Do Madison County Democrats really believe Voter ID laws are “suppression”? Will they do something about it?

Posted on July 19, 2012 by Dale Jackson

According to their website they do…

The Faith and Politics Forum at UAH that exposed the hypocrisy of our local Republican Party and their determination to disenfranchise voters.

Good. Let me help.

Will they?

About these ads

Filed under: Uncategorized

« »

31 Responses

  1. Redeye, on July 19, 2012 at 10:31 am said:

    Do republicans really believe the Voter ID laws are not voter suppression?

    Reply
  2. Whitey, on July 19, 2012 at 10:43 am said:

    Yes

    Reply
  3. Redeye, on July 19, 2012 at 10:49 am said:

    Democrats really believe the voter ID laws are voter suppression.

    Reply
    • Dale Jackson, on July 19, 2012 at 12:26 pm said:

      Talk to Supreme Court, you are wrong.

      Reply
      • RedEye, on July 19, 2012 at 12:33 pm said:

        Talk to The Brennan Center Left in Alabama has the link. And of course the republican controlled State Supreme Activist Court says voter suppression is legal. Bush v Gore

        Reply
        • Dale Jackson, on July 19, 2012 at 12:39 pm said:

          The ruling was last year and a 2005 law they decided this on. It was out of Indiana.

          Bush v Gore? Really? I’d ask you to explain that ruling, but I fear what I might get.

          Do some research and quit lying.

          Reply
  4. Whitey, on July 19, 2012 at 11:08 am said:

    So you’ve established that Democrats and Republicans disagree. Very shrewd political obrservation.

    Reply
  5. Tiffany, on July 19, 2012 at 11:18 am said:

    I don’t understand why Democrats have a problem with people having to prove who they are. I also find it interesting that they piss on people that actually are trying to solve the problem and make it better for everyone. You are intellectually lazy.

    Reply
  6. RedEye, on July 19, 2012 at 12:02 pm said:

    There is no problem to solve Tiffany.

    Reply
  7. RedEye, on July 19, 2012 at 1:15 pm said:

    Typo should read many right wing links and stories about the same 3% cases of voter fraud is right.

    Reply
  8. Whitey, on July 19, 2012 at 1:27 pm said:

    3% would give either Obama or Romney the win as of today. The national rate of sexual assualt is lower than 3%, should we not have laws against rape?

    Reply
    • Dale Jackson, on July 19, 2012 at 1:32 pm said:

      Better question is where is this 3% number from?

      Reply
      • RedEye, on July 19, 2012 at 1:45 pm said:

        Voter suppression is bad and should be stopped. Bush v Gore

        Reply
        • Dale Jackson, on July 19, 2012 at 1:47 pm said:

          Again, I’m not sure you know what the ruling was about in that case.

          Prove me wrong and stop lying.

          Just stop….

          In 2001, a consortium of news organizations, assisted by professional statisticians (NORC), examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting all the Florida ballots. The study was conducted over a period of 10 months. The consortium examined 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected. Under some methods, Al Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, George W. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537-vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Bush. Under the strategy that Al Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida recount – filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties – Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted by the consortium. If Florida’s 67 counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on December 8, applying the standards that election officials said they would have used, Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes.[1][2]

          Reply
  9. RedEye, on July 19, 2012 at 3:25 pm said:

    Let s to about typos so we won’t have to talk about Bush v. Gore stopping the vote count in heavy democratic voting districts in 2000.

    Reply
    • Whitey, on July 19, 2012 at 3:31 pm said:

      And then you double down. Awesome.

      Reply
      • Redeye, on July 19, 2012 at 8:59 pm said:

        Typo should read, let’s talk about typos so we won’t have to talk about Bush v Gore stopping the vote count in heavy democratic voting districts in 2000.

        Reply
        • Dale Jackson, on July 19, 2012 at 9:48 pm said:

          You ignorant fool…

          Typo should read, let’s talk about typos so we won’t have to talk about Bush v Gore stopping the vote count in heavy democratic voting districts in 2000.

          First, typos don’t leave out whole sentences.

          Second, That is not what happened.

          In a per curiam decision, the Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court’s method for recounting ballots was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The reason for this was the lack of equal treatment of all the ballots cast in Florida. The Court also ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limits set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5 (Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors), which is December 12. Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature.

          The decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris’s previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida’s 25 electoral votes to stand. Florida’s votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 electoral votes to win the Electoral College and defeat Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes (a District of Columbia elector abstained).

          Highly controversial, the decision itself stated it was “limited to present circumstances,” causing critics to accuse the conservative majority of simply picking a winner rather than relying on sound jurisprudence.

          In 2001, a consortium of news organizations, assisted by professional statisticians (NORC), examined numerous hypothetical ways of recounting all the Florida ballots. The study was conducted over a period of 10 months. The consortium examined 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected. Under some methods, Al Gore would have emerged the winner; in others, George W. Bush. But in each one, the margin of victory was smaller than the 537-vote lead that state election officials ultimately awarded Bush. Under the strategy that Al Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida recount – filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties – Bush would have kept his lead

          Have an adult read and explain that to you.

          Gore’s attempts for specific county recounts was illegal, had he gone for a full recount he would have had standing. Either way he lost.

          Reply
    • Dale Jackson, on July 19, 2012 at 6:55 pm said:

      Redeye, just acknowledge you don’t know. It would, believe it or not, be less embarrassing than this.

      Reply
    • Whitey, on July 20, 2012 at 6:58 am said:

      “Personal record, even without the typo”

      Notice the word WITHOUT. I was refering to your personal record of rediculousness you set with your interpretation of Bush vs. Gore.

      Reading comprehension, it matters.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,851 other followers

%d bloggers like this: