Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

What is funny to me is that you are talking about the fringiest of the fringe right. Normal people don't think Trump is going to be reinstated or voted speaker of the house and then assassinate Biden and Harris. That is Alex Jones+ level derangement.

On the other hand, mainstream democrats are baying for Manchin and Sinema to get on board with eliminating the filibuster so that Democrats in a 50-50 divided Senate can pass legislation on a party line vote. Literally taking power by other means where Senate rules are just thrown out the window because of friendlies in the Executive Branch that can break ties in their favor.

 

In January that "fringiest of fringe right" was 53% of republicans.


And now, 66% of the "fringiest of fringe right", er, republicans say they are in favor of trump running in 2024.

https://www.newsweek.com/most-republicans-want-donald-trump-2024-poll-1595378

 

More than half of Republicans surveyed believe Trump won the 2020 election, that doesn't sound like a fringe group to me. Democrats are doing what they need to in order to allow free elections. Too bad the GOP knows the only way they can win is through voter suppression. Manchin supported going back to a talking filibuster but now he's too scared to even do that and has backtracked even though he has a slim to none chance of winning reelection in 2024.

Sounds like you and @Os Trigonum both hate free elections? Not surprised...

 

I want to bookmark this post the next time the Republicans are in power in the Senate and need to pass something that’s can’t be done under reconciliation.

The Republicans already nuked the filibuster for SCOTUS picks FYI. They’ll do it again and you’re very naive or lying if you think they have some reverence for the filibuster.

Also the founding fathers were mostly unified against a filibuster. The filibuster was only created coming out of the Jim Crow era as a mechanism for slowing down civil rights legislation.

So your points about the filibuster being some gotcha whataboutism are going to fall flat and if that’s all you got then you don’t have much. The Democrats must be representing a good model for Democracy around the world then.

....

To your point about this being “fringe right wing” stuff...

The fact is Trump as a political vehicle represents the fringiest of the fringe. The guy literally is egging on his supporters right now that he’s magically going to be “reinstated” in August. That is batshit crazy and dangerous. An obvious autocrat wannabe dictator that we’d call as much in any other country.

So if a Republican voter voted for and will vote again for Donald Trump... guess what.. you are fringe.... you are openly being hostile towards Democracy with a vote for Trump. It’s just that simple dude.

 

We wouldn't need H.R.1 if...

 

Do you not see any space between, "Maybe there was fraud in the election." or "Trump should run again in 2024" and "If the Republicans take the House the Republican representatives should elect Trump Speaker of the House and then we should assassinate Biden and Harris so Trump becomes president"? To me, those are radically different stances.

We have free elections. The new laws in Georgia still allow free elections. Voter ID is still free elections. What are you talking about? There is no voter suppression. Show me the bill that says Democrats can't vote or black people can't vote or something similar and I will join you in opposing it. Saying you have to prove you are the person you claim to be with a freely available ID is not it. Elimination of mail in ballots without the inability to vote in person isn't either.

It has already happened. The Republicans had the Senate and the Presidency and the House under Trump from 2017 to 2019 and they didn't nuke the filibuster.

After the Democrats got rid of the filibuster for every presidential appointee except the SCOTUS you mean? That time?

The filibuster predated Jim Crow by 30 years and was used by the Whig party to prevent censure of Andrew Jackson, but please continue with your lesson in alternate history.

Whataboutism is not a real thing. Argument by analogy is a long recognized and well respected form of argumentation and is in fact the very basis of common law which predates the founding of the United States by hundreds of years. Whataboutism is a made up term for people that don't like the hypocrisy of their views used against them.

As I neither voted for Trump in the past nor would I vote for him in the future, nor am I a Republican, that's nice. I would guess the vast majority of Republicans don't think Trump is going to be reinstated in August. Those that do, I would say are the fringe.

 

Trump responded:

 

In this case, no, not much space involving the candidate that actively encouraged the assault on the capital to overturn the 2020 election, that has actively promoted "The Big Lie" about the 2020 presidential election that he clearly lost...and a party that will not only avoid holding that candidate accountable, but will put him forward as the leading candidate for the republican nomination in 2024.

So no... its not a "fringiest of right wing fringe" but rather the republican party.

 

More cringe than fringe.

 

To be fair to Manchin (not to the Democratic chick from Arizona, Ms. Sinema. I don't know what she thinks about anything, and I don't think she does, either), the Senator supports a much more limited voting rights bill, the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, that would return much of the crucial part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act gutted by Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. Specifically, the provision that requires states to consult with the federal government before making major changes to their voting rules.

