Democrats Push Bills To Ensure Republicans Never Influence Or Win Another Election Again...EVER

[easyt65]

"Congressional Democrats have a plan to forever keep Republicans from winning elections and influencing policy decisions with H.R. 1 in the House, and the similar S. 1 in the Senate.

They want to empower the government to police more speech, force states to allow vote-by-mail and taxpayer funding of candidates, and silence Americans through fear by exposing their support for issue groups.

H.R. 1 would undermine state election oversight, like efforts to clean up old voter rolls. It eliminates any restrictions on vote-by-mail. Taxpayers would be on the hook for matching 600% of campaign contributions to subsidize candidates they may disagree with – a practice that has been ripe for corruption."

SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF SPEECH:
"It empowers federal regulators to categorize and regulate speech, including online.
All speech that simply mentions a candidate could be illegal four months out from an election if groups speak to the public. Worse, at any time, any funded communication that mentions an issue that might be associated with a politician could be illegal. The government just has to say the speech "promotes," "attacks," "supports" or "opposes" a potential candidate.

A newly-partisan Federal Election Commission, since the president would appoint the chairman, who would have new powers, and be a tie-breaking vote on a five-person board (down from a bipartisan six-person board).


The bill would also create a 'registry' / database of Americans and what issues they support. After this latest win there are a lot of influential Democrats calling for Conservatives and Trump supporters to be 'de-programmed', 'rounded up and sent to re-education camps'. This bill would create a way to identify and catalog a list of 'political threats' to make 'rounding them up' easier. 'Democrats can dress this up with talk of "dark money" and pretend they’re worried about money in politics, but they’re only worried about Americans with right-of-center views speaking out.'

"No billionaires will be harmed in the making of this legislation. The point is to silence dissent and shut down debate through fear, intimidation and overregulation. Americans already feel they cannot engage in healthy debate. A Cato Institute poll released last summer found 62% of respondents don’t believe they can express opinions publicly."

Grover Norquist: Pelosi, Schumer priorities – here's how free speech, fair elections and more at risk

Congressional Democrats have a plan to forever keep Republicans from winning elections and influencing policy decisions with H.R. 1 in the House, and the similar S. 1 in the Senate.

www.foxnews.com

 

[pknopp]

Offer a decent candidate and people will vote in whatever form for them. When you argue that you want the fewest number of people to vote you are acknowledging your candidate is not one the people can support.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Congressional Democrats have a plan to forever keep Republicans from winning elections and influencing policy decisions with H.R. 1 in the House, and the similar S. 1 in the Senate.

They want to empower the government to police more speech, force states to allow vote-by-mail and taxpayer funding of candidates, and silence Americans through fear by exposing their support for issue groups.

H.R. 1 would undermine state election oversight, like efforts to clean up old voter rolls. It eliminates any restrictions on vote-by-mail. Taxpayers would be on the hook for matching 600% of campaign contributions to subsidize candidates they may disagree with – a practice that has been ripe for corruption."

SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF SPEECH:
"It empowers federal regulators to categorize and regulate speech, including online.
All speech that simply mentions a candidate could be illegal four months out from an election if groups speak to the public. Worse, at any time, any funded communication that mentions an issue that might be associated with a politician could be illegal. The government just has to say the speech "promotes," "attacks," "supports" or "opposes" a potential candidate.

A newly-partisan Federal Election Commission, since the president would appoint the chairman, who would have new powers, and be a tie-breaking vote on a five-person board (down from a bipartisan six-person board).


The bill would also create a 'registry' / database of Americans and what issues they support. After this latest win there are a lot of influential Democrats calling for Conservatives and Trump supporters to be 'de-programmed', 'rounded up and sent to re-education camps'. This bill would create a way to identify and catalog a list of 'political threats' to make 'rounding them up' easier. 'Democrats can dress this up with talk of "dark money" and pretend they’re worried about money in politics, but they’re only worried about Americans with right-of-center views speaking out.'

"No billionaires will be harmed in the making of this legislation. The point is to silence dissent and shut down debate through fear, intimidation and overregulation. Americans already feel they cannot engage in healthy debate. A Cato Institute poll released last summer found 62% of respondents don’t believe they can express opinions publicly."

Grover Norquist: Pelosi, Schumer priorities – here's how free speech, fair elections and more at risk

Congressional Democrats have a plan to forever keep Republicans from winning elections and influencing policy decisions with H.R. 1 in the House, and the similar S. 1 in the Senate.

www.foxnews.com

The thread premise is a lie.

 

[easyt65]

The thread premise is a lie.

Your 'NUH-UH' is duly noted.

 

[Moonglow]

Here is the bill you can read for yourself since the OP is not interested in the merits of the bill just the dog whistles he can sound.




This bill addresses voter access, election integrity, election security, political spending, and ethics for the three branches of government.

Specifically, the bill expands voter registration and voting access and limits removing voters from voter rolls.

The bill provides for states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions.

