North Carolina voter ID laws overturned on appeal

[Sbee]

really? How many times did you vote for Obama because he set a record for voting "present" while he was in the Senate - I suppose that was very brave of him, he's a real trailblazer. Yes, abstaining for conscientious reasons is participating, just like sit ins, and even truly cowardly stuff like sick outs and other forms of passive protest are participating in a process. Calling that a cop out is clear and unsurprising demonstration of your lack of understanding. I'm a conservative, there is no conservative candidate in this election and I won't vote for a clown just because he's running against corrupt and evil opponent.

What's really funny is someone who has empathy for BLM supporters rioting and looting also has such harsh criticism of conscientious objectors protesting two unacceptable choices.

Defending the most innocent and defenseless among us isn't running people's lives - it's defending life.

I think voting present in the senate is cowardly and I've criticized Obama for that. He had a responsibility to his constituents and he should have voted in conjunction with their best interests.

So you don't have a candidate that perfectly fits your viewpoint so you choose not to vote, which is cowardly. You have a right to be a fence sitter and not participate in the election, talk about taking your ball and going home.

I've never condoned rioting and looting.

We can go down the abortion rabbit hole again, but of course it's pointless. I wonder how you will try to justify republicans supporting the death penalty and that not being slaughter or meddling in peoples lives? The republican party is not the party of liberty, far from it.

 

[Spartanmack]

I think voting present in the senate is cowardly and I've criticized Obama for that. He had a responsibility to his constituents and he should have voted in conjunction with their best interests.

So you don't have a candidate that perfectly fits your viewpoint so you choose not to vote, which is cowardly. You have a right to be a fence sitter and not participate in the election, talk about taking your ball and going home.

I've never condoned rioting and looting.

We can go down the abortion rabbit hole again, but of course it's pointless. I wonder how you will try to justify republicans supporting the death penalty and that not being slaughter or meddling in peoples lives? The republican party is not the party of liberty, far from it.

I don't really care if you think it's cowardly - I don't think you're very smart so I don't seek your approval of anything. Your opinion of what's brave and what's cowardly is meaningless.

If you were smart, it would be pretty easy to figure out that not only do I not have a candidate that perfectly fits my viewpoint, there isn't one that even comes close to aligning with my best interests. Like I said before, I'm a conservative. Trump is a sleeze and a blue dog democrat and Hillary is pure evil - trying to decide which one of those aligns with my best interests is an exercise in futility. Voting for Trump forces me to compromise my principles and victory without principles is counterproductive to my belief system. Saying that standing up for what you believe and not compromising on one of two unacceptable candidates is the same as taking your ball and going home is just plain stupid.

Did I say condone? No, go back and read it again.

As for your last paragraph, do you really think punishing criminals is "meddling in their lives?" I love when idiot libs try to make the argument that opposing abortion while supporting capital punishment is some great hypocrisy. It's literally the height of stupidity. The hypocrites are the people who believe punishing murderers and rapist is so wrong but the wholesale slaughter of millions of COMPLETELY innocent and defenseless babies is morally acceptable. That is the ultimate hypocrisy.

 

[byco42]

Since 1977, 1,419 prisoners have been executed. Today, more than 4,000 babies will be aborted. HRC thinks that only terrorists deserve to die, because, well, you know, people who are killed by terrorists are special as opposed to people who are not. Because the former are more dead than the latter. Such is the stance of someone who thinks she is qualified to determine who lives and who does not.

 

[tinselwolverine]

On a lighter note, I just saw Obama out stumping for down ticket congressional Democratic candidates. He was being critical of the GOP and said something like "those people have been in charge for the last..." and he had to pause and think about it to remember that it's been six years.

Man that dude is looking at the door.

 

[Thumb]

A vote for HRC is a vote for death. She is a candidate who champions death. Death in its fundamental state. Death for death's sake. And she will take measures to prevent me from opposing her. The enablers who elect her into office are complicit in advancing death and darkness across the nation. So if you value death as a virtue, HRC is your gal. This is in no way an endorsement of Donald Trump.

