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

[90DayFinancier 910]

10 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

   Weren't you told not to do stuff like this before your previous account got closed?

The usual modus operandi is to derail the topic and then post a  meme because the topic challenges worldviews. In this case the meme is violent and nasty. Even "shrew like".

Edited December 7, 2019 by 90DayFinancier

[Steeleballz 7,550]

37 minutes ago, cyclone27 said:

^sorry it doesn’t term limits are for President not Vice President 

 

  The 12th amendment states that any one elected as vice president must also be constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president. That would preclude someone who has already held the office of president for 2 terms from becoming vice president. Bill's was correct, 9+ years (but less than 10) is the maximum anyone could hold the office of president.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

9 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 

   Weren't you told not to do stuff like this before your previous account got closed?

 

 

I don't know what you're talking about, but I'd advise if you have a problem to talk to people who deal with that issue you describe. 

Edited December 7, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, Burnt Reynolds said:

 

 

I don't know what you're talking about, but I'd advise if you have a problem to talk to people who deal with that issue you describe. 

 

   Let me remind you then. Don't accuse other people of trolling just because you are having a difficult time with a legitimate debate.

[Dashinka 24,492]

7 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Instead of taking that approach , why don't you respond to the examples of voter rights suppression that you asked for.

Those are just opinion as well.  I’ve had the discussion before, just as no one can find widespread alien votes, there is no evidence of widespread voter suppression.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Let me remind you then. Don't accuse other people of trolling just because you are having a difficult time with a legitimate debate.

Accusing me of seriously vying for the President to run for a third term/suspend the constitution is trolling. Repeatedly spamming this in every response to me, even when repeatedly denied and asked to produce evidence of the described accusation and refusing to do so, but continue to spit the accusation, is also trolling. Not "legitimate debate". Good try though. Like I said, if you have a problem, talk to those who deal with this sort of thing. Last response to you.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Those are just opinion as well.  I’ve had the discussion before, just as no one can find widespread alien votes, there is no evidence of widespread voter suppression.

Their cut and paste is basically certain people who didn't want to fulfill the criteria that applied indiscriminately to everyone.

 

Of course, it can't be construed as an actual argument, they didn't make one. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

Accusing me of seriously vying for the President to run for a third term/suspend the constitution is trolling. Repeatedly spamming this in every response to me, even when repeatedly denied and asked to produce evidence of the described accusation and refusing to do so, but continue to spit the accusation, is also trolling. Not "legitimate debate". Good try though. Like I said, if you have a problem, talk to those who deal with this sort of thing. Last response to you.

 

  It wasn't trolling, but even if it was, your legitimate option is to report it. Calling out other people as trolls and the back and the back and forth bickering that always results just get's the thread closed. 

[90DayFinancier 910]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

Those are just opinion as well.  I’ve had the discussion before, just as no one can find widespread alien votes, there is no evidence of widespread voter suppression.

Some of my posted opinions are court opinions.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

3 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

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

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.

Just a FYI for you but NC actually voted on a Voter ID Amendment last year. Even though it was heavily heavily pushed against by the Democrats it was pushed into law by 55% of the state. The General assembly then codified that and it was voted on and made into law despite the Governor's veto. 

 

It has provisions in there for elderly, low income, and actual mobile is centers. This was out into the bill to fight the so called voter suppression antics that the Left loves to throw out there.

 

After passage it was immediately sued in court by different  groups. It is now in the courts but the voter id law is still allowed to be implemented for 2020.

Edited December 7, 2019 by Cyberfx1024

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

5 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

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]

imagine making a person show an ID to vote. The outrage. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

imagine making a person show an ID to vote. The outrage. 

I got a lotto ticket today and they wanted my ID for it. So I had to go back out to my car in order to get it

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

7 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

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]

Lol ... using Wikipedia is the educated equivalent Of reading and quoting toilet paper as valid reference source

[90DayFinancier 910]

15 minutes ago, Randyandyuni said:

Lol ... using Wikipedia is the educated equivalent Of reading and quoting toilet paper as valid reference source

Far better than the propaganda from zerohedge, infowars, Breitbart and the other far right mouthpieces.

 

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

So to be clear (sorry, was busy yesterday), no voter suppression at all.  Just a requirement to show an ID to vote, like there should be.  Got it.