The bill also sets forth provisions related to election security, including sharing intelligence information with state election officials, protecting the security of the voter rolls, supporting states in securing their election systems, developing a national strategy to protect the security and integrity of U.S. democratic institutions, establishing in the legislative branch the National Commission to Protect United States Democratic Institutions, and other provisions to improve the cybersecurity of election systems.

This bill addresses campaign spending, including by expanding the ban on foreign nationals contributing to or spending on elections; expanding disclosure rules pertaining to organizations spending money during elections, campaign advertisements, and online platforms; and revising disclaimer requirements for political advertising.

This bill establishes an alternative campaign funding system for certain federal offices. The system involves federal matching of small contributions for qualified candidates.

This bill sets forth provisions related to ethics in all three branches of government. Specifically, the bill requires a code of ethics for federal judges and justices, prohibits Members of the House from serving on the board of a for-profit entity, expands enforcement of regulations governing foreign agents, and establishes additional conflict-of-interest and ethics provisions for federal employees and the White House.

The bill also requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit 10 years of tax returns.

H.R.1 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): For the People Act of 2019

Summary of H.R.1 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): For the People Act of 2019

www.congress.gov

Now OP show us where these items are in this bill.

H.R. 1 would undermine state election oversight, like efforts to clean up old voter rolls. It eliminates any restrictions on vote-by-mail. Taxpayers would be on the hook for matching 600% of campaign contributions to subsidize candidates they may disagree with – a practice that has been ripe for corruption.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Offer a decent candidate and people will vote in whatever form for them. When you argue that you want the fewest number of people to vote you are acknowledging your candidate is not one the people can support.

This isn't about any candidate. It's about election integrity and ensuring the public can trust that their vote counts and isn't canceled out by fraud.

 

[pknopp]

Offer a decent candidate and people will vote in whatever form for them. When you argue that you want the fewest number of people to vote you are acknowledging your candidate is not one the people can support.

This isn't about any candidate. It's about election integrity and ensuring the public can trust that their vote counts and isn't canceled out by fraud.

When and if that happens you can bring it up.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Offer a decent candidate and people will vote in whatever form for them. When you argue that you want the fewest number of people to vote you are acknowledging your candidate is not one the people can support.

Not at all. Just trying to not make it easy for the politically ignorant and stupid to vote like the last election. We see what we ended up when we encourage dopes to vote.

 

[Moonglow]

Offer a decent candidate and people will vote in whatever form for them. When you argue that you want the fewest number of people to vote you are acknowledging your candidate is not one the people can support.

This isn't about any candidate. It's about election integrity and ensuring the public can trust that their vote counts and isn't canceled out by fraud.

The states are investigating yet nothing has been found to warrant a revolution for Heir Trump..

 

[Moonglow]

Offer a decent candidate and people will vote in whatever form for them. When you argue that you want the fewest number of people to vote you are acknowledging your candidate is not one the people can support.

Not at all. Just trying to not make it easy for the politically ignorant and stupid to vote like the last election. We see what we ended up when we encourage dopes to vote.

Yes, your guy loses because there are not enough dopes to vote for Trump anymore.

 

[colfax_m]

Offer a decent candidate and people will vote in whatever form for them. When you argue that you want the fewest number of people to vote you are acknowledging your candidate is not one the people can support.

Not at all. Just trying to not make it easy for the politically ignorant and stupid to vote like the last election. We see what we ended up when we encourage dopes to vote.

Pretty condescending to say that if you don’t vote for Trump, you’re ignorant and stupid.

 

[Moonglow]

Offer a decent candidate and people will vote in whatever form for them. When you argue that you want the fewest number of people to vote you are acknowledging your candidate is not one the people can support.

This isn't about any candidate. It's about election integrity and ensuring the public can trust that their vote counts and isn't canceled out by fraud.

Each state is in charge of that idea since that is where the so called problem lies.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"Congressional Democrats have a plan to forever keep Republicans from winning elections and influencing policy decisions with H.R. 1 in the House, and the similar S. 1 in the Senate.

They want to empower the government to police more speech, force states to allow vote-by-mail and taxpayer funding of candidates, and silence Americans through fear by exposing their support for issue groups.

H.R. 1 would undermine state election oversight, like efforts to clean up old voter rolls. It eliminates any restrictions on vote-by-mail. Taxpayers would be on the hook for matching 600% of campaign contributions to subsidize candidates they may disagree with – a practice that has been ripe for corruption."

SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF SPEECH:
"It empowers federal regulators to categorize and regulate speech, including online.
All speech that simply mentions a candidate could be illegal four months out from an election if groups speak to the public. Worse, at any time, any funded communication that mentions an issue that might be associated with a politician could be illegal. The government just has to say the speech "promotes," "attacks," "supports" or "opposes" a potential candidate.

A newly-partisan Federal Election Commission, since the president would appoint the chairman, who would have new powers, and be a tie-breaking vote on a five-person board (down from a bipartisan six-person board).


The bill would also create a 'registry' / database of Americans and what issues they support. After this latest win there are a lot of influential Democrats calling for Conservatives and Trump supporters to be 'de-programmed', 'rounded up and sent to re-education camps'. This bill would create a way to identify and catalog a list of 'political threats' to make 'rounding them up' easier. 'Democrats can dress this up with talk of "dark money" and pretend they’re worried about money in politics, but they’re only worried about Americans with right-of-center views speaking out.'

