NAACP Pushed Rally ID Requirement at Protest Against Voter ID Requirement

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Hypocrites!













With William Barber and the North Carolina NAACP, it’s do as I say and not as I do. At the “Moral March on Raleigh” last Saturday, invitees to the event — called in part to protest the recently-instituted voting protections in that state that feature a requirement for identification such as a driver’s license and passport at the polls – were told to bring photo identification such as a driver’s license or passport with them as an important “do” for participation in the event.

But why should anyone be shocked by the inconsistency. Reverend Barber’s overall “Moral Monday” campaign is an allegedly non-partisan and non-violent campaign “opposing the Republican agenda in North Carolina” (according to the Associated Press) that resulted in over 900 related arrests of activists in 2013.

The North Carolina NAACP, of which Barber is president, is also involved in a lawsuit seeking to overturn North Carolina’s polling place protections. The legal complaint says that ballot protections unconstitutionally restrict voter access. Barber says that asking for proof of identity before something as important as a ballot is given to a person “takes us backwards.”

NCNAAP2814.PNG?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSIOHowever, on an official handout of “Important Do’s and Don’ts for Marchers!!!” that was provided to “invitees” to the Moral March by the NAACP, one item states “DO bring photo identification (driver’s license, passport or other valid photo ID) with you and keep it on your person at all times.” What is “valid” is not stated.



READ THE REST HERE.

http://beforeitsnews...nt-2804102.html

 

[DrLeftover]

You have to show an officially issued photo idea to buy cold medication and sign a form that you're not going to make meth with it under penalty of the law.

But you don't to vote.

Explain that to me.

 

[Evil Eye]

Explain that to me.

Let me just write up a hypothesis that sounds interesting...

Hypothesis: Neither the Democratic party, nor the Republican party, cares whether the other party gets a few extra votes due to the kind of fraud made possible by the ease of voting.

Axiom 1: A political party cannot remain in power indefinitely in an electoral system and political climate like that of the USA.
Axiom 1 Argument 1: By law a president cannot serve more than two terms, so even the best, most popular president needs to be replaced sooner or later. This means there is bound to be a bad president after a while.
Axiom 1 Argument 2: No matter how popular a government is, it will be blamed for just about everything that goes wrong. In this way a party will, over time, lose popularity to another party that seeks to point out everything that went wrong.
Axiom 2: A party that is not more popular than another party will not be elected in most cases.
Axiom 3: If one party is more popular than the other, it will generally win elections.
Axiom 3 Counterargument 1: There are cases of presidents being elected with a lower percentage of the popular vote than their opponents.
Axiom 4: Cheating will not influence the general course of an election beyond a few percent of the vote.

In short, a political party will lose popularity over time, thereby increasing the odds of another party being elected.

If we assume a political party cannot remain in power indefinitely, but can continue to gain popularity while it is not in power, a political party can periodically win elections. In the case of the USA, the Democratic party and Republican party have succeeded one another regularly for the last century and a half. Because this process has been going on for so long, it stands to reason that both parties have noticed that they cannot stay in power indefinitely, but can switch between either party being in charge. Given their success rate, it can also be surmised that neither party feels too bad over losing an election (party, not individual), as they can be reasonably confident that they will win another election in the future.

If neither party cares whether the other wins, they need not care about the public cheating a little to support the other party. In the long run, it doesn't cost them too much.

 

[DrLeftover]

I can't read that and think about it seriously enough to come to some sort of meaningful conclusion...... sober.... that is.

We are discussing politics after all.

Give me an hour or two and I'll get back to you.

 

[Evil Eye]

Take all the time you need, it's none too meaningful and I'll be going to bed anyway

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

Explain that to me.

Let me just write up a hypothesis that sounds interesting...

Hypothesis: Neither the Democratic party, nor the Republican party, cares whether the other party gets a few extra votes due to the kind of fraud made possible by the ease of voting.
.

But the internal government of the republican controlled states do. And the Tea Party in the federal government most certainly does. And the democrats are 10 steps ahead of the worst corrupt republicans in this area.