2020 US Presidential Election

ok https://i.imgur.com/26BIjFR.jpg?1

thanks i guess https://i.imgur.com/mXgF3G7.jpg?1

@momoichi Yes, I read it. Now that does not qualify things. Places such as Hawaii, Rhode Island and New Hampshire have voter ID laws and there is no complaints of racism or otherwise, nor is there talk of repealing these laws despite the heavy Democrat presence with NH being very close to being 50/50. The circuit courts of appeals are generally where people go to hammer though a grievance despite it being shot down earlier. In other words, if you bitch and complain enough the court of appeals will generally go with the people making the loudest stink about things. It's basically Dad said no, so you ask Mom. The main argument I have against this is that they stated that government ID and student IDs are used to try and vote and this is denying minority voters. I know this is crap since there are a lot of items that require photo ID to purchase ranging from tobacco, alcohol, lottery tickets, money orders above $500, renting hotel rooms or heavy equipment and a bunch of other things. Government and student IDs are not accepted forms of identification to purchase or rent these items, you can't even use a birth certificate or social security card for these transactions. Identification such as driver's licence, non-driver ID, military ID, passports and are the only ones accepted. So if what is being said is true, then that means that minorities and their lack of identification would mean that they are economically hampered by not being able to purchase items they want to, get certain jobs or rent certain equipment? The answer is they are not, the cost of a non-driver ID is generally $10 or lower in every state and even legal immigrants have photo ID on their green cards. The reason for many states to have a photo ID is to expedite the process namely in the case of Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and Maine. Makes it so that you don't have to check and send out waivers to make sure you are who you say you are. Now in the case of many states the voter ID laws are under the pretense of due making sure that voter fraud does not happen. What they don't tell you is that it hastens the process of both state and federal voting process.

im talking north carolina the supreme court themselves said it targetted minorites with surgical persision how are you going to argue with the supreme court over the ethicality of the thrown out north Carolina voter laws

That isn't the supreme court, it is the court of appeals which is an intermediary between the State and Federal government. The supreme court of North Carolina approved the measures and denied the appeal, so they went to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals to force the measure out. If it failed at the 4th Circuit, then it would have gone to the Supreme Court. Now you can have the 4th Circuit Court's decision overturned by going to the Federal Supreme Court, but that can be very tricky and will have national implications that you might not like. Fact of the matter is that the 4th Circuit Court also has other states under it's jurisdiction that have similar if not the same voter ID laws as North Carolina, so now the question is why are they focusing on North Carolina?

maybe you can educate me on this because I don't know the ins and outs of the court systems ect but in the article it says the supreme court is the one that struck it down as quoted here "The Supreme Court on Monday refused to revive a restrictive North Carolina voting law that a federal appeals court had struck down as an unconstitutional effort to “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision.”" maybe im mixing up my dates, i apologize, but my point was the supreme court is the one that said these laws are racist, yet you say they weren't can you clear this up?

imagine actually voting for this stooge what an embarrassment https://i.imgur.com/2BoZQdT.jpg