HR 1 urgently needs to pass through filibuster

[ch33zw1z]

Yep, another reason HR1 must pass. The repugs will likely hold off the tipping point in several states for at least a decade if allowed to continue with these voter suppression bills and gerrymandering.

Analysis: Why Republican voter restrictions are a race against time

With their drive to erect new obstacles to voting, particularly across the Sun Belt, Republicans are stacking sandbags against a rising tide of demographic change.

www.cnn.com

The details of Texas GQP stranglehold on voter registration is especially troubling. HR1 needs to get movement, pronto.

 

[theeedude]

Remember, folks, don't rest until Republican party is completely destroyed, their political earth scorched and salted.

 

[Greenman]

Remember, folks, don't rest until Republican party is completely destroyed, their political earth scorched and salted.

Good luck with that.

 

[theeedude]

Good luck with that.

Thanks!

 

[weblooker2021]

I do not see HR1 getting passed. I am not seeing Democrats changing filibuster rule and Republicans know it.

 

[fskimospy]

I do not see HR1 getting passed. I am not seeing Democrats changing filibuster rule and Republicans know it.

Looks very much like they are going to change it to me.

 

[weblooker2021]

Looks very much like they are going to change it to me.

So you think that both Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema both representing pretty red state going to go along with it?

 

[fskimospy]

So you think that both Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema both representing pretty red state going to go along with it?

Yep, I sure do. They won’t abolish the filibuster but I bet they make a change that allows them to pass significant voting reform. It won’t be the full HR1, but it will be in the same vein.

 

[sportage]

IF I REMEMBER, and I'm too lazy too google it so do correct me, but seems to me that the US Supreme Court back in the Obama days ruled something that basically said voter suppression and more so Black voter suppression "was no longer an issue" within America. And thus the high court struck down law or laws that made it easy for minorities to take voter suppression tactics to court... and then win.
Seems to me that the right wing high court made that ruling back some time ago.
So, what we have seen since Donald Trump lost the election, we have seen republican controlled state after republican controlled state doing the very thing that Justice John Roberts claimed was not being done anymore in America. John Roberts and the US Supreme Court ruled that Black voter suppression was "no longer an issue within America".
And so.... Guess what? Surprise surprise. Appears that old John Roberts was wrong after all. Old fat KKK loving John Roberts.

 

[brycejones]

Thank goodness John Roberts thinks racism is dead and pre-clearance isn't needed.

 

[HomerJS]

So you think that both Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema both representing pretty red state going to go along with it?

Those red states elected them. Why would they be against it? I get Manchin being an old head of the Senate but Sinema puzzles me.

 

[K1052]

Cannot stress enough how important it is for the Democrats to level the electoral playing field. The right is already justifying a further turn into fascism as a done deal.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1375251130586963968

 

[K1052]

Yep, I sure do. They won’t abolish the filibuster but I bet they make a change that allows them to pass significant voting reform. It won’t be the full HR1, but it will be in the same vein.

They really really really need to pass the partisan gerrymandering ban and make it as legally bullet proof as possible. Ditto for voting access. The rest of HR1 is significantly less important.

 

[HomerJS]

IF I REMEMBER, and I'm too lazy too google it so do correct me, but seems to me that the US Supreme Court back in the Obama days ruled something that basically said voter suppression and more so Black voter suppression "was no longer an issue" within America. And thus the high court struck down law or laws that made it easy for minorities to take voter suppression tactics to court... and then win.
Seems to me that the right wing high court made that ruling back some time ago.
So, what we have seen since Donald Trump lost the election, we have seen republican controlled state after republican controlled state doing the very thing that Justice John Roberts claimed was not being done anymore in America. John Roberts and the US Supreme Court ruled that Black voter suppression was "no longer an issue within America".
And so.... Guess what? Surprise surprise. Appears that old John Roberts was wrong after all. Old fat KKK loving John Roberts.

