Voter Suppression

[WBT 20425]

On 4/26/2021 at 5:43 PM, Js1 said:

I’d ask if these traitors realize mail-in voting in large numbers was due to this pandemic thing, but....

Yeah, mail-in voting previously broke R and I expect that it will again by 2024

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20345]

 

[gmr548 16520]

Surprisingly good news from a surprising source (W. Va.):
 
 

I don’t know how Democrats can look around and conclude the filibuster shouldn’t be killed to get this passed. The GOP is dragging this nation into third world status, and of Democrats don’t wield the hard earned control of the federal government to stop it, they’re complicit.

[Brisketexan 104675]

6 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

What more can we ask, Fred?

We can ask -- correction, we can DEMAND -- that the SOS ensure that elections Make America Great Again, by ensuring that people we don't want to vote don't vote.

Oh, and the "we" here is the GQP, which has zero interest in fair democratic elections.

[Satchel 6908]

Republicans continue to say the quiet part out loud:

Spoiler

 

Paxton told Bannon, who served as White House chief strategist in the Trump Administration in 2017 following his years as chairman of Breitbart News, that had his office not blocked Harris County from sending out mail-in ballot applications to its residents, Trump would have lost Texas in 2020. Harris County includes Democrat-leaning Houston.

"Trump won by 620,000 votes in Texas," Paxton told Bannon. "(The) Harris County mail-in ballots that they wanted to send out were 2.5 million. Those were all illegal, and we were able to stop every one of them."

What Paxton described as "mail-in ballots" were mail-in ballot applications. There's a difference between sending out 2.5 applications for mail-in ballots and actually sending out 2.5 mail-in ballots. And there was nothing evil or sinister about the applications that Harris County officials wanted to send out, as Paxton claimed.

https://www.alternet.org/2021/06/ken-paxton/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=7275

 

[Js1 85136]

 

[Biff Tannen 45502]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

 

This sounds good, I guess.  Not a lawyer.  But also, is more lawyers really the best answer for anything?

[Nivek 16866]

This sounds good, I guess.  Not a lawyer.  But also, is more lawyers really the best answer for anything?

I dont know, i suppose if one needs to test our a mine field or cluster bomb, more lawyers would help.

[Flg8rfan 201]

Best way to ensure voter access is to just accept everything, no questions asked, no challenges allowed. Mail, in person without ID, who cares. Let’s just tie it to email addresses.

[Biff Tannen 45502]

4 minutes ago, Flg8rfan said:

Best way to ensure voter access is to just accept everything, no questions asked, no challenges allowed. Mail, in person without ID, who cares. Let’s just tie it to email addresses.

Yes. In this black and white world this makes perfect sense. 

[hobbes2702 12850]

6 minutes ago, Flg8rfan said:

Best way to ensure voter access is to just accept everything, no questions asked, no challenges allowed. Mail, in person without ID, who cares. Let’s just tie it to email addresses.

Holy strawman batman

[Longhorn_Fan68 33848]

6 minutes ago, Flg8rfan said:

Best way to ensure voter access is to just accept everything, no questions asked, no challenges allowed. Mail, in person without ID, who cares. Let’s just tie it to email addresses.

not sure this packs the punch you thought it would

[Js1 85136]

4 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

not sure this packs the punch you thought it would

“420CockLord6969@gmail.com casted 1 vote for Gary Johnson”

[atomheartbevo 89462]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

“420CockLord6969@gmail.com casted 1 vote for Gary Johnson”

More like "420sovereigncitizenAR15@protonmail.com has cast 1 vote for Gary Johnson"

[Js1 85136]

 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33848]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

good, then do Texas

[Post Oak 20188]

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

Fuck em up Merrick

[Satchel 6908]

Texas is next for sure. Good deal.

[Willfully Horn 7922]

The single most noxious law is the one that allows legislators to throw out the will of the voters. 
 

Why this hasn’t been addressed federally, with bipartisan support, is beyond me.

[Satchel 6908]

1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

The single most noxious law is the one that allows legislators to throw out the will of the voters. 
 

Why this hasn’t been addressed federally, with bipartisan support, is beyond me.

I think even a few GOP legislators in Texas have gotten cold feet when it comes to actually supporting that power grab.

[gmr548 16520]

The single most noxious law is the one that allows legislators to throw out the will of the voters. 
 
