RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


BamaD -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/1/2016 11:04:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

That's some strained logic you used to make voting limits racist there, Whore Mods.

In the first place, the law written to keep blacks from voting was written in 1902.

The Virginia Constitution was rewritten 1971 to give the Governor expensive rights, including...presumably...the right to allow blacks to vote. Unless you can come up with some law that SPECIFICALLY says blacks...even without ID...cannot vote? I didn't think so...

This case that you're referring to was trying to restore voting rights to CONVICTS. It wasn't about disenfranchising blacks or poor people or anyone else...it was about restoring voting rights to CONVICTS. Yes, the Republicans disagreed with it. As do I. You want child molesters, rapists, etc having the same rights as you? I don't.

Whore Mods ?

Thus the governor has the power to restore voting rights to all EX-cons who have served their time and are off probation. The 'racist' repubs sued and the 'racist' court agreed...only one at a time. [sic]
Sorry about calling you Whore Mods.

Being an EX-convict does not change the crime that sent you to prison and removed your rights in the first place. Do we need to go into figures for how many of those EX-convicts will have that EX erased from their description sooner rather than later?

Now then...since it was a change to allow ex-CONVICTS to vote and all of those ex-CONVICTS are of different colors, including white...how exactly are the Republicans and the courts being 'racist'?


The crime is irrelevant except that they are all felonies, the level that negates voting rights. Once they paid their debt with probation, what's the big deal ? They never have the EX removed from the life history. If this were guns rights, far more on the right would be all for it.

The racism was implicit in the creation of this limitation in law, and remains today with 200,000 plus in Va. with 120,000 blacks being denied voting rights for any felony charge. 1 in 4 otherwise eligible black voters in Va.

What a crock of unbelievably TWISTED bullshit overreach on your part.

Racism implicit 114 years ago in a ruling in which the ones involved STATED that they intended to eliminate blacks as a voting faction?
Yes, there was.

Claiming that one ruling equals the other ruling because black EX-CONVICTS are denied the right to vote? So are all the OTHER ed-CONVICTS, no matter their color.
They're not being denied because they're black...because, as you noted, they only make up 25% of the black population in VA (by the way, your figures are wrong. If there are indeed 120,000 black ex-convicts and that equals 25%...1 in 4...of the black population, then there are close to 480,00 blacks in VA., not 200,000). But because they're ex-CONVICTS.
.

Man I need to try your drugs.

Approx. 200,000 EX-felons total could have their voting rights restored.

out of which approx. 120,000 are black which is 1 in 4 eligible black voters meaning.....

out of a total 480,000 eligible black voters in Va. not the entire black population of Va..

Forget the fucking numbers. That the white govt. knew exactly what they were doing when they passed the 1902 law even to the point of brazenly saying so, we both agree was patently racist.

Now fast forward to a post 1971 govt. being empowered to grant clemency to ALL EX-felons who have paid their debt to society, I say that clearly the white racists repubs knowing full well that 120,000 black EX-felons could and are very likely to vote democratic in a virtual block, get a clearly racist court not to rule that it.'s constitutional as [it] reads but must be done on a case by case basis in what's clearly a politically wretched attempt to minimize the number of potential dem (read) black voters.

It's rather obvious to me and many other observers and not overreach at all. This shit is going on now all over the country in various forms and has been the white repub political tactic since Nixon's great ' southern strategy' highlighted by his demonizing the black welfare recipients and black welfare 'queens' (mothers) in particular.

Forget everything except what you want to happen and what you want to be the reason behind it. You have still not explained why it is racist when white felons face the same penalties as black felons.




thishereboi -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/2/2016 3:23:13 AM)

Now you are just being silly, it was an republican idea so of course it's racist. After all, that's the platform hill seems to be running on lately and her worshipers are sucking it down like, well koolaid.




CreativeDominant -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/2/2016 6:27:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

That's some strained logic you used to make voting limits racist there, Whore Mods.

In the first place, the law written to keep blacks from voting was written in 1902.

The Virginia Constitution was rewritten 1971 to give the Governor expensive rights, including...presumably...the right to allow blacks to vote. Unless you can come up with some law that SPECIFICALLY says blacks...even without ID...cannot vote? I didn't think so...

