House Passes Most Important Legislation Since 1965 Civil Rights Act

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
RESTRICT political speech protected under the First Amendment
Rump ALREADY loves that one. Said so himself.


That's a speech in Texas during the 2016 campaign. That's on video. And that's Rump, not Alec Baldwin pretending to be Rump.

You want another trip on the Rump 180 roller coaster? Check his twits about the Electoral College in 2012, versus 2016. They're hilarious. Bring lots of dramamine. Not just for the vertigo but for the drama.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
There is nothing unconstitutional about this bill.

Unless you're a racist.
It's taking away states rights
How?
It violates the basic concept of a republic. States should be able to assign their electoral votes however they like.
States ALREADY ARE able to assign their EVs however they want, and have been, and have done so, since the Constitution was ratified. Might want to wake up now Rip van Winkle.
Wait so you want states to ignore the federal pot laws but abide by HR1?
Oughta work, sure.
Again, the question is ----- WHAT'S IN HR1?
What's in there that's "unconstitutional"?
And how come nobody can answer that, yet 48 people want to make the ass-sertion?
Hm?
You should know pogo, it circumvent's the supreme court's decision
And what "supreme court decision" would this be then?

Oh look. It's the Battle of Stone Mountain again.
Calling bluffs .... It's what I do.
 
Last edited:

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,374
Points
140

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,601
Reaction score
1,984
Points
1,940


bringing us one step closer to getting big money OUT of our politics and voters IN!

But we're not done yet. H.R. 1 is now on its way to the Senate for a vote.

Call your Senators at (202) 224-3121 or (202) 224-3091 (TTY) and urge them to pass the For The People Act.

The For the People Act is a once-in-a-generation package of proven reforms that would:
  • Put ordinary Americans ahead of Big Money donors;
  • Call for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United;
  • Expand and protect voting rights and access to the ballot;
  • End gerrymandering so that electoral districts are fairly drawn; and
  • Combat corruption by holding elected officials to the highest ethical standards.
The American people are tired of a government that prioritizes big money over the needs of the voters. We demand a democracy that works for all of us.
:yes_text12:
Bullshit. Big Money is BEHIND this Bill. From President Bezos on down.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,556
Reaction score
12,317
Points
2,180
There is nothing unconstitutional about this bill.

Unless you're a racist.
It's taking away states rights
How?
It violates the basic concept of a republic. States should be able to assign their electoral votes however they like.
States ALREADY ARE able to assign their EVs however they want, and have been, and have done so, since the Constitution was ratified. Might want to wake up now Rip van Winkle.
Wait so you want states to ignore the federal pot laws but abide by HR1?
Oughta work, sure.
Again, the question is ----- WHAT'S IN HR1?
What's in there that's "unconstitutional"?
And how come nobody can answer that, yet 48 people want to make the ass-sertion?
Hm?
You should know pogo, it circumvent's the supreme court's decision
And what "supreme court decision" would this be then?

Oh look. It's the Battle of Stone Mountain again.
Oh look I have to spell it out for pogo


Buckley v. Valeo
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
There is nothing unconstitutional about this bill.

Unless you're a racist.
It's taking away states rights
How?
It violates the basic concept of a republic. States should be able to assign their electoral votes however they like.
States ALREADY ARE able to assign their EVs however they want, and have been, and have done so, since the Constitution was ratified. Might want to wake up now Rip van Winkle.
Wait so you want states to ignore the federal pot laws but abide by HR1?
Oughta work, sure.
Again, the question is ----- WHAT'S IN HR1?
What's in there that's "unconstitutional"?
And how come nobody can answer that, yet 48 people want to make the ass-sertion?
Hm?
You should know pogo [sic], it circumvent's [sic] the supreme court's decision
And what "supreme court decision" would this be then?

Oh look. It's the Battle of Stone Mountain again.
Oh look I have to spell it out for pogo


Buckley v. Valeo
And how does HR1 "circumvent" that?
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,556
Reaction score
12,317
Points
2,180
There is nothing unconstitutional about this bill.

Unless you're a racist.
It's taking away states rights
How?
It violates the basic concept of a republic. States should be able to assign their electoral votes however they like.
States ALREADY ARE able to assign their EVs however they want, and have been, and have done so, since the Constitution was ratified. Might want to wake up now Rip van Winkle.
Wait so you want states to ignore the federal pot laws but abide by HR1?
Oughta work, sure.
Again, the question is ----- WHAT'S IN HR1?
What's in there that's "unconstitutional"?
And how come nobody can answer that, yet 48 people want to make the ass-sertion?
Hm?
You should know pogo [sic], it circumvent's [sic] the supreme court's decision
And what "supreme court decision" would this be then?

Oh look. It's the Battle of Stone Mountain again.
Oh look I have to spell it out for pogo


Buckley v. Valeo
And how does HR1 "circumvent" that?
Oh please it's a Democrats wet dream to get rid of Buckley v. Valeo.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
There is nothing unconstitutional about this bill.

Unless you're a racist.
It's taking away states rights
How?
It violates the basic concept of a republic. States should be able to assign their electoral votes however they like.
States ALREADY ARE able to assign their EVs however they want, and have been, and have done so, since the Constitution was ratified. Might want to wake up now Rip van Winkle.
Wait so you want states to ignore the federal pot laws but abide by HR1?
Oughta work, sure.
Again, the question is ----- WHAT'S IN HR1?
What's in there that's "unconstitutional"?
And how come nobody can answer that, yet 48 people want to make the ass-sertion?
Hm?
You should know pogo [sic], it circumvent's [sic] the supreme court's decision
And what "supreme court decision" would this be then?

Oh look. It's the Battle of Stone Mountain again.
Oh look I have to spell it out for pogo


Buckley v. Valeo
And how does HR1 "circumvent" that?
Oh please it's a Democrats wet dream to get rid of Buckley v. Valeo.
So you can't explain how. Interesting.
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
64,556
Reaction score
12,317
Points
2,180
There is nothing unconstitutional about this bill.

Unless you're a racist.
It's taking away states rights
How?
It violates the basic concept of a republic. States should be able to assign their electoral votes however they like.
States ALREADY ARE able to assign their EVs however they want, and have been, and have done so, since the Constitution was ratified. Might want to wake up now Rip van Winkle.
Wait so you want states to ignore the federal pot laws but abide by HR1?
Oughta work, sure.
Again, the question is ----- WHAT'S IN HR1?
What's in there that's "unconstitutional"?
And how come nobody can answer that, yet 48 people want to make the ass-sertion?
Hm?
You should know pogo [sic], it circumvent's [sic] the supreme court's decision
And what "supreme court decision" would this be then?

Oh look. It's the Battle of Stone Mountain again.
Oh look I have to spell it out for pogo


Buckley v. Valeo
And how does HR1 "circumvent" that?
Oh please it's a Democrats wet dream to get rid of Buckley v. Valeo.
So you can't explain how. Interesting.

Use your imagination pogo, to circumvent citizen united is the goal here , you know it, I know it that's what this bill is about/ main feature
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
There is nothing unconstitutional about this bill.

Unless you're a racist.
It's taking away states rights
How?
It violates the basic concept of a republic. States should be able to assign their electoral votes however they like.
States ALREADY ARE able to assign their EVs however they want, and have been, and have done so, since the Constitution was ratified. Might want to wake up now Rip van Winkle.
Wait so you want states to ignore the federal pot laws but abide by HR1?
Oughta work, sure.
Again, the question is ----- WHAT'S IN HR1?
What's in there that's "unconstitutional"?
And how come nobody can answer that, yet 48 people want to make the ass-sertion?
Hm?
You should know pogo [sic], it circumvent's [sic] the supreme court's decision
And what "supreme court decision" would this be then?

Oh look. It's the Battle of Stone Mountain again.
Oh look I have to spell it out for pogo


Buckley v. Valeo
And how does HR1 "circumvent" that?
Oh please it's a Democrats wet dream to get rid of Buckley v. Valeo.
So you can't explain how. Interesting.

Use your imagination pogo, to circumvent citizen united is the goal here , you know it, I know it that's what this bill is about/ main feature
No no no. "Imagination" does not play in an assertion, and it damn sure doesn't play in Court.
 
OP
skews13

skews13

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
4,634
Reaction score
2,868
Points
1,065
If you can be certain of one thing, if congress passes something with a title like "for the people", it will function in exactly the opposite manner.

See: "Affordable Care Act" and "Patriot Act".

See: Tax Cutes and Jobs Act
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,374
Points
140
Tax ^Cuts^ and Jobs Act
not to mention Citizens United

From the OP: " These reforms, which House Democrats previously passed in 2019, face a challenging path to in the Senate given Democrats’ narrow majority and uncertainty over whether they can overcome a GOP filibuster, but their adoption is critical for preserving American democracy amid unprecedented attack by Republican extremists both in and outside Congress"

That identifies what we find here. Those vehemently opposed to democracy. Dedicated billionaire defenders and apologists. Corporatist shills. Pretend populists. Neoliberal banksters. Extremists indeed. Opposed to the general public, aka "the people." Remember, there will always be far more of us.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,374
Points
140
Know who else argues about this? No one. The rest of the world takes these things ("reforms") for granted.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
1,605
Reaction score
895
Points
903
Thank you for admitting that the current voter-suppression efforts in some states are motivated by partisanship. Nobody can tell if there is "one party rule" at any time unless there is a free election in which all eligible people can vote and the votes are counted. If you are concerned that one party cannot win, look at the party and the candidates it runs, who perhaps have no appeal for some voters. Voters know that we all have to live with the results of any individual being elected to, and exercising the powers and functions of a public office.

A person who opposes making sure that as many people can vote as possible is not a patriot. This bill is definitely needed given the anti-democracy movement that we have seen recently.
Show me where people are being denied the right to vote. That's what you have to do.
And it's what you cannot do.

This isn't about making sure everyone CAN vote. It's about watering down election laws so everyone, legal and not legal, alive and not alive, existent and nonexistent, vote thereby insuring democrats continue to steal elections like the 2020 presidential election in perpetuity.

This bill does not pass Constitutional muster so am I worried about it?
In a perfectly legal world no.

But in a country governed by the Roberts Supreme Court...
cheating and dishonesty can be addicting when Roberts can fuck the law like he did in the Texas
lawsuit without any ill effects at all. He might be tempted to do it again if he thinks there is a
chance of getting away with things.

He will deal with the fifteen member Supreme Court when the matter comes up.
You have seen countless examples of voter suppression on the news.

The narrative of voter fraud is a lie. Anything restricting the right to vote being used as a claim to combat something that does not exist is the evidence.
The 'Right to Vote" does not include Mail-out ballots and Ballot Harvesting. That is why we have an "Election DAY. not a fuckin' Election MONTH. If one wants to VOTE ,they MIGHT just have to stand in line and produce an ID.
Thank You! The way it is now, there will never be another free and fair election in the United States again. Never. Hell, our "elections" are little more than a joke as it is - this past election should make that quite clear.
Wait till the gerrymandering circus gets rolling ahead of the next mid-terms.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
70,781
Reaction score
36,792
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Tax ^Cuts^ and Jobs Act
not to mention Citizens United

From the OP: " These reforms, which House Democrats previously passed in 2019, face a challenging path to in the Senate given Democrats’ narrow majority and uncertainty over whether they can overcome a GOP filibuster, but their adoption is critical for preserving American democracy amid unprecedented attack by Republican extremists both in and outside Congress"

That identifies what we find here. Those vehemently opposed to democracy. Dedicated billionaire defenders and apologists. Corporatist shills. Pretend populists. Neoliberal banksters. Extremists indeed. Opposed to the general public, aka "the people." Remember, there will always be far more of us.
Remember, there will always be far more of us.

Yeah....More of you dumb enough to think that gubmint is your friend.
 

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
26,108
Reaction score
6,307
Points
290
Location
Y Cae Ras
that looks to be a sensible set of proposals. You would have to be ultra cynical to raise an objection to it.
Mail out votes cause massive fraud. ALL votes should be on Election Day. WITH an ID.
They absolutely do not. There is no evidence that this is the case. I understand that a lot more people are voting by post because the states have made it harder for people to vote in person. They have placed voting centres in places that are inaccessible and closed many. People have better things to do than stand in line for hours. This is 2021, not 1821.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
70,781
Reaction score
36,792
Points
2,615
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
that looks to be a sensible set of proposals. You would have to be ultra cynical to raise an objection to it.
Mail out votes cause massive fraud. ALL votes should be on Election Day. WITH an ID.
They absolutely do not. There is no evidence that this is the case. I understand that a lot more people are voting by post because the states have made it harder for people to vote in person. They have placed voting centres in places that are inaccessible and closed many. People have better things to do than stand in line for hours. This is 2021, not 1821.
There's enough evidence that nearly every other nation in the western world prohibits it.
 

Vrenn

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
579
Points
893
Section 10 of the bill, allowing minors to register to vote.

States may not refuse a voter registration from anyone who is 16 or over. It says that states are not forced into allowing someone under 18 to vote.

Here's where I see that going. Liberal states will allow 16 year olds the ability to vote, and in those families, I can see a lot of dad saying "you're under my roof, your going to vote for who i tell you to vote for"
Today, if a person is 17 and will turn 18 just before the election he is allowed to register. But he can't vote until he is of the 18 year old legal age. All this does is allow a 16 year old that will turn 18 prior to the next election to be able to register. Not the ability to vote before they are 18.

What you see isn't what reality is.
 

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
26,108
Reaction score
6,307
Points
290
Location
Y Cae Ras
that looks to be a sensible set of proposals. You would have to be ultra cynical to raise an objection to it.
Mail out votes cause massive fraud. ALL votes should be on Election Day. WITH an ID.
They absolutely do not. There is no evidence that this is the case. I understand that a lot more people are voting by post because the states have made it harder for people to vote in person. They have placed voting centres in places that are inaccessible and closed many. People have better things to do than stand in line for hours. This is 2021, not 1821.
There's enough evidence that nearly every other nation in the western world prohibits it.
Which countries are they ? We can vote by post over here and have always had that option. Its not widespread because it is easy enough to vote in person. Every village has a public building that is used as a polling station. I live 150 yards from mine.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top