If the POT was a fact based party interested in strengthening democracy.......

Lee, Much of that is a left-leaning political wish list. But I am going to do more than just criticize your post.

I am going to tell you what the biggest threat to our democracy is.

It is a Congress whose only care is to be re-elected over and over. Because with that being their sole motivation, then what is best for the nation takes a back seat. For the overwhelming majority of members of Congress, “the good of the nation” is not even on their radar of priorities.

We could transform our politics for the better if:

1) We repealed the 17th Amendment and returned the selection of Senators to our state legislatures. This change would eliminate the need for Senators to prostitute themselves for campaign cash, and it would make them beholden only to their state, no outside interests.

2) Term limits on House members. 2 terms (4 years) and they’re out.

Again, we would transform our politics for the better if we did those two things.

 

So basically Lee just wants everyone to sell out and become RINOs.... Well you know what they say about wishing in one and pooping in the other

 

@Ronstar, they are the POT because of those reasons.

His groupies and cultists aren't pretending they are interested in ALL people having special rights and privileges.

 

In the aggregate overall, many of the new laws disproportionately affect urban areas.

In Atlanta, in black neighborhoods, voters have waited an average of a hour, 2 hours in some cases, where in white neighborhoods only 6 minutes.

You see, Republicans are gaming the system, whereby when they make claims like yours, which, looking in isolation here and there, might not seem like anything, but, unless you consider the entirety of their scheme, then it becomes apparent what the game plan is.

A percentage of non ID holders are less than ambulatory, lack a birth certificate, etc, where it becomes such a burden trying to get an ID they just give up. which, of course, is the republican objective. This disproportionately affects urban areas, hence the reason for the imposition in the first place. This number amounts to quite a few thousand, adding up all the areas, such that, in a tight race, could mean the difference between winning and losing, ( and not just IDs, all of the schemes added cumulatively) which, of course, is the entire motivation for making these laws, of which 'voter integrity' is a subterfuge, a ruse to cling to power because they know they can't win democratically.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opi...real-reason-wants-election-reform/6895380002/

It's a 'competitive disadvantage,' lawyer says
In a hearing on Tuesday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked why the Arizona Republican Party was involved in trying to reinstate the law.

“What’s the interest of the Arizona RNC in keeping, say, the out-of-precinct ballot disqualification rules on the books?" she asked.

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” replied attorney Michael Carvin, who is representing the Arizona Republican Party. “Politics is a zero-sum game. And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretation of Section 2 (of the Voting Rights Act) hurts us. It’s the difference between winning an election 50-49 and losing an election 51 to 50.”

Credit to Carvin for his remarkable honesty.

The above is but one example of the overall Republican scheme. So, if 'power grab' really concerns you, look to your own party who is doing it.

That is the truth, and there is nothing you can say that will disprove it.

Not for the people who wanted to vote in person, hence the problem.

It strengthens our liberal democracy, which means the Nation, it's laws, it's constitutions, it's elections, it's government, it's citizens, it's liberty the works.

It's specious to say 'it doesn't help democracy' if your logic is 'because democracy isn't dependent on it', and the reason
it is specious is because the fact that it does, indeed, help democracy doesn't require democracy being dependent on it.

You have committed an error of logic.

So? It helps our nation, it's good for us. That is all that matters, You are rejecting it for a parochial reason, that 'democracy is not dependent on it' or that it 'helps every nation'. That being true, is more, not less, reason for doing it.

A liberal democracy is emboldened by a healthy nation. The fact that it would help non democracies doesn't alter the fact, which means, in other words, that is no reason to reject it.

You have committed an error of logic.

You've read it through a right wing lens. I stand by my comment that:

The voting rights act is not about power, it's about disallowing Republicans in their power grab
The VRA will even the score.

so, allowing climate change to continue on his course without trying to prevent it is 'sophistry'?

Obviously, you do not know what the word means.

As I've stated, the term 'democracy', as I'm using it, is more to 'Western Liberal Democracy" which encompasses the nation, it's citizens, it's civilization, it's constitution, it's liberty, it's rule of law, freedom of assembly, bill of rights, etc. and NOT jsut 'elections'.

I've already explained it to you that is what I'm talking about, and I've already explained to you that agriculture in America has a labor shorted and by that fact, America needs more immigrants, not less. So, whatever policy that alleviates the problem is the direction America should go. The fact that it works for other types of governments is irrelevant.

Spending money, equating it with speech, is really misleading.

Money, unlike speech, when spent in quantities by a single source, carries more power than the weight of millions of people speaking. one source with millions to spend has far more power and influence than one person speaking, this is the fallaciousness of SCOTUS's reasoning. They were simply wrong.

Since no individuals speech can equal the power and influence of millions of dollars coming from a single source, or millions of dollars coming from fewer sources than its 'one person one voice' counterpart, in all sense of justice and fairness it should not be reduced to mere 'speech'. It should be placed in a separate category. Why? because the law should be driven by Justice. Is not the scales of Justice the symbol of justice?

How is it fair that one source with millions to spend or a smaller group with millions to spend, having vastly more power and influence than one person speaking are treated the same? How is that 'justice'?

That ruling was a error of logic. That ruling has done more damage to America that just about any other ruling.

it's a question of degrees where it no longer is subjective, but obvious. I listed the many reasons. When one man has committed so many acts of moral turpitude, there should be limits as to who America should allow to acquire the most powerful job in the world. Why? because history is replete with examples of how demagogues can manipulate millions of people. America absolutely needs a means, a mechanism, for weeding out the demagogues among us and preventing them from acquiring power.

I don't see your argument as a compelling reason to do away with the status quo on this narrow point.

 

No, the EC of today is not Hamilton's vision of the EC. The EC of today has become merely a rubber stamp for the popular vote in each state, where the elector distribution unfairly penalizes blue states.

When the EC was crated, there were only 13 states, of relatively similar size, and the elector distirbution was done so that the smaller states would join in and ratify the constitution, which gave the smaller states a bigger voice.

When the EC was created, they didn't foresee that a few hundred years in the future states would have similar populations as some nations.

That is why the EC needs to, either be eliminated, emasculated and tied to the popular vote, or overhauled.

This idea that the EC was designed for 'minority rule' is nonsense. It wasn't designed to make those with fewer votes win, it was designed to protect larger croups tyrannizing smaller factions. by factions, back then, it was thought of as worker groups, farmers, shoemakers, various guilds and so forth. The party system did not exist and now it's red versus blue, and the EC was not designed to function in the current environment.

Moreover, since, in the last 250 years, the winner who got the fewest votes has occurred only five times, proves that the system was not invented to reward those who get the fewest votes. They reasoned, calculated, that, the few times that it might be happen, would be a willing price to pay for the advantages of the EC, the advantages of which, is no longer true because America has evolved in ways that the founders could not have foreseen.

We are not the same, frontier country of simple persons, frontiersmen, etc. And, I'm not particularly fond of the notion that we, of the present, but adhere strictly to the intend and design of the founding fathers. Concerns of the present have every right to supersede the obsolescent understandings of generations long past. We should keep what is still applicable, and reject what no longer works for how our society has evolved. I suspect this is precisely why many aspects of the constitution were written in broad, often vague, terms, so as to allow it to be reinterpreted as society evolves. It's a living, breathing, document, not a static, frozen, thing.

In my view, there can be no system that is more color blind, faction blind, than 'one person, one vote'.

There is no stronger idea than an idea whose time has come.

One man, one vote.

(man = men and women over 1.

The ONLY reason republicans want the EC and elector system to remain is because they perceive that, without it, they will be less able to cling to power.

If that is the case, and that is the case, what republicans need to do improve their sales pitch, rather than try and game the system.

 

True, and that is why Sinema and Manchin are reluctant to disband the filibuster.

However, it's an idea whose time as come, is it was NEVER designed to be the obstructionist mechanism has has become.

 

I care about the elimination of specious reasoning.

You base your policy on protecting a minority against a 'mob', which, there is no other thing left to conclude
that you are calling the majority a 'mob'.

That being true, then the following is a valid statement:

Asserting that 81,000, 000 people is a mob, and 74,000,000, the minority, is not a mob is an absurdity.

