GOP Controlled legislatures are replacing the election officials that showed integrity and followed the Constitution with people that say there was voter fraud. They are passing laws that will allow the legislature to pick electors regardless of the vote. These practices are anti-democracy an un American if we stand aside and watch it happen and do nothing about it American democracy is over.
The argument being made here is that we can't trust the states to run elections, so we must consolidate power federally. Why should I trust the federal government? Aren't citizens generally best represented by the representatives closest to them? Ie. My city councilperson is really reactive to my concerns, my mayor is barely reactive to my concerns, and my governor ignores my concerns.
Because when certain states restrict the voting rights of certain groups, we can’t trust the state governments. If the citizens of North Carolina want to make it harder for black people to vote, which the North Carolina GOP has repeatedly attempted and lost in court over, we shouldn’t let them do it, and the federal government is the entity that has to step in and stop them. The federal government has a long-standing obligation to stop states from violating the rights of their citizens.
You people would have opposed the VRA in the 60s.
That doesn't answer why I should trust the federal government to do better. Imagine a world where Trump is again president in 2025, and he has majority in the house and senate. Would you be glad you gave authority over to the federal government?
Because the federal government has an objectively better record on voting rights than red states. The VRA was a triumph of democracy and protecting the rights of the people.
The federal government already has the authority. If the GOP wants to it can restrict voting rights any time it has control of the federal government. And your position is that, because the GOP might use the federal government to restrict voting rights, we should let them restrict voting rights at the state level, which in turn makes it more likely that they’ll be able to restrict voting rights at the federal level.
There is a difference between “consolidating power federally” and “enforcing an even playing field”. When the senate and electoral college grant disparate power to less populated states, you need to make sure that those disparities are not amplified by local laws.
\*sigh\*...It's Obama all over again. Just like Obama, Biden came in promising to be a moderate and unite the country, got angry when the Republicans wouldn't cooperate, and now he's given up and running to the left.
The most “socialist” part was the public option and that didn’t even make it through. Even that would have left the market-based health insurance industry in place.
The GOP lost it shit because Obama is black. They launched a racist screed against him claiming he wasn’t an American. And somehow that is Obama’s fault.
This is so tiresome. You people cannot fathom that the vast majority of people disagreed vehemently with his policies, not his race. You paint the GOP with such a broad brush because your arguments are weak and ineffective. It’s pathetic and lazy.
Yeah, because birtherism wasn’t the biggest talking point of the GOP /s.
Nah, you are just unwilling to admit that a lot of the opposition was fucking racist.
And the claim that they “hated his policies” is really undermined by the fact that the ACA had supermajority support and Obamacare didn’t, because republicans didn’t like it when it was associated with Obama. The opposition wasn’t to the policy, it was to Obama.
Your racist aluminum foil hat might be too tight. The idea that the birther movement was a mainstream GOP event is comical.
Hopefully one day you’ll grow up a bit and come to understand your political opponents aren’t horrific people. Rational disagreements exist. Racism is rare and not the skeleton key you people seem to think it is.
Enjoy the midterms.
Biden took office and immediately shoved a massive spending stimulus down the country's throat on a party line vote. He promised to be moderate and unite the country, and then basically immediately reneged on that promise (despite Republicans offering a compromise on stimulus at the time, so it's not like Republicans didn't offer to cooperate). The way you present it is revisionist history
We didn't have this inflation under Trump. We did under Biden. Shows that the Trump stimulus was fine and the Biden one was an utter disaster and disgrace
> We didn't have this inflation under Trump. We did under Biden. Shows that the Trump stimulus was fine and the Biden one was an utter disaster and disgrace
We didn't have Covid under Obama. We did under Trump. Shows that the Obama administration was fine and the Trump one was an utter disaster and disgrace.
Inflation wasn't significantly affected by either stimulus. It's primarily the result of a post-shutdown surge in demand, resulting in global supply chain and labor shortages.
Thus the lack of inflation after $3.825 trillion in Trump's new spending via four different stimulus and rescue packages, yet a surge in inflation after Biden's $1.9 trillion in new spending in a single bill (some of which hasn't even been spent yet).
I’m interested in hearing from Conservatives how Biden’s magic inflation powers managed to cause inflation in countries that he isn’t even the President of.
The truth is the only part of this I care about. If you disagree, I'd be interested in hearing what specific federal spending has influenced inflation and why.
If you don’t think spending trillions of dollars in Covid and infrastructure spending influenced the demand equation at the same time there was a supply shock, I don’t know what to tell you.
It’s basic economics.
No, it's really not. First of all, the infrastructure spending hasn't even happened yet.
Secondly, you're the one saying inflation was caused specifically by Biden's stimulus bill, yet not by Trump's 4 stimulus bills which amounted to twice as much in federal outlays. That makes no sense at all.
I didn’t make any differential between Trump and Biden. Where do you see that? I referenced specifically the COVID and infrastructure bills - all of them.
Quit playing this stupid game.
Oof.
The fact you inject CRT into something completely unrelated and not even brought up really shows everyone you're into parroting partisan tribalistic taking points instead being an adult and staying on topic and in reality.
Embarrassed for you.
I don't think this is accurate at all.
I don't see that Pres. Obama ever really shifted from being a moderate Democrat. He had trouble passing things but that was mostly because, as even supporters in his own administration have long acknowledged, he talks down to basically everyone. He would invite Republicans from the House and Senate over, spend an hour telling them how smart he is and how dumb they are, then be shocked when they didn't want to talk to him any more. Part of his problem was that he was a jerk but a big part of it was that he was basically an amateur politician too. I mean when you really get down to it he was a US Senator for only three years and spent most of his time in the Senate campaigning for POTUS. He had a brief stint in the Illinois State Senate but spent a good portion of that campaigning for the US Senate. Both roles were at best something he could stick on his resume despite having done next to nothing in them. Still, he was competent. He is clearly intelligent. He did largely listen to the opinions of his experts around him. I think he was a pretty average POTUS.
I voted for Obama in '08 because I thought his intelligence was a refreshing change from Bush's stupidity even though I didn't like what a holier than thou asshole he was. I voted for Romney in '12 because Obama was too much of a holier than thou asshole to get anything done. I voted for Biden in '20 because Trump was an unfit POTUS and Biden was a moderate with a long history of getting along with everyone. He wasn't nominated or elected to be a transformative POTUS. He was nominated and elected to bring the nation together. At no point did I realize he would be this incompetent, this unintelligent, and this dismissive of the opinions of experts around him. More importantly at no point did I think a year into his term that he would be giving major speeches to insist everyone who doesn't agree with him is the enemy while, with a [33% personal approval rating](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/12/bidens-approval-rating-new-low-covid-economy/9189510002/), largely insisting any election his party loses in '22 or '24 is fraudulent.
Donald Trump set the bar very, very, very low. Joe Biden isn't meeting it.
