Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
Ummm....then why haven't they struck down all existing voting rights laws yet?
Ummm....then why haven't they struck down all existing voting rights laws yet?
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
If there are enough of you out there he won't win the nomination so case solved. If he does I don't think Joe will myopic enough to Hillary the base. Never mind everyone of these guys have handlers - surely they won't allow it to happen.
If we're being honest if an avowed liberal doesn't vote for the Democratic nominee because they aver to try and bring some civility back into play then ****** that voter and the horse they rode in on. I expect such a boorish and childish approach from a Republican, but a liberals should know and do better.
If there are enough of you out there he won't win the nomination so case solved. If he does I don't think Joe will myopic enough to Hillary the base. Never mind everyone of these guys have handlers - surely they won't allow it to happen.
If we're being honest if an avowed liberal doesn't vote for the Democratic nominee because they aver to try and bring some civility back into play then ****** that voter and the horse they rode in on. I expect such a boorish and childish approach from a Republican, but a liberals should know and do better.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
Well we know you can't handle either one so in this case we're essentially one in the same.
Well we know you can't handle either one so in this case we're essentially one in the same.
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
Because racist states can (and already have) go back to blatantly discriminating after that ridiculous ruling...Ummm....then why haven't they struck down all existing voting rights laws yet?
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
There won't be. We'll be stuck with him, or someone like him. And I'll plug my nose and check the box anyway.
There won't be. We'll be stuck with him, or someone like him. And I'll plug my nose and check the box anyway.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
This times 10000000.
I get that we need a strong swing back to the left. Kep touched on this point in a later post which I'll comment on in a sec.
What I'm suggesting is that we use 2020 just to get our foot in the door so to speak. Trying to swing everyone dead left will leave some behind (like what Bernie-Bros did to Hilary in 2016). That's why I think we go with the "safe" route next year. Don't swing for a home run when a single through the infield will suffice
This times 10000000.
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
That....doesn't...make...sense....
Republicans want to stop anybody from voting who isn't already one of their supporters. Black, white, brown, green. It doesn't matter. Getting rid of Motor Voter or the VRA would go a long way to furthering those aims.
That....doesn't...make...sense....
Republicans want to stop anybody from voting who isn't already one of their supporters. Black, white, brown, green. It doesn't matter. Getting rid of Motor Voter or the VRA would go a long way to furthering those aims.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
That's what Obama was for and look at us now.
That's what Obama was for and look at us now.
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
Sorry but if you're going to argue that the SC is going to somehow be impartial and not uphold challenges to HR1 or other progressive legislation if presented to them then lmao.
Yeah... and the SC is even further to the right than it was in 2013, why the hell would they not uphold a challenge to HR1 if it was presented? They've already gutted the enforcement of the voting rights act, it's not like they need to overturn every single word of the voting rights act to achieve their goals.
They upheld Ohio purging the voter rolls...
Sorry but if you're going to argue that the SC is going to somehow be impartial and not uphold challenges to HR1 or other progressive legislation if presented to them then lmao.
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
Democrats suck at campaigning.
Why hasn't this been labeled a tax on the lower and middle class? Walmart Shoppers are paying this. This is a MASSIVE TAX INCREASE on the American People.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...pid=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Democrats suck at campaigning.
Why hasn't this been labeled a tax on the lower and middle class? Walmart Shoppers are paying this. This is a MASSIVE TAX INCREASE on the American People.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...pid=rss&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
Communism means workers' collectives owning the means of production, eliminating private property, and eliminating wages (since they are pointless in a communist economy). I am nowhere near advocating that, nor would I since I am dead set against the latter two and think the former is utterly unrealistic for a non-government entity and hugely overreaching in most midsize to small industries even if it were done by the government.
Leftism is socialism, which I advocate, though, I am far from doctrinaire or radical. Socialism means the government (not workers soviets) owns key industries, workers are still employees but heavily unionized, private property is still protected although there are limits at the very high end, wages still exist and people can spend whatever they want on whatever they want to buy. I like the right of private property and I like personal freedom so I am against communism. But I don't just care about myself and I want other people to have a good life regardless of how much money their daddy had, and I want small businesses to have as good a chance to compete in the free market as big businesses, so I am against capitalism. I want to nationalize the energy and finance sectors because the private interests which manage those are predatory sociopaths and in any case incompetent and an existential threat to our species.
The fact that you don't know this simple difference, and wouldn't respect it even if you did, is worth more than anything I could say in characterizing exactly what you are, politically. Suffice that the current situation is so dire we need you but in a normal world you would be a solid economic conservative. That you vote Democratic tells me everything I need to know about how far this country has moved to the lunatic right.
