C:...Make America Great Again

[wdmso]

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

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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]

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....

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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]

Originally Posted by buckman

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]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

How?

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

but it seems they saw How..

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

Originally Posted by wdmso

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]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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/ar...-black-voters/ same phrase Discrimination with “almost surgical precision”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/op...ng-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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

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

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.