This case that you're referring to was trying to restore voting rights to CONVICTS. It wasn't about disenfranchising blacks or poor people or anyone else...it was about restoring voting rights to CONVICTS. Yes, the Republicans disagreed with it. As do I. You want child molesters, rapists, etc having the same rights as you? I don't.

Whore Mods ?

Thus the governor has the power to restore voting rights to all EX-cons who have served their time and are off probation. The 'racist' repubs sued and the 'racist' court agreed...only one at a time. [sic]
Sorry about calling you Whore Mods.

Being an EX-convict does not change the crime that sent you to prison and removed your rights in the first place. Do we need to go into figures for how many of those EX-convicts will have that EX erased from their description sooner rather than later?

Now then...since it was a change to allow ex-CONVICTS to vote and all of those ex-CONVICTS are of different colors, including white...how exactly are the Republicans and the courts being 'racist'?


The crime is irrelevant except that they are all felonies, the level that negates voting rights. Once they paid their debt with probation, what's the big deal ? They never have the EX removed from the life history. If this were guns rights, far more on the right would be all for it.

The racism was implicit in the creation of this limitation in law, and remains today with 200,000 plus in Va. with 120,000 blacks being denied voting rights for any felony charge. 1 in 4 otherwise eligible black voters in Va.

What a crock of unbelievably TWISTED bullshit overreach on your part.

Racism implicit 114 years ago in a ruling in which the ones involved STATED that they intended to eliminate blacks as a voting faction?
Yes, there was.

Claiming that one ruling equals the other ruling because black EX-CONVICTS are denied the right to vote? So are all the OTHER ed-CONVICTS, no matter their color.
They're not being denied because they're black...because, as you noted, they only make up 25% of the black population in VA (by the way, your figures are wrong. If there are indeed 120,000 black ex-convicts and that equals 25%...1 in 4...of the black population, then there are close to 480,00 blacks in VA., not 200,000). But because they're ex-CONVICTS.
.

Man I need to try your drugs.

Approx. 200,000 EX-felons total could have their voting rights restored.

out of which approx. 120,000 are black which is 1 in 4 eligible black voters meaning.....

out of a total 480,000 eligible black voters in Va. not the entire black population of Va..

Forget the fucking numbers. That the white govt. knew exactly what they were doing when they passed the 1902 law even to the point of brazenly saying so, we both agree was patently racist.

Now fast forward to a post 1971 govt. being empowered to grant clemency to ALL EX-felons who have paid their debt to society, I say that clearly the white racists repubs knowing full well that 120,000 black EX-felons could and are very likely to vote democratic in a virtual block, get a clearly racist court not to rule that it.'s constitutional as [it] reads but must be done on a case by case basis in what's clearly a politically wretched attempt to minimize the number of potential dem (read) black voters.

It's rather obvious to me and many other observers and not overreach at all. This shit is going on now all over the country in various forms and has been the white repub political tactic since Nixon's great ' southern strategy' highlighted by his demonizing the black welfare recipients and black welfare 'queens' (mothers) in particular.
Obvious to you and...who? While I've seen a couple of others...PFH, WhoreMods and The Dizzy one...support restoration of voting rights, I've yet to see ONE buy into your twisted theory that the reason the Repubs are doing the blocking is because they are racist.

I suspect you'd like to blame your disagreement with me on my being racist. But that's not it. I don't want ex-convicts voting. Not black...or white...or brown...or purple. Hence, my reason for the posting of 10 reasons why they shouldn't.




Greta75 -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/2/2016 6:36:11 AM)

I'm on the fence about the ex-convicts bit! Again, I feel like, it depends on their crime. I saw Jeff Ross went to roast some inmates in prison. And like..., I don't know if she was joking or not, she claim that she got thrown in jail for stealing baby food for her baby. WTF! She should be able to vote! No mom should be jailed for failing to afford food for her baby. Instead, it should be community service and help needs to be given.




