HR 1 urgently needs to pass through filibuster

[compcons]

That's a valid argument. Political partisanship isn't a crime, or even bad thing at times. HR1 as written will absolutely favor democrats.
There are parts of the bill I like, and parts that I don't like. Overall I see the negatives as outweighing the positives, so it's my hope that it's killed in the senate.

The bill favors FAIR VOTING, not Democrats. It just happens that Democrats and their policies are actually more popular than those of the Republican party. If people really liked GOP policies and voted for GOP politicians, they would have the exact same opportunities to win the votes.

Think on that for a few minutes. The Republican party can not win if they do not have the rules to specifically favor them. The Dems do not have to create rules that favor them, they just need the rules to favor neither party. Ya know, FAIR ELECTIONS.

 

[brycejones]

That's a valid argument. Political partisanship isn't a crime, or even bad thing at times. HR1 as written will absolutely favor democrats.
There are parts of the bill I like, and parts that I don't like. Overall I see the negatives as outweighing the positives, so it's my hope that it's killed in the senate.

Voters are supposed to choose elected officials not the other way around. If your party has to reduce the number of potential voters because otherwise you lose elections the problem isn’t with the voters the problem is with the ideas your party stands for. Adapt or die.

But I do appreciate you being honest in your distaste for democratic ideals.

 

[HomerJS]

That's a valid argument. Political partisanship isn't a crime, or even bad thing at times. HR1 as written will absolutely favor democrats.
There are parts of the bill I like, and parts that I don't like. Overall I see the negatives as outweighing the positives, so it's my hope that it's killed in the senate.

Wouldn't a more accurate description be

HR-1 favors getting government favored by the people and that favors Democrats?

What parts of HR-1 cause you to object?

 

[Zorba]

I know... but the winds... winds of change... Its in the air

I completely agree with that.

 

[soundforbjt]

The bill favors FAIR VOTING, not Democrats. It just happens that Democrats and their policies are actually more popular than those of the Republican party. If people really liked GOP policies and voted for GOP politicians, they would have the exact same opportunities to win the votes.

Think on that for a few minutes. The Republican party can not win if they do not have the rules to specifically favor them. The Dems do not have to create rules that favor them, they just need the rules to favor neither party. Ya know, FAIR ELECTIONS.

Fair elections are not fair to republicans, what part of that don’t democrats get? They (republicans) have even argued that before the SC, why are Dems so mean !

 

[Fenixgoon]

Hail to the King (James), baby

Organization founded by LeBron James and other Black athletes turns focus to fighting GOP-backed bills restricting voter access | CNN Politics

The political organization founded by NBA superstar LeBron James and a host of other Black athletes and artists will kick off its post-2020 work with a focus on the wave of Republican-backed legislation aimed at restricting voter access in the wake of the latest presidential election.

www.cnn.com

 

[woolfe9998]

This is totally true. However, people are stupid in general and the "economy" (or whatever money they have ) will be more important to them and define how they view the administration. First they need to get the stimulus bill done and checks in the mail. Then they can work on this legislation and get another stimulus of some sort to appear in mailboxes just before the mid-terms. That's how this should be played. It is not about what is best but what people want. Obama's greatest failure was not rallying the party around making the economy look fantastic but instead putting efforts on something "divisive" (who knew?) like paying for health care.

Yes, the stimulus bill may be more important as a matter of short term perception, but in terms of long term reality, this bill is 20 times more important. This is the future of democracy in America.

 

[compcons]

I would like to see ads run on Fox pointing out the gerrymandering that keeps Democrats in power in locations that is happening. Show maps and everything. Get those Fox viewers all riled up screaming for reform to fix the election process and get rid of gerrymandering. Then when the GOP comes in, it will be a bit harder for them to spin it.

As an Illinois resident, I realize Dems would lose seats, but the greater good and all that.

And that bill needs more "patriot", "fairness" and "liberty" to ensure that the dumb voters want it

 

[fskimospy]

I would like to see ads run on Fox pointing out the gerrymandering that keeps Democrats in power in locations that is happening. Show maps and everything. Get those Fox viewers all riled up screaming for reform to fix the election process and get rid of gerrymandering. Then when the GOP comes in, it will be a bit harder for them to spin it.

As an Illinois resident, I realize Dems would lose seats, but the greater good and all that.

And that bill needs more "patriot", "fairness" and "liberty" to ensure that the dumb voters want it

Haha, that's actually a great idea. Talk about how Democrats are stealing seats in Illinois and Maryland that would otherwise go to Trump supporting conservatives and then demand Congress take action to end it.

 

[Muse]

A talking filibuster would be a return to tradition.

A filibuster without talking is nothing but a monkey wrench in the democratic process and should not be allowed. Any senscient person knows that.

 

[soundforbjt]

Haha, that's actually a great idea. Talk about how Democrats are stealing seats in Illinois and Maryland that would otherwise go to Trump supporting conservatives and then demand Congress take action to end it.

Problem is that they’d wait until they controlled Congress before they acted and then they’ll make it favor them only, somehow, someway...

 

[compuwiz1]

I get it that they are trying to federalize the elections, but it will be challenged, due to the constitution. The constitution specifically lays out that how the elections are run is to be determined by state legislatures. I don't have a problem with a standard. I do have a problem with opening the door to being loose on who can vote, like illegal aliens, convicted felons who have not completed the terms of their punishment, minors and other ineligible people.

 

[woolfe9998]

Problem is that they’d wait until they controlled Congress before they acted and then they’ll make it favor them only, somehow, someway...

Get it passed now by selectively ending the filibuster and they may not ever control it again, at least not this GOP, the batshit authoritarian one.

 

[woolfe9998]

I get it that they are trying to federalize the elections, but it will be challenged, due to the constitution. The constitution specifically lays out that how the elections are run is to be determined by state legislatures. I don't have a problem with a standard. I do have a problem with opening the door to being loose on who can vote, like illegal aliens, convicted felons who have not completed the terms of their punishment, minors and other ineligible people.

Read it more carefully:

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

 

[fskimospy]

I get it that they are trying to federalize the elections, but it will be challenged, due to the constitution. The constitution specifically lays out that how the elections are run is to be determined by state legislatures. I don't have a problem with a standard. I do have a problem with opening the door to being loose on who can vote, like illegal aliens, convicted felons who have not completed the terms of their punishment, minors and other ineligible people.

Where did you get the idea that anyone is trying to get those groups the ability to vote?

That is other than felons, the idea that someone loses their right to vote due to a crime is fascistic. If anything, people in prison have their lives affected by the government the most and it opens the door to criminalizing your opposition.

 

[woolfe9998]

Where did you get the idea that anyone is trying to get those groups the ability to vote?

That is other than felons, the idea that someone loses their right to vote due to a crime is fascistic. If anything, people in prison have their lives affected by the government the most and it opens the door to criminalizing your opposition.

AFAIK HR1 only requires that they have their voting rights restored after release, not during incarceration. So whatever your view is on the incarcerated ones, his opinion is based on a false factual premise.

 

[fskimospy]

AFAIK HR1 only requires that they have their voting rights restored after release, not during incarceration. So whatever your view is on the incarcerated ones, his opinion is based on a false factual premise.

He seems to be trying to draw the distinction the Florida legislature did in order to thwart the restoration of voting rights to felons, which was if you owed fines or court fees or whatever you still couldn't vote, even after release.

Regardless, that post is deeply insane.

 

[woolfe9998]

He seems to be trying to draw the distinction the Florida legislature did in order to thwart the restoration of voting rights to felons, which was if you owed fines or court fees or whatever you still couldn't vote.

Regardless, that post is deeply insane.

Not to mention a total misread of the Constitution, which clearly states that Congress can make the rules any time it so desires.

 

[compuwiz1]

Where did you get the idea that anyone is trying to get those groups the ability to vote?

That is other than felons, the idea that someone loses their right to vote due to a crime is fascistic. If anything, people in prison have their lives affected by the government the most and it opens the door to criminalizing your opposition.

Don't do the crime then, where you lose civil rights. Hey, I'm not one who is kicking and screaming about this, as some other Republicans are. A standard is a good thing and proper oversight is even better. My concern is more about oversight, or lack of, rather than methodology.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't do the crime then, where you lose civil rights. Hey, I'm not one who is kicking and screaming about this, as some other Republicans are. A standard is a good thing and proper oversight is even better. My concern is more about oversight, or lack of, rather than methodology.

So you agree that no one is attempting to enable voting by illegal immigrants, underage people, the currently incarcerated, etc.?

 

[compuwiz1]

So you agree that no one is attempting to enable voting by illegal immigrants, underage people, the currently incarcerated, etc.?

Yea, not yet...
I've heard some talking heads along the way who think anyone who can get a vote in should be legit. My very liberal sister is one of those, as well as a bunch of my family.

How do you feel about big tech being able to influence elections? Should they be able to promote some candidates, while muzzling those who are not of their ideology? A professor conducted a study and came to the conclusion that Google can cause a vote impact in the millions. He testified before congress and he is a Democrat and Hillary supporter.

 

[soundforbjt]

How do you feel about big tech being able to influence elections? Should they be able to promote some candidates, while muzzling those who are not of their ideology? A professor conducted a study and came to the conclusion that Google can cause a vote impact in the millions. He testified before congress and he is a Democrat and Hillary supporter.

Right-wing media impacted 74 million, how do you feel about their power?

 

[fskimospy]

Yea, not yet...
I've heard some talking heads along the way who think anyone who can get a vote in should be legit. My very liberal sister is one of those, as well as a bunch of my family.

I live in arguably the most liberal borough in one of the most liberal cities in the country and I have never heard a single solitary person make that argument. Ever.

How do you feel about big tech being able to influence elections? Should they be able to promote some candidates, while muzzling those who are not of their ideology? A professor conducted a study and came to the conclusion that Google can cause a vote impact in the millions. He testified before congress and he is a Democrat and Hillary supporter.

According to conservatives private corporations have first amendment rights and therefore yes, as per the Supreme Court big tech companies must be permitted to promote/muzzle whoever they want. Now if you want to revisit that precedent I'm all on board, but that means appointing a lot more liberal justices to the Supreme Court.

You guys fought for the ability of tech companies to do exactly this for years - you made your bed, I'm sorry if you sleep badly in it. Democrats tried to warn you of the dangers of excessive corporate power but you guys thought it would be fine because the corporations would use it to help you.

 

[dank69]

Don't do the crime then, where you lose civil rights. Hey, I'm not one who is kicking and screaming about this, as some other Republicans are. A standard is a good thing and proper oversight is even better. My concern is more about oversight, or lack of, rather than methodology.

That's great until we make it a crime to be a Republican, yeah?

 

[dank69]

Yea, not yet...
I've heard some talking heads along the way who think anyone who can get a vote in should be legit. My very liberal sister is one of those, as well as a bunch of my family.

How do you feel about big tech being able to influence elections? Should they be able to promote some candidates, while muzzling those who are not of their ideology? A professor conducted a study and came to the conclusion that Google can cause a vote impact in the millions. He testified before congress and he is a Democrat and Hillary supporter.

How do you feel about Fox News influencing elections?