House Dems draw the line: No bipartisan cooperation with Republicans who questioned the election

[Eric Arthur Blair]

If the changes were unconstitutional then a court must have made that determination. What were they?

Already asked and answered. Unless someone took the Michigan Secretary of State to court over
her unilateral changes to Michigan state election law the courts would not necessarily have anything to say on the matter at all.
Stop the squirming.

Also, which state has elections that are not governed by election law signed by the Governor, or one that doesn't have election officials who can make minor changes to the election procedures?

That's a good question. Let me know when you have an answer.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Let me make myself really clear here. There is no point in electing people that are unwilling to do the job that they were elected to do. This is not kindergarten.

Yes! Which is why Democrats will not work with the Republicans that violated their Oath of Office!

 

[NoNukes]

About damn time the Democrats show some spine against these deplorable Republicans in Congress...

That amounts to saying they are serious about lying and making people accept that lie. The people who questioned the election are the patriots here.

The people who questioned the election are brainwashed Trump cult fools.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Get rid of the stupid talk free filibuster.. then fix the rest..

Your roundabout way of saying fuck the Constitution full speed ahead? Commie.

Where exactly does the Constitution say that there has to be a filibuster?

 

[Lastamender]

About damn time the Democrats show some spine against these deplorable Republicans in Congress...

That amounts to saying they are serious about lying and making people accept that lie. The people who questioned the election are the patriots here.

The people who questioned the election are brainwashed Trump cult fools.

The fraud was obvious. The counting stopped with Trump well in the lead. The counting resumed unobserved in most cases and Biden got 80% to 94% of ballots drops. He also failed almost every historical benchmark of a winning candidate. No one believes your lies.

Why not just admit the election was stolen and that you are dishonest and un American? That is the truth.

 

[jc456]

Bad idea. Dumb idea. Just shut the door early on. "I'm not gonna work with you, so there".

Not good to see the Democrats voluntarily tell us they're no better than the Republicans.

Another example of how the ideologically rigid ends of our spectrum are the damn problem.

Describe what compromise or "middle ground" looks like to you when there's one party that sees a problem, has a solution for it, but the other party says there's no problem at all.

Describe how "coming together" would look like to you, under those circumstances.

This is exactly the question I get from Trumpsters.

Honest people of good faith can drop the politics and work together. "Compromise" doesn't mean 50/50. It means that sometimes, in the big picture, Person A will get things 75% their way. Sometimes person B will get things 75% their way. And sometimes, if we're lucky, the two will truly collaborate and innovate something brand new. Like our Constitution.

This isn't news. This the way things work in businesses across the world. It's a damn shame that politics has so been so polluted by ego and tribalism.

I say that to Trumpsters, too.

well first one must learn what the word compromise is. Compromise infers giving and taking equally. you have something I don't want and I have something you don't want. Let's figure out a way to get something of each equally. The dmofks never do that. They merely say my way or not. Any compromises over the decades to date have been by republicans. I'll be happy to apologize if that isn't true.

Revisionist history at best.


It is popular to compare 2010 with 1994. Pundits point to a rejection of an overreaching Democratic president, a swing of moderate and independent voters to Republican ranks and a grass-roots groundswell that brings dozens of new faces to Washington.

But the second part of the prediction foresees that Obama will moderate his goals, Republicans will cool their tone and Washington will be able to responsibly address major issues.

Republicans are sounding like they’re not interested in that part.

The GOP's no-compromise pledge

Republicans are promising to do "everything" they can to block the president.

www.politico.com

There will be no compromise on stopping runaway spending, deficits and debt. There will be no compromise on repealing Obamacare,” said Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) in an interview last week on conservative Hugh Hewitt’s radio show.

“There will be no compromise on stopping Democrats from growing government and raising taxes,” added Pence, who may leave the House GOP leadership to prepare for a presidential run.

And many of the potential incoming Republicans have stated that they wouldn’t budge in trying to meet Democrats halfway.

“When it comes to spending, I'm not compromising. I don't care who, what, when or where, I'm not compromising,” Ken Buck, the Republican Senate nominee in Colorado, told The Washington Post.

I would say the entire obammycare boondoggle created the rif in 2010. Anyone can present a position from a point in time, but they forget there is another point in time that created that point in time. The statement I made is still unchallenged. Demofks have never compromised to a GOP position.

