3 ms·

> When 'some' is enough to control a state legislature, and similar things happen across the country (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659784277/republican-voter-

> When 'some' is enough to control a state legislature, and similar things happen across the country (https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659784277/republican-voter-su... https://www.npr.org/2018/10/23/659784277/republican-voter-su...), it's a logical conclusion. I don't see how it follows that a state legislature's cupidity directly translates to a national party's intentions. That's a bridge too far. If there's a smoking gun, such as a leaked internal memo, I would agree totally. People are scumbags and are biased to try to make their side win in most situations. >It literally links directly to the court judgement. Yes, for closing the polls early, not for voter id laws.

crooked-v 7y ago
> If there's a smoking gun, such as a leaked internal memo, I would agree totally. What about a variety of direct quotes from the heads of different state Republican parties? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno... >Yes, for closing the polls early, not for voter id laws. The judgment is on a law that affects both.
- jimmywanger 7y ago
  > What about a variety of direct quotes from the heads of different state Republican parties? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno.. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno.... That shows no evidence that they are willing to make their views public or that they are shared by republicans on a national level. There is absolutely no evidence for that. > The judgment is on a law that affects both. That is not in evidence. The article you cited did not link the court decision mentioned. The court decision is only speaking to the decision to close polling spots on Sunday because it will suppress black, and majority Democratic voters.
NotSammyHagar 7y ago
How about this: 1. 4 times Alec was caught talking with republican lawmakers about how to suppress the vote (Montana, Alabama, Phoenix, Omaha : https://www.mediamatters.org/american-legislative-exchange-council/five-times-local-media-exposed-alecs-secretive-agenda https://www.mediamatters.org/american-legislative-exchange-c... 2. North Carolina suppression tactics https://www.thenation.com/article/north-carolina-wont-stop-suppressing-the-vote/ https://www.thenation.com/article/north-carolina-wont-stop-s... 3. More on N.C. voter id law to suppress voting: https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-north-carolina-voter-id-law-20160902-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-north-carolin... It's not just some scattered occasional thing of a few bad actors. There are state by state actions and national conferences making this happen.
specialist 7y ago
If you doubt dozens of leaks, hundreds of exposés, archival records, court documents, and diaries from the operatives who coordinated the nationwide disenfranchisement campaigns: What measure of proof do you require?

crooked-v 7y ago

> If there's a smoking gun, such as a leaked internal memo, I would agree totally. What about a variety of direct quotes from the heads of different state Republican parties? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno... >Yes, for closing the polls early, not for voter id laws. The judgment is on a law that affects both.

jimmywanger 7y ago
> What about a variety of direct quotes from the heads of different state Republican parties? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno.. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno.... That shows no evidence that they are willing to make their views public or that they are shared by republicans on a national level. There is absolutely no evidence for that. > The judgment is on a law that affects both. That is not in evidence. The article you cited did not link the court decision mentioned. The court decision is only speaking to the decision to close polling spots on Sunday because it will suppress black, and majority Democratic voters.

NotSammyHagar 7y ago

How about this: 1. 4 times Alec was caught talking with republican lawmakers about how to suppress the vote (Montana, Alabama, Phoenix, Omaha : https://www.mediamatters.org/american-legislative-exchange-council/five-times-local-media-exposed-alecs-secretive-agenda https://www.mediamatters.org/american-legislative-exchange-c... 2. North Carolina suppression tactics https://www.thenation.com/article/north-carolina-wont-stop-suppressing-the-vote/ https://www.thenation.com/article/north-carolina-wont-stop-s... 3. More on N.C. voter id law to suppress voting: https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-north-carolina-voter-id-law-20160902-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-north-carolin... It's not just some scattered occasional thing of a few bad actors. There are state by state actions and national conferences making this happen.

specialist 7y ago

If you doubt dozens of leaks, hundreds of exposés, archival records, court documents, and diaries from the operatives who coordinated the nationwide disenfranchisement campaigns: What measure of proof do you require?