Kobach helped lead Trump’s election panel. A judge just found him in contempt in a voter ID case

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It wasn't weak, just presenting the crowd this judge hangs out with. It means something whether you think so or not.

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It wasn't weak, just presenting the crowd this judge hangs out with. It means something whether you think so or not.

Yes. It was weak. You are trying to kill this judge's credibility based on unproven hearsay. Hearsay which you literally just got done admitting you can't prove.

originally posted by: Saiker
Why are we letting people who are too uneducated to get a proof of citizenship make an educated decision on whom they vote for? I mean really there should be at least a 4th-grade education required to vote. Heck, most of these people don't know how to read. How do they vote?
I'm surprised anyone would admit their too stupid to get proof in the general public?

But...but...but...the Constitution!!!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have to be honest with you, anything you type is usually not anything I consider relative to anything I think.

Here is the deal, a liberal judge doesn't like voter ID. Found some tiny thing that doesn't matter to tie up a person that is now needed as a resource on Trumps team.

It is very transparent.

originally posted by: Fools
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have to be honest with you, anything you type is usually not anything I consider relative to anything I think.

I have to be honest with you. I don't give a #.

Here is the deal, a liberal judge doesn't like voter ID. Found some tiny thing that doesn't matter to tie up a person that is now needed as a resource on Trumps team.

It is very transparent.

Prove it. Until you do you have a weak ass argument. Oh and now you are attempting ad hominems against me, which further proves your argument is weak.

PS: Trump's voter fraud commission was disbanded months ago due to a bipartisan rebuke from State AGs. This lawsuit isn't holding up that commission in the slightest. You should get up-to-date with current events.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you tbink miniroties are too stupid or too lazy to follow voter ID laws?

If not, how do you think that voter ID laws surprises votes, they just make sure there is one vote per person

a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Are you capable of following along with the OP conversation?

If not, how do you hold conversations in real life?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Are you capable of following along with the OP conversation?

If not, how do you hold conversations in real life?

Are you going to answer his question? I'm curious about what you think about that, too.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Saiker

This literally has nothing to do with the OP or anyone mentioned in it, but to answer your question:
15th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

I still don't see how voter ID laws have "denied or abridged" a citizens' right to vote.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Are you capable of following along with the OP conversation?

If not, how do you hold conversations in real life?

attacking a poster...for shame.

originally posted by: timequake

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: SocratesJohnson

Are you capable of following along with the OP conversation?

If not, how do you hold conversations in real life?

Are you going to answer his question? I'm curious about what you think about that, too.

No. I'm not, because it has nothing to do with the OP. Furthermore it is a leading question fallacy.

originally posted by: timequake

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Saiker

This literally has nothing to do with the OP or anyone mentioned in it, but to answer your question:
15th Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]

I still don't see how voter ID laws have "denied or abridged" a citizens' right to vote.

The OP isn't ABOUT voter ID laws denying any right to vote. The OP is about Kris Kobach preventing people from voting by failing to mail out voter registration cards to people prior to the 2016 election. The voter ID law's Constitutionality is a COMPLETELY separate debate from this conversation and you and others are derailing the thread bringing it up.

Kinda telling when the left has to rely on illegal votes so hard, it turns voter ID laws into voter suppression. When you hold illegal aliens vote in such high regard, it really says something about who has the US interest at heart, and who wants foreign intervention in voting too.

Wanting that only legal citizens of this country may be allowed to vote.. What a radical alt-right idea! Btw Russia!

originally posted by: timequake
Are you going to answer his question? I'm curious about what you think about that, too.

Why would you even need his answer? Can't you see he's hell-bent on sticking to the rhetoric that voter ID = voter suppression / racist? You truly wish to get an honest reply? Lol.

a reply to: 1337Kph

Where does the OP talk about illegal aliens. Like at all?

Why would you even need his answer? Can't you see he's hell-bent on sticking to the rhetoric that voter ID = voter suppression / racist? You truly wish to get an honest reply? Lol.

And you guys are clearly hell bent on ignoring the OP topic. I'm guessing because it is inconvenient to you to admit that a right wing hero would stoop to voter suppression.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Where does the OP talk about illegal aliens. Like at all?

"The 2013 law requires people to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate, when they registered to vote for the first time."

^Seems to be the crux of the matter. I wonder what this law was about.. Can't be illegal aliens... maybe Russians?
Do you always whine so much about people killing your rhetoric? How do you hold conversations in real life? With tantrums?


"This guy is blamed at voter fraud!"
-He is to blame because he wants to force voter ID laws?
"Stop ignoring the topic! He is to be blamed!!"

Over simplified strawman, I know, but this is this thread and your logic in a nutshell unfortunately.

a reply to: 1337Kph

Nope. Try again. That isn't what the thread is about. Yes the law is central to the issue, but the law isn't what is at fault here.

Kansas’s chief elections , Kris Kobach was ordered to pay for the opposing attorney fees for not issuing postcards

I'd say they are in cahoots , it's a Win-Win for all the attorneys...the State of Kanas pays off the attorneys fees and Kobach gets to look tough on voter fraud...

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Nope. Try again.

The thread is not what you insist it is about regardless if you're the OP or not, lol. I don't need to try again, seems you are in confused mode already.
If you want an echo chamber why didn't you post this at ShareBlue forums?

a reply to: 1337Kph

I see reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits.

U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson issued a preliminary injunction in 2016 blocking the law and asked that the registrations of some 18,000 people whose materials had been held be notified with a postcard confirming their registration and polling place, as other voters are in Kansas.

But the ACLU recently charged that many voters had failed to receive the postcard; one man who has joined the lawsuit, Charles Stricker, who had been affected by the law, testified that even after the injunction he had been told that the legal issues about the right of people like himself to vote were “up in the air.”

Robinson sided with the ACLU’s January motion to hold Kobach, Kansas’s secretary of state, in contempt for the failures, as the court had ordered him previously to comply.

Did read, nothing new can be applied to our conversation, still. I would post the entire argument again, but you're just going to repeat yourself too.

Voter ID laws are not voter suppression whether you like it or not, and it's amusing you hold that dear to the judge's decision now when the old one is reversed.