One Candidate For President Disqualified Themselves Today

[kaz]

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.

You mean the link that didn't even have a single example of any US citizen who can't vote?

All it said was the opinion of one judge is that blacks are too stupid and lazy to get a free ID, it didn't have even an accusation of anyone who couldn't get an ID. It just said blacks aren't going to do it because they spend too much time eating watermelon and fried chicken. They will vote, but they won't get a free ID to do it. The judge is a knuckle dragger. He's probably in the KKK.

Whether you agree with the judge or not, the article didn't say any legal US citizen has been or will be denied the right to vote. It was just his perception that blacks aren't motivated and won't follow up.

Name a US citizen who is being denied the right to vote. You can't do it because there isn't one

 

[Avatar4321]

1) we already knew this

2) rational thought has nothing to do with this election. If it did, neither trump nor Clinton would be the nominee.

3) calling her names undermines your ability to persuade anyone that doesn't already agree with your view of her.

 

[JQPublic1]

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:

Oh, that is me, alright. I am pointing out that the CONS are using voter ID as one of many weapons in their goal of selective voter suppression. Voter ID has always been part of the system validated by signature comparisons and more recently by photo ID. So Voter ID isn't suppression in and of itself. But when voter ID is used in the manner explained in the court decision ( the one I linked to earlier) it becomes one of many cogs in the wheels of voter suppression.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

You mean the link that didn't even have a single example of any US citizen who can't vote?

All it said was the opinion of one judge is that blacks are too stupid and lazy to get a free ID, it didn't have even an accusation of anyone who couldn't get an ID. It just said blacks aren't going to do it because they spend too much time eating watermelon and fried chicken. They will vote, but they won't get a free ID to do it. The judge is a knuckle dragger. He's probably in the KKK.

Whether you agree with the judge or not, the article didn't say any legal US citizen has been or will be denied the right to vote. It was just his perception that blacks aren't motivated and won't follow up.

Name a US citizen who is being denied the right to vote. You can't do it because there isn't one

I don't know their names but here are a few citizens who would be denied the right to vote in some states if they have felony convictions for ANYTHING!

 

[OKTexas]

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.

No 57% of Americans said she should have been charged, so it makes criminal vs crass, so we'll see if Americans can actually pull the lever for some one they believe is a criminal.

 

[JQPublic1]

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.

You mean the link that didn't even have a single example of any US citizen who can't vote?

All it said was the opinion of one judge is that blacks are too stupid and lazy to get a free ID, it didn't have even an accusation of anyone who couldn't get an ID. It just said blacks aren't going to do it because they spend too much time eating watermelon and fried chicken. They will vote, but they won't get a free ID to do it. The judge is a knuckle dragger. He's probably in the KKK.

Whether you agree with the judge or not, the article didn't say any legal US citizen has been or will be denied the right to vote. It was just his perception that blacks aren't motivated and won't follow up.

Name a US citizen who is being denied the right to vote. You can't do it because there isn't one

Your crass assessment of the court's judgement reflects who you are: an unsavory lowlife filled with hate and anger.Logic is alien to you and reason is lost in the windmills of your mind. Vent as you will. I will join the others in watching the deplorable spectacle you've become from a distance.

 

[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

Really? Says who?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

 

[Flash]

 

[OKTexas]

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:

Oh, that is me, alright. I am pointing out that the CONS are using voter ID as one of many weapons in their goal of selective voter suppression. Voter ID has always been part of the system validated by signature comparisons and more recently by photo ID. So Voter ID isn't suppression in and of itself. But when voter ID is used in the manner explained in the court decision ( the one I linked to earlier) it becomes one of many cogs in the wheels of voter suppression.

So my original statement that you regressives see voter ID as voter suppression was correct, as demonstrated by your own statements, even though the supreme court says otherwise. Now if you want to expand on the subject, start your own thread.

 

[candycorn]

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.

No 57% of Americans said she should have been charged, so it makes criminal vs crass, so we'll see if Americans can actually pull the lever for some one they believe is a criminal.

No worries:

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

To tell us the Constitution doesn't really mean what it says of course. Regressives think the written word morphs into something else with time.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

 

[OKTexas]

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.

No 57% of Americans said she should have been charged, so it makes criminal vs crass, so we'll see if Americans can actually pull the lever for some one they believe is a criminal.

