Home | About | Donate

Voting Rights Victory as Supreme Court Refuses Stay for NC Restrictions


Voting Rights Victory as Supreme Court Refuses Stay for NC Restrictions

Jon Queally, staff writer

In a victory for voting rights and reprieve for democracy ahead of November's election, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to reinstate controversial voting restrictions approved by Republican lawmakers in North Carolina.


Well, hoopty doo! The real damage is already done. Screw the establishment. Anybody with a spec of intelligence already knows the United States does not have a legitimate elections system. The proof lies with Fric (Killery) and Frac (Drump) as potential presidents. It's hard to believe, but even Bush junior looks better than Fric and Frac.

Fric and Frac are about to prove beyond a doubt that one of these duds will be hailed as the choice of the American sheeple. And the democratic mirage will continue to F***K the nation.


If the Republicans can't strip enough of us of our voting rights how in the world are they ever going to win?
Don't we need a two-party system?
Nothing in the Constitution says anything about a two-party system so the obvious answer is no.
As a matter of fact several of this countries founding father's warned against allowing political parties to be organized.
They said that they would centralize power and function like a monarchy.


Political parties were formed by founding fathers. They lined up quickly over fundamental issues. You might say it was dialectical.


We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.
~Kin Hubbard~


The same thing can be said for Trump's campaign and the need for fraudulent votes. Both parties have colluded for years to ensure election laws benefit only the two parties. After the debacle in Florida that ended up with the Supreme Court deciding our president, and the ensuing wave of ALEC sponsored voter fraud laws in mostly Republican states following Bush's selection, it's pretty obvious that both parties are actively suppressing votes.

It isn't just the voter IDs, which can be very difficult for some people to acquire because of mobility, age, and economic issues, it's closing of polling locations, less early voting, etc that prevent folks from voting which also contribute mightily to voter suppression.

And your 3-5% figure is way off. The number of individual cases of voters assuming another's identity, or voting more than once is infinitesimal compared to the numbers of vote cast. A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast (Washington Post) A person is more likely to spot a UFO or get struck by lightning than commit voter fraud.


Disregard MMinLamesa comments. They are comments designed to agitate, and are idiotic.


Hillary should be Frac!


I read a thread on CD the other day mentioning many great Texans. I think it's safe to say MML won't make the list. Because of the nature of the post, I assumed I would get a less than erudite response, but couldn't allow the fallaciousness to stand without rectifying the record for uninitiated visitors. Thanks for the heads up.


The case of voter fraud is extremely exaggerated. According to polifact.com more people per year are struck by lightning than commit voter fraud. thhttp://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/apr/07/mark-pocan/which-happens-more-people-struck-bylightning."