2 hours ago, downundermike said:

@Gannan @Dave Moss should we tell him ??

Please do, Id love to hear a 15 year old tell me about the parties mysteriously "switching" where now democrats can take credit for everything the GOP actually accomplished in history

2 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh come on, just take a guess. 

What do you want the answer to be, WGB?  Do you want to just answer for me??

From what I understand from various sources about this bill:

• Sets standard statewide hours for early voting rather than inconsistent across counties
• Adds an extra hour to weekday voting hours during the 2 weeks leading up to the election to give people more time to vote
• Creates a process for absentee voters to correct their ballot if an error is made or signature validation is questioned (rather than dismiss the vote)
• Expand access for poll watchers
• Larger counties to have camera surveillance if feasible
• Mail-in ballots require voters to write their Driver's license or state ID number, the last 4 of their SSN or write a statement that they do not have a number
• If assisting 3 or more voters with transportation to the polling place, you have to fill out a form
• If driving someone up to curbside due to disability, that person has to exit the car so only the voter is casting their vote (just like in the voting booth inside), unless they are approved under the usual accompaniment law in the voting booth
• Prevent sending absentee ballots to those who do not request them
• Allows voters to be able to vote if they were in line before the polling place closing time
• Ban drive-thru voting
• Ban 24 hour voting

The Democrats are concerned that increasing poll watchers will create intimidation.  That drive-thru and 24 hour voting benefited people of color.  What are the other arguments against this bill? 

1 hour ago, mr_hunt said:

It doesnt take a college education to spell OHIO

Pepe Sylvia, maybe, its got a lot of letters.  You guys are screwed

1 hour ago, jsdarkstar said:

Yep. You believe your Superior to others don't you. Not prejudiced or bigoted much. 

Lol

The results of your voter eligibility tests have come back.... its not good.

4 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Please do, Id love to hear a 15 year old tell me about the parties mysteriously "switching" where now democrats can take credit for everything the GOP actually accomplished in history

Mysteriously switching? Texas didn’t have a Republican senator until 1960 when John Tower got elected.  It’s really not all that mysterious.

9 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

The voting restrictions bills are just meant to disqualify people who might vote for Democrats.

All you have to do is look at the last 3 elections.

2012, 7.9 million votes, Romney had 1.26 million more votes than Obama

2016, 8.9 million votes, Trump had 807 thousand more votes than Hillary

2020, 11.9 million votes, Trump had 631 thousand more votes than Biden.

 

Fact is there is more Democratic voters in the US, and the more people that vote, the more likely it is that a Democrat wins.

13 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

The voting restrictions bills are just meant to disqualify people who might vote for Democrats.  They’re trying to get rid of as many legal voters as they can. It has no basis in reality.  
 

The Republican party realizes the demographics are shifting away from them and that they don’t have a message that resonates with anyone except angry white people.  White people are already less than 50% of the population in Texas.  This is the Republicans last gasp in Texas.

And the Democrats realize that they need to inorganically shift those demographics.  Both are evil

But requiring a voter ID will never be wrong and its a losing argument to fight it.  Thats why they ran to DC to get in front of cameras.  Because if they cant win the logic battle theyll appeal to emotions, damnit!

Also, Trump made inroads with people of color and legal immigrants.  That is not a sign that the Dems messages are exactly winning

2 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

And the Democrats realize that they need to inorganically shift those demographics.  Both are evil

But requiring a voter ID will never be wrong and its a losing argument to fight it.  Thats why they ran to DC to get in front of cameras.  Because if they cant win the logic battle theyll appeal to emotions, damnit!

It’s a publicity stunt.  Like holding a press conference at the warehouse of a landscaping company.

21 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Please do, Id love to hear a 15 year old tell me about the parties mysteriously "switching" where now democrats can take credit for everything the GOP actually accomplished in history

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

Quote

The Republican and Democratic parties of the United States didn't always stand for what they do today. 

During the 1860s, Republicans, who dominated northern states, orchestrated an ambitious expansion of federal power, helping to fund the transcontinental railroad, the state university system and the settlement of the West by homesteaders, and instating a national currency and protective tariff. Democrats, who dominated the South, opposed those measures. 

After the Civil War, Republicans passed laws that granted protections for Black Americans and advanced social justice. And again, Democrats largely opposed these apparent expansions of federal power.

Sound like an alternate universe? Fast forward to 1936.

