If the POT was a fact based party interested in strengthening democracy.......

And, I repeat again, We do not have filibuster proof senate.

Not true, 99% of the first post will not be allowed in a Budget Reconciliation bill, and only one of those is allowed per year, and thus we need 2/3rds of the senate, which is 10 republicans to pass anything given that repubs will, indeed, filibuster everything.

 

It's possible. Sorry.

It's not just about voter ID's, it's about a lot of things.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-voter-suppression-in-2020/

• Across the country, 1 in 16 Black Americans cannot vote due to disenfranchisement laws.
• Counties with larger minority populations have fewer polling sites and poll workers per voter.
• In 2018, Latinx and Black Americans were twice as likely as whites to be unable to get off work while polls were open.
• 25 percent of voting-age Black Americans do not have a government-issued photo ID.
• Geographic isolation is a major barrier to Native American voters due to the inaccessibility of nearby polling locations in many reservations. In South Dakota, 32 percent of Native voters cite travel distance as a factor in deciding whether to vote.
• More than one-sixth (18 percent) of voters with disabilities reported difficulties voting in person in 2020.

Nearly two-thirds of polling places had at least one impediment for people with disabilities.

Not the definition of sophistry. Conclusions provided are reasonable and logical.

I'll defer to the OP on that one. ti's an old law that does need updating.

The nation's aggregate health has a direct bearing on the strength of a nation's democracy.
There is no logical reason to accuse an blatantly obvious statement as the above as sophistry.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of sophistry, and 'liberal democracy', and note that when I apply the term 'democracy' such as 'American Democracy', I mean a 'liberal democracy'. This is a broader term than just elections.

The voting rights act is not about power, it's about disallowing Republicans in their power grab
The VRA will even the score.

What part of climate apocalypse if we do nothing, do you not understand, and how taht might affect 'democracy'?

We need more, not less, immigration as there is a labor shortage in agriculture, and Americans do not want the jobs enough
to solve the problem. Improving agriculture strengthens democracy.
That you accuse the above as 'sophistry' reveals your lack of understanding of the term.

Jeezus, it was right there in print, can you read? I'll repeat EXACTLY what was written:

"One man, one vote ( man =men and women)"

That you'd kneejerk a such a response is telling for your entire rebuttal, misuse of terms, lack of forethought in your comment, etc.

I used the noun 'overtones' and 'racist' as an adjective, which will mean, as any reasonable person would conclude,
it 'smacks of' which to say, be careful in your wording. No one is calling you a racist, and yes, far more blacks live in urban areas than rural areas so the statement is reasonable.

but, that wasn't the point, the rest of the comment was the point, which you ignored, that your point was absurd in that the flip side was absurd, as well.

The least racist system one could achieve, one that gives EVERYONE EQUAL VOICE, is 'one person, one vote'.

PERIOD.

End of argument.

It's not about who is right, it's about democracy. love it or leave it.

Democracy is not about 'majority rule', that's a mischaracterization, it is about

Whoever gets the most votes, wins.

Whoever votes, whoever wins, that demographic of supporters is always changing.

This 'minority' of which you speak is vague

And how does 'whoever gets the least votes, wins' make sense?

There is no logic there, none.

Hell, with democracy, often it is minority groups who find themselves in the voting majority.

Let the minority groups have their say by one person, one vote.

You want the minorities to win? Then one person, one vote, is the way to go.

That is the idea whose time has come.

Oh yeah, .....

Nothing spells 'subjective' like the guy who shtupped a porn star, paid her $130,000 hush money, got his attorney jailed and threw him under the bus,

Nothing spells 'subjective' like the guy who was fined $2,000,000 for charity fraud,

Nothing spells 'subjective' like the guy that was negotiating to build a hotel in Moscow, and told the American public he had nothing going on in Russia,

Nothing spells 'subjective' like the guy who admitted on Howard Stern that he likes to barge in while teens are dressing to "inspect" them during pageants,

Nothing spells 'subjective' like the guy that brags about grabbing women's genitals because, as a celebrity, he can get away with it,

Nothing spells 'subjective' like the guy that some 25 women have accused him of sexual misconduct,

Nothing spells 'subjective' like the guy that settled $25,000,000 in a class action lawsuit for screwing thousands out of millions for a fake university,

Nothing spells 'subjective' like the guy that was sued over 100 times for not paying contractors,

Nothing spells 'subjective' like the guy that once tried to use eminent domain to screw a widow out of her home so he could build a limo garage,

Nothing spells 'subjective' like the guy that screwed over the good townspeople of Aberdeenshire Scotland so that he could build a golf course there,

Give me break.

and just what do you think the term 'liberal democracy' means? Hmmm?

It means a civilization with individual rights, one person one vote ( which you seem to be against ) , constitution, rule of law ( as opposed to rule of men) etc, as opposed to a dictatorship or a monarchy.

We repeal it by bringing a relevant case to SCOTUS, a more liberal SCOTUS, and we overturn it.

But, that's a long haul objective, what we can do in the short term is enact legislation to restore the gutted provisions, which the voting rights act before the senate is supposed to do, pretty much.

A liberal Democracy is a lot more than a ballot box, it is a civilized nation where there is a constitution and the rule of law, of which a healthy nation is in a liberal democracy's best interest.

the term 'democracy' when applied to a nation/republic, has a much broader meaning that just elections.

You seem to have forgotten that it is Congress who has given the agencies, within prescribed parameters, the right to create rules and regulations over the areas they regulate. The reason for this is to take the burden of Congress regarding minutia regulation. America is just too big for Congress to deal with every little thing.

https://libguides.law.gsu.edu

Agencies are given the authority to create administrative law through laws enacted by Congress. The law comes in the form of rules, regulations, procedures, orders, and decisions. In creating these "laws," the agency acts as quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative entity.

And that was all the OP intended, seems to me.

 

No, you stated the majority was a mob.

My rebuttal indicated the absurdity of that contention, the point which you missed, entirely,

 

As concise as possible:

 

The laws affect everyone the same. Seriously, how stupid do you think these people are?

That first line is a load of crap. Utter bull.
Second line has been fixed with the 2-4 extra weeks of being able to vote.
Third line has been fixed with the 2-4 extra weeks of being able to vote.
Fourth line, get a damn ID. Not that hard.
Fifth line, something that every person that lives in the boonies has to deal with. Either take the time and go and vote, or don't. Its a choice. I know people who live 30 miles from their nearing voting spot and yet they still vote.
Sixth line, hence why they are allowed to send in mail in ballots.

Hence why they are allowed to send in mail in ballots.

Its sophistry because you have to stretch to make it about democracy. Every single time I mentioned sophistry its because those things are not dependent on democracy and democracy is not dependent on them. Every form of government has to deal with the same things.

The nations peoples health is something that EVERY form of government deals with. It is not dependent on the type of government. That is why its sophistry. Even China has a UHC type of system yet they are not a democracy.

Bull ****. I've read it. Its a power grab.

Again, sophistry.

Every country, be it a democracy or a dictatorship has to deal with immigration. Immigration in and of itself does nothing about democracy. The only way that it has an effect on democracy is whether or not you let an immigrant vote in your elections or not. And news flash...most countries don't allow immigrants to vote in their elections until they become citizens. Improving agriculture does nothing towards democracy.

Not going to address everything because posts are getting too long. And I'm lazy.

Do you notice how you want things done? Repeal Citizens united via a "more liberal court"....in other words you want them to vote based on what you want to happen. Not what is a violation of Rights. Like it or not spending money on a campaign IS a form of free speech. And you want the courts to silence that free speech. Via an activist court.

As for the things you listed, all in regards to Trump... How are you going to make such a law in a way that doesn't infringe on who people want to vote for? How are you going to make such a law period? I think its immoral to be a vegan. Does that mean that person is no longer allowed to become President? I think its immoral to have dogs. Does that mean that person is no longer allowed to become President? You talk about securing peoples Rights to vote....but you want to dictate who they can and can't vote for? Based on subjectivity? Do you not see the contradiction?

And yes, I know the excuse that is given to allow Agencies to make law. Its a piss poor excuse to abdicate doing your job. I would rather Congress deal with the minutia than have them fighting over whether or not they should be using gender fluid language. Maybe if they had to deal with the minutia we wouldn't have such division in our country because they'd be having to deal with real issues instead of made up issues.

 

Going by the logic that you are displaying then black people are not minorities as there are millions upon millions of them. IE: Your logic is ignoring the context.

 

That’s a shame. But it looks like you’ve got a ways to go to beat how much the Dems used it against trump:

“During Donald Trump’s presidency, the Senate GOP has held roll call votes to break a filibuster and end debate on nominees 314 times. All previous presidents combined faced 244 roll call votes.”

Let us know when we break the 300 times mark. Until then suck it up. We didn’t change the rules to shutdown filibuster when your side used it a GROSSLY ABSURD amount of times. So suck it up.

 

Speaking of.........They would stop equating steps to protect the public's health, and the economy, with tyranny.

Greene Tiptoes Up To The Line Of Arguing That Guns Should Be Used Against Dems

She was responding to a question from Gorka about Georgia’s Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams recent call for gun reform in the state. As no newbie to violent threats — and the repercussions of said threats — Greene even seemed to catch herself toward the end of the diatribe, calling her pseudo-violent remarks a “shame” and suggesting Americans “shouldn’t have to think that way,” before attempting to cast the call-to-arms as an innocent defense of state rights.

Here’s the full quote:

“Ultimately the truth is it’s our Second Amendment rights, our right to bear arms, that protects Americans and give us the ability to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government. And I hate to use this language but Democrats, they’re exactly — they’re doing exactly what our founders talked about when they gave us the precious rights that we have.”

“And you know, no one wants violence and I say all the time I am not a violent person. I hope to never see a civil war in this country and that’s why you hear me toss around ‘national divorce.’ The federal government has grown so big and the Democrats are willing to use the power of the federal government, that it really violates people’s rights and that’s why state rights are so important. It’s a shame, we shouldn’t think that way, but I don’t know what’s going to happen in the future, but we always have to make sure that we are defending our Second Amendment rights and making sure that our state rights are protected.”
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblo...-should-be-used-against-dems-second-amendment

It's a sign of just how radicalized some Repub voters have become that a nut case like Greene could be elected in the first place. Perhaps worst still, that she has not been censored by Repub leadership or expelled from Congress.

 

Why did our founders enshrine the right to bear arms?

 

Why do you think I care about your set of rules?

 

I wonder if she ever said anything like this.... If you see anyone from that cabinet in a department store in the gasoline station you get out and you form a crowd and you push back on them and you let them know they're not welcome anymore anywhere

 

Too hard to deal with what she said?

 

Too hard for you to defend it?

 

You're confused. I'm not defending what Greene said.

 

If the POT was a fact based party interested in strengthening democracy.......

Then we wouldn't be hearing stuff like this.

Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) said late Wednesday that he would only vote for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to lead the Republican Party in the upper chamber if he proves he can work effectively with former President Trump.

"If you want to be a Republican leader in the House or the Senate, you have to have a working relationship with President Donald Trump. He's the most consequential Republican since Ronald Reagan," Graham, a close ally of Trump's, said on Fox News's "Hannity." "It's his nomination if he wants it, and I think he'll get reelected in 2024."
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/589525-graham-says-mcconnell-must-make-amends-with-trump

 

The GTP wants to be in power.

Period

 

And none of your suggestions mention dishonesty, corruption, lack of character, incompetence.... All the things that make a difference between a functional, effective governance and a charade; a pig with makeup. That is what we have now. People with a total disconnect between what they are- and what they say they are. They will "support" anything it takes to hold power. But what they will do- is whatever works to profit from that power. You help them do that.

Nobody has the power to force another person to become honorable- and the pretense of honor and righteousness in a person is far worse and far more dangerous than one who does it openly instead of hiding it..
Until you recognize where your power is and where it is not- you will not be able to change anything about this situation that will actually make a difference.
Politicians pretend to support things all the time that they have absolutely no intention of allowing to actually happen beneficially.
IF that were not true, the mess we are in would never have happened in the first place.

 

Why don't you try actually working and dealing with the opposition rather than bulldozing them?

 

That's a quaint notion, unfortunately. A throwback to a bygone era before McTreason ushered in the "I will let nothing pass" strategy of denying the majority of Americans the legislative agenda they voted for.

 

Trump didn't start that and he isn't responsible for the over the top proposals Democrats are trying to push through, much of which even Democrats don't want. Even Bush never saw the level of obstruction Trump had to deal with.

 

Justified by the fact his agenda was opposed by a majority of Americans. As opposed to McTurtle obstructing Obama's agenda, in historic fashion, which was supported by the majority.

 

Be careful, don’t overtax their little brains.

 

The reason why we have an electoral college and the separation of powers in the 3 branches of government, is so people that think like you, don't get control of the government where they can force their ideology onto American citizens.
Thats like the entire point of the Constitution.
I can see why this upsets you.

 

You've probably forgotten Repubs controlled Congress for a good part of Bush's reign of terror............if you knew in the first place.