"No billionaires will be harmed in the making of this legislation. The point is to silence dissent and shut down debate through fear, intimidation and overregulation. Americans already feel they cannot engage in healthy debate. A Cato Institute poll released last summer found 62% of respondents don’t believe they can express opinions publicly."

Grover Norquist: Pelosi, Schumer priorities – here's how free speech, fair elections and more at risk

Congressional Democrats have a plan to forever keep Republicans from winning elections and influencing policy decisions with H.R. 1 in the House, and the similar S. 1 in the Senate.

www.foxnews.com

I wouldn't worry about this too much. A lot of it will be overturned in the courts. The federal government does not have the authority to tell states how to conduct their election. They don't have the ability to force states to keep dead people and those who left the state on their voter roles to make it easier for the commies to cheat. That has already been decided by the lower courts.

 

[pknopp]

Offer a decent candidate and people will vote in whatever form for them. When you argue that you want the fewest number of people to vote you are acknowledging your candidate is not one the people can support.

Not at all. Just trying to not make it easy for the politically ignorant and stupid to vote like the last election. We see what we ended up when we encourage dopes to vote.

Voting a a Constitutionally protected right. We dismiss you haters of the Constitution.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Offer a decent candidate and people will vote in whatever form for them. When you argue that you want the fewest number of people to vote you are acknowledging your candidate is not one the people can support.

This isn't about any candidate. It's about election integrity and ensuring the public can trust that their vote counts and isn't canceled out by fraud.

When and if that happens you can bring it up.

It happens every election and bringing it up post election accomplishes nothing for those whose voices were already silenced via fraud. These bills ensure that continues.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

oting a a Constitutionally protected right. We dismiss you haters of the Constitution.

So where in our Constitution does it state government needs to address you to vote? It says everybody has the right to vote, not that everybody has the right to have a ballot delivered to their doorstep.

 

[pknopp]

oting a a Constitutionally protected right. We dismiss you haters of the Constitution.

So where in our Constitution does it state government needs to address you to vote? It says everybody has the right to vote, not that everybody has the right to have a ballot delivered to their doorstep.

Trump did. If it's good enough for him, why is it not good enough for the people?

 

[Polishprince]

Offer a decent candidate and people will vote in whatever form for them. When you argue that you want the fewest number of people to vote you are acknowledging your candidate is not one the people can support.

You really think that Sleepy Joe was such a tremendous candidate? The man didn't leave his basement for months.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Porkchop lives in an alternate dimension where corruption doesn't exist apparently

 

[Moonglow]

"Congressional Democrats have a plan to forever keep Republicans from winning elections and influencing policy decisions with H.R. 1 in the House, and the similar S. 1 in the Senate.

They want to empower the government to police more speech, force states to allow vote-by-mail and taxpayer funding of candidates, and silence Americans through fear by exposing their support for issue groups.

H.R. 1 would undermine state election oversight, like efforts to clean up old voter rolls. It eliminates any restrictions on vote-by-mail. Taxpayers would be on the hook for matching 600% of campaign contributions to subsidize candidates they may disagree with – a practice that has been ripe for corruption."

SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF SPEECH:
"It empowers federal regulators to categorize and regulate speech, including online.
All speech that simply mentions a candidate could be illegal four months out from an election if groups speak to the public. Worse, at any time, any funded communication that mentions an issue that might be associated with a politician could be illegal. The government just has to say the speech "promotes," "attacks," "supports" or "opposes" a potential candidate.

A newly-partisan Federal Election Commission, since the president would appoint the chairman, who would have new powers, and be a tie-breaking vote on a five-person board (down from a bipartisan six-person board).


The bill would also create a 'registry' / database of Americans and what issues they support. After this latest win there are a lot of influential Democrats calling for Conservatives and Trump supporters to be 'de-programmed', 'rounded up and sent to re-education camps'. This bill would create a way to identify and catalog a list of 'political threats' to make 'rounding them up' easier. 'Democrats can dress this up with talk of "dark money" and pretend they’re worried about money in politics, but they’re only worried about Americans with right-of-center views speaking out.'

"No billionaires will be harmed in the making of this legislation. The point is to silence dissent and shut down debate through fear, intimidation and overregulation. Americans already feel they cannot engage in healthy debate. A Cato Institute poll released last summer found 62% of respondents don’t believe they can express opinions publicly."

Grover Norquist: Pelosi, Schumer priorities – here's how free speech, fair elections and more at risk

Congressional Democrats have a plan to forever keep Republicans from winning elections and influencing policy decisions with H.R. 1 in the House, and the similar S. 1 in the Senate.

www.foxnews.com

I wouldn't worry about this too much. A lot of it will be overturned in the courts. The federal government does not have the authority to tell states how to conduct their election. They don't have the ability to force states to keep dead people and those who left the state on their voter roles to make it easier for the commies to cheat. That has already been decided by the lower courts.

Yes the feds can tell the states about the guidelines of running an election.
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.