Four Senate Republicans again unite with Dems to block Trump's SAVE America Act

[jotathought]

LOL....

The idiocy of your position is trying to federalize election laws when
A) there is no need for it since there is no widespread voter fraud
B) the "worst case scenarios" you talk about are actual cases that do violence to someone's right to vote thus making your pathetic argument illegitimate.
C) Perhaps the funniest thing about your response is insinuating that someone else is a "low information" voter.

Low-information voters read memes and think they’ve read legislation. What’s funny about it is you’re defending a meme instead of the legislation you’re criticizing — especially when “actual cases” doesn’t mean “actual provisions of the bill.”

 

[frigidweirdo]

CNN showed the polling data of both Dems and GOP. I forget if it was SAVE specifically or voter I.D. Probably the latter which is a core component of this Act.

I think this is where you're supposed to present your evidence.

 

[frigidweirdo]

There is fraud and it has been for decades whether locally or nationally. There is no way Joe got 82 million votes.

Great evidence there.

Maybe Biden didn't "get" 82 million votes. Maybe a lot of people didn't vote for Biden. Maybe they voted AGAINST TRUMP. And voting AGAINST Trump means they put down Biden.

With Proportional Representation neither of them would have won.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A better question would be this.

"Given that there is almost no voter fraud and itis clear that the states are doing a more than adequate job of policing their own elections--as is required by the Constitution--who would vote for such an unnecessary law?"

A better question would be:

Seeing how the electoral system doesn't allow voters to vote for who they want, and it massively distorts the way people vote, why are people talking about voter fraud when Proportional Representation would stop almost all of this supposed fraud and it would bring democracy to the US for the first time?"

 

[westwall]

Great evidence there.

Maybe Biden didn't "get" 82 million votes. Maybe a lot of people didn't vote for Biden. Maybe they voted AGAINST TRUMP. And voting AGAINST Trump means they put down Biden.

With Proportional Representation neither of them would have won.

No one with a brain believes obribem got ten plus million more votes than obummer.

And it was still Trump that kameltoe was running against so where oh where did all those ballots go?

 

[candycorn]

Low-information voters read memes and think they’ve read legislation. What’s funny about it is you’re defending a meme instead of the legislation you’re criticizing — especially when “actual cases” doesn’t mean “actual provisions of the bill.”

In my experience, low information voters use phrases like "libtard" instead of actually and intelligently commenting.

So you're stating that any woman who shows up with a birth certificate that doesn't have her current last name will be able to register no questions asked? How are they going to make sure that it is actually her birth certificate?

Does she also have to show up with her marriage license?

If her parents--Jane Smith and John Jones--divorced and her certificate says Jones but she lived with her mom and went by "Smith" will she be allowed to register to vote?

I know men find this to be tedious but these are the questions that never get asked of your gender. You'll likely answer all of the above with "of course" and never entertain that some overzealous right wing government official will decide that she didn't quite meet the standards. God help her if she is in a same sex marriage...that is sure to short-circuit the mentally dull one usually finds in red states.

 

[candycorn]

A better question would be:

Seeing how the electoral system doesn't allow voters to vote for who they want, and it massively distorts the way people vote, why are people talking about voter fraud when Proportional Representation would stop almost all of this supposed fraud and it would bring democracy to the US for the first time?"

Nothing stops you from voting for anyone you wish to vote for. Just write them in.

 

[jotathought]

Ahh, I see...so you'd be fine with the feds also passing a speed limit making any infraction of speeding a federal crime.
As long as you don't speed, why should it be a problem?

Interesting. I reference voter eligibility and you respond with speeding tickets.

One is a constitutional right with eligibility requirements. The other is a traffic violation. I can see why the meme version of the bill was more appealing to you.

 

[candycorn]

Interesting. I reference voter eligibility and you respond with speeding tickets.

Elevating everything to a federal crime under the silly guise of "what's the problem" (as you did) is rather idiotic. I'm not surprised you're the author and supporter of such malarkey.

One is a constitutional right with eligibility requirements. The other is a traffic violation. I can see why the meme version of the bill was more appealing to you.

Well, it spells out what is wrong with the bill. Low/no information voters such as yourself do not seem to know much about what you're supporting and think that voter fraud is rampant. If it enlightens the dimmest bulb on the tree (aka you), it's done it's job. You should be thanking me.

You're welcome in advance.

 

[jotathought]

Nothing stops you from voting for anyone you wish to vote for. Just write them in.

Agree. Voters can support any qualified candidate they choose, and parties can recruit and promote candidates from any background.

That’s why the claims that the recent Supreme Court ruling somehow prevents minority representation are so overstated and exaggerated. The Court addressed how districts are drawn, not who is allowed to run, campaign, vote, or win.

 

[candycorn]

Agree. Voters can support any qualified candidate they choose, and parties can recruit and promote candidates from any background.

