What was I saying about anecdotal evidence? Ah yes, you let it do the thinking for you.

Just because you have one case where you had some evidence that someone was being discriminatory doesn't mean a rule FOR ALL is discriminatory. This isn't that hard to understand.

So he said using ONE piece of evidence doesn't do shit, and your reply was yes I'm using ONE piece of evidence thanks for playing.

There are databases of voter fraud, why don't you run a statistical query and let us know if there's any real evidence or stop wasting out time with your snarky and useless drivel?

Anecdotal? It's a god damn federal ruling? Are you seriously that dense?

Lol you are stupid. It was a NC law. NC law. North Carolina. Yes it is a federal ruling on a law that created for the STATE of NC that could have some language in the law that was discrimination. That does not mean all vote ID laws are discriminatory. This is very very easy. You sir, are the dense one.

It is anecdotal in the aspect that you are using one law that was drafted in NC that could've had some language that was identified as discriminatory to ONE supreme court judge. This is called anecdotal evidence. This does not mean ALL voter ID laws are bad. This does not mean ALL voter ID laws are discriminatory. This does not mean ALL judges would agree with his assessment.

A judge saying something doesn't make it right. Obama appointed tons of judges during his term to carry out partisan liberal justice. Part of that is going to be defending the shady policies that helped put them into their position. These judges often have favors to return after they get the job. This stuff gets overturned all the time.

Just talking logically as two human beings. When countries like mexico can utilize voter id laws do we really have an argument not to have the same protection?

Sorry I'm on my phone so I can't provide all the evidence needed for you to disregard.

Great counter point. You'd be better off saying "Yes, my evidence is anecdotal and there is no possible way to prove that something is always discriminatory especially when it has never been drafted."

Activist judges are another way the liberal establishment attacks the sovereignty of the people.

We vote the president in to carry out an agenda. He puts it fourth. All of a sudden some government representative that has never been voted on can come in a 'gum up' all the works.

It's a protection for the elites where they don't need to count on voting in their figures that can totally disrupt any political action that could be taken.

why dont you just admit that Trump is above the law for you?

Projection as usual. Trump appointed far more judges than Obama in the same time frame. That's pretty bad considering they're all bible thumping partisan hacks appointed by an illegitimate president