Impeaching President Trump

[Ligma]

A federal judge ruled that NC voter ID laws were discriminatory and "targeted black voters with surgical precision". Those were his words.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Ligma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A federal judge ruled that NC voter ID laws were discriminatory and "targeted black voters with surgical precision". Those were his words.

Damn, he MUST be right then. Lol I think this is a good point that Teppler was making. You are literally letting the articles do the thinking for you. Anyone with a brain can disassociate that it's only discriminatory if you add discriminatory elements. If it is applicable to all, it is not discrimination.

[Ligma]

Legally, yes. But besides that I'm sure he was provided evidence beyond what you pick up in /r/conspiracy

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Ligma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Legally, yes. But besides that I'm sure he was provided evidence beyond what you pick up in /r/conspiracy

What was I saying about anecdotal evidence? Ah yes, you let it do the thinking for you.

Just because you have one case where you had some evidence that someone was being discriminatory doesn't mean a rule FOR ALL is discriminatory. This isn't that hard to understand.

[Ligma]

Anecdotal? It's a god damn federal ruling? Are you seriously that dense?

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Ligma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Anecdotal? It's a god damn federal ruling? Are you seriously that dense?

Lol you are stupid. It was a NC law. NC law. North Carolina. Yes it is a federal ruling on a law that created for the STATE of NC that could have some language in the law that was discrimination. That does not mean all vote ID laws are discriminatory. This is very very easy. You sir, are the dense one.

It is anecdotal in the aspect that you are using one law that was drafted in NC that could've had some language that was identified as discriminatory to ONE supreme court judge. This is called anecdotal evidence. This does not mean ALL voter ID laws are bad. This does not mean ALL voter ID laws are discriminatory. This does not mean ALL judges would agree with his assessment.

[Teppler]

A judge saying something doesn't make it right. Obama appointed tons of judges during his term to carry out partisan liberal justice. Part of that is going to be defending the shady policies that helped put them into their position. These judges often have favors to return after they get the job. This stuff gets overturned all the time.

Just talking logically as two human beings. When countries like mexico can utilize voter id laws do we really have an argument not to have the same protection?

[Ligma]

Sorry I'm on my phone so I can't provide all the evidence needed for you to disregard.

[BallzDeep]

Originally Posted by Ligma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry I'm on my phone so I can't provide all the evidence needed for you to disregard.

Great counter point. You'd be better off saying "Yes, my evidence is anecdotal and there is no possible way to prove that something is always discriminatory especially when it has never been drafted."

[Teppler]

Activist judges are another way the liberal establishment attacks the sovereignty of the people.

We vote the president in to carry out an agenda. He puts it fourth. All of a sudden some government representative that has never been voted on can come in a 'gum up' all the works.

It's a protection for the elites where they don't need to count on voting in their figures that can totally disrupt any political action that could be taken.