Why this hasn’t been addressed federally, with bipartisan support, is beyond me.

Is it really beyond you? As in you honestly don’t grasp why?

[Willfully Horn 7922]

20 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Is it really beyond you? As in you honestly don’t grasp why?

Yes.

Putting this noxious shit on blast and then up for a vote, in my mind at least, would result in a law forbidding the act.

I am not in denial about the worst actors and their goals. I respect those Republicans who did their jobs in ‘20, however, and believe that segment of the Party to be allies in defending the Great Experiment.
 

Fear of the other, and of the power of government, is a both sides thing. Use that to limit the power of the executive, and to reinforce the sanctity of the the will of the voters. 
 

[NWBuck 8548]

1 hour ago, Willfully Horn said:

The single most noxious law is the one that allows legislators to throw out the will of the voters. 

You mean the electoral college?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33848]

20 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

The single most noxious law is the one that allows legislators to throw out the will of the voters. 
 

Why this hasn’t been addressed federally, with bipartisan support, is beyond me.

Like this?

 

[Js1 85136]

4 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Like this?

 

And only through the end of term, I believe. So shameless 

[atomheartbevo 89462]

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

And only through the end of term, I believe. So shameless 

Which tells you they know the state is flipping.

[tx 3 putt 76422]

44 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Which tells you they know the state is flipping.

[Satchel 6908]

45 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Which tells you they know the state is flipping.

Even non supporters have to be impressed with the sheer brazenness of Republican.

[atomheartbevo 89462]

2 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Even non supporters have to be impressed with the sheer brazenness of Republican.

The fact that they aren't confident that they will be able to hold those positions, and are displaying it in such a public manner, is really surprising.  You'd think they'd at least pretend like they would keep winning.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

The fact that they aren't confident that they will be able to hold those positions, and are displaying it in such a public manner, is really surprising.  You'd think they'd at least pretend like they would keep winning.

What does it matter? Is anyone going to do anything about it? They learned from the mafia master.

[gmr548 16520]

Yes.
Putting this noxious shit on blast and then up for a vote, in my mind at least, would result in a law forbidding the act.
I am not in denial about the worst actors and their goals. I respect those Republicans who did their jobs in ‘20, however, and believe that segment of the Party to be allies in defending the Great Experiment.
 
Fear of the other, and of the power of government, is a both sides thing. Use that to limit the power of the executive, and to reinforce the sanctity of the the will of the voters. 
 

What? They’ve literally put multiple pieces of voting rights legislation up in the Senate and not a single Republican voted for them. I’m sure that take makes you feel good but it’s objectively untrue. State level GOP efforts have not been addressed federally because 1.) The GOP are bad faith actors. All of them; and 2.) The Democrats don’t have the votes to kill the filibuster because of a quasi Republican holding a seat for them in WV and a certifiably crazy person from AZ.

You see the Biden administration moving this to the courts, which is about all that is left if you can’t talk those two into getting rid of the filibuster. I’m as critical of anyone of the Democrats on this - it’s a colossal failure to not be able to whip those votes - but if even a fraction of the Republican Party was comprised of “allies in defending the great experiment,” we would not be here.

[Willfully Horn 7922]

2 hours ago, gmr548 said:

What? They’ve literally put multiple pieces of voting rights legislation up in the Senate and not a single Republican voted for them. I’m sure that take makes you feel good but it’s objectively untrue. State level GOP efforts have not been addressed federally because 1.) The GOP are bad faith actors. All of them; and 2.) The Democrats don’t have the votes to kill the filibuster because of a quasi Republican holding a seat for them in WV and a certifiably crazy person from AZ.

You see the Biden administration moving this to the courts, which is about all that is left if you can’t talk those two into getting rid of the filibuster. I’m as critical of anyone of the Democrats on this - it’s a colossal failure to not be able to whip those votes - but if even a fraction of the Republican Party was comprised of “allies in defending the great experiment,” we would not be here.

I absolutely support those bills, but none are crafted to connect with Republicans solely on vote nullification. My point is that this one issue would  (in my mind) attract support from whatever rational actors remain among Republicans. And, despite common claims to the contrary, I believe such folks can be found, perhaps in numbers sufficient to get such a bill passed.

