House Passes Most Important Legislation Since 1965 Civil Rights Act

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,431
Reaction score
5,703
Points
1,130
Know who else argues about this? No one. The rest of the world takes these things ("reforms") for granted.
And it's no coincidence that the rest of the world, the part that votes, has a WAY higher average turnout rate than we do.

So it comes down to WHO wants fewer people participating in the electoral process, and WHY they want that.
Why do Democrats see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?

Let me ask it another way - if there was some means of ensuring that only the wisest people could vote (not saying there is, it's just a hypothetical), would you support that? Why not?
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
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.
BULLSHIT.

It's been a regular thing in (especially) sparsely-populated western states for decades, and it's been a vital and necessary option nationally, HERE, since the freaking CIVIL WAR, especially for the military. Apparently you don't want the military voting.

It's a necessity for the military of course due to their being deployed in far-flung areas that would inhibit their ability to get to the home polling place. Which is the same reason it was expanded during a FUCKING PANDEMIC.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Know who else argues about this? No one. The rest of the world takes these things ("reforms") for granted.
And it's no coincidence that the rest of the world, the part that votes, has a WAY higher average turnout rate than we do.

So it comes down to WHO wants fewer people participating in the electoral process, and WHY they want that.
Why do Democrats see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?
:desk:

Do you mean "democrats"? Those who believe in democracy? Answer --- because that's what democratic means.

What do I win?


Let me ask it another way - if there was some means of ensuring that only the wisest people could vote (not saying there is, it's just a hypothetical), would you support that? Why not?
WHO would decide who's "wisest"? You? Me? The Alabama Literacy Test?
Is that what culling down the numbers of eligible voters is supposed to do? Restrict it to the "wisest"? If so, what does that say about the methods thus employed? Like for example no-voting-on-Sundays? Why the fuck would a vote on Sunday be any less legitimate than a vote on Wednesday?
 

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.
BULLSHIT.

It's been a regular thing in (especially) sparsely-populated western states for decades, and it's been a vital and necessary option nationally, HERE, since the freaking CIVIL WAR, especially for the military. Apparently you don't want the military voting.

It's a necessity for the military of course due to their being deployed in far-flung areas that would inhibit their ability to get to the home polling place. Which is the same reason it was expanded during a FUCKING PANDEMIC.
Bullshit on you....

First of all, when your team says "mail-in ballots" they mean passing ballots out like the entertainment weekly papers that were all the rage in the '80s, not requested secure ballots obtained with validating the identity of the voter.

Secondly...



Your exaggerated "pandemic" was an excuse to practically throw ballots out of helicopters and ignore identity verification.....IOW, you fucking cheated out your asses.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
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.
BULLSHIT.

It's been a regular thing in (especially) sparsely-populated western states for decades, and it's been a vital and necessary option nationally, HERE, since the freaking CIVIL WAR, especially for the military. Apparently you don't want the military voting.

It's a necessity for the military of course due to their being deployed in far-flung areas that would inhibit their ability to get to the home polling place. Which is the same reason it was expanded during a FUCKING PANDEMIC.
Bullshit on you....

First of all, when your team says "mail-in ballots" they mean passing ballots out like the entertainment weekly papers that were all the rage in the '80s, not requested secure ballots obtained with validating the identity of the voter.

Secondly...



Your exaggerated "pandemic" was an excuse to practically throw ballots out of helicopters and ignore identity verification.....IOW, you fucking cheated out your asses.
You should see an optometrist about that double vision thing. Tell him you look at one person and you see a group. Get help.

From your link to the "Washington Examiner" :laughing0301:

>> President Rump has been critical of mail-in voting, though his campaign has endorsed it in some states such as Florida. <<​

You'd have us believe that "waaah, mail-in voting bad, unless Orange Crash wins, then mail-in voting good"?

Hypocrite much?

How come Rump wets his pants over a system that HE USES HIMSELF? Isn't he accusing himself of fraud?
 
Last edited:

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,431
Reaction score
5,703
Points
1,130
Why do Democrats see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?
:desk:

Do you mean "democrats"? Those who believe in democracy? Answer --- because that's what democratic means.

