Joe Biden Says He's Willing To Kill the Filibuster
If Democrats' voting rights bills are blocked, Biden says, "we have no choice but to change the Senate rules, including getting rid of the filibuster."

In order to pass bills that would make sweeping changes to the rules governing federal elections, President Joe Biden says the Senate should make some significant changes to its own rules.
In a speech delivered Tuesday afternoon in Atlanta, Biden said that if Republicans won't support two major elections bills set to move to the Senate floor in the coming days, then the Senate should change its rules to pass those bills with a simple majority.
"I believe that the threat to our democracy is so grave that we must find a way to pass these voting rights bills," Biden said. "Debate them, vote, let the majority prevail. If that majority is blocked, then we have no choice but to change the Senate rules, including getting rid of the filibuster."
Democrats hold the slimmest possible majority in the Senate, which is currently split 50–50 with Vice President Kamala Harris serving as a tiebreaker. But Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D–N.Y.) says he's prepared to bring a pair of election bills to the floor in the coming weeks despite nearly unanimous Republican opposition. The Freedom to Vote Act would limit state-level efforts (led by Republicans) to restrict mail-in voting and absentee balloting, make Election Day a federal holiday, impose new rules for the redistricting process, and require more disclosures from political donors. The second bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, would reimplement a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that was invalidated by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013.
On Tuesday, Biden positioned the two bills as a response to Republican efforts (in Georgia and elsewhere) to tighten election laws, and a necessary rejoinder to former President Donald Trump's craven efforts (in Georgia and elsewhere) to influence the results of the 2020 election.
"That's not America," he said. "That's what it looks like when they suppress the right to vote."
Those Republican efforts to impose new rules on elections do indeed run the risk of corroding democracy, and Trump's attempts to overturn the last presidential election were grotesque and condemnable. Even so, it's not clear that the Democrats' proposals make sense. If anything, greater federal control over elections might make it more likely that a future president could exercise undue influence over democratic proceedings.
But whether Democrats can pass those bills after suspending the filibuster might be a moot point because it doesn't seem like there are 50 votes in the Senate for abolishing the filibuster in the first place.
On Tuesday, Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W.Va.) reiterated his opposition to doing away with the long-standing rule, telling reporters that "we need some good rules changes to make the place work better. But getting rid of the filibuster doesn't make it work better." Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D–Ariz.) is similarly opposed to abolishing the filibuster. It's likely they are not the only two Senate Democrats unwilling to go along with that idea.
One of the strange things about the Senate is that 60 votes are required to pass most bills, but it takes only a simple majority to change any of the rules governing the Senate—including the 60-vote threshold for passing most bills. In a sense, the filibuster only exists because no Senate majority has seen fit to abolish it. Or perhaps because each successive Senate majority has recognized how getting rid of the filibuster could backfire once control of the chamber inevitably flips to the other party.
That's a practical reality that Biden has recognized in the past. Back when he was a member of the Senate, Biden once warned Republicans against blowing up the filibuster by calling the threatened maneuver "an example of the arrogance of power."
Now, however, he's pushing in the opposite direction.
"To protect our democracy, I support changing our Senate rules—whatever way they have to be changed to protect majority rule," Biden said Tuesday.
The problem for Biden is that the current filibuster rules seem to have the support of a majority of sitting U.S. senators. When Democrats find themselves back in the Senate minority, they may be thankful for that fact.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The threat to Democracy is so grave we need to end it.
OK.
The democrats are the threat.
Numbnuts said Democracy, majority rule, must be controlled by the minority.
Thats Communism.
PS Biden campagnings started already.
Isnt that illegal?
Just got a scam call pushing " President Bidens student loan debt forgiveness program..."
Of course they never take your number off, so I drill thru the menus to get a live rep then let them have both barrels.
Told them "F Joe biden" and in what orifice they could shove their scam call up in.
Ha!
The filibuster is all about protecting the minority from the majority...
reading from the phone book does that?
Wow...
I started making $ 155 / hour in my spare time doing tasks with my laptop that I got from this company I stumbled upon online… Check it out and start earning yourself. I can say that my life has completely improved! Take a look at what I'm doing… ..
For more details, visit the given link …… .. >>> Visit Here
It’s okay to admit you don’t understand everything.
The filibuster is all about protecting the minority from the majority...
No. The filibuster was an accident of history in the first place. The idea of cloture was that those that wanted to keep debating a bill should be able to keep speaking about it and trying to persuade other Senators to vote a particular way. But it was not originally intended to be a way for a minority within the Senate to completely block something a majority wanted to pass.
The Constitution only requires a supermajority for 3 things:
(1) Ratifying treaties
(2) Removing someone from office (each chamber can expel its own members with a 2/3rds majority, and conviction after impeachment of President/VP, judges, or other appointed officials takes a 2/3rds majority)
(3) Amending the Constitution itself (2/3rds of both houses to propose an amendment, or 2/3rds of the states to call for a convention to propose amendments, then 3/4ths of the states to ratify it)
Those are all big deals worth requiring broad support well beyond a majority. But the Founders expected a simple majority to pass the legislation it supported. Even a majority can be a challenge to obtain at times, so that should be enough for basic governing.
Besides, the real protection for individuals and minority groups is in the Bill of Rights and other provisions of the Constitution. The filibuster is just a way for a side that can't win a majority to obstruct those that did win.
Spot On!! Let's quit pretending the filibuster as we know it today is some act of genius for the greater good of humanity. The Founders are rolling over in their graves.
Your installed cabal has 33% approval. The senate is 50/50, the Rs technically outnumber Ds 50-48.
Now you want to destroy the country through psychotic tyranny, giving The Party complete control over elections nationwide.
I'd have preferred live and let live, but you've chosen kill or be killed.
Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.
You will be found lacking.
You might just be the dumbest motherfucker alive. You're certainly the dumbest on this site. The cheapest, flimsiest, most tawdry and vulnerable form of democracy is majority rule. Yes, it is a form of democracy. But it isn't by a million miles the only form. Use what little is between your ears and think about what you're saying.
no, youre a communist and dont like it being outed.
You actually want 50.1% of the population to have the power to legislate the execution by firing squad of the other 49.9%.
"Because democracy!"
Jessus fucking christ.
I didnt say that, Troll.
Your lying by attempting to twist my words wont work, Troll.
Youve well fallen for my Patented Leftist Troll Bait.
Its Kryptonite.
Youre about the 20,000 th Troll to fall for it in 12 years online.
Your kind of low grade reactionary , retaliatory moron has a threshold of hearing your Leftist-Communism exposed, then you lose it.
You just lost it.
Your bait was when I started whacking on Shillary Clinton as the old Marxist deserves.
You get so hysterically angry that you cant make an intelligent comment, you just foam at the mouth with hatred, proving youre a Leftist
Cant prove your point? Hate! Flame.
And you Trolls fall for it EVERY TIME!
Ha++
Loser.
Union ofConcerned Communists...
Yeah, dude. You've got him all figured out.
What in the actual fuck?
You actually want 50.1% of the population to have the power to legislate the execution by firing squad of the other 49.9%.
Bullshit. You think a simple majority can simply toss out Due Process and other Constitutional guarantees of liberty? If the filibuster was the only thing standing in the way of your hyperbolic scenario, then it would only take 60% to legislate the execution of 40%. Get a fucking grip.
Just to log it, if the Republicans win the Senate this year, you are all for removing the filibuster.
Honestly, I don't care which side you are on, but if your bill can't appeal to the other side at all, then there is an issue.
Just to log it, if the Republicans win the Senate this year, you are all for removing the filibuster.
The filibuster is only relevant when both houses of Congress and the White House are controlled by the same party. The GOP taking the Senate and the House wouldn't make the lack of a filibuster relevant until at least 2025.
Honestly, I don't care which side you are on, but if your bill can't appeal to the other side at all, then there is an issue.
Perhaps the issue is on the side obstructing it. What exactly is so bad in these bills that warrants blocking them from a vote?
Get $192 off an hour from Google!… Yes, this is Authentic as I just got my first payout, and was really awesome because it was the biggest number of $24413 in a week. (Haz20) It seems Appears Unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself.
If you do not check it go this site…… Visit Here
Just as a monarchy is a country ruled by a monarch, the new definition of a democracy is a country ruled by Democrats. Under this new definition, Republicans are a true threat to democracy.
welllll.. they really arent Democrats.
.Theyre Trojan Communists ( Union of Concerned Commies will hate this comment and respond with childish rage) hiding in the Democrat Party spreading their disease.
The divide between capitalism and Communusm naturally make them fall towards the D side.
(See the experiment between the Czechs and Slovaks for an example, one went Capitalist and was thriving in a few years, there was a PBS docu on it recently)
I talked with a R canvasser recently who said the response of Democrats in N.C. has been to go absolutely ballistic on the D party, what its become with the radicals in charge. She said they eclipse the Right in their hatred of whats happening.
So I say, welcome them to the Light side.
Obama "I have a pen" started it honestly. Media and everyone let it go. Trump then did it, and now here we are.
Congress gave up a lot of it's power to the president.
I like it, committing suicide to avoid death. Don't worry about Sinema or Manchin, I'm sure that at least two of the Republican senators not seeking reelection will be more than willing to vote with the Democrats. Remember McCain with Obamacare and Hatfield with the Balanced Budget amendment?
There is always a Republican Dudley Do-Wrong to rush in and save the Democrat's Nell.
Ah! Another Rocky and Bullwinkle fan!
Ha!
Quality people.
We could sure use Jay Ward and Bill Scott today. Their shows had humor at all levels - kids, adults, senile old farts like me.
It's nice to know that someone else remembers these cartoons.
got the DVD set for XMAS. Wife never saw them.
Surprised how I can recall many of the lines 40 years later.
40 years? Don't you mean 60?
