• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Supreme Court strikes down voting rights act clause

Whats the Big deal ? Texas's new voting laws should just wash out all of the Democrat election fraud.

After that we start with a even playing field.

Even playing field....:lamo.... Texas is a Republican state, so I don't know where your getting Democrat Fraud from. The only fraud I see in Texas is committed by Republicans are desperate to stay in power as the Hispanic voting bloc grows. Your claims are laughable.
 
You couldn't be more wrong.

A dem by any other name is still a Dem. They went from running around dressed in their bed sheets to instituting policies that enable generational dependence, poverty and suffering all to trap a sub-section of our Culture so their vote could be guaranteed. Cabrini Green, Robert Taylor Homes, Queensbridge, Pruit-Igoe, Jordan Downs, the list goes on.

From slavery back to slavery, it's the Democrat way.

Democrats moved passed our racial biases in the 1960's. Can the same be said for the red states in the south?
 
Democrats moved passed our racial biases in the 1960's. Can the same be
said for the red states in the south?

They did ?

The unemployment rates for blacks under Obama, has it increased or gotten better ?
 
Even playing field....:lamo.... Texas is a
Republican state, so I don't know where your getting Democrat Fraud from. The only fraud I see in Texas is committed by Republicans are desperate to stay in power as the Hispanic voting bloc grows. Your claims are laughable.

You guys will do just about anything to keep them on the plantation and secure a vote.

Even construct fasle narratives about the opposing party.

A succesful well educated black man or woman who adheres to Conservative principles is attacked by the likes of your corrupted ilk.

Black men like Al " Tawana Brawley" Sharpton are revered, celebrated and given legitimacy.

Democrat racism never left, it just became more insidious and evil as your ideology now enables the destruction of a entire culture for a guaranteed vote.
 
They did ?

The unemployment rates for blacks under Obama, has it increased or gotten better ?

What does it matter? Also, how are Democrats Racist, if they picked an African American to be president? Your argument makes no sense.
 
You guys will do just about anything to keep them on the plantation and secure a vote.

Even construct fasle narratives about the opposing party.

A succesful well educated black man or woman who adheres to Conservative principles is attacked by the likes of your corrupted ilk.

Black men like Al " Tawana Brawley" Sharpton are revered, celebrated and given legitimacy.

Democrat racism never left, it just became more insidious and evil as your ideology now enables the destruction of a entire culture for a guaranteed vote.

You. Make. No. Sense. Can you back up any of your argument?
 
What does it matter? Also, how are Democrats Racist, if they picked an
African American to be president? Your argument makes no sense.


They voted for the guy that was going to continue the policies of dependence.

Poverty rate is up under Obama to 1 in 6, for Children 1 in 5.

Food stamp use has increased exponentially under Obama, disabillity rates have doubled.

You still don't get it.
 
They voted for the guy that was going to continue the policies of dependence.

Poverty rate is up under Obama to 1 in 6, for Children 1 in 5.

Food stamp use has increased exponentially under Obama, disabillity rates have doubled.

You still don't get it.

That's because Obama took office right as the Bush Bubble Pop got its worst! You cant blame Obama for the bad economy he inherited. Things are getting better, but that's not enough for you, is it?
 
LOL..

Your'being purposely dense.

No, your just not making any sense. How is any sensible person supposed to believe high poverty rates show Democrat Racism? That's just plain nonsense.
 
That's because Obama took office right as the Bush Bubble Pop got its worst!
You cant blame Obama for the bad economy he inherited. Things are getting better, but that's not enough for you, is it?

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.
 
No, your just not making any sense. How is any sensible person supposed
to believe high poverty rates show Democrat Racism? That's just plain nonsense.

Hi poverty rates imply a high rate of dependence. A high rate of dependence guarantees a vote for the party that likes to give handouts.
 
Obama has tried plenty of things to help solve the issue and Republicans keep blocking it. After all, their first priority was to make sure he didn't get re-elected. Not to fix the economy. Their words, not mine.

But somehow, Fenton, you only criticize Democrat obstructionism.
 
Per Gallup, from October to November 1968 Wallace dropped from 20% to 15% while Humphrey rose from 29% to 42%. Meanwhile, Nixon declined from 44% to 43%. Looks like those Wallace voters moved to Humphrey.:mrgreen:
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.
 
Obama has tried plenty of things to help solve
the issue and Republicans keep blocking it. After all, their first priority was to make sure he didn't get re-elected. Not to fix the economy. Their words, not mine.

But somehow, Fenton, you only criticize Democrat obstructionism.

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.
 
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.:lamo:lamo
 
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 :roll:). 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.
 
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?
 
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 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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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:
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom