ive wondered about it myself, oak, and the reason is because its the Clintons, now feature this... he was always close to the Clintons.... and supported Hillary when she was running to beat Obama for the nomination... besides hes always been a democrat.

there very well may be something about trump that he does not want public, maybe dealings with Russia. maybe something else.
regardless, I really don't think he wants it. and one more thing, he and bill Clinton had conversations before trump decided to run. what will be a good indicator is if hillarys
e mails become so damaging that she may lose support, then if
he doesn't think she can win, he really goes bananas.......

Here is the difference between trump and Hillary.

Trump used the laws to make money. Hillary broke laws to make money.

There is no reason for this kind of post. Consider this a warning, Oak, and anyone else who resorts to childish behavior like this. It won't be tolerated and you won't be allowed to post here if it continues.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told Donald Trump in a phone call last week that if he doesn’t turn his flailing campaign around, the national party may shift its focus from his candidacy to down-ballot races, according to two GOP officials briefed on the exchange.

The officials said Priebus described to Trump internal party polls that show his campaign headed in the wrong direction. Priebus told Trump that he would have been better off had he spent the days since the Republican convention at his Mar-a-Lago Club, officials said.

Trump denied the officials’ account of the exchange.

“Reince Priebus is a terrific guy,” Trump told TIME on Tuesday. “He never said that.” Trump also said that the Republican Party should be grateful for his recent fundraising. “Why would they state that when I am raising millions of dollars for them?” Trump asked, rhetorically.

Priebus could not be reached for comment.

I'm not sure if this is in the correct thread because the conversations in 3 threads are all along the same lines.

The Voter registration issues.
Ivy and F1 bring up a key common sense point. If you are an adult in America, you should possess and carry government issued I.D. everyday.

The cases that Oli and Helen brought up, are clear examples of politically driven shenanigans meant to discourage people from voting though.

This is another one

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/01/us/cri...rules.html?_r=2


Now, these types of tricks and changes are normally par for the course in an election year, but given the history of the jim crow voting "restrictions" in the South, impossible to ignore the racial element of these modern day tricks.

Upon the heels of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Texas Voter ID law violated portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, a federal judge has accepted a compromise between litigants and the State. The compromise eliminates the ID requirement, but requires voters to sign an affidavit and produce evidence of local residency.

What about drivers license getting I'd for that may violate people rights to run over innocent people. It not fare they should be allowed to do that.

I have one you must learn English to vote here. No you don't need English if you don't speak English maybe your kids can get you to places you want to go to. Or other people can tell you lies about anything and you would not know if it was a lie or not. Better to always be dependent on other people then on yourself.

Oli, thanks.

That's a good compromise. The reason why I used the term "common sense" abut carrying ID is that.....forget voting...possessing identification can mean the difference between getting detained or not. Some of the organizations that are protesting police profiling and brutality need to first stress to people the importance of being able to establish your identity to law enforcement.

To be 100% honest though, knowing the history of "poll taxes" and other garbage that was used to keep Blacks from voting in the past, hard for me to believe that person who is inclined to vote wouldn't go through the basic step of obtaining govt. ID at least during an election year.

Call me paranoid, by I expect shenanigans. In the NYT link, it's mentioned that in Alabama that in some rural Black areas, driver license agencies(dmv) were closed down....and only after protests was there a compromise reached where they would keep them open at least once a week.

I'm wary of the term "States Rights" exactly because of these types of things.

Good point,Foot.
When you think of the American companies that own the "Spanish speaking channels"...and how they control the news programming, you have a very interesting point.

Foot, you can barely speak English yourself, based on your typing.

A lot of people tell me that but I never asked anyone for anything. Can they say that?

This is a fact I have seen first hand. If you have a trade and can't speak English. You will get robbed by people who do. Other Spanish that do will rob you as much or more then white people born here.

So if you dig people taking advantage of you don't learn English.