 

[jc456]

About damn time the Democrats show some spine against these deplorable Republicans in Congress...

That amounts to saying they are serious about lying and making people accept that lie. The people who questioned the election are the patriots here.

The people who questioned the election are brainwashed Trump cult fools.

The fraud was obvious. The counting stopped with Trump well in the lead. The counting resumed unobserved in most cases and Biden got 80% to 94% of ballots drops. He also failed almost every historical benchmark of a winning candidate. No one believes your lies.

Why not just admit the election was stolen and that you are dishonest and un American? That is the truth.

statistically impossible. But I digress, the demofks don't do math.

 

[Lastamender]

Get rid of the stupid talk free filibuster.. then fix the rest..

Your roundabout way of saying fuck the Constitution full speed ahead? Commie.

Where exactly does the Constitution say that there has to be a filibuster?

Where does it say you can steal an election? You first.

 

[Lastamender]

Let me make myself really clear here. There is no point in electing people that are unwilling to do the job that they were elected to do. This is not kindergarten.

Yes! Which is why Democrats will not work with the Republicans that violated their Oath of Office!

Challenging an election is upholding their oath of office. No one wants a stolen election, or shouldn't. The outrage was part of the cover up. Distractions and dirty tricks.

 

[jc456]

This is exactly the question I get from Trumpsters.

Honest people of good faith can drop the politics and work together. "Compromise" doesn't mean 50/50. It means that sometimes, in the big picture, Person A will get things 75% their way. Sometimes person B will get things 75% their way. And sometimes, if we're lucky, the two will truly collaborate and innovate something brand new. Like our Constitution.

This isn't news. This the way things work in businesses across the world. It's a damn shame that politics has so been so polluted by ego and tribalism.

I say that to Trumpsters, too.

This is where you and I start to butt heads.

I give all these specific examples and responses, and you come back w/incredibly generic and vague responses. But, you do know for sure that "both sides are the same."

Let me narrow it down even more.

In the example of Climate Change, the Democrats recognize the serious problem it presents, and wants to do things about it. The Republicans say "what climate change? Nothing to see here."

In the situation of healthcare. Democrats recognize the problem of, not only the rising costs of healthcare, but the lack of access to humongous swath of Americans. Republicans say "there's no problem, the market is handling it just fine."

Explain to me how you would see those two examples working out based on your statements.

Healthcare: For the Democrats: Expand the entire Medicare system to all. For the Republicans: Include the current Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system, which is an excellent and popular public/private partnership that maintains dynamic free-market competition and innovation. Age-band the Medicare coverage from 40% (for younger, healthier people whose supplemental coverage will be far less costly) to the current 80% or even 90% with supplemental coverage as needed. The main problem will be provider compensation and contracting, which will have to addressed (that wouldn't take a miracle). All portable plans, which take a massive cost monkey off the backs of American employers. My idea, you won't see that anywhere else.

Climate Change: The main hurdle is cost. Now that the curve is bending in the right direction, we're getting closer to being able to privately fund R&D. Empower the Office of Global Change/Environment under the US Department of State to issue Climate Change Bonds so that individual and institutional investors can fund startups and expansions. Participating private companies must agree to regulations in the areas of hiring, stock buybacks, executive bonuses, and the cross-training of those who are losing their jobs in the older energy technologies. My idea, you won't see that anywhere else.

That's where we start the conversations. The more moderate members of each party can take it from there. Or at least try to, which is a helluva lot better than we're getting now. Those who can't commit to communication, collaboration and innovation can join another committee and play their stupid partisan games.

except that demofks don't negotiate. you still need to climb that hurdle. And just because fake money is being used, doesn't move a needle any direction on climate. first one needs to prove climate is an issue. Let me know when they're surfing and sun bathing in the two arctics.

 

[MarcATL]

I would say the entire obammycare boondoggle created the rif in 2010. Anyone can present a position from a point in time, but they forget there is another point in time that created that point in time. The statement I made is still unchallenged. Demofks have never compromised to a GOP position.

Say bub, how do you propose Obammy should have worked w/Republicans, who said, before he ever took one step in Office, that "We want him to be a one-term President, and we will not work w/him on anything."