 

What's wrong with ending gerrymandering and replacing it with districts drawn by bi-partisan commissions? Why do you view it as Leftist? It gives no unfair advantage to either side.

 

Then explain to me when dems put up a procedural vote to debate a bill, repubs filibuster the procedural vote?

What is a 'procedural vote'?

Before a bill can be passed, amended, etc, it must be debated.

(source, "procedural vote to debate" google search).
To consider a bill on the floor, the Senate first must agree to bring it up – typically by agreeing to a unanimous consent request or by voting to adopt a motion to proceed to the bill, as discussed earlier. Only once the Senate has agreed to consider a bill may Senators propose amendments to it.

So the Senate votes on whether or not to debate the bill, add amendments, etc., via a procedural vote or unanimous consent.

But republicans will filibuster it, or if a unanimous consent is requested, they deny it, not allowing a debate and amendments.

So, we absolutely do try to work with the opposition, and the way to do that, the very first step in the process is........

To debate the bill. Agree to put the bill on the floor.

The next step are amendments, vote on those.

The next step is to send the bill, if it is passed, to the other house and onward she goes to becoming a law.

But, if republicans filibuster procedural votes or deny unanimous consent to put a bill on the floor, there is no hope of 'working together'.

 

Just some ideas.

 

Explain your comment in the context of.......https://www.cato.org/blog/republicans-should-support-electoral-count-act-reform

 

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

My bad, I missed the halos.

 

the homeless and poor choose to live here because the weather, so this stat will naturally be higher.

If I were poor, would I choose hellish state, weather wise, like Oklahoma, or California?

I'd choose California. So, this stat is misleading, which you are using to smear CA

Because we have a bigger state, more municipality, more everything, higher taxes are necessary.
WE also run a multibillion dollar budget surplus.

How about that!

We have the most beaches, DUH, and you can always find a good beach.
This fact is the best argument to shut down the oil platforms off the coast of California, which republicans want to build more of.

You bring in more more immigrant kids, who don't speak English, in schools, it will drag the grade average down.
Okay, so we are more lenient to illegals, that's what this is all about.
But, when I grew up, I had no problem with my schools, classes were never more than 30 in a class, etc.
and the diversity was a good thing.

More roads than any other state, more difficulty to maintain and repair.
Bigness is why. It should be expected.

there are more rich people, and more poor people, which neoliberalism, practiced on the national level, is the major factor.
It's a meaningless stat.

Blacks and minorities, indeed, have poorer eating habits, and we have more of those because we have more urban areas than other states.

Another meaningless stat.

You use these meaningless stats to smear California.

And you do it over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, all to forward a right wing agenda and smear the state.

Those stats do not reflect what it's like to BE in California.

I could sell my manufactured home, easily for $100k and live in a bigger house in another state, but I choose not to.

Why? Because this states is beautiful, the beaches and resorts are to die for, the nightlife, the diversity, the endless artsy beach towns, things to do, the culture, the arts, and the weather is killer. We have more here, in all categories, than other states, which is, perhaps, the reason why 39,000,000 folks CHOOSE to live here far more than any other state.

If I go to a beautiful beach, and there are five more fat people than I would experience in New Jersey, does that diminish my experience?

**** no. Your stats are just to smear this state.


And not of your crappy meaningless stats can take that away.

This is what it's like to be in California:

 

The EC was never designed so that the population of a few states would dominate elections.
Thats where you are wrong.
The EC was devised so that each state gets a vote and that two or three states would never be able to rule by majority.
Its works exactly as it was intended.

Perfect example. Trump won the popular vote in the total of 49 states. It isn't until you throw in California that he lost the popular vote.

 

I've had to wait 2 hours to vote before. In a town of 5k people with very few black people living here. Was that the "Republican plan" also?

Yes, I can see the people in the back twirling their handlebar mustaches and laughing maniacally.

If they give up then that is their problem. Its their choice to give up. But frankly I find such an excuse BS. I've had to get my birth certificate before because my old one got lost. All it took was a phone call and answer some questions that proved who I am and send in a few papers. All in all it took a month to get my birth certificate. 1 month out of 24. Not that hard to do.

So its a power grab to ensure that the other side isn't interpreting the law unlawfully? Hmm..............