So you think that even though 50% of the country believes in pro-choice, no vote should ever be cast for a candidate that supports that position by anyone?

Because lets face it, even if it was not HRC who got the democratic nomination, you would still say this about that candidate, because most democratic candidates support a womans right to choose.

 

[byco42]

So you think that even though 50% of the country believes in pro-choice, no vote should ever be cast for a candidate that supports that position by anyone?

Correct.

Because lets face it, even if it was not HRC who got the democratic nomination, you would still say this about that candidate, because most democratic candidates support a womans right to choose.

Correct.

Pro-Choice = pro death.
Women's right to choose = baby in the womb is less than human.

 

[Michchamp]

I can't be morally opposed to abortion, and wish there were fewer (or even none) of them, while at the same time thinking my views should not be imposed on women (often single, impoverished women), and voting this way? I'm pro-death? I want babies to die?

come on man...

 

[byco42]

I can't be morally opposed to abortion, and wish there were fewer (or even none) of them, while at the same time thinking my views should not be imposed on women (often single, impoverished women), and voting this way? I'm pro-death? I want babies to die?

come on man...

To answer the first question. No. One or the other. "Choose." To the second: What difference does that make if you think so little of your own belief?

 

[tinselwolverine]

I heard on the news today that in Florida, if you vote early, and then you die before election day, they will still count your vote.

Byco, if on election day, if on election day, someone approaches to vote who you think might be a zombie, I suggest you check their voter ID.

I'm fine with counting the votes of people who voted early and then died before election day, but I have a problem with people voting after they're actually dead.

 

[byco42]

Byco, if on election day, if on election day, someone approaches to vote who you think might be a zombie, I suggest you check their voter ID.

I'd be checking, politically speaking, 99% of every voters' IDs.

 

[Sbee]

I don't really care if you think it's cowardly - I don't think you're very smart so I don't seek your approval of anything. Your opinion of what's brave and what's cowardly is meaningless.

If you were smart, it would be pretty easy to figure out that not only do I not have a candidate that perfectly fits my viewpoint, there isn't one that even comes close to aligning with my best interests. Like I said before, I'm a conservative. Trump is a sleeze and a blue dog democrat and Hillary is pure evil - trying to decide which one of those aligns with my best interests is an exercise in futility. Voting for Trump forces me to compromise my principles and victory without principles is counterproductive to my belief system. Saying that standing up for what you believe and not compromising on one of two unacceptable candidates is the same as taking your ball and going home is just plain stupid.

Did I say condone? No, go back and read it again.

As for your last paragraph, do you really think punishing criminals is "meddling in their lives?" I love when idiot libs try to make the argument that opposing abortion while supporting capital punishment is some great hypocrisy. It's literally the height of stupidity. The hypocrites are the people who believe punishing murderers and rapist is so wrong but the wholesale slaughter of millions of COMPLETELY innocent and defenseless babies is morally acceptable. That is the ultimate hypocrisy.

By definition, a baby is a child, one that is likely newly or recently born. a fetus that's 4 weeks old is hardly a baby. The same can't be said about an adult, no matter how awful the crime they have committed was. I love how you use the term "punishing," no, this is "killing." Punishing is sentencing them to life in prison, sentencing them to death is completely different. Your amateur Frank Luntz impersonations won't get you very far. Also, the "meddling" isn't just killing criminals, it's making the decision on abortion for them, making the decision on who they can marry, etc. If you want personal liberty and having the government out of your personal decisions, adopt the Libertarian platform, but I guess you're only for people having the freedoms that you agree with.

Saying that the Republican party doesn't want to make decisions for you is completely false. The Democrats are guilty of the same thing, but I at least own that.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I heard on the news today that in Florida, if you vote early, and then you die before election day, they will still count your vote.

I have an update to this; I just heard that in early voting in Florida, the numbers of early voters are more registered Republicans than Democrats.

So ironically, in spite of all the whining from Trump of a rigged election, the dead vote may actually end up in his favor.

