Page 40 of 43 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 429

Thread: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

  1. #391
    Traveler

    Jack Hays's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,862
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Gimmesometruth View Post
    From a simplistic, generalized view, to which you are prone, that would be a conclusion you would come to. The more researched view would be that most of the undecided went to Humphrey (a number you conveniently left out) while a number of the Union vote moved away from Wallace and Nixon to Humphrey after a massive mailing effort was made in October.

    Of course the problem for you is that you just don't have data showing how many voters were being lost and gained within Nixon's numbers between the other two candidates. There were, undoubtedly, voters moving from and to all three candidates in the last month (again assuming there was absolute accuracy in Gallup's numbers prior to Nov).

    The final telltale was of course the 1972 election where Nixon gained all of Wallace's votes.
    When you have some data to back up your claim, please let me know. Until then you should stop digging since you're already in a hole. As for 1972, yup, Nixon got Wallace's voters and some of Humphrey's too. Why? Because McGovern abandoned the center.
    "It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan

  2. #392
    Student
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Kentucky
    Last Seen
    08-14-15 @ 10:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    238

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    SEE ?!!

    This is what I'm talking about. Low information Democrats that have NO clue of what the hell is going on.

    "Bush's Bubble" was actually the collapse of a Democrat mandated Sub-Prime Bubble that was put into place by policies enacted in the mid 90s by Bill Clinton.

    His 1995 National Homeowners Startegy lowered Capital Requirements on loans purchased by the GSEs from 10% to 3% but he also, from 1993 to 1998 replaced all of the GSE executives and most of their board with his corrupt criminal Democrat buddies.

    Ever hear of Franklin Raines ? Falsely reported BILLIONS in profits from Fannie Mae so he could meet executive bonus targets but worse ran Fannie Mae like ENRON. I guess it helped that Bill Clinton appointed ENRONS Auditor to look over Fannie Mae too.

    Jamie Gorelick ? Who in 2000 asked banks at a conference to sell their CRA loans to Fannie mae " so they could turn them into securities ".

    Janet Reno threatened banks that would not "play ball'' by refusing to lower their standards with litigation and fines.

    By 1997 Fannie turned their first crap loan into a security and it was all down hill from their as they bought bundled bad with good and injected hundreds of Billions of toxic MBSs into the Financial Markets.

    By 2004, when their regulator warned DEMOCRATS that their capital requirments were dangerously low and they were on their way to collapse Fannie Mae had purchased 70% of CountryWides crap loans as Senators like Chris Dodd took advantage of sweet heart deals from CountryWides corrupt CEO, Angelo Mozilo.

    As Bush and the Republicans were trying to pass strict regulations on the GSEs Fannie and Freddie were getting into NINA loans with Democrats denying in Congressional Hearings the ENTIRE TIME that these GSEs were in trouble.

    Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Chris Dodd, all sitting up their in Comittee denying any thing is going wrong when the GSEs loaded with corrupt Democrats are ripping off the American people and poisoning the markets.

    By 2008 Fannie and Freddie held over 5 TRILLION in Alt-A, CRA , Sub-Prime, NINA, and just generally crap loans OR MBSs backed by crap loans.

    It was the majority of all crap loans and MBSs in the US. Around 70%.

    NOT Bush's Bubble, Bush tried 17 different times, Republican Senators in 2005 tried to pass a bill through the Senate that would have walked all of this back, but the DEMOCRATS threatened Filibuster and the Republicans needed 5 Democrat votes to make it Filibuster proof.

    Not one Democrat stepped forward.

    So Cmon, bring on your poor excuse for a ideology and your talking points so I can swat them down with data backed by actual historical events.
    Dude, you really, really need that snicker bar. Its always the democrats to you, you can never address the failings of the Republican Party. You are absolutely the most brain washed, small- minded, unreasonable man I have ever met. I don't know where you get the nerve to say such falsified things about the Democratic Party, when it is the Republicans that filibuster every compromise bill that goes they congress, they are the party of the 1%, not the democrats. The Republicans have followed the trickle down theory for years now, and It has never worked. In fact, it would better be called the "Piss on the poor Policy". Republicans are in the back pockets of the Rich, as every one of their actions have shown.Why else would they go against tax increases only on the very rich? Also, can you back up any of your allegations about Democratic Corruption? I want hard fact, not some anonymous article from a right wing organization. You complain about the debt, when the debt rut we are stuck in now was started by Bush! Not to mention, historically, Debts always go up when we hit economic turbulence, it is unfair to blame Obama for all of it. You may consider Obama incapable of improving the economy, but no matter what you think, it is improving: Private sector hiring beats expectations - Jul. 3, 2013 And that's just what I could find at first glance. You are a sickening individual, hoping for the economy to falter so that your beloved republicans can assume power again (Because, by all means, they did a great job last time ). You know what I think? I think Republicans need to take a trot through Texas, an example of pure capitalism, and observe the shocking amount of people living in poverty. What might look good on paper, doesn't turn out as well in practice.

  3. #393
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,791

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenton View Post
    What has he tried ?