No worries:


View attachment 92968

I see you didn't post a link for your fantasies. Who put it out, thinkprogress?

 

[owebo]

Was hitlery even ever qualified in order for her to be disqualified....

 

[AZGAL]

"Trump leaves them no choice but to pull their support. If they don't, their association with him damages their own reputation and can be used against them in their own future pursuits.".....CAN I VOMIT NOW!! PUKE PUKE PUKE F_ME! That is what someone said on another thread! MY how open minded those "progressives" are! No wonder many people feel like Never Hillary! see Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is a book by Jonah Goldberg, in which Goldberg argues that fascist movements were and are left-wing. Published in January 2008, it reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list of hardcover non-fiction in its seventh week on the list.[1] Goldberg is a syndicated columnist and theeditor-at-large of National Review Online." (now watch how I respond to this posthere... WOW! So the right to vote for the Republican candidate leaves citizens open to blackmail from sociopath Democrats in the future! OH wait tyranny against conservatives is already happening-my bad! I guess freedom means only for Hilbots!

 

[OKTexas]

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?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

Leave it to an ignorant regressive to ignore the reason for the 3/5ths compromise and spin it into something it's not. You're no better than the race baiters, sharpton, jackson and maobama.

 

[candycorn]

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.

No 57% of Americans said she should have been charged, so it makes criminal vs crass, so we'll see if Americans can actually pull the lever for some one they believe is a criminal.

No worries:


View attachment 92968

I see you didn't post a link for your fantasies. Who put it out, thinkprogress?

Nate Silver—the guy who predicted every state last time around…. I’m sure unskewedpolls.com will tell you what you want to hear though.

But hey, lets make it interesting.

Straight up avatar bet:

Hillary wins, you change your avatar to this until she is sworn in. From midnight election night to noon January 20:

Donald wins, I change my avatar to this until he is sworn in. from midnight election night to noon on January 20:

You sound confident…ready to back it up?

 

[TooTall]

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

This is true but her attitude on picking one didn't include a strict interpretation of the constitution as written. I hate to admit it, but oktexas is right about this.

If we strictly interpret the Constitution as written, there is no language in the document that would have allowed the Louisiana Purchase, the creation of the Marines or the Air Force or the Coast Guard, NASA, FEMA or any number of vital government agencies.

Perhaps some would like to freeze time in the 1790's back when it was ratified. I think the majority of Americans would prefer the world of today vs the world of the 1790's. Up to and including the 20% or so of America who are African American. Of course strict constitutionalists would not know there is 20%. Given the 3/5 compromise, there would be only 12% of the nation since blacks are counted as 3/5 of a person....right?

Only because the north wanted to count them as 3/5th so the south wouldn't get more Representatives in the Congress. Maybe the Black folks should sue the northern states for reparations.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Its their job description. They are supposed to decide if a ruling or action is constitutional, or if if it supports the constitutional rights of a defendant or plaintiff. What else do we need them for really?

Yeah, goes without saying. The Constitution holds that blacks are 3/5 of a person. Should they, until the 13th amendment was passed and nullified that in 1865, saw blacks as 3/5 of a human being? Should someone brining suit that NASA is unconstitutional get standing and should Roberts order the space program to be shut down?

Leave it to an ignorant regressive to ignore the reason for the 3/5ths compromise and spin it into something it's not. You're no better than the race baiters, sharpton, jackson and maobama.

Leave it to someone who thinks the constitution is a dead document to dodge the question.

 

[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

This is true but her attitude on picking one didn't include a strict interpretation of the constitution as written. I hate to admit it, but oktexas is right about this.

If we strictly interpret the Constitution as written, there is no language in the document that would have allowed the Louisiana Purchase, the creation of the Marines or the Air Force or the Coast Guard, NASA, FEMA or any number of vital government agencies.

Perhaps some would like to freeze time in the 1790's back when it was ratified. I think the majority of Americans would prefer the world of today vs the world of the 1790's. Up to and including the 20% or so of America who are African American. Of course strict constitutionalists would not know there is 20%. Given the 3/5 compromise, there would be only 12% of the nation since blacks are counted as 3/5 of a person....right?

Only because the north wanted to count them as 3/5th so the south wouldn't get more Representatives in the Congress.

Hey, it’s in the Constitution..therefore it is what we should be going by 200+ years later.