July 13, 20214 yr 28 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: sounds more like rationalization than any statement of fact, when even 'not leftist' dems such as yourself seem to work against foundational principles of the country....
July 13, 20214 yr 19 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: arent you australian? Born in Australia and moved here when I was 14. Lived here for 33 years now. Not sure what that has to do with the irony of your post.
July 13, 20214 yr 31 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: Not when the States Like Texas and Florida try to suppress the vote and discriminate against minorities. I guess making people guess how many Jelly Beans are in the Jar or having a Poll Tax is ok with you as long as the States pass those rules. Yeah, if only there were a way to outlaw such things. Oh, wait... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution These laws are ridiculous because they are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist (massive voter fraud). But states set their own rules, and if those rules violate Federal law or the Constitution, then you challenge them in court. If you want to give power over elections to the Federal Government, then pass an amendment to the Constitution. But we can't just ignore our founding document because you think it's important, just the same way we can't ignore it to ban abortion like the GOP wants.
July 13, 20214 yr 5 minutes ago, downundermike said: Born in Australia and moved here when I was 14. Lived here for 33 years now. Not sure what that has to do with the irony of your post. the lack of american roots explains not grasping our foundational principles. there is no irony there. I am amongst the most libertarian people you will see here.
July 13, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: the lack of american roots explains not grasping our foundational principles. there is no irony there. I am amongst the most libertarian people you will see here. The irony is it was Trump voting Republicans who stormed the capital in an attempt to stop the certification of a free and fair election. I may be new here, but isn't that one of the "foundational principles of the country...."
July 13, 20214 yr 3 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Yeah, if only there were a way to outlaw such things. Oh, wait... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution These laws are ridiculous because they are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist (massive voter fraud). But states set their own rules, and if those rules violate Federal law or the Constitution, then you challenge them in court. If you want to give power over elections to the Federal Government, then pass an amendment to the Constitution. But we can't just ignore our founding document because you think it's important, just the same way we can't ignore it to ban abortion like the GOP wants. Well, Congress can also pass voting rights legislation that prevents States from discriminating against minorities as well. While TJ is here to argue that States have the right to pass discriminatory voting legislation if they so desire. So then it's up to the Courts to determine if it's discriminatory or not? I'd rather see the John Lewis voting rights act passed, rather than file 26 lawsuits against every state that is passing such laws.
July 13, 20214 yr 38 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: we are so fortunately to have emotional children like JS here to tell us what should and should not happen. news flash JS, you are not enlightened in any way. just b/c you feel something strongly doesn't mean its a rational, well-thought out argument. none of the ID laws infringe on any of the constitutional protections, so long as everyone is treated the same. if I need to show an ID to pick up a prescription or get on a plane, certainly something as "sacred" as an election can warrant the same treatment. Typical, that you support discriminatory voter laws. Most people support making voting easier for everyone. You want to make it harder because that's the only way Trumplicans can win.
July 13, 20214 yr 55 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: like election integrity? Sounds like a strawman. Official word is that we just had the most secure election in history. On the other hand, voting rights are very much at risk here.
July 13, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, downundermike said: The irony is it was Trump voting Republicans who stormed the capital in an attempt to stop the certification of a free and fair election. I may be new here, but isn't that one of the "foundational principles of the country...." indeed it is - so you shouldn't be bothered by the laws to protect it. or does the ends only justify the means when it advances the liberal agenda? those that stormed the capital should lose their voting privileges permanently. just looking for some consistency. either we have principles or we dont.
July 13, 20214 yr 6 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: Well, Congress can also pass voting rights legislation that prevents States from discriminating against minorities as well. While TJ is here to argue that States have the right to pass discriminatory voting legislation if they so desire. So then it's up to the Courts to determine if it's discriminatory or not? I'd rather see the John Lewis voting rights act passed, rather than file 26 lawsuits against every state that is passing such laws. strawman. grow up, please. i am here saying the states are empowered to regulate elections within their borders. The SC just shot down your tantrum on the AZ laws.
July 13, 20214 yr 1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Sounds like a strawman. Official word is that we just had the most secure election in history. On the other hand, voting rights are very much at risk here. winners writing the history and all...lmao. what else would expect election officials to say? minimal requirements for voting are completely constitutional - as the AZ ruling just showed.
July 13, 20214 yr Just now, ToastJenkins said: strawman. grow up, please. i am here saying the states are empowered to regulate elections within their borders. The SC just shot down your tantrum on the AZ laws. Oh, please, you are the snowflake child, who supports voter suppression because your side lost an election. Yeah, the Supreme Court is packed with Trumplicans who support voter suppression.
July 13, 20214 yr 7 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: Well, Congress can also pass voting rights legislation that prevents States from discriminating against minorities as well. While TJ is here to argue that States have the right to pass discriminatory voting legislation if they so desire. So then it's up to the Courts to determine if it's discriminatory or not? I'd rather see the John Lewis voting rights act passed, rather than file 26 lawsuits against every state that is passing such laws. Yes. If you think the laws are discriminatory, then say they violate the 14th or 15th amendment. Oh, and about discriminating based on race... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution Quote Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. No one is passing a law saying minorities can't vote. If you want to argue that the law's intent is to do just that, then you...GO TO COURT. Sorry you have such a problem with laws and American democracy.
July 13, 20214 yr yes its even the SC that is out of touch and not you, Principal Skinner... you are the only triggered snowflake here.
July 13, 20214 yr 5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Sounds like a strawman. Official word is that we just had the most secure election in history. On the other hand, voting rights are very much at risk here. Once again, for like the 8 millionth time... THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE US CONSTITUTION. Should there be one? Probably. So pass an amendment. You can't be denied the right to vote based on race, sex, inability to pay a poll tax or age (if over 18). All done through amendments. The fact that these amendments were necessary proves that the universal right to vote doesn't exist. Again, I don't support any of these laws because they are "fixing" a problem that doesn't exist mainly to assuage the ego of a toddler. But that doesn't mean the Federal Government can just usurp power.
July 13, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, vikas83 said: Yes. If you think the laws are discriminatory, then say they violate the 14th or 15th amendment. Oh, and about discriminating based on race... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution No one is passing a law saying minorities can't vote. If you want to argue that the law's intent is to do just that, then you...GO TO COURT. Sorry you have such a problem with laws and American democracy. No, they are passing laws that have a discriminatory effect that makes voting harder for minorities. I'm sure the ACLU is already in Court and the Justice Dept. is reviewing such laws like in Georgia. That's one way to go about it. Again, Congress also has the power to pass voting rights legislation. They did in 1964 and 1965 in accordance with American Democracy and the Constitution. It seems that some here disagree with Congressional ability to do so as well as their right to do so. Is that Democracy?
July 13, 20214 yr 5 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said: minimal requirements for voting are completely constitutional - as the AZ ruling just showed. Winners? DHS was under the purview of a Republican administration. Krebs was/is a Republican. They are generally Constitutional but these moves are obviously being made to make it more difficult for certain demographics to vote.
July 13, 20214 yr It's not even that hard. Let the TX law pass, then have the DOJ go to court and sue to block it for being discriminatory based on race. That allows you to conduct discovery of all the GOP legislators to examine intent. I am 100% certain one of these idiots sent an email/text saying the point is to stop minorities from voting. Law overturned and cretins exposed. It's not that difficult.
July 13, 20214 yr 2 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: Winners? DHS was under the purview of a Republican administration. Krebs was/is a Republican. They are generally Constitutional but these moves are obviously being made to make it more difficult for certain demographics to vote. you assume that intent to rationalize your agenda. then you act offended if other assume you have a nefarious motive for these moves? hypocritical
July 13, 20214 yr 5 minutes ago, vikas83 said: THERE IS NO UNIVERSAL RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE US CONSTITUTION. I never said there was, but over the last 70 years or so, the Court has obviously and repeatedly acknowledged an individual right to vote
July 13, 20214 yr Just now, ToastJenkins said: you assume that intent to rationalize your agenda. then you act offended if other assume you have a nefarious motive for these moves? hypocritical It's pretty easy to deduce when you look at what they are targeting. Where did I act offended?
July 13, 20214 yr Why We Need a Right to Vote Amendment Even as the rising American electorate gains momentum, new regressive laws, rulings, and maneuvers are threatening voting rights without facing the strict scrutiny that would come with an affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), stripping the Justice Department of the powers it had for five decades to curb racial discrimination in voting. The Election Assistance Commission was left without commissioners for years and frequently faces bills in Congress that would end its existence entirely. Many schools skip civics education, contributing to the decline in voter turnout in local and primary elections. Enshrining an explicit right to vote in the Constitution would guarantee the voting rights of every citizen of voting age, ensure that every vote is counted correctly, and defend against attempts to effectively disenfranchise eligible voters. It would empower Congress to enact minimum electoral standards to guarantee a higher degree of legitimacy, inclusivity, and consistency across the nation, and give our courts the authority to keep politicians in check when they try to game the vote for partisan reasons. 5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said: It's pretty easy to deduce when you look at what they are targeting. Where did I act offended? You disagree, therefore you must be offended.
July 13, 20214 yr I actually don't have an issue with voter ID in principle, so long as the ID is universally obtainable. But the shenanigans being pulled here with polling places and the act of voting itself smacks of underhandedness.
Create an account or sign in to comment