Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21
  1. #1
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Democrats introduce legislation to begin to effectively "drain the swamp" by trying the remove the influence buying resulting in runaway capitalism thereby protecting our elections and their integrity.

    Republicans/conservatives/independents that vote like them like it the way it is as it allows them to maintain power through money and voter suppression.


    Campaign finance

    Public financing of campaigns, powered by small donations. Under Sarbanes’s vision, the federal government would provide a voluntary 6-1 match for candidates for president and Congress, which means for every dollar a candidate raises from small donations, the federal government would match it six times over. The maximum small donation that could be matched would be capped at $200. “If you give $100 to a candidate that’s meeting those requirements, then that candidate would get another $600 coming in behind them,” Sarbanes told Vox this summer. “The evidence and the modeling is that most candidates can do as well or better in terms of the dollars they raise if they step into this new system.”

    Support for a constitutional amendment to end Citizens United.

    Passing the DISCLOSE Act, pushed by Rep. David Cicilline and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, both Democrats from Rhode Island. This would require Super PACs and “dark money” political organizations to make their donors public.

    Passing the Honest Ads Act, championed by Sens. Amy Klobuchar (MN) and Mark Warner (VA) and introduced by Rep. Derek Kilmer (D-WA) in the House, which would require Facebook and Twitter to disclose the source of money for political ads on their platforms and share how much money was spent.

    Disclosing any political spending by government contractors and slowing the flow of foreign money into the elections by targeting shell companies.

    Restructuring the Federal Election Commission to have five commissioners instead of the current four, in order to break political gridlock.

    Prohibiting any coordination between candidates and Super PACs.


    Ethics

    Requiring the president and vice president to disclose 10 years of his or her tax returns. Candidates for president and vice president must also do the same.

    Stopping members of Congress from using taxpayer money to settle sexual harassment or discrimination cases.

    Giving the Office of Government Ethics the power to do more oversight and enforcement and put in stricter lobbying registration requirements. These include more oversight into foreign agents by the Foreign Agents Registration Act.

    Creating a new ethical code for the US Supreme Court, ensuring all branches of government are impacted by the new law.


    Voting rights

    Creating new national automatic voter registration that asks voters to opt out, rather than opt in, ensuring more people will be signed up to vote. Early voting, same-day voter registration, and online voter registration would also be promoted.

    Making Election Day a holiday for federal employees and encouraging private sector businesses to do the same, requiring poll workers to provide a week’s notice if poll sites are changed, and making colleges and universities a voter registration agency (in addition to the DMV, etc), among other updates.

    Ending partisan gerrymandering in federal elections and prohibiting voter roll purging. The bill would stop the use of non-forwardable mail being used as a way to remove voters from rolls.

    Beefing up elections security, including requiring the director of national intelligence to do regular checks on foreign threats.

    Recruiting and training more poll workers ahead of the 2020 election to cut down on long lines at the polls."


    I'm just listening to Randi Rhodes and she says the big lobby shops are threatening republicans that if they vote or support this much money will be spent against them. Mitch said he won't introduce it and Trump said he'd veto it. Mitch said we have too many holidays ???

    No surprises there.

  2. #2
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Vote was completely along party lines with not one republican voting to clean up government.

    Next three bills republicans are against also:

    Giving medicare the ability to negotiate prescription drugs and securing pre-exiting conditions (HR 3), and an infrastructure bill (HR 2), plus a voting rights act restoration (HR 4).

  3. #3
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    the voting rights section is an issue for states rights. I think it violates them, and over steps the const powers of the fed.
    As it is, the states are in charge of how they register, and how they count votes. It is a const powers thing.
    To serve man.

  4. #4
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    the voting rights section is an issue for states rights. I think it violates them, and over steps the const powers of the fed.
    As it is, the states are in charge of how they register, and how they count votes. It is a const powers thing.
    I doubt it since there are obvious problems there. A revision of the voting rights act correcting where it was stuck down since, as we've seen, the same disgusting racist white trash practices came right back. Just as predicted.

    But don't worry, nothing will make it through the senate nor a veto. You're safe from brown people voting, they'll have to keep jumping through hoops for awhile longer.

