House Passes 'Historic' Bill to Restore and Expand Voting Rights "Brings us one step closer to restoring the Voting Rights Act."

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

8 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

You oppose the restoration of voting rights. On top of advocating the overthrow of the us constitution to keep your candidate in office. Good to know.

Trump 2020/2024/2028/2032/2036/2040/2044/2048/2052/2056/2060 and beyond.

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

You oppose the restoration of voting rights. On top of advocating the overthrow of the us constitution to keep your candidate in office. Good to know.

Who had their voting rights revoked?

[Dashinka 24,504]

3 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Who had their voting rights revoked?

I agree, who was suppressed?

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

7 hours ago, laylalex said:

Wow, that's kind of a personal attack. I don't report people but you should know that personal attacks are against the TOS. I wasn't mean to you, I asked a question. I can ask and respond to questions nicely. 

He might have said you are full of kindness. 

How do you know ####### is ngative .

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

5 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Who had their voting rights revoked?

 

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree, who was suppressed?

 

Illegals, aka the left's new favorite voting demographic.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I wasn't really expecting a response, given the MO, but it's in me to ask just the same.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I wasn't really expecting a response, given the MO, but it's in me to ask just the same.

"advocating the overthrow of the us constitution to keep your candidate in office" already gave away how serious one should take their post. 

[90DayFinancier 910]

Here are examples from Wikipedia of voter suppression efforts in the 2016 election

 

 

2016 presidential electionEdit

Further information: United States presidential election, 2016

The 2016 presidential election was the first in 50 years without all the protections of the original Voting Rights Act. Fourteen states had new voting restrictions in place, including swing states such as Virginia and Wisconsin.^{[69][70][71][72]}

KansasEdit

Learn more   This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter.

In early 2016, a state judge struck down a law requiring voters to show proof of citizenship, in cases where the voter had used a national voter registration form. In May, a federal judge ordered the state of Kansas to begin registering approximately 18,000 voters whose registrations had been delayed because they had not shown proof of citizenship. Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach ordered that the voters be registered, but not for state and local elections. In July, a county judge struck down Kobach's order. Kobach has been repeatedly sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for allegedly trying to restrict voting rights in Kansas.^[73][74]

North CarolinaEdit

In 2013, the state House passed a bill that requires voters to show a photo ID issued by North Carolina, a passport, or a military identification card to begin in 2016. Out-of-state drivers licenses were to be accepted only if the voter registered within 90 days of the election, and university photo identification was not acceptable.^[75] In July 2016, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision in a number of consolidated actions and struck down the law's photo ID requirement, finding that the new voting provisions targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision," and that the legislators had acted with clear "discriminatory intent" in enacting strict election rules, shaping the rules based on data they received about African-American registration and voting patterns.^[76][77] On May 15, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Appeals Court ruling.^[78]

North DakotaEdit

An ID law in North Dakota which would have disenfranchised large numbers of Native Americans was overturned in July 2016. The judge wrote, "The undisputed evidence before the Court reveals that voter fraud in North Dakota has been virtually non-existent."^[74]

OhioEdit

Learn more   This section contains information of unclear or questionable importance or relevance to the article's subject matter.

Since 1994, Ohio has had a policy of purging infrequent voters from the rolls. In April 2016, a lawsuit was filed, challenging this policy on the grounds that it violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)^[79] and the Help America Vote Act of 2002.^[80] In June, the federal district court ruled for the plaintiffs, and entered a preliminary injunction applicable only to the November 2016 election. The preliminary injunction was upheld in September by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Had it not been upheld, thousands of voters would have been purged from the rolls just a few weeks before the election.^[79]

WisconsinEdit

In Wisconsin, a federal judge found that the state's restrictive voter ID law led to "real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities"; and, given that there was no evidence of widespread voter impersonation in Wisconsin, found that the law was "a cure worse than the disease." In addition to imposing strict voter ID requirements, the law cut back on early voting, required people to live in a ward for at least 28 days before voting, and prohibited emailing absentee ballots to voters.^[74] A study by Priorities USA, a progressive advocacy group, estimates that strict ID laws in Wisconsin led to a significant decrease in voter turnout in 2016, with a disproportionate effect on African-American and Democratic-leaning voters.^[81][82]

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

Here's a Wikipedia cut and paste from a 5 second Google search, make sure to read it and give an informed rebuttal as if it's an actual argument, k guys?

Edited December 7, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[90DayFinancier 910]

Just now, Burnt Reynolds said:

"advocating the overthrow of the us constitution to keep your candidate in office" already gave away how serious one should take their post. 

You still haven't explained how Donald John Trump will win a third term. Queue the nonsense meme post..

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 minute ago, 90DayFinancier said:

You still haven't explained how Donald John Trump will win a third term. Queue the nonsense meme post..

I already answered you, the Constitution specifically says Trump, and only Trump, can run for a third term. Don't argue with me, argue with the Constitution.

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Here's a Wikipedia cut and paste from a 5 second Google search, make sure to read it as if it's an actual argument, k guys?

I was asked for evidence, not original research.

[90DayFinancier 910]

Just now, Burnt Reynolds said:

I already answered you, the Constitution specifically says Trump, and only Trump, can run for a third term. Don't argue with me, argue with the Constitution.

Today my argument is with you...show me.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Today my argument is with you...show me.

Show me where I (seriously) said Trump should run for a third term (prior to you first accusing me) and to suspend the constitution.

 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[90DayFinancier 910]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Show me where I (seriously) said Trump should run for a third term (prior to you first accusing me) and to suspend the constitution.

 

For Trump to be sworn in for a third term, the Constitution would need to be amended OR the existing constitution would need to be over thrown, undoubtedly with force and violence because public officials and military members took an oath to uphold the Constitution.  How will you achieve either goal?