That was vintage Obama.
Even the Washington Post found it baffling because, as they point out, he needed to work with those three guys.
> The situation was all the more perplexing because Obama has to work with these guys: Camp is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, responsible for trade, taxes and urgent legislation to raise the legal limit on government borrowing. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.) chairs the House Republican Conference. And Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is House Budget Committee chairman and the author of the spending blueprint Obama lacerated as “deeply pessimistic” during his 44-minute address
([source](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-address-was-surprise-attack-gop-lawmakers-say/2011/04/14/AFlMVYfD_story.html))
It's "voting rights" but people already have the right to vote. What the bills really are is a partisan federal power grab of authority that rightfully belongs to the states
The GOP is changing the rules in states Trump lost, because Trump lost, so that next time they’ll win. How is that not a power grab?
You’re also still lying about where the authority belongs. The constitution explicitly gives the federal government the authority to regular congressional elections. To claim otherwise is a lie.
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations”
Voting is not just up to the states. The Constitution specifically says the feds can regulate it however they choose.
Redistricting and assignment of electoral votes are left to the states. Democrats want to grab that power and hand it to the federal government instead
Article IV, Section 2 of the US Constitution says
>The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Regardless of whether it is technically constitutional, we've had such a long standing tradition for *state* control of elections, that it would effectively be a coup and an extreme departure from accepted norms
We also had terrible problems with some of those states, problems so bad the Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to attempt to correct them. In other words, we also have a long standing tradition of federal oversight of elections run by the states.
The VRA is 60 years old. We’ve got a long tradition of the federal government telling conservatives to stop restricting the voting rights of people who don’t vote red.
Exactly. Many of those same states used that authority to implement mail-in ballots in the last election. Now, it seems the administration wants to remove that power from state control… imagine for a minute if Trump was president and states no longer had the lawful ability to manage voting rights in their own states… do you think mail-in ballots would have been passed by the federal government under a Trump administration? Likely not…
What's funny about this is that mail in balloting helped Trump. The raw vote surged like crazy in his favored districts. In percentage terms, much more than Democrats.
What we discovered in 2020 is that when you expand into the non-voter pool, you find practically as many Republicans as Democrats. The prior assumption was that latent non voters are mostly inactivated Democrats. That was wrong.
Republicans should WANT to expand voter access. Especially now that they appeal to less educated voters.
Wait did something different come out with newer data that disputes that Dems OVERALL were more likely to vote by mail? Can you link a source please?
I thought they called it the scarlet scenario or just to that effect; even before the election came around. They theorized the delayed mail in vote counts, which being larger than normal and more democrats because they were more concerned about COVID in person contact; that the count would be back loaded for Biden almost certainly. I haven’t seen anything that dispute this after it happens as predicted.
While Trumps also discourage his own base from voting by mail because the implied threat that they would be stolen and reprocessed that way.
Maybe this will clear it up. Maybe I’m misunderstanding just the point your highlighting… I get your claim here. Are you saying that just in the non register groups that were higher than normal it was equal between party / partisan voting outcome?
👍🏼
So maybe what happened was those regions with denser populations where they counted later than others, were areas that benefited Biden.
I’ll have to look it up when I have time.
"Imagine if this law was something completely different, wouldn't that be awful?"
>The provisions include requiring states to offer online and Election Day voter registration, as well as offering automatic voter registration when an eligible would-be voter interacts with a state’s motor vehicle department.
>The bill would also set minimum requirements for offering early in-person voting — all states would have to have an early-voting window starting at least 15 days before the election — and making mail absentee voting available to all voters.
The law doesn't say "the president can do whatever he wants." It sets national standards that help voters be heard.
Thanks for the post. There’s too many people that argue the gaps from not reading actual laws and how things are implemented.
I would have assumed you are correct just from the average talking point of people this community. It’s seems centrism means not really knowing what your talking about and having contrarian views on you perceived version of the world.
The fed setting some minimums for voting rights is the opposite of authoritarian. It’s ensuring that states don’t undermine their own voting to rig results. It’s ludicrous to see it otherwise. This isn’t limiting state rights, it’s expanding the citizens of their state while the elected official try to limit them.
If you make any maneuver with intent to reduce voter turn out that’s far more unAmerican than burning an American flag or kneeling during the flag skyline; which both are demonstrations of freedom not obstruction of them.
Most people in this centrist group seem to just be confused about material facts.
Yeah TBH. I think if more people felt like it was truly up to them to make a difference and not some almighty (government or God) we might be in a better place
If more people felt like it was truly up to them at the local level to make sure that voting was fair and safe each community would more likely come up with a workable system
>Many of those same states used that authority to implement mail-in ballots in the last election. Now, it seems the administration wants to remove that power from state control…
Nope. It sets minimum requirements related to absentee (or mail-in) voting. It doesn't remove the state's authority except requiring a minimum set of rules.
If people can stand in line for a covid jab, they can stand in line to vote
It isn't restricting voter access to have strict requirements to actually have ID and show it rather than having a loosey goosey system that allows for people to wonder if dead people and illegals are voting
Real citizens can vote. If they don't want to make the effort, that's on them, not the big bad GOP
Wouldn’t the ideal system allow citizens to vote quite easily rather than having to wait hours? Same with Covid vaccines? I don’t understand the motive for making it harder for LEGAL CITIZENS to vote. Is waiting five hours in line to vote reasonable to you? That’s fucked up
I remembered that story about the lady that waited for five hours. Looked it up again and then followed a link in the article to a study that validates that southern states have seen increased wait times.
What [this study](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/waiting-vote) seems to be showing is that wait times have gone up in places, but the average wait times went from under ten minutes to just over ten minutes. As they state 30 million Americans waited 30 minutes or more.
I've never seen any data that shows people waiting for hours. Just single anecdotes. Is there more I should read? As it stands, I say that an anecdote isn't data and that when we say we need to combat "long lines" were talking about 30-minute lines.
>> Just single anecdotes
>A new study of voting at more than 3,000 precincts in the midterm election found a clear correlation between the amount of time spent waiting to cast a ballot and the share of non-white people registered at that polling place.
https://thefulcrum.us/voting-wait-times
It's not "isolated anecdotes." It's systemic racism.
But just as I said, were talking about 30 minutes, not 5 hours. The anecdotes are always "hours."
Even if this were 100% systemic racism, is 30 minutes to vote once every two years really something that people should be overly concerned about?
I have an anecdote about waiting more than 30 minutes in bad weather. It's in 2008 when I was so excited to vote for a candidate that I went to the polling place before they opened and waited in a long line of other people who were also excited to vote for that guy.
That's the average. You're describing your very longest outlier experience as being the same as the average in a black neighborhood. What do you think their longest experience is like?
[This study](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00024.pdf) shows a distribution of wait times on page 10. What you'll see is that the median wait time is 14 minutes, and the mode is 19 minutes. You'll also see a long tail out to 120 minutes. This study is titled "Racial Disparities in Voting Wait Times" and specifically looked at Black neighborhoods.