 

[Willfully Horn 7922]

“Rs who want "election security" and wouldn't dream of stealing a future presidential election should be all for this”

^^^This.

Edited June 27, 2021 by Willfully Horn

[gmr548 16520]

I absolutely support those bills, but none are crafted to connect with Republicans solely on vote nullification. My point is that this one issue would  (in my mind) attract support from whatever rational actors remain among Republicans. And, despite common claims to the contrary, I believe such folks can be found, perhaps in numbers sufficient to get such a bill passed.
 

Uh, if there were any “rational” actors in the GOP (I don’t think rational/irrational is the right distinction - GOP is acting very rationally in an attempt to grab power) the provisions in those voting rights packages, particularly the more watered down version, would not be deal breakers with a functioning democracy on the line.

The burden of proof is on you here with regard to your last sentence. They’ve been showing us who they are, without even bothering with believable pretext, since it became clear Trump was going to lose. I don’t know why you won’t believe them.

[Willfully Horn 7922]

14 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

The burden of proof is on you here

Seven Republican Senators voted to impeach. Twelve (I believe) Republicans voted to bring the articles of impeachment to the Senate. The Georgia SOS. These are not unreasonable people.

My contention is there are matters that transcend party politics for such people. There ought be more folks who oppose vote nullification. It only takes three more R Senators.
 

And, of course, I might be wrong. But it is worth the effort to try.

Edited June 27, 2021 by Willfully Horn
Stray a

[Bama Chick 28596]

Seven Republican Senators voted to impeach. Twelve (I believe) Republicans voted to bring the articles of impeachment to the Senate. The Georgia SOS. These are not unreasonable people.
My contention is there are matters that transcend party politics for such people. There ought be more folks who oppose vote nullification. It only takes three more R Senators.
 
And, of course, I might be wrong. But it is worth the effort to try.

And lots of those seven senators are retiring and the rest are absolutely being vilified and TrumpCo’s number one grievance driven priority is primarying them out of their jobs.

Example - yesterday’s Ohio hootenanny to put a target on a sitting republican rep who dared vote for impeachment.

[gmr548 16520]

“Rs who want "election security" and wouldn't dream of stealing a future presidential election should be all for this”
^^^This.

Okay, for argument’s sake let’s ignore all other evidence indicating there isn’t a significant volume of Republicans seriously opposed to where the party is headed or too desperate to cling to power to do anything about it (which is just as bad). Why are they not proposing this? We’ve already had debate and legislation bright to the floor over the issue.

Seven Republican Senators voted to impeach. Twelve (I believe) Republicans voted to bring the articles of impeachment to the Senate. The Georgia SOS. These are not unreasonable people.
My contention is there are matters that transcend party politics for such people. There ought be more folks who oppose vote nullification. It only takes three more R Senators.
 
And, of course, I might be wrong. But it is worth the effort to try.

Again, let’s set aside the fact that voting for impeachment is not the same and the fact that you surely know that; 10 Republican reps and seven senators out of 200+ in congress is nothing. That’s like five percent. These same people have declined to support federal voting rights legislation and have not offered even a bare bones alternative like the one outlined above. The Georgia SOS is out here defending their suppression bill like everyone else in the party. You’re making my point for me. These people are not interested in good faith governance.

If you want to go out of your way to view their actions, or lack thereof, in a more positive light than they themselves even bother to cast it in, then that’s your prerogative. But you’re being as wilfully obtuse as someone talking about millions of illegal votes.

[Neonmoon 38127]

Manchin proposed changes to bill, allowing voter ID laws. Republicans will still filibuster

[TwiceHorn 31308]

On 6/11/2021 at 2:41 PM, Biff Tannen said:

This sounds good, I guess.  Not a lawyer.  But also, is more lawyers really the best answer for anything?

This is one of those particular instances where the lawyers save our collective asses.

[Willfully Horn 7922]

49 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

And lots of those seven senators are retiring and the rest are absolutely being vilified and TrumpCo’s number one grievance driven priority is primarying them out of their jobs.

Example - yesterday’s Ohio hootenanny to put a target on a sitting republican rep who dared vote for impeachment.

Yes. And expecting courage from pols is a fool’s errand. And Ds are terrible at messaging. But, not only is there no time like the present to change that, this issue (vote nullification) ought be beyond politics. I realize y’all see me as delusional to think so, but I do. 

