Democracy...

Yakuda said:
I have no hope you ever will, retard.
Click to expand...

Try to be more original with your insults rather than being a little sissy and in effect saying, "Whatever you say to me- bounces off my hard head like a superball bouncing off a big rock- and sticks to you!

LOSER!

TRUMPTARD! LOL!

HA! HA! HA! HE! HE! HE!
 
Last edited:
evince said:
Because the Republicans keep cheating
Click to expand...
iu
 
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree



DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
Facebook
Twitter
Share
In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts.

PUBLISHED: November 5, 2016
Icon for Gerrymandering & Fair Representation
Gerrymandering & Fair Representation
Redistricting
In 1982, after caging in predom*in*antly African-Amer*ican and Latino neigh*bor*hoods, the Repub*lican National Commit*tee and New Jersey Repub*lican State Commit*tee entered into a consent decree with their Demo*cratic party coun*ter*parts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Repub*lican party organ*iz*a*tions agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot secur*ity” programs, includ*ing any proposed voter caging.

The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. In late 2008, the Demo*cratic National Commit*tee and Obama for Amer*ica sought to enforce the consent decree, claim*ing that the RNC had not submit*ted alleged ballot secur*ity oper*a*tions for review. After the elec*tion, the RNC asked the federal court to vacate or substan*tially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC’s motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until Decem*ber 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unan*im*ously rejec*ted the appeal and affirmed the District Court’s decision. A subsequent peti*tion for rehear*ing en banc by the full Third Circuit, and a certi*or*ari peti*tion to U.S. Supreme Court, were denied.

On Octo*ber 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had viol*ated the decree. On Novem*ber 5, after abbre*vi*ated discov*ery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided suffi*cient evid*ence of coordin*a*tion between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-secur*ity oper*a*tions, but will allow the DNC to offer further evid*ence after the elec*tion.

Click here to learn more about voter caging.

Click here to learn more about ballot secur*ity programs.

Related Court Docu*ments

2016
Order Deny*ing Request to Extend Decree (Novem*ber 5, 2016)
RNC’s Memor*andum in Oppos*i*tion to Order to Show Cause (Octo*ber 31, 2016)
DNC’s Memor*andum in Support of Order to Show Cause (Octo*ber 26, 2016)

2012
Peti*tion for Rehear*ing (March 22, 2012)
Third Circuit Opin*ion (March 8, 2012)

2009
Debevoise Order (Decem*ber 1, 2009)
Debevoise Opin*ion (Decem*ber 1, 2009)
RNC Post-Hear*ing Brief (June 26, 2009)
DNC Post-Hear*ing Brief (June 26, 2009)
RNC Reply Brief (Febru*ary 19, 2009)
DNC Brief Oppos*ing Motion to Vacate (Janu*ary 19, 2009)
RNC Brief in Support of Motion (Novem*ber 3, 2008)

2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (Novem*ber 3, 2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certi*fic*a*tion of Exhib*its (Novem*ber 3, 2008)
OFA Inter*ven*tion Memo (Novem*ber 3, 2008)
Minute Entry (Novem*ber 3, 2008)

2004 (Ohio)
Malone Dismissal (Febru*ary 3, 2005)
Malone en banc Decision (Novem*ber 9, 2004)
Malone Appel*late Decision (Novem*ber 1, 2004)
Malone Order (Novem*ber 1, 2004)
Malone Inter*venor PI brief (Novem*ber 1, 2004)
Malone Inter*venor Complaint (Octo*ber 31, 2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Inter*ven*tion (Octo*ber 28, 2004)
Malone Motion to Inter*vene (Octo*ber 28, 2004)

2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle Tempor*ary Restrain*ing Order (Novem*ber 2, 2004)
Daschle SD Complaint (Novem*ber 1, 2004)

2002 (New Jersey)
Order (Octo*ber 31, 2002)

1990 (North Caro*lina)
Order (Novem*ber 5, 1990)

1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (July 27, 1987)

Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Consent Decree (Novem*ber 1, 1982)
Complaint (Febru*ary 11, 1982)
Stay
 
Election after election



The republicans were caught cheating VOTERS out of their rights to vote


It was the only way they could win elections
 
evince said:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/court-cases/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree



DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
Facebook
Twitter
Share
In 1982, after caging in predominantly African-American and Latino neighborhoods, the Republican National Committee and New Jersey Republican State Committee entered into a consent decree with their Democratic party counterparts.

PUBLISHED: November 5, 2016
Icon for Gerrymandering & Fair Representation
Gerrymandering & Fair Representation
Redistricting
In 1982, after caging in predom*in*antly African-Amer*ican and Latino neigh*bor*hoods, the Repub*lican National Commit*tee and New Jersey Repub*lican State Commit*tee entered into a consent decree with their Demo*cratic party coun*ter*parts. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Repub*lican party organ*iz*a*tions agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot secur*ity” programs, includ*ing any proposed voter caging.

