But you cannot answer the question directly.

Colin Powell? Now that his emails were hacked, we really know what he thinks of Hilary (ambitious, full of hubris) and her pervert husband (still di*king bimbos in his home!!!).

Of course, some racists were birthers. That doesn't mean questioning his birth, was necessarily racist. Some of them weren't racist, just paranoid or stupid or uninformed.

Anyway, one final time...please tell us why it's harder for blacks to get this id, than whites.

Dog Whistles. If one makes everything a dog whistle and condition people to yelp, you can ignore parsing at a deeper level.

Dog Whistle: Asking for birth certificate is racist
Dog Whistle: Strong Border security is racist
Dog Whistle: Illegal immigration is racist
Dog Whistle: Requiring people proving eligibility to vote is racist.

We have some of the most lax border security, citizenship, and voting laws in the world, yet they are still racist.

Use the brain Luke!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Use Common Sense, Jar Jar

:hihi:
Re structuring voting precincts, closing polling areas in urban areas could be used as an example.
Personally I don't think that blacks are suppressed from voting
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would think if you apply the same rules for everyone that would not be racist. Punish the ones that violate that. As for Gerrymandering - that is a game the Dems play better than Rs. I guess that is why in a blue state we only hear it happening in Red states

Jim in CT

09-15-2016, 09:26 AM

And I'm not interesting in discussing the same thing over and over and over with you.

In which, a "discussion" is when you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of racism, and then refuse to explain why they are racists.

We get it, Paul, we get it.

Tell the million Africans who are alive today thanks to George Bush, that he has no use for them. Tell John McCain's daughter that he has no use for her. Tell Mitt Romney's grandson that his grandpa has no use for him.

PaulS

09-15-2016, 09:26 AM

I did...

You have bad reading comprehension.

You said "I asked how does asking somebody for a birth certificate or proof of citizenship meet the definition of racism."

and I said "Why don't you ask someone who claimed it meet the defintion of racism?"

and you quoted me as saying "However, since you brought it up. - It's crazy to think the Birther movement didn't have any racism involved w/it."

Aren't they 2 different things? I never said that asking for a birth certificate or a proof of citizenship met the definition of racism. I'm sure when President Obama first ran for Senate or was put on the foreign relations committeed he was asked for his birth certificate.

PaulS

09-15-2016, 09:34 AM

In which, a "discussion" is when you accuse everyone who disagrees with you of racism, and then refuse to explain why they are racists.

I must of missed that post.

Jim in CT

09-15-2016, 09:49 AM

I must of missed that post.

Republicans have no use for minorities.

Did you not say that? Or is that somehow different, from saying they are racist?

PaulS

09-15-2016, 09:54 AM

Republicans have no use for minorities.

Did you not say that? Or is that somehow different, from saying they are racist?

Do the Dems. have any use of Evangelicals?

Keep blowing that racism whistle.

Jim in CT

09-15-2016, 09:58 AM

Do the Dems. have any use of Evangelicals?

Keep blowing that racism whistle.

Paul, if you say that the GOP has no use for minorities, how is that different from calling them racist?

scottw

09-15-2016, 10:34 AM

Have I mentioned Racism in my posts?

nearly every post in this thread :rtfm:

it's amusing...keep going...you're on record pace

PaulS

09-15-2016, 10:34 AM

Paul, if you say that the GOP has no use for minorities, how is that different from calling them racist?

In my view it is totally different. You can think you can get elected w/o appealling to a certain group of people. Doesn't make you a racist to not appeal to them.

Had the Republican's gotten some immigration reform done, they prob. would be polling better and prob. in the lead now.

scottw

09-15-2016, 10:36 AM

The Dad Fisherman

09-15-2016, 10:36 AM

You have bad reading comprehension.

You said "I asked how does asking somebody for a birth certificate or proof of citizenship meet the definition of racism."

and I said "Why don't you ask someone who claimed it meet the defintion of racism?"

and you quoted me as saying "However, since you brought it up. - It's crazy to think the Birther movement didn't have any racism involved w/it."

Aren't they 2 different things? I never said that asking for a birth certificate or a proof of citizenship met the definition of racism. I'm sure when President Obama first ran for Senate or was put on the foreign relations committeed he was asked for his birth certificate.

Sooooo....Basically, you got nuthin'

PaulS

09-15-2016, 10:38 AM

nearly every post in this thread :rtfm:

it's amusing...keep going...you're on record pace

Actually your snarkiness is amusing. I'll get back to you when I need some customer service:laugha:

PaulS

09-15-2016, 10:38 AM

Sooooo....Basically, you got nuthin'

noooooo, basically you can't read.

scottw

09-15-2016, 10:50 AM

Actually your snarkiness is amusing. I'll get back to you when I need some customer service:laugha:

glad you approve and find amusement....you know that I love you :love:

PaulS

09-15-2016, 10:57 AM

glad you approve and find amusement....you know that I love you :love:

Thank you and I love you too:love:

The Dad Fisherman

09-15-2016, 11:08 AM

noooooo, basically you can't read.

Well, which is it? Can I not read or do I have bad reading comprehension?

Aren't they 2 different things?

Jim in CT

09-15-2016, 11:13 AM

In my view it is totally different. You can think you can get elected w/o appealling to a certain group of people. Doesn't make you a racist to not appeal to them.

Had the Republican's gotten some immigration reform done, they prob. would be polling better and prob. in the lead now.

There is a world of difference between...

(1) the GOP thinking they can win without the black vote, and
(2) the GOP introducing voting laws that are specifically designed to suppress the black vote.

#1 is not racist. You specifically accused the GOP, of #2. Trying to deny US citizens their constitutional rights based on skin color, could not be more racist.

"Had the Republican's gotten some immigration reform done, they prob. would be polling better and prob. in the lead now"

Not sure who you mean by "Republicans". Nationwide, the GOP currently controls both houses of Congress, and a huge majority of governorships and state legislatures.

If you are talking about just this one presidential election, if you think the GOP is way behind, then you haven't looked at polling that reflects Hilary's "pneumonia", or her deplorables comment. The most recent polling has Trump surging. CNN, which has all but endorsed Hilary in this election for God's sake, has him ahead in Ohio and Florida.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/15/trump-surges-in-battleground-national-polls.html

Perhaps when your first instinct is to lie every single time you hit a bump in the road, and to describe almost 25% of the country you wish to lead as deplorable (half of Trump's supporters), that has ramifications.

Trying to follow your logic on this thread, is like following my dog's foot prints in new-fallen snow, and trying to find the logic in the path he followed. A real head-scratcher in either case.

For God's sakes, why did my side nominate this jerk? If we nominated anyone else, she would have written her concession speech by now. She couldn't beat Nixon right now.