Well, then you should probably stop reading think progress because one of their examples of "voter suppression" was:
Increasing the influence of money in elections by raising the maximum campaign contribution to $5,000 and increasing the limit every two years.
i don't read it, i just googled the law and this was the first article that came up that had all of the parts of the law. i didn't even read the rest of it.
anyway, i guess no law designed to stop voter fraud is complete without a provision raising the maximum contribution.
Well, then you should probably stop reading think progress because one of their examples of "voter suppression" was:
Increasing the influence of money in elections by raising the maximum campaign contribution to $5,000 and increasing the limit every two years.
i don't read it, i just googled the law and this was the first article that came up that had all of the parts of the law. i didn't even read the rest of it.
anyway, i guess no law designed to stop voter fraud is complete without a provision raising the maximum contribution.
I do not see how some of the measures benefit anyone. They do seem kind of dumb, I wouldn't say that I am "blindly complying" because I am not a NC voter, and I have never advocated the measures they are taking. I think that it is just tearing down some institutions that were put up while the federal government suspended NC State rights.
I have a feeling that some of these programs/ institutions will return, it is up to the people of NC to decide what they want, and to elect their state representatives accordingly. I think that this is a positive thing for NC, and they are going to be much more accountable now that their state offices have consequences, and are not just proxies of the Federal Govt.
If the measures dont benefit anyone, why do them?
and why spend time, money and resource on implementing them and maintaining them?
I like your basic sentiment on states rights as I do believe in them also... but I do think what is happening here speaks specifically to a certain type of agenda in government and partisan politics....
I mean is this really a problem they are choosing to spend, money, time and resource solving?
or is it choosing to spend, money, time and resource to create a problem that will require more spending of time, money and resource to fix?
I do not see how some of the measures benefit anyone. They do seem kind of dumb, I wouldn't say that I am "blindly complying" because I am not a NC voter, and I have never advocated the measures they are taking. I think that it is just tearing down some institutions that were put up while the federal government suspended NC State rights.
I have a feeling that some of these programs/ institutions will return, it is up to the people of NC to decide what they want, and to elect their state representatives accordingly. I think that this is a positive thing for NC, and they are going to be much more accountable now that their state offices have consequences, and are not just proxies of the Federal Govt.
If the measures dont benefit anyone, why do them?
and why spend time, money and resource on implementing them and maintaining them?
I like your basic sentiment on states rights as I do believe in them also... but I do think what is happening here speaks specifically to a certain type of agenda in government and partisan politics....
I mean is this really a problem they are choosing to spend, money, time and resource solving?
or is it choosing to spend, money, time and resource to create a problem that will require more spending of time, money and resource to fix?
i don't read it, i just googled the law and this was the first article that came up that had all of the parts of the law. i didn't even read the rest of it.
So you made a thread bashing Republicans based on an article that you were not clear was accurate or factual?
i don't read it, i just googled the law and this was the first article that came up that had all of the parts of the law. i didn't even read the rest of it.
So you made a thread bashing Republicans based on an article that you were not clear was accurate or factual?
So you made a thread bashing Republicans based on an article that you were not clear was accurate or factual?
no, the thread is about those specific provisions in the law. those in the article are factual. the commentary in the rest of the article is irrelevant to me.
So you made a thread bashing Republicans based on an article that you were not clear was accurate or factual?
no, the thread is about those specific provisions in the law. those in the article are factual. the commentary in the rest of the article is irrelevant to me.
Dl, I see it as the natural balance that should take place at the state level. Is it needed or monetarily "worth it". Probably not. But for a state that has clawed back their rights of election law, it is not shocking that they have acted in this manner.
There is still the noose of potential federal invasion around their neck if you read the Supreme Court decision. So the shotgun blast of regulation was not a shock to me.
At the end of the day the state is free to do as it wishes now, and I can't begrudge them for exercising their newfound rights. Seems kind of douchey, but not "wrong" as far as I can see.
