One Candidate For President Disqualified Themselves Today

[OKTexas]

Regressives call vote ID voter suppression, haven't you been paying attention?

I don't know any regressive group except you Draconian conservatives. Here is what the Federal courts in North Carolina said about voter suppression by the Right.
NCvote

Federal Appeals Court Rules New NC Voting Laws Intended To Discriminate

A three-judge panel of the U.S Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit has found North Carolina's controversial GOP-backed voting restrictions were intended to discriminate against African American voters.

In the opinion, the panel of judges said that the law restricted voting in ways that "disproportionately affected African Americans" and that its provisions targeted "African Americans with almost surgical precision." It said the state's defense of the law was "meager."

I've read it, it will be overturned if we get a decent scotus replacement. They said blacks tended to vote more in the first 7 days of early voting, the new law provided for 10 days, there's no reason blacks can't continue to vote in the first 7 days. That's just one example where they got it wrong. The district court got it right.

You read it and you still don't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID? You are either a liar or a moron… but that explains your party affiliation… typical GOPer. Don't let facts get in your way… nosireee!

You must have take the short bus to school or you're just not paying attention. I said you regressives call voter ID voter suppression, get it. So you might want to explain the difference to them.

Aww,stop squirming…you got caught red handed trying to distort and change the narrative.

RDEAN SAID: ↑
Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

Then you tried to make it solely about voter ID:
OKTEXAS SAID: ↑
Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.


Again, stop squirming and accept the cloak of defeat that I have placed around your shoulders. It fits you so well.

So this isn't you claiming voter ID is voter suppression? You don't seem to be drawing any distinctions. Typical regressive, tries to play semantics game and loses. GOOD JOB REGRESSIVE!!!!!!!

There is an agenda here and at least one prominent republican has stated so. That agenda is to keep those Obama supporters who are most likely to have difficulty obtaining an ID in time for the election from voting.

Aw cut out the BS, we all know what the GOP is doing with their voter ID antics. The North Carolina Court decision has exposed that strategy already. But if that isn't proof enough of the GOP national agenda to suppress voting rights, here is more:

 

[OKTexas]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

"uphold the Constitution" in the context you use it is merely code for 'make rulings that conservatives agree with'.

Not it means doing things right, if you don't like what's currently right according to the Constitution, see Article 5.

 

[OKTexas]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

RCP Avg now is +5.3. last NBC News/Wall St Journal poll was 52% Clinton 38% Trump

you were saying?

most of the country thinks your idea of what a judge is .... is BS. but thanks.

Quite fankly my dear, I don't give a damn. We'll see what happens, like Yogie Berra said, "it ain't over, till it's over".

 

[OKTexas]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Who is politicizing this, again? Who is refusing to consider a moderate justice in hopes of chosing a much more conservative judge in January? Is that Hillary and the Dems? Hmmmmm....

Any judge that says Heller should be revisited is no moderate.

 

[Slade3200]

All of that is true and I make that point in another post. There are SOME things we need that the constitution doesn't specify. However, interpreting the constitution as it is written is still important. Sure the military or FEMA are necessary, but when it comes to programs being created outside of the bounds of the constitution, where do you draw the line? There has to be an authority on what the government can or cannot create.

It may or may not be legal in some instances for me to publish your SSN.

There is no guarantee of privacy in the constitution.

The court has held that you can marry a same sex partner and enjoy the same rights as hetero marriages. But you can have your wedding on Saturday and be fired by your employer on Monday for no reason other than you got married.

Plenty of things outside of our vague constitution need to be deliberated.

Ok but again I ask, where do you draw the line? Where do we go from here when it comes to programs not specified by the constitution?

Keep asking....

I can't tell you. I do know that the nation is better with FEMA, the FAA, Marine Corps, Air Force, NASA, that we were able to make the LA Purchase, Alaska purchase, etc... All of which isn't spelled out in the Constitution.

At some point, the powers that be decided we needed a Department of Education. The result has been no improvement. So we should probably try something else. One thing I will agree with the conservatives about is that once a federal agency is formed, it will take an act of a vengeful God to get rid of it. The DOE isn't going anywhere and it's not delivering results. At the same time, maybe it should be applauded for maintaining grad rates???? Dunno.

I do know we could get rid of the TSA. This is a worthless organization.

Yeah I agree it's a good thing all of those programs exist. That doesn't mean we shouldn't adhere to an authority of what's constitutionally legal and what isn't.

