Re: Joe Manchin and the "For The People" Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
blueridgemtnman
Probably not enough. It took the Sec of Transp job for for McConnell to completely cave. You remember, the wife who couldnt get much closer to the Chinese...
On a couple other notes.... As for the fillibuster, if a senator wants to fillibuster make him talk until either he goes hoarse, falls asleep or there is a vote to shut it down. None of this declare a fillibuster, leave the floor and go fundraising. Fillibusters are way to easy and utilized way to often. As for needing 60 votes to pass legislation, I think the thresh hold should be lowered to 55. With as split as the nation is on virtually every topic I think the lowered thresh hold would allow for some much needed packages to make it into law.
Re: Joe Manchin and the "For The People" Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FloridaBasedFan
Probably not enough. It took the Sec of Transp job for for McConnell to completely cave. You remember, the wife who couldnt get much closer to the Chinese...
On a couple other notes.... As for the fillibuster, if a senator wants to fillibuster make him talk until either he goes hoarse, falls asleep or there is a vote to shut it down. None of this declare a fillibuster, leave the floor and go fundraising. Fillibusters are way to easy and utilized way to often. As for needing 60 votes to pass legislation, I think the thresh hold should be lowered to 55. With as split as the nation is on virtually every topic I think the lowered thresh hold would allow for some much needed packages to make it into law.
Sorry, I disagree. The whole bunch of them should find a way to agree on something in a bipartisan way. You know, the way it was intended. People wanting to change everything every time they don't agree w/it are getting a bit old. Make them....all of them..... compromise. Stop wanting to change things just because a bunch of stuffy politicians can't or won't work it out. You must've enjoyed the Green Eggs and Ham Speech, I'm guessing.
Re: Joe Manchin and the "For The People" Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
blueridgemtnman
Sorry, I disagree. The whole bunch of them should find a way to agree on something in a bipartisan way. You know, the way it was intended. People wanting to change everything every time they don't agree w/it are getting a bit old. Make them....all of them..... compromise. Stop wanting to change things just because a bunch of stuffy politicians can't or won't work it out. You must've enjoyed the Green Eggs and Ham Speech, I'm guessing.
Not at all. I dont like fillibusters. The fact that they are so commonplace now a days is very irritating to me. I think there may be a place for it but not as presently employed.
I wish we could find some compromise, from both sides of the isle, but things have become so tribal. Thats why Id like to see the number lowered to 55. in hopes that there are a few on one side or the other willing to cross the isle and work together. Pass a law then repeal it after the following election cycle would be no way to run a country.
Id like to see curbs placed on EOs and declarations of national security put in place as well. These too are being abused IMO.
Re: Joe Manchin and the "For The People" Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FloridaBasedFan
Not at all. I dont like fillibusters. The fact that they are so commonplace now a days is very irritating to me. I think there may be a place for it but not as presently employed.
I wish we could find some compromise, from both sides of the isle, but things have become so tribal. Thats why Id like to see the number lowered to 55. in hopes that there are a few on one side or the other willing to cross the isle and work together. Pass a law then repeal it after the following election cycle would be no way to run a country.
Id like to see curbs placed on EOs and declarations of national security put in place as well. These too are being abused IMO.
Again....they need to find a way to compromise to get it done. One side comes in w/a one-sided highly partisan bill and wants to cram it down the other sides' throat. None of that. Make them come in w/a bill that they know full well that it's going to need some bipartisan support to pass muster or it's done. Some just don't seem to get that. You wanting to change the rules, just so one side or the other gets to cram some partisan crap through is unacceptable and it only happens because they aren't MADE to compromise and bring forth passible stuff. Can you not see the forest for the trees? Remember the phrase "reaching across the aisle"? Remember both parties actually working together? No, to changing any of the rules, just because it's tough. Too bad. Make 'em work together. Tough titty, said the kitty.
Re: Joe Manchin and the "For The People" Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
blueridgemtnman
Disagree completely.
Why? It's too easy now.
Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk
Re: Joe Manchin and the "For The People" Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ortizer
Why? It's too easy now.
Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk
^^^See above^^^
Re: Joe Manchin and the "For The People" Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FloridaBasedFan
Not at all. I dont like fillibusters. The fact that they are so commonplace now a days is very irritating to me. I think there may be a place for it but not as presently employed.
I wish we could find some compromise, from both sides of the isle, but things have become so tribal. Thats why Id like to see the number lowered to 55. in hopes that there are a few on one side or the other willing to cross the isle and work together. Pass a law then repeal it after the following election cycle would be no way to run a country.
Id like to see curbs placed on EOs and declarations of national security put in place as well. These too are being abused IMO.
Totally on board w/that. All (or most)the EO's are directly related to the two parties not wanting to or having to work together. When any parties in anything stop working together, the answer is not to change the rules, just to pacify them. Make them compromise and get it done. Right now, it's just like lots of things out there w/the "my way or the highway" attitude. No, that's not the way it's designed to work. The filibuster was supposed to be a period where the bill was debated and then, voted on. If either side gets to (by rule changes) bring in a one-sided highly partisan bill, making the other side accept it only breeds more bipartisanship. Now, if one side has a clear, 60 vote majority which may or may not include some from the other side, so be it. Saying that it's now too easy to get around those rules may be true, but it circumvents the real problem. Make them do their jobs. All of them. We all say this all the time, then collectively vote their asses back in. They know this. The real, deep root of the problem is the big money and the thirst for power in politics. But, that's perhaps a subject for another day.
Re: Joe Manchin and the "For The People" Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
blueridgemtnman
^^^See above^^^
What Greg was advocating for is changing the filibuster back to what it was for most of our nation's history.
Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk
Re: Joe Manchin and the "For The People" Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ortizer
What Greg was advocating for is changing the filibuster back to what it was for most of our nation's history.
Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk
I get that. What is the difference now, except they no longer have to stand there, waste everyone's time, listen to gibberish and have the same end result? I prefer real results. Start at the root cause of the problem, not just a symptom of it.
Re: Joe Manchin and the "For The People" Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
blueridgemtnman
Totally on board w/that. All (or most)the EO's are directly related to the two parties not wanting to or having to work together. When any parties in anything stop working together, the answer is not to change the rules, just to pacify them. Make them compromise and get it done. Right now, it's just like lots of things out there w/the "my way or the highway" attitude. No, that's not the way it's designed to work. The filibuster was supposed to be a period where the bill was debated and then, voted on. If either side gets to (by rule changes) bring in a one-sided highly partisan bill, making the other side accept it only breeds more bipartisanship. Now, if one side has a clear, 60 vote majority which may or may not include some from the other side, so be it. Saying that it's now too easy to get around those rules may be true, but it circumvents the real problem. Make them do their jobs. All of them. We all say this all the time, then collectively vote their asses back in. They know this. The real, deep root of the problem is the big money and the thirst for power in politics. But, that's perhaps a subject for another day.
Two thumbs up here. Citizens United really did some damage there.
As for the for the "For the People Act" I can understand Manchins stand on the bill. The dems took took accommodations made during a once in a century pandemic, packed them into a highly partisan bill that had anything and everything any special interest group could possibly want, that they knew had zero chance of passage, just so they could fund raise. I would have much rather seen a more realistic bill, closer to the Lewis Voting Act be put forth.
That said, there is a delicate balance between vote security and voter suppression. For example, I had a conversation with an individual who insisted that a birth certificate or passport was a must to meet the requirements of voter id for registration. He was blown away when i pointed out how there are huge numbers of blacks who dont have birth certificates because back in the 60s many hospitals refused admission to blacks. They had their children at home. I know those people are getting up there in age but look at the age group of the most reliable voters.
I do think we have an obligation to make voting as accessible/easy as possible for legitimate voters. I question how refusing volunteers the ability to provide food or drink to people standing in line to vote is going to corrupt an election. I mean you can campaign outside of polling places within what a 1000 feet? People are not allowed to wear political clothing or canvass within that limit so whats the big deal? Or how does no longer allowing voting on Sunday between 10 and 1pm make an election "safer" when you are still going to allow it between 1 and 5pm?