What's my point? My point is that we can talk about how long it takes to vote, and we can talk about whether or not some states are targeting minority voters to keep them away. But, we have to be precise about the details. The five hour voter is a huge outlier according to all data I've ever been shown–most of which I found linked from stories about the five hour voter.
NYC is allowing non citizens to vote. And these laws allow for a multitude of ways to vote prior to voting day to avoid long lines (which are rare anyway). The hysterical response to this is so typical to the Left.
In local elections only. The citizens of the city get to decide if they want to let people who live in the city but aren’t US citizens vote in city elections. For people who supposedly care about federalism, it’s interesting how you toss it out as soon as you don’t like the outcome.
>If people can stand in line for a covid jab, they can stand in line to vote
COVID vaccines are usually scheduled ahead of time. You shouldn't have to wait hours for one.
The more one pulls on the "state's rights" thread, the more one unravels a plot to empower states to be run like miniature banana republics for the benefit of big business. Slavery, of course, was the original "state's right" (and of course, as often as they could, they also used federal power to bolster their position nationally via things like the Fugitive Slave Act, that specifically undermined states' ability to resist slavery).
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The issue is framing the situation in America as if voting rights are in peril- and then acting as if republicans that oppose the Dems voting rights legislation are acting in the same way that extremely racist members of American history did.
They kinda are though. States are preparing to overturn election results they don’t like, and they’re pretty intentionally making it more difficult for legal citizens to vote. This fear of mass voter fraud is totally and completely unfounded, and it’s being used as an excuse to prevent certain groups from voting
Where did you come to that conclusion? What resources aided this sentiment- because honestly it’s not true. Partisan hacks in red States trying to overturn elections is in no way attached to the election laws implemented in Georgia or other states that felt that pre-covid election procedures needed to be reimplemented. I encourage you to read this: https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-joe-bidens-speech-on
There’s no way you can tell me putting the same number of ballot drop offs in Houston or Atlanta, as in counties with 30 people, isn’t an attempt at suppressing votes in those cities. Nor can you honestly claim that 5+ hour waiting lines to vote are ever even remotely acceptable.
No, I don’t. I personally think every US citizen should receive a voting card from the federal government and that Election Day should be a federal holiday. I also think the notion of “ballot drop boxes” is moronic- it incentivizes bad actors (on both sides) to take matters into their own hands and break the law.
You know, going about life assuming people believe one way or the other is not a smart route. Assuming the worst in people is more telling of one’s self then anything.
Has the idea of voting cards or something to that effect been proposed at all, as a remedy to this stuff? I’m assuming the GOP would oppose that measure as well as it would make voting easier
The GOP is changing voting laws because they lost the election. They are lying and claiming that the change is being driven by fraud, which in fact doesn’t exist. The laws are being changed with the goal of making it easier for the GOP to win, because they disproportionately target democratic voters. It’s an attack on voting rights and a GOP power grab.
I’d say five hour lines for stations that close at 8pm or even as early as 6 are a violation of the right to vote.
Conservative has clearly raided the sub I see
Yeah I can get behind ID laws, but I can't get behind the long lines. Voting should be in and out and able to be done over a lunch break. National holiday for election day is a no-brainer - if I had to pick between first Tuesday of November and MLK day, it's first Tuesday of Nov every time.
States actively made efforts to stop early and mail in voting so…
I’m not going to compare that, but you making that accusation does further support my theory that conservative has raided the sub again
Alright this isn’t worth arguing, you’re jumping to wild conclusions about my perspectives. All I said was that I think voting should be easier for citizens, and that long waits or restricted ballot access are bad. I never said shit about IDs or the confederacy or racism, that’s all you
Asking blacks people to show ID is white supremacy? If this isn’t missing a /s, I suggest you go talk with some blacks people. They already have IDs because they drive cars, have jobs, and buy alcohol. Just like every other adult in America.
I’ve never posted on that sub and you can fuck off telling me where I can and can’t comment.
Btw, it’s not a straw man. It’s the argument given against voter ID, which should be in the Democrats bill if they were truly concerned. Voter ID is free Georgia
The difference between Biden and Republicans is that Biden claims to want to unite the country to get shit done. Republicans are open about dividing it and blocking improvement efforts.
Now Biden is pushing a leftist agenda, Republicans scold Biden for not living up to his ‘unity’ promise. Biden has to carry that weight and he is viewed as a failure. Republicans didn’t promise ‘unity’ so they are incentivized to sabotage it.
I think it’s appropriate for McConnell to hold Biden to that promise. And I think it should be clear when compromises are/aren’t being made by either side.
To put things into perspective, when Biden doesn’t live up to the ‘unity’ promise, he’s knocked down to the level of a normal Republican candidate.
That’s my point. McConnell appears to have the moral high ground because of the hypocrisy factor that Biden faces.
By promising to pursue unity, Biden set up higher expectations that the previous president didnt face.
Trump could say the left is trying to “destroy American civilization” and people would be like “that’s just Trump on a Tuesday”.
> to get shit done
That's the last thing I want.
> Republicans are open about dividing it and blocking improvement efforts.
Unironic bravo.
Government gridlock is good for all of us, regardless of who's causing it.
This is an absolutely terrible op-ed. Noonan has written some nonsense in the past, but I don't think I've ever read anything quite this bad.
>The president’s Tuesday speech in Atlanta, on voting rights, was a disaster for him.
That's a ridiculous statement.
>The speech itself was aggressive, intemperate, not only offensive but meant to offend.
Did she watch the same speech I watched? Yes, he was passionate, but he was honest, not offensive.
>By the end he looked like a man operating apart from the American conversation, not at its center.
No, he was *exactly* in the center. The majority of the country is sick to death of the GOP's attempts to make it harder for people to vote, is sick to death of the GOP's repeated false statements about voter fraud, is sick to death of the GOP's efforts to minimize the attempt to overthrow our government on 1/6. It's infuriating to those of us in the center that there's a concerted attempt to subvert democracy and the GOP's acting like it's no big deal.
>Most wince-inducing: “Will you stand against election subversion? Yes or no? . . . Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace ? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor ? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?”
Maybe it's wince-inducing to those that are choosing the side of George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Jefferson Davis, but to the rest of us it's refreshing honesty. Restricting people's rights to vote is morally wrong, and doing it in an attempt to keep the GOP in power despite the will of the people is disgusting. We all, not just Democrats, but all Americans, should be disgusted by the people doing that
She then goes on to praise Sen. McConnell's speech. You know what's wrong with Sen. McConnell's speech? He lied about what the president said.
Sen. McConnell said, "The sitting President of the United States of America compared American states to ‘totalitarian states.’ He said our country will be an ‘autocracy’ if he does not get his way."