Biden did correctly note that the Filibuster was used to quash civil rights. What he avoids mentioning is exactly who was using Filibuster in this way.
It was used by people he likely personally knew and associated with in his early career, such as Strom Thurman, Richard Byrd, Richard Russell, William Fulbright... all good party line Democrats.
https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/1481020553851019266?t=OIVlcxcjrjpWQT9lPM3qtA&s=19
"Do you want to be the side of Dr. King or George Wallace?
In 1973, Biden bragged that Wallace considered him “one of the outstanding young politicians of America.” (He made up a story about winning a Wallace award.) In 1975: the “Dem Party could stand a liberal George Wallace”
Goddamn I love Harsanyi. He was great when he wrote for this rag too.
Strom Thurman Switched to being Republican in 1964, to help campaign for Barry Goldwater. He praised Nixon's "Southern Strategy" a few years later. Richard Russell died two years before Biden joined the Senate (which was Jan. 1973). Fulbright was defeated in the Democratic primary in 1974 and resigned at the end of that year.
You only really have a point with Robert Byrd (not Richard). But he did publicly change his views on race by the 70's. (Whether he really did in private or should be forgiven for his past might be debatable, of course.)
The issue is if the other party regains control they don't have the balls to go scorch earth MF'er as Les Grossman once said. That means closing down every federal agency created after 1960, getting rid of the new democratic party police (CIA, NSA) and halting the handouts to the NGO grifter class. I do wish the GOP had the balls to do this..end NPR subsidizes, end foreign wars, and end race based anything by the govt. But we don't have an opposition party with any guts..
What kind of fucking moron thinks the majority passing laws is ending democracy?
This is pants on head stupid x 100.
We are a constitutional republic for a reason you retarded shit.
It was Hillary’s turn!
Joe Biden and Democrats think not passing legislation with support from 48 of 100 Senators is against Democracy. But you know you're led by idiots don't you?
Found the progtard.
Well, that only makes sense. How can there be any threat to Democracy if there is no longer any Democracy to threaten?
But only temporarily. If the Democrats should find themselves becoming the minority party then just before the change over they can bring the rule back so its in place when they are the minority party.
Anyone have a plan to get rid of the democrats?
The Senate is split 50-50. Tie one Democrat's hands to one Republican's feet and vice-versa, and throw the combined RepoRat into the association. Repeat 49 times more.
into the ocean dammit!!!
Actually, the republicans hold the most seats in the Senate (50). The democrats are second with 48, and there are two independents.
Yet somehow, the democrats still would up running things.
No wonder they don't want only legal votes to count.
Comrade Bernie and King Anus, unaffiliated progressive from Maine, are the two independents.
The fact that McConnel didn’t tell Schumer to pound sand until they had the majority tells you everything you need to know about the Republican establishment.
wood chipper.
Turbo version.
They seem to be working on that for themselves.
Are you still glad you voted for this evil pedo bohem? Why are you bitching about Biden, this is what you wanted.
"(If) I believe there is a chance that Joe Biden will somehow fail to win Virginia, in which case I will vote strategically and reluctantly for Biden." - Eric Boehm 10.12.2020
Back to the norms Reason wanted. The norm of abolishing the filibuster to nationalize all elections, in this particular case.
Fuck you Boehm.
Unlikely that choice was as "reluctant" as Boehm says it was.
Fuck Eric Boehm (and Fuck Joe Biden)
Joe Biden was willing to kill innocent children during the botched Afghanistan abandonment.
Renember the 4,000.
Next, he'll try to act like an adult and hold his breath until he's blue in the face
Boehm just clusterbombed this article by linking to other articles that have shitty takes, and pretended these were citations were his claims. Apparently this is such a bad look for Democrats, he was DESPERATE to point out that the Republicans are really dangerous, so he scoured for evidence of their "dangerous" election laws, such as the misleading claim that Georgia banned anyone from giving water to voters waiting in line.
Both sides, ya know.
Boehm pushed the water bottle lie? Lol.
He shared that article again, yes. There's literally nothing preventing any organization if they want to donate water bottles to a voting precinct, but they're not allowed to hand them out themselves. Because the people who would do that are people are glad-handing voters and advocating, and we have laws against campaigning inside of voter precincts.
The laws we have are specifically to protect minorities, by the way. You don't want your boss or a random guy in a white sheet coming around and making idle threats about how you're going to vote, as he stands close enough to watch what you're doing. The very protections written into the law to protect minorities for the sake of election integrity are becoming racist.
Electioneering laws have existed forever. God damn Robbie.
It’s a sign of how fucked we are that we even have to argue against electioneering.
And that democrat poll workers did it with impunity
The Left are the Barf Side.
Damn baby killers.
It is very simple. When asked “Should all Americans who are legally allowed to vote be able to in a free and fair election without any unnecessary barriers?” The Ds say yes and the Rs say no. The Rs will never support free and fair elections and thus the filibuster must go. If they had their way voting would be eliminated.
Give a single example to support your bullshit. Show me one legal voter being denied the ability to vote anywhere?
It's simple.
The Democrats do better with mail-in voting, so they're trying to make it mandatory nationally.
That's all there is to it.
This comment is a perfect example of what I mean. They are implying that it would be ok for Rs to ban mail-in voting because it would suppress D votes. The Ds would say that it is wrong to suppress any vote for partisan reasons.
Including illegal votes.
"They are implying that it would be ok for Rs to ban mail-in voting because it would suppress D votes. The Ds would say that it is wrong to suppress any vote for partisan reasons."
It would be OK because mail-in voting is inherently unsafe. And the GOP has not had complaints about mail-in ballots that people have to register for and provide a reason for. The universal one is a massive problem.
Who'd have guessed that puddin-brained Joe (he was an idiot for years, folks) would have firm convictions until the moment that they were not in his best interests?
You seem to be missing the point that this is all about favoring the Democrats nationally, and the rationalizations for it, apart from that, are all just bullshit.
No state is banning mail in voting for those willing to make the effort. I've voted absentee for years because I'm rarely home on Tuesdays. Plan ahead, request the ballot, fill out the forms, mail the ballot. I've never found it particularly burdensome. Certainly a lot less trouble than paying bills or filing taxes or other stuff grown ups do. Back during Bush V. Gore the Democrats explained that their voters couldn't figure out these ballot thingys and evil politicians were exploiting their confusion. A few wags pointed out that the underlying argument is that Democrats are too stupid to vote. I see from your comments that you're still using the same argument.
In Molly’s defense, she is a fucking moron.
Nobody is banning mailed absentee ballots. It is the mass mailing of millions of ballots that weren't asked for, like in the civilized society that formerly existed in the United States.
Nobody is trying to keep brown people from voting dearie. Quit allowing yourself to be programmed so easily.
Molly is a racist piece of shot who thinks black and brown people are too stupid and/or lazy to get a picture id or vote.
The underlying assumption for this "voting reform" is that minorities, at least those that would normally vote D, are too incompetent or lack the mental faculties to figure out how to vote. But, this isn't racist because . . . something.
Even Jimmy Carter realized the dangers of mail in voting and ballot harvesting. In fact the US has attacked other authoritarian governments over the practice due to fraud.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/heed-jimmy-carter-on-the-danger-of-mail-in-voting-11586557667
To be fair that was way before the insurrection. Jimmy's fully on board these days.
"unnecessary barriers?"
What are these? I don't know anyone, of either party, who doesn't support some kind of "barrier" to voting. Should the polls open at 2am or 7am? Should I be allowed to vote a week later if I "forgot" and the gap between the Election Day winner/loser is less than 1%?
Should I have to show up in person or can I vote by phone by pressing #1 or #2? All election laws contain barriers; we are just arguing over which make sense and are the least prone to fraud.
There was a trial in GA where the defense tried to argue barriers and they brought a witness who claimed they couldn't vote. Under questioning they admitted they had simply never bothered to register to vote.
Unnecessary barriers to free and fair elections nowadays include allowing poll observers to monitor the vote count.
Cite? Haha just kidding we all know you’re full of shit.
Dems want to make election fraud undetectable and thus are trying to eliminate the basic process controls which have always existed.
Good summation. If you can't detect fraud, there is no fraud. We've seen this "logic" for the 2020 election. The very nature of fraud, if executed successfully, is that is can't be detected. (This does not mean there was fraud since no one can ever really know. The best we can do is to make it as difficult as possible. Confidence in election results is critical to a functioning Democracy.) It's a philosophical question and goes something like "If someone cheats, but no one detects it, is it really cheating?"
Hey, asshole, if you really want to fear some voting restrictions, how about we limit voting to net positive tax payers?
How about limiting voting to net tax contributors who pass a certain threshold IQ test?
No, you fucking idiot, everyone agrees with that statement. The disagreement is about what barriers and requirements are necessary.
No. They. Don't. Dumbass.
They were a preemptive defense against H.R. 1.
Most of the HR 1 provisions are to keep pandemic changes to the elections, not to fight new laws.
H.R. 1 was hovering in the background when the states were passing those laws to protect themselves. It was the same thing with, for instance, some states prohibiting businesses from imposing vaccine mandates. They did that because they knew what Biden and the progressives were up to. It's the same thing with the states trying to protect themselves from H.R. 1 (and its iterations). None of this happened in a vacuum. It all happened against the backdrop of H.R. 1.
ThE DeMoCrAtS MaDe ThEm Do It
Do what idiot?
Do what?
Limited voting locations in minority areas leading to long lines to vote while white areas have plenty of locations and short lines. The ability of partisan officials to disregard the results of elections. Every changing voter ID laws so people have to keep getting new IDs. Allowing election officials to reject ballots without giving the voter any notice or recourse.
Yup these do corrode democracy.
Which party runs and controls inner city election infrastructure? Why is ga attacked for two weeks early voting while NY has none?
Also urban centers have more and closer voting precincts than rural areas dumbass.
"Which party runs and controls inner city election infrastructure?"
Don't forget the systemic racism they oversee and preserve in their police forces.
It is amazing watching democrats complain about racism from their own actors.
Almost as amazing as watching democrats lead protests against their own police forces.
"Limited voting locations in minority areas leading to long lines to vote while white areas have plenty of locations and short lines."
Discriminating against people because of their race is disgusting. Molly should be ashamed of herself.
Impossible.
Every changing voter ID laws so people have to keep getting new IDs. Allowing election officials to reject ballots without giving the voter any notice or recourse.
Each word a lie.
Whole cloth.
showing id does not discriminate nor suppress the vote. anyone who thinks so is a moron and should not vote.
the notion that voting has to so damned easy and inconvenient is ridiculous. the presidential election happens every 4 years and if you can't plan your life so that you can show up to the polls to vote, even if you have to wait in line, then you shouldn't be voting.
the red state voting bills are all reasonable and necessary to secure the ballot and protect the election system. on the contrary, the leftists fed bill is unconstitutional. the constitution clearly states in plain language that election laws are regulated by the state legislatures. but as usual the liberals hate the rule of law and will always work to undermine our rule of law. liberals hate the rule of law. always.
"showing id does not discriminate nor suppress the vote. anyone who thinks so is a moron and should not vote."
Assuming that black people aren't committed, smart, or driven enough to obtain photo ID--or stand in line--because of their race is racist. Molly should be ashamed of herself.
I've known exactly zero black folks who found it difficult to obtain photo ID.
Alabama Closing Many DMV Offices in Majority Black Counties
after Alabama put into effect a tougher voter ID law, the state shuttered 31 driver's license offices due to a "budget crisis". Every single county in which blacks make up more than 75 percent of registered voters will see their driver license office closed. Everyone. That's not racist, if they want to vote they can drive 500 miles.
Provide a single example of somebody who could not get ID. Most blacks are stunned that they are, apparently, incapable of getting a photo ID. But I guess racists like you know better.
It's racist to demand ID right up until you need to eat in NYC.
Makes me wonder what she thinks when she sees black people driving cars. Does she assume they are all driving without licenses?
I waited in line for 90 minutes last November in a ~75%-ish white suburb in a VERY blue district (we elected Cori Bush, c'mon). No one was giving out water, but it probably would have frozen if they had, anyway.
We had to show ID. neither the seniors behind me or the black people in front of me had any issue producing one. Seniors behind me did have an issue with the ones in front of me cutting the line, but that's a separate issue altogether.
If democrats believe that showing ID to vote is so difficult as to disenfranchise people, why does every single other western democracy require ID to vote? Are they all racist and anti-democratic? I think it's racist to assume that minorities are somehow incapable of one of the most basic functions in today's society.
But, they obviously don't believe that, either.
https://notthebee.com/article/starting-saturday-dc-is-going-to-require-you-to-be-vaccinated-and-show-photo-id-to-go-pretty-much-anywhere-and-i-guess-photo-id-is-no-longer-racist
"If democrats believe that showing ID to vote is so difficult as to disenfranchise people, why does every single other western democracy require ID to vote?"
Go to any inner city neighborhood in America and you'll find a corner store advertising in huge letters: "BEER, CIGARETTES, LOTTO". What must you show to purchase those three things?
Money or a gun?
I suppose if you show a gun, you don't really need to purchase the items (but they still might want to see your ID).
There's an idea—require voters to produce a gun to vote.
inconvenient should have been convenient.
The new IDs were an "anti-terror" implementation of federal ID requirements called the Real ID Act that had nothing to do with constantly forcing people to get new IDs to fuck over voters which passed the Senate with full bipartisanship with a vote of 99-0. So fuck off with your bullshit.
Pretty sure no one is required to have the Real IDs either. I know I can get a regular, non-real ID license that functions bas a state issued ID card. I just can't use it to fly.
You can still use it to fly until March 2023, because implementation of the REAL ID Act has been kicked down the road for decades.
My guess is that it gets kicked again before going into effect.
I don't know for sure of any state where the number of polling places/voter precincts is not established at the County or Municipal level. If there's not enough voter precincts in predominantly Democrat areas, run by places where Democrats are in power (such as Atlanta), that seems to be a self-created problem.
Except none of that is true. And ANYONE can vote by mail, 17 days early voting, and drop boxes everywhere (new GA law). You. Are. Full. Of. Shit.
The worst thing about this may be that when there are real problems with racism, some people will dismiss it out of hand--as more progressive bullshit--because of crap like what Molly says.
Every changing voter ID laws so people have to keep getting new IDs.
Huh?
Damnit.
“Every changing voter ID laws so people have to keep getting new IDs.”
Cite? Haha just kidding we all know you’re full of shit.
Over the last election, DEMOCRAT supporters disproportionately funded DEMOCRAT heavy precincts.
This was not an example of Democrats trying to make voting easier. It was an example of Democrats trying to make voting easier for 5 large cities in the nation, and ONLY those 5 large cities.
The Democrats recognize that there will never be enough money around to get ballots from everywhere. They just need to make it legal for their operatives to identify the specific counties necessary to flip an election and spend money there.
Did Zuckerberg give one shit about the Democrat voters in Chicago Illinoise and make it easier for them to vote with hundreds of millions of dollars? No. Did he dump millions of dollars into GOTV efforts in Los Angeles? No.
So these activists don't actually care about making every vote count. They only care about making the specific votes they need to win a very specific state count.
The idea that this is somehow "good for democracy" is laughable.
So, where are the court cases regarding these long lines?
He has to distract from the horrible political fallout of Biden saying that the filibuster needs to go by saying, "That's bad, but it's the Republicans' fault."
You can't just say "This proposal by Democrats is terrible," you have to couch in language that blames Republicans, really.
Biden just wants to leave his old man skidmark on history.
Progressives are America's most horrible people.
Progressives are a cancer on The Republic.
Leftists are cancer. Literally. They are a malignant clump of cells, and if you don't get serious about eliminating them they will kill you.
Jeff will be by shortly to tell us why taking biden at his word is wrong like he did with Inslee.
Well you actually can't take Inslee at his word because he lied about what the Republicans were supposedly doing. They weren't spreading lies, they were investigating and asking for valid evidence of election fraud claims, not telling everyone that these things existence. They wanted actual evidence to present in order to propose an audit.
So Inslee's accusations of his opponents being liars was, in fact, a lie. He would probably have been in violation of his own proposed law.
Hey, for those of you who just got boosted, there's good news, an omicron specific booster will be available by March. So make your appointments now.
And you 5 booster appointments as well.
Just ignore all the news stories that the existing vaccines are totes effective against Omicron.
Tom Elliot had a long thread of all the lies about vaccines from major networks today. Was pretty epic.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-11/repeat-booster-shots-risk-overloading-immune-system-ema-says
"Repeat booster doses every four months could eventually weaken the immune system and tire out people, according to the European Medicines Agency. Instead, countries should leave more time between booster programs and tie them to the onset of the cold season in each hemisphere, following the blueprint set out by influenza vaccination strategies, the agency said. "
Maybe they can convince the FDA to approve it with no testing.
How is this not good news?
How is it not theater?
Kamala repeated the no water in line lie in her speech. Even politifact admitted that narrative is a lie.
Maybe she didn’t get the memo because she was too busy filming another astroturf NASA kids video.
Democrats: If we can't win the game, we'll just change the rules.
It's Calvinball.
Worked in 2020, might as well make it permanent
Biden should know how the Filibuster can be used against minorities. It was his contemporaries as a young politician with good Democrats like Strom Thurmond, Robert Byrd, Richard Russell and many others Filibustered the civil rights bills.
Yep, Dems know the power of the Filibuster and how to use it to screw minorities.
They told him he could have two pudding cups if he killed the filibuster
..thsts pudding and two drool cups!
After that, handling his diapers will be a shovel ready job.
A smelly pun if I ever smelled one.
Biden filled-a-cap-buster to stop Ol' Corn Pop.
I guess the logic is they don't get massacred in the midterms if they get this passed. Otherwise all you're doing is handing the new Republican majority a filibuster free environment, real brain genius move by the Biden admin.
They're likely losing bigtime in 2022 regardless of whether this passes or not. This move is awfully shortsighted, even for professional Democrats.
They want to get rid of the filibuster to pass the voting bill, so they can continue to fuck with elections and never have to worry about a Republican majority again.
They ONLY way that a reasonable person would consider doing something like this, is if they had some sort of plausible notion that they would never be in the minority again.
So, they are either a) unreasonable, b) have such a notion, or potentially c) both.
Nah. You're just replacing one set of rules with another set of rules which makes it easier for stuff in general to pass. And they get what they want now.
What's the latest poop on the GOP being able to regain the Senate?
What I've heard is that each party looks to lose as many seats as it wins, given where the Senate seats up for election are.
“What's the latest poop”
The call of the squirrel.
"I guess the logic is they don't get massacred in the midterms if they get this passed."
Not exactly. These laws make it possible for Democrats to increasingly tip state-wide elections. That won't help them in the House, but will help them in President and Senate elections.
They are hoping that if they can get it passed, even if next year the Republicans hold the Senate and House, they will still have the presidency and the ability to veto anything coming from the GOP. Then in a couple years they get back the senate, and from then on the House is the only thing that matters.
Actually not in Presidential elections either. That power is reserved to state legislatures by the Constitution. And arguably not in state level races under federalism. That leaves the Seate and, to some extent the House. And they want to reinstall preclearace so that the DOJ gets to approve reapportionment in southern (all Republican) states - which the Supreme Court has already determined to be unconstitutional. It made sense in 1964, but that was almost 60 years ago, and SCOTUS didn’t see a compelling need to continue it.
Oh, child hospitalizations are up 133%, so suck it, Sotamayor haters.
Link no work.
