Wow - what a great set of insults. Too bad they completely failed to respond to the actual issues I raised.
I'm sorry your feelings are so easily hurt, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with sarcasm.
For example, I show you how Texas is attempting to do something illegal against college students and you pretend that I think that is racist
No, you didn't 'show' anything, you 'claimed' something. Further, you failed to cite specifically how it was illegal as constitutionally (see 10th amendment) it is up to the states to define eligibility requirements to vote... restricted by a few areas (religious test, race, sex).
Of course you make no attempt to deny that what they are doing is illegal, instead you make fun of me because you thought I was claiming racism in that case.
Correct, I'm not going to try to prove a negative.
Are you really stupid enough to think a crime is still acceptable unless I prove it is racist crime?
Still waiting to see/hear how it is a crime. Feel free to cite a specific statute if you'd like.
I also love how you did not understand a simple comparison
I also love how you do not understand sarcasm or taking ideas and added a good mix of progressive double-think in to highlight the ridiculousness of what you are saying.
Let me explain. Massachusett's Voter ID law lets you vote if you don't have a Voter ID - even if just provisionally.
Yup, saw that the first time you said it... but again, you are describing different states, which sometimes have different laws believe it or not. Ex: Age to get an unrestricted drivers license in Texas is 17, Massachusetts's is 18, while Maine it's 21. Racism? (is that better?)
Texas's Voter ID law does not let you vote at all - if you don't have the ID.
Yup, they have specific requirements. Different states have different rules for ID, polling times, absentee voting, etc. What is the news?
You might do better if you go back and re-read everything I wrote.
Why? You keep repeating the same arguments without actually considering their place in the larger system.
Unless of course you are just a troll paid to insult intelligent people (or worse, doing it for fun)
And there is where we know I've won... you assume I'm trolling vs arguing against your nonsense while using a fun bit of rhetoric along the way.
Oh and finally, your huge attempt to pretend this is all about race basically proves that no you do not care about anything EXCEPT racism.
I'm confused... you claim I'm pretending this is all about race... but I don't really care about anything but race? How exactly does that work? More so... how exactly do you know just how I'm thinking? What if... you are wrong about more than just that?
Or is it just a battle against out of state college students? I don't often hear that argument on the evening news or from lawyers who are fighting against voter ID laws... they tend to be the ones who scream racism.
You yourself implied that you think the "lazy/stupid/poor" should not be able to vote.
Wait... I thought you said 'finally' above... still more?
Oh that's a good one! You accuse me of not reading/comprehending what you said... and yet you have this good nugget. I use that line as a rhetorical play against those who claim it is all about race who simultaneously are practicing the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.
Which happens to be the most Un-american of ideas
Agreed... any other arguments you wish to try to straw-man me with?
The Supreme Court found that when some piece of shit tries to prevent the 'lazy/stupid/poor" from voting, it is racist.
Odd, note how you didn't mention it only applying to a given race? Perhaps there is something you aren't saying...
SCOTUS found in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, that attempts to weed out the "lazy/stupid/poor" were violations of the 14th Amendment of the United States of America.
There it is! In fact Harper had to do with poll taxes, not racism. Damn that 24th amendment and textual evidence!
In other words, yes, the very things you are claiming are not racist, the Supreme Court of the US declared to be racist
By 'in other words' I think you mean "assuming we find meaning from words I've referenced but don't actually understand"... you are right. Alas, you aren't in fact. I can find no words in the ruling to support your claim about it, in fact just the opposite. It says. Would you like to try?
In the mean time it's worth noting that in 2014 SCOTUS allowed the Texas law to go forward, but did block a Wisconsin law... so racist in WI but not in TX? Maybe there is something more than race at place?