HR-1 - End of US as we know it

[PawDawg]

Supposed votes but mail are not turnout

[PawDawg]

Showing an ID is not an obstacle

[Guisslapp]

Showing an ID is not an obstacle

From a position of privilege it might seem that way.

[PawDawg]

Privilege is keeping up with an EBT card and a driver’s license?

[DONW]

Anybody that thinks there is systemic racism is either an idiot or they want to create friction between races which they believe would eventually lead to an overthrow of our constitutional government and replace it with Socialism/communism. That is the present propaganda agenda for the the democrats. They are preaching their hatred manifesto between the races believing it will help them reach their goal of complete taking control over the the conservatives that they hate. Gooselip is no longer just a guy that preaches the hate, he has become our enemy.

Anybody that preaches the hatred of other people is our enemy. There may have been systemic racism in the 50s and 60s when I was growing up, but, there is no systemic racism today. Gooselip can go out on the top of one of those tall buildings in Houston and shout "systemic racism" all day long, but, that does not make it so. He wants it to exist so much because it gives his sick little brain a reason to hate conservatives. He doesn't believe in the constitution and wants to see it destroyed by his fellow liberal buddies in Washington. There has never been an attempt by the democrats to work with any republican. They only want to preach their hatred of republicans and destroy our country.

We will never give in to communist democrats. If our freedom is at stake, we will fight for it.

[Guisslapp]

Privilege is keeping up with an EBT card and a driver’s license?

Not everyone has a driver’s license.

[PawDawg]

Not everyone has a driver’s license.

I agree. People in federal prison don’t.

[FriscoDog]

What party was David Duke?

What party was Robert Byrd member of?

[FriscoDog]

Not everyone has a driver’s license.

If everyone can get a ballot for an election and find a way to have it deposited in a "ballot collection box", then they can find a way to get a DL or some government issued ID.. They all had to present some form of ID to get an EBT card, or get a bank account so that their stimulus checks could be direct deposited.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

And using systemic racism to justify further systemic racism is beyond ironic.

Thats one of the most common of the Regressive Dem. liberal’s double standard tricks.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

The Regressive Democrat party is the party of the white sheet KKK; always was and always will be.

What party was David Duke?

😂 Duke never had any elected power given to him by the GOP (the party of Abraham Lincoln) at any important level. The guy couldn’t even get elected as dog catcher. . And they sure never supported him.
Now Democrat Senator Robert Byrd spent decade after decade in the Senate and was a Grand Wizard of the KKK.

So again I state, “The Regressive Democrat party is the party of the white sheet KKK; always was and always will be.”

This while it was the Republican President that set them free!

[inudesu]

i don't see anyone on this thread willing to try to understand the other side's point of view before criticizing it. clearly, there are people who have legitimate reasons for wanting to improve voter access. clearly, people who oppose a particular means of improving voter access are not necessarily wanting to suppress minority voters. we are so quick to assign motives to others.

for my part, i would challenge the notion that wanting fewer people to vote is unamerican. i want people who are well informed and responsible to vote. i don't want people voting because they think a particular party is evil and the other party will save them from that wickedness. i want everyone to be well informed or responsible, but clearly that will never be the case. we should certainly make sure that any obstacles to vote don't make it more difficult for any particular group of people, but making it "easy" to vote doesn't have to be the answer.

I think there is some interesting and fair discussion of HR-1 and its boomerang response in this podcast. My takeaway after considering the points presented there is that neither side necessarily even totally wants to do what they say they want to do on the topic (increase access or increase security). It's so much better for a Republican to be able to say "they want to make it easy to steal elections" than to "win" the legislative battle and have the topic put to rest. And it's so much better for a Democrat to be able to say "look, they don't want to allow you to vote, let's make sure we go vote to show them we won't be silenced" than to "win" the legislative battle and have the topic put to rest.

Well, not better for a Republican or Democrat person. That may or may not be the case for either side. I mean better for a Republican or Democrat running for office/trying to get famous.

I wonder if a better "more Republican" response to HR-1 might have been some proposed legislation on keeping the federal government out of how each state decides to run its election rather than just an opposite form of federalized policy.

[Guisslapp]

And I think the better policy is the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, which would prevent states from imposing restrictions that disproportionately impact minorities. You have to come up with a better way to provide election security than further disenfranchising groups that have historically been harmed.

[techman05]

I think there is some interesting and fair discussion of HR-1 and its boomerang response in this podcast. My takeaway after considering the points presented there is that neither side necessarily even totally wants to do what they say they want to do on the topic (increase access or increase security). It's so much better for a Republican to be able to say "they want to make it easy to steal elections" than to "win" the legislative battle and have the topic put to rest. And it's so much better for a Democrat to be able to say "look, they don't want to allow you to vote, let's make sure we go vote to show them we won't be silenced" than to "win" the legislative battle and have the topic put to rest.

Well, not better for a Republican or Democrat person. That may or may not be the case for either side. I mean better for a Republican or Democrat running for office/trying to get famous.

I wonder if a better "more Republican" response to HR-1 might have been some proposed legislation on keeping the federal government out of how each state decides to run its election rather than just an opposite form of federalized policy.

I agree. It seems that way for most every issue. Why solve problems we can use as part of our platform to get re-elected?

[techman05]

To continue the thought, what can be done to get our leaders off their duff and force them to fix things? Term limits won’t work, because no politician is willing to ruin the gravy train for themselves or people that follow them.