Well, there are a lot of competing interest at play here. And it will get off the subject but "what role do you want the government to play in your life " seems to be the salient criterion on where you come down on justices interpreting the Constitution.

Myself, I'm dubious that anything written 80,000 days ago is capable of anticipating all of the various and sometimes competing societal forces and providing a remedy that satisfies all stakeholders. I think society has a way of working out its own issues. What troubles me to a greater degree is the actions of the government itself. Currently, we have a Senate that won't give the nominated/appointed candidate for the Supreme Court a hearing. Theorhetically, the Senate can let the entire court die off and we will simply not have a supreme court any longer.... or any federal judges for that matter. Hell, while they are at it, they don't have to confirm the AG, SecDef, SecTreasury, or any cabinet official for that matter.

Sound good to you? Probably not. But if you're going to be a strict reader of the Constitution...there is nothing to prompt the Senate to hold hearings. Just the same way that scumbag Harry Reid pocket vetoed legislation so the President wouldn't have to do so on the record. This is how bills that are started in one chamber arrive DOA when they go across the rotunda to the other chamber.

I favor having pre-scheduled convetions to add language to the Constitution to remedy any shenanigans that are going on at that time. This could ensure that the Senate does it's job insofar as giving the Presidential appiontmetns a hearing. Or ensure that one House takes up the business of the other House within 60 days of getting it...including an up/down vote of the entire body.

Just an idea but be careful what you wish for. The Constitution was written at a time when there was some mutual trust. We do not have that any longer.

Well said

 

[NYcarbineer]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Who is politicizing this, again? Who is refusing to consider a moderate justice in hopes of chosing a much more conservative judge in January? Is that Hillary and the Dems? Hmmmmm....

Any judge that says Heller should be revisited is no moderate.

Then you should oppose Trump's vow to appoint judges that would overturn Roe v Wade.

 

[OKTexas]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Who is politicizing this, again? Who is refusing to consider a moderate justice in hopes of chosing a much more conservative judge in January? Is that Hillary and the Dems? Hmmmmm....

Any judge that says Heller should be revisited is no moderate.

Then you should oppose Trump's vow to appoint judges that would overturn Roe v Wade.

Explain

 

[kaz]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.

Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.

Voter suppression is what liberals call restricting voting to legal citizens and allowing them to vote only once. No legal citizens who follow the rules are prevented from voting in this country

I don't need your laymen's definition about voter suppression when a federal appeals court has defined it for me. In case you missed it the link I provided can be seen in my sig @NCvote.

No legal citizens are prevented from voting in this country. You are full of shit

 

[candycorn]

I'm still not getting your point. Hillary has to walk a fine line of finding someone that might follow her ideas... yet they have to be conservative enough that the Senate will approve them. Crazy thing is, they have to replace Scalia... but isn't Thomas about to retire too?

The next president could be nominating as many as 4. That's why it can't be the hildabitch.

It will be. Too bad, so sad.

Shoulda nominated someone else. This is why the GOP is the Party of Stupid.

We've already been down this road, not going there again.

Can't blame you for not wanting to own up to it. Must be painful to know that almost anyone else in the GOP clown car could have fared much better against Ms. Clinton.

Failure thy name is GOP.

We'll see in 27 days.

No you’ll see. Those of us in the know…we know. Its class vs. crass and crass doesn’t play well nationwide.

 

[Flash]

Only an idiot would vote for this filthy ass Crooked Hillary bitch.

 

[Yarddog]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Whomever she appoints will be vetted by the Senate. Just as it has been, just as it should be.
Disqualified? You're thinking of Trump

They nominate, they don't appoint. Get back to me when you have a clue. Also I'm not surprised you have no concern that she never mentioned the Constitution when considering a person for the court. You have no respect for it yourself.

Oh brother...get back to me when you get a life.

Presidents are supposed to nominate a Justice they believe will properly interpret laws, rulings and the constitution as it applies in a nuetral way. She should have mentioned something along those lines

 

[candycorn]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Whomever she appoints will be vetted by the Senate. Just as it has been, just as it should be.
Disqualified? You're thinking of Trump

They nominate, they don't appoint. Get back to me when you have a clue. Also I'm not surprised you have no concern that she never mentioned the Constitution when considering a person for the court. You have no respect for it yourself.

Oh brother...get back to me when you get a life.

