9
   

Lowdown Republican Conservative Pieces of Crap

 
 
snood
 
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2015 03:40 pm
I had to read through this story twice. Then I let 24 hours pass - just so I could muster a rational response to it. I mean.....****.

Alabama was where the impetus for the 2013 challenge to the voting rights act came from, that made it unnecessary for the states with the worst records of discriminatory practices - like Alabama - to get federal approval for changes in their voting practices.

Hell, it was brutality against people working to gain voting rights in places like Selma Alabama that was the catalyst for the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the first place.

Well, Alabama is at it again. The state of Alabama has just decided to stop issuing driver's licence's in all the counties that have 75% or more black population. this putrid act comes one year after the state enacted their strictest ever voter ID laws. So, now they have mandated that you need a driver's license to vote while at the same time making blacks have to travel outside their home counties to even apply for a driver's license. clever, huh?

******* conservative republican dirty pieces of ****. But I'm sure they'll swear it's 1) NOT racial - oh, heaven's no. 2) only done to ensure voting integrity and avoid fraud.

Alabama, Birthplace of the Voting Rights Act, Is Once Again Gutting Voting Rights
http://www.thenation.com/article/alabama-birthplace-of-voting-rights-act-once-again-gutting-voting-rights/

Alabama to stop issuing driver’s licenses in counties with 75% black registered voters
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/alabama-to-stop-issuing-drivers-licenses-in-counties-with-75-black-registered-voters/
 
FBM
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2015 03:45 pm
@snood,
I read about this yesterday. I'm thinking this is probably going to blow up, rather than over. I don't think the ACLU is going to let this slide by.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2015 03:53 pm
@FBM,
FBM wrote:

I read about this yesterday. I'm thinking this is probably going to blow up, rather than over. I don't think the ACLU is going to let this slide by.


From everything that's been allowed to happen to voting rights in the last 3 years, I'm not sure they can stop it. Not with this SC and this Congress.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2015 08:01 pm
I think it's very interesting and probably telling that no Righties have showed up to defend the vile acts of their compatriots in Alabama. I would've bet that at least one or two of them would try - they seem to defend the right no matter how inhumane or immoral.
FBM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2015 08:12 pm
@snood,
That's gotta violate the Constitution somehow. I mean, damn.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  0  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2015 08:13 pm
If it's true then it's wrong. If a state is going to create rules for voting, like requiring a drivers license, then the state needs to make applying for, passing, and receiving in a timely manner those same licenses.

Sorry it took so long Snood. Friday night football and my son is in marching band.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 06:43 am
@McGentrix,
Quote:
If it's true then it's wrong. If a state is going to create rules for voting, like requiring a drivers license, then the state needs to make applying for, passing, and receiving in a timely manner those same licenses
.

Your posts is encouraging for thinking this might not stand. I mean the action is indefensible because it is illogical. There is no logical way to defend it in court. I wonder what rationale they gave for doing it in the first place?
snood
 
  4  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 07:09 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

Quote:
If it's true then it's wrong. If a state is going to create rules for voting, like requiring a drivers license, then the state needs to make applying for, passing, and receiving in a timely manner those same licenses
.

Your posts is encouraging for thinking this might not stand. I mean the action is indefensible because it is illogical. There is no logical way to defend it in court. I wonder what rationale they gave for doing it in the first place?

I would agree with you that this is indefensible and scurrilous activity that has no chance of standing. I would, if there hadn't already been systematic undoing of voting rights that has passed all the way through the Supreme Court.
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 08:52 am
@snood,
I understand, but I don't see what reason they could they could put for judging against whoever would bring it to court. I mean it is illogical to say you have to have a driver license and then make it harder to get the driver license. I forget the reasoning they used against the voting rights act but I don't see what reasoning they could think up to justify letting it stand.

I looked it up and it don't really make sense to me. Maybe someone could explain it. One thing did make sense and in which makes me mad is the part where they changed states do not have to get federal approval first. But their reasoning makes no sense to me. I mean what has changed? So you may be right, they may make another unreasonable decision. Never more important to make sure we have a democrat for President!

Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

I wish people would get motivated and pay attention to what is important rather than all these side issues.

