Centrist thread

RaceBannon

http://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1350789526629789705?s=20

http://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1350788491186204674?s=20

http://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1350788491186204674?s=20

http://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1350792424700989442?s=20

http://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1350794947784568837?s=20

http://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1350824001736749060?s=20

TheKobeStopper

https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/

The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.


"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.

Do you see the difference?

GreenRiverGatorz

It was despicable of those 10 democrats to object to the election certifications in those cumulative three elections. Just as it was despicable of the 145 republicans who objected in this year's election.

Maybe @MelloDawg can make the centrist case for how they're the same magnitude of troubling.

NorthwestFresh

TheKobeStopper said:

https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/

The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.


"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.

Do you see the difference?

Claims of widespread voter problems and a want for election reform. The only difference I see is that 15 years later the Democrats don’t care about widespread voter problems nor do they want election reform.

Did you think you were making a point? A vote against certifying the EC is either sedition or it isn’t no matter the reason if one is being objective. You can’t say one attack on the EC is noble while another is sedition.

RaceBannon

But but but

It's different when we do it

GreenRiverGatorz

RaceBannon said:

But but but

It's different when we do it

True. Republicans have shown that they're much more united in mounting these kinds of efforts.

DoogieMcDoogerson

TheKobeStopper said:

https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/

The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.


"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.

Do you see the difference?

I see two:
Lack of a one-sided media attempting to destroy the president since the day he took office.
Lack of social media.

PurpleThrobber

TheKobeStopper said:

https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/

The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.


"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.

Do you see the difference?

sure.gif.

They fagged it up in 2000 and fagged it up again in 2016.

And how much 'aggressive election reform' did they actually do? And why aren't they still committed to 'aggressive election reform'?

doogie

PurpleThrobber said:

TheKobeStopper said:

https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/

The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.


"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.

Do you see the difference?

sure.gif.

They fagged it up in 2000 and fagged it up again in 2016.

And how much 'aggressive election reform' did they actually do? And why aren't they still committed to 'aggressive election reform'?

Got Dominion control over elections without legislative approval, allegedly

PurpleThrobber

doogie said:

PurpleThrobber said:

TheKobeStopper said:

https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/

The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.


"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.

Do you see the difference?

sure.gif.

They fagged it up in 2000 and fagged it up again in 2016.

And how much 'aggressive election reform' did they actually do? And why aren't they still committed to 'aggressive election reform'?

Got Dominion control over elections without legislative approval, allegedly

Good point - they didn't specifically say it was going to be 'good' aggressive election reform now, did they?

RaceBannon

GreenRiverGatorz said:

RaceBannon said:

But but but

It's different when we do it

True. Republicans have shown that they're much more united in mounting these kinds of efforts.

Sure.likewesayno.gif

Fenderbender123

TheKobeStopper said:

https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/

The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.


"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.

Do you see the difference?

Effectively the same thing. Election outcome not overturned. If it had been overturned, then that means the people and agencies entrusted to decide on the issue found evidence of significant fraud. There was never a chance that the election would have been overturned falsely.

Sounds like you're jealous that Trump and the Republicans did a better job of raising awareness.

RaceBannon

He also cherry picked one comment

Duckwithabone

NorthwestFresh said:

TheKobeStopper said:

https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/

The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.


"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.

Do you see the difference?

Claims of widespread voter problems and a want for election reform. The only difference I see is that 15 years later the Democrats don’t care about widespread voter problems nor do they want election reform.

Did you think you were making a point? A vote against certifying the EC is either sedition or it isn’t no matter the reason if one is being objective. You can’t say one attack on the EC is noble while another is sedition.

Not true at all and again shows your lack of knowledge and awareness for your opponents viewpoint. Dems have been wanting election reform for decades and have been getting increasingly frustrated with the lack thereof. It’s largely been the Reps that have stood in the way, until now when things didn’t go their way.

The US election format badly needs an update. Most any honest person who’s been paying attention agrees.

Duckwithabone

RaceBannon said:

He also cherry picked one comment

He cherry picked a comment and you cherry picked a couple examples to make your point. Hm is it possible this argument is nuanced and requires thoughtful debate?

PurpleThrobber

Duckwithabone said:

NorthwestFresh said:

TheKobeStopper said:

https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/

The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.


"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.

Do you see the difference?

Claims of widespread voter problems and a want for election reform. The only difference I see is that 15 years later the Democrats don’t care about widespread voter problems nor do they want election reform.

Did you think you were making a point? A vote against certifying the EC is either sedition or it isn’t no matter the reason if one is being objective. You can’t say one attack on the EC is noble while another is sedition.

Not true at all and again shows your lack of knowledge and awareness for your opponents viewpoint. Dems have been wanting election reform for decades and have been getting increasingly frustrated with the lack thereof. It’s largely been the Reps that have stood in the way, until now when things didn’t go their way.

The US election format badly needs an update. Most any honest person who’s been paying attention agrees.

If you're suggesting eliminating the Electoral College, like we say, fuck off.

If you're suggesting verification and voter ID for those legally entitle to vote, fine.

No more midnight software updates.

GrundleStiltzkin

Seditious

Duckwithabone

PurpleThrobber said:

Duckwithabone said:

NorthwestFresh said:

TheKobeStopper said:

https://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/

The move was not designed to overturn Bush's re-election, said Ohio Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones and California Sen. Barbara Boxer, who filed the objection.

The objecting Democrats, all of whom are House members except Boxer, said they wanted to draw attention to the need for aggressive election reform in the wake of what they said were widespread voter problems.


"Our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election," Kerry said.

Do you see the difference?

Claims of widespread voter problems and a want for election reform. The only difference I see is that 15 years later the Democrats don’t care about widespread voter problems nor do they want election reform.

Did you think you were making a point? A vote against certifying the EC is either sedition or it isn’t no matter the reason if one is being objective. You can’t say one attack on the EC is noble while another is sedition.

Not true at all and again shows your lack of knowledge and awareness for your opponents viewpoint. Dems have been wanting election reform for decades and have been getting increasingly frustrated with the lack thereof. It’s largely been the Reps that have stood in the way, until now when things didn’t go their way.

The US election format badly needs an update. Most any honest person who’s been paying attention agrees.

If you're suggesting eliminating the Electoral College, like we say, fuck off.

If you're suggesting verification and voter ID for those legally entitle to vote, fine.

No more midnight software updates.

Oh you only want the changes you think should happen. If only our government were a single party system that happened to be your party, then you could get it your way without compromise. Unfortunately you’ll probably have to give your opponent something to get things you want in order to change anything. Yeah the EC is old and outdated. Gerrymandering is a distortion of an oversight from bygone era. Election Day should be a holiday. Campaign finance regulation needs to be significantly improved. The voting process needs much more consistency across the system, and no I’m not opposed to voter ID’s that are done without the intention of excluding groups of people.

Pitchfork51

The irony of this entire thing is that the vast majority of us are centrists lol.

Pitchfork51

If the leftists are in power at least give us some good stuff. Namely healthcare. Its so fucking absurd and now working in that I see it even more glaringly.

But they won't. They'll focus on transgender rights and other shit that doesn't affect their pocket.

DerekJohnson

RaceBannon said:

He also cherry picked one comment

I noticed that