  5. #5
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I doubt it since there are obvious problems there. A revision of the voting rights act correcting where it was stuck down since, as we've seen, the same disgusting racist white trash practices came right back. Just as predicted.

    But don't worry, nothing will make it through the senate nor a veto. You're safe from brown people voting, they'll have to keep jumping through hoops for awhile longer.
    I have no clue what you are on about. Everyone who is elligable to vote, can vote with the same effort that I put in so that I could vote.
    There are no hoops. Brown people can vote. The nation is not bent against them.
    I know those facts cut against your victimhood mindset, but hey that is how facts effect fantasy.
    To serve man.

  6. #6
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I have no clue what you are on about. Everyone who is elligable to vote, can vote with the same effort that I put in so that I could vote.
    There are no hoops. Brown people can vote. The nation is not bent against them.
    I know those facts cut against your victimhood mindset, but hey that is how facts effect fantasy.
    and you're wrong:

    "Nine states with a history of racial discrimination are more aggressively removing registered voters from their rolls than other states, according to a report released Friday."

  7. #7
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    I don't know what " a history of racial.. bla bla" is referencing. The southern states were recently restored to their historical roll of controlling elections. Due to the fact that the civil war was a long time ago yo.

    Also..it doesn't follow that it is racist
    To serve man.

  8. #8
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't know what " a history of racial.. bla bla" is referencing. The southern states were recently restored to their historical roll of controlling elections. Due to the fact that the civil war was a long time ago yo.

    Also..it doesn't follow that it is racist
    A true apologist argument. Doesn't also follow that flying a traitor's flag which is the confederate battle flag is racist, nor is worshiping statues of confederate traitors. But a closer look reveals they are.

    True the benefit of the doubt was given - "it was a long time ago" "people now shouldn't be punished for something they didn't do" - blah blah blah. Turns out the oversight was necessary as predicted.

    Racists just can't help themselves.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    A true apologist argument.
    No, that was the supreme courts argument. Specifically that there was no reason to continue the sanctions on the southern states.
    So you are just factually wrong with your slander of the south.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX
    Doesn't also follow that flying a traitor's flag which is the confederate battle flag is racist, nor is worshiping statues of confederate traitors. But a closer look reveals they are.
    They were not called traitors at the time, and shouldn't be called such now.
    The south was welcome back as lost brothers(all be it politically punished), not as traitors to the nation. Your revisionist history and ignorance of southern culture seems to be more a product of propoganda then having any basis on fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX
    True the benefit of the doubt was given - "it was a long time ago" "people now shouldn't be punished for something they didn't do" - blah blah blah. Turns out the oversight was necessary as predicted.

    Racists just can't help themselves.
    Actually, no the over sight was ruled by the supreme court to not be necessary any more. More, it was ruled to be an unjustified violation of the const.

    Your views are about 200 years out of date.
    To serve man.

  10. #10
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, that was the supreme courts argument. Specifically that there was no reason to continue the sanctions on the southern states.
    So you are just factually wrong with your slander of the south.
    Nope, the argument was the way it was being done was unconstitutional, not that there wasn't still a problem, which there obviously is.

    ---------- Post added at 11:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post

    They were not called traitors at the time, and shouldn't be called such now.
    boo-hoo. Treasonous and no brother of mine, they were and are the enemy. Because if we'd lost the American Revolution we would have been allowed to put up statues of Jefferson and Franklin...yeah, right.

    That Reconstruction was viciously resisted and failed and that we all had to live with its Jim Crow aftermath (and it's continued problems) is a disgusting stain on all of us because the likes of you wanted to keep a permanent underclass and the rest of us were too weak and the country was too fragile to stop it.

    When we eradicated Jim Crow (again with great resistance) and the Civil Rights era began the powerful looked for a new source for the underclass and that has become the illegal immigrant worker.

    Now your kind acts like they want them gone and with good reason, you've gained enough power to do it with the face of legality:

    "The latest Trump political donor to draw controversy is Li Yang, a 45-year-old Florida entrepreneur from China who founded a chain of spas and massage parlors that included the one where New England Patriots owner Bob Kraft was recently busted for soliciting prostitution. She made the news this week when the Miami Herald reported that last month she had attended a Super Bowl viewing party at Donald Trump’s West Palm Beach golf club and had snapped a selfie with the president during the event. Though Yang no longer owns the spa Kraft allegedly visited, the newspaper noted that other massage parlors her family runs have “gained a reputation for offering sexual services.” (She told the newspaper she has never violated the law.) Beyond this sordid tale, there is another angle to the strange story of Yang: She runs an investment business that has offered to sell Chinese clients access to Trump and his family. And a website for the business—which includes numerous photos of Yang and her purported clients hobnobbing at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private club in Palm Beach—suggests she had some success in doing so."

    Photos from her facebook.


    Must be a wet dream for your "southern culture" to get what you wanted through "states rights"...the ability to legally keep slaves.

    ---------- Post added at 11:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:32 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Actually, no the over sight was ruled by the supreme court to not be necessary any more.
    Support please. {challenge thingy} How exactly did they make that determination?

  11. #11
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    It was always known to be unconstitutional. It was held as necessary due to the war and what not. All the underpening justifications ie fear of voting descrimination, was found to be not an issue.

    Anyway... You have the burden to show that there is in fact a problem.

    The only problem I see is this.
    1) I don't want to the state to suppress minority voted.
    2) your ideology doesn't allow for a disagreement on fact
    3) thete for you must reject 1, and hold that those who disagree with you are actually racist.

    It is really sad. Because it just means you don't actually have an intelligent case, you just want to cry racism like this is Harry Potter, and your a wizard, and that is your number one favorite spell.
    To serve man.

  12. #12
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    [/COLOR]
    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It was always known to be unconstitutional.
    Support Please {challenege thingy}

    ---------- Post added at 12:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:19 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It was held as necessary due to the war and what not. All the underpening justifications ie fear of voting descrimination, was found to be not an issue.
    Support please (for both points). {challenge thingy}

    ---------- Post added at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:20 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Anyway... You have the burden to show that there is in fact a problem.
    The new election in North Carolina is proof enough. But let's include suspicious and last minute changes of polling places, changing of polling places to inconvenient locations, inadequate quantity of machines in minority areas, torturous gerrymandering. Plenty has been reported.

    ---------- Post added at 12:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) I don't want to the state to suppress minority voted.
    Why would what you, personally, wanted have to do with any of the actions I've described. Do you have any power to effect such actions?

    Regardless, you are content with the outcomes and in denial, and therefore unconcerned, about the injustices inflicted from your own writing.

    ---------- Post added at 12:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:27 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    3) thete for you must reject 1, and hold that those who disagree with you are actually racist.
    Well, yes. I suppose it could be founded in classism. But it is being exercised around those differences we generally attribute to "race". So a type of racism. Not necessarily motivated by malice or hatred but still gross.

  13. #13
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Is this the same HR1 that approves of voting by illegal aliens invading our country, even though each such vote effectively cancels out the vote of a US citizen?

    and that will spend $1200 of taxpayer money (from the ever shrinking number of people who actually pay income tax) to match each $200 of political donations (6:1 on donations of $200 or less).

    and that is opposed by the ACLU because it "would regulate communications that merely mention a candidate for office if the election is near. It would also regulate communications that “support, promote, attack, or oppose” the election of a candidate. These standards are unclear and entirely subjective, which will lead to confusion and, ultimately, less speech."

    and that Chuck Schumer said will serve as a deterrent to free speech aimed at influencing elected representatives https://www.ifs.org/blog/senator-lau...profit-speech/

    and that would create yet another paid holiday for federal employees and all those working for employers that follow the federal lead.

    Is that the HR1 you want us to support?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  14. #14
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,171
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    @ even.
    No, it is the one that only racists oppose.
    To serve man.

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Cowboy, I can't find the opening argument you're making in the first post. It is more the kind of post you make in Member Contributed News. Can you distill your first post down to just one or two sentences for me to consider? Maybe then I can respond more accurately instead of guessing what your op really is. The same goes for your future HR#x.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  16. #16
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Cowboy, I can't find the opening argument you're making in the first post. It is more the kind of post you make in Member Contributed News. Can you distill your first post down to just one or two sentences for me to consider? Maybe then I can respond more accurately instead of guessing what your op really is. The same goes for your future HR#x.
    First two sentences.

    ---------- Post added at 01:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Is this the same HR1 that approves of voting by illegal aliens invading our country, even though each such vote effectively cancels out the vote of a US citizen?

    and that will spend $1200 of taxpayer money (from the ever shrinking number of people who actually pay income tax) to match each $200 of political donations (6:1 on donations of $200 or less).

    and that is opposed by the ACLU because it "would regulate communications that merely mention a candidate for office if the election is near. It would also regulate communications that “support, promote, attack, or oppose” the election of a candidate. These standards are unclear and entirely subjective, which will lead to confusion and, ultimately, less speech."

    and that Chuck Schumer said will serve as a deterrent to free speech aimed at influencing elected representatives https://www.ifs.org/blog/senator-lau...profit-speech/

    and that would create yet another paid holiday for federal employees and all those working for employers that follow the federal lead.

    Is that the HR1 you want us to support?
    I dunno, where did you get your information from. Please support that all five of your statements are the true intention of the bill. [challenge thingy]

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    First two sentences.
    Okay.
    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    I dunno, where did you get your information from. Please support that all five of your statements are the true intention of the bill. [challenge thingy]
    You really want to go down that road? In response I'd demand support for your claim that there is, in fact, "runaway capitalism", that elections will really "be protected" and will have "integrity". If that's what you want, then you will also have to support the many general statements in the rest of your op yourself, and not with just a link. How about we just have a decent discussion instead?


    For example, can you explain to me why you think taxpayers should pay for the 6x donations made at $200 or less? If Citizens United were overturned by a Constitutional amendment, why shouldn't candidates just make due with less money? Why should every candidate for all 535 House and Senate seats get special funding gifts from taxpayers? I don't get it.

    Thirty-four states plus DC already have an early voting option. So why should everyone be given the day off?

    What makes you think that a commission appointed to draw up voting districts will do so without being effected by political considerations? Can you provide a explanation of how they would draw up districts?

    Do you really think Democrats would give up a gerrymandering advantage if they controlled most state legislatures?

    Explain to me why an illegal alien should be allowed to vote and effectively cancel out the vote of another citizen. The person has no legal right to be in this country so should not be allowed to vote. Having federal law that legitimizes voting by illegal immigrants makes no sense to me.

    You want five FEC commissioners instead of four to break political gridlock. Two of six seats are vacant. Aren't 3-3 ties already very rare? Maybe the two empty seats should just be filled.

    Non-forwarded and returned mail is evidence that a person has moved or died. So why shouldn't that person be removed from voter rolls until they reregister?

    The ACLU supported many parts of HR1, but opposed it because certain provisions were unconstituational: https://www.aclu.org/aclu-letter-opp...eople-act-2019 If you disagree, please explain why.

    ---------- Post added at 10:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:26 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    Please support that all five of your statements are the true intention of the bill.
    Are you suggesting that intentions are more important that the real effects?
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  18. #18
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Okay.


    You really want to go down that road? In response I'd demand support for your claim that there is, in fact, "runaway capitalism", that elections will really "be protected" and will have "integrity". If that's what you want, then you will also have to support the many general statements in the rest of your op yourself, and not with just a link.
    That would be fine.

    ---------- Post added March 13th, 2019 at 12:00 AM ---------- Previous post was March 12th, 2019 at 11:58 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post

    Are you suggesting that intentions are more important that the real effects?
    If they are the same there is no issue.

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    3,663
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    That would be fine.
    Nope. If you’re unable to discuss the issues, I’m out.
    "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth." - Ronald Reagan

  20. #20
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    2,885
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Democrats HR 1 (2019)

    Quote Originally Posted by evensaul View Post
    Nope. If you’re unable to discuss the issues, I’m out.
    Buh-bye

 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Yay Democrats!
    By CowboyX in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 13th, 2018, 09:35 PM
  2. Who are the Democrats?
    By LagerHead in forum Member Contributed News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: January 18th, 2011, 12:14 PM
  3. Democrats Take The Senate!
    By Yuruusan in forum Politics
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: November 16th, 2006, 05:45 PM
  4. Cats are democrats
    By tinkerbell in forum Jokes and Humor
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 15th, 2005, 02:58 PM
  5. Why the Democrats Are Horrible
    By KevinBrowning in forum Politics
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: January 22nd, 2005, 08:55 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •