NFL folded like a wet noodle over the protests

[RadOncDoc21]

This confuses me. I can’t figure out why this grenade was thown in this thread.....i wont even bother to field my first guess

I’m confused also... Let me guess, Cam Newton is black, so all black people are sexist and therefore they shouldn’t kneel?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Precedexed Out]

It would be a hellova good start. Every time they riot over xyz doesn't really help their cause either

What you don't understand is these stereotypes aren't based on racism, rather a pattern of behavior

A pattern of behavior. YES YES YES

 

[Precedexed Out]

Racism is a part of our society and culture. It’s what got Trump elected and he used that hate and anger to fuel his supporters. The people who form his base could care less about an equal America and would rather see a divided country. The Russians used these tactics to their advantages and used Trump to make this country “very bad, big ocean, big water.”

Take off your tin foil conspiracy hat. The Trump supporters represent about half of the country, you aren't seriously suggesting half the people in this country prefer a divided country, are you?

 

[Precedexed Out]

This is such a miserably pointless thread. People trying to justify unacceptable behavior. I'm sure you guys will blame the rioting during Katrina on racism as well. At some point doesn't someone have to take accountability for their actions?

No you'll blame guys like me

Accountability seems to be out the window. When Michael Brown attacked officer Wilson, did anyone ever suggest that may have been part of the problem? Did anyone ever mention the thug robbed a gas station the same day he was shot or show the video footage? Of course not, because it doesn't fit the liberal white cop shot unarmed black man racist narrative.

 

[Precedexed Out]

You people are so incredibly brainwashed. It's scary you actually believe your own bs. I treat everyone I come across equally. I hold everyone to the same standard regardless of race. I've met some total losers who happen to be white. I've met superstars who are black.

That is what happens when you view the world through the lens of skin color (like many on here). Like you, I don't view people based on the color of their skin. I view them on the respect and character they display.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Take off your tin foil conspiracy hat. The Trump supporters represent about half of the country, you aren't seriously suggesting half the people in this country prefer a divided country, are you?

The majority of Americans voted AGAINST Trump.

 

[acidbase1]

I will never understand why people are so up in arms trying to get kaep a job when he opted out of the contract he had. he could have made $16 mil this year with the 49ers but he quit. and where is all the outrage for RG3 not having a job? hes black and was a good starter

 

[acidbase1]

The majority of Americans voted AGAINST Trump.

Moot point, we have an electoral system. Such a stupid arguement. Had it been a general population election trump would have altered his strategy

Again, I voted for Hilary bc I knew trump would be a disaster. Just calling a spade a spade

 

[Precedexed Out]

The majority of Americans voted AGAINST Trump.

Yes, that doesn't change the fact that nearly half the country voted for Trump. Nice attempt at pivoting away from the question.

Are you suggesting that nearly 63 million Americans prefer a divided country?

 

[Precedexed Out]

I will never understand why people are so up in arms trying to get kaep a job when he opted out of the contract he had. he could have made $16 mil this year with the 49ers but he quit. and where is all the outrage for RG3 not having a job? hes black and was a good starter

Baffling, isn't it? He thought he could make more money so he opted out. Really confusing, he knew he was toxic and sure didn't seem like the smart thing to do at the time.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Moot point, we have an electoral system. Such a stupid arguement. Had it been a general population election trump would have altered his strategy

Again, I voted for Hilary bc I knew trump would be a disaster. Just calling a spade a spade

I wonder how many people in liberal states like California and New York don't vote because they know their candidate won't win anyway. Why go through the hassle of spending an hour or more to vote for nothing?

You can't change the rules after the fact to get the results you want. Trump won many states he wasn't supposed to according to the fake news media and he did it with way less money than Hillary. Had he spent more time in California and New York knowing those voters could help him, he likely would have gotten a higher percentage or maybe the majority. Nobody knows for sure.

 

[Twiggidy]

I will never understand why people are so up in arms trying to get kaep a job when he opted out of the contract he had. he could have made $16 mil this year with the 49ers but he quit. and where is all the outrage for RG3 not having a job? hes black and was a good starter

SPOILER ALERT: This post is football talk and will involve no politics

He opted out because he knew he wasn’t going to start. He actually had decent numbers on a losing team so basically he gambled on himself on the open markert. Likely with a team like the Browns or maybe the Broncos. It was bad gamble...but hey, that’s why it’s called gambling.

 

[WholeLottaGame7]

I will never understand why people are so up in arms trying to get kaep a job when he opted out of the contract he had. he could have made $16 mil this year with the 49ers but he quit. and where is all the outrage for RG3 not having a job? hes black and was a good starter

RG3 has a similar skillset to Kaepernick but with the added benefit of totally destroyed knees. I think some of the controversies he had in DC were overblown and he seems like a decent enough guy, but a talented football player, he is not (anymore). If you can't even cut it for the Browns, you're not in a good place.

I find it interesting that unlike other sports (baseball, namely), football players seem to get cut before their apparent usefulness has ended, versus stringing them along far past the point of utility. I guess it has something to do with the lack of guaranteed contracts? Tebow was another example; he never struck me as particularly talented, but he did win football games, but it seemed like that wasn't enough. On a related note, at least now I don't have to be offended at him injecting religion into my football games anymore. The nerve of that guy... /sarcasm

 

[pgg]

The majority of Americans voted AGAINST Trump.

1) This is factually untrue. Total voter turnout for the 2016 election was 55-58% depending on which news source you want to believe. Less than 1/3 of eligible voters actually voted for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

2) You're not actually trotting out the "lost the popular vote" line, are you? We don't elect presidents with a popular vote. We never have. Reading any meaning into the outcome of the popular vote is like whining when a football team loses, even though they kicked more field goals than the other team, or griping that a futbol team lost, even though they had more corner kicks than the other team.

 

[Twiggidy]

RG3 has a similar skillset to Kaepernick but with the added benefit of totally destroyed knees. I think some of the controversies he had in DC were overblown and he seems like a decent enough guy, but a talented football player, he is not (anymore). If you can't even cut it for the Browns, you're not in a good place.

I find it interesting that unlike other sports (baseball, namely), football players seem to get cut before their apparent usefulness has ended, versus stringing them along far past the point of utility. I guess it has something to do with the lack of guaranteed contracts? Tebow was another example; he never struck me as particularly talented, but he did win football games, but it seemed like that wasn't enough. On a related note, at least now I don't have to be offended at him injecting religion into my football games anymore. The nerve of that guy... /sarcasm

RG3 was just way to injury prone. He may have had a chance if he didnt play hurt in that playoff game against Seattle. But that’s the risk of being a mobile QB. I think teams, even Florida, won despite Tebow. He did throw a great pass in a that one playoff game against the Steelers I believe, but he would’ve had a longer career if he played another position, similar to what Terrelle Pryor is doing.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

1) This is factually untrue. Total voter turnout for the 2016 election was 55-58% depending on which news source you want to believe. Less than 1/3 of eligible voters actually voted for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.

2) You're not actually trotting out the "lost the popular vote" line, are you? We don't elect presidents with a popular vote. We never have. Reading any meaning into the outcome of the popular vote is like whining when a football team loses, even though they kicked more field goals than the other team, or griping that a futbol team lost, even though they had more corner kicks than the other team.

We don’t elect presidents based off the popular vote, there is gerrymandering and let’s not forget voter suppression.

Shouldn’t all votes be counted equally?

In any sport, the team that scores the most points in a game WINS... well except in golf.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

RG3 was just way to injury prone. He may have had a chance if he didnt play hurt in that playoff game against Seattle. But that’s the risk of being a mobile QB. I think teams, even Florida, won despite Tebow. He did throw a great pass in a that one playoff game against the Steelers I believe, but he would’ve had a longer career if he played another position, similar to what Terrelle Pryor is doing.

Pryor has bricks for hands!

 

[GA8314]

We don’t elect presidents based off the popular vote, there is gerrymandering and let’s not forget voter suppression.

Shouldn’t all votes be counted equally?

In any sport, the team that scores the most points in a game WINS... well except in golf.

When the DMC and other Democrat PACS are literally BUSING people to the polls and helping them (why can't they just do it themselves, it's pretty easy to do) get registered, I don't exactly think we have a situation where we have "voter suppression". This isn't the 60's. Come around good man, it's 2017 and the above happens.

Also, if one needs help getting registered to vote, can you possibly call them an educated voter on issues which matter? It's totally ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be able to vote, but having people virtually register them up FOR THEM (while suggesting whom they should vote for) gets to be pretty damn silly. Talk about paternalism.....

