• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Ongoing NC GOP debacle thread

Wakeforest22890 said:
While I certainly wouldn't except Berger to know the difference between the two situations I know that you're smart enough to identify the difference - especially with a law degree JHMD.
Click to expand...

Berger has a law degree. There are people---even lawyers---who disagree with you. This will be good to know as you enter the next four years of your law school experience.

Eta: Taking your usual and unwarranted condescension at its face value, do you even agree with you? You don't think that Constitutional protects you from discrimination---to hear it told in this case, done with surgical precision against AAs----from access and entrance into public buildings and places of public accommodation? That's an odd little argument for a person with a law degree to make.
 
Last edited:
No I fully expect Berger to continue his ignorance on all things. I don't think there's a constitutional problem with requiring an ID for security measures to the extent that there's no discrimination from letting people in the courtroom if they do not have an ID and can pass through a detector and pat down. If it gets litigated and the circuit courts determine otherwise I look forward to the decision. I think I'll take Sig's advice and stop engaging with you because you're clearly interested in trolling and not good faith discussions.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
No I fully expect Berger to continue his ignorance on all things. I don't think there's a constitutional problem with requiring an ID for security measures to the extent that there's no discrimination from letting people in the courtroom if they do not have an ID and can pass through a detector and pat down. If it gets litigated and the circuit courts determine otherwise I look forward to the decision. I think I'll take Sig's advice and stop engaging with you because you're clearly interested in trolling and not good faith discussions.
Click to expand...

I.T.T. Refusing to adopt number's low opinion on the capacities of people who don't look like him = trolling.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Berger has a law degree. There are people---even lawyers---who disagree with you. This will be good to know as you enter the next four years of your law school experience.

Eta: Taking your usual and unwarranted condescension at its face value, do you even agree with you? You don't think that Constitutional protects you from discrimination---to hear it told in this case, done with surgical precision against AAs----from access and entrance into public buildings and places of public accommodation? That's an odd little argument for a person with a law degree to make.
Click to expand...

Did you read the decision? It is 100% based on intent. That the legislature had a discriminatory intent in passing the law.

Has nothing to do with ID to enter a federal building because nobody is alleging that that was done with discriminatory intent
 
I just assumed board pubs knew all this was a blatant attempt to reduce Dem voting. I'm starting to believe they really think this was an honest attempt to reduce voter fraud.
 
WFFaithful said:
ITT you show how little you know about how people outside your upper middle class bubble live.
Click to expand...

Well, I suppose I can't argue with that. I do not understand how you can be a) simultaneously without an i.d. in 2016, and b) too busy to get one on three year's notice. It's hard for me to believe this is an experienced problem.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Well, I suppose I can't argue with that. I do not understand how you can be a) simultaneously without an i.d. in 2016, and b) too busy to get one on three year's notice. It's hard for me to believe this is an experienced problem.
Click to expand...

I think it's a lot harder for some people than you're imagining. If you've never had ID before, you need something else like a birth certificate. Which you may not have. It might be from a different state. And when you're working a minimum wage job, or maybe even are homeless living on the street (they have the right to vote too), you probably don't have the ability to get to Oregon to track down your birth certificate
 
knowell said:
Seems kind of silly to me. By eliminating the first week of the early voting (where blacks voted more than whites), doesn't the next week then become the first week of early voting.

If there was an attempt to lower black voting, I would think the effect would be negligible.

There is certainly nothing that indicates that black people who voted in that earliest week would otherwise not vote. It seems likely that the reason for the greater black turnout in that early voter week was more excitement by black voters to get a chance to vote for Obama.

The whole decision seems to lack cogent thought. Even if there was some bad intent (which is certainly not proven), there is nothing that shows there would be a racially biased outcome.
Click to expand...

This post just drips in insincerity.
 
Wow. That's like 3 times now that my timestamps between posts tonight have been 20 mins. That is how long it takes to play 1 FIFA game online it seems and then read a few most posts and make a comment about perceptions without calling anybody out in particular.


