Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So every president since GW has used Executive Orders, Obama had the fewest of them in more than a century of presidents, but Obama is still somehow the master of government overreach?
And you didn't provide examples of the other platitudes you expressed.
You didn't read the link, so... yeah.
If you won't even read one link, you're definitely not going to read multiple. I'm here to debate politics with people who are actively engaged in the discussion, not babysit.
Show me where anything in those proposals that aren't even laws today targeted ANYONE based on skin color.
Copy and paste the exact line where skin color is mentioned in ANYTHING proposed by any republicans.
I'll bet you can't.
It's literally in the 2nd paragraph of the link you didn't read.
The opinion of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals was a victory for civil rights groups who argued that the voter ID law ushered in from Republican lawmakers sought to suppress state’s black and Latino vote. North Carolina’s law had required voters to show identification at the polls, a measure that was “passed with racially discriminatory intent,” the panel’s opinion read.
It goes on to quote the decision: “We recognize that elections have consequences, but winning an election does not empower anyone in any party to engage in purposeful racial discrimination. When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African-American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, ‘politics as usual’ does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers.”
It wasn't about the IDs, it was about how Republicans targeted the ways that black people vote and then crafted a law that targeted those methods.
You would've known that had you read the link.
A decent person would've just said the NC law was wrong for what it tried to do, and take the loss.
It's literally in the 2nd paragraph of the link you didn't read.
The opinion of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals was a victory for civil rights groups who argued that the voter ID law ushered in from Republican lawmakers sought to suppress state’s black and Latino vote. North Carolina’s law had required voters to show identification at the polls, a measure that was “passed with racially discriminatory intent,” the panel’s opinion read.
It goes on to quote the decision: “We recognize that elections have consequences, but winning an election does not empower anyone in any party to engage in purposeful racial discrimination. When a legislature dominated by one party has dismantled barriers to African-American access to the franchise, even if done to gain votes, ‘politics as usual’ does not allow a legislature dominated by the other party to re-erect those barriers.”
It wasn't about the IDs, it was about how Republicans targeted the ways that black people vote and then crafted a law that targeted those methods.
You would've known that had you read the link.
A decent person would've just said the NC law was wrong for what it tried to do, and take the loss.
once again, you are presenting an OPINION. I clearly asked you to provide me where, in ANY text, of ANY law proposed by ANY republican, SKIN color being mentioned as a condition of execution of that law.
I'm still waiting.
Also, I'm waiting for the examples of your other platitudes. I don't believe you have any.
once again, you are presenting an OPINION. I clearly asked you to provide me where, in ANY text, of ANY law proposed by ANY republican, SKIN color being mentioned as a condition of execution of that law.
I'm still waiting.
Also, I'm waiting for the examples of your other platitudes. I don't believe you have any.
Keep moving those goalposts. I imagine you have to do the same thing every time you excuse something morally or legally reprehensible with Trump.
You have no interest in a real discussion here. That's kind of sad.
Keep moving those goalposts. I imagine you have to do the same thing every time you excuse something morally or legally reprehensible with Trump.
You have no interest in a real discussion here. That's kind of sad.
All that i've asked for many, many posts is for you to simply paste the text of the law that mentions SKIN COLOR.
That's all i ask. Is this unreasonable?
You've now devolved into Mean Girls attacks on Trump again. Can you just stay focused and paste the text of the law where skin color is mentioned?
Surely you can do this if you say it's a racial discrimination law?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