[Willfully Horn 7922]

49 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Okay, for argument’s sake let’s ignore all other evidence indicating there isn’t a significant volume of Republicans seriously opposed to where the party is headed or too desperate to cling to power to do anything about it (which is just as bad). Why are they not proposing this? We’ve already had debate and legislation bright to the floor over the issue.

Again, let’s set aside the fact that voting for impeachment is not the same and the fact that you surely know that; 10 Republican reps and seven senators out of 200+ in congress is nothing. That’s like five percent. These same people have declined to support federal voting rights legislation and have not offered even a bare bones alternative like the one outlined above. The Georgia SOS is out here defending their suppression bill like everyone else in the party. You’re making my point for me. These people are not interested in good faith governance.

If you want to go out of your way to view their actions, or lack thereof, in a more positive light than they themselves even bother to cast it in, then that’s your prerogative. But you’re being as wilfully obtuse as someone talking about millions of illegal votes.

I do not take issue with most of your post. Voter suppression is viewed through a partisan filter, yes. Which is also my point. Vote nullification is an issue that might be seen outside that entrenched bias. Still, I cannot fault the pessimism my suggestion has engendered, and will again voice my belief that Republican leadership is gung ho to toss the Rule of Law out the window. And, unless the dynamic can be changed, their chance of success is, well, not zero. Untenable.

 

 

 

[Biff Tannen 45502]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is one of those particular instances where the lawyers save our collective asses.

Sounds like something a lawyer would say. 

[WhatTheBuck 28718]

3 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Example - yesterday’s Ohio hootenanny to put a target on a sitting republican rep who dared vote for impeachment.

Anthony Gonzales. After his stint in the NFL, he got his Masters at Stanford. I was disappointed to see him run as a Republican but he’s a first generation American son of Cuban immigrants so maybe that has something to do with it. I was glad to hear he voted for impeachment.

From 2005, set up the winning score:

 

[gmr548 16520]

Anthony Gonzales. After his stint in the NFL, he got his Masters at Stanford. I was disappointed to see him run as a Republican but he’s a first generation American son of Cuban immigrants so maybe that has something to do with it. I was glad to hear he voted for impeachment.
From 2005, set up the winning score:
 

Winning score in 2005? Let’s hope Limas Sweed runs against him.

[WhatTheBuck 28718]

2 hours ago, gmr548 said:

Winning score in 2005? Let’s hope Limas Sweed runs against him.

 

 

 

 

If Ryan Hamby had held onto that ball in the end zone then the Longhorns would have lost to Justin Zwick and still have only three national championships, all under one coach from Oklahoma. 

[gmr548 16520]

If Ryan Hamby had held onto that ball in the end zone then the Longhorns would have lost to Justin Zwick and still have only three national championships, all under one coach from Oklahoma. 

And? If a 6-6 Penn State team had finished off Ohio State in 2014, Ohio State would also have one national title in the past 50 years, but with the distinction of an asterisk. But they didn’t, did they?

[StassneyHorn 6540]

8 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

If Ryan Hamby had held onto that ball in the end zone then the Longhorns would have lost to Justin Zwick and still have only three national championships, all under one coach from Oklahoma. 

But he didn’t, Cedric Griffin made sure of it, in the third quarter.

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

23 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

“Rs who want "election security" and wouldn't dream of stealing a future presidential election should be all for this”

^^^This.

I'm not sure that beast exists anymore.  You want to try to name some?

[Willfully Horn 7922]

18 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

I'm not sure that beast exists anymore.  You want to try to name some?

Not really. I wrote not to extoll Rs, but to offer an idea, with fancy dreams of trying to bury the vote nullification Bill.

 Unlike suppression, which R voters apparently love, nullification might flare off the self preservation instinct, and create a sense of just us.

Ah, well, nevertheless.

 

[wildcat09 29268]

On 6/27/2021 at 2:22 PM, Willfully Horn said:

Seven Republican Senators voted to impeach. Twelve (I believe) Republicans voted to bring the articles of impeachment to the Senate. The Georgia SOS. These are not unreasonable people.

My contention is there are matters that transcend party politics for such people. There ought be more folks who oppose vote nullification. It only takes three more R Senators.
 

And, of course, I might be wrong. But it is worth the effort to try.

This is not helping your argument.