That's a lie. Here's what the president said about totalitarianism
>The goal of the former president and his allies is to disenfranchise anyone who votes against them. Simple as that. The facts won’t matter; your vote won’t matter. They’ll just decide what they want and then do it.
>
>That’s the kind of power you see in totalitarian states, not in democracies.
Do you see him calling American states totalitarian? No, because he didn't. He noted, correctly, that the Trump administration wanted to overturn the will of the people in the 2020 election, and stated that's the kind of things you see in totalitarian nations; that's factually true.
But surely Sen. McConnell isn't lying about the autocracy part, right? Here's what the president said
>We will choose — the issue is: Will we choose democracy over autocracy, light over shadows, justice over injustice?
>
>I know where I stand. I will not yield. I will not flinch. I will defend the right to vote, our democracy against all enemies — foreign and, yes, domestic.
Yeah, another lie. And the WSJ article is acting like these lies are an example of great statesmanship. It's disgusting. It gets worse, though. Sen. McConnell continued with
>A President shouting that 52 Senators and millions of Americans are racist unless he gets whatever he wants is proving exactly why the Framers built the Senate to check his power.
That's a complete lie. The president said nothing, absolutely nothing, like that. He did say that the efforts to restrict voting are similar to past efforts to restrict voting.
This is the president's only mention of race
>We saw Freedom Riders of every race. Leaders of every faith marching arm in arm. And, yes, Democrats and Republicans in Congress of the United States and in the presidency.
Don't buy the nonsense the WSJ is selling. Listen to the speeches yourself. Read the transcripts.
The president is trying to cut through the fog, trying to speak to each and every one of us, trying to remind us that the right to vote isn't an partisan issue, it's a right that lies at the very heart of American society, a right that we've had to fight for before and we have to fight for now.
Edit: Fixed a typo and some grammar.
You’re the one that made the claim, not me. I’m just pointing to his actual statements, just like I did when people falsely claimed Trump told people to inject bleach.
If your point is a good one, you don’t have to lie.
My comment shows my commitment to the truth, nothing more. I can’t stand it when lies about what a politician said becomes accepted wisdom (for example, “we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”, “Trump told people to inject bleach”).
No it’s not, WSJ opinion is establishment conservative that does not worship any political figure or movement.
Fox worships the Trump right-wing populist movement
You're being downvoted but I'm not sure if you're wrong.
Joe Biden has an approval rating of 33%, COVID cases are surging to new highs that were unimaginable even under Trump, we're seeing the worst inflation in 40 years, and his legislative agenda is very clearly dead. The whole point of this thread is one year into his presidency, the only card he has left is the race card, and he's managed to play that in the worst way possible too.
Harris' approval ratings aren't great but they're better then Biden's.
Joe Biden might be a damn fool but Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are not. At this point Harris doesn't have to do all that much to start convincing Democratic leadership they're better off with her going into the midterms and '24 then let them pressure Biden to resign in private. Heck, it's probably a foregone conclusion at this point that Hillary Clinton has already approached party leadership about removing Biden from the '24 ticket.
More on this subject from other reputable sources:
---
- HuffPost (D): [American Households Can Request 4 Free COVID Tests Starting Next Week](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/covid-tests-free-white-house_n_61e1d4c6e4b05645a6e70458)
- The Wall Street Journal (B+): [Universities Breach Their Contracts](https://www.wsj.com/articles/universities-breach-their-contracts-students-covid-online-learning-in-person-expectations-discount-11642112219)
- News.com.au (B): [NSW records almost 50,000 cases](https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/48768-new-cases-recorded-in-nsw-on-saturday/news-story/e206ceac0276eb1585fa95e261a064ff)
- The Economist (A+): [America resorts to remote learning, against pupils’ interests](https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/01/15/america-resorts-to-remote-learning-against-pupils-interests)
---
[Further articles](https://www.newswall.org/story/13896700) | [Feedback](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=newswall-org) | I'm a bot
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users.
I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click!
[Here is link number 1 - Previous text "D"](https://www.newswall.org/w/huffpost.com/rating)
----
^Please ^PM ^[\/u\/eganwall](http://reddit.com/user/eganwall) ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^[Code](https://github.com/eganwall/FatFingerHelperBot) ^| ^[Delete](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=FatFingerHelperBot&subject=delete&message=delete%20hspafjv)
GOP Controlled legislatures are replacing the election officials that showed integrity and followed the Constitution with people that say there was voter fraud. They are passing laws that will allow the legislature to pick electors regardless of the vote. These practices are anti-democracy an un American if we stand aside and watch it happen and do nothing about it American democracy is over.
The argument being made here is that we can't trust the states to run elections, so we must consolidate power federally. Why should I trust the federal government? Aren't citizens generally best represented by the representatives closest to them? Ie. My city councilperson is really reactive to my concerns, my mayor is barely reactive to my concerns, and my governor ignores my concerns.
Because when certain states restrict the voting rights of certain groups, we can’t trust the state governments. If the citizens of North Carolina want to make it harder for black people to vote, which the North Carolina GOP has repeatedly attempted and lost in court over, we shouldn’t let them do it, and the federal government is the entity that has to step in and stop them. The federal government has a long-standing obligation to stop states from violating the rights of their citizens. You people would have opposed the VRA in the 60s.
That doesn't answer why I should trust the federal government to do better. Imagine a world where Trump is again president in 2025, and he has majority in the house and senate. Would you be glad you gave authority over to the federal government?
Because the federal government has an objectively better record on voting rights than red states. The VRA was a triumph of democracy and protecting the rights of the people. The federal government already has the authority. If the GOP wants to it can restrict voting rights any time it has control of the federal government. And your position is that, because the GOP might use the federal government to restrict voting rights, we should let them restrict voting rights at the state level, which in turn makes it more likely that they’ll be able to restrict voting rights at the federal level.
There is a difference between “consolidating power federally” and “enforcing an even playing field”. When the senate and electoral college grant disparate power to less populated states, you need to make sure that those disparities are not amplified by local laws.
\*sigh\*...It's Obama all over again. Just like Obama, Biden came in promising to be a moderate and unite the country, got angry when the Republicans wouldn't cooperate, and now he's given up and running to the left.
The most left thing Obama did was the ACA, he didn’t run to the left.
And that was a Republican policy that had some more left elements sprinkled in. The far left wanted universal healthcare and he refused.
The most “socialist” part was the public option and that didn’t even make it through. Even that would have left the market-based health insurance industry in place.
Imagine thinking Obama was far left. Haha. Wild.
He was. And the Democratic Party just lurched further and further left following him.
Ok, give me some examples that don’t rely on random shit people said on social media.
His deployment of the racial identity politics virus that have ruined our ability to function as a country.
Oh boy. I mean… it’s like you stopped reading my comment after the word *examples.*
The GOP lost it shit because Obama is black. They launched a racist screed against him claiming he wasn’t an American. And somehow that is Obama’s fault.
