House Passes Most Important Legislation Since 1965 Civil Rights Act

Tommy Tainant

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2016
Messages
26,102
Reaction score
6,302
Points
290
Location
Y Cae Ras
It seems pretty obvious that the people opposing this bill do not want people to vote. They should move to China where the system is more in tune with their wishes.
 

francoHFW

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
64,538
Reaction score
4,419
Points
1,815
Location
NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
On Wednesday, House Democrats voted 220-210 to pass H.R. 1, the “For the People Act,” which is the most important set of voting and election reforms since the historic Voting Rights Act was adopted in 1965. 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


All Republicans should vote for it, because we all know how important free and fair elections are to them.
HR 1 most likely will meet it's demise in the senate.

Everything will die in the Senate thanks to Joe Mansion. And of course the GOP propaganda machine.
 

francoHFW

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
64,538
Reaction score
4,419
Points
1,815
Location
NY 26th FINALLY DEM!
that looks to be a sensible set of proposals. You would have to be ultra cynical to raise an objection to it.
I object to almost EVERY DINGLE ITEM in that legislation. It goes in the exact OPPOSITE direction of what we need to do in order to fix this country.
But you do not want people to vote at all. Your opinion needs to be read through that filter.
Your ignorance shines out like a lighthouse in the dark storms.
He's a Brit who lives in GB. He should go bow to the Queen.
P intelligent people like the views of foreign people. Then there are brainwashed functional moron GOP base types.
 

Anathema

Crotchety Olde Man
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
15,188
Reaction score
2,762
Points
290
Location
The Olden Days
P intelligent people like the views of foreign people
.That’s interesting considering all the immigrants in my family tree came here and promptly cut off ALL communications with their families back in Europe.
 

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.
“(1) IN GENERAL.—A State may not refuse to accept or process an individual’s application to register to vote in elections for Federal office on the grounds that the individual is under 18 years of age at the time the individual submits the application, so long as the individual is at least 16 years of age at such time.
“(2) NO EFFECT ON STATE VOTING AGE REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in paragraph (1) may be construed to require a State to permit an individual who is under 18 years of age at the time of an election for Federal office to vote in the election.”.
The telling part is the second quote, where they say nothing in the first paragraph is construed to mean a state is "required" to permit an individual under 18 to vote". This is pretty vague, cause it could also mean that a state is neither prohibited from allowing people under 18 the ability to vote.

If the law at the federal level says nobody under 18 can vote, then there would have been no need to put that paragraph in there.

The whole thing is rife with potential for abuse and "mistakes", because you know at the next election, if this passes senate, there will be reports and instances of 16 and 17 year olds slipping through the cracks and winding up getting mail in ballots, and voting.
You can't read. It says that there is no requirements to force the State to force the
State to allow anyone under the age of 18 to vote. It's right there in your own quote.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,426
Reaction score
5,696
Points
1,130
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.
The word "Inherently" has nothing to with genetics. Maybe that's where Pogo got confused as well. You guys are hilarious.

http://www.dictionary.com

Getting back to the question: Why do you see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing? Does it benefit society to have uninformed, disinterested voters coaxed to the polls? I just don't get why anyone thinks maximizing the sheer number of voters is a good thing. Pogo couldn't answer the question. And you can't even understand the words. Anyone else want to take a crack at it?
 
Last edited:

JustAGuy1

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2019
Messages
7,618
Reaction score
6,520
Points
1,940
All Republicans should vote for it, because we all know how important free and fair elections are to them.
Just like we see how important the US Constitution is to the left. This takes elections out of the hands of
the states and nationalizes them even as the federal government clamps down on freedoms and ignores law.

It's a gift from democrats to democrats that insures one party rule forever. Goodbye USA.
Won't make it through the Senate and its patently Unconstitutional.
Boy did I misread this, I thought you said "go down on the Queen".
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
1,370
Points
140
Getting back to the question: Why do you see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?
Why do I see high voter turnout as a good thing? I see democracy as a good thing. Can't even have a republic without democracy. Of, for, and by the people.

"Democracy has become such a sacrosanct concept that even the harshest dictatorships, such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, call themselves a democracy."

Got that? The opposite of a democracy is a harsh dictatorship and even there dictators pretend to be pro-democracy. Ergo, only certifiable lunatics still oppose democracy.
 
Last edited:

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,426
Reaction score
5,696
Points
1,130
Getting back to the question: Why do you see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?
Why do I see high voter turnout as a good thing? I see democracy as a good thing.
Yes. That's essentially the tautology that Pogo offered up - but it's meaningless, and doesn't answer the question. Why do think democracy benefits from merely maximizing the number of voters? Would it be better if we allowed children to vote too?
 
