Attack on voting

[onlinebiker]

We can assume, as I already said, that all sorts of hinky shit crosses the political aisle.  

I'm wondering why you believe that dems protesting voter disenfranchisement is an insurrection, and an example of disenfranchisement.  Both Siderism only works when both sides are engaged in the same thing, that item of contention between yourself and reality.

Ill ask again, are you unclear on what the terms mean, or is there something wrong with you?

Are you a Texan?

[Ranjr]

See signature.


What would Perry Cox say.

(Fans of Scrubs would get it)

Thanks for clarifying.  My son recommended Scrubs, but it didn't take for me.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Are you a Texan?

It doesn't matter if he is or not 

[Ranjr]

It's his pathetic attempt to emasculate me. It's a good thing I,m comfortable enough in my sexual and gender identity that it does nothing 

I'm okay with us insulting each other.  We can do that without appearing misogynistic.  As long as I know what kind of insults are fair game.

[The Grand Nudger]

We can assume, as I already said, that all sorts of hinky shit crosses the political aisle.  

I'm wondering why you believe that dems protesting voter disenfranchisement is an insurrection, and an example of disenfranchisement.  Both Siderism only works when both sides are engaged in the same thing, that item of contention between yourself and reality.

Ill ask again, are you unclear on what the terms mean, or is there something wrong with you?

Are you a Texan?

Awesome, something wrong with you.  Carry on.

[onlinebiker]

Are you a Texan?

Awesome, something wrong with you.  Carry on.

Pound sand.

I guess you think democracy means that things go as you and a few other internet buddies believe.

Like it or not - democracy means majority rules.

Period. End of story.

It doesn' t mean when you don' t like things the way they are going, you run away and prevent votes.

Running away is what cowards do.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Remember not undermining Democracy by curtailing the voting rights of millions based on a totally unfounded conspiracy theory is cowardly and somehow counts as an insurrection. Because refusing to vote on a bill is equal to storming the capital to change an election outcome.   


Totally logical  

[The Grand Nudger]

Awesome, something wrong with you.  Carry on.

Pound sand.

I guess you think democracy means that things go as you and a few other internet buddies believe.

Like it or not - democracy means majority rules.

Not to the GOP it doesn't.  They would very much like to secure minority rule over the majority, voter suppression is a tool to that end.  

Period. End of story.

It doesn' t mean when you don' t like things the way they are going, you run away and prevent votes.

Running away is what cowards do.

Yes, yes, yes.  You think their names are nancy, and they're cowards, and you'd probably insult their dicks because all of that is shaaaaaaameful - but voter suppression?  Nah, no biggie.  Go fuck yourself, lol.

[Spongebob]

One thing I didn't think to mention regarding parliamentary procedure is that things like filibuster, cloture and quorum are rules that govern the body. These rules can be changed and have been changed before. They do serve a purpose, but can be frustrating for both sides depending on who has a majority and what they are trying to do. I believe in the case of one side (and this means either) trying to pass laws that limit citizens ability to vote should be unconstitutional, and it is in very specific cases, though those are easily side-stepped. The US went through this sort of thing over half a century ago and yet here it is again. It was the Democrats then, it's Republicans now. Different party but same issue. What OLB doesn't have the capacity to understand is that it is the issue that is important.

Voting is not a clear cut thing; there are many aspects to it. Mostly our government works by representative voting, but some states do a lot of ballot referendums. Those can be even more potent because it bypasses the representation and goes directly to voters, so it's truly a "mob rule" mode of government. Our founding fathers were very concerned with this sort of thing and sought to limit the power of the majority. There's good reason for this, however, there's also good reason to limit what a small minority can do to hold up legislation that is overwhelmingly supported by the population. So right now we have a situation in Texas where the majority is seeking to disenfranchise non-Republican (actually non-WASP) voters. In the 50's we had the reverse in Washington. We had Strom Thurmond filibustering civil rights legislation. But in both cases the goal was the same, limiting the voting of non-whites, and the people pursuing it were the same, racist WASP lawmakers. So, my point to this is to be clear about what is going on and what I oppose so there's no confusion. It doesn't matter to me which party is looking to limit voting rights; I oppose it. And I would oppose any party that sought to limit anyone's right to vote that clearly targets their preferences. I certainly don't support any neo-Nazi group and profoundly wish they would all just pack up and leave, but I don't believe it is constitutional to deny them the right to vote either. If they eventually get what they want and the US becomes the 4th Reich, I'll do what a lot of Germans did in the 1930's and get the fuck out.

[Angrboda]

It's also a question of what we want. Texas Democrats running away is similar to the filibuster in that it is a tool which is intentionally designed to frustrate the will of the majority under certain circumstances. While Republicans are badmouthing the Texas Democrats, they are arguing animatedly about preserving the filibuster so that, on occasion, the minority can thwart the will of the majority. Is that a desirable feature? Perhaps. What Texas' legislature is doing is different in that it is making a more fundamental change in ensuring that the minority is able to overrule the majority most of the time by disenfranchising a large enough segment of the majority to make them unable to counter the minority. Is that something that we want as a permanent feature of our democracy, a situation in which the minority is given an artificial boost at all times? Let's consider what that would mean in terms of the filibuster. If the filibuster were automatic such that every piece of legislation required 60 votes to open debate, there would be a lot more sessions where nothing got done because neither side could muster a strong enough majority. Neither side wants that, and in truth, neither side wants minority rule, as ultimately that's not in the majorities interest as someday, the majority will become the minority. On that day, if rules like these voter suppression laws are allowed to stand, we'll see laws disenfranchising conservatives, and on that day, those same conservatives will be squealing like stuck pigs. The only reason the extreme right is advocating these voter suppression laws is to preserve their power in the face of forces which, like it or not, one way or another, are going to move conservatism away from the right-wing extremism it currently embraces. So rather than being any kind of principled stand, these laws are just a minority capitalizing on a small window in time to promote their own interests. And it's something they would protest vehemently if the other side were to do it. It's something they know is wrong, wouldn't condone in someone else, and which they wouldn't consider fair in the abstract. It's simply another blatant example of Republican hypocrisy.