The consent decree has been invoked several times, by the parties to the decree and by others. In late 2008, the Demo*cratic National Commit*tee and Obama for Amer*ica sought to enforce the consent decree, claim*ing that the RNC had not submit*ted alleged ballot secur*ity oper*a*tions for review. After the elec*tion, the RNC asked the federal court to vacate or substan*tially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC’s motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until Decem*ber 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unan*im*ously rejec*ted the appeal and affirmed the District Court’s decision. A subsequent peti*tion for rehear*ing en banc by the full Third Circuit, and a certi*or*ari peti*tion to U.S. Supreme Court, were denied.

On Octo*ber 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had viol*ated the decree. On Novem*ber 5, after abbre*vi*ated discov*ery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided suffi*cient evid*ence of coordin*a*tion between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-secur*ity oper*a*tions, but will allow the DNC to offer further evid*ence after the elec*tion.

Click here to learn more about voter caging.

Click here to learn more about ballot secur*ity programs.

Related Court Docu*ments

2016
Order Deny*ing Request to Extend Decree (Novem*ber 5, 2016)
RNC’s Memor*andum in Oppos*i*tion to Order to Show Cause (Octo*ber 31, 2016)
DNC’s Memor*andum in Support of Order to Show Cause (Octo*ber 26, 2016)

2012
Peti*tion for Rehear*ing (March 22, 2012)
Third Circuit Opin*ion (March 8, 2012)

2009
Debevoise Order (Decem*ber 1, 2009)
Debevoise Opin*ion (Decem*ber 1, 2009)
RNC Post-Hear*ing Brief (June 26, 2009)
DNC Post-Hear*ing Brief (June 26, 2009)
RNC Reply Brief (Febru*ary 19, 2009)
DNC Brief Oppos*ing Motion to Vacate (Janu*ary 19, 2009)
RNC Brief in Support of Motion (Novem*ber 3, 2008)

2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (Novem*ber 3, 2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certi*fic*a*tion of Exhib*its (Novem*ber 3, 2008)
OFA Inter*ven*tion Memo (Novem*ber 3, 2008)
Minute Entry (Novem*ber 3, 2008)

2004 (Ohio)
Malone Dismissal (Febru*ary 3, 2005)
Malone en banc Decision (Novem*ber 9, 2004)
Malone Appel*late Decision (Novem*ber 1, 2004)
Malone Order (Novem*ber 1, 2004)
Malone Inter*venor PI brief (Novem*ber 1, 2004)
Malone Inter*venor Complaint (Octo*ber 31, 2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Inter*ven*tion (Octo*ber 28, 2004)
Malone Motion to Inter*vene (Octo*ber 28, 2004)

2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle Tempor*ary Restrain*ing Order (Novem*ber 2, 2004)
Daschle SD Complaint (Novem*ber 1, 2004)

2002 (New Jersey)
Order (Octo*ber 31, 2002)

1990 (North Caro*lina)
Order (Novem*ber 5, 1990)

1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (July 27, 1987)

Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Consent Decree (Novem*ber 1, 1982)
Complaint (Febru*ary 11, 1982)
Stay
Click to expand...

All that says is that Democrats accused Republicans and the court shot it down. That is no proof of anything.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
If they do, then they would have to admit that the 2020 election was truly legitimate, and that Pres. Biden is the lawfully elected POTUS. To them it's only a democracy and a legitimate, clean election if an (R) wins.

It appears that they prefer monarchies, dictatorships, autocracies.
Click to expand...

Its a catch-22 for them.
 
So we have a bunch of low IQ fools who believe the Big lie, I am looking for a Trumpper who does not, but still supports him.
 
Matt Dillon said:
All that says is that Democrats accused Republicans and the court shot it down. That is no proof of anything.
Click to expand...

Um NO



The infractions were why they were on the consent decree for decades

Then Roberts freed them from the decree


Saying it was all over because a black man was president


Then the republicans renewed their cheating to a massive degree
 
Jarod said:
Lots has happened in the past few years and its an honest question... Do Americans believe in Democracy.

Many Trumppers believe or pretend to believe that the last election was stolen.

I can see how if you honestly believe the election was stolen you could still hold a belief in Democracy, just don't believe its not currently being practiced.


So I guess my question is to those pretending that the election was stolen in order to try to get your guy back in. I know most of you wont admit to your strategy no matter how dumb the alternative makes you look, but at least a few of you have in the past...


So for those of you who admit to the stragety, have you given up on Democracy? Are you actually looking to have an unelected leader as long as it is Trump? And what happens after he dies? His cocaine addled kids?
Click to expand...

THAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED IN AT LEAST FOUR STATES, BY DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE BRANCHES, TO UNSOLICITED, UNVETTED, UNVERIFIED ILLEGAL "MAIL IN BALLOTS", WHICH IS HOW PRES.MORON WON, IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT, IS BEYOND QUESTION.

WHAT DO YOU CALL IT?
 
Grokmaster said:
THAT THE CONSTITUTION WAS VIOLATED IN AT LEAST FOUR STATES, BY DEMOCRATIC EXECUTIVE BRANCHES, TO UNSOLICITED, UNVETTED, UNVERIFIED ILLEGAL "MAIL IN BALLOTS", WHICH IS HOW PRES.MORON WON, IN THE DEAD OF NIGHT, IS BEYOND QUESTION.

WHAT DO YOU CALL IT?
Click to expand...

Those are not Trumps allegations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top