Presidents are supposed to nominate a Justice they believe will properly interpret laws, rulings and the constitution as it applies in a nuetral way. She should have mentioned something along those lines

Really? Says who?

 

[Yarddog]

With one answer the hildabitch proved she was unfit for the office. When asked about the Supreme Court, in almost 3 minute answer, she went on and on how the justices she would pick would go along with her radical agenda. Not once did she mention she would appoint one who would uphold the Constitution or the rule of law, which is the only function of the court. She basically vowed to continue to politicize the court to push her radical leftist agenda.

This, in any reasonable persons mind, should disqualify her form the office.

Your thoughts?

Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

https://thinkprogress.org/study-fin...ective-than-you-think-3b2562ae2f52#.ezxq8qeha


Ok, well maybe the drop in the numbers are a drop in the number of people cheating, on both sides.
I cant think of any good excuse why if a person wants to vote, they cant go out and get an ID. they have 4 years to go get one in between Pres. elections.

 

[mudwhistle]

Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.

Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.

Voter suppression is what liberals call restricting voting to legal citizens and allowing them to vote only once. No legal citizens who follow the rules are prevented from voting in this country

I don't need your laymen's definition about voter suppression when a federal appeals court has defined it for me. In case you missed it the link I provided can be seen in my sig @NCvote.

No legal citizens are prevented from voting in this country. You are full of shit

Yeah.....and there's a shitload of them that don't have the competence to vote in any election because they're nuts.

 

[JQPublic1]

Voter suppression shows us what Republicans think of the constitution.

Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.

Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.

Voter suppression is what liberals call restricting voting to legal citizens and allowing them to vote only once. No legal citizens who follow the rules are prevented from voting in this country

I don't need your laymen's definition about voter suppression when a federal appeals court has defined it for me. In case you missed it the link I provided can be seen in my sig @NCvote.

No legal citizens are prevented from voting in this country. You are full of shit

I am full of shit???? I didn't make that court ruling…. I am just the messenger trying to educate your dumb ass!

 

[kaz]

Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.

Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.

Voter suppression is what liberals call restricting voting to legal citizens and allowing them to vote only once. No legal citizens who follow the rules are prevented from voting in this country

I don't need your laymen's definition about voter suppression when a federal appeals court has defined it for me. In case you missed it the link I provided can be seen in my sig @NCvote.

No legal citizens are prevented from voting in this country. You are full of shit

I am full of shit???? I didn't make that court ruling…. I am just the messenger trying to educate your dumb ass!

What court ruling?

 

[JQPublic1]

Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.

Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.

Voter suppression is what liberals call restricting voting to legal citizens and allowing them to vote only once. No legal citizens who follow the rules are prevented from voting in this country

I don't need your laymen's definition about voter suppression when a federal appeals court has defined it for me. In case you missed it the link I provided can be seen in my sig @NCvote.

No legal citizens are prevented from voting in this country. You are full of shit

Yeah.....and there's a shitload of them that don't have the competence to vote in any election because they're nuts.

Who told you that? Or did you figure it out all by yourself in a guarded moment? Please post the scratch paper you used to come to your outrageous conclusion.

 

[candycorn]

Overturning Citizens United is speech suppression in elections. Voter ID is constitutional, supreme court said so.

Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.

Voter suppression is what liberals call restricting voting to legal citizens and allowing them to vote only once. No legal citizens who follow the rules are prevented from voting in this country

I don't need your laymen's definition about voter suppression when a federal appeals court has defined it for me. In case you missed it the link I provided can be seen in my sig @NCvote.

No legal citizens are prevented from voting in this country. You are full of shit

Yeah.....and there's a shitload of them that don't have the competence to vote in any election because they're nuts.

Oh, you mean like Donald’s kids?

 

[JQPublic1]

Typical GOPer. Doesn't know the difference between voter suppression and voter ID.

Voter suppression is what liberals call restricting voting to legal citizens and allowing them to vote only once. No legal citizens who follow the rules are prevented from voting in this country

I don't need your laymen's definition about voter suppression when a federal appeals court has defined it for me. In case you missed it the link I provided can be seen in my sig @NCvote.

No legal citizens are prevented from voting in this country. You are full of shit

I am full of shit???? I didn't make that court ruling…. I am just the messenger trying to educate your dumb ass!

What court ruling?

Damn, SON… how many times do I have to post the link? See that NCvote in my sig line? That explains it all.

 

[Flash]