I'm a rationale conservative - can you convince me voting rights legislation is needed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here you go, OP. Just what you wanted!

What is funny is that in less than a year all the Democrats here are going to be huge fans of the filibuster again and will claim anyone in favor of removing it is a fascist.

Didn’t those hypocrites use the filibuster just this week?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here you go, OP. Just what you wanted!

Sorry..... this is hyperbole and crap.
Historians will note that despite Democrats calling this bill "voting rights" it is not about voting rights at all.
They will also note that Biden was unable to get two bills that the Democrats consistently referred to as "vitally important" across the line and the country didn't fall apart.
The tweet is unconvincing.

Please do tell. Most of the provisions were passed in the Voting Rights bill in 2004 that were taken away by the SC in Shelby v Holder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here you go, OP. Just what you wanted!

Sorry..... this is hyperbole and crap.
Historians will note that despite Democrats calling this bill "voting rights" it is not about voting rights at all.
They will also note that Biden was unable to get two bills that the Democrats consistently referred to as "vitally important" across the line and the country didn't fall apart.
The tweet is unconvincing.

Yes, and by embracing this breathtakingly stupid strategy Schumer has put 48 Democratic Senators on the record as supporting the removal of the filibuster.

We will very likely have a new president in less than three years, and that new president may be a Republican, and that new Republican president may control the senate by a seat or two.

By forcing this vote Schumer has greatly increased the odds of the filibuster being eliminated... while failing even to capitalize on its elimination.

If you were to go full Machiavelli you might argue that the filibuster will be eliminated at some point and so it might as well be your party that does it and takes advantage of having done so to ram some legislation through, but Schumer hasn't even achieved that. He has lowered the bar considerably for the Republicans to eliminate the filibuster and didn't even get a win out of it. All these idiotic tweets about the filibuster existing to support "white supremacy" are going to come back up too btw.

Yep.

I also remember the Democrats using the filibuster to block the police reform bill proposed by Senator Tim Scott.

What the Democrats fail to remember (short memory here) is that just a couple years ago Trump was harping on the Senators to eliminate the filibuster to get some of his initiatives passed.
McConnell pushed back hard. He flat out said no. In fact, I don't recall any Republican Senators speaking up in support of doing so.

The whole country has now seen that the Democrats want to eliminate the filibuster and that the only obstacle to their doing so is the lack of a couple votes. The Republicans can therefor assume that at some point down the road when the Democrats can pick up another couple seats in the Senate that they will eliminate the filibuster.

So if you are a Republican, why -not- eliminate the filibuster the next time it would be advantageous for you to do so? The Democrats are on record as wanting it gone and will presumably eliminate it if they ever get the votes.

I wonder if they would all support changing the filibuster. It hasn't always been this easy. You used to have to talk, etc. They should go back to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here you go, OP. Just what you wanted!

Sorry..... this is hyperbole and crap.
Historians will note that despite Democrats calling this bill "voting rights" it is not about voting rights at all.
They will also note that Biden was unable to get two bills that the Democrats consistently referred to as "vitally important" across the line and the country didn't fall apart.
The tweet is unconvincing.

Yes, and by embracing this breathtakingly stupid strategy Schumer has put 48 Democratic Senators on the record as supporting the removal of the filibuster.

We will very likely have a new president in less than three years, and that new president may be a Republican, and that new Republican president may control the senate by a seat or two.

By forcing this vote Schumer has greatly increased the odds of the filibuster being eliminated... while failing even to capitalize on its elimination.

If you were to go full Machiavelli you might argue that the filibuster will be eliminated at some point and so it might as well be your party that does it and takes advantage of having done so to ram some legislation through, but Schumer hasn't even achieved that. He has lowered the bar considerably for the Republicans to eliminate the filibuster and didn't even get a win out of it. All these idiotic tweets about the filibuster existing to support "white supremacy" are going to come back up too btw.

It wasn't "the removal of the filibuster" - it was a carve out to make it a talking filibuster. Let's please be accurate in what happened so when Mitch actually does eliminate it, we can be accurate about how we got there.

Republicans have the slipperiest memories; they can never remember what they refuse to learn.

[Anonymous]

I’ve not read the entire 48 pages of this thread, so apologies if this point has been made, but it is the accumulation of small, incremental obstacles to vote that are the problem. It is the cumulative effect of closing polling locations, shortening hours, not allowing mail in/absentee voting, requiring IDs etc. Any of these by itself may be reasonable, but *certain* states use them in aggregate + gerrymandering to favor one party disproportionately. Mostly GOP states, but MD is a notoriously gerrymandered Dem state.

[Anonymous]

"Too far left"?? Christ, what a bunch of BS. The GOP has no political platform anymore, just mindless obstructionism, so I suppose actual governance and trying to improve our country looks like creeping socialism in comparison.

Where is the Republican health care plan we've been hearing about for the last ten years? Why didn't the Republicans actually invest in infrastructure when they had the chance? The only major legislation they managed to pass was tax cuts for the donor class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve not read the entire 48 pages of this thread, so apologies if this point has been made, but it is the accumulation of small, incremental obstacles to vote that are the problem. It is the cumulative effect of closing polling locations, shortening hours, not allowing mail in/absentee voting, requiring IDs etc. Any of these by itself may be reasonable, but *certain* states use them in aggregate + gerrymandering to favor one party disproportionately. Mostly GOP states, but MD is a notoriously gerrymandered Dem state.

