State politicians flee Texas to derail legislation on voting restrictions, abortion access

[Metaphor]

Does it seem to you, Toni, that this board needs more threads and opinions in opposition to Republicans?

Sorry to butt in, but I wanted to offer my own preference FWIW.
I wish there were some threads in support of what Republicans are doing.
There are lots of threads criticizing the hapless Democrats, accusing them of dereliction of duty, anti-democratic behavior ineffective leadership, promoting chaos, looting, rioting, BLM and queers.
But there is a real paucity of threads pointing out the democracy-enhancing, standard of living improving, economic equality producing ideas of the Republican Party.
I don't mean defending their attempts to destroy the electoral system or further elevate the power of billionaires over government policies, I mean showing us all the GOOD things that Republicans are doing.
Maybe Republicans' idea of a Great America don't include enhancing democracy, raising the standard of living or helping create economic stability?
Since you are so very well versed in party politics, Meta, why can't you come up with some threads that do that?

If you are interested in starting such threads, why don't you? I don't dictate what threads other people should and shouldn't start, and I expect the courtesy to be returned (though evidently there are people who do want to tell me what to post).

 

[Gospel]

I did not say the laws were arbitrary.



The bill was trying to change many things so there is no one thing that it was trying to 'fix'.

I'm the one saying it is arbitrary. Duh

Whether you or I consider the new requirements reasonable or not the bill increases the difficulty to vote (If it doesn't then it's not a good security measure). Being that there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud the bill only affects the law-abiding voter.

Security is not the only reason to change voting regulations, as I've already said.

Yeah, the republican party is known for being champions for the environment.
Yeah, unfair advantage in access to polling places belongs with widespread voter fraud: Needs Proof.
Those where you're two best ones. I think you said something about efficiency but adding steps to the voting process by nature makes it less efficient.

It doesn't help that all your arguments lead with the word perhaps. Get proof man, GOSH!

I wonder why black people haven't hit the streets with picket signs over this then. You seem to be more pissed about it than we are.

So...I'm not allowed to point out Democrat bigotry?

Oh please, I'm not interested in trying to stop a fart from circulating the room. Besides, the reason I made the statement is to indicate that just maybe what the democrats are saying in that respect is true. But I see you'd rather be pissed off on the behalf of black people that aren't pissed off.

 

[Elixir]

Does it seem to you, Toni, that this board needs more threads and opinions in opposition to Republicans?

Sorry to butt in, but I wanted to offer my own preference FWIW.
I wish there were some threads in support of what Republicans are doing.
There are lots of threads criticizing the hapless Democrats, accusing them of dereliction of duty, anti-democratic behavior ineffective leadership, promoting chaos, looting, rioting, BLM and queers.
But there is a real paucity of threads pointing out the democracy-enhancing, standard of living improving, economic equality producing ideas of the Republican Party.
I don't mean defending their attempts to destroy the electoral system or further elevate the power of billionaires over government policies, I mean showing us all the GOOD things that Republicans are doing.
Maybe Republicans' idea of a Great America don't include enhancing democracy, raising the standard of living or helping create economic stability?
Since you are so very well versed in party politics, Meta, why can't you come up with some threads that do that?

If you are interested in starting such threads, why don't you?

Because not having seen such a thing, I don't believe that Republican ideas to enhance democracy, raise the standard of living or help create economic stability actually exist.
I am naive enough to believe that if Republicans or other "conservatives" had any such ideas they would put them forth, since they would be political gold.
Maybe they have great ideas but want to keep them secret because they are so smart.
What do you think, Meta? You're a "conservative", right? What is the attraction? Pwning the libs, and nothing more?

 

[laughing dog]

Voting is the essence of democracy because it is the basis for “ the people” to express their will by choosing their legislators. To be charitable , it is a very peculiar view of democracy to claim that making voting harder is not subverting democracy.

Democracy does not guarantee the success of a proposal. The claim that legislators who are expressing the will of their constituents are subverting democracy shows a deep ignorance of democratic governance.

 

[Elixir]

If you are interested in starting such threads, why don't you?

Okay, I did. Thanks for the suggestion/invitation.
Have at it, Meta. Bring your friends. The more the merrier.
Of course participation is not required - or even desired, unless good conservative ideas actually exist.

ETA:

The claim that legislators who are expressing the will of their constituents are subverting democracy shows a deep ignorance of democratic governance.

AFAICS a deep ignorance of democratic governance is not only Republicans' stock in trade, promoting it is the very fuel for their "success" (perpetuating their power).

 

[ideologyhunter]

Democracy: Voters select their leaders.
Subverting democracy: Leaders select their voters.

 

[TomC]

They are doing their jobs by blocking a vote as the legislature rules allowed.

The rules were written--I am certain--to help make sure that legislators attended to their jobs. This is obvious because the rules allow for the arrest and attendance of a legislator who is within the Texas jurisdiction, if she fails to attend. The rules were not written--I am certain--for a minority of legislators to conspire to block any legislation they do not want by wagging their jobs and running away out of State where they cannot be forced to do the jobs they were elected to do.

This is the problem, as I see it Metaphor.

You make confident assertions about news pieces from the USA. But you don't understand the culture or political landscape nearly as well as you think you do.

The current Texan legislation fits a long standing trend of Republican legislatures changing voting law and policies in a profoundly partisan way. This has been going on for over 20 years. It's ramped up in the aftermath of Trump becoming the first "one term" president since Bush was elected in 88.

I can understand why someone from another country might not see that big picture. Especially since you tend to agree with much of what Republicans say at least.

You and I agree on many things. But the attempts by the Republicans to subvert the USA system for partisan purposes has a lot to do with why I went from studiously bipartisan to straight ticket Democrat voter. It's not that I'm more fond of the Democrats than I used to be. It's the ugly way the Republicans have lost their old values.
Tom

 

[jonatha]

No, I haven't been to a DMV in America. So what? You don't need a driving license to vote.

If a photo ID is required, yes, you pretty much do. Or another state-issued ID that is no more convenient to obtain than a driving license.

 

[Toni]

I did not imagine I had the power to force anybody and I did not say or imply it. The fault is with your comprehension skills. "I want" is not "I have the power".

You wrote a poorly worded sentence to convey your intentions. You simply refuse to acknowledge that you did so. I'm not sure why. I think almost every poster ever sometimes has written a poorly composed sentence that makes their meaning ambiguous or even counter to what they intended. It's not a big deal. Doubling down, otoh, is a bit more of a deal.

What are your thoughts on Mitch McConnell's efforts to subvert the will of the US voters by refusing to bring to vote legislation which he opposed and by refusing to bring to vote nominations for various positions (Supreme Court Justices, federal judgeships, cabinet nominees) throughout his tenure as Speaker of the House? Or how he exerts what remaining authority has has even now? Where are your threads about that?

My threads about that are nowhere, because I get to choose the topics I post on and the threads I start.

Does it seem to you, Toni, that this board needs more threads and opinions in opposition to Republicans? Does it seem to you that there is a dearth of threads about Republican misbehaviour? Does it seem to you that your whataboutery does not change the grubby, democracy-subverting behaviour of the Texas Democrats?

Indeed, you do get to start whatever threads you would like to start and to participate in whatever threads you choose, just like everybody does.

It seems to me, given the obvious slant of the threads that you write, you are less interested in the issue than you are at bashing Democrats or liberals or transgendered people or persons of color, etc.

I'm not at all interested in whether a thread is in support of or in opposition to Republicans. I'm interested in whether a thread discusses an issue fairly and intelligently.

As shocking as this is to even me, I used to be a Republican...back when I was 18 or so. Mostly because my family was and because I was offered the chance to work at the elections in my town as a member of the GOP (each party is represented at the polls by poll workers in that state). One of the politicians and statesmen that I most admire is Dwight Eisenhower and another is Abraham Lincoln, both Republicans and both flawed, as are we al. In my opinion, the last honorable Republican President was Eisenhower, in fact. I find this extremely sad and even dangerous.

I strongly believe in the wisdom of the checks and balances written into the US Constitution and that no one point of view has a monopoly on what is right, what is true, what is moral, what is good. I very much see flaws in the Democratic party and I genuinely have zero interest in a single party system, theocracy, etc. Back in the day, I thought that the GOP could not get much worse than Ronald Reagan. I was very, very wrong. I thought the GOP could not get much stupider than George W. Bush (the little one). I was very, very, very wrong. It never occurred to me that the GOP could come up with a leader who was more corrupt, dishonest, mentally unstable and unfit than Richard Nixon. Guess what? They proved me wrong.

I desperately want the GOP to become a party with some integrity, some genuine concerns for America and for the people of these United States and of the world. I'd like to see more integrity, more concern for America and for the people of these United States and of the world out of the Democrats as well. Or from any other party---but I haven't. And I used to sometimes vote 3rd party. But if we have to compare the two parties--and every election, indeed, we do, the Democrats are so much better in all of those measures than the GOP that it isn't even funny.

