They have the majority in the senate and because of how many people they represent. Last I checked that means something.
Tell me - why do you think they shouldn't given these circumstances? because I recall a lot of being told that Senate Republicans should get their way under Mr. Trump when they had a majority the first two years of his presidency. And I recall a lot of Senate Republicans actually getting their way . . ..
Here's what I'm claiming - Senate Democrats have the majority in the Senate. Senate Democrats collectively represent 41 million more Americans than Senate Republicans. Claims that Senate Democrats support of or votes on bills don't represent the majority of the American people is a falsehood.
except he's being prosecuted by the DoJ, who last time I checked don't care about the mid-terms. The criminal referral is already in the hand of DoJ and the Courts. Sure, the House benefits from a ruling that he's in contempt, but they aren't running the game anymore.
I'm not insisting its whatever the President wants. I'm insisting its about what those 41 million people sent their democratic senators to do. And they were sent to make a series of Democratic ideas come to fruition. Some of those the president wants. Some he doesn't.
Though I note that the Republican Senate under McConnel and Trump gave him what he wanted routinely.
What he noted was in terms of management of elections - meaning what form ballots took, how counties managed distribution, collection and counting of ballots.
That has zero to do with who is or is not voting. Ad here's a hint - the filibustered bill doesn't have any language on who could vote, other then trying to expand HOW people register.
Both Manchin and Sinema have had numerous on eon one discussions with he President on this and the BBB. Neither of them budged. And as I note elsewhere, ECA "reform" doesn't address the real threats to voting rights in the states. It's in the nice to do but not necessary to do category. Plus I remain unconvinced that there's enough Republican Senatorial support to get over the 60 vote hurdle. Manchin spent what - 3 months, 4 months - supposedly negotiating an alternate voting rights bill across the aisle and couldn't get them to vote for it. This won't change that.
no I'm not nor was I. The election of Mr. Trump was free and fair. In fact I have repeatedly asserted that Sec. Clinton's staff made a lot of errors in the final weeks of the campaign that led to the outcome we have. No matter whether or not I liked him or his policies, he was president legally and validly for four years. I haven't questioned that, nor do I intend to. Because its not a thing.
I do believe that the Electoral college not being aligned to the popular vote is a problem. But that problem exists independent of his election, and it doesn't mean his election wasn't valid.
I find it more likely that supply chain disruptions have made everyone’s life a living hell. And that means supply shortages for a lot of things, which means decreased supply and level demand.
Prices go up.
It’s basic economics.
this is true. You and I are not going to disagree over it. None the less the markups appear to be driven past a market "need" in many sectors. Surprising, don't you think, that no CEO reported losses as a result of the pandemic?
Donald Trump was legitimately elected president in 2016. Joe Biden was legitimately elected President in 2020. Donald Trump and most of the Republican Party continues to publicly lie about the legitimacy of that election.
Democrats in the Senate were legitimately elected to represent 41 million more Americans then Republicans.
And in response to to all this Republican legislatures are trying by passing laws, to keep that from happening regardless of what the voters actually do.
I'm not the one calling valid elections into question.
I have repeatedly pointed out that Trump won in 2016 with fewer popular votes geographically distributed to allow him to win the EC. I've never said his win was invalid. Frustrating, sure. But he won.
That's way different then the newly minted state laws that say state legislatures can overturn an election certified by the state election official on the basis of ... nothing.
I didn't mention any of those things because every time they have been presented to the courts they have been turned away as invalid and unsubstantiated.
legal non-citizens who receive local services and pay local taxes but are denied the right to participating how those resources are allocated would seem to be being denied a human right no?
Nevermind your credulous assertions (I doubt you do voting analysis for a living) that the Democrats have more votes than the Republicans.
Which I have yet to say about the Senate. I merely say - which is true - that the 50 Democrats represent more people in this us, so their proposals are not in fact counter majoritarian.
Going all the way back to 1982, the Heritage Foundation documents 1,340 incidents of in person voter fraud or fraudulent registrations. That's roughly 34 incidents per year. that's not even statistically significant, much something that needs to result in overturning an election.
The States represented by Democrats in the Senate contain 41 million more people then the states represented by Republicans. That's from the Census Bureau - based on the counts done under President Trump. And I don't believe that subsequent elections will all be null and void. I do believe - because I read - that the laws passed in a number of red states are designed to lower voter turnouts through a variety of means, and many of those laws allow republican state officials to overturn the will of the voters in their states on flimsy, evidence free grounds.
The Agencies are headed by people confirmed by the Senate - who can also be impeached and removed by the Senate. And they are still part of the Executive branch.
And the only reason the Executive Branch does things that look legislative is that the Legislative Branch - most notably the Senate - refuses to legislate. this vote is a classic example of that.
1) Mitch McConnell will happily change Senate rules - including the filibuster - when it suits him as majority leader. If Manchin and Sinema really wanted to protect the rights of the minority party for when Democrats go back to that position, they have failed.
2) Given that Manchin couldn't get Republican support for his prior watered down version of these bills, I'm not what he thinks will be gained by "negotiating" separate packages composed of individual portions of each bill. Its a fools errand doomed to fail because it's designed to run out the clock, not make substantive progress.
3) Mitch McConnell knows that voting to change the ECA won't impact the significant voting restrictions imposed in red states over the last year, so he's comfortable backing it.
4) Republicans playing of the long game at all levels including states is still beating democrats.
5) We as a nation are ill served by all of this, but until the people take to the actual streets, I see no way out. We will not - beginning this year - be allowed to vote our way out of this debacle.
That "narrow majority" represents 41 million more Americans then its opposition. That's a pretty big "rest of the country" never mind that substantial numbers of republican voters actually support the elements of the bills in question (or so even Fox News polls tell us). This wasn't a cultural cram down.
Carving refusing to hold a vote on one president's SCOTUS nominee a year out from an election and the holding a vote on another presidents nominee weeks before an election - that's a cultural cramdown.
On “Filibuster Rule Change For Voting Rights Legislation Fails 52-48 in Senate”
They have the majority in the senate and because of how many people they represent. Last I checked that means something.
Tell me - why do you think they shouldn't given these circumstances? because I recall a lot of being told that Senate Republicans should get their way under Mr. Trump when they had a majority the first two years of his presidency. And I recall a lot of Senate Republicans actually getting their way . . ..
"
Here's what I'm claiming - Senate Democrats have the majority in the Senate. Senate Democrats collectively represent 41 million more Americans than Senate Republicans. Claims that Senate Democrats support of or votes on bills don't represent the majority of the American people is a falsehood.
On “Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Attempts To Withhold January 6th Materials”
except he's being prosecuted by the DoJ, who last time I checked don't care about the mid-terms. The criminal referral is already in the hand of DoJ and the Courts. Sure, the House benefits from a ruling that he's in contempt, but they aren't running the game anymore.
On “Filibuster Rule Change For Voting Rights Legislation Fails 52-48 in Senate”
I'm not insisting its whatever the President wants. I'm insisting its about what those 41 million people sent their democratic senators to do. And they were sent to make a series of Democratic ideas come to fruition. Some of those the president wants. Some he doesn't.
Though I note that the Republican Senate under McConnel and Trump gave him what he wanted routinely.
"
What he noted was in terms of management of elections - meaning what form ballots took, how counties managed distribution, collection and counting of ballots.
That has zero to do with who is or is not voting. Ad here's a hint - the filibustered bill doesn't have any language on who could vote, other then trying to expand HOW people register.
"
Mitch McConnell has demonstrated a willingness to kill the filibuster when it suits him. I expect that will continue if Republicans regain power.
"
Both Manchin and Sinema have had numerous on eon one discussions with he President on this and the BBB. Neither of them budged. And as I note elsewhere, ECA "reform" doesn't address the real threats to voting rights in the states. It's in the nice to do but not necessary to do category. Plus I remain unconvinced that there's enough Republican Senatorial support to get over the 60 vote hurdle. Manchin spent what - 3 months, 4 months - supposedly negotiating an alternate voting rights bill across the aisle and couldn't get them to vote for it. This won't change that.
On “Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Attempts To Withhold January 6th Materials”
One wonders of Steve Bannon's lawyers are telling him to rethink taking his case to court on executive privilege grounds.
On “Filibuster Rule Change For Voting Rights Legislation Fails 52-48 in Senate”
no I'm not nor was I. The election of Mr. Trump was free and fair. In fact I have repeatedly asserted that Sec. Clinton's staff made a lot of errors in the final weeks of the campaign that led to the outcome we have. No matter whether or not I liked him or his policies, he was president legally and validly for four years. I haven't questioned that, nor do I intend to. Because its not a thing.
I do believe that the Electoral college not being aligned to the popular vote is a problem. But that problem exists independent of his election, and it doesn't mean his election wasn't valid.