I cannot believe that in this age of high tech we cannot come up with a way that allows eligible voters to vote quickly and easily. I shake my head in disbelief every time I see a news report where people are forced to stand in line for hours upon hours to vote.
Re: Joe Manchin and the "For The People" Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FloridaBasedFan
Two thumbs up here. Citizens United really did some damage there.
As for the for the "For the People Act" I can understand Manchins stand on the bill. The dems took took accommodations made during a once in a century pandemic, packed them into a highly partisan bill that had anything and everything any special interest group could possibly want, that they knew had zero chance of passage, just so they could fund raise. I would have much rather seen a more realistic bill, closer to the Lewis Voting Act be put forth.
That said, there is a delicate balance between vote security and voter suppression. For example, I had a conversation with an individual who insisted that a birth certificate or passport was a must to meet the requirements of voter id for registration. He was blown away when i pointed out how there are huge numbers of blacks who dont have birth certificates because back in the 60s many hospitals refused admission to blacks. They had their children at home. I know those people are getting up there in age but look at the age group of the most reliable voters.
I do think we have an obligation to make voting as accessible/easy as possible for legitimate voters. I question how refusing volunteers the ability to provide food or drink to people standing in line to vote is going to corrupt an election. I mean you can campaign outside of polling places within what a 1000 feet? People are not allowed to wear political clothing or canvass within that limit so whats the big deal? Or how does no longer allowing voting on Sunday between 10 and 1pm make an election "safer" when you are still going to allow it between 1 and 5pm?
I cannot believe that in this age of high tech we cannot come up with a way that allows eligible voters to vote quickly and easily. I shake my head in disbelief every time I see a news report where people are forced to stand in line for hours upon hours to vote.
So you’ll have us believe that not allowing early voting on Sunday until 1pm is ‘suppressing’ the vote(even though that is not actually in the new law). Because a MONTH of early voting isn’t enough time????
Oh and that handing out food and drink is called electioneering, which you know people generally oppose. Again you want us to believe this is ‘suppression’ because i guess voters are incapable to are standing in line to vote without having a drink. Or that cant bring their own water bottles. Or walk up to a water fountain
Re: Joe Manchin and the "For The People" Act
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FloridaBasedFan
Two thumbs up here. Citizens United really did some damage there.
As for the for the "For the People Act" I can understand Manchins stand on the bill. The dems took took accommodations made during a once in a century pandemic, packed them into a highly partisan bill that had anything and everything any special interest group could possibly want, that they knew had zero chance of passage, just so they could fund raise. I would have much rather seen a more realistic bill, closer to the Lewis Voting Act be put forth.
That said, there is a delicate balance between vote security and voter suppression. For example, I had a conversation with an individual who insisted that a birth certificate or passport was a must to meet the requirements of voter id for registration. He was blown away when i pointed out how there are huge numbers of blacks who dont have birth certificates because back in the 60s many hospitals refused admission to blacks. They had their children at home. I know those people are getting up there in age but look at the age group of the most reliable voters.
I do think we have an obligation to make voting as accessible/easy as possible for legitimate voters. I question how refusing volunteers the ability to provide food or drink to people standing in line to vote is going to corrupt an election. I mean you can campaign outside of polling places within what a 1000 feet? People are not allowed to wear political clothing or canvass within that limit so whats the big deal? Or how does no longer allowing voting on Sunday between 10 and 1pm make an election "safer" when you are still going to allow it between 1 and 5pm?
I cannot believe that in this age of high tech we cannot come up with a way that allows eligible voters to vote quickly and easily. I shake my head in disbelief every time I see a news report where people are forced to stand in line for hours upon hours to vote.
Without covering blah's response you also have drop box available in front of the election station which allows quick voting and with 17 days of early voting that should alleviate long lines.
Georgia has 17 days of early voting. Delaware has 0. Georgia has a drop box in front of each election precinct. Delaware 0. Joe Biden has a lot of nerve even insinuating that Ga passed Jim Crow on steroids law.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...-in-each-state