 

[RadOncDoc21]

When the DMC and other Democrat PACS are literally BUSING people to the polls and helping them (why can't they just do it themselves, it's pretty easy to do) get registered, I don't exactly think we have a situation where we have "voter suppression". This isn't the 60's. Come around good man, it's 2017 and the above happens.

Also, if one needs help getting registered to vote, can you possibly call them an educated voter on issues which matter? It's totally ridiculous.

I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be able to vote, but having people virtually register them up FOR THEM (while suggesting whom they should vote for) gets to be pretty damn silly. Talk about paternalism.....

At least courts can see it:

As November Approaches, Courts Deal Series Of Blows To Voter ID Laws

 

[pgg]

We don’t elect presidents based off the popular vote, there is gerrymandering and let’s not forget voter suppression.

First, you’re confusing some things here. While gerrymandering is a real issue, in truth, it’s probably not as big an issue as the Democrats would like you to believe. It actually carries risk to the side doing the gerrymandering because it thins victory margins.

But that’s neither here nor there, because gerrymandering is totally irrelevant to presidential elections. State lines don’t get moved every 10 years by the House majority party.

Gerrymandering affects district elections, not the presidential election ... for what should be obvious reasons.

Shouldn’t all votes be counted equally?

No.

We’re not a direct democracy by design, and for good reason.

In any sport, the team that scores the most points in a game WINS... well except in golf.

The point (and I find it odd that I have to spell it out) is that games, even golf, even elections, are played by rules that are known to everyone in advance. Strategy, tactics, and play are based on a plan to maximize chances of winning. Football teams don’t play for more field goals, futbol teams don’t play for more corner kicks, and presidential candidates don’t play for the popular vote. If the popular vote won presidential elections, candidates would campaign differently, spending more time in New York and Los Angeles.

The fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote means absolutely nothing. Democrats who argue that it means something, or somehow tarnishes the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s victory, are engaging in the worst kind of self delusion. It’s not merely feel-good self deception for the sake of a pity party - it harms their chances of winning the next election because it distracts them from the real reasons they lost.


You’ve listed three reasons (gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the “unfairness” of the Electoral College) why Hillary Clinton lost. All three reasons are objectively false. If you want to keep losing elections, keep believing those things.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Thank you for your response and comments.

As Trump once stated “the system is rigged. He knew it, I knew it, we all knew it.” It just ended up helping him in the end (along with that Russia thing).

 

[GA8314]

At least courts can see it:

As November Approaches, Courts Deal Series Of Blows To Voter ID Laws

So, it's been the opinion of some courts that there is very little fraud eh? O.k., that's an opinion. Ever here of legislating from the bench? The article, among others, mentions North Dakota. Well, look at the demographics of North Dakota.

But, explain to me (or any rational person) how proof of ID is discriminatory?? That's it. Personal ID, so that polls can input (thus verify) that some person doesn't just roll right in, give a name, any name (no proof of ID needed), and do that all across town, maybe even for a bit of spare cash from some back channelling of Super PAC money.

Regardless, I can't seem to fathom how PROOF OF ID is discriminatory. The hard reality is that it's not. But, it should be a basic standard.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Panthers' Newton laughs at female reporter

Unacceptable, female lives matter

Female reporter at center of Cam Newton's sexist remarks apologizes for old racist tweets

 

[deleted50478]

The majority of Americans voted AGAINST Trump.

28.5% of eligible Americans voted for Hillary Rodham-Clinton.
27% if eligible Americans voted for The Donald.

 

[Iso4ane]

Like applying to medical school or residency, the presidential election is a game, where the rules have been relatively set for a long time. You got to play to win. Trump played the game better than Clinton. (Just like bad eggs get through the admissions process, just because you play the game better does not necessarily mean your are qualified.)

 

[Twiggidy]

So, it's been the opinion of some courts that there is very little fraud eh? O.k., that's an opinion. Ever here of legislating from the bench? The article, among others, mentions North Dakota. Well, look at the demographics of North Dakota.

But, explain to me (or any rational person) how proof of ID is discriminatory?? That's it. Personal ID, so that polls can input (thus verify) that some person doesn't just roll right in, give a name, any name (no proof of ID needed), and do that all across town, maybe even for a bit of spare cash from some back channelling of Super PAC money.

