HR 1 urgently needs to pass through filibuster

[HumblePie]

Summary of what it says so I can decide if it’s worth my time?

It's 13 minutes. Shorter than your shit break I assume.

 

[brycejones]

It's 13 minutes. Shorter than your shit break I assume.

based on your unwillingness to describe it at all I can only assume it’s like your other ‘expert’ you tube videos

I don’t just watch shit on you tube because someone posts a link to it. If you want me to watch it put some effort into it.

 

[HumblePie]

Summary of what it says so I can decide if it’s worth my time?

The guy goes through pieces of the bill that he finds problematic and makes snarky comments about those areas. It is a big bill at over 700 pages. Of which he doesn't go through all that in 13 minutes. He does highlight, with actual passages of the bill, what he sees as issues and his opinions on why. Take it for what it is or don't. The idea is to try to give you a different perspective incase you haven't spent time actually reading over the entire bill or consuming opinion sources of the bill from one political view point.

 

[MrSquished]

I saw a screenshot of what Ingraham was peddling as the worst parts of HR1 - they literally called it the 'Horribles' of the bill:

Online Voter registration
Automatic Voter registration (via DMV)
Mail-in Voting
and there was one other thing. All were pretty vanilla things.

 

[K1052]

based on your unwillingness to describe it at all I can only assume it’s like your other ‘expert’ you tube videos

I don’t just watch shit on you tube because someone posts a link to it. If you want me to watch it put some effort into it.

Imagine a low rent Ben Shapiro in a t shirt who thinks he's funny. His first complaints are about Pelosi getting a haircut and the physical size of the legislation. I stopped after that and looked at the channel's videos. Typical pearl clutchy right wing horseshit that your conservative parents would send you from Facebook because they think it's good.

 

[K1052]

I saw a screenshot of what Ingraham was peddling as the worst parts of HR1 - they literally called it the 'Horribles' of the bill:

Online Voter registration
Automatic Voter registration (via DMV)
Mail-in Voting
and there was one other thing. All were pretty vanilla things.

Next up on the Angle: Turning the poor into cat food....why is the left trying to cancel capitalism?

 

[SMOGZINN]

The guy goes through pieces of the bill that he finds problematic and makes snarky comments about those areas. It is a big bill at over 700 pages. Of which he doesn't go through all that in 13 minutes. He does highlight, with actual passages of the bill, what he sees as issues and his opinions on why. Take it for what it is or don't. The idea is to try to give you a different perspective incase you haven't spent time actually reading over the entire bill or consuming opinion sources of the bill from one political view point.

He cherry picks some examples that he claims contradicts the bill, but the bill is not claiming that every instance is bad, only that they can be bad and so should not be allowed. One example of a good voter ID law does not mean there are not bad voter id laws.
The entire thing is basically one fallacy after another attempting to sound smart while actually being mind numbingly stupid. He doesn't even make an argument against most of the things he is talking about instead he just uses ad hominem attacks. The main thing he has against most of them is that Democrats like them.

 

[woolfe9998]

I haven't watch it yet but the title "Nancy Peolsi's For the People Act" makes it likely biased.

BTW - HR-1 was sponsored by John Sarbanes and originally named after the late John Lewis. We shall see if my instinct is correct.

Watched it and it's a joke. It's not so much criticizing provisions of HR1 as arguing that all this is unnecessary because there is nothing wrong with the 200+ republican bills all making it harder for people to vote. He cherry picks a few of the bills to make his point. A typical argument in favor of dropping mail-in voting is this: "now that COVID is over, what's wrong with going back to the way voting was before?" It's completely moronic.

 

[HomerJS]

The guy goes through pieces of the bill that he finds problematic and makes snarky comments about those areas. It is a big bill at over 700 pages. Of which he doesn't go through all that in 13 minutes. He does highlight, with actual passages of the bill, what he sees as issues and his opinions on why. Take it for what it is or don't. The idea is to try to give you a different perspective incase you haven't spent time actually reading over the entire bill or consuming opinion sources of the bill from one political view point.

Does he spend anytime on the rationale of why this kind of bill is needed? Forgetting the parts he hates for the moment.

 

[HumblePie]

Does he spend anytime on the rationale of why this kind of bill is needed? Forgetting the parts he hates for the moment.

He doesn't give a full opinion on the bill as a whole. Just the issues he finds with it. I do find that his video that only spends time on the problems can lead viewers into believing the bill as a whole is problematic. I never said the bill as a whole was bad either. My post of the video was to point out that others have some issues with the bill and these are some of them. Most of which I agree with in the video. Thank you at least this time for not trying to assert more things than that in regards to the video or post.

 

[woolfe9998]

Does he spend anytime on the rationale of why this kind of bill is needed? Forgetting the parts he hates for the moment.

No, it's all totally unnecessary. All those GOP state level bills are perfectly reasonable and do no harm. They are not politically motivated at all.

Other than the fact that, at last count, there have been at least 10 public admissions, one by Trump himself, that more people voting is bad for the GOP.

Don't bother with HP's youtube vids. He has an opinion then seeks out confirming videos to support it.

 

[ivwshane]

So it’s a Ben Shapiro wannabe and the poster posted it because Ben Shapiro types are what stupid people think smart people sound like. Go figure.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Does he spend anytime on the rationale of why this kind of bill is needed? Forgetting the parts he hates for the moment.

No all he does is pull up things he doesn't like and say 'Yeah, like that is a good idea'. It is about as low effort as it gets. He gives no reasons for his opinions, the viewer is supposed to already agree with him and just be making fun of the ideas.

 

[ivwshane]

He doesn't give a full opinion on the bill as a whole. Just the issues he finds with it. I do find that his video that only spends time on the problems can lead viewers into believing the bill as a whole is problematic. I never said the bill as a whole was bad either. My post of the video was to point out that others have some issues with the bill and these are some of them. Most of which I agree with in the video. Thank you at least this time for not trying to assert more things than that in regards to the video or post.

So you have problems with the bill but you didn’t think it was worth articulating what those issues are and instead decided to post a random video from YouTube of which you expect us to watch because reasons?

How about using your own words? I’d find them to be more credible than random people on YouTube.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Most of which I agree with in the video. Thank you at least this time for not trying to assert more things than that in regards to the video or post.

This is actually the problem with the video. It is made with the assumption that anyone watching it already agrees with his statements, so doesn't bother explaining them.
For anyone that does not know what is wrong with these things, it provides no illumination. It just comes off as mean spirited and a bit low effort.
After watching that video I know nothing more about why you don't like parts of the bill, all I have is a short list of items that you don't like.

 

[woolfe9998]

I'm going to archive some of these republican admissions that more people voting is bad for them politically.

Donald Trump

“The things they had in there were crazy,” Trump said this week of Democratic voting proposals. “They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

Republicans Now Just Admitting They Want Fewer Americans To Vote

As Trump and his GOP allies battle Democratic proposals to make voting safer in the age of coronavirus, they’re being open about how increased turnout could hurt them at the ballot box.

www.vanityfair.com

Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority:

“Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

Republicans Admit They Lose When Elections Are Fair and Free

Bill Moyers guest this week is the journalist David Daley, whose reporting and advocacy on gerrymandering and voting rights have fired up a generation of activists fighting for free and fair elections.

billmoyers.com

Phyllis Schlafly on why they want to get rid of early voting:

“The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that ‘early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.’
“The Obama technocrats have developed an efficient system of identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote. It may take several days to accomplish this, so early voting is an essential component of the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.”

Yep, It’s About Voter Suppression

Republicans are confessing the true reasons for the voter-ID laws they’re pushing, says Jamelle Bouie.

www.thedailybeast.com

Jim Greer, former chairman of the Florida GOP:
The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told the Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only ... ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’” he said.

Yep, It’s About Voter Suppression

Republicans are confessing the true reasons for the voter-ID laws they’re pushing, says Jamelle Bouie.

www.thedailybeast.com

There are many, many others. I'll add more when I find the time.

 

[pauldun170]

I'm going to archive some of these republican admissions that more people voting is bad for them politically.

Donald Trump

“The things they had in there were crazy,” Trump said this week of Democratic voting proposals. “They had things, levels of voting that if you’d ever agreed to it, you’d never have a Republican elected in this country again.”

Republicans Now Just Admitting They Want Fewer Americans To Vote

As Trump and his GOP allies battle Democratic proposals to make voting safer in the age of coronavirus, they’re being open about how increased turnout could hurt them at the ballot box.

www.vanityfair.com

Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation and the Moral Majority:

“Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

Republicans Admit They Lose When Elections Are Fair and Free

Bill Moyers guest this week is the journalist David Daley, whose reporting and advocacy on gerrymandering and voting rights have fired up a generation of activists fighting for free and fair elections.

billmoyers.com

Phyllis Schlafly on why they want to get rid of early voting:

“The reduction in the number of days allowed for early voting is particularly important because early voting plays a major role in Obama’s ground game. The Democrats carried most states that allow many days of early voting, and Obama’s national field director admitted, shortly before last year’s election, that ‘early voting is giving us a solid lead in the battleground states that will decide this election.’
“The Obama technocrats have developed an efficient system of identifying prospective Obama voters and then nagging them (some might say harassing them) until they actually vote. It may take several days to accomplish this, so early voting is an essential component of the Democrats’ get-out-the-vote campaign.”

Yep, It’s About Voter Suppression

Republicans are confessing the true reasons for the voter-ID laws they’re pushing, says Jamelle Bouie.

www.thedailybeast.com

Jim Greer, former chairman of the Florida GOP:
The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told the Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only ... ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’” he said.

Yep, It’s About Voter Suppression

Republicans are confessing the true reasons for the voter-ID laws they’re pushing, says Jamelle Bouie.

www.thedailybeast.com

There are many, many others. I'll add more when I find the time.

Thank you sir

 

[HumblePie]

This is actually the problem with the video. It is made with the assumption that anyone watching it already agrees with his statements, so doesn't bother explaining them.
For anyone that does not know what is wrong with these things, it provides no illumination. It just comes off as mean spirited and a bit low effort.
After watching that video I know nothing more about why you don't like parts of the bill, all I have is a short list of items that you don't like.

Not entirely correct. His points about removing voter ID laws entirely by the bill and the historical precedents of the past leading to voter fraud of mail in voting is a couple things he elaborates upon. You may disagree with him on that, but he does elaborate upon why changing those through HR1 is bad historically.

 

[soundforbjt]

Not entirely correct. His points about removing voter ID laws entirely by the bill and the historical precedents of the past leading to voter fraud of mail in voting is a couple things he elaborates upon. You may disagree with him on that, but he does elaborate upon why changing those through HR1 is bad historically.

But why do leaders in the Republican Party claim it’s because they’ll lose elections and not “ voter integrity “ bs they push to the idiots?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Not entirely correct. His points about removing voter ID laws entirely by the bill and the historical precedents of the past leading to voter fraud of mail in voting is a couple things he elaborates upon. You may disagree with him on that, but he does elaborate upon why changing those through HR1 is bad historically.

Maybe you are thinking of a different video then the one you posted? I just watched that segment again and he says nothing about voter fraud. He just goes on about how Alaska allows many types of ID and that if you don't have an ID you have more problems then needing to vote. Nothing about that is an argument for voter ID laws, or against banning them.

 

[woolfe9998]

Maybe you are thinking of a different video then the one you posted? I just watched that segment again and he says nothing about voter fraud. He just goes on about how Alaska allows many types of ID and that if you don't have an ID you have more problems then needing to vote. Nothing about that is an argument for voter ID laws, or against banning them.

He's lying. The video shows almost exactly zero evidence of historic voter fraud. There is one exception. In the portion on ballot harvesting, he shows a clip of a headline for about .2 seconds which is about the GOP's ballot harvesting scheme in NC in 2018 where the guy went to prison. That's all.

I love how the guy constantly makes snarky comments like "what could go wrong?" While ignoring that, in spite of vigorous GOP efforts dating back decades to find voter fraud, they've found only negligible amounts from long before any of these republican laws were in place. As well, a few states have been doing open mail-in voting for 10+ years and, again, no voter fraud found in those states.

The conservative approach is to argue that these bills seem like "common sense" in the abstract, like see, if we don't do this, there could be massive fraud. But they always ignore the fact that there is zero evidence of significant voter fraud going back literally decades, since long before any of their bills were passed.

 

[HomerJS]

He's lying. The video shows almost exactly zero evidence of historic voter fraud. There is one exception. In the portion on ballot harvesting, he shows a clip of a headline for about .2 seconds which is about the GOP's ballot harvesting scheme in NC in 2018 where the guy went to prison. That's all.

I love how the guy constantly makes snarky comments like "what could go wrong?" While ignoring that, in spite of vigorous GOP efforts dating back decades to find voter fraud, they've found only negligible amounts from long before any of these republican laws were in place. As well, a few states have been doing open mail-in voting for 10+ years and, again, no voter fraud found in those states.

The conservative approach is to argue that these bills seem like "common sense" in the abstract, like see, if we don't do this, there could be massive fraud. But they always ignore the fact that there is zero evidence of significant voter fraud going back literally decades, since long before any of their bills were passed.

BTW - Republicans don't really dislike ballot harvesting. Donald Trump recently requested a mail in ballot for which he doesn't have time to return personally. If someone else takes his ballot for him that is ballot harvesting.

Back to the video some of the objections

700 pages is bad because it is 700 pages - Really?

Go back to pre COVID rules. We discovered participation was up and little or no fraud. Why wouldn't we want to keep this kind of improvement?

Long lines isn't suppression. Really? Longs lines are most prevalent in large cities of minority communities. Are you trying to tell me waiting 7 hours in line isn't going to discourage some people?

Democrats hate voter ID. Lie! Democrats hate the kind of voter ID that disproportionately disenfranchises minorities and Democrats. AKA Texas allows conceal to carry but not college ID for voting. We could issue voter ID provided free of charge from the federal government.

Early voting is stupid. Really? You are going to make some hourly worker take time off without pay just to vote on a weekday?

Federal government takeover of state elections. Wrong. What is it government setting minimum standards. The feds telling states they can't have a poll tax is not a takeover but ensuring equal rights.

 

[woolfe9998]

700 pages is bad because it is 700 pages - Really?

This is a typical form of republican anti-intellectual propaganda. It's long. Therefore, it's confusing. And who knows what is hidden in all those words?

Go back to pre COVID rules. We discovered participation was up and little or no fraud. Why wouldn't we want to keep this kind of improvement?

There was no evidence of more than a tiny handful of irregularities in 2020, same as any other election, so why indeed.

Long lines isn't suppression. Really? Longs lines are most prevalent in large cities of minority communities. Are you trying to tell me waiting 7 hours in line isn't going to discourage some people?

He actually says that same day registration causes longer lines by requiring poll workers to process the registration forms on election day. And says democrats are hypocrites for supporting it because they complain about long lines. He offers zero evidence that same day registration will result in longer lines.

Early voting is stupid. Really? You are going to make some hourly worker take time off without pay just to vote on a weekday?

Oh yes, and the best part is when he says with early voting, you may miss out on important developments, and of course cites "Hunter Biden's secret e-mails" as an example.

Federal government takeover of state elections. Wrong. What is it government setting minimum standards. The feds telling states they can't have a poll tax is not a takeover but ensuring equal rights.

I don't want to belabor this, but the Constitution says that states set the election laws, at least for Congress, by default, but the US Congress can override and set whatever rules it wishes. Period. Even if it really was a federal takeover, it's explicitly allowed.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not entirely correct. His points about removing voter ID laws entirely by the bill and the historical precedents of the past leading to voter fraud of mail in voting is a couple things he elaborates upon. You may disagree with him on that, but he does elaborate upon why changing those through HR1 is bad historically.

Total bullshit. Five states, including my own, vote by mail. Show us the fraud.

 

[HumblePie]

Total bullshit. Five states, including my own, vote by mail. Show us the fraud.

First off, there is a difference between chain of custody absentee mail in voting, and shotgun mail in voting ballots going to everyone. If you want historical issues for voter fraud through such mail in voting in America one such example is regarding Abe Lincoln. Go read the history of it. Even Wapo did a story on it recently. This doesn't take into account other countries that have had historical issues with voter fraud through mail in voting. One should also read the original framer's works on this very subject and why they were very against anything by absentee voting for soldiers in the field for mail in voting.