What do I win?
Nothing. You didn't answer the question, so no prize for you. Try again: why do you see that as an inherently good thing?


Let me ask it another way - if there was some means of ensuring that only the wisest people could vote (not saying there is, it's just a hypothetical), would you support that? Why not?
WHO would decide who's "wisest"? You? Me? The Alabama Literacy Test?
Is that what culling down the numbers of eligible voters is supposed to do? Restrict it to the "wisest"? If so, what does that say about the methods thus employed? Like for example no-voting-on-Sundays? Why the fuck would a vote on Sunday be any less legitimate than a vote on Wednesday?
Again, you avoided answering the question. You're getting good at that!
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Why do Democrats see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?
:desk:

Do you mean "democrats"? Those who believe in democracy? Answer --- because that's what democratic means.

What do I win?
Nothing. You didn't answer the question, so no prize for you. Try again: why do you see that as an inherently good thing?
Because --- AGAIN as I just posted --- that's what "democracy" MEANS. You either have democracy, i.e. people voting, or you do not. You don't have a "democracy" with only the élite voting; you don't have democracy with only those who agree with you voting. Just as you wouldn't have democracy with coerced voting: "vote for our guy or die". Any of that would be a sham. Ain't rocket surgery.

The Liberalist concept of "power derives from the consent of the governed" means exactly that -- it doesn't mean "that part of the governed that the government is comfortable with". If you deny some segment of those governed from the voice of a vote, then you're doing the same thing the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise did. The same thing gerrymandering does. You're DILUTING the vote to your own ends. You're RIGGING the vote.

Let me ask it another way - if there was some means of ensuring that only the wisest people could vote (not saying there is, it's just a hypothetical), would you support that? Why not?
WHO would decide who's "wisest"? You? Me? The Alabama Literacy Test?
Is that what culling down the numbers of eligible voters is supposed to do? Restrict it to the "wisest"? If so, what does that say about the methods thus employed? Like for example no-voting-on-Sundays? Why the fuck would a vote on Sunday be any less legitimate than a vote on Wednesday?
Again, you avoided answering the question. You're getting good at that!
I didn't GET a question. As I just demonstrated, the question as presented is INVALID. You want an answer, you answer the question to make yours into a real question .... WHO decides "wisest"? WHO? Once you do that, THEN you'll have a question.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,431
Reaction score
5,703
Points
1,130
Why do Democrats see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?
:desk:

Do you mean "democrats"? Those who believe in democracy? Answer --- because that's what democratic means.

What do I win?
Nothing. You didn't answer the question, so no prize for you. Try again: why do you see that as an inherently good thing?
Because --- AGAIN as I just posted --- that's what "democracy" MEANS. You either have democracy, i.e. people voting, or you do not. You don't have a "democracy" with only the élite voting; you don't have democracy with only those who agree with you voting. Just as you wouldn't have democracy with coerced voting: "vote for our guy or die". Any of that would be a sham. Ain't rocket surgery.

The Liberalist concept of "power derives from the consent of the governed" means exactly that -- it doesn't mean "that part of the governed that the government is comfortable with". If you deny some segment of those governed from the voice of a vote, then you're doing the same thing the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise did. The same thing gerrymandering does. You're DILUTING the vote to your own ends. You're RIGGING the vote.

Let me ask it another way - if there was some means of ensuring that only the wisest people could vote (not saying there is, it's just a hypothetical), would you support that? Why not?
WHO would decide who's "wisest"? You? Me? The Alabama Literacy Test?
Is that what culling down the numbers of eligible voters is supposed to do? Restrict it to the "wisest"? If so, what does that say about the methods thus employed? Like for example no-voting-on-Sundays? Why the fuck would a vote on Sunday be any less legitimate than a vote on Wednesday?
Again, you avoided answering the question. You're getting good at that!
I didn't GET a question. As I just demonstrated, the question as presented is INVALID. You want an answer, you answer the question to make yours into a real question .... WHO decides "wisest"? WHO? Once you do that, THEN you'll have a question.
LOL - you are such an evasive twat. Nevermind man.
 

San Souci

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

It's been a regular thing in (especially) sparsely-populated western states for decades, and it's been a vital and necessary option nationally, HERE, since the freaking CIVIL WAR, especially for the military. Apparently you don't want the military voting.

It's a necessity for the military of course due to their being deployed in far-flung areas that would inhibit their ability to get to the home polling place. Which is the same reason it was expanded during a FUCKING PANDEMIC.
Bullshit on you....

First of all, when your team says "mail-in ballots" they mean passing ballots out like the entertainment weekly papers that were all the rage in the '80s, not requested secure ballots obtained with validating the identity of the voter.

Secondly...



Your exaggerated "pandemic" was an excuse to practically throw ballots out of helicopters and ignore identity verification.....IOW, you fucking cheated out your asses.
You should see an optometrist about that double vision thing. Tell him you look at one person and you see a group. Get help.

From your link to the "Washington Examiner" :laughing0301:

>> President Rump has been critical of mail-in voting, though his campaign has endorsed it in some states such as Florida. <<​

You'd have us believe that "waaah, mail-in voting bad, unless Orange Crash wins, then mail-in voting good"?

Hypocrite much?

How come Rump wets his pants over a system that HE USES HIMSELF? Isn't he accusing himself of fraud?
You lie.
 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,601
Reaction score
1,984
Points
1,940
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.
Mail-out ballots? How does one VERIFY those piece of shit ballots? The filthy ,Commie Democrats are making a power grab here. They KNOW dam well Trump got 70% of Election Day Votes. Proving they can't win a fair election.
Don't look now dopey, but even Commie Donny voted by mail.
You lie.
 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,601
Reaction score
1,984
Points
1,940
Know who else argues about this? No one. The rest of the world takes these things ("reforms") for granted.
And it's no coincidence that the rest of the world, the part that votes, has a WAY higher average turnout rate than we do.

So it comes down to WHO wants fewer people participating in the electoral process, and WHY they want that.
Nope. Just want ONE Election day. Not a fuckin' Election MONTH. With ID Required.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Know who else argues about this? No one. The rest of the world takes these things ("reforms") for granted.
And it's no coincidence that the rest of the world, the part that votes, has a WAY higher average turnout rate than we do.

So it comes down to WHO wants fewer people participating in the electoral process, and WHY they want that.
Nope. Just want ONE Election day. Not a fuckin' Election MONTH. With ID Required.
Yes, we've already established the WHO, and thanks for coming out.
Now we move on to the WHY.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Why do Democrats see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?
:desk:

Do you mean "democrats"? Those who believe in democracy? Answer --- because that's what democratic means.

What do I win?
Nothing. You didn't answer the question, so no prize for you. Try again: why do you see that as an inherently good thing?
Because --- AGAIN as I just posted --- that's what "democracy" MEANS. You either have democracy, i.e. people voting, or you do not. You don't have a "democracy" with only the élite voting; you don't have democracy with only those who agree with you voting. Just as you wouldn't have democracy with coerced voting: "vote for our guy or die". Any of that would be a sham. Ain't rocket surgery.

The Liberalist concept of "power derives from the consent of the governed" means exactly that -- it doesn't mean "that part of the governed that the government is comfortable with". If you deny some segment of those governed from the voice of a vote, then you're doing the same thing the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise did. The same thing gerrymandering does. You're DILUTING the vote to your own ends. You're RIGGING the vote.

Let me ask it another way - if there was some means of ensuring that only the wisest people could vote (not saying there is, it's just a hypothetical), would you support that? Why not?
WHO would decide who's "wisest"? You? Me? The Alabama Literacy Test?
Is that what culling down the numbers of eligible voters is supposed to do? Restrict it to the "wisest"? If so, what does that say about the methods thus employed? Like for example no-voting-on-Sundays? Why the fuck would a vote on Sunday be any less legitimate than a vote on Wednesday?
Again, you avoided answering the question. You're getting good at that!
I didn't GET a question. As I just demonstrated, the question as presented is INVALID. You want an answer, you answer the question to make yours into a real question .... WHO decides "wisest"? WHO? Once you do that, THEN you'll have a question.
LOL - you are such an evasive twat. Nevermind man.
So you can't phrase the question on a legitimate basis.

