all 3 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 7 points 8 months ago (1 child)

But will they work to DEFEAT it?

For instance I'd be willing to accept them making some pork deals (not throwing anyone under the bus, but fund a project or two) in order to flip some Republicans in safe seats to vote No.

The true test of a party's leader is what they can still accomplish when they're in the minority. Schumer is worthless.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago

    Just add some funding for Israel and this fuck will help pass anything at America's expense.

  • source
  • 36 comments in c/politics@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 79 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Given Schumer's record, Dems will cave in about 2 weeks. Sigh. Kiss your voting rights goodbye, US married women, and so many others.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 37 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    I swear to god if anyone breaks party lines on this...

    This feels like a profoundly make or break moment for compete fascist control of the government

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Pretty sure fetterman already said he was for it. Not sure if you still count that party lines or not at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 8 months ago (9 children)

    If Trump had ever taken a civics class, he'd probably have learned that if a bill sits on his desk for 10 days while congress is in session, it will pass without his signature.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    Aren't they shut down right now? Would that null the passing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Not really. Congress is constitutionally "in session" except when they themselves deliberately and formally pause for at least a weekday. And to do that requires the exact same two-chamber majority that is required pass a bill. ("Pro forma" sessions with just one senator and one house member are common.)

    Until December 21st Congress is essentially immune to the "pocket veto" unless they specifically choose to be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Congress is still in session.

    The reality is that the Republican controlled congress isn't going to send him any bills, but it shows how profoundly ignorant the President is to articulate a useless threat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 24 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I could think of a few Dems who will sign it. Just give it enough time. Schumer will probably join them too eventually.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 8 months ago

    TLDR: Toddler in chief is threatening to not sign any new laws.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago

    If you take away the ballot then you leave us only the bullet to vote with.

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 8 months ago

    As if anyone takes schumer seriously about not passing anything until such and such happens, man has never won a game of chicken in his leadership, everyone knows he will cave, that's why he was chosen by the donors to lead this controlled opposition shit show.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 8 months ago

    I assume not doing something under any circumstances means doing it as soon as his donors think it's helped clear the news cycle of something they don't want in it

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Unless pedo Trump just wants to get rid of any avenue for the creation of paper ballots, I do not understand this fixation with mail-in voting.

    I've read that Democrat passport holders outnumber GOP passport holders 3 to 1, and GOP voters are much more likely to not still legally have their birth name.

    Anyhow, can't wait to see how the other Democrats will fuck this up.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago*

    IMO: A lot of this is groundwork for a parallel construction narrative. “Of course our numbers are better than theirs, we would have won every election ever if it weren’t for rigged votes.”

    The primary goal isn’t to win by driving the actual vote count down, though it certainly helps. The actual goal is to create the widest smoke screen possible, so that any time the numbers look strangely in their favor it’s because there are fewer illegal immigrants “voting”. Deportations! Better ID verification! Blue vote numbers are down, and it’s because the Trump administration fixed the system. Just ignore all the fact based studies that showed how few votes were tallied in error.

    Their demographic doesn’t need proof for what they want to believe, just a plausible narrative that they are already groomed to accept.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Not that legality matters, but how is the Save (Donvict) Act even legal? Aren't elections up to the states to run?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago

    No MAGA legislation? Don't threaten me with a good time.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    The thing that sticks out for me is that so many people in the US don't have the means of proving who they are. No passport, no birth certificate, nothing.

    So you can just get a bank account and claim to be "John Smith" with a random address or something?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Nah. In the US we have an "iterative" ID process. We get a state ID (License) by verifying our identity with other identification like a social security card, birth certificate, and pieces of mail and utility bills to verify our address.

    Republicans want a "papers please" situation where voters need to have all these documents not just to register to vote, but to actually vote at the polls. They want fewer voters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    I'm well aware that this is primary about denying votes. But there seems to be an accepted chain of identification. Why don't you use it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago
    1. Because we dont have to. We show our ID when we register.
    2. One ID won't be enough. If an ID is required the government will then start pushing for two forms of ID ... or maybe a face scan ID.

    If fraud is suspected the burden of proof lies upon the government to prove voter fraud after I have cast my ballot. I dont need to jump through hoops when I cast my ballot just because some fukwad is crying wolf ... and the Constitution agrees.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago

    People usually have some way to prove who they are the problem is that they are asking you to bring multiple things now instead of just one. It's just getting harder to vote. People can get the other documents but they will cost money and take time to get and people will miss voting.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    "Will not help" is far weaker than "will oppose." Fucking worthless sack of shite Schumer.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    woohoo. no dhs funding ever.

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/pravda_news@news.abolish.capital view that post
    [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    I’m good with that as much damage that’s been done already.

    From my point of view, you’re just stopping more damage from a occurring.

  • source