They also later said they wanted him to fail.

How do you propose that work bub?

 

[Grumblenuts]

For the Republicans: Include the current Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system, which is an excellent and popular public/private partnership that maintains dynamic free-market competition and innovation.

Two very different things you're oddly banging together there! Both embarrassing and unfortunate / the former simply being highway robbery.

Those are the two options that Medicare participants have to add to their coverage. It's standard Medicare, and then one of those two.

No banging involved.

No, you described both as "excellent" and they are very different programs!

Yes, they are different programs. That is the option that Medicare participants have. One or the other.

I don't know what is so confusing here.

Read up on it. Neither is "excellent." Original Medicare used to be "excellent" because it was sufficient. Now it's still fubar even with MS. And once you "choose" MA (because regular Medicare is now so insufficient) there's no going back (to try MS instead). You're well and truly fucked. Ergo, "highway robbery."

Original Medicare needs to be put back the way it was but deprivatized (actually made "public'). Then there's no need to inject any further insurance industry bullshit as though "from the govt." Private plans have always been an option and shall likely always remain so for those who can afford them. Nobody need waste time picking nits over stuff only the uber wealthy can afford.

 

[Lastamender]

I would say the entire obammycare boondoggle created the rif in 2010. Anyone can present a position from a point in time, but they forget there is another point in time that created that point in time. The statement I made is still unchallenged. Demofks have never compromised to a GOP position.

Say bub, how do you propose Obammy should have worked w/Republicans, who said, before he ever took one step in Office, that "We want him to be a one-term President, and we will not work w/him on anything."

They also later said they wanted him to fail.

How do you propose that work bub?

Is that your excuse for arguing for impeachment 17 minutes after Trump was sworn in? How are the other goldfish doing?

 

[Mac1958]

For the Republicans: Include the current Medicare Advantage/Medicare Supplement system, which is an excellent and popular public/private partnership that maintains dynamic free-market competition and innovation.

Two very different things you're oddly banging together there! Both embarrassing and unfortunate / the former simply being highway robbery.

Those are the two options that Medicare participants have to add to their coverage. It's standard Medicare, and then one of those two.

No banging involved.

No, you described both as "excellent" and they are very different programs!

Yes, they are different programs. That is the option that Medicare participants have. One or the other.

I don't know what is so confusing here.

Read up on it. Neither is "excellent." Original Medicare used to be "excellent" because it was sufficient. Now it's still fubar even with MS. And once you "choose" MA (because regular Medicare is now so insufficient) there's no going back (to try MS instead). You're well and truly fucked. Ergo, "highway robbery."

Original Medicare needs to be put back the way it was but deprivatized (actually made "public'). Then there's no need to inject any further insurance industry bullshit as though "from the govt." Private plans have always been an option and shall likely always remain so for those who can afford them. Nobody need waste time picking nits over stuff only the uber wealthy can afford.

I was brought in as the financial guy in the room for a Fortune 100 insurer, as they put their plans together in my state, piece by piece, for six years. I'm about as trained up on the whole system as anyone in my field.

They work well. They're very popular. They're not perfect, but they're better than what we have now, by a long shot.

"Excellent" and "better" are subjective terms. So, we disagree.

 

[BlindBoo]

Unless someone took the Michigan Secretary of State to court over
her unilateral changes to Michigan state election law

So you really don't know?

Here's one. AG - Court of Appeals Rules Secretary Benson Acted Lawfully in Mailing Absentee Voter Ballot Applications to Registered Voters

LANSING – The Michigan Court of Appeals today affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was lawfully permitted to send out unsolicited absentee voter ballot applications to registered voters, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced.

In a 2-1 split decision, the appellate court ruled that state law and the Michigan Constitution allow Benson to distribute unsolicited applications for absentee ballots, as the Michigan Court of Claims determined in its Aug. 25 opinion in the case, Davis v. Secretary of State.

“As chief elections officer, with constitutional authority to ‘perform duties prescribed by law,’ the Secretary of State had the inherent authority to take measures to ensure that voters were able to avail themselves of the constitutional rights established by Proposal 3 regarding absentee voting,” Judges James Robert Redford and Jonathan Tukel wrote in the majority opinion.
Michigan voters approved Proposal 3 in 2018 to allow absentee voting without having to provide a specific reason.

