The First Black President: Twice as Many Voters Say TRUMP Better for Blacks Than Barack Obama

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Gatewood, Jun 17, 2019.

  1. JessCurious

    JessCurious Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Messages:
    453
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Trump has been good for the economy, at least so far, and that benefits everyone. Black as well as White. Black unemployment is down, wages are up. With the trade wars, however, things may
    get worse. Unemployment is lower than Obama said it would ever be again.
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  2. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How many states? Which states?
     
  3. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    41,834
    Likes Received:
    32,498
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You typically only consider life satisfaction from the source, not from individuals looking in.

    Would you agree with a poll that stated all republicans are self identified communists if the majority of the respondents were democrats?
     
  4. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Trump has very little to do with the economy.
     
  5. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Same as always.

    D6vkd1DXsAIzaoV.jpg
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  6. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What was False?

    Gerrymandering is something different...and I agree Courts have pointed it out....look at MD for example and what the Dems did there.
    https://www.baltimoresun.com/politics/91818404-132.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ggressive-gerrymander/?utm_term=.7ae607fd16cb

    Actually it's not the core, it's part VII...so now you are suggesting Paul is racist? Ok....well whatever...he's one person...I don't believe he is, and I heard his comment, it's the same sort of logic any other libertarian has made in regards to that particualr section

    It's widespread but you sited one republican's comments from well before Trump was around.

    There certainly is a federal voter ID law and has been in place since 2002 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help_America_Vote_Act#Voter_identification

    Rand Paul's comments that you all call racist:
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  7. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The only part of the Voter Rights Act ever challenged was the part that was unconstitutional.

    Yes the GOP opposes unConstitutional Dem legislation and always will.
     
  8. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What legitimate state interest is being advanced with voter ID laws?
     
  9. XploreR

    XploreR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2014
    Messages:
    7,785
    Likes Received:
    2,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The First Black President: Twice as Many Voters Say TRUMP Better for Blacks Than Barack Obama
    Just more fake propaganda from the Trump supporters. Yuk. :( Tiring.
     
  10. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All but California, Ill, Maine, MD, Mass, Minn, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, NY, Oregon, PEnn, Vermont, Wyoming and the District of Columbia require some sort of ID to vote....the Federal Govt requires it too in Federal elections.

    So the vast majority of the States
     
  11. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The interest that elections are done by people that can legally vote
     
    HockeyDad likes this.
  12. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's a nonsensical and circular argument.

    Voting is a fundamental right. Because it's a fundamental right, the state must have a compelling state interest in any restrictions or infringements upon that right.

    Requiring an ID to remedy a virtually non-existent "problem" is not a compelling state interest. Moreover, many courts have concluded that the laws were passed with a discriminatory intent.

    So, no, targeting people who are less likely to have a state-issued ID and pretending that the laws are meant to remedy a non-existent "voter fraud" problem is constitutionally impermissible.
     
  13. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, not "just about every state", as you earlier claimed.
     
  14. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What nonsensical about making sure elections are done properly? I think making sure our democratic process is done correctly is quite complying. The SCOTUS already ruled that requiring a Voter ID did not violate anyone's righ, in a 6-3 opinion:: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

    "The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483.[10] Because Indiana's cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters' right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting. The severity of the somewhat heavier burden that may be placed on a limited number of persons—e.g., elderly persons born out-of-state, who may have difficulty obtaining a birth certificate—is mitigated by the fact that eligible voters without photo identification may cast provisional ballots that will be counted if they execute the required affidavit at the circuit court clerk’s office. Even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient to establish petitioners’ right to the relief they seek."
     
  15. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You make sure that they're "done properly" by denying people a fundamental right based upon a fabricated reason?

    You sure love the Constitution, buddy.

    BTW, your reasoning wouldn't come close to passing constitutional muster.
     
  16. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually yeah...just about every state.....only 14 don't....36 do, as well as the Federal Govt.
     
  17. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nobody is denying the right to vote...read the Court's opinion....

    It apparently has in the Court case I sited you.
     
  18. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
  19. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    to make sure non-citizens do not influence our elections
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2019
  20. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I just highlighted that the SCOTUS said the States do have a compelling interest...I highlighted the 6-3 case for you. It is possible however that some laws can go to far, and be struck down.
     
  21. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is there evidence that this has happened?
     
  22. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's only one among many, and that law actually allowed a provisional vote.
     
  23. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you do now content to understand that the Court has made it clear the state does have a compeling interest. The States who's law has gone to far, have revised their laws.

    But I am glad you finally came around to understanding the Constitution does allow for the state's to create ID laws to protect it's interest in protecting the democratic process.
     
  24. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,129
    Likes Received:
    8,849
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There has to be a record established for there to be a compelling interest. Many of the states can't and don't develop the record necessary to establish one, so it's not like the general concept can provide a compelling state interest to every state.

    Check the NC law, for example.
     
  25. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    NC has a voter ID law on the books. I judge merely struck down two amendments.
     

Share This Page