    Green jobs iniative ? Shovel ready ?

    Obama is ideologically incapable of IMPROVING our economy because he doesn't UNDERSTAND our economy.

    He's been coached by university liberals who's theories only work in the vacuum of a University classroom and by radicals who's theories simply DON'T WORK.

    Obama detest free market capitalism, he thinks its the scourge of our civilization and puts all of his trust in Government.

    It's why we have after 5 years and 7 TRILLION in new structural debt a pathetic 1.8% GDP and a ever increasing dependent class.

    I think Liberals, like the German citizens after WWII, should be forced to walk through places like the South Side of Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles ( yes, ALL of Los Angeles ) so you can witness the destruction your ideology is responsible for.
    Oh, well, if Fenton says so im convinced.

    Should I ask Bill Maher to describe your beliefs? Would he represent them accurately?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  4. #394
    The Light of Truth
    Northern Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,965

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    I agree with the law being struck down, but it's worth pointing out that the south wouldn't have had to have itself dragged into the modern era with such a law if it would have quit being so pigheaded about racial voting laws.

  5. #395
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    I agree with the law being struck down, but it's worth pointing out that the south wouldn't have had to have itself dragged into the modern era with such a law if it would have quit being so pigheaded about racial voting laws.
    I think you're right here, and if I can, from what I understand the SC didn't do away with the VRA, just basically told congress to update the parameters...I mean for how long must the south have to be considered unequal?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #396
    The Light of Truth
    Northern Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,965

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I think you're right here, and if I can, from what I understand the SC didn't do away with the VRA, just basically told congress to update the parameters...I mean for how long must the south have to be considered unequal?
    As long as it took them to change their backward ways, apparently. But now that those civil rights have been successfully accomplished, the Fed should back off and defer to States rights again.

  7. #397
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,791

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I think you're right here, and if I can, from what I understand the SC didn't do away with the VRA, just basically told congress to update the parameters...I mean for how long must the south have to be considered unequal?
    Until they stop trying to pass blatantly race-driven voting changes. You should check out some of the things that got rejected under the VRA, some are just insane. Like one guy proposed just not having an election in a mostly-black town for two additional years, which would have left that town without representation in the state legislature. Or changes that reduce how long polls are open that only happen in black neighborhoods.

    It's true that the affected areas probably need updating. But how likely is Congress to do that in a realistic manner?
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  8. #398
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,791

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    As long as it took them to change their backward ways, apparently. But now that those civil rights have been successfully accomplished, the Fed should back off and defer to States rights again.
    As recently as 2006 it was shown very convincingly that the measure was still necessary, and Congress voted for it overwhelmingly to continue. 98-0 in the Senate and signed by a president who lives in Texas.

    Congress was given a report of thousands of pages of voting changes that were rejected under the VRA, and reading some of them... you can't make this **** up. This wasn't pressure from being politically correct. Any hard look at what was still actively happening in 2006 shows that this **** still happens. (as if anyone was really under the impression that racism is over)

    On the bright side, the number of problems has declined.
    Last edited by Deuce; 07-05-13 at 10:30 AM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  9. #399
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Until they stop trying to pass blatantly race-driven voting changes. You should check out some of the things that got rejected under the VRA, some are just insane. Like one guy proposed just not having an election in a mostly-black town for two additional years, which would have left that town without representation in the state legislature. Or changes that reduce how long polls are open that only happen in black neighborhoods.

    It's true that the affected areas probably need updating. But how likely is Congress to do that in a realistic manner?
    I can agree that when these instances come up, then they should be addressed, and harshly to discourage that type of action....If you are talking about certain district legislatures, or councils doing such, then a whole state is not responsible, likewise, maybe I am wrong, but I don't think that in today's political climate that you can say any longer that discrimination, and disenfranchisement doesn't go both ways....Shall we remember the NBP outside the Philly voting station in '08? or the constant funny business behind Chicago, and Southern Illinois to include, but not limited to Gary In.?

    All I am saying is why must there be two separate standards still in place for the south without review? As I read what you are saying, that would NEVER change.

    It's true that the affected areas probably need updating. But how likely is Congress to do that in a realistic manner?
    The standard shouldn't be that nothing happens because Congress is divided, the standard should be that it should be constantly reviewed for relevance, and updated to remain fair.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #400
    The Light of Truth
    Northern Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:04 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,965

    Re: US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

    Didn't know that. In that case, I support the measure being continued... although it's kind of late now.

    I suppose SCOTUS will now have to deal with the inefficiency of addressing each complaint one by one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    As recently as 2006 it was shown very convincingly that the measure was still necessary, and Congress voted for it overwhelmingly to continue. 98-0 in the Senate and signed by a president who lives in Texas.

    Congress was given a report of thousands of pages of voting changes that were rejected under the VRA, and reading some of them... you can't make this **** up. This wasn't pressure from being politically correct. Any hard look at what was still actively happening in 2006 shows that this **** still happens. (as if anyone was really under the impression that racism is over)

    On the bright side, the number of problems has declined.

Page 40 of 43 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •