evince
Truthmatters
so we are no longer a democracy?
FOX: trump loses to every Dem front runner
- Thread starter katzgar
- Start date
so we are no longer a democracy?
The polls don't elect a President. How did you ever make it through law school, if you actually did, with such a lack of knowledge about the Constitution?
We are a Republic that picks our President through an electoral college system. Will you ever learn the difference?
Just like having more first downs, more total yards, running more plays, a longer time of possession, etc. doesn't win a football game. The final score is the only thing that matters.
You equated polls and votes as the same thing. You claim a type of vote not used to pick the President matters.
You must have been an affirmative action acceptance to law school.
evince
Truthmatters
Goldwater girl ?????
the proof is in the Mueller report and decades of the USA court records all they way to the SCOTUS
I post them sooo often people give me shit for it idiot
why was the republican party ORDERED by the courts for DECADES not to purge voter roles without COURT supervision?
because they kept getting caught and proved to be CHEATING every election
COLD HARD COURT DOCUMENTED FACTS
No longer? Our presidential election has been done the same way for centuries.
Since no evidence backs up your claim, your so called cold hard proof is frozen.
evince
Truthmatters
which was DESIGNED to reflect what the people chose
the founders preferred a Direct vote for the election of the president BUT the slave states kept saying some of the people were not people and kept them as farm animals
so the founders did an electoral college
we don't have slavery anymore so we can go to the founders FIRST CHOICE of a direct election of the president
at that time The VP was appointed to the person with the second most votes
we changed that huh
evince
Truthmatters
https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree
DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
November 5, 2016
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. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including 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 Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the RNC had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the RNC asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. A subsequent petition for rehearing en banc by the full Third Circuit, and a certiorari petition to U.S. Supreme Court, were denied.
On October 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had violated the decree. On November 5, after abbreviated discovery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided sufficient evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-security operations, but will allow the DNC to offer further evidence after the election.
Click here to learn more about voter caging.
Click here to learn more about ballot security programs.
Related Court Documents
2016
Order Denying Request to Extend Decree (11/05/2016)
RNC's Memorandum in Opposition to Order to Show Cause (10/31/2016)
DNC's Memorandum in Support of Order to Show Cause (10/26/2016)
2012
Petition for Rehearing (03/22/2012)
Third Circuit Opinion (03/08/2012)
2009
Debevoise Order (12/01/2009)
Debevoise Opinion (12/01/2009)
RNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
DNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
RNC Reply Brief (02/19/2009)
DNC Brief Opposing Motion to Vacate (01/19/2009)
RNC Brief in Support of Motion (11/03/2008)
2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (11/03/2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certification of Exhibits (11/03/2008)
OFA Intervention Memo (11/03/2008)
Minute Entry (11/03/2008)
2004 (Ohio)
Malone Dismissal (02/03/2005)
Malone en banc Decision (11/09/2004)
Malone Appellate Decision (11/01/2004)
Malone Order (11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor PI brief (11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor Complaint (10/31/2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Intervention (10/28/2004)
Malone Motion to Intervene (10/28/2004)
2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle Temporary Restraining Order (11/02/2004)
Daschle SD Complaint (11/01/2004)
2002 (New Jersey)
Order (10/31/2002)
1990 (North Carolina)
Order (11/05/1990)
1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (07/27/1987)
Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Consent Decree (11/01/1982)
Complaint (02/11/1982)
I can go get each case over the years court documents
they are clickable at the site
the FACTS are the republican party has been caught cheating in elections for decades
we never get those elections back
YOU cheat
get caught
get punished
and still get to keep the seats you stole
we will change that too
DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
November 5, 2016
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. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including 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 Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the RNC had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the RNC asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. A subsequent petition for rehearing en banc by the full Third Circuit, and a certiorari petition to U.S. Supreme Court, were denied.
On October 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had violated the decree. On November 5, after abbreviated discovery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided sufficient evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-security operations, but will allow the DNC to offer further evidence after the election.
Click here to learn more about voter caging.
Click here to learn more about ballot security programs.
Related Court Documents
2016
Order Denying Request to Extend Decree (11/05/2016)
RNC's Memorandum in Opposition to Order to Show Cause (10/31/2016)
DNC's Memorandum in Support of Order to Show Cause (10/26/2016)
2012
Petition for Rehearing (03/22/2012)
Third Circuit Opinion (03/08/2012)
2009
Debevoise Order (12/01/2009)
Debevoise Opinion (12/01/2009)
RNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
DNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
RNC Reply Brief (02/19/2009)
DNC Brief Opposing Motion to Vacate (01/19/2009)
RNC Brief in Support of Motion (11/03/2008)
2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (11/03/2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certification of Exhibits (11/03/2008)
OFA Intervention Memo (11/03/2008)
Minute Entry (11/03/2008)
2004 (Ohio)
Malone Dismissal (02/03/2005)
Malone en banc Decision (11/09/2004)
Malone Appellate Decision (11/01/2004)
Malone Order (11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor PI brief (11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor Complaint (10/31/2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Intervention (10/28/2004)
Malone Motion to Intervene (10/28/2004)
2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle Temporary Restraining Order (11/02/2004)
Daschle SD Complaint (11/01/2004)
2002 (New Jersey)
Order (10/31/2002)
1990 (North Carolina)
Order (11/05/1990)
1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (07/27/1987)
Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Consent Decree (11/01/1982)
Complaint (02/11/1982)
I can go get each case over the years court documents
they are clickable at the site
the FACTS are the republican party has been caught cheating in elections for decades
we never get those elections back
YOU cheat
get caught
get punished
and still get to keep the seats you stole
we will change that too
Last edited:
It's clear you have no understanding of how the system works nor why it was put in place.
As for slavery, it still exists, so to speak. The difference is many of those whose ancestors were slaves by force continue to choose to be slaves by choice to the same Democratic party that enslaved their ancestors.
evince
Truthmatters
DNC v. RNC Consent Decree
November 5, 2016
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. Under that decree and its 1987 successor, the Republican party organizations agreed to allow a federal court to review proposed “ballot security” programs, including 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 Democratic National Committee and Obama for America sought to enforce the consent decree, claiming that the RNC had not submitted alleged ballot security operations for review. After the election, the RNC asked the federal court to vacate or substantially modify the decree. The court denied the RNC's motion to vacate the consent decree and ordered the decree remain in effect until December 2017. The RNC then appealed to the Third Circuit, which unanimously rejected the appeal and affirmed the District Court's decision. A subsequent petition for rehearing en banc by the full Third Circuit, and a certiorari petition to U.S. Supreme Court, were denied.
On October 26, 2016, the DNC filed a motion asking that the court find the RNC had violated the decree. On November 5, after abbreviated discovery, the district court denied the DNC’s request, ruling that the DNC had not provided sufficient evidence of coordination between the Trump campaign and the RNC on ballot-security operations, but will allow the DNC to offer further evidence after the election.
Click here to learn more about voter caging.
Click here to learn more about ballot security programs.
Related Court Documents
2016
Order Denying Request to Extend Decree (11/05/2016)
RNC's Memorandum in Opposition to Order to Show Cause (10/31/2016)
DNC's Memorandum in Support of Order to Show Cause (10/26/2016)
2012
Petition for Rehearing (03/22/2012)
Third Circuit Opinion (03/08/2012)
2009
Debevoise Order (12/01/2009)
Debevoise Opinion (12/01/2009)
RNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
DNC Post-Hearing Brief (06/26/2009)
RNC Reply Brief (02/19/2009)
DNC Brief Opposing Motion to Vacate (01/19/2009)
RNC Brief in Support of Motion (11/03/2008)
2008 (several states)
DNC Brief (11/03/2008)
DNC Brief Atty. Certification of Exhibits (11/03/2008)
OFA Intervention Memo (11/03/2008)
Minute Entry (11/03/2008)
2004 (Ohio)
Malone Dismissal (02/03/2005)
Malone en banc Decision (11/09/2004)
Malone Appellate Decision (11/01/2004)
Malone Order (11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor PI brief (11/01/2004)
Malone Intervenor Complaint (10/31/2004)
Malone Memo in Support of Intervention (10/28/2004)
Malone Motion to Intervene (10/28/2004)
2004 (South Dakota)
Daschle Temporary Restraining Order (11/02/2004)
Daschle SD Complaint (11/01/2004)
2002 (New Jersey)
Order (10/31/2002)
1990 (North Carolina)
Order (11/05/1990)
1987 (several states)
Consent Decree (07/27/1987)
Original 1981 case (New Jersey)
Consent Decree (11/01/1982)
Complaint (02/11/1982)
You're the one that thinks blacks are too stupid and lazy to do what white people have no problem doing.
The blacks that continue to vote for a party that has produced such miserable results for them despite claiming to care so much for them, that's pretty clear evidence.
Frozen, therefore, invalid.
Blacks that vote Democrat do so because they think they're owed something. Maybe you do, but I don't vote because I expect the government to give me anything.