Communism means workers' collectives owning the means of production, eliminating private property, and eliminating wages (since they are pointless in a communist economy). I am nowhere near advocating that, nor would I since I am dead set against the latter two and think the former is utterly unrealistic for a non-government entity and hugely overreaching in most midsize to small industries even if it were done by the government.
Leftism is socialism, which I advocate, though, I am far from doctrinaire or radical. Socialism means the government (not workers soviets) owns key industries, workers are still employees but heavily unionized, private property is still protected although there are limits at the very high end, wages still exist and people can spend whatever they want on whatever they want to buy. I like the right of private property and I like personal freedom so I am against communism. But I don't just care about myself and I want other people to have a good life regardless of how much money their daddy had, and I want small businesses to have as good a chance to compete in the free market as big businesses, so I am against capitalism. I want to nationalize the energy and finance sectors because the private interests which manage those are predatory sociopaths and in any case incompetent and an existential threat to our species.
The fact that you don't know this simple difference, and wouldn't respect it even if you did, is worth more than anything I could say in characterizing exactly what you are, politically. Suffice that the current situation is so dire we need you but in a normal world you would be a solid economic conservative. That you vote Democratic tells me everything I need to know about how far this country has moved to the lunatic right.
Last edited:
RaceBoarder
Waiting for the Snow to fly...
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
Basically I'm referencing the fact that D voters didn't vote because Bernie wasn't on the ticket... That CAN NOT happen in 2020.... We need every vote the D's can muster because the election will be decided in "Purple" states. Sure, in Illinois, it probably doesn't matter if I don't vote for _______ on the D ballot. But if people take that attitude in Florida or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, we are doomed to more of the same **** 2016 got us...
ANY D vote is better then no vote at all. And that's what people need to realize at this point...
Basically I'm referencing the fact that D voters didn't vote because Bernie wasn't on the ticket... That CAN NOT happen in 2020.... We need every vote the D's can muster because the election will be decided in "Purple" states. Sure, in Illinois, it probably doesn't matter if I don't vote for _______ on the D ballot. But if people take that attitude in Florida or Pennsylvania or Wisconsin, we are doomed to more of the same **** 2016 got us...
ANY D vote is better then no vote at all. And that's what people need to realize at this point...
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
True. Also goes for political news coverage. "It's difficult for someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it."
Why would you propose a leftist policy when you can make $700/hour consulting with corporations and insurance companies about how to get out of thorny bankruptcy problems while pretending to be a leftist?
True. Also goes for political news coverage. "It's difficult for someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it."
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
Yes we need people in those states to vote blue no matter who even if it's some regressive like Biden because it's better than the alternative but even if that happens we're still likely ****ed in the long run as history has shown repeatedly. The problems this country faces aren't solely Trump related and as we discussed above the Supreme Court has been stacked with right wing loons. We need someone who will at the very least fight to fix that mess to get anything meaningful done and there are basically only 2 viable candidates who even want to do anything productive.
There were a LOT of reasons Hillary lost from voter suppression, what you mentioned RE Bernie voters, Comey, her not campaigning in WI, her health scare, 20+ years of right wing propaganda, and probably like ten other things. Blaming it solely on Bernie voters when Obama had historical turnout in 2008 despite a far greater number of Hillary voters doing what Bernie voters did in 2016, is probably lower on the list of reasons she lost than some of those other factors.
Yes we need people in those states to vote blue no matter who even if it's some regressive like Biden because it's better than the alternative but even if that happens we're still likely ****ed in the long run as history has shown repeatedly. The problems this country faces aren't solely Trump related and as we discussed above the Supreme Court has been stacked with right wing loons. We need someone who will at the very least fight to fix that mess to get anything meaningful done and there are basically only 2 viable candidates who even want to do anything productive.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
Yes, all of the left, the center-left, and the center-right with consciences (crickets) need to band together and restore democracy against the risible squealing of the right. And we should all support each other in doing this. The best way to do that is to energize the electorate and bring back those who have given up on government ever working for them again, at the same time giving the Republican moderates one helluva scare so they'll start peeling away from the fascists.
In other words, from the left, not this:
<img src="https://images.dailykos.com/images/678066/story_image/1439ckCOMIC-perfect-candidate.png?1558531805" height="666" >
Yes, all of the left, the center-left, and the center-right with consciences (crickets) need to band together and restore democracy against the risible squealing of the right. And we should all support each other in doing this. The best way to do that is to energize the electorate and bring back those who have given up on government ever working for them again, at the same time giving the Republican moderates one helluva scare so they'll start peeling away from the fascists.
In other words, from the left, not this:
<img src="https://images.dailykos.com/images/678066/story_image/1439ckCOMIC-perfect-candidate.png?1558531805" height="666" >
Last edited:
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
Again, that's the point. The Ohio ruling was that you can't purge people for not voting (which is their right) but you can if there's a second criteria added, in that particular case not responding to several warnings that you were about to lose your registration.
The feds have it in their power to update the law with whatever criteria needed to ensure people aren't needlessly purged from the rolls. They can also ban disproportionate access to polling places and a host of other things and there's no constitutional issue. They can also address disenfranchisement of ex-felons.
I'm under no illusion about the SCOTUS and its makeup and have continually argued to add 2 more seats to restore its rightful balance after the stolen Garland seat. However, if Roberts were inclined to do so, there would be zero voting rights laws still in existence. If the GOP thought they could get that through the courts, they would be trying to. Clearly there's some level of rights that 5 justices will support. High time to test that out.
Again, that's the point. The Ohio ruling was that you can't purge people for not voting (which is their right) but you can if there's a second criteria added, in that particular case not responding to several warnings that you were about to lose your registration.
The feds have it in their power to update the law with whatever criteria needed to ensure people aren't needlessly purged from the rolls. They can also ban disproportionate access to polling places and a host of other things and there's no constitutional issue. They can also address disenfranchisement of ex-felons.
I'm under no illusion about the SCOTUS and its makeup and have continually argued to add 2 more seats to restore its rightful balance after the stolen Garland seat. However, if Roberts were inclined to do so, there would be zero voting rights laws still in existence. If the GOP thought they could get that through the courts, they would be trying to. Clearly there's some level of rights that 5 justices will support. High time to test that out.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
This would be a more compelling argument if it ever happened. The problem in 2016 was turd policy and a turd candidate. The Left did our job by holding our breath and supporting The Insiders. And Dump came along telling people he'd build a fire on the National Mall and immolate all the insiders and everybody loved it.
Whoever we elect better be able to credibly say they're going to burn the ticks off the American scalp. That means bankers and oil men and militarists and Neocons and Nazi child murderers, as well as Dumpy and his crowd of cretinous criminals. We have always wondered why the people aren't angry. Now, when they're angry, our leaders just want to calm them down. You really have to wonder why, and who they're really protecting.
Let fury have the hour; anger can be power; d'you know that you can use it?
This would be a more compelling argument if it ever happened. The problem in 2016 was turd policy and a turd candidate. The Left did our job by holding our breath and supporting The Insiders. And Dump came along telling people he'd build a fire on the National Mall and immolate all the insiders and everybody loved it.
Whoever we elect better be able to credibly say they're going to burn the ticks off the American scalp. That means bankers and oil men and militarists and Neocons and Nazi child murderers, as well as Dumpy and his crowd of cretinous criminals. We have always wondered why the people aren't angry. Now, when they're angry, our leaders just want to calm them down. You really have to wonder why, and who they're really protecting.
Let fury have the hour; anger can be power; d'you know that you can use it?
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
Well they've already gotten rid of the main enforcement apparatus of the VRA and while you might argue it isn't "needless" purging of the voter rolls, their sole intent is to disenfranchise voters and that was explicitly a challenge to the NVRA which was upheld. So yes, they've more or less shown that they are willing to uphold challenges to voting rights and ignore the constitution in those instances. Why exactly would HR1 be any different? Because they haven't invalidated every single word of the the other acts, just the important parts?
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
So trix, you DO realize that the part of the VRA that the Roberts court overturned had no effect on Ohio as it wasn't covered under the original pre-clearance map, right?
So trix, you DO realize that the part of the VRA that the Roberts court overturned had no effect on Ohio as it wasn't covered under the original pre-clearance map, right?
trixR4kids
Well-known member
Re: 2020 Democrat Challengers Part II: There Can Be Only One
The Ohio challenge was a challenge to the motor voter act, and it was upheld. The 2013 challenge (Shelby v Holder) was challenging the voter rights act (or at least the enforcement apparatus), also upheld.
And now you're arguing that the Supreme Court wouldn't likely uphold a challenge to HR1 because... ~reasons~
The Ohio challenge was a challenge to the motor voter act, and it was upheld. The 2013 challenge (Shelby v Holder) was challenging the voter rights act (or at least the enforcement apparatus), also upheld.
And now you're arguing that the Supreme Court wouldn't likely uphold a challenge to HR1 because... ~reasons~
Last edited:
- Status