Jump to content

Ohio Republicans Inact Laws To Discourage the Poor From Voting


bullets13

Recommended Posts

the point being, you guys post dozens of posts like this a week.  the only difference is that they say what you guys want to hear.  but that doesn't make them any more verifiable or legitimate than this one. 

Show me dozens of bogus posts I have made from bogus sources...and no matter what the source, they are very easy to validate or refute nowadays with a little effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first started voting, there was no early voting unless you signed a waiver saying that you would be out of town on election day. It was not "early" voting, it was "absentee" voting. 

 

Then you had to vote on election day. 

 

Now they send out mail ballots where you really don't know who sent it back, many days to vote, complaints about showing an ID, etc. 

 

I don't care who votes but some people are trying to make it easier and easier to skew the results and if you complain, you are trying to disenfranchise someone. The Democrats appear to want to make it where the less verification there is, the better. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me dozens of bogus posts I have made from bogus sources...and no matter what the source, they are very easy to validate or refute nowadays with a little effort.


Sorry I lumped you in. Much of my evidence was lost in the crash anyway. I'm just saying, the political forum is full of threads from biased "news sites" and then everyone gets all in an uproar about them. When I didn't, you seemed taken aback.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

kinda like the voter id law i guess  ?  I think at the recent NAACP march that was held attendees had to show ID guess they were trying to keep poor blacks from attending the march.Please give it a break! Folks have no problem making it to the SS office or welfare office when need be bet they are smart enough to make it to  vote!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 

bwahahahahahaha. too late! thanks laflamablanco. now you have about 50 articles from righty articles on the site you need to go dispute due to THEIR questionable origins.

 

:D  I still maintain, however, that a post should be read and evaluated rather than discarded based simply on source...there would be some on here that would give the Heritage Foundation that treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...