Last edited:

usmcstinger

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2011
Messages
1,374
Reaction score
403
Points
130
It seems pretty obvious that the people opposing this bill do not want people to vote. They should move to China where the system is more in tune with their wishes.
Let's see this will allow illegal immigrants to vote, dead people, voting twice, lots of unintended consequences. Every state can insure that every voter has an Idea Card. Most states can send members of their Board of Elections to people who can not get to places where the ID cards can be received. Why are the Dems trying to prevent this? You can not fly on plane without an ID card? The Russians got this type voting down pat!
For two many decades the Democrats have been controlling how Blacks and Hispanics voted.
As per Newsweek:


“According to surveys conducted by Edison Research and published by The New York Times, Trump has boosted his share of the Black vote by 4 percentage points since 2016, when just 8 percent of Black voters supported him.
The commander-in-chief has also seen his backing among Hispanic and Latino voters jump by 4 points over his first term, with 32 percent telling exit pollsters they backed Trump on Tuesday compared to the 28 percent who said so in 2016”.


This is scaring the hell out of the Democrats. The chances are that in 2 years this will see a even greater increase among Blacks and Hispanics. They are going to replace them with illegal aliens that they expect to control.
 

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?
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.
The word "Inherently" has nothing to with genetics. Maybe that's where Pogo got confused as well. You guys are hilarious.

http://www.dictionary.com

Getting back to the question: Why do you see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing? Does it benefit society to have uninformed, disinterested voters coaxed to the polls? I just don't get why anyone thinks maximizing the sheer number of voters is a good thing. Pogo couldn't answer the question. And you can't even understand the words. Anyone else want to take a crack at it?
I made zero comment (or question) about the word inherently. I questioned your use of the word "Democrats", inquiring as to whether you meant to say "democrats", since I am only, and can therefore speak for only, the latter and not the former. And I gave you the answer at the time, several hours ago. That you couldn't handle it doesn't mean I "couldn't answer" it.

That answer has not changed. If you're going to call yourself a democracy, i.e. hold elections, then you can't pick and choose who gets to vote in those elections. That's rigging the system.
 
Last edited:

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,426
Reaction score
5,696
Points
1,130
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.
The word "Inherently" has nothing to with genetics. Maybe that's where Pogo got confused as well. You guys are hilarious.

http://www.dictionary.com

Getting back to the question: Why do you see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing? Does it benefit society to have uninformed, disinterested voters coaxed to the polls? I just don't get why anyone thinks maximizing the sheer number of voters is a good thing. Pogo couldn't answer the question. And you can't even understand the words. Anyone else want to take a crack at it?
I made zero comment (or question) about the word inherently. I questioned your use of the word "Democrats", inquiring as to whether you meant to say "democrat", since I am only the latter, not the former. And I gave you the answer at the time, several hours ago. That you couldn't handle it doesn't mean I "couldn't answer" it.

Why do think democracy benefits from merely maximizing the number of voters? Would it be better if we allowed children to vote too?
 

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?
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.
The word "Inherently" has nothing to with genetics. Maybe that's where Pogo got confused as well. You guys are hilarious.

http://www.dictionary.com

Getting back to the question: Why do you see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing? Does it benefit society to have uninformed, disinterested voters coaxed to the polls? I just don't get why anyone thinks maximizing the sheer number of voters is a good thing. Pogo couldn't answer the question. And you can't even understand the words. Anyone else want to take a crack at it?
I made zero comment (or question) about the word inherently. I questioned your use of the word "Democrats", inquiring as to whether you meant to say "democrat", since I am only the latter, not the former. And I gave you the answer at the time, several hours ago. That you couldn't handle it doesn't mean I "couldn't answer" it.

That answer has not changed. If you're going to call yourself a democracy, i.e. hold elections, then you can't pick and choose who gets to vote in those elections. That's rigging the system.

Why do think democracy benefits from merely maximizing the number of voters? Would it be better if we allowed children to vote too?
As the instant post readily demonstrates, we allow children to post in here and it doesn't do any good sooooo.....
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,426
Reaction score
5,696
Points
1,130
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.
The word "Inherently" has nothing to with genetics. Maybe that's where Pogo got confused as well. You guys are hilarious.

http://www.dictionary.com

Getting back to the question: Why do you see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing? Does it benefit society to have uninformed, disinterested voters coaxed to the polls? I just don't get why anyone thinks maximizing the sheer number of voters is a good thing. Pogo couldn't answer the question. And you can't even understand the words. Anyone else want to take a crack at it?
I made zero comment (or question) about the word inherently. I questioned your use of the word "Democrats", inquiring as to whether you meant to say "democrat", since I am only the latter, not the former. And I gave you the answer at the time, several hours ago. That you couldn't handle it doesn't mean I "couldn't answer" it.

That answer has not changed. If you're going to call yourself a democracy, i.e. hold elections, then you can't pick and choose who gets to vote in those elections. That's rigging the system.

