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

Contrary to your insinuation, gerrymandering in Maryland is not based on race.

Gerrymandering in states like North and South Carolina and Virginia was so blatantly race based that the judges who threw the maps out commented in it (particularly in North Carolina). BTW, the Maryland case is pending.

The federal ID law you reference is a clever bit of parsing. It only requires ID's from people who registered by mail or online. And it specifics a number of allowable forms of identification that are NOT allowed in many state voter ID laws. Since their objective was not to make it harder to vote, which has been at the core of GOP efforts ever since they got caught running that giant voter caging operation in Florida in 2000.

Rand Paul said unequivocably that Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was wrong. That's the part the bans discrimination in public accommodation, the part that ended segregation.

Maddow asked him the question again, just to make sure he had ample opportunity to correct the record.

He repeated himself.

I remember the moment very clearly, because it was the first time a GOP southern politician ever said he wasn't opposed to bringing back segretation out loud. No one had to interpret his remarks for him. And he was given ample space to clarify himself.

I actually don't think Paul is racist, either. But he knows how to market to them. And he knew that racial resentment was the unifying and underlying subtext to the tea party movement.

I don't know where you get this "well before Trump was around".

Trump has been around since the early 1980's. as a celebrity and a wannabe candidate.

Paul took office less than a year before the clown prince embraced (and hijacked) the birther movement, which WAS around when Paul made those remarks.

 

1) NC's case is pending, and is a partisan gerrymandering case. https://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2019/04/nc-gerrymandering-scotus-hearing-0409
Not sure South Carolina has a case....wasn't aware of any.
the VA case is likely moot, since the SCOTUS has allowed VA to redraw their map
2) Yes...like I said there is a Federal Voter ID law.
3) Yes, Paul had issue with one part, but it wasn't about racist motive.
4) Because Trump wasn't part of the poltiical process...you seemed to think Paul's thoughts had something to do with the current President. IPaul wasn't marketing to racist either...he firmly believes what he believes because of his economic and libertarian views.

 

The Right was correct that the Mueller investigation would turn up zip. The Right was correct that Trump would ramp up the national economy. The Right was correct that Trump would destroy Obama's ISIS. So forth and so on. The Left has been correct about . . . well . . . nothing much at all. So just when is the Left going to at least start being correct about something? The change would do it good.

 

No. I'm calling your bluff for making a truly asinine statement. But thanks for admitting that you simply made up your original statement in an attempt to troll info you dont like.

 

Was that the same source who told that Hillary will win the elections ... which says now this?

 

What you are really saying here are that Democratic voters are so pathetic that providing an ID is simply a bridge too far for them. These poor people are also barred from alcohol because an ID is required to buy it. Do you honestly think this argument is compelling? Why don't you use the real argument? It is real damn hard to do voter fraud when an ID is required.

 

No. What I'm saying is the very same thing that most federal courts have said: You can't fabricate reasons to constrain someone's fundamental constitutional right to vote.

You hate rights? You don't think that the Constitution is worth defending?