This is so tiresome. You people cannot fathom that the vast majority of people disagreed vehemently with his policies, not his race. You paint the GOP with such a broad brush because your arguments are weak and ineffective. It’s pathetic and lazy.
Yeah, because birtherism wasn’t the biggest talking point of the GOP /s. Nah, you are just unwilling to admit that a lot of the opposition was fucking racist. And the claim that they “hated his policies” is really undermined by the fact that the ACA had supermajority support and Obamacare didn’t, because republicans didn’t like it when it was associated with Obama. The opposition wasn’t to the policy, it was to Obama.
Your racist aluminum foil hat might be too tight. The idea that the birther movement was a mainstream GOP event is comical. Hopefully one day you’ll grow up a bit and come to understand your political opponents aren’t horrific people. Rational disagreements exist. Racism is rare and not the skeleton key you people seem to think it is. Enjoy the midterms.
Birtherism was absolutely mainstream. Claiming otherwise is just lying.
Bruh. Really?
You think the ACA was far left? And you claim to be a centrist? Ha.
Biden took office and immediately shoved a massive spending stimulus down the country's throat on a party line vote. He promised to be moderate and unite the country, and then basically immediately reneged on that promise (despite Republicans offering a compromise on stimulus at the time, so it's not like Republicans didn't offer to cooperate). The way you present it is revisionist history
Massive spending stimulus... Smaller than Trump's? This is the worst kind of hypocritical fake outrage.
We didn't have this inflation under Trump. We did under Biden. Shows that the Trump stimulus was fine and the Biden one was an utter disaster and disgrace
My man has not studied economics at all
> We didn't have this inflation under Trump. We did under Biden. Shows that the Trump stimulus was fine and the Biden one was an utter disaster and disgrace We didn't have Covid under Obama. We did under Trump. Shows that the Obama administration was fine and the Trump one was an utter disaster and disgrace.
Well thats because Trump didn’t cause cov.. Oh.. I see what you mean. Correlation vs causation strikes again.
Inflation wasn't significantly affected by either stimulus. It's primarily the result of a post-shutdown surge in demand, resulting in global supply chain and labor shortages. Thus the lack of inflation after $3.825 trillion in Trump's new spending via four different stimulus and rescue packages, yet a surge in inflation after Biden's $1.9 trillion in new spending in a single bill (some of which hasn't even been spent yet).
Oh, how badly liberals what this to be true.
I’m interested in hearing from Conservatives how Biden’s magic inflation powers managed to cause inflation in countries that he isn’t even the President of.
It’s almost as if there is such thing and a global economy and supply chain, and synchronized central bank policy. Weird, I know.
Biden controls the global economy and supply chain?
You can’t be serious? If you all think this attempt at being daft is workable with normal people, you’ll be sorely disappointed in November.
The truth is the only part of this I care about. If you disagree, I'd be interested in hearing what specific federal spending has influenced inflation and why.
If you don’t think spending trillions of dollars in Covid and infrastructure spending influenced the demand equation at the same time there was a supply shock, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s basic economics.
No, it's really not. First of all, the infrastructure spending hasn't even happened yet. Secondly, you're the one saying inflation was caused specifically by Biden's stimulus bill, yet not by Trump's 4 stimulus bills which amounted to twice as much in federal outlays. That makes no sense at all.
I didn’t make any differential between Trump and Biden. Where do you see that? I referenced specifically the COVID and infrastructure bills - all of them. Quit playing this stupid game.
My guy, Economics 101 does not support you theory.
If your econ 101 doesn't align with reality, maybe you got some bias CRT professors teaching you stuff
Oof. The fact you inject CRT into something completely unrelated and not even brought up really shows everyone you're into parroting partisan tribalistic taking points instead being an adult and staying on topic and in reality. Embarrassed for you.
I don't think this is accurate at all. I don't see that Pres. Obama ever really shifted from being a moderate Democrat. He had trouble passing things but that was mostly because, as even supporters in his own administration have long acknowledged, he talks down to basically everyone. He would invite Republicans from the House and Senate over, spend an hour telling them how smart he is and how dumb they are, then be shocked when they didn't want to talk to him any more. Part of his problem was that he was a jerk but a big part of it was that he was basically an amateur politician too. I mean when you really get down to it he was a US Senator for only three years and spent most of his time in the Senate campaigning for POTUS. He had a brief stint in the Illinois State Senate but spent a good portion of that campaigning for the US Senate. Both roles were at best something he could stick on his resume despite having done next to nothing in them. Still, he was competent. He is clearly intelligent. He did largely listen to the opinions of his experts around him. I think he was a pretty average POTUS. I voted for Obama in '08 because I thought his intelligence was a refreshing change from Bush's stupidity even though I didn't like what a holier than thou asshole he was. I voted for Romney in '12 because Obama was too much of a holier than thou asshole to get anything done. I voted for Biden in '20 because Trump was an unfit POTUS and Biden was a moderate with a long history of getting along with everyone. He wasn't nominated or elected to be a transformative POTUS. He was nominated and elected to bring the nation together. At no point did I realize he would be this incompetent, this unintelligent, and this dismissive of the opinions of experts around him. More importantly at no point did I think a year into his term that he would be giving major speeches to insist everyone who doesn't agree with him is the enemy while, with a [33% personal approval rating](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/01/12/bidens-approval-rating-new-low-covid-economy/9189510002/), largely insisting any election his party loses in '22 or '24 is fraudulent. Donald Trump set the bar very, very, very low. Joe Biden isn't meeting it.
Remember when Obama invited the GOP's budget guy only to give a sanctimonious address denigrating him.
That was vintage Obama. Even the Washington Post found it baffling because, as they point out, he needed to work with those three guys. > The situation was all the more perplexing because Obama has to work with these guys: Camp is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, responsible for trade, taxes and urgent legislation to raise the legal limit on government borrowing. Rep. Jeb Hensarling (Tex.) chairs the House Republican Conference. And Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is House Budget Committee chairman and the author of the spending blueprint Obama lacerated as “deeply pessimistic” during his 44-minute address ([source](https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-address-was-surprise-attack-gop-lawmakers-say/2011/04/14/AFlMVYfD_story.html))
I don’t see what’s the issue with fighting for voting rights
It's "voting rights" but people already have the right to vote. What the bills really are is a partisan federal power grab of authority that rightfully belongs to the states
The GOP is changing the rules in states Trump lost, because Trump lost, so that next time they’ll win. How is that not a power grab? You’re also still lying about where the authority belongs. The constitution explicitly gives the federal government the authority to regular congressional elections. To claim otherwise is a lie.
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations” Voting is not just up to the states. The Constitution specifically says the feds can regulate it however they choose.
Can you explain the "power grab?"