I'm not so sure what the federal courts did in North Carolina and other states is a good compromise, nor am I certain that the reporting given by the New York Times is accurate. I saw this in National Review but not anywhere else:

In 2013, North Carolina passed a law requiring voters to show a government-issued photo ID, ending same-day registration and shortening the length of early voting from 17 to ten days. The Left rent its garments — Hillary Clinton called it an “assault on voting rights” — and foretold mass disenfranchisement. It never happened. In 2010, before North Carolina’s law, 40.3 percent of blacks in North Carolina voted in the year’s midterms; in 2014, with the law in effect, it was 42.2 percent. Nonetheless, last week the Fourth Circuit — perhaps inspired by recent decisions against similar laws in Texas and Wisconsin — swatted down North Carolina’s law.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438810/north-carolina-voter-id-law-should-be-restored

If that editorial from National Review is accurate (and I'm not claiming that it is or not, just putting it out there), then the decision was political and not a matter of justice. There should be laws against voter fraud, and showing ID should be a no-brainer. Only the Democratic Party and the American Far Left claim that showing ID is racist, which is crazy considering that it's done all over the world. The Democratic Party has a long history of committing voter fraud. It's usual response is "there's been very few prosecutions of voter fraud, so it's not a problem." That's a stupid response since it's really saying that prosecutors aren't doing their jobs, and likely many are Democrats who have a personal interest in not prosecuting. If anything, it's evidence of corruption.

On the states' rights issue we have to tread a fine line. There is a real Constitutional issue of states' rights that refers to federalism and is in the 10th amendment. In the Old South, Southern Democrats used the phrase to defend racial discrimination. Today, many Republicans who use the phrase are semi-libertarians and mean it in its original non-racist sense. So to equate the two is an equivocation fallacy, using a word with more than one meaning as if it only as one. So those Republicans may not mean it in the way the old Southern Democrats did. However, since it is the South, maybe some do mean it the same way, but it would be wrong to generalize. I don't know the names of all the individuals involved, but as an example Ronald Reagan used the term "states' rights" in a libertarian/originalist sense, as does Rand Paul today. Even President Obama has used the phrase in this way.

What about limiting the time for voting? The Democratic Party ideal is to have as much voting as possible. Why? There are more Democrats than Republicans, and more opportunities for mischief. It creates more opportunities for illegal voting by illegal immigrants, felons, and dead people. Since this is rarely prosecuted it results in more Democrat wins. This is what happened during the days of Tammany Hall in New York, Al Capone and Mayor Daley in Chicago, Loretta Sanchez in California, and Al Franken in Minnesota. So Republicans, if they had their way, would probably trim down the voting period to one day with no mail voting or motor voting. This may or may not favor Republicans (it may not since Democrats still have higher numbers), but it would, without a doubt, decrease opportunities for corruption.

F1,

Good post as always. Voter fraud is definitely NOT exclusive to one party (or region of the country). Like I said, it's par for the course during pres. election years. I conceded the point you made earlier about govt. ID, person who is going to vote SHOULD possess valid ID.

The "soul to the poll" voting where buses take people from church to vote seems to have been in mind when decision was made to change voting days. Everybody knows about the power of Black church traditions and specifically Southern Black churches.I read some detailed articles about the changes in NC and they were designed to block/discourage Black voters for sure and perhaps other groups.

Great pull with the voting stats in 2010 and 2014. I'm gonna go behind the numbers and see whether there were Sen. race(s) in 2014 though. The numbers you pulled do highlight the theatrics and tricks used in politics.

Can't do a real reply until I have more time..I'll be bock.

gets,

No voter fraud isn't exclusive to one party, but it is more prevalent in one party compared to the other. Your point about "soul to the poll" may be valid, but on the other hand it may be in violation of the Johnson Amendment and therefore illegal.

