Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[whiskeypriest]

McConnell has expressed his fervent opposition to even relatively uncontroversial sections of the bill, such as making Election Day a federal holiday in order to give people more time to vote. McConnell called this a “power grab” for Democrats, a striking admission that Republicans do better when fewer people vote.   

Indeed. 

Can't wait to hear our constitutional scholar explain how HR 1 violates the Constitution.

Expect irrelevant cut/pastes soon!

It is not unconstitutional to pass stupid laws.

Once again, the poster who accuses others of ducking substantive argument... ducks substantive argument. Come on, Red. It is not that hard, the ACLU has called out parts of it. Of course, the purported unconstitutionality of some parts of the bill is not actually an argument against taking up the bill. The normal legislative process would.allow.for the Senate to amend the bill to remove the offending items and send the bill either back to the house or a conference committee. An isolated provision is not an argument against taking up the bill. It is an argument against having to take a stand.

[REDSTATEWARD]

McConnell has expressed his fervent opposition to even relatively uncontroversial sections of the bill, such as making Election Day a federal holiday in order to give people more time to vote. McConnell called this a “power grab” for Democrats, a striking admission that Republicans do better when fewer people vote.   

Indeed. 

Can't wait to hear our constitutional scholar explain how HR 1 violates the Constitution.

Expect irrelevant cut/pastes soon!

It is not unconstitutional to pass stupid laws.

Once again, the poster who accuses others of ducking substantive argument... ducks substantive argument. Come on, Red. It is not that hard, the ACLU has called out parts of it. Of course, the purported unconstitutionality of some parts of the bill is not actually an argument against taking up the bill. The normal legislative process would.allow.for the Senate to amend the bill to remove the offending items and send the bill either back to the house or a conference committee. An isolated provision is not an argument against taking up the bill. It is an argument against having to take a stand.

H.R.1 is nothing more than a 2020 Campaign tactic by democrats. It is a proverbial political squirrel. McConnell could force the democrats to own it with a vote but it would only put off other legislative action on matters people actually care about.

[josh]

Heard through the grapevine there won't be any "collusion" wording in Mueller report.

Because the Mueller team has leaked soooooooooo much.

You are almost as big a fool as Bambi and that is saying something.

Remember, Kid. Josh knows more than anyone here. He's the smartest guy in the room. Of course, since he's been running things, the room keeps getting smaller. But still...very smart guy. Friggin' genius!

Too fucking funny, Piggy.

You get so bent out of shape over being wrong in the Movies forum that you decide to go after me here.

I didn't even claim to know anything in this instance other than that Kiiid's chances of knowing anything are miniscule - and I doubt you disagree with me.

And yeah, it has been getting smaller.

So what if (a) it was getting smaller before I had any authority here and (b) more people left because of your bullshit than mine, 5-1, at a minimum. Easier for you to blame others than admit you are a bigger PITA on average than I am on my worst day.

Have a good weekend, Piggy.

Shouldn't you be out there defending Michael Jackson, The King of PEDs?  Because your one black friend tells you he's innoncent? STFU, loser.

Such a cogent rebuttal of nothing I said.

[josh]

McConnell has expressed his fervent opposition to even relatively uncontroversial sections of the bill, such as making Election Day a federal holiday in order to give people more time to vote. McConnell called this a “power grab” for Democrats, a striking admission that Republicans do better when fewer people vote.   

Indeed. 

Can't wait to hear our constitutional scholar explain how HR 1 violates the Constitution.

Expect irrelevant cut/pastes soon!

It is not unconstitutional to pass stupid laws.

Once again, the poster who accuses others of ducking substantive argument... ducks substantive argument. Come on, Red. It is not that hard, the ACLU has called out parts of it. Of course, the purported unconstitutionality of some parts of the bill is not actually an argument against taking up the bill. The normal legislative process would.allow.for the Senate to amend the bill to remove the offending items and send the bill either back to the house or a conference committee. An isolated provision is not an argument against taking up the bill. It is an argument against having to take a stand.

H.R.1 is nothing more than a 2020 Campaign tactic by democrats. It is a proverbial political squirrel. McConnell could force the democrats to own it with a vote but it would only put off other legislative action on matters people actually care about.

Like Marco Rubio's Senate Bill 1?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1

[barton]

According to our constitutional scholar, people don't care about fair districting, or voting rights or dark money or seeing a president's tax returns.  I'm sure he has polls to prove it! 

[REDSTATEWARD]

According to our constitutional scholar, people don't care about fair districting, or voting rights or dark money or seeing a president's tax returns.  I'm sure he has polls to prove it!

First find some relevance so there would be grounds for a poll.

[facilitatorn]

Pills to prove it. His doctor said they’d give him his first erection in years.

[barton]

According to our constitutional scholar, people don't care about fair districting, or voting rights or dark money or seeing a president's tax returns.  I'm sure he has polls to prove it!

First find some relevance so there would be grounds for a poll.

Looks like several polls show massive support....

https://www.brennancenter.org/overwhelming-support-hr1

  Polling:

How Should Presidential Campaigns Be Regulated?, Center for Public Integrity, Feb. 18, 2019
88% say that political TV ads should be required to say who paid for the ad
87% agree that online political ads should be required to say who paid for the ad
88% agree that political groups should have to disclose all their funders in a timely fashion
First Agenda Item for Congressional Majority: Ending the Culture of Corruption in Washington, End Citizens United, Nov. 19, 2018
A poll of voters in competitive districts in 2018 found that “ending the culture of corruption in Washington” was “very important” to 75% of all voters, and 75% of independent voters
82% of voters support the idea that Congress should “stop corruption with tougher ethics rules, ensuring the protection of voting rights, and cracking down on special interest money in politics.” Among independents, support was at 84%
When presented with a choice between a reform agenda (focusing on money in politics) and other legislation as a first priority for the new Congress, voters chose money in politics by a 52-43 margin; among independents, the margin was 56-39
Majority Says Election Day Should be a Federal Holiday, Poll Finds, Hill.TV, Nov. 6, 2018
National Tracking Poll, Politico, Nov. 2-4, 2018
77% of registered voters said that “passing an anti-corruption bill that would rein in the influence of money and lobbying in Washington” was an important or top priority for Congress after the midterm elections.
Corruption in Washington is a Top Concern for Voters, WSJ/NBC News Poll shows, Wall Street Journal, Sep. 24, 2018
Poll: Voters say Corruption the Most Important 2018 Topic, Fox News, Sep. 5, 2018
More voters (30%) called “corruption in Washington” the most important issue than any other issue that was polled
Corruption in Washington was within the top three issues for Democratic, Republican, and Independent voters
Corruption was a top issue among voters in battleground areas (those with competitive elections) as well as among voters generally
The Public, the Political System and American Democracy, Pew Research Center, Apr. 26, 2018
77% of Americans support limits on the amount of money individuals and organizations can spend on political campaigns, and 65% say new laws could be effective in reducing the role of money in politics.
90% of voters say its very important that elections are free from tampering. 83% say it is very important that no eligible voters are prevented from voting.
Nearly Two-Thirds of Young Americans Fearful About the Future of Democracy in America, Harvard Youth Poll Finds, Harvard Institute of Politics, Apr. 11, 2018
68% of all respondents and 77 % of likely voter respondents in a poll of Americans aged 18-29 said that money in politics was responsible for problems in American politics and society today.   

  (copy/paste stripped off URLs, but you can click them in the linked page)

[REDSTATEWARD]

If the democrats were so concerned “For The People” they would have tried HR 1 when they controlled Washington. Now they have a better plan. They are all for this mishmash knowing it has no chance of becoming law.  And why would it? It’s isnothing more than the political rape of Federalism, denial of Free Speech, and a power grab allowing the federal government to politicize elections.

[Yankguy1]

Political Rape of Federalism!!!!

[kiidcarter8]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/cnn-to-be-sued-for-more-than-250m-over-vicious-and-direct-attacks-on-covington-high-student-lawyer

[oilcan]

https://boingboing.net/2010/09/29/why-squirrels-mastur.html

[kiidcarter8]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/09/politics/judge-ts-ellis-paul-manafort-sentence/index.html

[whiskeypriest]

McConnell has expressed his fervent opposition to even relatively uncontroversial sections of the bill, such as making Election Day a federal holiday in order to give people more time to vote. McConnell called this a “power grab” for Democrats, a striking admission that Republicans do better when fewer people vote.   

Indeed. 

Can't wait to hear our constitutional scholar explain how HR 1 violates the Constitution.

Expect irrelevant cut/pastes soon!

It is not unconstitutional to pass stupid laws.

Once again, the poster who accuses others of ducking substantive argument... ducks substantive argument. Come on, Red. It is not that hard, the ACLU has called out parts of it. Of course, the purported unconstitutionality of some parts of the bill is not actually an argument against taking up the bill. The normal legislative process would.allow.for the Senate to amend the bill to remove the offending items and send the bill either back to the house or a conference committee. An isolated provision is not an argument against taking up the bill. It is an argument against having to take a stand.

H.R.1 is nothing more than a 2020 Campaign tactic by democrats. It is a proverbial political squirrel. McConnell could force the democrats to own it with a vote but it would only put off other legislative action on matters people actually care about.

Which is precisely why you condemned each of the 4537 (roughly) votes the Repos staged to overturn the ACA.

[whiskeypriest]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/09/politics/judge-ts-ellis-paul-manafort-sentence/index.html

Yes, white collar crime is often committed by wealthy people and so is viewed as less serious than other crimes by the type of people who get lifetime judicial appointments, especially those with appointments from presidents like Ronald Reagan.