0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 09:09 am
I read that their retionale was stat budget deficits,which SCOTUS in the past seems to accept uncritically. And the court with Justice now blind will probably accept again. Fuckers.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
snood
 
  4  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 04:52 pm
Isn't there any conservative and/or republican (besides the obviously challenged coldjoint) who can offer something by way of defense of, or reasonable explanation for, the atrocity that Alabama is committing against the sacrosanct right to vote? Full disclosure: I don't think there IS any cogent defense of this perniciousness. But it seems out of character that some of the apologist stalwarts aren't trying.
hawkeye10
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 05:20 pm
This state has massive budget problems and is poorly run, there are good reason for closing stuff, a lot is being closed, and if you want me to believe that closing these part time satellite DMV's is racially motivated you need some evidence.
For instance are satellite DMV's in majority white counties not being closed? Do the closing of these particular outlets leave the state with DMV density that is vastly at odds with population density?

Liberals are always whining about alleged racism so that is to be expected. If I am to take it seriously I need evidence.
coldjoint
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 05:26 pm
@snood,
Quote:
I don't think there IS any cogent defense of this perniciousness. But it seems out of character that some of the apologist stalwarts aren't trying.


Well, we could just take the progressive stance, and say it is legal so shove it up your ass. And people can take many forms of transportation to get where they need to go. But we know people are lazy and many prefer, because of Democrats, for it to be handed to them.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 06:24 pm
@hawkeye10,
Didn't you read the information in the original post?
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 06:37 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

Didn't you read the information in the original post?

that does not prove anything because in spite of those facts the closing could have been justified on grounds of number of people served. Also, this state does renewals by mail and online so for at practical purposes we are talking about a very rare occurrence where people need to go to a office . And we know that these offices that are being closed were lightly used. Given the depths of this states financial problems I cant say that providing a lot of convenience for the few times during a lifetime when citizens need to visit a drivers license office is a good use of public money. Also, I very much doubt that poor blacks have very much trouble getting a ride over to the next county. In fact I bet most poor black do just this many times a year. They can work in a stop to get an ID on one of those trips. Just as poor whites will.

I rate this much ado about not much.
snood
 
  3  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 07:03 pm
@hawkeye10,
Wait, let me make sure I understand you... Are you saying that the republican party is NOT intentionally suppressing the votes of blacks, or that they haven't been doing so at least since the last two presidential elections? By "much ado about not much", are you saying this isn't a blatant attempt in Alabama to suppress the votes of the black areas they targeted? I mean, I think that's what you're saying - that it just is not what it very plainly is, but... I don't know, I guess it's hard for me to believe that the defense of this would be "Hey, nothing to see here."

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/17/2313571/top-pennsylvania-republican-admits-voter-id-helped-suppress-obama-voters/

http://billmoyers.com/2014/10/24/voter-discrimination/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/10/al_jazeera_america_s_reveals_massive_gop_voter_suppression_effort_millions.html

http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/10/2014-midterm-electionsgopvotersuppressiondemocrats.html
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2015 10:26 pm
@snood,
There is a rich history of politicians attempting to determine results by manipulating voter turnout. Mayor Daley was an expert at this, is was one of the main components of the Daley Machine. This however does not mean that everything done is to manipulate voter turnout. When I look at what Alabama did a first glance if any manipulation is being done it looks to be urban over rural. They are going down to having offices only in the biggest 4 cities of the state, most everyone is now going to have to drive further to get their first DL. Is this going to disadvantage blacks more that whites? IDK. Was this done to disadvantage blacks more than whites? Again I dont know. But when I look at a state closing 89% of their drivers license offices I am thinking that the main thing going on is that they either dont care about providing services to the citizens, or they dont think that they can afford to do so. If you want to make this about race I need a better argument than what has been provided.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 12:03 am
You will notice the original post says the plan closes offices in ALL the counties that have 75% or more black population. Given Alabama's history for the last century and a half, it's pretty hard to argue that is not discrimination against black voting.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2015 12:34 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

You will notice the original post says the plan closes offices in ALL the counties that have 75% or more black population. Given Alabama's history for the last century and a half, it's pretty hard to argue that is not discrimination against black voting.


does not say that 31 of the 35 offices are closing. That is a whole nother kettle of fish than what the D's are advertising.

There is no cure for stupid.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Lowdown Republican Conservative Pieces of Crap
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.11 seconds on 10/23/2021 at 05:05:03