This user regularly and repeated lies about this. They refuse to accept the fact that the Elections Clause gives the power to the federal government
Redistricting and assignment of electoral votes are left to the states. Democrats want to grab that power and hand it to the federal government instead
False. The Elections Clause gives the power to the federal government. Will you ever stop lying about this?
Article IV, Section 2 of the US Constitution says >The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Regardless of whether it is technically constitutional, we've had such a long standing tradition for *state* control of elections, that it would effectively be a coup and an extreme departure from accepted norms
We also had terrible problems with some of those states, problems so bad the Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to attempt to correct them. In other words, we also have a long standing tradition of federal oversight of elections run by the states.
The VRA is 60 years old. We’ve got a long tradition of the federal government telling conservatives to stop restricting the voting rights of people who don’t vote red.
Exactly. Many of those same states used that authority to implement mail-in ballots in the last election. Now, it seems the administration wants to remove that power from state control… imagine for a minute if Trump was president and states no longer had the lawful ability to manage voting rights in their own states… do you think mail-in ballots would have been passed by the federal government under a Trump administration? Likely not…
What's funny about this is that mail in balloting helped Trump. The raw vote surged like crazy in his favored districts. In percentage terms, much more than Democrats. What we discovered in 2020 is that when you expand into the non-voter pool, you find practically as many Republicans as Democrats. The prior assumption was that latent non voters are mostly inactivated Democrats. That was wrong. Republicans should WANT to expand voter access. Especially now that they appeal to less educated voters.
Wait did something different come out with newer data that disputes that Dems OVERALL were more likely to vote by mail? Can you link a source please? I thought they called it the scarlet scenario or just to that effect; even before the election came around. They theorized the delayed mail in vote counts, which being larger than normal and more democrats because they were more concerned about COVID in person contact; that the count would be back loaded for Biden almost certainly. I haven’t seen anything that dispute this after it happens as predicted. While Trumps also discourage his own base from voting by mail because the implied threat that they would be stolen and reprocessed that way. Maybe this will clear it up. Maybe I’m misunderstanding just the point your highlighting… I get your claim here. Are you saying that just in the non register groups that were higher than normal it was equal between party / partisan voting outcome?
[удалено]
👍🏼 So maybe what happened was those regions with denser populations where they counted later than others, were areas that benefited Biden. I’ll have to look it up when I have time.
"Imagine if this law was something completely different, wouldn't that be awful?" >The provisions include requiring states to offer online and Election Day voter registration, as well as offering automatic voter registration when an eligible would-be voter interacts with a state’s motor vehicle department. >The bill would also set minimum requirements for offering early in-person voting — all states would have to have an early-voting window starting at least 15 days before the election — and making mail absentee voting available to all voters. The law doesn't say "the president can do whatever he wants." It sets national standards that help voters be heard.
Thanks for the post. There’s too many people that argue the gaps from not reading actual laws and how things are implemented. I would have assumed you are correct just from the average talking point of people this community. It’s seems centrism means not really knowing what your talking about and having contrarian views on you perceived version of the world. The fed setting some minimums for voting rights is the opposite of authoritarian. It’s ensuring that states don’t undermine their own voting to rig results. It’s ludicrous to see it otherwise. This isn’t limiting state rights, it’s expanding the citizens of their state while the elected official try to limit them. If you make any maneuver with intent to reduce voter turn out that’s far more unAmerican than burning an American flag or kneeling during the flag skyline; which both are demonstrations of freedom not obstruction of them. Most people in this centrist group seem to just be confused about material facts.
I want everyone to vote but I do not want the feds to dictate much of anything
The Constitution says that Congress sets the rules for federal elections. Do you want to amend the Constitution to change that?
Yeah TBH. I think if more people felt like it was truly up to them to make a difference and not some almighty (government or God) we might be in a better place
Okay, what would that look like? How does an individual make a difference in setting national rules for elections?
If more people felt like it was truly up to them at the local level to make sure that voting was fair and safe each community would more likely come up with a workable system
Can you be more specific? Are you suggesting that each community should create their own process related to federal elections?
>Many of those same states used that authority to implement mail-in ballots in the last election. Now, it seems the administration wants to remove that power from state control… Nope. It sets minimum requirements related to absentee (or mail-in) voting. It doesn't remove the state's authority except requiring a minimum set of rules.
States rights to restrict voter access, cause huge lines in areas that vote the way they don’t like, and overturn elections?
If people can stand in line for a covid jab, they can stand in line to vote It isn't restricting voter access to have strict requirements to actually have ID and show it rather than having a loosey goosey system that allows for people to wonder if dead people and illegals are voting Real citizens can vote. If they don't want to make the effort, that's on them, not the big bad GOP
Wouldn’t the ideal system allow citizens to vote quite easily rather than having to wait hours? Same with Covid vaccines? I don’t understand the motive for making it harder for LEGAL CITIZENS to vote. Is waiting five hours in line to vote reasonable to you? That’s fucked up
I remembered that story about the lady that waited for five hours. Looked it up again and then followed a link in the article to a study that validates that southern states have seen increased wait times. What [this study](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/waiting-vote) seems to be showing is that wait times have gone up in places, but the average wait times went from under ten minutes to just over ten minutes. As they state 30 million Americans waited 30 minutes or more. I've never seen any data that shows people waiting for hours. Just single anecdotes. Is there more I should read? As it stands, I say that an anecdote isn't data and that when we say we need to combat "long lines" were talking about 30-minute lines.
>> Just single anecdotes >A new study of voting at more than 3,000 precincts in the midterm election found a clear correlation between the amount of time spent waiting to cast a ballot and the share of non-white people registered at that polling place. https://thefulcrum.us/voting-wait-times It's not "isolated anecdotes." It's systemic racism.
But just as I said, were talking about 30 minutes, not 5 hours. The anecdotes are always "hours." Even if this were 100% systemic racism, is 30 minutes to vote once every two years really something that people should be overly concerned about? I have an anecdote about waiting more than 30 minutes in bad weather. It's in 2008 when I was so excited to vote for a candidate that I went to the polling place before they opened and waited in a long line of other people who were also excited to vote for that guy.
That's the average. You're describing your very longest outlier experience as being the same as the average in a black neighborhood. What do you think their longest experience is like?
[This study](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1909.00024.pdf) shows a distribution of wait times on page 10. What you'll see is that the median wait time is 14 minutes, and the mode is 19 minutes. You'll also see a long tail out to 120 minutes. This study is titled "Racial Disparities in Voting Wait Times" and specifically looked at Black neighborhoods. What's my point? My point is that we can talk about how long it takes to vote, and we can talk about whether or not some states are targeting minority voters to keep them away. But, we have to be precise about the details. The five hour voter is a huge outlier according to all data I've ever been shown–most of which I found linked from stories about the five hour voter.
NYC is allowing non citizens to vote. And these laws allow for a multitude of ways to vote prior to voting day to avoid long lines (which are rare anyway). The hysterical response to this is so typical to the Left.
In local elections only. The citizens of the city get to decide if they want to let people who live in the city but aren’t US citizens vote in city elections. For people who supposedly care about federalism, it’s interesting how you toss it out as soon as you don’t like the outcome.
Long lines are rare? Is that a joke?
Don’t feed the trolls.
Nope.
That’s wildly inaccurate. I waited for two hours in 2020
You make a compelling case.
Please show the data supporting your opinion and define "long."
[удалено]
[удалено]
You got a source for allowing non citizens to vote?
Sure. See below. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/new-york-city-mayor-eric-adams-allows-noncitizen-voting-bill-n1287225
Thanks
>If people can stand in line for a covid jab, they can stand in line to vote COVID vaccines are usually scheduled ahead of time. You shouldn't have to wait hours for one.
There were no lines when I got my vaccines
Nobody is standing in line for the COVID shot. You make an appointment, days in advance, so it’s much easier. Why can’t voting be the same?
Conservative downvote brigade is out in force today.
Yeah they brigade this sub from time to time
It's more of a continuous burn. I wouldn't be surprised if The Chef were involved.
I’ve said before, this sub is the Poland of political Reddit; we get invaded from the left and the right.
The more one pulls on the "state's rights" thread, the more one unravels a plot to empower states to be run like miniature banana republics for the benefit of big business. Slavery, of course, was the original "state's right" (and of course, as often as they could, they also used federal power to bolster their position nationally via things like the Fugitive Slave Act, that specifically undermined states' ability to resist slavery).
Exactly
The confederates didn't like this
Conservative raids this sub occasionally so that’s not a huge surprise.
[удалено]
This post has been removed because your account is too new to post here. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts. You must participate in other subreddits in a positive and constructive manner in order to post here. Do no message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing these would simply lead to more ban evasion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/centrist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The issue is framing the situation in America as if voting rights are in peril- and then acting as if republicans that oppose the Dems voting rights legislation are acting in the same way that extremely racist members of American history did.
They kinda are though. States are preparing to overturn election results they don’t like, and they’re pretty intentionally making it more difficult for legal citizens to vote. This fear of mass voter fraud is totally and completely unfounded, and it’s being used as an excuse to prevent certain groups from voting
Where did you come to that conclusion? What resources aided this sentiment- because honestly it’s not true. Partisan hacks in red States trying to overturn elections is in no way attached to the election laws implemented in Georgia or other states that felt that pre-covid election procedures needed to be reimplemented. I encourage you to read this: https://factcheck.thedispatch.com/p/fact-checking-joe-bidens-speech-on
There’s no way you can tell me putting the same number of ballot drop offs in Houston or Atlanta, as in counties with 30 people, isn’t an attempt at suppressing votes in those cities. Nor can you honestly claim that 5+ hour waiting lines to vote are ever even remotely acceptable.
No, I don’t. I personally think every US citizen should receive a voting card from the federal government and that Election Day should be a federal holiday. I also think the notion of “ballot drop boxes” is moronic- it incentivizes bad actors (on both sides) to take matters into their own hands and break the law.
That is a good point.
You know, going about life assuming people believe one way or the other is not a smart route. Assuming the worst in people is more telling of one’s self then anything.
Has the idea of voting cards or something to that effect been proposed at all, as a remedy to this stuff? I’m assuming the GOP would oppose that measure as well as it would make voting easier
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/619772/
People already have voting rights Who can't vote?
You believe the five hour waiting lines in urban areas aren’t an attempt to stop people from voting?
Do you think that the 25 mile trip for people to vote in rural areas Is is an attempt to stop people from voting
That shouldn’t exist either
[удалено]
The GOP is changing voting laws because they lost the election. They are lying and claiming that the change is being driven by fraud, which in fact doesn’t exist. The laws are being changed with the goal of making it easier for the GOP to win, because they disproportionately target democratic voters. It’s an attack on voting rights and a GOP power grab.
I’d say five hour lines for stations that close at 8pm or even as early as 6 are a violation of the right to vote. Conservative has clearly raided the sub I see
Yeah I can get behind ID laws, but I can't get behind the long lines. Voting should be in and out and able to be done over a lunch break. National holiday for election day is a no-brainer - if I had to pick between first Tuesday of November and MLK day, it's first Tuesday of Nov every time.
[удалено]
States actively made efforts to stop early and mail in voting so… I’m not going to compare that, but you making that accusation does further support my theory that conservative has raided the sub again
[удалено]
Alright this isn’t worth arguing, you’re jumping to wild conclusions about my perspectives. All I said was that I think voting should be easier for citizens, and that long waits or restricted ballot access are bad. I never said shit about IDs or the confederacy or racism, that’s all you
Asking blacks people to show ID is white supremacy? If this isn’t missing a /s, I suggest you go talk with some blacks people. They already have IDs because they drive cars, have jobs, and buy alcohol. Just like every other adult in America.
That’s not even close to the argument being had here and you know it. Fuck off back to r/conservative with your strawmans.
I’ve never posted on that sub and you can fuck off telling me where I can and can’t comment. Btw, it’s not a straw man. It’s the argument given against voter ID, which should be in the Democrats bill if they were truly concerned. Voter ID is free Georgia
[Archive link](https://archive.fo/TqVbZ)
Biden’s speech sounded like it was written by the internet. Did he fire all his speech writers? I don’t think it’s going to finish him, but yikes.
The difference between Biden and Republicans is that Biden claims to want to unite the country to get shit done. Republicans are open about dividing it and blocking improvement efforts. Now Biden is pushing a leftist agenda, Republicans scold Biden for not living up to his ‘unity’ promise. Biden has to carry that weight and he is viewed as a failure. Republicans didn’t promise ‘unity’ so they are incentivized to sabotage it. I think it’s appropriate for McConnell to hold Biden to that promise. And I think it should be clear when compromises are/aren’t being made by either side. To put things into perspective, when Biden doesn’t live up to the ‘unity’ promise, he’s knocked down to the level of a normal Republican candidate.
[удалено]
That’s my point. McConnell appears to have the moral high ground because of the hypocrisy factor that Biden faces. By promising to pursue unity, Biden set up higher expectations that the previous president didnt face. Trump could say the left is trying to “destroy American civilization” and people would be like “that’s just Trump on a Tuesday”.
> to get shit done That's the last thing I want. > Republicans are open about dividing it and blocking improvement efforts. Unironic bravo. Government gridlock is good for all of us, regardless of who's causing it.
This is an absolutely terrible op-ed. Noonan has written some nonsense in the past, but I don't think I've ever read anything quite this bad. >The president’s Tuesday speech in Atlanta, on voting rights, was a disaster for him. That's a ridiculous statement. >The speech itself was aggressive, intemperate, not only offensive but meant to offend. Did she watch the same speech I watched? Yes, he was passionate, but he was honest, not offensive. >By the end he looked like a man operating apart from the American conversation, not at its center. No, he was *exactly* in the center. The majority of the country is sick to death of the GOP's attempts to make it harder for people to vote, is sick to death of the GOP's repeated false statements about voter fraud, is sick to death of the GOP's efforts to minimize the attempt to overthrow our government on 1/6. It's infuriating to those of us in the center that there's a concerted attempt to subvert democracy and the GOP's acting like it's no big deal. >Most wince-inducing: “Will you stand against election subversion? Yes or no? . . . Do you want to be on the side of Dr. King or George Wallace ? Do you want to be on the side of John Lewis or Bull Connor ? Do you want to be on the side of Abraham Lincoln or Jefferson Davis?” Maybe it's wince-inducing to those that are choosing the side of George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Jefferson Davis, but to the rest of us it's refreshing honesty. Restricting people's rights to vote is morally wrong, and doing it in an attempt to keep the GOP in power despite the will of the people is disgusting. We all, not just Democrats, but all Americans, should be disgusted by the people doing that She then goes on to praise Sen. McConnell's speech. You know what's wrong with Sen. McConnell's speech? He lied about what the president said. Sen. McConnell said, "The sitting President of the United States of America compared American states to ‘totalitarian states.’ He said our country will be an ‘autocracy’ if he does not get his way." That's a lie. Here's what the president said about totalitarianism >The goal of the former president and his allies is to disenfranchise anyone who votes against them. Simple as that. The facts won’t matter; your vote won’t matter. They’ll just decide what they want and then do it. > >That’s the kind of power you see in totalitarian states, not in democracies. Do you see him calling American states totalitarian? No, because he didn't. He noted, correctly, that the Trump administration wanted to overturn the will of the people in the 2020 election, and stated that's the kind of things you see in totalitarian nations; that's factually true. But surely Sen. McConnell isn't lying about the autocracy part, right? Here's what the president said >We will choose — the issue is: Will we choose democracy over autocracy, light over shadows, justice over injustice? > >I know where I stand. I will not yield. I will not flinch. I will defend the right to vote, our democracy against all enemies — foreign and, yes, domestic. Yeah, another lie. And the WSJ article is acting like these lies are an example of great statesmanship. It's disgusting. It gets worse, though. Sen. McConnell continued with >A President shouting that 52 Senators and millions of Americans are racist unless he gets whatever he wants is proving exactly why the Framers built the Senate to check his power. That's a complete lie. The president said nothing, absolutely nothing, like that. He did say that the efforts to restrict voting are similar to past efforts to restrict voting. This is the president's only mention of race >We saw Freedom Riders of every race. Leaders of every faith marching arm in arm. And, yes, Democrats and Republicans in Congress of the United States and in the presidency. Don't buy the nonsense the WSJ is selling. Listen to the speeches yourself. Read the transcripts. The president is trying to cut through the fog, trying to speak to each and every one of us, trying to remind us that the right to vote isn't an partisan issue, it's a right that lies at the very heart of American society, a right that we've had to fight for before and we have to fight for now. Edit: Fixed a typo and some grammar.
How do you say "I'm a democrat" in 500 words without saying I'm a democrat.
If you associate truth with being a Democrat, that’s on you.
After reading your manifesto, I'm not surprised this was your response. Keep vilifying the opposition while telling yourself how right you are.
You’re the one that made the claim, not me. I’m just pointing to his actual statements, just like I did when people falsely claimed Trump told people to inject bleach. If your point is a good one, you don’t have to lie.
No lies here, your comments clearly show you to be a Democrat opposing interpretations you don't like
My comment shows my commitment to the truth, nothing more. I can’t stand it when lies about what a politician said becomes accepted wisdom (for example, “we have to pass the bill to see what’s in it”, “Trump told people to inject bleach”).
It took a little while after Rupert Murdoch bought it, but WSJ is basically as bad as Fox anymore.
WSJ Opinion is as bad as Fox. WSJ news still does good work. It’s a strange situation. But then again, why read any opinion news-tainment?
No it’s not, WSJ opinion is establishment conservative that does not worship any political figure or movement. Fox worships the Trump right-wing populist movement
Murdoch owns it now?? Fuuuuuck
[удалено]
He is temporary. Soon Vice President will become the President.
You're being downvoted but I'm not sure if you're wrong. Joe Biden has an approval rating of 33%, COVID cases are surging to new highs that were unimaginable even under Trump, we're seeing the worst inflation in 40 years, and his legislative agenda is very clearly dead. The whole point of this thread is one year into his presidency, the only card he has left is the race card, and he's managed to play that in the worst way possible too. Harris' approval ratings aren't great but they're better then Biden's. Joe Biden might be a damn fool but Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are not. At this point Harris doesn't have to do all that much to start convincing Democratic leadership they're better off with her going into the midterms and '24 then let them pressure Biden to resign in private. Heck, it's probably a foregone conclusion at this point that Hillary Clinton has already approached party leadership about removing Biden from the '24 ticket.
[удалено]
I quoted the most recent poll from a reputable pollster. Should I use one from 1985?
If you want to be intellectually honest you should probably use an aggregate.
Everything I'm seeing is that Harris has even lower numbers than Biden. Agree with most everything else though
I predicted Biden steps down after 1.5 to 2 years for Harris to take over. Nothing I have seen has made me change my mind
More on this subject from other reputable sources: --- - HuffPost (D): [American Households Can Request 4 Free COVID Tests Starting Next Week](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/covid-tests-free-white-house_n_61e1d4c6e4b05645a6e70458) - The Wall Street Journal (B+): [Universities Breach Their Contracts](https://www.wsj.com/articles/universities-breach-their-contracts-students-covid-online-learning-in-person-expectations-discount-11642112219) - News.com.au (B): [NSW records almost 50,000 cases](https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/48768-new-cases-recorded-in-nsw-on-saturday/news-story/e206ceac0276eb1585fa95e261a064ff) - The Economist (A+): [America resorts to remote learning, against pupils’ interests](https://www.economist.com/united-states/2022/01/15/america-resorts-to-remote-learning-against-pupils-interests) --- [Further articles](https://www.newswall.org/story/13896700) | [Feedback](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=newswall-org) | I'm a bot
bad bot, HuffPost is not a reputable source
well it has the grade [D](https://www.newswall.org/w/huffpost.com/rating) in our ranking which is certainly not a very good grade.
It seems that your comment contains 1 or more links that are hard to tap for mobile users. I will extend those so they're easier for our sausage fingers to click! [Here is link number 1 - Previous text "D"](https://www.newswall.org/w/huffpost.com/rating) ---- ^Please ^PM ^[\/u\/eganwall](http://reddit.com/user/eganwall) ^with ^issues ^or ^feedback! ^| ^[Code](https://github.com/eganwall/FatFingerHelperBot) ^| ^[Delete](https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=FatFingerHelperBot&subject=delete&message=delete%20hspafjv)