Progressive compare Manchin to McConnell
Manchin defends his opposition
It seems to me that The For the People Bill takes us too far away from State's rights to Federal mandates... So I agree with Joe, the bill needs work...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
More like voice of incoherence. Joe Manchin is opposed to "partisan voting legislation", but won't raise a finger to stop the partisan voting legislation occurring in the states that will disenfranchise millions.
It seems to me you are missing the concept of "States" Rights.
What exactly should a US Senator be doing to enforce your will upon the people in other States?
Joe Manchin has said "God help us" if the Senate can't come together to at least pass the new VRA. Yet, there's only 1 Republican Senator who supports it. Is Joe Manchin going to let GOP partisan voting bills rewrite the nation's election laws to disenfranchise voters without using Congress as a check on that? Where's the bill that would protect voters in the way Manchin articulates that can earn 10 GOP votes in the Senate?
The Congress should be able to write Bills that at least Manchin and 3 GOP Senators can support. If not, Progressives are the problem...
"The Congress should be able to write Bills that at least Manchin and 3 GOP Senators can support. "
Need 10 GOP Senators, not 3.
"If not, Progressives are the problem..."
So, then who's the problem in the states? Who's going to stop what is going on in the states?
I would be happy with 3 as a sign that their bill is not a partisan power grab.
Not our problem... It is their state... Would you like Texas demanding how we ran our elections?
Same old question... Do you truly want to get rid of state / local rule / power?
"Do you truly want to get rid of state / local rule / power?"
Suggesting that we have consistent rules for national elections is not getting rid of all state and local power.
I am pretty sure you would like "consistent" / "progressive" rules for a great many things...
- Voting
- LGBT+ Rights
- Police accountability
- Welfare programs
- Taxation
- etc, etc, etc
Am I correct?
All of the issues you cited are either civil rights issues or federally funded programs, which should have a common national baseline. The rights of a LGBT person shouldn't change because they cross a line on a map, as an example.
Certainly, there is still a significant role to play for state and local governments. I'm not suggesting, for instance, that the federal government dictate how schools are funded at the state and local level. I'm not suggesting that state and local governments can't (within reason) innovate in their delivery of "welfare" programs. I'm not suggesting that the management of local police departments be dictated from Washington D.C.
So can we stick with the actual things that are being proposed instead of you yet again constructing your strawmen that aren't based on what I've actually said?
It is okay that you think your concept of good, fair, moral, etc is more correct than the citizens in Red States.
I just think our Union is more stable if we concern ourselves more with our local and state government. And let them worry about their rules most of the time.
Or maybe you are happy when the GOP dictates what happens in MN?
So on the above issues you listed, you would remove all federal participation and just leave it to state and local government?
More accurately, I am satisfied with our current balancing act... And SCOTUS solving the differences.
I have no real desire to make the people of Mississippi follow Minnesota's rules.
My belief is that folks on the Far Right and Far Left are very intolerant folks.
They are certain that "their will shall be done" everywhere... I disagree with this in many cases.
Should Texas determine Minnesota's laws, morality, etc?
It is an interesting concept...
How to drive the nation towards a "better union" while allowing local citizens freedom and self rule?
"More accurately, I am satisfied with our current balancing act."
You just recently posted your opposition to the GOP's state efforts to suppress voters. None of these State Senates have filibusters. Why is that the case, if it's so vital to democracy?
Remember that I see federal politics and the federal government as a BIG pendulum that moves back and forth slowly while slowly shifting position to a better state.
Where as Local and State governments can react faster and more erratically because the consequences have much less impact. And the 50 communities experimenting and trying new things has lead to many of our country's long term changes / improvements.
As I have said above, I am not holding out hope of 40 of the GOP Senators being rational and doing what is logical. But if this bill can not sway Manchin and 3 / 4 GOPers... It is over reach.
Maybe the Senate should change to requiring a 55 yes vote super majority in these times of excessive partisanship?
"Where as Local and State governments can react faster and more erratically because the consequences have much less impact. "
We're literally moving to a condition where GOP legislatures will be able to replace the results of the popular vote in their state if they don't like the outcome, and you're telling me there's "less impact"?
"But if this bill can not sway Manchin and 3 / 4 GOPers... It is over reach."
Are the state voter suppression bills passing on party line votes also overreach?
"Maybe the Senate should change to requiring a 55 yes vote super majority in these times of excessive partisanship?"
Why? All the filibuster has done is encourage the partisanship, not decrease it. Because it's a lot easier to just shut the other side down than actually do the work to make bills better.
State were invented in a time when it took three days to get from Boston to New York. Your local government responded faster because you could communicate with it faster, and because quite frankly the federal government didn't exist in any way that makes sense to modern Americans.
Times change. Steam ships were invented, railroads were built, a national economy was made possible and came into existence. These days, it is just as easy to make a phone call to Washington as it is to St. Paul. The connection is just as fast and the cost is just the same.
What limits response time are things like physical distance, rather its resources and political power. For example, however more quickly Minnesota might have identified the threat of the virus, it couldn't stop people coming in from outside the United States faster. Borders don't work that way.
--Hiram
"GOP legislatures will be able to replace the results"... I will believe that when I see that... In the 2020 election, some crazies considered that option but no state did anything with it....
Which "voter suppression" law concerns you most? The line between vote security and suppression seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
I don't think the DEMs or GOPers have any desire to compromise. Their fringes hold them both hostage. :-(
It will be interesting to see who they run as candidates in 2022 and who controls the House and Senate in 2023... Tribe Liberal and Tribe Conservative voters seem to be getting crazier every year... :-O
Hiram,
Transportation and communication has improved.
Unfortunately people, regions, belief systems, issues, etc are much the same.
And each region / people wants some degree of self control, for better or worse.
"I will believe that when I see that... In the 2020 election, some crazies considered that option but no state did anything with it...."
They didn't have the options that they do now. In Texas, elections results can now be tossed out even without a finding of fraud. In Georgia, the Legislature can now replace county elections officials and dumped the Secretary of State as the head of the Elections Board. In Arizona, they have stripped the Secretary of State of many election-related responsibilities.
Any good sources I can study?
Here was a pretty good piece by the Editors of the National Review
A comparison of DEM voting bills
In the 2020 election, some crazies considered that option but no state did anything with it....
Will we be so lucky next time? Trump managed his coup really incompetently. Many people claim that the election was fixed. If they believed that why shouldn't they ask the legislatures of their states for relief?
--Hiram
Well maybe because this is only a problem in "Purple" states, and it is unlikely that the citizens or courts would stand for it.
That citizens wouldn't stand for it is what we should be afraid of.
--Hiram
You think that people demanding that the legislator not accept their will would be bad?
Post a Comment