The Lewis Act has the backing of Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. With Manchin, that would be 51 votes and without VP Harris sitting in, assuming Sinema doesn't forget which party she belongs to. Not what many of us would prefer, but an important step in a good direction.

Earlier, I read here that the Lewis Act wouldn't apply retroactively to the voting suppression legislation already passed or being passed soon. If true (and I hope it isn't), they need to pass the damn thing and get it to Biden's desk. Texas has to have a special session to revisit to the even worse voter suppression bills that Abbott and company are intent on putting in place. That hasn't been called. Not yet.

 

Even if it’s restored via the legislative branch what is stopping a conservative majority in the supreme court from striking it down again?

 

The reasoning given by Roberts for dismembering the Voting Rights Act was that it was no longer needed. The very brief description below, which is taken from Encyclopedia Britannica, illustrates just how radical the intervention by the Roberts Court's 5-4 majority ruling in striking down Section 4 of the Act actually was when looking at the history of the Act from 1965 to that shocking ruling in 2013.

"Roberts" declared it to be unjustified "in light of changed historical circumstances." The events of the last few years have proven that to be patently false. To overturn the Lewis Act reinstating Section 4 would be, in my opinion, the most partisan ruling by the Supreme Court since Bush v. Gore. Does Roberts have the nerve to pretend that the acts of discrimination against Black American voters by Republican majority legislatures hasn't happened in recent years, isn't happening now? If he voted against striking down the Lewis Act, would all of the other 5 conservative members of the court go against him? Interesting questions, in my opinion.

A bit of irony? President George W. Bush, who benefited so immensely from Bush v. Gore, signed a 25 year extension of the Voting Rights Act in July 2006. The Roberts intervention came a mere 7 years after the extension signed by President Bush and passed by Congress.

From Britannica:

In the 1950s and early 1960s the U.S. Congress enacted laws to protect the right of African Americans to vote, but such legislation was only partially successful. In 1964 the Civil Rights Act was passed and the Twenty-fourth Amendment, abolishing poll taxes for voting for federal offices, was ratified, and the following year Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson called for the implementation of comprehensive federal legislation to protect voting rights. The resulting act, the Voting Rights Act, suspended literacy tests, provided for federal approval of proposed changes to voting laws or procedures (“preclearance”) in jurisdictions that had previously used tests to determine voter eligibility (these areas were covered under Sections 4 and 5 of the legislation), and directed the attorney general of the United States to challenge the use of poll taxes for state and local elections. An expansion of the law in the 1970s also protected voting rights for non-English-speaking U.S. citizens. Sections 4 and 5 were extended for 5 years in 1970, 7 years in 1975, and 25 years in both 1982 and 2006.


Voting Rights Act
Pres. George W. Bush signing the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization, July 2006.
Paul Morse/White House photo

The Voting Rights Act resulted in a marked decrease in the voter registration disparity between whites and blacks. In the mid-1960s, for example, the overall proportion of white to black registration in the South ranged from about 2 to 1 to 3 to 1 (and about 10 to 1 in Mississippi); by the late 1980s racial variations in voter registration had largely disappeared. As the number of African American voters increased, so did the number of African American elected officials. In the mid-1960s there were about 70 African American elected officials in the South, but by the turn of the 21st century there were some 5,000, and the number of African American members of the U.S. Congress had increased from 6 to about 40. In what was widely perceived as a test case, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder, et al. (2009), the Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act. In Shelby County v. Holder (2013), however, the court struck down Section 4—which had established a formula for identifying jurisdictions that were required to obtain preclearance—declaring it to be unjustified in light of changed historical circumstances.


Shelby County v. Holder
Ryan Haygood, director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, protesting the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder to invalidate part of the Voting Rights Act, Washington, D.C., 2013.
Jim Lo Scalzo—EPA/Alamy

https://www.britannica.com/event/Voting-Rights-Act

 

Fringe of the fringiest…

 

Note: January 5...

 

Plain talk...

 

theres something to that. look at lindsey graham. he spoke out against trump after the insurrection and then had trump cult-members chasing and harassing him at an airport. he immediately changed his tune and went back to being a trump kiss-ass.

 

That's not a very aggressive ad. It's simply in the words of the officers who survived it. Hrmm.