It's a coincidence. That is the same percentage increase in childhood marijuana hospitalizations, poverty, and obesity.
San fran of all cities said today 70% of covid hospitalizations are w not because of.
Working links.
Covid deaths rising. Officials in Sonoma County, telling residents to say home for 30 days, moving to ban large gatherings.
Where's the French Laundry again?
Even the WaPo fact checker had to give Sotomayor 4 Pinochios, to maintain some semblance of integrity:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/08/sotomayors-false-claim-that-over-100000-children-are-serious-condition-with-covid/
That’s wildly incorrect, assuming she is referring to hospitalizations, given the reference to ventilators. According to HHS data, as of Jan. 8 there are about 5,000 children hospitalized in a pediatric bed, either with suspected covid or a confirmed laboratory test. This figure includes patients in observation beds. So Sotomayor’s number is at least 20 times higher than reality, even before you determine how many are in “serious condition.”
Moreover, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there have been less than 100,000 — 82,843 to be exact — hospital admissions of children confirmed with covid since Aug. 1, 2020.
Greenwald more of less predicted this last summer:
"Top FBI official dodges when Cruz asks if agents participated in Jan. 6 riot"
[...]
"Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, grilled a senior FBI official on whether or not FBI agents or confidential informants played a role in the Capitol protest on Jan. 6, 2001, but she would not confirm nor deny anything.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing titled, "The Domestic Terrorism Threat One Year After January 6," Cruz asked Jill Sanborn, executive assistant director for the FBI's national security branch, about suspicions held by some that government officials encouraged lawless behavior during the protest..."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-fbi-official-dodges-when-cruz-asks-if-agents-participated-in-jan-6-riot/ar-AASFLMw?ocid=msedgntp
(mute your computer first; the ads are very loud)
Wtf are you even talking about?
—Reason
Who knows. I don't know anything about a Jan 6 riot. I do, however know about a Deadly January 6 Attack.
It was a deadly insurrection caused by Trump. The narrative is settled.
Also, it was the most secure election of all time.
"Un-Surrection"
Didn Du Nuffin!
Reichstag Fire at every level.
The junta needed to invent a reason to kick the oppo off the internet, purge the military and crack down on dissent, and so they did it themselves.
J6 committe apparently claimed they interviewed him. Implausible. And he said he didn't work for feds or any law enforcement agency. Doesn't exclude CIA or other agencies.
FBI poobah seems to have none of the answers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePxjwXAIf2E
That's a pile of unsupported innuendo contradicted by the actual laws the Republicans passed. Boehm gets in a few irrelevant insults toward Trump but if pressed he would be unable to point to any "corrosive" aspect of the laws.
It makes me angry to see Reason authors running interference for the authoritarians even in the slightest. Boehm: in what alternate universe is your mind occupying that you think the authoritarian Democrats are proposing enlightened non-corrosive federalized voting laws?
A pile of innuendo without even touching what the Rs are doing or how it's bad. This is CNN level propoganda.
love those 3 word nonsense Dog Whistles...
"risk corroding Democracy"
And Democrats respond " Woof!"
What is a Reason article? A miserable pile of unsupported innuendo.
Voting laws that make cheating undetectable do two things. One, it eliminates constitutional constraints on the federal government. Two, it destroys any confidence that voters might have that voting matters at all.
It doesn't guarantee Democrats will win by cheating. Hell, the Republicans could cheat just as much as the Democrats. It's just another weight put on the populace like lock downs, high inflation and IRS agents monitoring 600 dollar transactions.
TN
Progressive State
ALL PAPER BALLOTS with WATERMARKS and other securuty features.
Good enuf for money, good enuf for ballots.
Ha! ( Rocket J. Squirrel )
Here comes the Pissing ( and moaning) by thecl Left.
If that majority is blocked, then we have no choice but to change the Senate rules, including getting rid of the filibuster.
I like how this feeblemind thinks that the Dems would all vote to drop the filibuster. At least 2 won't, and there are sure to be others.
But, what "majority" is he talking about? Even if every non-Republican (48 Democrat and 2 independents) supported this, it would not be a majority. The only way this would pass is if Harris, who is the VP, would be the tie-breaker. You don't need tie breakers if you have the majority.
Oh, and Quebec is still under "temporary curfew".
its a temporary permanence.
The Eyebrow Knows.
but its Socialist medicine...
Everyone pays for everyone.
Are they admitting Socialism doesnt work?
Some animals are more equal than others.
I hope that doesnt infer eating Socialists...theyre full of sh....
Not funny, ask the Ukrainians. If you want to see socialism in it's pure form, watch "Mr Jones". That movie will make you ill.
Ill avoid it. Mr Biden makes me sick enough.
Authoritarians gotta authoritate.
Which is fucking bullshit because the vast vast vast majority of people will use no health care dollars at all to beat corona, vaxxed or not. It's just another way to fuck with the people who don't comply.
Fuck you Boehm, drown in the water you're carrying.
Joe Biden IS Senior Wences Dummy....
Ha!
Is all right? S'all right.
he was on the Ed Sullivan rerun tonite. The connection was unmistakeable, except Dummy was a bit more coherent.
End the secret ballot.
I'm surprised this idea doesn't get discussed more often, and more seriously.
It's not that hard to guess how a large fraction of the population votes, and yet we don't have mass pogroms and firings against people who vote the wrong way. I don't think the downside is all that severe.
You don't live in California, apparently.
I could take the callous approach and say to hell with Californians, as you guessed I don't live there.
But in the interest of civility I'll go ahead and ask how many people in CA were killed due to voting the wrong way. If it's not an impressively large number I'll let you include maimings and medically significant beatings.
I'd say there's more social pressure than actual intimidation, especially in certain communities. There's an actual belief that any black people who vote Republican are race traitors. There's also people who wouldn't want to vote if it's going to start a fight with their parents or other close family.
If the size of the public arena was much smaller I don't think it would be as big of a problem, but since the government is intrusively everywhere, I am not in favor.
On this point we agree. The secret ballot is crucial to having a vote with integrity.
Which we no longer have
Killed? Nobody I am aware of. However, businesses have been boycotted and employees fired for making nominal donations to prop 8 (anti-gay marriage proposition that passed with a majority of the vote and happened before Obama was in favor of gay marriage). People compiled lists from public records. I'd assume that if votes were public, people would do the same thing.
Generally, the conservatives working in industries in CA where they would get fired if outed are smart enough to leave their public statements ambiguous, which makes it a bit harder to organize a cancel party on them. If it was a record from a government database though...
Didn I predict this?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-2024-comeback-president-biden-harris-democrat-nominee-race-2022-midterm-loss-11641914951
Remember - Trump was really, really dangerous even though he was opposed by 5 of 6 networks, Hollywood, social media, 99% of colleges, the FBI, the IRS and almost every European ally.
We are so much safer with Biden because he has the backing of 5 of 6 networks, Hollywood, social media, 99% of colleges, the FBI, the IRS and almost every European ally.
Reason writers - stop trying to sit at the cool kids table, you know the one with all the big name liberal writers. Try thinking about consequences of your words for a change, something beyond being shunned by scumbags with awards given to them by other scumbags.
That just goes to show how incredibly powerful and dangerous Trump was. It's a little known secret that Trump actually cancelled the 2020 election. Everything was just a formality. Biden never had a chance to get elected. The only reason Trump allowed Biden to pretend to be President was that he was tired of the job himself.
"Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis ?"
---Joe Biden, January 11, 2022
Joe Biden is no Jack Kennedy*, and he ain't no Abraham Lincoln either.
*H/T to Lloyd Bentsen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senator,_you%27re_no_Jack_Kennedy
Biden and Davis are both Democrats.
Lincoln was a Republican.
Wallace was a Democrat.
Connor was a democrat.
Davis was a democrat.
Science.
Repeat after me:
Voting is a right, not a privilege.
Voting is a right, not a privilege.
Voting is a right, not a privilege.
It is not a natural right, like the right of free speech, but a civil right, like the right to trial by jury. But like all rights, the barriers for exercising that right should be as minimal as possible. If they weren't, then it would be a privilege, not a right.
Of course, elections must also be secure. We must have some confidence that the results accurately represent the will of the voters.
So whatever measures that are needed to make elections secure, the burden for implementing those measures should be as minimal as possible on the voter. I happen to think that voter ID is not an unbearable burden. But if there is going to be voter ID, then it should not only be free to obtain, but the burden to obtain it, in terms of time and money spent acquiring the ID, should be absolutely minimal. Local voting officials should be bending over backwards trying to get voter ID to people. They should go door-to-door if they have to, in order to get IDs to people.
Moreover, those who run elections should treat voters as customers to be served. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to have to wait hours and hours in line to vote. That is just silly. If there was a four-hour line to check out at Walmart, no one would shop there. So why should we tolerate four-hour lines to vote? We shouldn't.
If a voter wants to vote by mail, or to vote from home, or to vote early, the government should try to accommodate that to the best of their ability. The voters shouldn't be the ones who have to jump through hoops to meet the government's arbitrary rules. It should be the other way around: the government should bend over backwards trying to accommodate the voting preferences of the voters that they are supposed to be *serving*.
That is the mentality that we ought to have when it comes to voting. All eligible voters should be welcome and encouraged to vote, and anything government can do to make that process as barrier-free as possible, while still maintaining secure elections, should be considered.
If a voter wants to vote twice, or five times, or two hundred, the government should try accommodate them. Or if not, at least do everything in their power to hinder them. If someone wants to pay people for their votes, perhaps to hand out gin in exchange for a vote, what's the problem? Make them show their filled-out ballot and trade it in for a free drink before they mail it off. Any attempt to be secure and accurate is just an undue barrier between the person and the ballot.
Jeff once argued that the time it took someone to register to vote was an illegal poll tax.
"to hand out gin in exchange for a vote, what's the problem? "
Thats " Hillary 24"
shut your pie hole Chemjerk.
If a voter wants to vote twice, or five times, or two hundred, the government should try accommodate them.
No, obviously not. You are purposefully twisting what I wrote.
What is so wrong with reducing the barriers to voting while also having secure elections?
You can’t realistically do both?
That is a false choice.
How exactly do you imagine you can make it easier to vote, while also maintaining security to a point where neither party can cheat?
Universal mail-in ballots, unsecure drop boxes, and not verifying chain of custody definitely don’t fulfill the secure part of that equation.
There is nothing *inherently* insecure about universal mail-in ballots. It just depends on how the system is set up.
Here is a brief primer on the subject:
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/mail-ballot-security-features-primer
This is not rocket science. Several states have done this for years now. We have had absentee ballots for over 150 years and there have not been massive problems. It is completely doable.
What is so wrong with early voting or mail-in voting? What is so wrong with reducing the barriers for people to get voter ID's? What are you afraid of?
Why do you want voting to be some sort of contest to see who can jump the highest and the farthest over all of the government hurdles placed in the path of the ballot box?
Nobody is banning mail-in voting.
The emergency measures put-in during the pandemic should not be made permanent. You are pretending to not see the difference between requesting a mail-in ballot vs mass mailings of millions of ballots to every household?
Well see what Chumby wrote below.
And several states have implemented mail-only voting for a while now. They seem to have figured out a way to do it relatively securely. I am sure their methods could be improved upon but I don't think the idea should be rejected out of hand.
In your dreams. It’s not the least bit secure, which is why these states swing hard left within an election or two of full mail in balloting - the fraud becomes endemic.
They're catching the fraud and it's been pretty much Republicans committing it which should surprise no one.
Utah swings hard left?
And part of the problem here is your implied evidence for fraud - "I know there's fraud when Democrats win." This comes from right-wing hubris that "real Americans" must subscribe to right-wing politics. Can you even contemplate that a team other than Team Red might actually win a free and fair election?
What's wrong with mail-in voting is the same shit that makes it verboten in other Republics or Democracies - it's too fucking easy to cheat.
Like how at midnight all votes switched to Brandon and chains of custody went wonky during his historic victory with the greatest, most inclusive voter fraud organization ever.
Is that why Switzerland uses mail-in ballots?
And if you want to follow the examples of other countries - which I am all for - many other countries have automatic voter registration, many other countries automatically send voting credentials to each eligible voter before an election instead of making them wait in line to get an ID, and many other countries are experimenting with different voting methods like ranked choice voting. Oh and many of them also have election day as a national holiday, and have centralized administration of elections.
So, are you still on board with conducting elections like other countries do? Or do you only invoke that argument as a motte and bailey tactic, to argue against mail-in ballots regardless of what anyone else does?
It is ridiculously easy to get a photo id in every state.
What's wrong with making it easier?
Can a two faced politician demand that people be allowed vote twice, once for each face?
Can a non-binary person cast a vote each of their genders?
Why don't politicians ever offer special programs for the dead like they do for every other voting block? The dead are constantly being discriminated against in employment simply because they're not as active as the living.
Democracy cannot survive unless these pressing issues are resolved.
Nobody ever mistook you for anything more than a simpleton.
Voting has always had restrictions.
Age. Citizen. Etc.
Youre an idiot jeff.
Shut the fuck up you totalitarian lard lump. There's nobody on here but you and your progshit cohorts that actually wants to repress voting rights.
Everyone else wants an honest, accurate vote that properly reflects the ballots cast.
I want to repress voting rights. Or at least force everyone to pay the same exact amount in taxes (or equivalent labor, if unable to pay) in order to be able to vote. Right now democracy is a joke, given the moral hazard of letting anyone vote, regardless of how much they contribute to (or take from) the common pot.
You say you aren't opposed to requiring ID to vote, how does that work with mail in voting?
A Radical Individualist wanting us to repeat after him...*Shruggs.*
What is lost in all this is that both parties are seeking to advantage their party through changes in the election rules. This is done rather than focusing on a better message to gather more voter support.
In a capitalist economic system competition bring better products at lower prices. In a democracy competition is expected to bring better government. Those looking to control the market and control the government want to eliminate competition.
BOFF SIDZ!!!
I'm not convinced that the states reverting to the same election laws they had before the pandemic is seeking an advantage, really. I'm not sure the idea that the states setting their own election laws--rather than have them imposed by the federal government--is any kind of change at all. I'm sure that the federal government dictating these rules to the states is a new thing.
Ken, disallowing illegal votes is seeking an advantage!
The notion that Ds want to allow illegal votes is a Republican lie. None of the D proposals will open elections up to illegal voters.
So the Ds are supporting in-person only voting and voters showing a form of ID accepted by banks?
Why should voting be in-person only?
Because it's harder for the Ds to cheat. Keep up, dummy.
Even if it means legitimate voters are turned away?
But who cares about them right? They weren't willing to wait 4 hours in line therefore they didn't earn the privilege of voting and were probably Democrats anyway. Amirite?
Because anyone without the means to show up and wait on a Tuesday shouldn't be voting anyway. So what if they're working or deployed or in the hospital. Fuck them. They're all Democrats anyway.
That's what absentee ballots are for. Which have always been allowed and no one is trying to ban.
Georgia had over 3000 double votes in 2020. They were mostly mail in then in person. It is unknown if it was people forgot or someone voted as then for the mail in portion. Since a few admitted to moving and not reviewing a ballots the latter is very likely. Same in Arizona.
Also in GA illegal ballot harvesting occurred and is being investigated.
But other than that and the dozens of other examples...
You keep throwing this out but there is never any evidence that it happened. We do know that there was an illegal attempt change the election. We have tapes of ex-President Trump attempting to have the GA SOS find votes for him. But that is all that is reported.
Do you have a secret source talking to only you?
Hahahahahaha.
The fact is that few if any laws were changed for the 2020 election. Mail in ballot laws were already on the books and fully supported by Republicans. In many cases, in past years, the mail-in ballots favored Republicans. The idea of mail in ballots were bad was fostered by President Trump looking for an excuse for an election he knew he would lose.
One side is making it easy to commit fraud.
Your side was caught committing the fraud. If the Democrats committed fraud where are the examples? I can point to multiple examples of Republicans cheating.
There are multiple examples of Democrats committing fraud. Pennsylvania's obstruction of monitors during vote counting in swing jurisdictions was fraudulent, but legal (because the PA Supreme Court overturned the lower court decisions which had said that observers needed to be allowed to make sure the vote count is correct). Just because something is legal doesn't make the fraud disappear. Some swing states changed their election laws right before the election, in contradiction to their own constitution (for example, the executive branch decided to change the rules when legally only the legislature was in charge of those decisions). These last-minute changes favored Biden. While challenged in court afterwards, there was no real remedy - the election had already taken place. Just because the dominant press agencies claim there was no fraud doesn't mean there wasn't any.
When one party thinks they will win by restricting the vote, and other by lowering barriers, it is not "both sides doing it".
Restricting the vote to legal voters.
This is a parody account, right?
Correct. When Rs try to keep the vote honest and Ds want to harvest ballots for Brandon, it's not an issue of both sides.
Nonsense. Depends on what you restrict and what barriers are lowered. Some barriers are there to make sure that the person voting is who they say they are. Removing those barriers would make it easier for people to vote. But it would also seriously damage the integrity of elections.
We have laws addressing these things. Where are the court cases intended to lower those "barriers"?
They are doing this now, because they believe that once they can control all the elections, they won't ever lose the majority (or 50/50)
They know they're getting their asses kicked in 2022 if things stay as they are.
23 House Democrats have decided not to run for reelection in 2022--presumably because they expect to lose.
"WASHINGTON — House Democrats are facing an onslaught of departures with less than a year to go before the midterm elections.
So far, 23 Democratic representatives have said they won't seek re-election, including five in December alone. Three of them — Stephanie Murphy of Florida, Lucille Roybal-Allard of California, and Albio Sires of New Jersey — made their announcements just in the last week.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/wave-retirements-rocks-democrats-hopes-holding-house-n1286398
The mean loss in the House for the president's party--in his first midterm--is about 26 seats lost going back through the beginning of the 20th century. 23 of them are just surrendering this time because the progressives are so radical, moderate Democrats have little or no hope of keeping their seats. The Democrats know that if things stay as they are, they're getting their asses kicked. Nancy Pelosi has promised not to seek the Speakers' chair after the election in 2022--presumably because she doesn't expect the Democrats to control the House anyway.
Meanwhile, Biden knows that the congressional investigations begin as soon as the Republicans take control of the House (and the Senate).
The rationalizations they're giving for this shit being all about justifying the only thing they can do to limit the ass kicking that's coming are bullshit.
...or...they know Hillaries gonna run and they dont want to have to deal with that raging, lesbian, psychopathic gin- drunk.
She can barely stand up anymore. I don't see her running anywhere.
...in front of a bus...
Biden and the Democrats would probably be willing to kill a few Republican legislators to get their way.
Theyve murdered 60 million babies.
Whats a few more thrown on the altar?
The filibuster is the 2nd most useless thing next to the electoral college. Get rid of both.
Have you ever read a history book abd previous pure democracies?
+1 rasberry
Progshits gotta fascist.
I heard a Howard Dean scream after that.
Yes, massuh majesty.
If it's useless, why would anyone care if it's there or not?
It's used frequently by both parties. Pretty much by definition not useless.
I agree. The filibuster is an imperfect way to block legislation. I'd suggest instead an anti-Congress, or a legislative body dedicated to repealing laws that Congress makes. Either that or allowing Congress to only pass laws with a super majority (over 85% of the votes?)
The biggest farce of all are the ads proclaiming to be "protecting the right to vote" by making it completely meaningless to vote, because there won't be any protections at all on making sure that ballots are being cast legally by legal citizens.
"Protecting right to votes"
"Abortion is a Constitutional right."
There are some VERY sick minds out there.
Joe Biden knows requiring IDs to vote is the first step toward Republicans putting Negroes back in chains. He's been on to them for years! Not a joke.
"Joe Biden knows..."
OK youre busted lying right there.
./sarc
He doesnt know what fking planet hes on!
Well, only if they lie about what the rules are. Properly, they need 2/3 to change the rules (see Senate rule XXII.)
The filibuster in it's present form serves to stifle debate on issues - the exact opposite of it's original justification - let Senators hide from major issues, puts the minority in charge, and makes the senate less accountable to voters who wonder why nothing gets done after the election promises of both parties. Voters should hope the talking filibuster is reinstated or if not, that the practice is ended for good. The Constitution requires super majorities only for treaties and certain appointments. If the filibuster is not furthering bi-partisan action - and it is not - it should end.
Joe Biden was in the senate for six terms. He had ample opportunity to work on sunsetting filibusters. Instead, he goose stepped side by side with Bush to invade foreign countries and went full racist by targeting “super predator” minorities in the crime bill. And complained that steroids were the reason why he didn’t become a professional sports star.
Chumby, that's not an argument about filibusters, just partisan sounding off. Anything you can say to justify the filibuster?
It keeps the party “in charge” from passing extremely controversial legislation based on an infinitesimally small 50/50 majority, exclusively dependent on the tie-breaker. What the Dems attempted to pass last year is beyond out of touch with the public.
It is just so unfortunate that even in your own authoritrian party, at least two Senators still haven’t managed to get rid of their conscience entirely and therefore the filibuster will stay while you can continue to whine that “2 are blocking the will of the majority” or whatever deluded fallacies your whiny ass requires. I can truly and genuinely feel your pain, loser.
Fuck off slaver, just leave. You're not an American.
If you can't take liberty, gtfo and don't ruin it for others. Go try China you totalitarian shitweasel.
Americans voted for Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden Salted, so i think you're the one who needs to leave.
See if you can get the orange traitor to go with you.
Just change the constitution to your liking whenever it suits you while pointing to it when its convenient. The way of the democrat.
The constitution implements plenty to prevent tyranny of the majority. That is a deeply American thing to do. Dont worry, this benefits you too. The filibuster will soon be a blessing to you after November.
Oh and the EC is another such device that prevents tyranny of the majority. Unfortunately, as politicians think its all just about raw votes and that they should be allowed to get away with any kind of the most radical and divisive changes if they only got 50% + 1 votes, anything that helps to curb this kind of dynamics is really a good thing.
Dems are always concerned about minorities and expect entire societies to accomodate them economically and legally even if they are just 13% of the population. Unless, of course, they identify said minority as white and rural, in which case they are the devil and need to be cut off the grid and purged, even if they are nearly 50% of the population.
Reality is going to catch up with you.
(And yes, you did call them a minority: “ let Senators hide from major issues, puts the minority in charge”)
You people have convinced yourselves that majority rule = tyranny of the majority.
Did you know that there's no such thing as an independent thought? Almost every thought you've ever had was taken from someone or somewhere else.
Fallacies over fallacies.
There is parallel thought. See debate Leibniz vs Newton on who invented calculus. Your personality disorder makes you assume that just because somebody thought it before me, my thought cant be independent. Typical restrictive lefty cognition deficit.
Next fallacy: “majority rule = tyranny of the majority.”
False. But trying to use a tie-breaking vote to do something that would violate the interests of 50% - 1 voters would be “tyranny of the majority”. This tyranny, btw, is a subset of “rule of the majority”. And with the pure rule of the majority you people advocate for, the tyranny would be enabled. Joe Manchin seems to understand this too.
But we're talking about passing laws to protect the franchise for Americans. The very most basic right in existence. Should legislators also be required to walk through fields of glass shards before they're allowed to do that?
There's nothing on the books right now that threatens the franchise for Americans.
But it says "voting rights" right on it, so it must be true.
The very most basic right in existence.
That's absurd. Voting is very far from a basic right. It's really more of a privilege of citizenship.
It's the right that makes all law, and the power of elected officials, legitimate. Without it, you don't have property rights or any other rights.
That right is forced on us, I didn't consent. I'd rather have no vote and be left alone by the law (and the taxman) than being offered a vote and being bent over in so many other ways in return for that vote.
Then go somewhere without law. Nobody's stopping you.
Tony, I cannot reply to you, perhaps you blocked me. I was countering your point about the system being legitimate, not detailing my personal preferences. There is no legitimacy without consent.
So, you think ending the filibuster would encourage bi-partisan action? Seriously?
https://twitter.com/davidharsanyi/status/1480932933254930435?t=i37WTa4_dNRDUtYM2wcDpQ&s=19
Remember when Democrats filibustered Tim Scott’s police reform legislation because they didn't want Republicans to get any credit for reform before an election?
Pepperidge Farm remembers.
https://twitter.com/LeonydusJohnson/status/1480913949449146370?t=2jN-ooIDokB3V9RJ8KFX5g&s=19
The next generation is being raised on virus fearmongering, gender confusion, and race obsession. You think we have a mental health crisis now. Just wait...
"North Carolina is demanding that teachers help pre-schoolers form their "racial identity" and "deconstruct whiteness."
Now part of a $7 million grant for handicapped preschoolers will go to forcing disabled toddlers to contemplate their privilege
They want 3 and 4 year olds to "question social, scientific, and historical facts." Under a section about keeping kids safe, it shrugs that trying to "control" a class is "white supremacist thought"
The real significance of this story is it shows how easily Republican politicians are outmaneuvered by the staff and activists that burrow into the administrative state and do the actual work--especially when they are lazy. North Carolina has a Republican state superintendent.
A Republican board member passively tries to complain about the preschool CRT, but is easily manipulated by staff. The superintendent also defers to staff, and doesn't have have an understanding of the actual facts enough to challenge their vague excuses.
This shows how completely hopeless the situation is if we just have Republican pols that say 'I oppose CRT' but aren't willing to plunge into the details, aggressively ask follow-up questions, and understand the word games CRT types use, as illuminated by @conceptualjames et al
At one point a conservative school board member goes (paraphrasing) well I want to do equity, not critical race theory. She doesn't understand that equity IS the word K-12 uses for CRT.
It's really sad to watch the video of the school board meeting. The staff hems and haws with ridiculous, vague excuses until the Republicans are confused and just accept it ("they're staff, they know more than us part-time pols") or give up.
Staff basically says "well the training where we force 3-year olds to be communists has nothing to do with this, because that training was done under a different grant'
But the grant they're voting on would pay the same people to create more content on the same topic
The saddest part is when the superintendent, who was elected as a Republican and tells political groups she opposes CRT, says this as if it's exculpatory:
"When we talk about equity and culturally responsive training, it is specific to preschool children with disabilities.”
OH! I guess parents are just too stupid to comprehend, then, that's it. They're complaining about a DIFFERENT program where you indoctrinate 3yo, but it's OK because THIS is paying the SAME people to do it to HANDICAPPED ones.
Forgot to close quote above.
Links at link below.
https://twitter.com/lukerosiak/status/1480585405451886593?t=2XO7hVG07arqWStYsZnCwA&s=19
[Links]
"OH! I guess parents are just too stupid to comprehend, then, that's it. They're complaining about a DIFFERENT program where you indoctrinate 3yo, but it's OK because THIS is paying the SAME people to do it to HANDICAPPED ones."
I think you meant "domestic terrorists", not "parents". You don't want to get suspended from the web, do you?
Not I, but good point
The good thing about children is that they grow up and learn to read books all by themselves. Do you still believe what you were taught when you were in kindergarten? Does your worldview consist of the things you were fed as a young child?
Stupid question. Of course you do. That's why you people are so upset. You're learning Santa isn't real, and it's painful.
The good thing about children is that they grow up and learn to read books all by themselves. Do you still believe what you were taught when you were in kindergarten? Does your worldview consist of the things you were fed as a young child?
Speaking from experience?
Well, if they teach you good an useful things in kindergarten, I would hope you would still believe most of them. If they teach you racist garbage in kindergarten I like to think that you'd be able get over it, but seems like a better idea just not to teach racist garbage in the first place.
They didn't so much as teach me racist garbage in school as teach normal things while all my teachers and classmates were white.
See, all the black people live north of the highway. Total random chance I'm sure.
https://twitter.com/Partisan_O/status/1481088787430137857?t=r8UdfzE1-rNjc0NCcx8s5Q&s=19
The most interesting thing about House and Senate hearings isn’t the dialogue, but everything happening in between. Americans should understand what they saw today. It wasn’t just a heated exchange between a Senator and the highest-paid bureaucrat in the Federal government…
Americans watched a representative of a mostly ceremonial body challenge one of the most powerful figures in the administrative state- and while it was a gratifying exchange, Fauci’s confidence and relative calm reveal where power resides in the American political system today…
When your lawmakers writhe on their fainting sofas and bemoan the future of “democracy”- this is the arrangement they desperately want to preserve.
https://twitter.com/Theo_TJ_Jordan/status/1480950877666123786?t=d2VG7938zwjqCFwUUDdDNw&s=19
In a 2020 poll, 44% of Democrats thought 1,000+ unarmed black men were killed by police in 2019... it was 27.
In a recent poll, 41% said COVID hospitalization risk is 50%+ and 69% said 20%+... it's 1-5%.
If you don't see this as a serious problem, you are part of the problem.
You know what? It IS a serious problem that different groups construct their own reality from the social bubbles that they inhabit. It would be nice if we could all live together in one shared, commonly agreed-upon reality.
Then stop being a self-indulgent, psychotic narcissist.
5% 1/2021 by CDC data.
The main casualty is the murder of the Truth by the psychopathic lying Media.