 

[Rhea]

Some useful information for those following this issue:

1. Conservative efforts to put barriers in the way of Black Americans has been going on since the day they gained the power to vote. These have included tests of ancestry (could your grnadfather vote? No? He was a slave? Then you have to take this tricky test. Oh, your grandpa was white and could therefore vote? You don’t have to take the test, or pay the tax) they have included removing voting machinery from Black neighborhoods to increase the lines, they have included ID requirements that are difficult to get (Oh, you were born at home? No birth certificate, no voting, don’t care that you were not allowed to use the hospital because you were black.)
2. Legislators in America cannot be fired. That is not a thing. It never has been. It’s part of the democracy thingy that we have.
3. Not everyone has a car. Indeed, while 95% of white Americans have access to a working car, only 81% of Black Americans do (see “systemic wealth inequality” meaning current inequality that is propped up by previous inequalities)
4. Not everyone needs a license, since they don’t have a car, so even fewer than those numbers above equal the % with a license.
5. You do not automatically get a social security number - you have to sign up for it. It is not a trivial process.
6. If you need a copy of your birth certificate to get your social security number or your driver license, you have to contact the hospital you were born in. If it is still there. Assuming you know where. If necessary, you need to contact the county you were born in. Assuming the hospital provided records. And they will charge you for it. It costs money.
7. You do not need a license to get electricity, it is often provided with a rental package.
8. Every form of ID in America costs money. There is not a single one that is free or guaranteed. Not one.

 

[Elixir]

You wrote a poorly worded sentence to convey your intentions. You simply refuse to acknowledge that you did so. I'm not sure why. I think almost every poster ever sometimes has written a poorly composed sentence that makes their meaning ambiguous or even counter to what they intended. It's not a big deal. Doubling down, otoh, is a bit more of a deal.

My threads about that are nowhere, because I get to choose the topics I post on and the threads I start.

Does it seem to you, Toni, that this board needs more threads and opinions in opposition to Republicans? Does it seem to you that there is a dearth of threads about Republican misbehaviour? Does it seem to you that your whataboutery does not change the grubby, democracy-subverting behaviour of the Texas Democrats?

Indeed, you do get to start whatever threads you would like to start and to participate in whatever threads you choose, just like everybody does.

It seems to me, given the obvious slant of the threads that you write, you are less interested in the issue than you are at bashing Democrats or liberals or transgendered people or persons of color, etc.

I believe it seems like that to most people who have read more than one or two of Meta's posts.

I'm not at all interested in whether a thread is in support of or in opposition to Republicans. I'm interested in whether a thread discusses an issue fairly and intelligently.

As shocking as this is to even me, I used to be a Republican...back when I was 18 or so. Mostly because my family was and because I was offered the chance to work at the elections in my town as a member of the GOP (each party is represented at the polls by poll workers in that state). One of the politicians and statesmen that I most admire is Dwight Eisenhower and another is Abraham Lincoln, both Republicans and both flawed, as are we al. In my opinion, the last honorable Republican President was Eisenhower, in fact. I find this extremely sad and even dangerous.

Agreed 100%. My parents were both Navy vets. Father served in WWI, WWII and Korea, Mom enlisted at the outset of WWII. They met at Treasure Island. Both were Republicans, and both would be horrified at what that party has devolved into. I was the black sheep of the family, rejecting the education, money and lifestyle that my privileged heritage offered. I didn't even appreciate Eisenhower's brilliant visions until much later.

I strongly believe in the wisdom of the checks and balances written into the US Constitution and that no one point of view has a monopoly on what is right, what is true, what is moral, what is good. I very much see flaws in the Democratic party and I genuinely have zero interest in a single party system, theocracy, etc. Back in the day, I thought that the GOP could not get much worse than Ronald Reagan. I was very, very wrong. I thought the GOP could not get much stupider than George W. Bush (the little one). I was very, very, very wrong. It never occurred to me that the GOP could come up with a leader who was more corrupt, dishonest, mentally unstable and unfit than Richard Nixon. Guess what? They proved me wrong.

I desperately want the GOP to become a party with some integrity, some genuine concerns for America and for the people of these United States and of the world. I'd like to see more integrity, more concern for America and for the people of these United States and of the world out of the Democrats as well.

Hear here. I even started a thread dedicated to the display of Republican integrity and concern for America and for people in general.

Or from any other party---but I haven't. And I used to sometimes vote 3rd party. But if we have to compare the two parties--and every election, indeed, we do, the Democrats are so much better in all of those measures than the GOP that it isn't even funny.

I do hope some humanitarian thing rises from the ashes of the Republican party - or springs from the ground fertilized by its rotting corpse.

 

[marc]

Some useful information for those following this issue:

1. Conservative efforts to put barriers in the way of Black Americans has been going on since the day they gained the power to vote. These have included tests of ancestry (could your grnadfather vote? No? He was a slave? Then you have to take this tricky test. Oh, your grandpa was white and could therefore vote? You don’t have to take the test, or pay the tax) they have included removing voting machinery from Black neighborhoods to increase the lines, they have included ID requirements that are difficult to get (Oh, you were born at home? No birth certificate, no voting, don’t care that you were not allowed to use the hospital because you were black.)
2. Legislators in America cannot be fired. That is not a thing. It never has been. It’s part of the democracy thingy that we have.
3. Not everyone has a car. Indeed, while 95% of white Americans have access to a working car, only 81% of Black Americans do (see “systemic wealth inequality” meaning current inequality that is propped up by previous inequalities)
4. Not everyone needs a license, since they don’t have a car, so even fewer than those numbers above equal the % with a license.
5. You do not automatically get a social security number - you have to sign up for it. It is not a trivial process.
6. If you need a copy of your birth certificate to get your social security number or your driver license, you have to contact the hospital you were born in. If it is still there. Assuming you know where. If necessary, you need to contact the county you were born in. Assuming the hospital provided records. And they will charge you for it. It costs money.
7. You do not need a license to get electricity, it is often provided with a rental package.
8. Every form of ID in America costs money. There is not a single one that is free or guaranteed. Not one.

I remember when Wisconsin enacted voter ID laws. They included a way to get ID from the DMV for people without licenses, but tried to keep that part from the public. It was more of a way to claim the law wasn't disenfranchising people when that was the intent. They even fired one person for trying to make that part of the law public knowledge. Also, they closed DMV offices in democrat leaning areas, and extended the hours in republican leaning areas.

 

[laughing dog]

I did not imagine I had the power to force anybody and I did not say or imply it. The fault is with your comprehension skills. "I want" is not "I have the power".

"I want to force them to do the jobs they were paid for." strongly suggests to even the modestly literate that one is either implying they have (or wish they had) power to force them. Words have meanings, and it is the responsibility of the writer, not the reader, to clearly express their meaning. Blaming the reader for your lack of clarity is, at a minimum, very poor manners.

I do grant that in the large context of your posting history, a more charitable interpretation is that it is another example of your hyperbolic rhetoric to express your strong ideologically-driven context-free opinions.

 

[Jarhyn]

I did not imagine I had the power to force anybody and I did not say or imply it. The fault is with your comprehension skills. "I want" is not "I have the power".

"I want to force them to do the jobs they were paid for." strongly suggests to even the modestly literate that one is either implying they have (or wish they had) power to force them. Words have meanings, and it is the responsibility of the writer, not the reader, to clearly express their meaning. Blaming the reader for your lack of clarity is, at a minimum, very poor manners.

I do grant that in the large context of your posting history, a more charitable interpretation is that it is another example of your hyperbolic rhetoric to express your strong ideologically-driven context-free opinions.

So no can't remember, did Metaphor trot out that people should do their jobs in the thread about the clerk of court who refused to do her job as respected gay marriage?

Or was that an acceptable failure to do one's job?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Could this be considered a form of a filibuster?

 

[Patooka]

Could this be considered a form of a filibuster?

Yep. I'm honestly surprised it worked.

 

[ZiprHead]

I have twelve Texas Dem legislators under my desk, all murmuring Joe Manchin Joe Manchin Joe Manchin.

 

[Swammerdami]

Is it ethical to refuse a quorum call? Modern Republicans might want to reconsider their feelings in view of the actions of Abraham Lincoln, widely acknowledged as the 2nd-greatest U.S. President ever, behind only Donald J. Trump.

Lincoln truly jumped out of a window in 1840 in an attempt to prevent a quorum. Surprisingly, this may have not been the first time that Lincoln pulled the “they can’t vote if I jump out a window” tactic. More on that other attempt later.

The above-displayed tweet is referencing an incident that took place at a Methodist Church that was serving as temporary legislative chambers in December 1840. Lincoln, who was a member of the Whig party at the time, was hoping that a lack of a quorum would stop Democrats from passing a bill that threatened the State Bank. But as Lincoln observed the vote, he realized that Democrats had been able to round-up enough members for a quorum. The future president had to think quick, spotted a nearby window, and made for the exit, followed by a few other members of the Whig party. While Lincoln’s escape was dramatic, it was not successful. The quorum stood and the legislation was approved.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Could this be considered a form of a filibuster?

Yep. I'm honestly surprised it worked.

I'm honestly (not) surprised that everyone in this thread who wanted to end the filibuster didn't condemn this walkout.