When I have a chance I'll look into the pros and the cons, so generally speaking, if I read something representing the Democratic side it will be in the New York Times, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Boston Globe, New York Daily News, The Nation, Mother Jones, The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, Associated Press or Democratic Underground, etc. For the Republican side there's the Washington Times, National Review, New York Post, American Spectator, The Federalist, Townhall.org, Weekly Standard, Heatstreat and Human Events. (Breitbart represents the Trump side.) Likewise if I read ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC or CNN I'll compare to Fox News. I'll also see if a story is in the UK Daily Mail, The Guardian or Independent. There's two sides to every story.

F1,

The "soul to poll" as I understand it, is funded by the individual Churches, and is more about bringing people to vote than supporting one candidate,ticket, party or issue.
Churches hire buses/drivers for outings so don't think a local ride to polling station is any kind of expense.(with all the tithes that Black people pay, church better be able to cover the tab)

I'm sure the numbers indicate that these older Blacks, churchgoers stable etc....probably tend to vote toward one party, and so ruling that tries to limit that is naturally going to come from the other party.

Some say that when W. Bush was promoting "Faith Based Initiatives" that he was trying to buy influence among the clergy....for himself and the Rep. party.


Dem. party leaders smartly court Black clergy because they know the influence these people have over the Blacks who vote.


Blacks split from the Rep. party over Civil Rights issue. Dem.s trot out the "racist Republican" meme every once in a while to scare Blacks into voting their way. And often an elected official or candidate with an (R) next to their name gets caught doing/saying something that lives up to that stereotype. Politics is all bells and whistles.

Clintons, I'm 100% certain have relationships with every megachurch or prominent Black pastor in the country. In fact...and this is a tangent. Hillary didn't press the Jeremiah Wright issue against Obama in '08 because she didn't want to open the can of worms and uncover relationships Clintons might have had with controversial Black ministers.

Gets,

Good points. Black voters actually switched to the Dems during the 1932 election of Franklin Roosevelt. President Herbert Hoover was the Donald Trump of his day (only smarter and without the insults) who alienated the black base of the Republican Party with a series of bad moves. He tried to turn things around when he ran against FDR, but by then it was too late. He was also pretty feckless when it came to the economy and Roosevelt actually criticized Hoover for too much government intervention. Once FDR came to office he created one government program after the other. Most failed, but several worked, like Social Security, the TVA and WPA. FDR himself was an anti-black racist, but his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, was a white civil rights leader who was ahead of her time. Anyway, I digress.

hmmmmm. heard the same about fdr, jesse owens who won 4 gold medals at the 1936 Olympics, was surprised when he met hitler, and said hitler was nice, and polite to him, he also says that F.D.R. would not invite him to the white house, but he did invite white track and field stars. owens said Roosevelt shunned him because he was black. and hitler didn't. very odd.

Archie Bunker lamented over the absence of Herbert Hoover. That should tell you something about him.

F1,

Here is a report I was sent a while ago.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/state-voting-2014

here is an excerpt

Partisanship played a key role. Of the 22 states with new restrictions, 18 passed entirely through GOP-controlled bodies,[4] and Mississippi’s photo ID law passed by a voter referendum. Two of the remaining three states — Illinois and Rhode Island — passed much less severe restrictions. According to a recent study from the University of Massachusetts Boston, restrictions were more likely to pass “as the proportion of Republicans in the legislature increased or when a Republican governor was elected.”

Race was also a significant factor. Of the 11 states with the highest African-American turnout in 2008, 7 have new restrictions in place.[5] Of the 12 states with the largest Hispanic population growth between 2000 and 2010, 9 passed laws making it harder to vote.[6] And nearly two-thirds of states — or 9 out of 15 — previously covered in whole or in part by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act because of a history of race discrimination in voting have new restrictions since the 2010 election.[7] Social science studies bear this out. According to the University of Massachusetts Boston study, states with higher minority turnout were more likely to pass restrictive voting laws. A University of California study suggests that legislative support for voter ID laws was motivated by racial bias.
==

I've not read the actual ruling in the NC case, but the radio interviews I've heard mention that judges saw the new voting laws as part of a pattern by Rep.s to limit/neutralize the Black vote in a "purple state"

Part of that pattern was the congressional redistricting done by Rep.s that was just struck down yesterday

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2...errymander.html

I'm familiar with the Brennan Center. It's a left-wing advocacy group funded by George Soros. Slate is also on the Left, so these sources represent one side of the debate so what is needed is to compare and contrast how right-wing advocacy groups respond to the charges.