That’s why the claims that the recent Supreme Court ruling somehow prevents minority representation are so overstated and exaggerated. The Court addressed how districts are drawn, not who is allowed to run, campaign, vote, or win.

I was pointing out that you can vote for whomever you like.
Clearly the court and the conservative majority on the court are actively trying to reduce minority representation.

The only solution is to randomly assign voting precincts to congressional districts. Voters are supposed to be picking the leaders...the current set-up is this; the leaders are picking the voters and the court is helping that bastardization of the process remain in place.

 

[jotathought]

Elevating everything to a federal crime under the silly guise of "what's the problem" (as you did) is rather idiotic. I'm not surprised you're the author and supporter of such malarkey.


Well, it spells out what is wrong with the bill. Low/no information voters such as yourself do not seem to know much about what you're supporting and think that voter fraud is rampant. If it enlightens the dimmest bulb on the tree (aka you), it's done it's job. You should be thanking me.

You're welcome in advance.

For someone lecturing about “low-information voters,” you’ve spent an awful lot of time arguing with things that were never said.

When the argument collapses, the insults arrive right on schedule. What happened to your speeding-ticket analogy?

I guess it got pulled over for reckless comparison.

 

[jotathought]

I was pointing out that you can vote for whomever you like.
Clearly the court and the conservative majority on the court are actively trying to reduce minority representation.

The only solution is to randomly assign voting precincts to congressional districts. Voters are supposed to be picking the leaders...the current set-up is this; the leaders are picking the voters and the court is helping that bastardization of the process remain in place.

If minority representation depends on race-based district maps rather than persuading voters and fielding strong candidates, you’re making a much different argument than you probably intended.

“The Court disagreed with me” and “the Court is trying to reduce minority representation” are not the same statement, no matter how often people pretend they are.

 

[candycorn]

For someone lecturing about “low-information voters,” you’ve spent an awful lot of time arguing with things that were never said.

When the argument collapses, the insults arrive right on schedule. What happened to your speeding-ticket analogy?

I guess it got pulled over for reckless comparison.

The speeding ticket, effectively I thought, illustrates the idiotic nature of your "what's the problem" approach to redundant laws being made.

When their argument collapses, people on the political right play dumb...100% of the time.

 

[candycorn]

If minority representation depends on race-based district maps rather than persuading voters and fielding strong candidates, you’re making a much different argument than you probably intended.

“The Court disagreed with me” and “the Court is trying to reduce minority representation” are not the same statement, no matter how often people pretend they are.

Oh it's exactly the argument that is being made and it has the added benefit of being the truth. A bunch of old white dudes got together and decided to dilute the impact of black voters. Pretty much the American way.

 

[jotathought]

The speeding ticket, effectively I thought, illustrates the idiotic nature of your "what's the problem" approach to redundant laws being made.

When their argument collapses, people on the political right play dumb...100% of the time.

You keep saying the speeding-ticket analogy was effective.

The fact that you’re still talking about the analogy instead of defending it suggests otherwise. Does that make you a republican?

 

[candycorn]

You keep saying the speeding-ticket analogy was effective.

It was. You keep bringing it up. The reason you do is because it shows how silly your "what's the problem" approach is to redundant laws.

The fact that you’re still talking about the analogy instead of defending it suggests otherwise. Does that make you a republican?

I won't bring it up again if you don't.....

I can always tell I'm winning an argument; when you guys try to pull this 'why do you keep mentioning it--it's not applicable' act.

Anyway, feel free to try to tackle the questions in post 26 at some point if you dare.

 

[jotathought]

Oh it's exactly the argument that is being made and it has the added benefit of being the truth. A bunch of old white dudes got together and decided to dilute the impact of black voters. Pretty much the American way.

First it was memes instead of legislation. Now it’s motives instead of legal reasoning.

“The Court disagreed with me” is not evidence that the Court was motivated by race. It’s evidence that the Court disagreed with you.

A pattern is emerging.

 

[jotathought]

It was. You keep bringing it up. The reason you do is because it shows how silly your "what's the problem" approach is to redundant laws.


I won't bring it up again if you don't.....

I can always tell I'm winning an argument; when you guys try to pull this 'why do you keep mentioning it--it's not applicable' act.

Anyway, feel free to try to tackle the questions in post 26 at some point if you dare.

Deal.

The difference is I stopped talking about the analogy when it stopped making sense. You stopped talking about it when defending it became difficult.

I’ll look at #26.

 

[candycorn]

First it was memes instead of legislation. Now it’s motives instead of legal reasoning.

“The Court disagreed with me” is not evidence that the Court was motivated by race. It’s evidence that the Court disagreed with you.

A pattern is emerging.

Ahh...so there are more predominantly black districts now than there were before the court ruled?

Seems unlikely....perhaps you can show me your links to such claims.