Not good enough, they’ll just find another route. We need a national standard for voting access, across the boards, across the lines. We can’t let them get away with accepting that voting is a right, but ease of voting is a state matter, and Big Gummint gotta stay out. Fuck that shit!
We may depend on some opposition. Mmm, yes, that’s likely.
About 100,000 blacks were prevented from Early Voting in North Carolina.
Our dear Brickhead will be pleased, I’m sure, that North Carolinans can now have more confidence in their election’s integrity.
I think Election Day access has also been degraded in black communities, further increasing confidence.
Here in Minnesota, there are reports of glaring and other curt stares of disdain and disapproval.
Trump is launching the first lawsuit, in Nevada because he saw those minorities voting late in the last early voting day. Actually the rule there AFAIK allows the people who get in line near the end time to vote regardless of how long it takes.
Trump really does think that it is so unfair to let them vote. Guess he really **IS **a Republican.
Perhaps WillFarnaby is out today with the other Neo-Confederates, doing his bit to keep his state white.
Oh well, a “nasty” woman judge ripped Trump a new one. 
Trump campaign attempts to invalidate Latino votes in Nevada, is denied
Sex Scandal Confirms Targeted Voter Suppression In Alabama
This thread apparently has been suppressed by all the horrific Trump news. Time for a bump.
You quote your link correctly, but I don’t believe your link correctly summarizes the Judiciary Committee’s actual words. Here they are:
That’s it.
The report does not say the plans were a decoy, and it says only that there were allegations made at DOT with respect to a disproportionate impact on minority communities – not that such impact was found or that such impact was ever intended.
What a non-shocker.
Boy, those Pubbies sure are accident prone! They keep doing things that unintentionally impact Dem voters!
Or is it that intention is so hard to prove that you feel free to deny intention. Its a pattern repeated and consistent, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread. So, repeated, consistent, but unintentional? Well, OK, if that’s your case.
I’m saying the report doesn’t say a damn thing about intent.
No. But the facts do. Of course, its possible that these things can happen consistently and repeatedly without intent. Or at least, I can’t prove that it is impossible.
But I’m not one to let the rational defeat the reasonable. Given repeated and consistent Republican efforts that have the effect of suppressing Dem votes…? Well, once is accident, twice is coincidence, but over and over? That’s Col. Mustard, standing over the battered corpse in the library, holding a bloody candlestick. If you don’t understand that, get a Clue.
SDMB: Look, this report says the budget justifications used to rationalize DMV closures were decoys!
ME: No, it doesn’t actually say that anywhere.
SDMB: What’s important is not what the report said, but that you accept the truth of what it didn’t say.
He did not state the facts clearly, and offered you a nitpick to seize upon and exaggerate. Even so, we have better than 200 pages about Republican voter suppression. If we were to throw this one out, the rest of the pile remains. You can do your victory dance on top of it, if you can climb that high.
Post 10427 was a triumphant offering up of the report as evidence of the claims. The fact that the report doesn’t say that anywhere is not a nitpick. It’s a rebuttal of the primary message of the post.
The reason we have a long thread is that I have consistently rebutted every post. Undoubtedly this latest exchange adds to the post count but doesn’t add anything to the evidence for your claims.
Oh, Bricker, Bricker, Bricker. Just when I’m ready to welcome you back to the realm of sentient humanoids, to admit that you have a hefty three-digit IQ; you go and do this. So sad. A human brain is such a shame to waste.
You’re cute when you try to mimic an SDMB conversation in this fashion. Let me reciprocate. Just a few hours ago, in Elections forum IIRC, you did this:
Bricker: Give me a number on this irrelevant tangent within a tangent. Give me a number or it didn’t happen.
'Luci: I can’t give you the exact number. We’ve tried to explain such things to you a hundred times.
Bricker: Cackle cackle! I ask for the number and you tell me the number is 500 [sic]! Cackle cackle! Obviously that’s what you think the number is. I, the Great Bricker, asked for THE NUMBER and you replied with “500”! [Nevermind that the unresponsive number was 100 and Bricker’s inflated ego turned it into 500.]
