Random Politics & Religion #10

Just a heads up on what the meltdown is going to look like on the Left if she continues her steady drop in the polls.

Besides, I'm really, really, really bad at lying.

Somewhat paradoxically, that ruled out a career in law.

It's Bush's Trump's fault!

...wait, it is!

A good trial lawyer never has to lie. Shading the truth is often quite enough.

And there are many fields in law that require not even that. For instance my brother in law specializes in taking private companies public.

Please. If Hillary doesn't defeat Trump she doesn't have a single person to blame other than Hillary.

I mean, she'll try, rest assured.

But she's *** up so many times and still, at least presently, leading.

If she can't hold onto it now? *** hell.

Besides, I'm not paying for law school.

Today, globally, everyone saw on their televisions Donald Trump meeting with the President of Mexico. Just hours before that, you heard Hillary Clinton saying something along the lines of, "it takes building relationships to be president". Trump literally did that right afterwards.

Sorry to anybody out there who doesn't support Donald Trump, but today was an absolutely huge day for him. The optics alone are enough for a lot of people.

I am curious as to why she refused to go to Louisiana and now Mexico. What is she doing? Are these not bad decisions on her part?

Why does she need to go to Mexico right now? She has been there, met with the President, Mexican President has come here and met with her. She has sat down with leaders all over the world. Sitting down with the President of Mexico doesn't win Trump any votes.

I'm sure if Nieto invites Clinton like he invited Trump she would go. She has not refused to go to Mexico. This was not Trump's idea, he doesn't get credit for anything. And it certainly isn't going to help dig into that 85% deficit he is facing among Hispanics.

I am curious as to why she refused to go to Louisiana and now Mexico. What is she doing? Are these not bad decisions on her part?

How about "asked not come"...

85% deficit, eh? Sorry, that one's an old figure based off crappy polls. A more legitimate poll (Economist/YouGov) has 29% of Hispanics saying they'll vote for him, with 7% considering it. Hillary's only at 49% and 9%, respectively. According to another poll it's even closer in Florida, with 50% for Clinton, 40% for Trump among Hispanics.

I'm sorry it's not quite the landslide among Hispanics that you were thinking.

Trump is underperforming the Republican brand [among Latinos], which is 26 points underwater compared with his 43, according to the Amandi & Bendixen poll. But Clinton is faring the same relative to her party, standing at plus-39 among Latinos compared with plus-46 for the Democratic Party. Meanwhile, 38 percent of Latinos who were asked in English have unfavorable ratings of Clinton, compared with just 21 percent of Spanish speakers...

Trump’s minus-67 rating is fully 124 points below Clinton’s plus-57 among Spanish speakers....

The numbers, indeed, are grim for Trump: He trailed Clinton 67 to 19 percent among Latino voters in the July poll, lagging behind the 27 Romney won in 2012....

RALEIGH, N.C. — A divided U.S. Supreme Court refused Wednesday to reinstate North Carolina's voter identification requirement and keep just 10 days of early in-person voting.

The decision — a victory for voting rights groups and President Barack Obama's Justice Department — means voters won't have to show one of several qualifying photo IDs when casting ballots in the presidential battleground state. Early voting also reverts to 17 days, to begin Oct. 20.

The court rejected a request by Republican Gov. Pat McCrory and other state officials to delay a lower court ruling that found the state law was tainted by racial discrimination.

"Hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians will now be able to vote without barriers," Allison Riggs, an attorney representing some of the groups and voters who originally sued over the 2013 law, said in a release.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down several parts of the law July 29, saying they were approved by Republican legislators in 2013 with intentional bias against black voters. Lawyers for McCrory and the state officials disagreed with the 4th Circuit ruling that there was "discriminatory intent" in passing the law and wanted a delay while they drafted an appeal.

The high court divided 4-4 on most of the challenged provisions, with the four more conservative justices supporting the state's bid to enforce them in the upcoming election. The split illustrates again how closely divided the Supreme Court is on voting rights and how the outcome of the presidential election essentially will determine the court's direction.

The court has been operating with only eight members since Justice Antonin Scalia died in February.

A ninth justice chosen by Democrat Hillary Clinton would almost certainly vote with the court's liberal justices on this issue. A justice picked by Republican Donald Trump would likely be a majority-making fifth vote for conservatives.

McCrory, who signed the law, said in a statement that North Carolina "has been denied basic voting rights" by the decision and that "four liberal justices" had "blocked North Carolina protections afforded by our sensible voter laws."

The voting adjustments could benefit Democrats in the November election, since registered Democrats historically have favored using early voting. Evidence presented during the trial over the 2013 law says black residents disproportionately lack photo ID. Black voters traditionally have voted overwhelmingly Democratic in North Carolina.

Attorneys who sued over the law — representing the U.S. government, the state NAACP, other groups and voters — told the justices last week keeping voter ID and 10 days of early voting in place would irreparably harm minority voters.

About 900,000 people voted in North Carolina in the first week of a 17-day early voting period in the 2012 presidential election. Fifty-six percent of state voters in that election cast early in-person ballots.

State NAACP president Rev. William Barber declared the ruling "another major victory for justice" that allows people to vote without "expansive restrictions by racist politicians or racist policies."

Voter ID was required during primary elections this year and 10 days of early voting had been in place since 2014.

McCrory and Republican legislative leaders have said voter ID is a sound requirement to increase the integrity of elections. Appeals court judges said the state provided no evidence of the kind of in-person voter fraud the ID mandate would address. The law was amended last year to include a method for people unable to get a photo ID to still vote.

Republican House Speaker Tim Moore and Senate leader Phil Berger said in a statement they were disappointed in the ruling and pointed out more than 30 other states have a voter ID requirement. "We'll continue to fight to restore this commonsense measure," Moore tweeted.

A trial court judge in April had upheld the law, but the 4th Circuit panel wrote he seemed "to have missed the forest in carefully surveying the many trees" by failing to recognize a link between race and politics inNorth Carolina.

The challenged provisions "target African Americans with almost surgical precision," said the 4th Circuit ruling, which also struck down provisions eliminating same-day registration during the early voting period and the counting of Election Day ballots cast by a person outside of their home precinct. The state didn't ask the Supreme Court to restore these provisions.

The court's action also means a voting "preregistration" program that readies 16- and 17-year-olds to cast ballots when they turn 18 is re-instituted. The 2013 law had ended the program.

Since the 4th Circuit decision, some GOP-controlled county election boards have approved 17-day early voting schedules that scale back the number of voting hours or anticipated early-vote sites. The State Board of Elections will decide whether they stand.

More legit huh? What makes it more legit? It shows numbers you like better? All of the polls I am seeing in the last two weeks, including the Gallup poll 2 days ago, shows Clinton with a huge 42-46 point lead among Hispanics. Sure, it might not be as big as I thought, and it is better than the 0-3% Trump is polling at among the black vote, but it feels like a landslide to me.