Lucylastic -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/2/2016 6:41:29 AM)

But the three judges in Noth Carolina did find it racist for NC
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/

DURHAM, N.C.—The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down key portions of North Carolina’s strict 2013 voting law on Friday, delivering a stern rebuke to the state’s Republican General Assembly and Governor Pat McCrory. The three-judge panel in Richmond, Virginia, unanimously concluded that the law was racially discriminatory, and it blocked a requirement that voters show photo identification to vote and restored same-day voter registration, a week of early voting, pre-registration for teenagers, and out-of-precinct voting.


I have no problem with voting ID< Ive always had to have it, Its a natural state of being. But making it harder to vote, not easier, IS the problem.
My provincial ID was free. Im an immigrant. I dont have a driving license as I dont and never have driven. I have a passport, I have citizenship papers, and my health card is pic ID, My permanent resident card had a photo on it.






CreativeDominant -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/2/2016 8:07:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

But the three judges in Noth Carolina did find it racist for NC
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/07/north-carolina-voting-rights-law/493649/

DURHAM, N.C.—The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down key portions of North Carolina’s strict 2013 voting law on Friday, delivering a stern rebuke to the state’s Republican General Assembly and Governor Pat McCrory. The three-judge panel in Richmond, Virginia, unanimously concluded that the law was racially discriminatory, and it blocked a requirement that voters show photo identification to vote and restored same-day voter registration, a week of early voting, pre-registration for teenagers, and out-of-precinct voting.


I have no problem with voting ID< Ive always had to have it, Its a natural state of being. But making it harder to vote, not easier, IS the problem.
My provincial ID was free. Im an immigrant. I dont have a driving license as I dont and never have driven. I have a passport, I have citizenship papers, and my health card is pic ID, My permanent resident card had a photo on it.

Oddly enough, I find myself somewhat in agreement with you on this.

Use of the law to discriminate based on color is bad law. If they want voter ID WITH a photo, then they need to make it easily available. If that means free, then it needs to be free. I have no problem with paying for that.

But...just as in Canada...if you want to vote, then you have to present ID.




Lucylastic -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/2/2016 8:15:26 AM)

Im not arguing that point.




Lucylastic -> RE: Voter restrictions are not racist...right ? (8/2/2016 8:43:46 AM)

North Dakota becomes latest state to have voter ID 'burden' blocked
North Dakota on Monday became the latest state to have its voter identification law blocked by a federal court, adding to a string of recent rulings across the US on the grounds that such measures disenfranchise poor and minority voters.

North Dakota joined North Carolina and Wisconsin, where voter-ID restrictions were struck down by federal courts on Friday, victories for advocates who claim the measures are an attempt to suppress voters who tend to cast ballots for Democrats.

Seven Native American voters filed a federal law suit against North Dakota claiming measures passed by the Republican-led legislature in 2013 and 2015 are unconstitutional and violate the US Voting Rights Act.

The laws added restrictions to the types of identification voters can use at polling places and banned “fail-safe” provisions allowing them to vote without the required identification in certain circumstances.

US district judge Daniel Hovland issued a preliminary injunction on Monday against North Dakota’s law, writing in his ruling that the law adds “substantial and disproportionate burdens” for Native American voters compared to other voters in the state.

“No eligible voter, regardless of their station in life, should be denied the opportunity to vote,” he wrote.


Hovland pointed to several statistics in his ruling that showed Native Americans, especially those who live without a car or far from a driver’s license site, would be more affected by the laws than non-Native Americans.

North Dakota’s secretary of state, Alvin Jaeger, told the New York Times that he would not appeal the decision and that November’s election “would revert to using less restrictive identification rules”.

Critics argue that such provisions are designed to drive down turnout by minorities and poor people who rely more on flexible voting methods and are less likely to possess state-issued photo IDs. Proponents of such laws say they aim to eliminate voter fraud.

“We want everyone to vote,” the plaintiffs’ lawyer, Thomas A Dickson, told the New York Times, “and whoever has the most votes, they win. That’s the American way. Somehow, we’ve gotten away from that.”

North Dakota has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1968 and is not considered a big prize with only three electoral college votes to the winner in the upcoming election on 8 November, when US voters go to the polls to choose the nation’s next president.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/02/north-dakota-voter-id-law-blocked




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875