In the other thread you refused to admit that your dialog was asinine.
*** I do have a sincere question for you: If you tried such a 3rd-grade “argument” based on deliberate lying in a court of law, what would the judge say to you? Would he reprimand you? Or treat you like a 9-year old brat and ask the bailiff to look for the mother who had evidently mislaid her little brat-kid?***
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
And here you are at it again.
BigAppleBucky: GOP deliberately suppresses votes again. “Unfortunately, demonstrating intent is a tall order; it is not every day that Republicans openly brag about the political benefits these laws yield their party …”
Bricker: Here is a Republican who didn’t say he was a fraudster. Sorry if this is redundant, given the “Unfortunately demonstrating intent …” sentence in Bucky’s own post. See, I’m a 9-year old brat and can’t be expected to read every part of a post. I just browse looking for misplaced commas that might help me bamboozle a jury. Cackle cackle!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Al Capone was a murderer who was convicted only of tax evasion. By your logic, you’d need to find only one person (Capone’s mother?) who didn’t call Capone a murderer, and he’d be innocent! She wouldn’t even have to say “My son is not a murderer;” she’d just have to not use the word “murderer” in a selective quote of her.
Capiche? I didn’t think so. You really are willfully stupid.
GOP vote-suppression is clearer than the nose on your face. But you have “rebutted every post”?
Clearly you’re using “rebut” in the sense of “claim” rather than “prove.” Well I claim that you are a moronic sub-human whose posts can all be dismissed as idle prattle. There! In one swoop I’ve contributed more to this thread than you, in all your 2700 posts!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Bricker, to save a mouse-click, I’m going to lump you with your fellow moron, Farnaby. At this point I honestly don’t know whether you’ll take the lumping with pride, or will feel irked (“He’s not not in my pretentious hypocritical lk – his is a different pretentious ilk!”)
By “take liberties” I think you mean “exaggerate” which is a form of “tell lies.” Pro-Tip for Farnaby: In the entire history of SDMB, nobody has ever been able to discern an intelligible thought coming from you. Now you admit that you’re an exaggerator. If you want to be taken seriously, try writing something sincere and intelligible. It will be a refreshing change.
You’ve never made any argument at all in the entire history of SDMB. Just babble, blather and nonsense.
Post 10435 is ignored in its entirety. When come back, bring cogency.
I’d like to both defend Bricker and remind him of something – he’s been attacked a lot for his motives, which I think is unfair. There are non-racist reasons to support voter ID requirements (depending on the particulars), and I see no evidence so far that Bricker’s reasons are racist. I think that line of attack should stop.
But Bricker you’re also wrong, IMO, that this thread is so long simply because you’ve “consistently rebutted every post” – for example, in this post, you (finally!) agreed that North Carolina’s changes to voter ID and voting times violated the Voting Rights Act (even if you thought that portion of the VRA was unconstitutional). I think we could have gotten to that point a lot quicker, but you held it back because that point didn’t help your argument (I’m assuming). It was certainly relevant to the discussion, even if you hadn’t been asked that exact question in those exact words. I’m not saying you were lying or anything, just that you chose a lawyerly tactic more designed to win the argument than actually get towards the truth of the matter.
However, this is hardly an uncommon sin, and I’m sure I’m guilty of it and things like it at times as well. As always, I will try to improve as a poster, and I urge you to do so as well.
Humpf. Figures.
Thank you!
True. There are posts I have not rebutted, and posts I’ve conceded.
But this isn’t a good example of a concession, because the underlying issue was not the violation of the VRA, but the validity of the VRA’s constraint. So it wasn’t a lawyerly tactic, except perhaps a desire to ensure that the argument is framed clearly.
Well, ok. Also a lack of desire to help my opponent frame his argument clearly, so, yeah, fair point.
I trust you have made arrangements so that your SDMB writings will be available for your biographers?