Here's another take I'm just throwing out there as a possibility. Let's say this is all partisan politics. Democrats want to do X with voting and Republicans want to do Y. Since the demographics for Democrats includes more blacks and Hispanics it is only natural that anything that adversely affects the Democratic Party as a whole will also affect them. Since Republicans have far more white voters than blacks and Hispanics, anything that Democrats push against Republicans would have a greater general impact on white voters. So if the demographics were equal, or closer to it, then there would be no claim of racial bias. With Donald Trump as the GOP nominee the demographics are even more one-sided, so it's easier to make the claim. But let's say Ben Carson campaigned better and won the nomination, and along with that African Americans and Hispanics started going over to the GOP. Then the demographics of the Republican Party would change and the claim of race as a factor might no longer be valid. Like I said, just throwing it out as a possibility. Not saying it's true or not since I haven't read the other side except for that one National Review piece.

Binnie,

Don't know if you recall an anti-drug psa from the 1980s. A man discovers his son's drug stash and confronts him about it. After being cornered and asked "who taught you to use drugs?"...the kid says "You, alright? I learned from watching you"

I've read Mein Kampf, and Hitler trips over himself PRAISING American segregation of races.Some say that idea of concentration camps was inspired by the "reservations" that Native people were placed on here.

"you ,alright, learned from watching you"

Story of FDR snubbing American sports hero Owens, sounds about right.

F1,

I think we are in agreement that it is mostly partisan politics. The demographic group(s) affected can swing the outcome in many of these states, so whether it's passing new voting laws or attempting to redistrict congressional zones, an attempt is made to neutralize a voting bloc.

From what I've read...the "justification" for the laws, at least in NC, were unfounded claims of voter fraud. False pretext.

It can't be ignored that some of these states have a legacy of disfranchisement of Blacks. Which is why the Voting Rights Act was needed in the first place.
No sooner were alterations made to the VRA in 2013, did these new voting laws come into affect

The Blacks who vote, and I'm assuming it's true for Hispanic groups also, are socially conservative people. The case could be made that Republicans should be able to court and win over some of these social conservative people. Rather than making an attempt to do that, they are making attempts to neutralize Black voters, among others.

Falls right into the racist Republican meme that Dem.s trot out, whether it's case of partisan politics or blatant racism.


*Also thanks for the info about Black vote and FDR. It was still the issue of Civil Rights that caused the major switch. I consider FDR to be an anomaly for lot of reasons , and until you mentioned it, hadn't thought about the switch occurring under him. The Presidents after him, whether personally bigots or not, who passed laws increasing freedoms and social mobility of Blacks folks, turned the tide....with the switch becoming permanent under LBJ and the passa goe Civil Rights legislation.

Gets,

This was in the Washington Post:

In particular, the court found that North Carolina lawmakers requested data on racial differences in voting behaviors in the state. "This data showed that African Americans disproportionately lacked the most common kind of photo ID, those issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV)," the judges wrote.

So the legislators made it so that the only acceptable forms of voter identification were the ones disproportionately used by white people. "With race data in hand, the legislature amended the bill to exclude many of the alternative photo IDs used by African Americans," the judges wrote. "The bill retained only the kinds of IDs that white North Carolinians were more likely to possess."