Regardless, I can't seem to fathom how PROOF OF ID is discriminatory. The hard reality is that it's not. But, it should be a basic standard.

You're right. It's not overt discrimination. It's not "no minorities allowed" discrimination, but if you take a step back and research who are the most likely to not have a gov't ID (minorites, elderly, disabled, poor people) then voter ID laws have a "discriminatory aspect to them". For instance, you're some old lady, say 80 years old and you've never driven or needed a gov't ID, but now these laws say your vote doesn't count. Despite not being a felon. That's just an example. This population also tends to vote Democrat. That's why the Voter ID thing is an issue.

A lot of these things can't be taken on the surface. So again, you're correct, the "hard reality" is that it isn't discrimination, but it can be argued that it's not to combat voter fraud.

I'm not so sure it should be a standard, because old grandma who doesn't need an ID or let it lapse for some reason shouldn't be banned from voting.

 

[Twiggidy]

Female reporter at center of Cam Newton's sexist remarks apologizes for old racist tweets

My stance on this situation:

Cam was wrong. He needs to do better given his position (not just QB, but as a leader of a team).

The reporter, well, my take on her is that "the internet is forever". If you put something offensive on Twitter, chances are someone is going to screen shot it and keep it.

 

[GA8314]

You're right. It's not overt discrimination. It's not "no minorities allowed" discrimination, but if you take a step back and research who are the most likely to not have a gov't ID (minorites, elderly, disabled, poor people) then voter ID laws have a "discriminatory aspect to them". For instance, you're some old lady, say 80 years old and you've never driven or needed a gov't ID, but now these laws say your vote doesn't count. Despite not being a felon. That's just an example. This population also tends to vote Democrat. That's why the Voter ID thing is an issue.

A lot of these things can't be taken on the surface. So again, you're correct, the "hard reality" is that it isn't discrimination, but it can be argued that it's not to combat voter fraud.

I'm not so sure it should be a standard, because old grandma who doesn't need an ID or let it lapse for some reason shouldn't be banned from voting.

Come on man. How hard is it to get an official government ID? Don't need to pass the driver's test. This is very very basic stuff. Not requiring a darn identification card is absurd. Can you imagine a UN Envoy monitoring for voter fraud in some other country? Think they just might require an ID??? How else would you know that the guy who cast his ballot in some county doesn't just drive over to the next? This is very basic stuff.........

This is literally common sense.

 

[Twiggidy]

Come on man. How hard is it to get an official government ID? Don't need to pass the driver's test. This is very very basic stuff. Not requiring a darn identification card is absurd. Can you imagine a UN Envoy monitoring for voter fraud in some other country? Think they just might require an ID??? How else would you know that the guy who cast his ballot in some county doesn't just drive over to the next? This is very basic stuff.........

This is literally common sense.

Again, you coming at this from a different perspective. Yes, you and I are two able bodied people making good money with higher education. It is literally common sense for us. Poor grandma/grandpa may not have common sense, but they do have the right to vote. And what old grandma will tell you is that "I've been voting all these years and suddenly they want me to go and get an ID?" Let's say old lady lives in rural NC and now she has to go to Raleigh and prove who she is so she can get a state ID card just to vote. She probably won't. Therefore one less vote. That's how it works.

 

[Twiggidy]

But again, the easiest thing to do is say, "You're wrong" then to actually look at research and data and say, "Hmm...that's interesting." But, we're all dug in on our sides.

 

[Precedexed Out]

First, you’re confusing some things here. While gerrymandering is a real issue, in truth, it’s probably not as big an issue as the Democrats would like you to believe. It actually carries risk to the side doing the gerrymandering because it thins victory margins.

But that’s neither here nor there, because gerrymandering is totally irrelevant to presidential elections. State lines don’t get moved every 10 years by the House majority party.

Gerrymandering affects district elections, not the presidential election ... for what should be obvious reasons.



No.

We’re not a direct democracy by design, and for good reason.



The point (and I find it odd that I have to spell it out) is that games, even golf, even elections, are played by rules that are known to everyone in advance. Strategy, tactics, and play are based on a plan to maximize chances of winning. Football teams don’t play for more field goals, futbol teams don’t play for more corner kicks, and presidential candidates don’t play for the popular vote. If the popular vote won presidential elections, candidates would campaign differently, spending more time in New York and Los Angeles.

The fact that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote means absolutely nothing. Democrats who argue that it means something, or somehow tarnishes the legitimacy of Donald Trump’s victory, are engaging in the worst kind of self delusion. It’s not merely feel-good self deception for the sake of a pity party - it harms their chances of winning the next election because it distracts them from the real reasons they lost.


You’ve listed three reasons (gerrymandering, voter suppression, and the “unfairness” of the Electoral College) why Hillary Clinton lost. All three reasons are objectively false. If you want to keep losing elections, keep believing those things.

Love it. Totally shut down, wonder if @RadOncDoc21 will call you a troll?

 

[Precedexed Out]

Thank you for your response and comments.

As Trump once stated “the system is rigged. He knew it, I knew it, we all knew it.” It just ended up helping him in the end (along with that Russia thing).

If I stated those exact same things as pgg, I would have been called a troll. Keep blaming everything except your political party and their views on issues that matter to most Americans for being decimated at all levels of government for the last eight years.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Come on man. How hard is it to get an official government ID? Don't need to pass the driver's test. This is very very basic stuff. Not requiring a darn identification card is absurd. Can you imagine a UN Envoy monitoring for voter fraud in some other country? Think they just might require an ID??? How else would you know that the guy who cast his ballot in some county doesn't just drive over to the next? This is very basic stuff.........

This is literally common sense.

This goes along with the same idea of allowing in as many illegal immigrants as possible. An influx of illegals along with no IDs to vote and you start diluting the effect of legalized US citizens.

 

[Twiggidy]

Love it. Totally shut down, wonder if @RadOncDoc21 will call you a troll?

voter suppression can be argued. just look at WI which had new laws establish in 2016 and significantly reduced turnout.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Again, you coming at this from a different perspective. Yes, you and I are two able bodied people making good money with higher education. It is literally common sense for us. Poor grandma/grandpa may not have common sense, but they do have the right to vote. And what old grandma will tell you is that "I've been voting all these years and suddenly they want me to go and get an ID?" Let's say old lady lives in rural NC and now she has to go to Raleigh and prove who she is so she can get a state ID card just to vote. She probably won't. Therefore one less vote. That's how it works.

That isn't how it works. IDs are needed to function in society, from renting properties, turning on utilities,...etc. They aren't that difficult to obtain and many states offer them for free.

 

[Twiggidy]

This goes along with the same idea of allowing in as many illegal immigrants as possible. An influx of illegals along with no IDs to vote and you start diluting the effect of legalized US citizens.

i won't deny that some Democrat somewhere has that as a strategy but republican states counter that strategy with voter laws that affect it's actual US citizens

 

[RadOncDoc21]

If I stated those exact same things as pgg, I would have been called a troll. Keep blaming everything except your political party and their views on issues that matter to most Americans for being decimated at all levels of government for the last eight years.

Possibly, I just didnt have much time to respond to everything in detail. I normally would have matched the subtle digs but decided to play it nice.

I’m not all about political parties and really wish we didn’t have such a partisan system. I normally would argue that we all want the same things in life and expect our govt to provide for every citizen, regardless of their race, sex, or political affiliation.

 

[Precedexed Out]

voter suppression can be argued. just look at WI which had new laws establish in 2016 and significantly reduced turnout.

A direct cause can't be proven. Regardless, integrity of our voting system should be top priority. If you're too lazy to obtain the form of ID required to vote, than too bad. I just don't buy the no ID excuse. Nearly all US citizens have a form of ID, this issue is blown massively out of proportion.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Love it. Totally shut down, wonder if @RadOncDoc21 will call you a troll?

Shut down? He just stated points that are true, so did I.

The difference is that he doesn’t see it as a problem, I do.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Possibly, I just didnt have much time to respond to everything in detail. I normally would have matched the subtle digs but decided to play it nice.

I’m not all about political parties and really wish we didn’t have such a partisan system. I normally would argue that we all want the same things in life and expect our govt to provide for every citizen, regardless of their race, sex, or political affiliation.

The truth is, the vast majority do want the same thing. The breakdown occurs when political parties frame issues like racism and blow them out of proportion. Not saying they don't occur, but not where near the level they are advertised.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Shut down? He just stated points that are true, so did I.

