Nancy Pelosi v/s the Republic

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
According to The Wall Street Journal, Nancy Pelosi's House has "reintroduced as H.R.1 a voting and campaign-finance bill that would grease the Democratic voting machine nationwide and restrict political opposition. They also introduced a bill to provide statehood for the District of Columbia that would guarantee Democrats two new Senate seats."

'H.R.1 imposes California-style election rules nationwide. The bill requires every state to register voters based on names in state and federal databases—such as anyone receiving food stamps or who interacts with a state DMV. It mandates same-day and online voter registration, expands mail and early voting, and limits states’ ability to remove voters from rolls. Overall the bill is designed to auto-enroll likely Democratic voters, enhance Democratic turnout, with no concern for ballot integrity.'

'The bill also strips state legislatures of their role in drawing congressional districts, replacing them with commissions that are ostensibly independent. In practice commissions have turned out mostly to favor Democrats, as in New Jersey and California. If states want such commissions, so be it. But this is an attempt to impose one Pelosi standard from coast to coast.'

'H.R.1’s campaign-finance provisions would also limit the political speech of conservatives and Republicans. The bill requires some nonprofits to disclose publicly the names of donors who give more than $10,000, even if those groups aren’t taking part in candidate elections. The left’s pressure groups and media will then stigmatize donors. The bill also raises disclosure requirements for political ads on radio and TV, requiring the head of an organization to approve messages and list the group’s top donors by name.'

-So is this an attempt to end the Republic and States' Rights?

-Is it likely to succeed?
 

WrongHanded

Well-known member
-So is this an attempt to end the Republic and States' Rights?

-Is it likely to succeed?
Okay I'll play.

#1 No, I don't. I think it's an attempt to marginalize the Republican party's grip in certain States. It's getting anonymous big money donations and corruption a little farther out of politics. It's also ensuring that minorities who are likely democrat voters have easier access to voting.

Whilst it certainly infringes on States' rights, the intent is clearly to make voting registration automatic, which is both protecting and encouraging the individual's right to vote. It's also to ensure that we all know where the campaign funds are coming from, and to whom (besides us) our elected official are beholden.

#2 Probably. Whether or not in makes it past the Supreme Court is another matter.
 

Howland937

Active member
2 Probably. Whether or not in makes it past the Supreme Court is another matter.
As currently constructed, it doesn't seem likely SCOTUS would allow it to stand if it did pass.

To answer the first question in the OP...Its just as likely to be punishment for the efforts to purge voters and re-draw districts to get favorable outcomes. Mcconnell and co mostly thumbed their noses at Democrat leaders the last few years. Now it's going to be a lot of "we'll show you" I bet. The Republicans will be in hysterics over it just like the Democrats have the last 6 years.

If Republican leadership thought they could have expanded their voter base by the same means, they woulda tried it already.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Let's get our minds straight. We're in for a couple tough years. Taking the high road hasn't succeeded. It's time to get dirty. The best way to fight a bully is to take him full on using his own tactics on his own turf. Showing "we're better than that" is done. Tit for tat in spades and in double time.
 

str8_forward

Well-known member
According to The Wall Street Journal, Nancy Pelosi's House has "reintroduced as H.R.1 a voting and campaign-finance bill that would grease the Democratic voting machine nationwide and restrict political opposition. They also introduced a bill to provide statehood for the District of Columbia that would guarantee Democrats two new Senate seats."

'H.R.1 imposes California-style election rules nationwide. The bill requires every state to register voters based on names in state and federal databases—such as anyone receiving food stamps or who interacts with a state DMV. It mandates same-day and online voter registration, expands mail and early voting, and limits states’ ability to remove voters from rolls. Overall the bill is designed to auto-enroll likely Democratic voters, enhance Democratic turnout, with no concern for ballot integrity.'

'The bill also strips state legislatures of their role in drawing congressional districts, replacing them with commissions that are ostensibly independent. In practice commissions have turned out mostly to favor Democrats, as in New Jersey and California. If states want such commissions, so be it. But this is an attempt to impose one Pelosi standard from coast to coast.'

'H.R.1’s campaign-finance provisions would also limit the political speech of conservatives and Republicans. The bill requires some nonprofits to disclose publicly the names of donors who give more than $10,000, even if those groups aren’t taking part in candidate elections. The left’s pressure groups and media will then stigmatize donors. The bill also raises disclosure requirements for political ads on radio and TV, requiring the head of an organization to approve messages and list the group’s top donors by name.'

-So is this an attempt to end the Republic and States' Rights?

-Is it likely to succeed?
still hoping (since billy-goat clinton was in office) that SC secedes from the Union, the politicians in our state have already plenty of ideas how to waste our tax dollars, we certainly don't need the DC thieves to help them spreading it all over loser states in the NE and the West Coast.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
It's being speculated they discussed martial law. As a supporter of Pres. Trump, and as a new advocate (above) of taking on the enemy on their low road, I don't favor martial law. That's going way too far.
 

unspellable

New member
The whole point of the District was that it WASN'T a state. Otherwise, it would still be part of Maryland.

Secession should be off the table, instead we should kick a few states out of the union. You can figure which ones.
 

str8_forward

Well-known member
The whole point of the District was that it WASN'T a state. Otherwise, it would still be part of Maryland.

Secession should be off the table, instead we should kick a few states out of the union. You can figure which ones.
not that familiar with the statutes, I know we could secede, but kicking them off?

Not that I don't agree with it, but can it be done legally?

cacafornia comes to my mind as #1
 

roscoe

Well-known member
The Republicans have been about a decade ahead of the Democrats on tricks like redistricting, suppressing voters, etc. The Democrats may just now clue in and catch up. Since the clear national majority is in favor of Democrats (based on the popular vote results of last few elections), this would pretty effectively marginalize the Republicans. Until they figure out how to rebrand. Since in 2020 they lost the White House and Senate (and HoR in 2016), they aren't really in a position to apply serious leverage.

But it is their fault - they banked on Trump and paid the price (more of that price to come, I am afraid). If Puerto Rico or DC becomes a state (which only requires a simple majority in congress), that will push things along further.

All the talk on this thread about secession, kicking out states, etc. - please grow up.
 
Top