• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Biden Considering Filibuster Exception for Voting Rights

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
fskimospy said:
Surely you agree this is very good legislation, right?
Click to expand...

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.
 
fskimospy said:
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?
Click to expand...
The party in the early 2000s that unanimously reauthorized the 65 Voting Rights Act, today it wouldn't get any Republican votes.
 
Jaskalas said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jaskalas said:
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.
Click to expand...

Their chief concern is Democrats voting and those votes being counted at all. Beneath the surface of their various bullshit complaints is this core idea that those votes are simply illegitimate.
 
HomerJS said:
The party in the early 2000s that unanimously reauthorized the 65 Voting Rights Act, today it wouldn't get any Republican votes.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Jaskalas said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Edit: Oh, also I momentarily forgot this was that gem of a moment where in back to back opinions for Shelby Scalia argued that because Congress would never exercise its judgment to eliminate the voting rights act on its own the court must do so... and then turned around and argued the defense of marriage act must be preserved because SCOTUS had no right to second guess the judgment of congress. lol.
 
fskimospy said:
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?
Click to expand...

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. Im in Sinama's corner on this one: I support the bill, but not a shortcut around the the filibuster to get it done.
 
Last edited:
Jaskalas said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
blackangst1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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?
 
HomerJS said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Moonbeam said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Jaskalas said:
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.
Click to expand...

That would only be seen as a compromise if republicans actually cared about voter fraud. They don’t and I’m not quite sure why this point alludes you.

Republicans don’t give a shit about democracy, secure elections, government debt, crt, or any number of things they complain about all the time. All the above are simply tools used to keep themselves in power and to continue gifting the American people, especially their supporters.
 
Roger Wilco said:
The turtle is huffing and puffing, per the usual.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478446621104947206

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478446650909761539
Click to expand...
Radicalism McBitch? Really.
www.nytimes.com

Mitch McConnell Calls Push to Make Election Day a Holiday a Democratic ‘Power Grab’ (Published 2019)

The Senate majority leader denounced a bill proposed by House Democrats that would make it easier to register to vote and cast a ballot.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

WHO is afraid of the voting population at large?
 
Jaskalas said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Jaskalas said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
fskimospy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

We see that when it comes to freedom of speech and the liberal wish to silence Fox News, that logic, wisdom, and sound education may fail to prevail. It may with some but it will not change the fact that the soul wishes for freedom of speech. We learn rather quickly in life it is the truth that is most hated and people do not want to hear. Each of us has different levels of tolerance, depending on past conditioning, the more tolerance the lest conditioning. We were luck with who are forefathers were and what they know about what happens when the speaking of truth is denied.
 
gothuevos said:
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?
Click to expand...

Been voting in NJ with no ID. It's that way in multiple states. The polling place you are assigned to has the area they cover broken down into smaller sections. You have to go to the person that has the election book for your street number area, sign the form that shows X person from this address came to vote, and then you can vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top