Dl, I see it as the natural balance that should take place at the state level. Is it needed or monetarily "worth it". Probably not. But for a state that has clawed back their rights of election law, it is not shocking that they have acted in this manner.
There is still the noose of potential federal invasion around their neck if you read the Supreme Court decision. So the shotgun blast of regulation was not a shock to me.
At the end of the day the state is free to do as it wishes now, and I can't begrudge them for exercising their newfound rights. Seems kind of douchey, but not "wrong" as far as I can see.
Dl, I see it as the natural balance that should take place at the state level. Is it needed or monetarily "worth it". Probably not. But for a state that has clawed back their rights of election law, it is not shocking that they have acted in this manner.
There is still the noose of potential federal invasion around their neck if you read the Supreme Court decision. So the shotgun blast of regulation was not a shock to me.
At the end of the day the state is free to do as it wishes now, and I can't begrudge them for exercising their newfound rights. Seems kind of douchey, but not "wrong" as far as I can see.
well this is a where checks and balances take place with the states exercising their rights, and the judicial system doing their thing and this all separate of the the executive branch...
I think people get mixed up there some times... Like I heard this guy go on and on about obama legalizing happy marriage, but the reality is that the supreme court is separate from the executive branch... but he insisted that it was the executive branch that legalized happy marriage and king obama did so single handedly...
of course this came along with obamacare rhetoric and legalization of marijuana and taking every single gun in the nation... and king obama was personally responsible for everything and the executive branch had turned into a monarchy in a way that has never happened before...
and mind you, this guy claimed to be a "constitutionalist"...
really scary stuff now adays where people dont even understand the powers and workings of their own government... and these are people claiming to be following our forefathers as "constitutionalists".... Im scare to see what the people who arent so called "constitutionalists" believe about america..
with such ignorance it seems like perfect crop of sheep to hard and slaughter... so I agree with you about your sentiment,,, but I guess I hoped that the states would set an example of decreased spending and do so through being efficient and effective...
Dl, I see it as the natural balance that should take place at the state level. Is it needed or monetarily "worth it". Probably not. But for a state that has clawed back their rights of election law, it is not shocking that they have acted in this manner.
There is still the noose of potential federal invasion around their neck if you read the Supreme Court decision. So the shotgun blast of regulation was not a shock to me.
At the end of the day the state is free to do as it wishes now, and I can't begrudge them for exercising their newfound rights. Seems kind of douchey, but not "wrong" as far as I can see.
well this is a where checks and balances take place with the states exercising their rights, and the judicial system doing their thing and this all separate of the the executive branch...
I think people get mixed up there some times... Like I heard this guy go on and on about obama legalizing happy marriage, but the reality is that the supreme court is separate from the executive branch... but he insisted that it was the executive branch that legalized happy marriage and king obama did so single handedly...
of course this came along with obamacare rhetoric and legalization of marijuana and taking every single gun in the nation... and king obama was personally responsible for everything and the executive branch had turned into a monarchy in a way that has never happened before...
and mind you, this guy claimed to be a "constitutionalist"...
really scary stuff now adays where people dont even understand the powers and workings of their own government... and these are people claiming to be following our forefathers as "constitutionalists".... Im scare to see what the people who arent so called "constitutionalists" believe about america..
with such ignorance it seems like perfect crop of sheep to hard and slaughter... so I agree with you about your sentiment,,, but I guess I hoped that the states would set an example of decreased spending and do so through being efficient and effective...
did mr yelton get in trouble for "party dislaoyalty" last year??
apparently, he resigned. some say due to some racist comments about black people but this article seems to suggest he resigned due to recent popularity among republicans and calls for him to start campaigning for the republican presidential nomination in 2016.
did mr yelton get in trouble for "party dislaoyalty" last year??
apparently, he resigned. some say due to some racist comments about black people but this article seems to suggest he resigned due to recent popularity among republicans and calls for him to start campaigning for the republican presidential nomination in 2016.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.