Why do think democracy benefits from merely maximizing the number of voters? Would it be better if we allowed children to vote too?
As the instant post readily demonstrates, we allow children to post in here and it doesn't do any good sooooo.....
Of course I didn't expect you to answer, but not all liberals are dishonest trolls. Hoping someone is willing to address the issue.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
6,056
Reaction score
1,370
Points
140
Getting back to the question: Why do you see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?
Why do I see high voter turnout as a good thing? I see democracy as a good thing.
Yes. That's essentially the tautology that Pogo offered up - but it's meaningless, and doesn't answer the question. Why do think democracy benefits from merely maximizing the number of voters? Would it be better if we allowed children to vote too?
Try asking yourself why you keep changing the question? No one here has suggested that "merely maximizing the number of voters" would be a good thing but you. When more of the eligible electorate is actually participating (percentagewise)? - Yes, that's a good thing. Hey, here's an idea! State your opinion on the matter! Do you oppose democracy or not?
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,426
Reaction score
5,696
Points
1,130
Getting back to the question: Why do you see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?
Why do I see high voter turnout as a good thing? I see democracy as a good thing.
Yes. That's essentially the tautology that Pogo offered up - but it's meaningless, and doesn't answer the question. Why do think democracy benefits from merely maximizing the number of voters? Would it be better if we allowed children to vote too?
Try asking yourself why you keep changing the question?
Because you don't seem to understand it. I'm trying to find simpler wording that you might comprehend. But maybe it's not a comprehension problem. Maybe, like Pogo, you're just avoiding the question because you don't have a good answer (and don't want to admit it).

When more of the eligible electorate is actually participating (percentagewise)? - Yes, that's a good thing.
Why?
 

Pogo

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
123,497
Reaction score
22,517
Points
2,190
Location
Fennario
Getting back to the question: Why do you see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?
Why do I see high voter turnout as a good thing? I see democracy as a good thing.
Yes. That's essentially the tautology that Pogo offered up - but it's meaningless, and doesn't answer the question. Why do think democracy benefits from merely maximizing the number of voters? Would it be better if we allowed children to vote too?
Try asking yourself why you keep changing the question? No one here has suggested that "merely maximizing the number of voters" would be a good thing but you. When more of the eligible electorate is actually participating (percentagewise)? - Yes, that's a good thing. Hey, here's an idea! State your opinion on the matter! Do you oppose democracy or not?
We could also turn the question around for him and ask why it is he thinks "certain people" should be restricted from voting, in a country that supposedly guarantees that right. I'm not aware of qualifications on that right.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
38,426
Reaction score
5,696
Points
1,130
Getting back to the question: Why do you see high voter turnout as an inherently good thing?
Why do I see high voter turnout as a good thing? I see democracy as a good thing.
Yes. That's essentially the tautology that Pogo offered up - but it's meaningless, and doesn't answer the question. Why do think democracy benefits from merely maximizing the number of voters? Would it be better if we allowed children to vote too?
Try asking yourself why you keep changing the question? No one here has suggested that "merely maximizing the number of voters" would be a good thing but you. When more of the eligible electorate is actually participating (percentagewise)? - Yes, that's a good thing. Hey, here's an idea! State your opinion on the matter! Do you oppose democracy or not?
We could also turn the question around for him and ask why it is he thinks "certain people" should be restricted from voting, in a country that supposedly guarantees that right. I'm not aware of qualifications on that right.
You could play games like that all day long. That's what trolls do.

Or you could grow a pair and actually answer the question. But we both know that won't happen.
 
Last edited:

beautress

Always Faithful
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
17,829
Reaction score
9,862
Points
1,295
Location
Walker County, TX
On Wednesday, House Democrats voted 220-210 to pass H.R. 1, the “For the People Act,” which is the most important set of voting and election reforms since the historic Voting Rights Act was adopted in 1965. 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


All Republicans should vote for it, because we all know how important free and fair elections are to them.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Every one of the fuckers who voted for this violated the United States Constitution.

They should be dragged into the streets naked and beaten.
Lol. Too kind. I prefer disappeared never to be seen again <joke>
Its a terrible bill and it unconstitutional. Won't get past the Senate.
What makes it unconstitutional?
She doesn't know.
It is unconstitutional to railroad political funds based on party to enrich the party, kind of like Joe Biden's extortion of 30% of American taxpayers' foreign aid gift to the Ukraine to raise campaign fund for paying Democrat precinct chairmen in targeted states to make Biden seem to have more votes than Trump when the opposite was true. The extortion gave the election to China and other foreign players who play nice with Democrats and treachery to the Republicans to date the revenge of Hillary Clinton and to destroy her political opponent whom she wrongfully painted him with a series of false witness inquiries, dossiers, and fake impeachments that were chock full of crafted lies ad false narratives.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top