But again, the racist cunts know who they are. The world will be better off when their kind perish.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Well, I suppose I can't argue with that. I do not understand how you can be a) simultaneously without an i.d. in 2016, and b) too busy to get one on three year's notice. It's hard for me to believe this is an experienced problem.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.
 
WFFaithful said:
Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

"Your point" is that black people are uniquely incapable of complying with a facially neutral standard, which itself comes at no cost and has portable applications throughout society. You offered this argument....to help them? I do not agree with your point, nor do I see how "Well, they just can't" is either accurate or a solution to any problem.

I hope everybody votes. I don't share the belief that AAs won't vote for conservative principles, especially in light of the raging successes of the last 8 years in their community. I wish my party did a better job of setting forth a positive message that showed the reasons conservative principles can grow the economy at a rate of better than 1.2%. At the very least, if we can't make as persuasive a case as is needed, we have to start by blunting the dog whistle nonsense that Democrats trot out (and voter suppression is squarely on that list) to keep the focus off of the results of their own policies.

I hope everybody votes, and as many as possible vote for the ideas of my party.
 
Last edited:


The NC Legislature are living this...discrimination is their MO. If you aren't a white. Christian, Republican that train is coming for you in NC.
 
ITT, JHMD is smarter than three us court of appeals judges.

Thank goodness we have him to splain things to us.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
I posted this earlier elsewhere, it fits here as well...

I suggest reading Klarman's from Jim Crow to Civil Rights. I had it in a class at Georgia and what you see about the harsh voter suppression and eventual eradication of rights in the late nineteenth century makes today's debates and laws seem trivial. States in the early 20th century were actually placing amendments in their constitutions eliminating the right of blacks to vote. Within twenty five years from 1876, in many southern counties the total black vote was zero.

Now I'm not saying modern laws shouldn't be reviewed or that courts that have struck them down are always wrong or right. But getting a broader focus on the appalling conduct makes it easier to see that today's laws involved smaller differences that likely could be worked out if they weren't really for electioneering "issue" purposes.
 
ReturnofMf said:
I posted this earlier elsewhere, it fits here as well...

I suggest reading Klarman's from Jim Crow to Civil Rights. I had it in a class at Georgia and what you see about the harsh voter suppression and eventual eradication of rights in the late nineteenth century makes today's debates and laws seem trivial. States in the early 20th century were actually placing amendments in their constitutions eliminating the right of blacks to vote. Within twenty five years from 1876, in many southern counties the total black vote was zero.

Now I'm not saying modern laws shouldn't be reviewed or that courts that have struck them down are always wrong or right. But getting a broader focus on the appalling conduct makes it easier to see that today's laws involved smaller differences that likely could be worked out if they weren't really for electioneering "issue" purposes.
Click to expand...

You can minimize racism as much as you want. It's still blatant racism.
 
ReturnofMf said:
I posted this earlier elsewhere, it fits here as well...

I suggest reading Klarman's from Jim Crow to Civil Rights. I had it in a class at Georgia and what you see about the harsh voter suppression and eventual eradication of rights in the late nineteenth century makes today's debates and laws seem trivial. States in the early 20th century were actually placing amendments in their constitutions eliminating the right of blacks to vote. Within twenty five years from 1876, in many southern counties the total black vote was zero.

Now I'm not saying modern laws shouldn't be reviewed or that courts that have struck them down are always wrong or right. But getting a broader focus on the appalling conduct makes it easier to see that today's laws involved smaller differences that likely could be worked out if they weren't really for electioneering "issue" purposes.
Click to expand...

You can try to rationalize racism and class warfare all you like, but doesn't change the fact these laws weer written 100% to disenfranchise from their right to vote.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
You can minimize racism as much as you want. It's still blatant racism.
Click to expand...

I haven't read that book but it seems like the takeaway from history should be that there has been a persistent effort from conservatives to fight the progression of minority rights after Jim Crow. That effort has been continually fought in the courts which has resulted in gradual gains in civil rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top