Americans Broadcasting Communism
Nationalists Broadcasting Communism
Crackpots Broadcasting Socialism
Politburo Broadcasting System
Communist News Network
Fox gets a pass for the Simpsons ( predicted the virus panic- demic) and Family Guy.
Fox gets a pass for the Simpsons ( predicted the virus panic- demic) and Family Guy.
Disagree. Fox gets a pass for being the most counter-cultural news source. The corpse of The Simpsons gets them no credit and Family Guy never could hold a candle to heyday Simpsons or South Park.
simpsons and s.park dont exist now.
Reframing fail.
Majorities of Republicans believe the 2020 election was illegitimate and large majorities of them think violence is justified to solve political differences.
Don't get me started on their views about science.
Logs and motes, dude.
large majorities of them think violence is justified to solve political differences.
Consider it an in-kind contribution.
So the Heritage Foundation, definitely pro-Team Red, has 1,340 documented cases of voter fraud.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
This sounds like a lot, until you realize that this tally starts in 1982.
Furthermore, just perusing the list a little bit, many of the cases are not even fraud cases perpetrated by voters, but fraud cases perpetrated by candidates for e.g. claiming residency in the wrong district. It's not even fraud associated with the act of voting itself.
Empirically, voter fraud is a very very small problem in this country.
But, the retort is always, "but that is because people just aren't looking hard enough! There is really massive fraud out there that has yet to be discovered!" But people have been looking. The guy from Kansas spent years and years trying to find voter fraud. There have been audits and recounts. What specifically do you want to see?
The difference between healthy skepticism and conspiracy theory, is that, in the former case, the concerns of the skeptic can be met and addressed; but the concerns of the conspiracy theorist can never be met, not even in principle, because the claims are unfalsifiable and the goalposts continually move.
If you want us all to believe that your concerns for election integrity constitute healthy skepticism, rather than paranoid conspiracy, then show us the standards that can be in principle met that would assuage your concern, while at the same time not denying the right to vote for any legal voter, nor erecting pointless barriers and hurdles for exercising that vote.
If you can't enunciate a standard of security that you'd be satisfied with, then the claims of massive fraud just become an unfalsifiable opinion - the lack of evidence of fraud just proves that more digging is needed to find the fraud that is SURE to exist! No amount of evidence or data can satisfy the conspiracy theorist who believes that the lack of evidence of fraud means the fraud is massive and well-hidden.
"Empirically, voter fraud is a very very small problem in this country."
In a 50-50 election a very, very small problem is a very big problem.
The real issue isn't cheating, both sides can do that well enough. It's the complete loss of confidence in elections that results from people feeling cheated. That's when violence erupts. Then the state will claim new powers to fight "extremists" in order to restore Democracy even though it will be necessary to temporarily suspend elections.
Two weeks to bend the curve of violence. What could possibly go wrong?
It's the complete loss of confidence in elections that results from people feeling cheated.
By "people" I assume you mean the crybaby in chief and his millions of followers. They gave the state an excuse to claim new powers over nothing but sour grapes. Shame on the lot of them.
Lol. This was swrcs only criticism in a thread negative of Biden. Not a lefty folks!
+1 sarcasmic.
Unbelievable that anyone's goto reason for thinking the election was stolen was the toddler throwing a fit because he lost and, by the way, has no proof as attested to by his own appointed judges. You have to be special stupid to buy that.
The go-to reason for thinking the election was stolen was the swing states stopping their counts when Trump only needed one or two more to win.
We all lived through election night.
Yeah Elvis, because all precincts come in immediately and we've never watched an election night drag into the next morning and beyond before. By the way, GOP legislatures in several states ruled that mail-in votes could not be counted until election day, even though they had most of them for days to weeks.
Try again
As if Hillary Clinton and Stacey Abrams instructed their followers to accept the losses with dignity and honor!
Complaints about election fraud have been continuous since 2000. Remember when Bush was the "President SELECT"? How about the crooked voting machines in 2004 that supposedly stole the election from John Kerry? The very same machines that Hillary's supporters said were defective in 2016 were suddenly beyond reproach in 2020.
In a 50-50 election a very, very small problem is a very big problem.
Not just a 50-50 election either, but the progressively greater loss of confidence not just in elections, but leadership, as the problem is refused to be addressed by both sides (one less than the other) as the entire system progresses towards a 50/50 crisis along several axes.
For instance, your 'closed borders *and* voter ID are racist' policy isn't going to fly among a majority-minority population and if you don't have some sort of long-standing backstop against borders, the voter fraud, or both, you're going to have more open cultural conflicts over which your cries of 'Historic white slavery!' hold no sway. White people fucked up with voter suppression and Jim Crow, but I'm half Asian, half Black, that's not me, and these hispanics are outta control. You've already got White people (rightly) saying "*I* wasn't around for slavery." but at least tacitly acknowledging that the US racial history is what it is. Once you've moved to a point where a significant portion can say "I'm a DACA kid and you African Americans don't know what real oppression is." things are going to get worse, not better.
White people fucked up with voter suppression and Jim Crow, but I'm half Asian, half Black, that's not me, and these hispanics are outta control.
Meant to be in figurative quotes. I'm neither black nor Asian and only generally think hispanics like Beto O'Rourke and Ocasio-Cortez are categorically out of control.
theres no more real voter suppression but minorities dont vote. ( Thats why Demotards are inventing that crisis now)
So much for that reverse racist meme of "Blame Whitey."
People with no skin in the game,
no jobs, no Hope, who saw Ibama- Obiden give their Hope and Change to TBTF Banks and give them the finger
( they neither got Shovel ready jobs or even a shovel) have no reason TO vote.
Theyre historically, ethenically, locationally, economically screwed.
The PBS docu on whats left of Detroit last night shows that.
So what do you do when one team exaggerates the problem of voter fraud in order to justify changing the rules to benefit their team? What is the appropriate remedy here?
Voter fraud, meh. Not needed to steal an Election.
All it takes is whomever counts the black and white marbles to ' round' the total up ...ahem...for the Desired Outcome then hide the bodies.
"Watch me pull a Rabbit outta my hat!"
Or a few thousand more votes.
Voter fraud is a smoke screen. Its fairly easy to observe.
Yeah, I agree the bigger problem is the loss of trust in the process. Even if they are totally wrong, if you have a significant part of the electorate that thinks they were cheated, that's a problem. And not one that will be solved by calling large number of voters stupid idiot conspiracy theorists.
Democrats are acting exactly as they would if they were trying to hide fraud. That doesn't mean that's what they are doing. But if they gave one fuck about bringing the country together they would not be dismissive and nasty to that large chunk of the voting public.
"The real issue isn't cheating, both sides can do that well enough. It's the complete loss of confidence in elections that results from people feeling cheated."
Good post.
No amount of evidence or data can satisfy the conspiracy theorist who believes that the lack of evidence of fraud means the fraud is massive and well-hidden.
Yup. A lack of proof is proof. Prove it's not. You can't. That means it's true.
Shut up SQRLSY. You're drunk.
And you're stupid. In the morning I shall be sober.
A lack of proof that there is cheating (which can't be proved to begin with if it was successful) is proof there was no cheating. Anyone who has ever taken tests in high school knows better.
Jesse has gone to great lengths to post in-depth responses to the cheating already caught under the 2020 farce.
As you have been selectively literate up until now I see no benefit of rehashing it for an imbicile, so I'll just leave it at this:
You're a stupid lying progshit, fat jeff, and I sincerely hope you drown in the water you're carrying.
I usually have you on mute because that's where attack trolls belong, but I thought I'd read what you had to say.
Nobody other than attack trolls give a shit about anything Jesse has to say. His posts are so full of baseless accusations that replying to them requires responding to those accusations or letting them slide.
By then the topic is lost.
So when people don't respond to Jesse it's because they have him on mute for his constant personal attacks.
Maybe he has things to say that are worth a listen, but nobody on the receiving end of his lies gives a shit.
He liiterally tells you I've pushed cited evidence and examples and you call them baseless. This is why you're an ignorant troll.
Oh look. A dropping from JesseAZ. Right on cue. If it doesn't contain the word "you" I probably owe someone money.
I don't read Jesse's posts. He is a complete troll and Team Red apologist who is dumber than Nardz on a bender.
And it is telling that you would rather pay attention to Jesse's anecdotes rather than verified compilations of voter fraud from a right-wing source. You are not interested in truth, you are only interested in the narrative of MASSIVE FRAUD because you think it helps your team and hurts their team. You are part of the problem in this country, wanting to sacrifice democracy itself for the sake of power. Go fuck yourself you piece of shit.
"...it is telling that you would..."
You're speaking their language. What comes after is usually a strawman. Have some class. Don't play their "You didn't say anything about this which means this is what you believe about what you never talked about!" game.
And Jeff confuses convictions with fraud. Jeff, go to your local police department and ask for all jaywalking convictions. Does it lone up 1 to 1 with all cases of jaywalking?
Again. Youre an idiot.
Glenn Youngkin's son tried to vote twice despite being underage. That's like three frauds right there. Of course, he was caught, so the system did work.
There are some instances of voter fraud that are unquantifiable. For example, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled that its crucial precincts did nothing wrong by kicking out observers when they were counting the votes. This is not voter fraud because it's legal, but it does raise red flags. Also, in the recent presidential election, precincts threw out the evidence (mail in envelopes with or without signatures) or deleted its electronic data, in which case no fraud could be proven. Or that Georgia precinct where the data in the surveillance cameras was wiped when the ballots overturning the previous night's results were counted. None of this proves fraud occurred, but it's certainly fishy and doesn't help increase voter confidence in the election.
BBCs nightly expose' on the humanitarian crisis in Assghanistan.
Thanks, Joe. You really screwed the pooch on that one.
Another I-bama/ O' Biden Democrat fuck- up that President Trump will have to fix in 2024...
after Hillary loses AGAIN!
He was carrying out Trump's policy.
And if he didn't you'd blame him for that as well as for extending the forever war.
Extricating from Afghanistan is the greatest thing a president has done in some time.
Yes, Tiny, shell lose.
.Shes a loser like you.
Losers just do that.
Here's the question no far-left asshole can ever answer: if unlimited mail-in voting and ballot harvesting are so vital to a healthy functioning democracy, why is it that almost none of the European countries allow these things?
The far left are just a bunch of lying corrupt scumbags who want to make it easier than ever for them to steal elections, and they're completely full of shit every time they open their mouths.
Move to Europe you fucking pussy
The irony of the pseudo-American milksop libshit saying that.
You need to re-read the original post, you're arguing the same side.
Or else what, faggot?
why is it that almost none of the European countries allow these things?
Not just don't allow. Tried and rejected. Until 2020, the US generally rejected them elsewhere in the world as exacerbating democratic crises there.
AND....why, if " every vote is so important" arent the Left mobilizing, going in the streets and getting people registered?
Door to door. In the mall. On Skid Row. Theres lots of Skid Row in Democrat cities.
They dont want that. They want to revolt and destroy and be able to blame others.
Theyre Elitists and cant get their shoe soles dirty.
Perhaps the city dwellers really know theyre shysters and con artists.
These do..." my life has been hurt by Democrats"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wHKiH6Ri6EM
"exacerbating democratic crises there."
Theres one place where there ISNT a
"democratic crisis."
N. Korea. Self- Styled as Democratic.
No " crisis" there!
/sarc
That fact demonstrates the Goal of creating " democratic crises"- by closet Marxists to usher in Communism.
The Marxists use Class Warfare to create division, The Media further divide with propaganda blaming others.
Theres " crisis of division" in Communist China. Why?
Bc. of Capitalism shining a light on the poverty, strife and turmoil of Communism
Taiwan and Hong Kong. Wildly successful beacons to expose the corruption and failure of the systematic failure of
" togetherness."
Then the Internet came along and stuck a knife in Hard Communism. Most any Tom, Dick or Chen in China can be an Ali seller.
When people are not financially dependent on Central Government, they thrive.
And theres the core of the Communist Lefts attempts to destroy the US Economy to create Govt dependence.
The UK, Germany, Spain, and others have mail in voting. But more importantly so do three US states and they have very few problem.
I don't care how voting is done as long as it is as easy as possible.
Why do you want to make voting harder than it needs to be? Why don't you spell it out with as much honesty as you can muster?
OK, here it is:
Everyone votes on one day, in person in the jurisdiction where you pay your taxes, no exceptions. Make the day a holiday for national elections (let states do what they want for state and local elections). Polls are open 24 hours midnight to midnight. No returns are released on national elections until Hawaii and Alaska are done.
Sick or in the hospital? sorry, but sickness doesn't pick sides and in 300 million votes, it washes out. In prison? You don't vote anyway. Overseas for business or pleasure? Plan ahead. In college in some other place? Plan ahead. Serving abroad in the military, we'll set up a polling place for you and you vote as if in your own town.
I agree with election day as a holiday. I agree with expanding voting hours.
I think it is unconscionable to deny the right to vote to sick people. What are you thinking?
And I completely reject the idea of banning absentee voting (except for the military of course - gee this wouldn't be an attempt to try to rig the vote, would it?) This is motivated more by fear than by empirical reality. We have had absentee voting for over 150 years, we've figured out how to do it without introducing the MASSIVE FRAUD that you are so afraid of.
Moreover this entire scheme is based on the mentality that it is the voter's job to jump through the hoops that the government sets forth. That is exactly the wrong mentality. It should be the government trying to accommodate the voters instead. "Plan ahead"? There is a perfectly valid way to plan ahead, with an absentee ballot.
Finally, even if your scheme were to pass, there also ought to be a rule that no one should stand in line to vote for more than, say, 10 minutes. There is no reason for anyone to have to wait hours and hours in line.
Moreover this entire scheme is based on the mentality that it is the voter's job to jump through the hoops that the government sets forth. That is exactly the wrong mentality. It should be the government trying to accommodate the voters instead.
"How many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome: good government? They want everybody to vote. I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people. They never have been from the beginning of our country, and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."
Paul Weyrich, co-founder of the Heritage Foundation, ALEC, and the Moral Majority.
It is not at all difficult to find conservative politicians and activists that have said similar things. That says a lot about how they think.
Finally, even if your scheme were to pass, there also ought to be a rule that no one should stand in line to vote for more than, say, 10 minutes. There is no reason for anyone to have to wait hours and hours in line.
In over 30 years of voting, I have never once waited in line more than 10 minutes. Of course, except for the couple of times my polling place was in an area filled with college students, it was in overwhelmingly white suburbs. Imagine that.
No, I want you to explain the reason you want to make voting more difficult than it needs to be. How are you threatened by more people having more freedom to vote?
If Republicans had a senate majority and wanted to pass "ban CRT from public schools" out of Congress but were stymied by the filibuster, every single right-wing publication defending that nonsense would switch teams immediately, and everyone knows it.
This is about partisan power, nothing else. Luckily for me, my team having power aligns with the principles of majority rule right now. I do like it when good principles align with me having power.
If Republicans had a senate majority and wanted to pass "ban CRT from public schools" out of Congress but were stymied by the filibuster, every single right-wing publication defending that nonsense would switch teams immediately, and everyone knows it.
The only party in the last 20 years that's ever tried to fuck with the filibuster has been the Democrats.
I don't mind your side having low future-time orientation. It's why you think climate change is an extinction-level event, after all. But let's not pretend that they're doing this out of some magnanimous desire to protect democracy. They're simply pissed that they aren't able to steamroll their agenda down everyone's throat.
its a false meme anyway.
The US doesnt have primary control of local schools. That's State/ local.
TN put the Kibosh on CRT. Outlawed it.
"Crackpot Racial Terrorism" is what it is.
Somilar to the Lefts inventing Federal voting.
Voting is on the County level.
We are not Federal citizens and do not live in a Federal State.
They show their Euro Socialist roots with that..
Same difference.
It's time for a Constitutional Amendment that would require all actions of either House of Congress to pass with 60% (60% of the membership, not 60% of those present).
Again and again and again, the US is not a democracy of "one man, one vote", rather a republic where the people come together in a generally democratic mode to determine the best interests of the nation as a whole. At times (frequently?), this means that some portion of less than 50% will come forth (or stand back) to keep a passing fancy from becoming law.
Recorded votes, General; don't forget recorded votes.
"If you don't give me your wallet, I will have no choice but to shoot you."
yeah thats called a " Protection Racket"
"You pay Vinny each week and your store wont burn to the ground by accident."
Just now. 98.7 FM Knoxville TN
Nurse called in.
No covid. all colds and flu.
And said " we do not treat tests, we treat symptoms."
Covid tests at hone? Insanity.
An Unreliable test done by an untrained person in a totally un- controlled environment with no chain of custody?
And known inaccurate?
Uh, Yeah, no.
I dont want a home pregnancy test...
23 $ for 2 tests?
You get unreliable results.
They get $23.
scam. Suckers!
You pay $23; they get a lot more than $23.
billions.
Why wouldn't the Dems want to nuke the filibuster right now?
They know that 12 months from now, there'll be a GOP majority in the Senate and the MSM will carry the Dem party's water in blaming that group for retaining such a rules change while aggressively ignoring the facts of who actually made the change in the first place. Just ask Harry Reid and anyone else who remembers the sequence when the rules got rolled back for judges a decade or so back...
I like how Reason just ignored that the speech was horrible, that the Democrats used the filibuster 347 times in 2020, him and Chucky loved it years ago (GOP told Trump no actually), oh and Blue states have harsher/stronger election laws.
But hey Reason you do you
There is no price those on the Left aren't willing to pay for control of government.
The filibuster requires some bipartisan buy-in on legislation. It is rare that either party achieves a 60-person majority. As a result, the filibuster tempers polarization. Democrats and Republicans must persuade some senators - on the other side of the aisle - to agree to move forward. They can do that through compromise - and that moves legislation to the middle.
Let them keep the old-fashioned style of filibuster, where the ones doing the filibuster have to stand there at the podium and beat their gums 24 hours/day until either they are exhausted or they win. What I object to is this process of not requiring anyone to actually filibuster because they can just "put a hold" on a bill. That's simply bozo talk for threatening to filibuster, and it's become way to easy to stop things. Go back to the classic filibuster and get rid of the 60 votes rule.
The end game is to just let Facebook and Twitter tell us who won - - - - -
Here in the 2000s, the filibuster exists only to block legislation proposed by Democrats. When it blocks legislation by Republicans, it is ignored. There is zero reason to keep a historical practice, that is not in the Constitution, that blocks actions by one party only.
Leftists are cancer.
+1000, very unfortunately. Despite me being one of them for quite some time in the past.
Then I guess it's a good thing that we have separation of powers.
"we have no choice but to change the Senate rules, including getting rid of the filibuster." They left off "and imprison our political enemies in concentration camps. Make sure the boxcars are ready. Oh, and please call me 'Fuhrer'."
The Democrats aren't taking the easy way out they're just doing what they do best, changing the rules to suit their needs and right now they need the filibuster gone so they can push thru the Authoritarian left's agenda with just a 1 vote majority. Should they find that in the next cycle they are going to be the minority party again then they can just bring the rule back right before the change over so its in place when they are the minority party. It's just like what they do with the election, when a Republican wins it's election fraud but if a Republican wins its a threat to Democracy to even suggest there may have been fraud involved.
We don't know how long omicron will be around for.
We have no idea. Nobody’s ever experienced it before us that’s been right so far about it.
South Africa has entered the chat.
Collectivist Jeffy isn’t interested in any badthink.