The Shelby case struck down section 5 of the Voting Rights Act that said states with a history of disenfranchising black people had to pre-clear changes to voting through the Justice Department so disparate effect could be determined. GA would not have been able to pass these new voting restrictions had it stil been in place. Once Republicans won that case states immediately made changes to voting rules. I think Alito or Roberts claimed states suppressing black people was no longer an issue. The good news is the SC left open a fix that said if you were going to have preclearence it had to apply equally.

 

[thilanliyan]

Cannot stress enough how important it is for the Democrats to level the electoral playing field. The right is already justifying a further turn into fascism as a done deal.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1375251130586963968

Is it just me or does Carlson always have a confused look on his face?

 

[K1052]

Is it just me or does Carlson always have a confused look on his face?

An integral part of his actually very dangerous shtick.

 

[VashHT]

Is it just me or does Carlson always have a confused look on his face?

Best description I've seen is he always looks like a dog trying to understand a magic trick.

 

[cytg111]

Cannot stress enough how important it is for the Democrats to level the electoral playing field. The right is already justifying a further turn into fascism as a done deal.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1375251130586963968

Sedition. Gitmo.

 

[weblooker2021]

Those red states elected them. Why would they be against it? I get Manchin being an old head of the Senate but Sinema puzzles me.

Because be it in 4 or 8 or 12 years from now, Republicans will regain control of Congress/Senate/White House and without filibuster stopping their agenda will be extremely hard.

 

[K1052]

Because be it in 4 or 8 or 12 years from now, Republicans will regain control of Congress/Senate/White House and without filibuster stopping their agenda will be extremely hard.

They couldn't line up 50 votes to repeal the ACA, their signature pledge for nearly a decade. What that isn't a tax cut, a judge, or defense spending do 50 of them agree on?

 

[weblooker2021]

They couldn't line up 50 votes to repeal the ACA, their signature pledge for nearly a decade. What that isn't a tax cut, a judge, or defense spending do 50 of them agree on?

Yes McCain that was dying did the right thing but can Democrats count on that being the case again?

 

[ewdotson]

Because be it in 4 or 8 or 12 years from now, Republicans will regain control of Congress/Senate/White House and without filibuster stopping their agenda will be extremely hard.

So , I want to make another snarky comment about the wisdom of surrendering to the GOP now so we don't have to surrender to them later, but I'll be somewhat serious. You're paying attention to the voter disenfranchisement efforts that the GOP is currently engaged in, right? People aren't being hyperbolic when they describe it as the largest wave of voter disenfranchisement efforts since Jim Crow laws were first enacted. If the Dems don't fight back against that now, they're not going to have the opportunity to do so in the foreseeable future, filibuster or no.

 

[K1052]

Yes McCain that was dying did the right thing but can Democrats count on that being the case again?

Don't hear anybody talking about an ACA repeal anymore. There are just few things the GOP really aligns on and they already pretty much do them. Essentially the Republican argument is that the people who win the elections should not make laws because then voters would hold them responsible. As a result policy is outsourced to the Executive branch where we see the wild swings in policy that they GOP claims will result of removing the filibuster anyway when administrations change over.

 

[HomerJS]

Don't hear anybody talking about an ACA repeal anymore. There are just few things the GOP really aligns on and they already pretty much do them. Essentially the Republican argument is that the people who win the elections should not make laws because then voters would hold them responsible. As a result policy is outsourced to the Executive branch where we see the wild swings in policy that they GOP claims will result of removing the filibuster anyway when administrations change over.

I can't think of one GOP policy position favored by the American people.

 

[weblooker2021]

So , I want to make another snarky comment about the wisdom of surrendering to the GOP now so we don't have to surrender to them later, but I'll be somewhat serious. You're paying attention to the voter disenfranchisement efforts that the GOP is currently engaged in, right? People aren't being hyperbolic when they describe it as the largest wave of voter disenfranchisement efforts since Jim Crow laws were first enacted. If the Dems don't fight back against that now, they're not going to have the opportunity to do so in the foreseeable future, filibuster or no.

Remember what goes around comes around. Democrats started nuclear war on filibuster and Republicans continue it. If Democrats cross this line, regardless how far, Republicans will push it further. Sure Democrats can get their agenda through but what will they say when it's Republicans in control?