Because he said he considers reaching broad consensus easier then "states choose their own rules" (as it seems to be the case right now).
Take it with him.
You don't need equivalence; you still need both sides to agree to reach consensus.1> "Both sides" is a distraction. It posits an equivalence that does not exist.
And without consensus it will not pass Senate no matter how well-intentioned.
Democrats: We want a unified set of core rules to ensure fairness that applies to everyone equally and addresses the states constantly trying to deny citizens their Constitutional right to vote.
D3thray: Yeah, they're just selfish, greedy jerks that want power to cause harm.
Do you even hear yourself?
How exactly do you ensure they don't get worse when they are already getting worse - leading to this new act that is supposed to "fix" those problems?
Do you see this act as fruitless attempt that will get no traction? Or just another way to show GOP "values" and nothing else?
The Voter Rights Act?
It protects people's right to vote, ensuring that every citizen who's of age should have equitable access to submit a vote. That's the goal, whether it's sufficient to achieve that by itself is up for debate.
What's not up for debate is if it's some attempt by Democrats to seize power. It isn't. The only people pushing that bullshit are lying fascists projecting their own malicious intent. Giving their arguments any credence is asinine and demonstrates intentional bad faith.
Acting as if those views are legitimate positions is giving them credence. They're as abusive and false as someone saying "the jews are drinking the blood of Christian babies!"
If you think I'm giving them "credence", you don't understand what the word means.
Let's stick to the facts. I really don't see the point in entertaining whether someone is lying or just completely disconnected from reality.And to disprove self-serving perception
Depends on how you mean "net positive". If you mean "politically advantageous, at the expense of equitable and fair elections", then none, probably. If you mean "protecting the rights and freedoms of Republican voters", then pretty much all of them.which of those proposed measures do you think will be net positive for Republicans?
And if you mean the former, then I dismiss that as a valid concern, because you're talking about maliciously cheating the electoral system to illicitly secure power against the will of the people. Yes, fascists feel that way. No, those whines don't deserve consideration; they deserve nothing but mockery and derision.
As far as i see i didn't act like those are "legitimate positions". It's views people hold; they don't need broad legitimacy to exist and shape their actions.
I just like understanding internal logic of different narratives - even if i do not necessarily share underlying premises.Let's stick to the facts. I really don't see the point in entertaining whether someone is lying or just completely disconnected from reality.
And testing how strong or weak those underlying premises are.
Many measures suggested in this act, as far as i'm aware, appeared as Democrat initiatives before elections. Elections they quite clearly wanted to win against Republicans.Depends on how you mean "net positive". If you mean "politically advantageous, at the expense of equitable and fair elections", then none, probably. If you mean "protecting the rights and freedoms of Republican voters", then pretty much all of them.
As such assuming them to be data-based approaches intended to increase Democrat turnout/share looks like reasonable heuristic. And makes Republican opposition to them perfectly natural.
You don't seem to dispute such possibility; obviously you would see their loss as net positive given everything else they have done.
"Cheating" is acting outside of established rules; if established rules had allowed for everything that is happening - be that through creative interpretation of laws or through law non-enforcement - then that is just "acting within systemic framework". However flawed that framework might be.And if you mean the former, then I dismiss that as a valid concern, because you're talking about maliciously cheating the electoral system to illicitly secure power against the will of the people. Yes, fascists feel that way. No, those whines don't deserve consideration; they deserve nothing but mockery and derision.
Changing the rules by adding another law layer can also be a form of cheating - especially laws favoring one of the parties in an ongoing competition when the same party will be in charge of enforcing them. We have seen plenty examples of that on state level; you can see gerrymandering process itself as one of such legislative levers.
Opposition is supposed to prevent such one-sided moves; and currently Senate doesn't allow one party to ram anything through easily. Thus proposed law not passing would be system working as intended.
...and to change it through voting you would have to be already winning within existing framework - OR have shared goals.
Last edited by Shalcker; 2022-01-25 at 10:19 AM.
How's it you're consistently the dumber paid troll? Like do you even grasp all the hoops you have to jump through to run a fair election with decent turnouts? Is there some kind of firewall that prevents you from accessing all of the actual statements of GOP politicians who expressly state their actions are to suppress voting?