Party that loves the troops want to eliminate way the troops vote.
this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2188 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
So not cancelling voting just yet.
If they could, one of the 40+ previous presidents would've already done so. They can rig it to make thing more biased, but cant completely cancel elections. That is, unless they do a civil war to purge every remnant of the opposition.
I mean yes, good point, we've had rough times before. But this also sounds like a setup for a "hold my beer" meme.
Maybe it's just me, but it feels like a bad idea to do something that disenfranchises people at the moment.
No, no, by all means push more people to their breaking point. They've long done the "fuck around" part and I would love to be around to witness the "and find out" part.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Wouldn’t he basically need a constitutional amendment to do this. Which would be almost impossible these days.
No. Federal government could ways regulate elections. We used to require southern states to get federal governments permission before they can change their state election laws, so that they cant make racist election laws, but then thw supreme court struck down that part of the Voting Right Act, then southern states immediately enacted Voter ID Laws.
Now that republicans have a trifecta in federal government, they are doing an uno reverse to regulate blue states like we used to regulate southern states.
The VRA was an extension of the fourteenth amendment. And the federal government never said the racist states had to do X. They said the states had to submit changes to the federal government to make sure they weren't racist and thus unconstitutional.
Trump's stuff doesn't have any of that grounding.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Hard to say. voting is up to states for methodology but like we did have restrictions on state due to discrimation till recently that would not allow them to change their rules or purge voters like they do again nowadays.
Yup. He can try for a reverse VRA but it's going to be a pretty big fight if he does.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Goodbye democracy. We barely knew thee ...
Yeah, clearly opening the door to discuss further changes to the election process. It's dying, and he doesn't want more people voting, he wants less, if at all
load more comments
(1 replies)
"We're gonna do things that have been really needed for a long time," he said. "And we are gonna look at elections. We want to have paper ballots, one day voting, voter ID, and proof of citizenship."
This should come with a national day off for voting, and mandatory voting requirement.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This motherfucker better be in a Popemobile 24/7. I got a bad feeling about this guy's future existence.
load more comments
(5 replies)
But... I thought he said we wouldn't have to vote ever again?
It's because you'll be standing in line waiting to vote instead.
He also said we'd never hear from him again if he lost in 2020.
So tell me why Dems are playing the same game like one hand tied behind their back? Why don't they do the same shit when they're in power?
Well the election laws primarily come from the election clause of the constitution. So that couldn't be changed without an amendment requiring a super majority, which neither party will get. What I assume he is trying to do though, is while having state leaders being majority Republican, have the states update their election laws, because that's who controls the elections. (Unless the supreme Court blocks it, as we saw with Colorado). Also held by the Republicans.
I assume his attempts are to lock all the states currently red, red. Is it possible, doubtful. As states also may require super majoritys to update their election processes, but that may vary drastically by state. Shit one state was discussing getting rid of popular vote all together and just allowing their representatives to vote leading up to the election.
The country we knew as the U.S. is broken. Only threads to hold it together now
Because they don't want to. The corporate Democrats work for their sponsors, not the people. The few genuine progressives are kept around mainly for show.
Because Democrats love losing. They use that as an excuse to blast their constituents with texts on how to donate. They did that when Roe was overturned and a few days after Kamala lost. As another commenter pointed out, they're beholden to their sponsors and their sponsors want a return on investment.
Conservatives didn't start it now, it's a long game they're playing for decades, it just became obvious now when it's in final stage.
Their goal always was to break checks and balances for them but only for them, and they are able to because they broke enough already. Id Dems will try to do a fraction of what Cons are doing, they will be politically and judicially murdered, partially because of that, and partially because breaking shit is easy and fixing it requires abiding by the letter of law, and that's hard when the law was deliberately destroyed
load more comments
(1 replies)
Still following putin I see. Wait until he tries to change Presidential term limits.
And you'll have to wait 10 hours to vote on a workday because they've limited voting locations to one every million people - like they already do in Georgia.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"mandating paper ballots... while eliminating mail-in voting."
Does he not know mail in ballots are paper ballots? 🤔
load more comments
(3 replies)