 

So, sometime between the 1860s and 1936, the (Democratic) party of small government became the party of big government, and the (Republican) party of big government became rhetorically committed to curbing federal power.

 

11 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Mysteriously switching? Texas didn’t have a Republican senator until 1960 when John Tower got elected.  It’s really not all that mysterious.

Gotta love the talking point that Selectively ignores the actual history of the evolution of both parties. it's been used as a talking point for years now. 

The idea is, Dems owned slaves, so Pelosi supports slavery and hates blacks. Why would blacks vote for Dems who support slavery when they were freed by Republicans. These people thought up Q they can selectively use history as a weaponized tool as well. It's absurd on it's face.

4 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Also, Trump made inroads with people of color and legal immigrants.  That is not a sign that the Dems messages are exactly winning

Using scare tactics worked better in 2016.

@Mike31mt

19th century[edit]

The first two major parties in the United States were the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party. The Federalists experienced success in the 1790s but lost power in the 1800 elections and collapsed after the War of 1812. Many former Federalists, including John Quincy Adams, became members of the Democratic-Republican Party. After the 1824 presidential election, the Democratic-Republicans fractured between supporters of Adams and supporters of Andrew Jackson. Jackson's followers formed the Democratic Party, while those who supported Adams formed the National Republican Party. Two short-lived but significant third parties, the Anti-Masonic Party and the Nullifier Party, also arose during this period. In the 1830s, opponents of Jackson coalesced into the Whig Party.

The United States experienced another period of political realignment in the 1850s. The Whigs collapsed as a national party due to sectional tensions regarding slavery. The Republican Party and the American Party both sought to succeed the Whigs as the main opposition to the Democratic Party, and the Republicans eventually became the most popular party in the Northern United States. The Republicans absorbed many Northern Whigs, as well as some anti-slavery Democrats and much of the Free Soil Party. Notable Whigs who joined the Republican Party include Abraham Lincoln and William Seward, while notable Democrats who joined the Republican Party include Hannibal Hamlin and Galusha A. Grow. Many Southern Whigs became Democrats, though some formed the Constitutional Union Party to contest the 1860 presidential election. During the Reconstruction Era that followed the American Civil War, many Republicans and African Americans held office in the South. Republicans dissatisfied with Radical Republican President Ulysses S. Grant formed the Liberal Republican Party for the 1872 presidential election, and many of these Liberal Republicans later joined the Democratic Party. After the end of Reconstruction the Republican Party generally dominated the North, while a resurgent Democratic Party dominated the South.

By the late 19th century, as the Democratic and Republican parties became more established, party switching became less frequent. Nonetheless major conflicts in both major parties occurred in the 1890s, largely over the issue of monetary policy, and Republican supporters of free silver formed the Silver Republican Party. Many of these, including Henry M. Teller and Fred Dubois, later joined the Democratic Party.

20th century[edit]

Following Theodore Roosevelt's loss to William Howard Taft in the 1912 Republican Party presidential primaries, Roosevelt and his followers broke off from the Republican party to form the Bull Moose Party.^[1] Wisconsin senator Robert M. La Follette also launched a presidential bid under the Progressive Party in 1924 after both the Republican Party and Democratic Party nominated conservative candidates.^[2] A period of realignment commenced following the onset of the Great Depression, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt constructed the successful New Deal coalition. Over the ensuing decades, Roosevelt's Democrats embraced several tenets of modern American liberalism, while the Republican Party tended to favor conservatism.

The transition into today's Democratic Party was cemented in 1948, when Harry Truman introduced a pro-civil rights platform and, in response, many Democrats walked out and formed the Dixiecrats. Most rejoined the Democrats over the next decade, but in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. Anti-civil rights members left the Democratic Party in droves, and Senator Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrats' presidential candidate from 1948, joined the Republican Party.^[3][4]

5 minutes ago, downundermike said:

@Mike31mt

19th century[edit]

The first two major parties in the United States were the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party. The Federalists experienced success in the 1790s but lost power in the 1800 elections and collapsed after the War of 1812. Many former Federalists, including John Quincy Adams, became members of the Democratic-Republican Party. After the 1824 presidential election, the Democratic-Republicans fractured between supporters of Adams and supporters of Andrew Jackson. Jackson's followers formed the Democratic Party, while those who supported Adams formed the National Republican Party. Two short-lived but significant third parties, the Anti-Masonic Party and the Nullifier Party, also arose during this period. In the 1830s, opponents of Jackson coalesced into the Whig Party.

The United States experienced another period of political realignment in the 1850s. The Whigs collapsed as a national party due to sectional tensions regarding slavery. The Republican Party and the American Party both sought to succeed the Whigs as the main opposition to the Democratic Party, and the Republicans eventually became the most popular party in the Northern United States. The Republicans absorbed many Northern Whigs, as well as some anti-slavery Democrats and much of the Free Soil Party. Notable Whigs who joined the Republican Party include Abraham Lincoln and William Seward, while notable Democrats who joined the Republican Party include Hannibal Hamlin and Galusha A. Grow. Many Southern Whigs became Democrats, though some formed the Constitutional Union Party to contest the 1860 presidential election. During the Reconstruction Era that followed the American Civil War, many Republicans and African Americans held office in the South. Republicans dissatisfied with Radical Republican President Ulysses S. Grant formed the Liberal Republican Party for the 1872 presidential election, and many of these Liberal Republicans later joined the Democratic Party. After the end of Reconstruction the Republican Party generally dominated the North, while a resurgent Democratic Party dominated the South.

By the late 19th century, as the Democratic and Republican parties became more established, party switching became less frequent. Nonetheless major conflicts in both major parties occurred in the 1890s, largely over the issue of monetary policy, and Republican supporters of free silver formed the Silver Republican Party. Many of these, including Henry M. Teller and Fred Dubois, later joined the Democratic Party.

20th century[edit]

Following Theodore Roosevelt's loss to William Howard Taft in the 1912 Republican Party presidential primaries, Roosevelt and his followers broke off from the Republican party to form the Bull Moose Party.^[1] Wisconsin senator Robert M. La Follette also launched a presidential bid under the Progressive Party in 1924 after both the Republican Party and Democratic Party nominated conservative candidates.^[2] A period of realignment commenced following the onset of the Great Depression, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt constructed the successful New Deal coalition. Over the ensuing decades, Roosevelt's Democrats embraced several tenets of modern American liberalism, while the Republican Party tended to favor conservatism.

The transition into today's Democratic Party was cemented in 1948, when Harry Truman introduced a pro-civil rights platform and, in response, many Democrats walked out and formed the Dixiecrats. Most rejoined the Democrats over the next decade, but in the 1960s, Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act. Anti-civil rights members left the Democratic Party in droves, and Senator Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrats' presidential candidate from 1948, joined the Republican Party.^[3][4]

it's refreshing to read the actual history of how both parties evolved over time. Instead of propaganda and talking points.

2 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Gotta love the talking point that Selectively ignores the actual history of the evolution of both parties. it's been used as a talking point for years now. 

The idea is, Dems owned slaves, so Pelosi supports slavery and hates blacks. Why would blacks vote for Dems who support slavery when they were freed by Republicans. These people thought up Q they can selectively use history as a weaponized tool as well. It's absurd on it's face.

Thomas Jefferson’s party has been around a lot longer and was always a national party.  Republicans were a regional party that was only in the North.  They came along in the mid 1850s after the Whigs fell apart over the issue of - wait for it - slavery.  The Republicans were a one-issue party.  They were against slavery’s expansion.  Taking this information and trying to apply it to politics in 2021 is useless.

15 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

it's refreshing to read the actual history of how both parties evolved over time. Instead of propaganda and talking points.

All you have to do is look at the early 20th century voting maps.  Does this look like the same parties today ???

1904

2020

36 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Please do, Id love to hear a 15 year old tell me about the parties mysteriously "switching" where now democrats can take credit for everything the GOP actually accomplished in history

What do you want the answer to be, WGB?  Do you want to just answer for me??

I just want you to be honest and venture a guess. I want to know what you honestly think the outcome would've been.

39 minutes ago, NOTW said:

 

I believe I heard that they were also going to significantly reduce the number of urban polling locations.

 

31 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

And the Democrats realize that they need to inorganically shift those demographics.  Both are evil

But requiring a voter ID will never be wrong and its a losing argument to fight it.  Thats why they ran to DC to get in front of cameras.  Because if they cant win the logic battle theyll appeal to emotions, damnit!

Also, Trump made inroads with people of color and legal immigrants.  That is not a sign that the Dems messages are exactly winning

As opposed to the current GOP messaging that election integrity was an issue last November resulting in a majority of republican voters thinking the Biden didn't rightfully win. That's a winning message if I've ever seen one.

38 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

That is not a sign that the Dems messages are exactly winning

Then why did Trump lose the popular vote

These nimrods watch and hear the calls Trump made to try and get people to throw the election and it means nothing.

However, they KNOW mail in ballots, the kind the President used, are horribly corrupt and unsafe. They do not require any proof for this, or anything else.

 

They know.

10 minutes ago, downundermike said:

All you have to do is look at the early 20th century voting maps.  Does this look like the same parties today ???

1904

2020

1904 New York, NJ and California Red, while Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and Alabama are Blue. But hey, there was no Shift. 

43 minutes ago, Mike31mt said:

Also, Trump made inroads with people of color and legal immigrants.  That is not a sign that the Dems messages are exactly winning

This should be VERY concerning for Democrats. The simple fact is many minorities and immigrants aren't on board with the progressive, woke wing of the party. The more the Democrats become a party of college educated, white, wealthy liberal elites, the more they will struggle to hold on to their historical advantages with minority groups. Just some examples:

Cubans, Venezuelans and other South and Central Americans: Bernie Sanders et. al are just kryptonite here. These are people who escaped the horrors of socialism, and messages about the left turning more socialist will continue to cost them votes. What happened in Miami-Dade County in should be a MASSIVE wakeup call to the Democratic Party to muzzle people like Sanders, Warren, AOC, etc.

African-Americans: As a group, African-Americans, and particularly religious folks, are socially conservative. When gay marriage didn't pass in CA in the early 2000s, it was because black and Latino voters shot it down. Furthermore, things like "defund the police" are not helpful. AA voters are practical (hence the Biden support). The LGBTQ+ and law enforcement messages are problematic for Democrats.

Asians: Some of this is similar to the 1st group -- Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, etc. immigrants who are repulsed by socialism. Also, Asians view things like affirmative action very negatively. Had Trump not gone all in on the racist rhetoric about the virus, he could have made real gains here.

When you look at 2020, it's amazing how POORLY the Democrats did given the circumstances. You were running against an imbecile during a pandemic and an economic recession, yet you lost seats in the House and only split the Senate. Biden was the perfect candidate to beat Trump, but any further left and Trump is still in office. And yet somehow the Dems think they have a mandate. They are slitting their own throats (per usual).

7 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

As opposed to the current GOP messaging that election integrity was an issue last November resulting in a majority of republican voters thinking the Biden didn't rightfully win. That's a winning message if I've ever seen one.

And this is the other side of the coin. Instead of placating ex-President man-baby with these ridiculous voting laws that solve a made-up problem, the GOP should be pounding the Democrats = socialists message 24/7. Don't give the Dems this gift of saying the GOP is trying to stop minorities from voting. You're finally starting to break the Dem stranglehold on minority voters, and you decide to do the ONE THING that will push them back to the left. 

Both parties are just monumentally stupid.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

This should be VERY concerning for Democrats. The simple fact is many minorities and immigrants aren't on board with the progressive, woke wing of the party. The more the Democrats become a party of college educated, white, wealthy liberal elites, the more they will struggle to hold on to their historical advantages with minority groups. Just some examples:

Cubans, Venezuelans and other South and Central Americans: Bernie Sanders et. al are just kryptonite here. These are people who escaped the horrors of socialism, and messages about the left turning more socialist will continue to cost them votes. What happened in Miami-Dade County in should be a MASSIVE wakeup call to the Democratic Party to muzzle people like Sanders, Warren, AOC, etc.

African-Americans: As a group, African-Americans, and particularly religious folks, are socially conservative. When gay marriage didn't pass in CA in the early 2000s, it was because black and Latino voters shot it down. Furthermore, things like "defund the police" are not helpful. AA voters are practical (hence the Biden support). The LGBTQ+ and law enforcement messages are problematic for Democrats.

Asians: Some of this is similar to the 1st group -- Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, etc. immigrants who are repulsed by socialism. Also, Asians view things like affirmative action very negatively. Had Trump not gone all in on the racist rhetoric about the virus, he could have made real gains here.

When you look at 2020, it's amazing how POORLY the Democrats did given the circumstances. You were running against an imbecile during a pandemic and an economic recession, yet you lost seats in the House and only split the Senate. Biden was the perfect candidate to beat Trump, but any further left and Trump is still in office. And yet somehow the Dems think they have a mandate. They are slitting their own throats (per usual).

Yet, Biden still got 81 Million votes. A Record.