Filibuster and Texas

[rogue06]

Especially the "people of color" leftist mantra and comparisons to Jim Crow laws. That's always a huge red flag.

That reminds me of an old joke involving various newspaper headlines announcing the end of the world. The two headlines I remember are the one from the Wall Street Journal (World Ending! Markets Close Early) and of course the New York Times ... Women and Minorities Hit Hardest as World Ends

[Juvenal]

Considering how the MSM willfully lied through their teeth about Georgia's new voting laws which actually makes it easier to vote, I'll take unsupported claims that Texas is suppressing the vote with an entire shaker full of salt.

And you know the MSM lied through their teeth because you read it in one of your right-wing propaganda sheets. That just coincidentally relies on pillorying the MSM in order to keep their audience. Or maybe you saw it on Hannity. Where you learned about the $35,000 / person death benefit being handed out to swarms of illegals crossing the border with corpses in tow.

Considering how you consistently promote their lies, at best because you didn't check them, and at worse, because you actually support the lying, so long as it advances your partisan positions, your decision to snub other media sources, which you also don't check — bonus points for consistency — falls short of a principled response.

[rogue06]

And you know the MSM lied through their teeth because you read it in one of your right-wing propaganda sheets. That just coincidentally relies on pillorying the MSM in order to keep their audience. Or maybe you saw it on Hannity. Where you learned about the $35,000 / person death benefit being handed out to swarms of illegals crossing the border with corpses in tow.

Considering how you consistently promote their lies, at best because you didn't check them, and at worse, because you actually support the lying, so long as it advances your partisan positions, your decision to snub other media sources, which you also don't check — bonus points for consistency — falls short of a principled response.

Darn. And here I was hoping you had posted some evidence supporting your contentions that the Texas law actually discriminated rather than just slinging the accusation around.

Oh well. We can't always get what we want.

[Juvenal]

So, blocking legislation that the majority of the legislature wants is now a good thing?

Suppressing the vote is now a good thing?

Really, CD, up your game.

Really, actually show how the vote is suppressed. Who is prevented from voting?

CD obviously has cognitive issues, but is there no one left on this board who can recognize a rhetorical response without being led there by their nose rings.

Considering how the MSM willfully lied through their teeth about Georgia's new voting laws which actually makes it easier to vote, I'll take unsupported claims that Texas is suppressing the vote with an entire shaker full of salt.

how is requiring voter ID suppresing the vote since you have to have a valid ID to say rent an apartment, open a bank account, drive a car etc... in other words live

Well, that answers that.

So, for the rhetorically challenged, I don't believe CD thinks suppressing the vote is a good thing, and I do believe this is a sentence that could arguably be improved by reduction. I don't expect the average reader to recognize any analogue to the Russell paradox — "this sentence" is a self-reference, and "reduction" is a negation — but I do think reasoned argument, supported by information that checks out, or at the very least, survives a cursory examination, is a proper goal for a discussion board.

And that moderators should advance that goal.

The o/p story of a walkout is worthy of discussion, a discussion that's not advanced by leaping to invidious conclusions.

The obvious first question is why did they walk out. That's answered. The next question is to what effect. Legislatively, probably very little, because Texas allows the governor to call for a special session to try again.

We could also ask if they were justified in their reasons for walking out.

If it's just a question of voter suppression through voting law changes, probably not.
.

There’s a real — and bipartisan — misunderstanding about whether making it easier or harder to vote, especially by mail, has a significant effect on turnout or electoral outcomes. The evidence suggests it does not.

...

Believe it or not, turnout increased just as much in the states that didn’t have no-excuse absentee voting as it did in the states that added it for the first time. Similarly, Joe Biden improved over Hillary Clinton’s performance by three percentage points in the states that added it, compared with 2.9 points in the states that did not.

That's called statistically insignificant, but even if it was, it wouldn't have been enough to change the outcome in any state, making it politically insignificant as well.

But it's not just the changes in absentee and mail-in voting rules.

People are up in arms at the wave of election law changes proximally caused by continued Trumpian support for the big lie of a stolen 2020 election. More careful analysts are looking at the net effect these accommodations are having on our democracy.
.

We, the undersigned, are scholars of democracy who have watched the recent deterioration of U.S. elections and liberal democracy with growing alarm. Specifically, we have watched with deep concern as Republican-led state legislatures across the country have in recent months proposed or implemented what we consider radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election. Collectively, these initiatives are transforming several states into political systems that no longer meet the minimum conditions for free and fair elections. Hence, our entire democracy is now at risk.

Arcing back to the o/p, which could easily be construed as an unwitting call to end the filibuster in the US Senate, there's this conclusion.
.

We urge members of Congress to do whatever is necessary—including suspending the filibuster—in order to pass national voting and election administration standards that both guarantee the vote to all Americans equally, and prevent state legislatures from manipulating the rules in order to manufacture the result they want. Our democracy is fundamentally at stake. History will judge what we do at this moment.

