What are your unity demands?

[toledomansfield]

off the top of my head

1. don't pack supreme court
2. Don't end fillibuster
3. stop impeachment fiasco
4. stop calling republicans racist et al.
5. stand up to rioters out west.
6. stop attacks on republicans in public

[countryboy]

Personally, if someone had asked me the same question about Trump I would have said:
-stop talking $#@! about “the Democrats”.
-stop telling us all about how Democrats are.
-stop “owning the libs”.
-you dont have to agree with liberal values but at least show respect for them.

I realize my demands are one dimensional. I’ll probably expand on them later.

Then please explain to us how that doesn't apply to Joe "El baboso" Biden. Do you realize how $#@!ing stupid your post sounds? Serious question.

[Cotton1]

Obviously liberals believe unity is defined as successfully eliminating all opposition to their ideas and plans.

Fact

[TheLiquidGuy]

What legal voters have ever been denied the right to vote? Give me some specifics.

My favorite example of intentional voter suppression is from North Carolina. In 2017, the Supreme Court struck down a voter ID law that had been specifically designed to disqualify the kinds of ID that black people were known to carry. The supreme court thoroughly lambasted the law, among other things saying that it targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision,".
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nyti...olina.amp.html

gerrymandering is another specific example blatant disenfranchisement that I am sure no one can deny is fundamentally unjust and antithetical to our vital democratic tradition.

[RMNIXON]

There is no Unity Message, or at least not for the Nation as a whole. The most immediate Unity problem Biden will have is the extreme left of the party making constant demands and refusing any compromise.

The GOP voters are being told to sit quietly after four years of the left pounding their President. How can we take that message seriously?

You don't make a big show on day one of 17 EO's without careful consideration of the issues involved and claim Unity and bipartisanship.

[Mister D]

My favorite example of intentional voter suppression is from North Carolina. In 2017, the Supreme Court struck down a voter ID law that had been specifically designed to disqualify the kinds of ID that black people were known to carry. The supreme court thoroughly lambasted the law, among other things saying that it targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision,".
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nyti...olina.amp.html

gerrymandering is another specific example blatant disenfranchisement that I am sure no one can deny is fundamentally unjust and antithetical to our vital democratic tradition.

North Carolina's voter ID law was upheld a few months ago in federal court. The same specious objections were made but to no effect.

[MMC]

My favorite example of intentional voter suppression is from North Carolina. In 2017, the Supreme Court struck down a voter ID law that had been specifically designed to disqualify the kinds of ID that black people were known to carry. The supreme court thoroughly lambasted the law, among other things saying that it targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision,".
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nyti...olina.amp.html

gerrymandering is another specific example blatant disenfranchisement that I am sure no one can deny is fundamentally unjust and antithetical to our vital democratic tradition.

From your link.


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.”


The divisions in the state’s leadership, which led to a dispute about who represented the state in the case, figured in the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear it, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a statement that accompanied the court’s one-sentence order. He added that nothing should be read into the court’s decision to decline to hear the case.....snip~



The case challenging the North Carolina law was brought by civil rights groups and the Obama administration. A trial judge rejected arguments that the law violated the Constitution and what remained of the Voting Rights Act. But a three-judge panel of the appeals court disagreed.

That was the case, the court said, even though the state had “failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina.” But it did find that there was evidence of fraud in absentee voting by mail, a method used disproportionately by white voters. The Legislature, however, exempted absentee voting from the photo ID requirement......snip~


Clearly you didnt even read your own link.


The appeals court ruling struck down five parts of the law: its voter ID requirements, a rollback of early voting to 10 days from 17, an elimination of same-day registration and of preregistration of some teenagers, and its ban on counting votes cast in the wrong precinct.....snip~


Oh you mean Gerrymandering like how your Democrats do in Chicago and Illinois? NYC and New York? All over California? That kind of Gerrymandering.

[carolina73]

My favorite example of intentional voter suppression is from North Carolina. In 2017, the Supreme Court struck down a voter ID law that had been specifically designed to disqualify the kinds of ID that black people were known to carry. The supreme court thoroughly lambasted the law, among other things saying that it targeted African Americans "with almost surgical precision,".
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.nyti...olina.amp.html

gerrymandering is another specific example blatant disenfranchisement that I am sure no one can deny is fundamentally unjust and antithetical to our vital democratic tradition.

And in Democrat run states the district lines are equally absurd and meant to disenfranchise conservative areas.

But you saying that it targets black voters means, you are actually calling them all Democrats which makes it a non-racial issue. Your really using race to say that gerrymandering is chopping up Democrat strongholds.

[Adelaide]

You are not a serious person.

tPF Thread Ban - Note: Please see this announcement if clarification on tPF is required. Additionally, see Rule 10 for further details.

Thread banned by OP.

[Tahuyaman]

Fact

Which is not in dispute.