If they want to vote in person then they have to deal with the obstacles. :shrug: Wah. My god it is physically impossible to account for every single little thing. And its an insane thing to expect.

Democracy is all about voting. Adding anything else to it is what is specious. Its just an excuse to try and get X done. That is it.

If it helps the nation then it should be able to stand on its own. There is no need to tack it onto "Oh but Democracy!!!!"

Any country is emboldened by a healthy nation. Doesn't matter if its a democracy, dictatorship, oligarchy, socialism, communism etc etc. Hint for you: I support UHC. But tacking it, or immigration, or anything else onto a system of government is just BS.

You apparently have no idea what lens I view things from.



Try again.

The sophistry is trying to attach it to a particular form of governance. Climate change is a world wide problem that has nothing to do with governments.

I don't care about your definition of Democracy. A Democracy is what it is. And its about voting for or against things. Period. That is all that it is. Doesn't matter how much you change the definition or spin it or add a word to it such as ""liberal" democracy". That is what its about. The only thing that affects Democracy is whether or not people are allowed to vote.

I agree, America needs more immigrants. Legal immigrants that is. NOT illegal immigrants who have shown a disdain for our laws by simply not being here legally. But all of that is beside the point. Immigration has nothing to do with Democracy. It is a separate subject.

As opposed to oh say...national news media (single source, pick one) that has more weight than the millions of people speaking but are never once on that news media? There's plenty I'd like to let the nation know, think any news media will let me on their platform? Me, a nobody? Or what about Congress? Think that they'll let the common man speak to them on the Floor of either chamber?

Like it or not, money spent politically IS a form of speech.

The Scales of Justice applies to the law. It does not apply to every little thing imaginable. It is an impossibility to make everything equitable. There will always be an injustice if you apply "Justice" so broadly.

There already is one. Vote.

So you have no problem with unelected people telling you what you can and cannot do? Got it. So you don't actually care about democracy as much as you claim.

 

Cal has 396,540 miles of roads and Texas has 683,533

 

I am not smearing CA; I am simply posting verifiable facts.

Our homeless are not from colder climates coming here to stay warm.

All of my facts take the population into consideration.

"higher taxes are necessary" is nothing more than a political platitude. It is 100% false.

Our toxic beaches are not the result of oil platforms. Oil spills are bad, but there are bigger factors. Do some research.

I can't help that you believe public health is meaningless. You have a right to your opinion. Personally, I strongly oppose corrupt politicians forcing me to pay to make others sick.

In spite of being corrected, you still insist I am pushing right wing agenda. I do realize it is a matter or perspective and you may be so far left that a Libertarian appears far right. I am far from a rightie.

Since you cannot refute any of the facts I posted, you resort to diversions and travel brochure pics to defend your party. Results speak for themselves.

 

Funny how "its time has come".....AFTER Democrats gain power. When they weren't in power this was their belief....

LINK: Senators sign letter to preserve filibuster rules | CNN Politics

Now its suddenly time to do away with it. Uh huh. The same reason that they wanted to preserve it then (literally just 4 years ago) still exists today.

But hey, go ahead. Get rid of the filibuster. Eventually Republicans will return to power. Then you'll be hollering for the filibuster to be brought back. But you'll be ignored.

 

California is a real world experiment in all the above. How is it for the little people, there? How's all that Democrat 'goodness' worked out for them?

 

How about this. We use it to our advantage during this term. Then when the democrats are in the minority, they can work with the republicans on removing the filibuster. Since they don’t want to just do it for political gain I mean. I’m sure the republicans will happily consider removing the filibuster when the democrats are in the minority.

What ya think?

Hell you might get a damn near unanimous yes vote from the republicans if the Dems propose it when they’re a minority.

But you and I both know that would NEVER happen. Don’t we?

 

You act like gerrymandering is a Republican-only phenomenon. It isn’t. Your beloved Democrats are invested in it just as much as anyone else.

What is REALLY needed are legislators who want to work for the good of America and who are willing to compromise. That’s why we need the term limits I suggested. Our present legislators only care about campaign contributions and getting re-elected forever. THEY are the greatest impediment to a good functioning democracy.