House Passes Most Important Legislation Since 1965 Civil Rights Act

[Grumblenuts]

Why?

Why is greater participation of the electorate a good thing? Because "the people" are then most acting on their own behalf. Maximum democracy.

 

[Pogo]

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.

And you could sit there and continue to go knowing that you got your answer several hours ago.

As we said ---- children.

 

[Pogo]

Why?

Why is greater participation of the electorate a good thing? Because "the people" are then most acting on their own behalf. Maximum democracy.

And because "the people" means "the people" --- it does not mean "some of the people" and it does not mean "that part of the people who look/think/talk like me". It means ... "the people".

 

[dblack]

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.

And you could sit there and continue to go knowing that you got your answer several hours ago.

As we said ---- children.

Anybody else want to take a crack at it?

I've just never understood the blind worship of "Maximum Democracy". I remember back in the day, MTV had its "Rock the Vote" campaign, trying to get slackjawed teenagers to vote. Never really got why anyone that that was a good idea. I'd much rather see campaigns that encouraged people to make educated votes - and if they didn't have time to educate themselves about the issues, don't vote. Simply dragging warm bodies to the voting booth won't make for better elections or better government.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Simply dragging warm bodies to the voting booth won't make for better elections or better government.

So now you posit that "warm bodies" have not only been dragged into voting booths, but that some unspecified persons encourage such behavior to boot. Boy, it just keeps getting deeper with you!

 

[dblack]

Simply dragging warm bodies to the voting booth won't make for better elections or better government.

So now you posit that "warm bodies" have not only been dragged into voting booths, but that some unspecified persons encourage such behavior to boot. Boy, it just keeps getting deeper with you!

Do you think children and the mentally incompetent should vote? What about nihilists and people who working actively to undermine the nation? Do you want them to vote too?

 

[Grumblenuts]

You answer first. How about that?

 

[dblack]

You answer first. How about that?

LOL - nope. I asked first. You're the one playing dodgem, and failing to comprehend English.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Figures. We've been answering. You just lack the courage to express your own convictions. Oh well, must suck to be you.

Again, "Hey, here's an idea! State your opinion on the matter! Do you oppose democracy or not?"

 

[San Souci]

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

House Democrats just passed the most important democracy reforms since the 1965 Voting Rights Act

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...

m.dailykos.com

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.

House Democrats’ massive voting rights bill, explained

The bill still faces a steep climb in the US Senate.

www.vox.com

It's patently unconstitutional.

The vile Nazis in the house who passed it should be dragged into the streets naked and beaten.

Better yes ,turn them over to Q-Anon! Since they surround the Capitol. CNN said so.

 

[dblack]

Figures. We've been answering.

No, you haven't. You've been repeating the same dumb tautologies.

Oh well, must suck to be you.

Living in a world of morons like you? Yeah, it's sub-optimal.

"Hey, here's an idea! State your opinion on the matter! Do you oppose democracy or not?"

Fine. I'll answer, even though you and pogo are too chickenshit to do so. I'm not afraid of defending my convictions.

No, I don't oppose democracy. And I don't support Republican efforts to suppress the vote. I just don't share a blind faith that democracy produces good results. It depends entirely on the voters. If they're shallow, self-centered idiots, I'd really rather they didn't vote.

 

[Grumblenuts]

No, I don't oppose democracy. And I don't support Republican efforts to suppress the vote. I just don't share a blind faith that democracy produces good results. It depends entirely on the voters. If they're shallow, self-centered idiots, I'd really rather they didn't vote.

In general what's the alternative? Such whataboutery ("If they're shallow, self-centered idiots, I'd really rather they didn't vote.") leads nowhere. You're just barking at the Moon. It's a given that no one knows nor can know much about the specifics in advance. Nor should they. Freedom baby. Liberty. Love it or leave it. Like and trust your fellow Americans, your neighbors,.. or get lost!

This may help you: Why Perfection Is The Enemy Of Done

 

[dblack]

No, I don't oppose democracy. And I don't support Republican efforts to suppress the vote. I just don't share a blind faith that democracy produces good results. It depends entirely on the voters. If they're shallow, self-centered idiots, I'd really rather they didn't vote.

In general what's the alternative?

The alternative is to stop pushing so hard for every idiot in the world to vote. We should promote educated voting, not just any voting.

 

[Grumblenuts]

No, I don't oppose democracy. And I don't support Republican efforts to suppress the vote. I just don't share a blind faith that democracy produces good results. It depends entirely on the voters. If they're shallow, self-centered idiots, I'd really rather they didn't vote.

In general what's the alternative?

The alternative is to stop pushing so hard for every idiot in the world to vote. We should promote educated voting, not just any voting.

"educated voting"? What's that? How is it achieved, monitored, and made transparent to the public? Is anything short of that then truly the opposite (i.e. "just any voting")? Where are people "pushing so hard for every idiot in the world to vote"? Perhaps if you stopped preloading your responses with your own biases?

 

[ThisIsMe]

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.

Yeah, I said that, but it also doesn't prohibit a state from allowing anyone under 18 to vote. Again, if the federal law already states that anyone under 18 cannot vote, there would have been no need to even include that paragraph, since its already illegal for someone under 18 to vote. This means, by deduction, that its vague wording would seem to indicate that states might be allowed to let underage kids the ability to vote.

Even if its not the intent of states to allow these 16 year old to vote, my last paragraph explains that, with the registering 16 year olds to vote combined with the push to make mail in ballots the norm everywhere, you know there will be many instances where these registered 16 year olds will receive ballots in the mail, its bound to happen.

 

[Vrenn]

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.

Yeah, I said that, but it also doesn't prohibit a state from allowing anyone under 18 to vote. Again, if the federal law already states that anyone under 18 cannot vote, there would have been no need to even include that paragraph, since its already illegal for someone under 18 to vote. This means, by deduction, that its vague wording would seem to indicate that states might be allowed to let underage kids the ability to vote.

Even if its not the intent of states to allow these 16 year old to vote, my last paragraph explains that, with the registering 16 year olds to vote combined with the push to make mail in ballots the norm everywhere, you know there will be many instances where these registered 16 year olds will receive ballots in the mail, its bound to happen.

The only way that 16 year old can register is for an election that occurs AFTER he turns 18. That 16 year old won't get a ballot mailed to him until he's close to his 18th birthday. As it stands right now, 17 year olds can register to vote. They just can't vote until they are 18. Now, I think this is stupid considering that at 17 (turning 18 just before the election can get him or her a ballot, why rush it for a 16 year old even though it may be the same for him or her. That being said, that needs to be removed because it doesn't do a damned thing.

But claiming that a bunch of 16 year olds are going to get to vote is even dumber.

 

[Lysistrata]

Shame on you for parroting right-wing lies. There has never, ever been proof of any widespread voter fraud. None. The republicans want to prevent eligible people from voting, which is a betrayal of our American values. They should move to Russia. They already have admitted several times that they cannot win without suppressing the legitimate vote (i.e. cheating). Face the fact that right-wing policies are not acceptable to a lot of people.

Shame on you for supporting and praising the most vicious attack on civil rights and Constitutional Liberty since the first civil war.

Any of the vermin in the house who voted for this is a fucking traitor - openly violating the Constitution of the United States.

They should be dragged into the street naked and beaten.

This has nothing to do with voting, this is the outlawing of dissenting speech.

Congress shall make no law.

But Congress just did make a law - which makes congress, or at least that branch, illegitimate. Openly and wantonly shitting on the Bill of Rights cannot be simply shrugged off.

Those who voted for this violated their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution - they have engaged in treason.

I understand that this attack on the constitution has no chance in the Senate, yet the fact that there are traitorous vermin in the house who voted for this shows that the nation cannot be reconciled, cannot be healed. The democrats are dedicated to the utter and complete destruction of the Union and Constitutional Republic and MUST be treated as what they are, enemy combatants waging civil war against America.

There is no Constitutional violation here. Moreover, there is no way that this bill can be construed as "the outlawing of dissenting speech." It doesn't involve speech. It also cannot be construed as being an attack on civil rights or liberty. This legislation does not restrain any right of any individual person, but rather protects the individual's right to vote.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

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.

Your idiocy is on full display. It is fools like you who should retire to China since H-1 is designed to
give America over to one party rule, just like China. But you only "know" what The Guardian wants you to know and repeat like a squawking bird.

We forgive you since you know not what you do.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

There is no Constitutional violation here. Moreover, there is no way that this bill can be construed as "the outlawing of dissenting speech." It doesn't involve speech. It also cannot be construed as being an attack on civil rights or liberty. This legislation does not restrain any right of any individual person, but rather protects the individual's right to vote.

Whether that person is eligible to vote or not.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Means of identifying one's self for the purposes of voting are routinely accepted in every developed nation
but America, thanks to the left who dishonestly conflate voter i.d.s with racism, and other disingenuous claims
they love to make.

So one of their favorite false claims, America is looked down on by other nations, is ignored when democrats
refuse to acknowledge how ubiquitous voter identification is in most of the rest of the world.

As always, liars to the end.