Joe Manchin's "highly suspicious" reversal on voting bill follows donation from corporate lobby

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Joe Manchin's "highly suspicious" reversal on voting bill follows donation from corporate lobby
Sen. Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat famous for his vow to maintain the Senate filibuster and thereby scuttle much of President Biden's agenda, recently published an op-ed opposing the For the People Act, Democrats' whopping voting-rights bill. That article strongly echoed talking points from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — and appeared shortly after the influential pro-business lobby resumed donations to Manchin's campaign after nearly a decade.
tulc(thought this was interesting)
 

CatsRule2020

Active Member
Supporter
Sep 16, 2020
386
208
33
Denver
✟68,876.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Although the corporations put money into the pockets of politicians to control their votes on certain bills, I think the problem may be more frightening.
By the way so many politicians have been voting to end democracy, it looks like someone is making them more terrified of them than the politicians love the money from the corporations.

I have never had my life threatened, or worse had any loved one threatened by someone fully capable and could evade prosecution. I would not know what to do if it was useless to go to the police.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,062
✟1,077,115.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Basically, Manchin has a thesis.

Thesis: Republicans can be trusted to act in a bipartisan manner for the good of the country.

This thesis has been disproven hundreds of times since the inauguration of Barack Obama. McConnell, Senate minority, (that sure sounds good) leader, pledged to stop every single bill Obama supported--no matter what it was. He is now extending that pledge to Biden, and 50 of his senatorial puppets are blindly obeying.

And so Manchin is desperately trying to prove his thesis which has been disproven over and over. If he can get some pale, diluted, weak facsimile of an original Democratic bill to gain one or two Republican votes, he can support his delusional thinking.

I sure hope he can be set free of his delusions more easily than the anti-vaxxers and the MAGA supporters.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Voting laws should be decided on the state level, as prescribed in the Constitution, not at the Federal level.
Well...that's how Jim Crow laws were in place for so long.
tulc(thinks that's the down side to that idea)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

iarwain

Newbie
Feb 13, 2009
669
348
✟103,251.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Well...that's how Jim Crow laws were in place for so long.
Jim Crow laws are not the fault of state rights, they are the fault of wrong thinking.
And just so we're clear, there are no "Jim Crow 2.0, Jim Eagle, Jim Crow on steroids" laws in the US today.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,062
✟1,077,115.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Jim Crow laws are not the fault of state rights, they are the fault of wrong thinking.
And just so we're clear, there are no "Jim Crow 2.0, Jim Eagle, Jim Crow on steroids" laws in the US today.
Closing polling places in urban areas is Jim Crow.

Gerrymandering to minimize the impact if black votes is Jim Crow.

If the intention and result is racist, it's Jim Crow.
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Jim Crow laws are not the fault of state rights, they are the fault of wrong thinking.
...didn't the State have the right to make any laws they wanted about who could or couldn't vote? If so, I'm not sure how your argument that:
Voting laws should be decided on the state level, as prescribed in the Constitution, not at the Federal level.
and since those States chose to enact Jim Crow laws I'm not seeing where they can be separated.

And just so we're clear, there are no "Jim Crow 2.0, Jim Eagle, Jim Crow on steroids" laws in the US today.
Well...except there are...and have been for quite some time now.
The New Jim Crow - Wikipedia
Though the conventional point of view holds that systemic racial discrimination mostly ended with the civil rights movement reforms of the 1960s, Alexander posits that the U.S. criminal justice system uses the War on Drugs as a primary tool for enforcing traditional, as well as new modes of discrimination and oppression.[2] These new modes of racism have led to not only the highest rate of incarceration in the world, but also a disproportionately large rate of imprisonment for African American men. Were present trends to continue, Alexander writes, the United States would imprison one third of its African American population. When combined with the fact that whites are more likely to commit drug crimes than people of color, the issue becomes clear for Alexander: “the primary targets of [the penal system's] control can be defined largely by race”.[3]
tulc(just a thought)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,640
13,925
Broken Arrow, OK
✟688,809.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,062
✟1,077,115.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
What purpose will increasing hours in rural areas--combined with closing large numbers of polling places in the Atlanta area--accomplish?

Hmm...so maximizing opportunities for whites while minimizing them for blacks was a 2 step process.

Hmmm...so they maximized white rural opportunity and minimized urban black.opportunity to say there was more opportunity.

So what should we call them? Racist hypocrites? Lying hypocrites? Pinnochios?
 
Upvote 0

tulc

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
May 18, 2002
49,401
18,801
68
✟271,570.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Anyone who wants to vote can vote.
...that seems to be the main reason Republicans are trying pass laws to curtail that. Even they admit restricting voting is their only way to win elections
Trump says Republicans would ‘never’ be elected again if it was easier to vote
Donald Trump admitted on Monday that making it easier to vote in America would hurt the Republican party.

The president made the comments as he dismissed a Democratic-led push for reforms such as vote-by-mail, same-day registration and early voting as states seek to safely run elections amid the Covid-19 pandemic. Democrats had proposed the measures as part of the coronavirus stimulus. They ultimately were not included in the $2.2tn final package, which included only $400m to states to help them run elections.


But leftists keep fanning the flames of racial hatred.
huh...not sure how "pointing out a problem exists" can be considered "fanning the flame of racial hatred", how else do you deal with something if people aren't aware the problem exists in the first place?

We'll see where it takes us.
Perhaps to a Nation that doesn't fight to make it harder and harder for it's citizens to vote?
tulc(thinks that sounds like a good thing)
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,303
76
✟363,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Anyone who wants to vote can vote.

They just added some new hoops for some voters to jump through in order to do so. As republicans occasionally admit, they do it in hopes that it will reduce turnout of minority voters. No one is fooled.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,303
76
✟363,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Democrats are only complaining about the Georgia Law because they want to use it to push their own unconstitutional "For the People" Act that suppresses free speech

What speech would be suppressed by opposing voter suppression?

and centralizes more power in the Federal government.

The Civil Rights Laws did that. And it gave tens of millions of Americans their rights back. States have no rights; that collectivist idea is the antithesis of freedom. People have rights.
 
Upvote 0

iarwain

Newbie
Feb 13, 2009
669
348
✟103,251.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
What speech would be suppressed by opposing voter suppression?
The (very liberal) ACLU does not support HR1 because it suppresses free speech by regulating campaign contributions and reducing the ability to donate anonymously. Given that Cancel Culture has declared it open season on conservatives, and the left wing media and government have no problem with this whatsoever, the latter attack on civilian privacy is especially disturbing.

Also, I am against any movement to transfer power from the states to the federal government. It's the constitution, which leftists hate. The founders put in place a system of checks and balances, and the distribution of powers at both the central and local level are a major part of that system. A system that is highly under attack by leftists, because they want all power to be held by the central government. They do not like the idea that red states might want to live in peace under their own control, while the Dems want to turn the whole country into California, New York, or Portland. No thanks.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,303
76
✟363,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The (very liberal) ACLU does not support HR1 because it suppresses free speech by regulating campaign contributions and reducing the ability to donate anonymously.

ACLU, as you seem to realize, is more libertarian than liberal.

Given that Cancel Culture has declared it open season on conservatives,

The Dixie Chicks are conservative? Colin Kaepernick is conservative? The right wing created that monster, and now they're wailing because after they let it loose, it bit them on the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse].

The right wing media and government had no problem with this whatsoever, until they learned that the door swings both ways.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,036
13,062
✟1,077,115.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The (very liberal) ACLU does not support HR1 because it suppresses free speech by regulating campaign contributions and reducing the ability to donate anonymously.
I read their position paper. They mention public-interest organizations and individual speech.

They do not mention money at all. Nor do they mention anonymity.

That's Citizens United, not HR 1. That Supreme Court decision needs to be overturned--either by law or a new court.

Corporations are not "public interest groups." And anonymous mega-money is not speech.
 
Upvote 0