The judges wrote that Benson acted within the directives outlined for her office in the constitution and state law, and by furnishing the applications, she furthered the purposes of informing qualified registered voters of their right to vote by absentee ballot – if they so choose.

 

[Lastamender]

Unless someone took the Michigan Secretary of State to court over
her unilateral changes to Michigan state election law

So you really don't know?

Here's one. AG - Court of Appeals Rules Secretary Benson Acted Lawfully in Mailing Absentee Voter Ballot Applications to Registered Voters

LANSING – The Michigan Court of Appeals today affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was lawfully permitted to send out unsolicited absentee voter ballot applications to registered voters, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced.

In a 2-1 split decision, the appellate court ruled that state law and the Michigan Constitution allow Benson to distribute unsolicited applications for absentee ballots, as the Michigan Court of Claims determined in its Aug. 25 opinion in the case, Davis v. Secretary of State.

“As chief elections officer, with constitutional authority to ‘perform duties prescribed by law,’ the Secretary of State had the inherent authority to take measures to ensure that voters were able to avail themselves of the constitutional rights established by Proposal 3 regarding absentee voting,” Judges James Robert Redford and Jonathan Tukel wrote in the majority opinion.
Michigan voters approved Proposal 3 in 2018 to allow absentee voting without having to provide a specific reason.

The judges wrote that Benson acted within the directives outlined for her office in the constitution and state law, and by furnishing the applications, she furthered the purposes of informing qualified registered voters of their right to vote by absentee ballot – if they so choose.

Good, now produce the ballots and machines for a real audit. There was massive fraud.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Not the same as changing state law. Try again.

 

[jc456]

I would say the entire obammycare boondoggle created the rif in 2010. Anyone can present a position from a point in time, but they forget there is another point in time that created that point in time. The statement I made is still unchallenged. Demofks have never compromised to a GOP position.

Say bub, how do you propose Obammy should have worked w/Republicans, who said, before he ever took one step in Office, that "We want him to be a one-term President, and we will not work w/him on anything."

They also later said they wanted him to fail.

How do you propose that work bub?

why is that offensive, I'm sure that is said any time a party loses an election. They want next election cycle. Why is that offensive? BTW, obammy had both houses in congress. GOP wasn't needed. The demofks made it clear the GOP input wasn't needed. dude, you are just a demofk with no ability to compromise. it is what it is and has been.

 

[jc456]

Unless someone took the Michigan Secretary of State to court over
her unilateral changes to Michigan state election law

So you really don't know?

Here's one. AG - Court of Appeals Rules Secretary Benson Acted Lawfully in Mailing Absentee Voter Ballot Applications to Registered Voters

LANSING – The Michigan Court of Appeals today affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson was lawfully permitted to send out unsolicited absentee voter ballot applications to registered voters, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced.

In a 2-1 split decision, the appellate court ruled that state law and the Michigan Constitution allow Benson to distribute unsolicited applications for absentee ballots, as the Michigan Court of Claims determined in its Aug. 25 opinion in the case, Davis v. Secretary of State.

“As chief elections officer, with constitutional authority to ‘perform duties prescribed by law,’ the Secretary of State had the inherent authority to take measures to ensure that voters were able to avail themselves of the constitutional rights established by Proposal 3 regarding absentee voting,” Judges James Robert Redford and Jonathan Tukel wrote in the majority opinion.
Michigan voters approved Proposal 3 in 2018 to allow absentee voting without having to provide a specific reason.

The judges wrote that Benson acted within the directives outlined for her office in the constitution and state law, and by furnishing the applications, she furthered the purposes of informing qualified registered voters of their right to vote by absentee ballot – if they so choose.

where are the date change rulings?

 

[Grumblenuts]

They work well. They're very popular. They're not perfect, but they're better than what we have now, by a long shot.

"Excellent" and "better" are subjective terms. So, we disagree.

No, "work well" is subjective. They're not popular, just what's available. They're not "excellent" in any sense. And as already stated, "what we have now" sucks compared to what used to be the norm. NOW READ UP OR SHUT UP. You clearly don't really know squat about it!