One of the provisions in the voting bill would have fixed the notoriously gerrymandered MD - but Republicans rejected it. They also rejected provisions that would require more transparency around dark money spending. There were a ton of popular, common sense provisions in the voting bill that would have improved elections, improved fairness, and improved democracy. Republicans are anti-fairness, anti-transparency, and anti-democracy. As are Manchin and Sinema. It's inexcusable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve not read the entire 48 pages of this thread, so apologies if this point has been made, but it is the accumulation of small, incremental obstacles to vote that are the problem. It is the cumulative effect of closing polling locations, shortening hours, not allowing mail in/absentee voting, requiring IDs etc. Any of these by itself may be reasonable, but *certain* states use them in aggregate + gerrymandering to favor one party disproportionately. Mostly GOP states, but MD is a notoriously gerrymandered Dem state.

One of the provisions in the voting bill would have fixed the notoriously gerrymandered MD - but Republicans rejected it. They also rejected provisions that would require more transparency around dark money spending. There were a ton of popular, common sense provisions in the voting bill that would have improved elections, improved fairness, and improved democracy. Republicans are anti-fairness, anti-transparency, and anti-democracy. As are Manchin and Sinema. It's inexcusable.

x10000000000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve not read the entire 48 pages of this thread, so apologies if this point has been made, but it is the accumulation of small, incremental obstacles to vote that are the problem. It is the cumulative effect of closing polling locations, shortening hours, not allowing mail in/absentee voting, requiring IDs etc. Any of these by itself may be reasonable, but *certain* states use them in aggregate + gerrymandering to favor one party disproportionately. Mostly GOP states, but MD is a notoriously gerrymandered Dem state.

One of the provisions in the voting bill would have fixed the notoriously gerrymandered MD - but Republicans rejected it. They also rejected provisions that would require more transparency around dark money spending. There were a ton of popular, common sense provisions in the voting bill that would have improved elections, improved fairness, and improved democracy. Republicans are anti-fairness, anti-transparency, and anti-democracy. As are Manchin and Sinema. It's inexcusable.

x10000000000

Why would republicans care about 1 state gerrymandered toward the democrats, and give up the 23 rigged their way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve not read the entire 48 pages of this thread, so apologies if this point has been made, but it is the accumulation of small, incremental obstacles to vote that are the problem. It is the cumulative effect of closing polling locations, shortening hours, not allowing mail in/absentee voting, requiring IDs etc. Any of these by itself may be reasonable, but *certain* states use them in aggregate + gerrymandering to favor one party disproportionately. Mostly GOP states, but MD is a notoriously gerrymandered Dem state.

One of the provisions in the voting bill would have fixed the notoriously gerrymandered MD - but Republicans rejected it. They also rejected provisions that would require more transparency around dark money spending. There were a ton of popular, common sense provisions in the voting bill that would have improved elections, improved fairness, and improved democracy. Republicans are anti-fairness, anti-transparency, and anti-democracy. As are Manchin and Sinema. It's inexcusable.

Democrats support ending gerrymandering. But there is no reason to cease the practice when the GOP takes it to extremes. As it is, the left is losing three or four seats because blue states use commissions rather than partisan legislators to draw lines.

[Anonymous]

Has there been a single rational conservative on this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a single rational conservative on this thread?

It means “I am just a selfish asshole, not a fascist.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a single rational conservative on this thread?

It means “I am just a selfish asshole, not a fascist.”

More like, “yeah, I mean the policies I support are fascist, but, like, cuddly fascist! We’re not going to start anything ugly in the streets. Yet. We’re the good kind of fascists.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a single rational conservative on this thread?

It means “I am just a selfish asshole, not a fascist.”

More like, “yeah, I mean the policies I support are fascist, but, like, cuddly fascist! We’re not going to start anything ugly in the streets. Yet. We’re the good kind of fascists.”

Yeah. I think you all are doing a bang up job of convincing OP that voting rights legislation is needed.
Conservatives just love it when you trot out the "fascist" moniker aimed at anonymous people you don't know a lick about. And, they also love being indirectly called 'irrational." And, most of all... they love being referred to as "assholes."
Yep. This type of discourse goes a long way at convincing others of your position!!! Keep convincing her, people!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has there been a single rational conservative on this thread?

It means “I am just a selfish asshole, not a fascist.”

More like, “yeah, I mean the policies I support are fascist, but, like, cuddly fascist! We’re not going to start anything ugly in the streets. Yet. We’re the good kind of fascists.”

Yeah. I think you all are doing a bang up job of convincing OP that voting rights legislation is needed.
Conservatives just love it when you trot out the "fascist" moniker aimed at anonymous people you don't know a lick about. And, they also love being indirectly called 'irrational." And, most of all... they love being referred to as "assholes."
Yep. This type of discourse goes a long way at convincing others of your position!!! Keep convincing her, people!!!

Read the whole thread, please.