 

[Michchamp]

I have an update to this; I just heard that in early voting in Florida, the numbers of early voters are more registered Republicans than Democrats.

So ironically, in spite of all the whining from Trump of a rigged election, the dead vote may actually end up in his favor.

yeah, I was going to say, a lot of old, dead people voting would help Trump & the GOP, because a larger percentage of old people are racist, dumb, and pro- authoritarian. so in FL, & also probably AZ they have that going for them.

 

[Sbee]

yeah, I was going to say, a lot of old, dead people voting would help Trump & the GOP, because a larger percentage of old people are racist, dumb, and pro- authoritarian. so in FL, & also probably AZ they have that going for them.

a lot of the dead people who vote are clerical errors when there are two people living in the house with the same name, likely a son and the father that he was named after. I assume there are cases where someone casts an absentee ballot for someone who passed away but I think that's obviously a rare occurrence.

 

[byco42]

From Gangs of New York:

Killoran: Monk's already won by three thousand more votes than there are voters.

Boss Tweed: Only three? Make it twenty, thirty. We don't need a victory. We need a Roman triumph.

 

[Spartanmack]

By definition, a baby is a child, one that is likely newly or recently born. a fetus that's 4 weeks old is hardly a baby. The same can't be said about an adult, no matter how awful the crime they have committed was. I love how you use the term "punishing," no, this is "killing." Punishing is sentencing them to life in prison, sentencing them to death is completely different. Your amateur Frank Luntz impersonations won't get you very far. Also, the "meddling" isn't just killing criminals, it's making the decision on abortion for them, making the decision on who they can marry, etc. If you want personal liberty and having the government out of your personal decisions, adopt the Libertarian platform, but I guess you're only for people having the freedoms that you agree with.

Saying that the Republican party doesn't want to make decisions for you is completely false. The Democrats are guilty of the same thing, but I at least own that.

by definition? whose definition? webster? scientific consensus? planned parenthood? Your arbitrary definition of what a baby is is irrelevant. And aren't you the person who fell for some pro abortion idiots claim that by definition a baby is a parasite? yes, you posted that here not too long ago. So now we're supposed to get on board with the choice to butcher the most vulnerable, innocent and defenseless human beings because of an arbitrary yet convenient definition you selected to say an unborn human isn't human? And it's called "capital punishment" when an adult criminal is executed. That is by definition, punishment.

Isn't Frank Luntz a pollster? I'm not taking any polls so I don't see the comparison. If anyone is doing an amateur Frank Luntz impression, it's turd - they're both chubby little slobs that think they're smarter than they are. Putting criminals to death has nothing to do with choosing who they can marry or forcing them to have babies - you're definitely going off the rails with this rant.

Being pro life isn't at all the same thing as wanting to make decisions for people. And true conservative republicans who believe in the constitution prefer self determination over central planning and excessive, ineffective government regulation - there's quite a clear record of that. Certainly, the Republican party has been corrupted almost as much as your party and I find it disheartening. Conservatives need to regain control of the party or establish a new conservative party.

Clearly you have no idea what conservatism is. Personal liberty and self determination are conservative principles that aren't exclusive to libertarianism. I tend to side with libertarians more frequently than Democrats of course but the libertarian party in America is a bunch wahoos that have no idea what libertarianism is - they're basically democrats with no political savvy.

 

[Spartan23MSU]

really? How many times did you vote for Obama because he set a record for voting "present" while he was in the Senate - I suppose that was very brave of him, he's a real trailblazer. Yes, abstaining for conscientious reasons is participating, just like sit ins, and even truly cowardly stuff like sick outs and other forms of passive protest are participating in a process. Calling that a cop out is clear and unsurprising demonstration of your lack of understanding. I'm a conservative, there is no conservative candidate in this election and I won't vote for a blue dog democrat clown just because he's running against a corrupt and evil opponent.

What's really funny is someone who has empathy for BLM supporters rioting and looting also has such harsh criticism of conscientious objectors protesting two unacceptable choices.

Defending the most innocent and defenseless among us isn't running people's lives - it's defending life.

Yahtzee!

 

[Spartan23MSU]

I think voting present in the senate is cowardly and I've criticized Obama for that. He had a responsibility to his constituents and he should have voted in conjunction with their best interests.

So you don't have a candidate that perfectly fits your viewpoint so you choose not to vote, which is cowardly. You have a right to be a fence sitter and not participate in the election, talk about taking your ball and going home.

I've never condoned rioting and looting.

We can go down the abortion rabbit hole again, but of course it's pointless. I wonder how you will try to justify republicans supporting the death penalty and that not being slaughter or meddling in peoples lives? The republican party is not the party of liberty, far from it.

SO, not voting (because I have conscience) is cowardly and childish, voting for trump youre a hateful racist and voting for hillary youre a good guy with morals?:lmao: Im going to be the Colon krapperdick of the board and take a knee on voting. the only difference is im a cowardly child and hes a modern day patrick fucking henry, totally laughable

 

[Sbee]

SO, not voting (because I have conscience) is cowardly and childish, voting for trump youre a hateful racist and voting for hillary youre a good guy with morals?:lmao:

Did I say anything like that?

Having racist views makes you racist. Voting for Trump doesn't make you racist. I never said that voting for Hillary makes you a good person, makes no sense. I know good people that are going to vote for Trump, in my opinion I think that those people are so dyed in the wool Republican that they'd vote for the worst possible nominee the party could put forth over any Democrat. I also know assholes that are voting for Hillary, plenty of them.

My opinion is that you should vote for who you think would do the best job of running the country. Pretty plain and simple, if there isn't a traditional conservative in the race, you vote for who you think would be best and participate in the election. Mack has said many times that he thinks Trump is a better choice than Hillary, then he should vote for Trump unless he thinks Johnson or Stein are better than him. if you opt not to vote for who you think would do the best job (it has to be one of them) then you're basically being a child, saying that none are a perfect match so you won't vote.

 

[Sbee]

by definition? whose definition? webster? scientific consensus? planned parenthood? Your arbitrary definition of what a baby is is irrelevant. And aren't you the person who fell for some pro abortion idiots claim that by definition a baby is a parasite? yes, you posted that here not too long ago. So now we're supposed to get on board with the choice to butcher the most vulnerable, innocent and defenseless human beings because of an arbitrary yet convenient definition you selected to say an unborn human isn't human? And it's called "capital punishment" when an adult criminal is executed. That is by definition, punishment.

Isn't Frank Luntz a pollster? I'm not taking any polls so I don't see the comparison. If anyone is doing an amateur Frank Luntz impression, it's turd - they're both chubby little slobs that think they're smarter than they are. Putting criminals to death has nothing to do with choosing who they can marry or forcing them to have babies - you're definitely going off the rails with this rant.

Being pro life isn't at all the same thing as wanting to make decisions for people. And true conservative republicans who believe in the constitution prefer self determination over central planning and excessive, ineffective government regulation - there's quite a clear record of that. Certainly, the Republican party has been corrupted almost as much as your party and I find it disheartening. Conservatives need to regain control of the party or establish a new conservative party.

Clearly you have no idea what conservatism is. Personal liberty and self determination are conservative principles that aren't exclusive to libertarianism. I tend to side with libertarians more frequently than Democrats of course but the libertarian party in America is a bunch wahoos that have no idea what libertarianism is - they're basically democrats with no political savvy.

Don't need to re-hash the whole abortion argument. You think it's murder from the point of fertilization, I think it's uncertain when a fetus is granted personhood, therefore I would never want my wife to have one but I can't impose that on someone who doesn't feel the way that I do because it's not black and white.

I do agree that there needs to be a center right party in this country, one that does take those elements of Libertarianism and smaller government and challenge the center left party. Right now there aren't enough constituents to sustain that party or at least not with the courage to break away from the GOP and their fundraising. So what you have is a group of disjointed views loosely stitched together in order to get enough votes to be relevant in elections. It seems like you're in favor of what the Republican Party used to stand for.