House Dems pass NASA bill sending voting rights to certain Senate end

Please. The prison system is slap-full of black Democrats. That’s the majority of the prison population right there. They Trump voters? LOL

Rapists and murderers lose their rights. How does a rapist or murderer get the same voice as a veteran or law-abiding citizen?

 

Uh-huh...
GOP’s Objection to Vote for Felons Imperils Its Own Supporters

• Survey indicates felons include sizable number of Republicans
• But GOP officials are unsupportive of restoring voting rights

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...o-vote-for-felons-imperils-its-own-supporters

 

If you think guns are any less of a right than voting than you’re definitely a liberal. Does the constitution not label the right to bear as a right? You can’t pick and choose what is a right and what is not, the constitution does that for us. You sir are not above the constitution

 

Bloomberg.com? You have to be kidding me. Please, son. Try again.

 

ROFL, in a topic stemming from a nypost.com article? Yea right.
The link I provided will suffice as proof enough for the purpose of this discussion disproving your theories.
Your opinion has been noted and disproved.

Continue repeating it if you enjoy looking like a fool. Its your right.

 

It should be, but that is not the point.

The fact that you can take a piece of legislation with "NASA" in the title that has already been voted on and use some black magic trickery and fabrication to COMPLETELY remove the NASA part, fully replacing it with a copy/paste job of the voting "rights" bills, in their entirety is, to me anyway, a very serious problem. Most of the time, a run of the mill vote about NASA's right to lease their propertys out is one of those that passes with 98% support, no meaningful debate or dissent, and no news coverage whatsoever because it's minor, trivial details that pretty much everyone is in favor of. But you drop the voting stuff into it and all of a sudden, a lot of people don't even realize what's going on.

That that can be done in the first place is bad, and I can only hope is a result of an unintended consequence of some complex language in another completely unrelated bill that ultimately became law. But that the dems would actually take advantage of what amounts to a loophole by technicality is enough to make me sick. If you don't have the votes, well, tough, but trying to sneak it through in another now completely incorrectly titled bill is flat out cheating. And it seems the dems mantra these days is "If you can't win, cheat."

This loophole needs to be destroyed. AND we need a single topic bill to force a NASA bill to be a NASA bill, nothing more, and nothing less, with that being true for all bills. Any language that is not substantively about the topic becomes null and void, so some Senator from whatever State can't sneak a bridge for his or her state into a bill that has NOTHING to do with that. Or as is being tried here, even worse.

 

Congress is all F U. When they can attach things that have nothing to do with what a bill or legislation is intended for, that isn't germane to the bill or have something directly relating to the bill or legislation, that should be against the law. All this shows is congress, in this case Democrats are willing to use all the dirty tricks they can, shenanigans that go against good government and honesty. In plain English, the Democrats in this case are willing to lie and cheat to get what they want.


One thing is for sure, the Democrats now have no room at all to talk bad about Republicans. They're just as devious and underhanded as the GOP is. That should tell you something about our elected leaders and the two major parties. Never believe a word or anything they say, they’re nothing but tricksters and liars, very devious liars.

 

Dude, calm down. Maybe you aren’t familiar with doing things by the rules, but if the procedural rules of Congress permit this, what’s the problem?
The procedural rules of Congress also permit a party to filibuster and block legislation, even if they are in the minority.

If one rule is ok, why not the other?

 

WTF?? That argument is much different than stating the constitution forbids mail in voting.

 

To the extent that it's feasible and secure!! There's no gdamn reason to make voting harder than necessary as some kind of test to show worthiness. There's exactly NO reason to need to stand in line to cast a freaking vote in 2022!

The rest of your post is lame straw man arguments.

 

So … I’m right. You want to exclude people from voting because you think they will vote for your political opponents.

And they get the same rights because they are citizens. There is no logical reason to link the right to vote (or to deprive that right) with conviction for a crime. Unless that crime was related to voting or elections.

It is logical to link the right to own a firearm with someone who is convicted of a violent crime. It is logical to link freedom from warrantless search and seizure with someone who is found to have child porn on their computer.

But no logical link between removing voting rights and most felonies.

 

I don't know what that means, but it gave me a chuckle.

 

I don't know if anybody is watching the actual Senate "debate" on these bills (I suspect few to none), but I flipped over to watch a few minutes.

Senator Alex Padilla (Ca) has the floor and he's been ****ing awesome... He's using humor and the fact that he's a former SOS of California gives him a unique platform. Never thought much of him before today, but he's nailing it...

Impressive...

 

The problem is that if I did this to you, or you did this to me, we'd go to jail (assuming we got caught, anyway), and if it's illegal for us, it should be illegal for them.

The Senate has always been intended to be a more deliberative body. Sort of like the adults in the room compared to the House, which frequently acts too fast, too emotionally, and without thinking things through all the way. The filibuster forces the Senate to slow down, take a deep breath, and make sure the proposals coming out of the HYouse actually make good law, frequently requiring at least some bipartisanship. That seems wise to me.

 

How rich when it was Democrats who historically oppose voting rights. You can wish all you wantbunder the Constitution it is NOT a federal matter and that cannot simply be overridden by legislation

And since no one is. But if they were then as you note there are already laws on the books.

It is sad youvhave to make such specious and fallacious statements.

Where can't they and be specific as to why they cannot. And define what is "easily, conveniently, and securely vote" as to what is not, what is the line in the sand and don't give me an arbitrary one.

And you keep dodging thebissue HERE, the method the Dems are using in this attempted federal take over of plenary state power.

 

No you proved mine and others about your postings. Thank you.

 

The Rep's are filibustering this bill. The Dems are trying to CHANGE the rules not using them.

 

Anything not in the Constitution is forbidden. Hence the 10th.

 

best posts ever, everyone says so... bigly

 

Just pointing out the trolling.

 

is that what you're doing?

 

https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/new...ers-political-views-finds-surprising-results/

Please, educate yourself

I want all eligible Americans to be able to vote as conveniently as possible. You should ask yourself why you don’t.

 

No, your turning that around.

I asked to what extent. There are always more options to make it easier. To what extent?

 

The Senate just confirmed that Manchin and Sinema are DINO's...

48-52 to change the filibuster rules JUST for voting rights...

Manchin will likely churn on in WVA, although I cannot imagine anybody in his caucus working much with him going forward...

Krysten Sinema is politically DOA come 2024... she will be rapidly and painfully primaried...

 

Since you are obviously unable to comprehend what is being said there is no reason to continue this conversation