History is replete with evidence that democracy carries the seeds of its own destruction. I see little reason to believe any legislation in support of democratic institutions pushed through any legislature without some minimal bipartisan support will survive legislative erosion occasioned by partisan self-interest, which in my view, amply supported in this thread, is the natural alternative to arguments from principle itself.

Hey, whatever, there's a lot of good reads I haven't read yet. Writers who are duly famed for their ability to put life in perspective.
.

“Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”

― Kurt Vonnegut

[Mountain Man]

It's like we live in two worlds.

First there's reality: "Legislature proposes law that would make it harder to vote illegally".

Then there's liberalism: "They're trying to suppress the black vote!" implying that blacks are more likely to vote illegally.

Liberals don't think much of minorities, do they?

[CivilDiscourse]

CD obviously has cognitive issues, but is there no one left on this board who can recognize a rhetorical response without being led there by their nose rings.





Well, that answers that.

So, for the rhetorically challenged, I don't believe CD thinks suppressing the vote is a good thing, and I do believe this is a sentence that could arguably be improved by reduction. I don't expect the average reader to recognize any analogue to the Russell paradox — "this sentence" is a self-reference, and "reduction" is a negation — but I do think reasoned argument, supported by information that checks out, or at the very least, survives a cursory examination, is a proper goal for a discussion board.

And that moderators should advance that goal.

The o/p story of a walkout is worthy of discussion, a discussion that's not advanced by leaping to invidious conclusions.

The obvious first question is why did they walk out. That's answered. The next question is to what effect. Legislatively, probably very little, because Texas allows the governor to call for a special session to try again.

We could also ask if they were justified in their reasons for walking out.

If it's just a question of voter suppression through voting law changes, probably not.
.

There’s a real — and bipartisan — misunderstanding about whether making it easier or harder to vote, especially by mail, has a significant effect on turnout or electoral outcomes. The evidence suggests it does not.

...

Believe it or not, turnout increased just as much in the states that didn’t have no-excuse absentee voting as it did in the states that added it for the first time. Similarly, Joe Biden improved over Hillary Clinton’s performance by three percentage points in the states that added it, compared with 2.9 points in the states that did not.

That's called statistically insignificant, but even if it was, it wouldn't have been enough to change the outcome in any state, making it politically insignificant as well.

But it's not just the changes in absentee and mail-in voting rules.

People are up in arms at the wave of election law changes proximally caused by continued Trumpian support for the big lie of a stolen 2020 election. More careful analysts are looking at the net effect these accommodations are having on our democracy.
.

We, the undersigned, are scholars of democracy who have watched the recent deterioration of U.S. elections and liberal democracy with growing alarm. Specifically, we have watched with deep concern as Republican-led state legislatures across the country have in recent months proposed or implemented what we consider radical changes to core electoral procedures in response to unproven and intentionally destructive allegations of a stolen election. Collectively, these initiatives are transforming several states into political systems that no longer meet the minimum conditions for free and fair elections. Hence, our entire democracy is now at risk.

Arcing back to the o/p, which could easily be construed as an unwitting call to end the filibuster in the US Senate, there's this conclusion.
.

We urge members of Congress to do whatever is necessary—including suspending the filibuster—in order to pass national voting and election administration standards that both guarantee the vote to all Americans equally, and prevent state legislatures from manipulating the rules in order to manufacture the result they want. Our democracy is fundamentally at stake. History will judge what we do at this moment.

History is replete with evidence that democracy carries the seeds of its own destruction. I see little reason to believe any legislation in support of democratic institutions pushed through any legislature without some minimal bipartisan support will survive legislative erosion occasioned by partisan self-interest, which in my view, amply supported in this thread, is the natural alternative to arguments from principle itself.

Hey, whatever, there's a lot of good reads I haven't read yet. Writers who are duly famed for their ability to put life in perspective.
.

“Hello babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. On the outside, babies, you've got a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies-"God damn it, you've got to be kind.”

― Kurt Vonnegut

No, It boils down to pointing out blatant hypocrisy on the part of democrats and liberals.

They tell us that legislatures should be majority rules. That the minority party should not be able to stand in the way of legislation.

Then, when a bill comes up that they oppose for political reasons, and they are the minority, they walk out, trying to stand in the way of the legislation put forth by the majority. They are cheered for it.

It is blatant hypocrisy, and at the end of the day it's all about political agenda.

After all, when republicans in Oregon walked out to block legislation, it was treated as an outrage, and that republicans were subverting democracy.

[rogue06]

It's like we live in two worlds.

First there's reality: "Legislature proposes law that would make it harder to vote illegally".

Then there's liberalism: "They're trying to suppress the black vote!" implying that blacks are more likely to vote illegally.

Liberals don't think much of minorities, do they?

*snort*

Old Joe thinks they're far too stupid to figure out how to vote by themselves. They're just lucky to have so many fine smart white liberals to take them by the hand and show them how to function in society. Without these generous white liberals they'd probably still be living in caves and throwing feces at one another.

image_41277.jpg
See how ignorant they are? Not even smart enough to know just how oppressed they
are if it weren't for a white liberal to libsplain it to them.

[rogue06]

After all, when republicans in Oregon walked out to block legislation, it was treated as an outrage, and that republicans were subverting democracy.

By the same crowd that applauded Democrat legislators in Wisconsin from literally leaving the state so that there wouldn't be a quorum.

[rogue06]

Darn. And here I was hoping you had posted some evidence supporting your contentions that the Texas law actually discriminated rather than just slinging the accusation around.

Oh well. We can't always get what we want.

Still nothing. I guess "that answers that."

[Mountain Man]

*snort*

Old Joe thinks they're far too stupid to figure out how to vote by themselves. They're just lucky to have so many fine smart white liberals to take them by the hand and show them how to function in society. Without these generous white liberals they'd probably still be living in caves and throwing feces at one another.

Joe also thinks that blacks are unable to secure the services of accountants and lawyers for whatever reason. I'm not sure if he's implying that they're too stupid to know how to hire them, or if he's implying that they're too stupid to know how to work in those professions.

[One Bad Pig]

It should go without saying that suppressing the vote means suppressing the vote of people of color.
. The bill targeted voting methods that Black and Latino voters in Houston used widely in the pandemic.

An analysis of the Harris County vote showed that voters of color made up more than half of those who used drive-through early voting and the 24-hour early-voting window, Hollins said. That was a higher share than in early voting overall, when Black and Latino voters accounted for just 38 percent of all voters, he said.

If we're not going to have a pandemic every voting cycle, there's no need to keep pandemic-specific relaxed voting options, no?

The bill would have barred Sunday morning get-out-the-vote programs used to mobilize Black churchgoers.

Similarly, the bill’s provision barring early voting before 1 p.m. on Sundays would have had a disproportionate impact on the long-standing get-out-the-vote effort known as “souls to the polls,” which aims at encouraging Black churchgoers to cast their ballots right after services.

“Why in the world would you pick Sunday morning to outlaw voting in Texas, but for the fact that they know that a lot of Black parishioners historically have chosen that time to organize and go to the polls?” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Tex.) said Sunday.

Who knew you thought mixing politics and religion was a good thing?

Another key provision in Senate Bill 7 could have further hobbled such community voter mobilization programs: It would have required that anyone who drives more than two non-relatives to the polls to submit a signed form stating the reason for the assistance. That means volunteer van drivers who provide transportation for churchgoing voters would have had to jump through the added hoop of submitting a signed document.

...adding accountability, while not actually preventing anyone from assisting.

The measure drew comparison to Jim Crow laws.

Albright noted that an early version of the voting bill included the phrase “purity of the ballot box,” language that is in the Texas Constitution. Similar references to the word “purity” were used in the South to justify the disenfranchisement of Black voters. “They literally used Jim Crow language explicitly in the bill,” Albright said.

Cain, the lead House proponent, said he was unaware of that legacy and agreed to remove the language after Democrats criticized it during debate. He said he “wasn’t aware of any kind of malicious intent in the use of that term.”

Sounds to me rather more like an own goal than a deliberate attempt to insert Jim Crow. Did the language actually restrict anything? No. Did Republicans fight to keep it? No.

[Juvenal]

If we're not going to have a pandemic every voting cycle, there's no need to keep pandemic-specific relaxed voting options, no?

Who knew you thought mixing politics and religion was a good thing?

...adding accountability, while not actually preventing anyone from assisting.

Sounds to me rather more like an own goal than a deliberate attempt to insert Jim Crow. Did the language actually restrict anything? No. Did Republicans fight to keep it? No.

Sorry about the busted link.

How the Texas voting bill would have created hurdles for voters of color

Comments are closed now, but if you'd like to email the author, it's [email protected]. If you'd prefer to interact with my thoughts, feel free to read them.

[Juvenal]

Post 18:

Darn. And here I was hoping you had posted some evidence supporting your contentions that the Texas law actually discriminated rather than just slinging the accusation around.

Oh well. We can't always get what we want.

Post 24:

Still nothing. I guess "that answers that."

That post 7 comes before both is all that and a bag of chips.

Read, then post.

[Juvenal]

No, It boils down to pointing out blatant hypocrisy on the part of democrats and liberals.

And to what effect. Do you get brownie points at your next 5-minute-hate session? Are they worth turning a perfectly good discussion topic into a bloated corpse.

I don't think so.

But it's your thread.

Wa alaikum salam.

[CivilDiscourse]

And to what effect. Do you get brownie points at your next 5-minute-hate session? Are they worth turning a perfectly good discussion topic into a bloated corpse.

I don't think so.

But it's your thread.

Wa alaikum salam.

Its important because actions like this show that the talking points in the senate are hollow. The democrats don't want to remove the filibuster due to any real belief that the majority should get thier way, or that its "more democratic." They want to get rid of it so that they get thier way, plain and simple. This also helps inform thier motives for other wanted power grabs, such as court packing. Again, its safe to assume that its about power, not some deep seated need for "balance" on the court. Also, since they've shown thier talking points to be a scam...it throws thier reasons for HR1 into question...