Yup, that was my point.
 

Lysistrata

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
15,837
Reaction score
4,822
Points
360
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.
I don't have to show where people are being denied the right to vote. Show me how come we need to throw roadblocks in the way of people exercising this right. You can't. There is absolutely no evidence that people who are not legal, dead, or don't exist vote. The 2020 election was the second election that the orange whore lost. The republicans are being scumbags because they know that they will lose based on the low level of their candidates and shitty policies.

The 2020 election was not "stolen." The Texas lawsuit was frivolous. Texas had no standing. Textbook law. Abbott and Paxton are just trash who wanted to throw something worthless at the wall to see if it might stick.
 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,601
Reaction score
1,984
Points
1,940
Know who else argues about this? No one. The rest of the world takes these things ("reforms") for granted.
And it's no coincidence that the rest of the world, the part that votes, has a WAY higher average turnout rate than we do.

So it comes down to WHO wants fewer people participating in the electoral process, and WHY they want that.
Nope. Just want ONE Election day. Not a fuckin' Election MONTH. With ID Required.
Yes, we've already established the WHO, and thanks for coming out.
Now we move on to the WHY.
Because filthy Democrats want dead voters ,convicts ,and illegals to vote.And Children. There is NOTHING those pigs won't do to keep power.
 

San Souci

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2020
Messages
2,601
Reaction score
1,984
Points
1,940
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.
I don't have to show where people are being denied the right to vote. Show me how come we need to throw roadblocks in the way of people exercising this right. You can't. There is absolutely no evidence that people who are not legal, dead, or don't exist vote. The 2020 election was the second election that the orange whore lost. The republicans are being scumbags because they know that they will lose based on the low level of their candidates and shitty policies.

The 2020 election was not "stolen." The Texas lawsuit was frivolous. Texas had no standing. Textbook law. Abbott and Paxton are just trash who wanted to throw something worthless at the wall to see if it might stick.
You lie.
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Know who else argues about this? No one. The rest of the world takes these things ("reforms") for granted.
And it's no coincidence that the rest of the world, the part that votes, has a WAY higher average turnout rate than we do.

So it comes down to WHO wants fewer people participating in the electoral process, and WHY they want that.
Nope. Just want ONE Election day. Not a fuckin' Election MONTH. With ID Required.
Yes, we've already established the WHO, and thanks for coming out.
Now we move on to the WHY.
Because filthy Democrats want dead voters ,convicts ,and illegals to vote.And Children. There is NOTHING those pigs won't do to keep power.
As always this is way too easy but ................................................................................. Links?

Ah, low hanging fruit. Cheap food. Burp.
 

DudleySmith

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
1,604
Reaction score
895
Points
903
Know who else argues about this? No one. The rest of the world takes these things ("reforms") for granted.
And it's no coincidence that the rest of the world, the part that votes, has a WAY higher average turnout rate than we do.

So it comes down to WHO wants fewer people participating in the electoral process, and WHY they want that.
Why do Democrats see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?

Let me ask it another way - if there was some means of ensuring that only the wisest people could vote (not saying there is, it's just a hypothetical), would you support that? Why not?
Because they want 100 million criminal illegal aliens voting Democrat by the mid-terms.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,063
Reaction score
1,373
Points
140
Know who else argues about this? No one. The rest of the world takes these things ("reforms") for granted.
And it's no coincidence that the rest of the world, the part that votes, has a WAY higher average turnout rate than we do.

So it comes down to WHO wants fewer people participating in the electoral process, and WHY they want that.
Why do Democrats see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?
As stated, "The rest of the world" sees greater participation as a good thing, not just Democrats. Where you get "inherently" from remains a mystery. This certainly has nothing to do with genes. First, at least attempt establishing your premise that it's only been Democrats who have approved of "high voter turnout." Else Pogo's response stands, avoided, ignored, not rebutted: "it comes down to WHO wants fewer people participating in the electoral process, and WHY they want that."
Let me ask it another way - if there was some means of ensuring that only the wisest people could vote (not saying there is, it's just a hypothetical), would you support that? Why not?
You mean if only privileged dweebs and weasels could vote?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top