The difference is that he doesn’t see it as a problem, I do.

He demonstrated that the points you are arguing are entirely irrelevant to affecting who was elected president. It is like a losing football team saying we should have won because we gained more total yards, doesn't matter because that same team scored less points. Gerrymandering had nothing to do with the presidential election. Neither did voter suppression, that is simply a liberal buzzword to call people racist. There is no active voter suppression.

 

[Twiggidy]

A direct cause can't be proven. Regardless, integrity of our voting system should be top priority. If you're too lazy to obtain the form of ID required to vote, than too bad. I just don't buy the no ID excuse. Nearly all US citizens have a form of ID, this issue is blown massively out of proportion.

Well I can tell you from family experience, that record keeping, especially when it comes to the elderly, were not perfect decades ago. It was not unusual for a person's name to not match their SSN card or birth certificate and so now they can't get an ID. As I stated, the voter ID law effected mostly older, minority, and disable, many who were a combination of those. So yes, for you and me who are young and able bodies (I'm assuming), there's no reason for us to not have valid ID. 75 year old man with a cane, it may not be so easy, but now he couldn't vote thanks to a 2016 law.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Female reporter at center of Cam Newton's sexist remarks apologizes for old racist tweets

Two wrongs make a right?

 

[Twiggidy]

You'll hate all of this and probably call it fake because it's in The Nation, which yes, is a left publication but the points are valid.

Wisconsin’s Voter-ID Law Suppressed 200,000 Votes in 2016 (Trump Won by 22,748)

 

[Precedexed Out]

Well I can tell you from family experience, that record keeping, especially when it comes to the elderly, were not perfect decades ago. It was not unusual for a person's name to not match their SSN card or birth certificate and so now they can't get an ID. As I stated, the voter ID law effected mostly older, minority, and disable, many who were a combination of those. So yes, for you and me who are young and able bodies (I'm assuming), there's no reason for us to not have valid ID. 75 year old man with a cane, it may not be so easy, but now he couldn't vote thanks to a 2016 law.

Before medical school, I worked in the home health care industry, taking care of old and disabled people (nearly all low income with few resources). Never once was ID a problem. Whether they needed it to buy beer, cigarettes, for a new lease, doctor, the the many other reasons one needs an ID, they always had one. For this reason, I'm baffled at the idea that obtaining one suppresses votes. It simply doesn't.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

He demonstrated that the points you are arguing are entirely irrelevant to affecting who was elected president. It is like a losing football team saying we should have won because we gained more total yards, doesn't matter because that same team scored less points. Gerrymandering had nothing to do with the presidential election. Neither did voter suppression, that is simply a liberal buzzword to call people racist. There is no active voter suppression.

Well, not too long ago, blacks could not vote and then their vote was not considered equal. I guess it’s easy to say the rules were fair back then as well.

 

[Precedexed Out]

You'll hate all of this and probably call it fake because it's in The Nation, which yes, is a left publication but the points are valid.

Wisconsin’s Voter-ID Law Suppressed 200,000 Votes in 2016 (Trump Won by 22,748)

Yea, mostly don't believe it. Clearly written with a liberal slant. The sob story that it begins with is by no means normal and is not the reason for the 200,000 less votes. Total garbage.

 

[Precedexed Out]

Well, not too long ago, blacks could not vote and then their vote was not considered equal. I guess it’s easy to say the rules were fair back then as well.

No one denies this occurred. And republicans voted to allow blacks to vote (15th amendment) while the democratic party voted against it. That has nothing to do with the current discussion.

 

[Twiggidy]

Yea, mostly don't believe it. Clearly written with a liberal slant. The sob story that it begins with is by no means normal and is not the reason for the 200,000 less votes. Total garbage.

Yes, but the sob story has research to support it's claim....

While this right leaning article makes a counter argument without research to support it......

Stop the Hysterics over ‘Voter Suppression’

I'll take the research

 

[Twiggidy]

But the reality is, that's sort of what's happening on this thread.

One side is like, "Here's what we believed happened and here's some data" and the counter argument is "Nope, because I don't believe you"

I may just have to join others and just tip toe right up out of this quote-unquote discussion....

where's that thread where people were talking about whiskey?