blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,914
- 2,359
- 126
Did you see the post I replied to? Doesnt look like it.You aren’t much of a reader are you? Lulz indeed!
Did you see the post I replied to? Doesnt look like it.You aren’t much of a reader are you? Lulz indeed!
Surely you agree this is very good legislation, right?
The party in the early 2000s that unanimously reauthorized the 65 Voting Rights Act, today it wouldn't get any Republican votes.Can you explain the reasoning why you see 50 Republicans voting against voting rights legislation and 2 Democrats and decide that its the Democrats' fault? Surely you agree this is very good legislation, right?
While I understand that Republican politicians are attempting to do that so they can win elections despite having a distinct minority in support I would hope the average citizen would be interested in enabling as many legal votes as possible. I guess I'm just giving our friend here the benefit of the doubt that he likes participation in democracy.Why would any Republican think that?
Their chief concern is protecting voter ID and tackling the uncertainty behind mail in ballots. AKA, cutting such ballots as much as possible.
If you do not endorse such things, they will oppose you with everything they have.
Why would any Republican think that?
Their chief concern is protecting voter ID and tackling the uncertainty behind mail in ballots. AKA, cutting such ballots as much as possible.
If you do not endorse such things, they will oppose you with everything they have.
We need to stop lending legitimacy to those "concerns."Why would any Republican think that?
Their chief concern is protecting voter ID and tackling the uncertainty behind mail in ballots. AKA, cutting such ballots as much as possible.
If you do not endorse such things, they will oppose you with everything they have.
The party in the early 2000s that unanimously reauthorized the 65 Voting Rights Act, today it wouldn't get any Republican votes.
The argument used against it by Shelby was that because the voting rights act was effective there was no longer a need for the voting rights act. Seriously.The argument used against it by Shelby county, is that it was not applied fairly and evenly for all States. It placed a mandate on only some. Selected by a criteria that was attacked as being out of date. Congress never bothered to update the criteria and modernize who was targeted by the VRA, so its restrictions fell outside constitutional bounds. Something Congress could have resolved with a snap of its fingers. But Republicans were clearly not interested in preserving said restrictions as soon as the legal challenge was made.
A grand bargain might be to endorse and facilitate voter ID / in-person voting. In exchange for updating and restoring the VRA.
Unfortunately, no one is interested in such things.
Can you explain the reasoning why you see 50 Republicans voting against voting rights legislation and 2 Democrats and decide that its the Democrats' fault? Surely you agree this is very good legislation, right?
Not applied evenly? You mean they held the guys wearing white hoods accountable for lynching's? Are you fucking kidding me?The argument used against it by Shelby county, is that it was not applied fairly and evenly for all States. It placed a mandate on only some. Selected by a criteria that was attacked as being out of date. Congress never bothered to update the criteria and modernize who was targeted by the VRA, so its restrictions fell outside constitutional bounds. Something Congress could have resolved with a snap of its fingers. But Republicans were clearly not interested in preserving said restrictions as soon as the legal challenge was made.
A grand bargain might be to endorse and facilitate voter ID / in-person voting. In exchange for updating and restoring the VRA.
Unfortunately, no one is interested in such things.
I think most people think this bill is reasonable, which is why I don't get why the blame would be on the 2 Democrats opposed to eliminating the filibuster and not the 50 Republicans filibustering it.Again, I was responding to spotages post. not HR1 itself.
The bill, as it sits now, looks fine to me: automatic registration, same-day registration, universal mail-in voting without excuse, a minimum of 15 days of early in-person voting with at least 10 hours a day...however I would add other provisions, which I wont air here because it'll derail the thread.
Did you see the post I replied to? Doesnt look like it.
Yeah, hence the reason for my response. Are you just stupid all the time or only when posting?
If you listen to the oral arguments of Shelby or read the opinion it's almost laughable how naïve it was. Or, well, it would be if I thought it was a genuine example of naivete and not a disingenuous way of reaching the decision John Roberts had dedicated a lot of his adult life to.Not applied evenly? You mean they held the guys wearing white hoods accountable for lynching's? Are you fucking kidding me?
And what did those same Republicans do right after they won the case? Basically, go back to lynching.
It's only being an asshole if someone holds participation in democracy is an independent virtue that should be protected regardless of the electoral outcomes. Republicans very clearly don't think that, so they don't consider themselves assholes.I am rather stupid but I see 2 Democrats out of 50 as shit heads and 100% of Republicans the same on this one issue. I really don't know what that means in terms of who is to blame but it does tell me every Republican Senator is an asshole. Who would want to be in a party like that? Birds of a feather?
I am genuinely confused as to what point you're trying to make, can you explain?You know theres a difference between a filibuster and a carveout right?
I am genuinely confused as to what point you're trying to make, can you explain?
The argument used against it by Shelby county, is that it was not applied fairly and evenly for all States. It placed a mandate on only some. Selected by a criteria that was attacked as being out of date. Congress never bothered to update the criteria and modernize who was targeted by the VRA, so its restrictions fell outside constitutional bounds. Something Congress could have resolved with a snap of its fingers. But Republicans were clearly not interested in preserving said restrictions as soon as the legal challenge was made.
A grand bargain might be to endorse and facilitate voter ID / in-person voting. In exchange for updating and restoring the VRA.
Unfortunately, no one is interested in such things.
Radicalism McBitch? Really.The turtle is huffing and puffing, per the usual.
I voted by mail in Nebraska for 16 years, isn't it peculiar that was never an issue to anyone? Gosh, I wonder why that could be. It's a mystery for the ages, I guess!Why would any Republican think that?
Their chief concern is protecting voter ID and tackling the uncertainty behind mail in ballots. AKA, cutting such ballots as much as possible.
If you do not endorse such things, they will oppose you with everything they have.
The argument used against it by Shelby county, is that it was not applied fairly and evenly for all States. It placed a mandate on only some. Selected by a criteria that was attacked as being out of date. Congress never bothered to update the criteria and modernize who was targeted by the VRA, so its restrictions fell outside constitutional bounds. Something Congress could have resolved with a snap of its fingers. But Republicans were clearly not interested in preserving said restrictions as soon as the legal challenge was made.
A grand bargain might be to endorse and facilitate voter ID / in-person voting. In exchange for updating and restoring the VRA.
Unfortunately, no one is interested in such things.
It is the nature of human beings to seek justice. The only thing that keeps people from not feeling this internally is a result of mental illness, having ones true nature destroyed in childhood. None the less, consciously or unconsciously, everybody knows the difference between justice and injustice no matter how deeply this truth is buried. They are assholes and know it or not the price they pay is that they will never, with out transformation, enjoy the blessings of true self respect. There is justice. People just don't have trust.It's only being an asshole if someone holds participation in democracy is an independent virtue that should be protected regardless of the electoral outcomes. Republicans very clearly don't think that, so they don't consider themselves assholes.
Just curious, outside of mail in ballots, where in this country are you allowed to show up and vote without showing some sort of ID?