On “2021 Saw Highest Levels of Inflation In 40 Years”
this is true. You and I are not going to disagree over it. None the less the markups appear to be driven past a market "need" in many sectors. Surprising, don't you think, that no CEO reported losses as a result of the pandemic?
On “Filibuster Rule Change For Voting Rights Legislation Fails 52-48 in Senate”
Donald Trump was legitimately elected president in 2016. Joe Biden was legitimately elected President in 2020. Donald Trump and most of the Republican Party continues to publicly lie about the legitimacy of that election.
Democrats in the Senate were legitimately elected to represent 41 million more Americans then Republicans.
And in response to to all this Republican legislatures are trying by passing laws, to keep that from happening regardless of what the voters actually do.
I'm not the one calling valid elections into question.
"
I have repeatedly pointed out that Trump won in 2016 with fewer popular votes geographically distributed to allow him to win the EC. I've never said his win was invalid. Frustrating, sure. But he won.
That's way different then the newly minted state laws that say state legislatures can overturn an election certified by the state election official on the basis of ... nothing.
"
I didn't mention any of those things because every time they have been presented to the courts they have been turned away as invalid and unsubstantiated.
"
legal non-citizens who receive local services and pay local taxes but are denied the right to participating how those resources are allocated would seem to be being denied a human right no?
"
Schumer was trying to do this, but Manchin and Sinema clearly don't even want this.
"
I was pushing back on this:
Which I have yet to say about the Senate. I merely say - which is true - that the 50 Democrats represent more people in this us, so their proposals are not in fact counter majoritarian.
On “Good Guys Versus Bad Guys and Being a Conscientious Objector in the Culture Wars”
Agreed.
On “Filibuster Rule Change For Voting Rights Legislation Fails 52-48 in Senate”
Going all the way back to 1982, the Heritage Foundation documents 1,340 incidents of in person voter fraud or fraudulent registrations. That's roughly 34 incidents per year. that's not even statistically significant, much something that needs to result in overturning an election.
https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
"
No, I don't believe its moral or ethical to overturn elections, especially when there's no evidence of fraud or any othe rillegality.
"
What Democratic legislation of this presidency - or the obama Presidency would you consider a cultural cram down?
"
The States represented by Democrats in the Senate contain 41 million more people then the states represented by Republicans. That's from the Census Bureau - based on the counts done under President Trump. And I don't believe that subsequent elections will all be null and void. I do believe - because I read - that the laws passed in a number of red states are designed to lower voter turnouts through a variety of means, and many of those laws allow republican state officials to overturn the will of the voters in their states on flimsy, evidence free grounds.
"
The Agencies are headed by people confirmed by the Senate - who can also be impeached and removed by the Senate. And they are still part of the Executive branch.
And the only reason the Executive Branch does things that look legislative is that the Legislative Branch - most notably the Senate - refuses to legislate. this vote is a classic example of that.
On “Senate To Take Up Voting Rights Packages, But Still Short of Votes Needed”
So, you now plainly assert that we liberals are NOT "real Americans." Noted, thanks.
On “Filibuster Rule Change For Voting Rights Legislation Fails 52-48 in Senate”
1) Mitch McConnell will happily change Senate rules - including the filibuster - when it suits him as majority leader. If Manchin and Sinema really wanted to protect the rights of the minority party for when Democrats go back to that position, they have failed.
2) Given that Manchin couldn't get Republican support for his prior watered down version of these bills, I'm not what he thinks will be gained by "negotiating" separate packages composed of individual portions of each bill. Its a fools errand doomed to fail because it's designed to run out the clock, not make substantive progress.
3) Mitch McConnell knows that voting to change the ECA won't impact the significant voting restrictions imposed in red states over the last year, so he's comfortable backing it.
4) Republicans playing of the long game at all levels including states is still beating democrats.
5) We as a nation are ill served by all of this, but until the people take to the actual streets, I see no way out. We will not - beginning this year - be allowed to vote our way out of this debacle.
"
That "narrow majority" represents 41 million more Americans then its opposition. That's a pretty big "rest of the country" never mind that substantial numbers of republican voters actually support the elements of the bills in question (or so even Fox News polls tell us). This wasn't a cultural cram down.
Carving refusing to hold a vote on one president's SCOTUS nominee a year out from an election and the holding a vote on another presidents nominee weeks before an election - that's a cultural cramdown.