Centrist thread
Comments
-
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?
-
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. -
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.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?
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. -
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.RaceBannon said:But but but
It's different when we do it -
I see two: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?
Lack of a one-sided media attempting to destroy the president since the day he took office.
Lack of social media.
-
sure.gif.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?
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, allegedlyPurpleThrobber said:
sure.gif.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?
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'? -
Good point - they didn't specifically say it was going to be 'good' aggressive election reform now, did they?doogie said:
Got Dominion control over elections without legislative approval, allegedlyPurpleThrobber said:
sure.gif.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?
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'?
-
Sure.likewesayno.gifGreenRiverGatorz said:
True. Republicans have shown that they're much more united in mounting these kinds of efforts.RaceBannon said:But but but
It's different when we do it -
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.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?
Sounds like you're jealous that Trump and the Republicans did a better job of raising awareness. -
He also cherry picked one comment
-
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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.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?
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.
The US election format badly needs an update. Most any honest person who’s been paying attention agrees. -
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?RaceBannon said:He also cherry picked one comment
-
If you're suggesting eliminating the Electoral College, like we say, fuck off.Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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.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?
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.
The US election format badly needs an update. Most any honest person who’s been paying attention agrees.
If you're suggesting verification and voter ID for those legally entitle to vote, fine.
No more midnight software updates.
-
Seditious
-
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.PurpleThrobber said:
If you're suggesting eliminating the Electoral College, like we say, fuck off.Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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.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?
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.
The US election format badly needs an update. Most any honest person who’s been paying attention agrees.
If you're suggesting verification and voter ID for those legally entitle to vote, fine.
No more midnight software updates. -
The irony of this entire thing is that the vast majority of us are centrists lol.
-
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. -
I noticed thatRaceBannon said:He also cherry picked one comment
-
the problem is that most centrists stay silentPitchfork51 said:The irony of this entire thing is that the vast majority of us are centrists lol.
-
I'm not puppet you're puppet POTD
Sedition has consequences -
I don't have a problem with amending the EC. It always seemed dumb. Gerrymandering is dumb too, but both sides do it. Republicons do it more supposedly. Campaign finance is a total joke. Corporations aren't people. Get all the dark money out of politicks. Liberals will always cry about voter i.d. because that's what they do. If you are too dumb and/or lazy to get a fucking government i.d., you shouldn't be voting.Duckwithabone said:
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.PurpleThrobber said:
If you're suggesting eliminating the Electoral College, like we say, fuck off.Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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.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?
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.
The US election format badly needs an update. Most any honest person who’s been paying attention agrees.
If you're suggesting verification and voter ID for those legally entitle to vote, fine.
No more midnight software updates. -
Sounds like Dominion promised the Best aggressive election reform possible, but I wasnt in the room and unless I have PROOF in Hand...PurpleThrobber said:
Good point - they didn't specifically say it was going to be 'good' aggressive election reform now, did they?doogie said:
Got Dominion control over elections without legislative approval, allegedlyPurpleThrobber said:
sure.gif.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?
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'? -
they tend to be deaf to dog whistles. that's the real problem with them.DerekJohnson said:
the problem is that most centrists stay silentPitchfork51 said:The irony of this entire thing is that the vast majority of us are centrists lol.
-
Unions should also be banned from making campaign donations, and especially the public employee unions. It’s absurd to pay taxes for public workers only to have some of that money end up in union coffers which is then given back mostly to Democrats. It’s theft because I can’t choose to not pay for these workers, and they then donate my money to the Democrats. Absurd.Fire_Marshall_Bill said:
I don't have a problem with amending the EC. It always seemed dumb. Gerrymandering is dumb too, but both sides do it. Republicons do it more supposedly. Campaign finance is a total joke. Corporations aren't people. Get all the dark money out of politicks. Liberals will always cry about voter i.d. because that's what they do. If you are too dumb and/or lazy to get a fucking government i.d., you shouldn't be voting.Duckwithabone said:
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.PurpleThrobber said:
If you're suggesting eliminating the Electoral College, like we say, fuck off.Duckwithabone said:
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.NorthwestFresh said:
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.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?
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.
The US election format badly needs an update. Most any honest person who’s been paying attention agrees.
If you're suggesting verification and voter ID for those legally entitle to vote, fine.
No more midnight software updates.