The data also showed that black voters were more likely to make use of early voting — particularly the first seven days out of North Carolina's 17-day voting period. So lawmakers eliminated these seven days of voting. "After receipt of this racial data, the General Assembly amended the bill to eliminate the first week of early voting, shortening the total early voting period from seventeen to ten days," the court found.

So it looks like they had a good idea (voter ID law) then added some things that intentionally targeted black voters, as you said. Even this conservative site agrees:

I’m going to withhold judgment for now and see what happens, but this isn’t good. It’s rather indefensible—and makes zero sense since this is already a popular policy proposal. Heck, even 65 percent of black Americans agree that you should produce some sort of identification before voting. North Carolina is already a state that pretty much splits right down the middle in terms of voting patterns. It’s also a state that breaks late for either party on Election Day. During a presidential year, with Clinton at the top of the Democratic ticket—you can be sure that this, coupled with the news that North Carolina Republicans might have used data to enact race-based provisions on voter ID, is sure going to fire up Democrats in the state. It could reverberate throughout the whole South, where Clinton does phenomenally well with Democrats, especially black voters. They’re the ones that gave her the edge over Sanders in the primaries.

Still, it doesn’t mean that conservatives should stop pushing for voter ID laws. In principle, they’re good to have during our elections. At the same time, we also have to call out our own side when they act stupidly. Regardless of the outcome, it’s not good. The Democrats have a nice narrative to fundraise off of, and you can bet that MSNBC will be all over this story.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2...voters-n2200530



You are correct that NC is one of those states with a history of disenfranchising Blacks, and sadly and evidently, there are enough of them in the NC Republican Party to continue that tradition. It would be interesting to find out what was going on in the heads of those who wrote the law.

I would kind of disagree with you on the claim of lack of justification and the unfounded claims of voter fraud. As I've written, the Left commonly makes that claim because of lack of prosecutions, not because it doesn't exist. For example, Justice Dept. Civil Rights Division attorney J. Christian Adams was planning on charging members of the New Black Panther Party with intimidation of a voting place in Philadelphia but was overruled by Justice Dept. heads (then led by Eric Holder). Adams and his supervisor both resigned over this in what they considered a discriminatory prevention of justified prosecution. So even though in this case, like many others, there is evidence that it happens, but very few prosecutions. I can't saw whether or not it's a problem in NC, but it is a national problem and ensuring voter integrity is a good thing. So I think we both agree on this, that voter ID is good, but disenfranchisement isn't.

BTW, this video helped convince the judge to overturn the law:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article93060687.html

Blacks have been voting democrat for years and years. In the last 8 years have they improved their station in life under obama? So now they think it will get better under Hillary?

If I was black I would vote for Trump. If he starts a learn a trade program for people who want to work and paid for my businesses who need people like mechanics and building workers and welders and appliance repair. They will be better off then voting for radical left people.

Why it won't cost much if future Employers paid for it. If money is needed congress is republican and will vote for it. If Hillary is elected she won't be able to do anything even if she wanted it which she don't.

Foot,

Obama was pushing for the America College Promise Act, which was going to make community college tuition free for people who maintained a certain grade point average.

I didn't follow the story and not sure whether it passed or not, but it sounds close to what you are proposing.

F1,

Thanks for info and the video at the end. W-O-W !

Didn't know about that interview. I think the so-called "PC climate" that some complain about is actually in place to protect people from THEMSELVES. Person doesn't have to open his/her mouth and confirm things that others are claiming exists. While I respect honesty, a person who doesn't get that basic truth should not be in any leadership position.

I had to watch the video 3 times, just to make sure that it was real and not a comedy sketch with actors. WOW!!!!

I have some more comments about the idea of voter fraud in NC which I will make later.

Yeah vote for trump because all black people can do is self and repair appliances. Black people don't vote republican because republican party only cares about the high society....thee end

Gets,

Yeah, some people are stuck on stupid. These are the people who never learn, don't grow up, and ruin things for everyone else. Anyway, that guy was basically fired from his position the day after that interview. As the adage says, "Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt."