Donald is about to go through some things...

[Al-O-Meter]

Name one, with a quote from a reliable source.

Schumer Slams Suggested Reforms to Electoral Count Act as 'McConnell Plan"

"Let me take this opportunity to make clear that that plan, the McConnell Plan, that's what it is, is unacceptably insufficient and even offensive," Schumer said.

www.newsweek.com

 

[One Brow]

Schumer Slams Suggested Reforms to Electoral Count Act as 'McConnell Plan"

"Let me take this opportunity to make clear that that plan, the McConnell Plan, that's what it is, is unacceptably insufficient and even offensive," Schumer said.

www.newsweek.com

Schumer said, "Let me take this opportunity to make clear that that plan, the McConnell Plan, that's what it is, is unacceptably insufficient and even offensive," Schumer said. "Scorekeeping matters little if the game is rigged." He's not opposing the content, he's saying it doesn't go far enough. You did support "The Democrats are opposing this piece of legislation", but you proved the opposite of "the Democrats are opposing the de-powering of the role of the VP.", because Schumer is in favor of greater de-powering.

 

[Al-O-Meter]

Schumer said, "Let me take this opportunity to make clear that that plan, the McConnell Plan, that's what it is, is unacceptably insufficient and even offensive," Schumer said. "Scorekeeping matters little if the game is rigged." He's not opposing the content, he's saying it doesn't go far enough. You did support "The Democrats are opposing this piece of legislation", but you proved the opposite of "the Democrats are opposing the de-powering of the role of the VP.", because Schumer is in favor of greater de-powering.

No. What I said was that the democrats (led by Schumer) are opposing this legislation because they wanted to pass their own more expansive reform. The Democrats are opposing this legislation. Schumer is opposing this legislation. Here is my actual quote from which you tried to pull pieces out of context:

The Democrats are opposing this piece of legislation that permanently closes squishy areas in the Electoral Count Act because Democrats want to pass one of their more expansive reforms and know if this one passes then their bills are effectively dead.

Schumer and the democrats are lobbying to prevent the passage of this piece of legislation which de-powers the VP and makes it harder to decertify votes. It is the GOP with the help of Manchin, Sinema, and a handful of other democrats that are pushing this legislation which would weld shut the gray areas Trump seemingly wanted to exploit. When this VP-weakening legislation comes up for vote, I expect most democrats will vote against it and most republicans will vote to pass this legislation that depowers the VP's role along with making it harder to decertify votes.

 

[Red]

It sounded to me like they were actually simply practicing politics, when politics is described as “the art of compromise”. So, from the Democrats position, I would expect Schumer to remind voters of proposed legislation such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and the “We the People” Act. I’d expect him to remind Americans of the need for more robust reform, as part of the political debate on these issues. This is normal, we just don’t see it as often as we once did. Actually, it sounds like they are practicing the way Otto von Bismarck described politics: “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable-the art of the next best”.

 

[One Brow]

No. What I said was

The parts in quotation marks were direct quotes from your comment. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but it is wghat you said (typed).

The Democrats are opposing this legislation.

Some Democrats. Some are supporting the measure (which is why it is being called "bipartisan").

Schumer is opposing this legislation. Here is my actual quote from which you tried to pull pieces out of context:

Your offered passage doesn't even contain the passage I quoted. You can't put said quote into context if you don't offer the quote in context. This is the full paragraph of what you wrote, and shows my quote was quite in line with the context, "I know this is going to be really hard for you to believe, but you've got the sides reversed in this. The Republicans are trying to reinforce the Electoral College by making it harder to decertifiy votes, and codifying to make it clear the VP plays no role in the vote at all while the Democrats are opposing the de-powering of the role of the VP."

The Democrats don't oppose the de-powering (still not quite right, more lack clarifying the lack of power) of the role of the VP.

When this VP-weakening legislation comes up for vote, I expect most democrats will vote against it and most republicans will vote to pass this legislation that depowers the VP's role along with making it harder to decertify votes.

We don't have legislation yet that will come up for a vote; it's still being negotiated. So, how sure are you really about your prediction?

 

[Deleted member 365]

It sounded to me like they were actually simply practicing politics, when politics is described as “the art of compromise”. So, from the Democrats position, I would expect Schumer to remind voters of proposed legislation such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and the “We the People” Act. I’d expect him to remind Americans of the need for more robust reform, as part of the political debate on these issues. This is normal, we just don’t see it as often as we once did. Actually, it sounds like they are practicing the way Otto von Bismarck described politics: “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable-the art of the next best”.

The article he cited is over 6 months old. I don’t think buck/Al is arguing in good faith here. More dishonesty in order to win a partisan point. Typical.

I think it’s safe to say that shoring up the electoral college count is a step in the right direction. But it doesn’t prevent another 1/6 Republican attempt to overthrow an election. State legislatures can still appoint a different slate of electors. And overall our democracy really needs an overhaul. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and campaign finance all need to be addressed.

But if this is all we can get done right now we’ll then I guess it’s better than nothing. I’m sure specifics will change over the course of negotiations. But it’s good that there’s bipartisan interest in shoring up our democracy.

 

[One Brow]

I don’t think buck/Al is arguing in good faith here.

That's not nice. Bucknutz and Al-O-Meter are different people, and it's rude to say both are make a claim that only one of them is making. If you can't spare the mental currency to unblock and see to which you re responding, don't call them out.

I think it’s safe to say that shoring up the electoral college count is a step in the right direction. But it doesn’t prevent another 1/6 Republican attempt to overthrow an election. State legislatures can still appoint a different slate of electors. And overall our democracy really needs an overhaul. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and campaign finance all need to be addressed.

But if this is all we can get done right now we’ll then I guess it’s better than nothing. I’m sure specifics will change over the course of negotiations. But it’s good that there’s bipartisan interest in shoring up our democracy.

Agreed.

 

[Deleted member 365]

It sounded to me like they were actually simply practicing politics, when politics is described as “the art of compromise”. So, from the Democrats position, I would expect Schumer to remind voters of proposed legislation such as the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and the “We the People” Act. I’d expect him to remind Americans of the need for more robust reform, as part of the political debate on these issues. This is normal, we just don’t see it as often as we once did. Actually, it sounds like they are practicing the way Otto von Bismarck described politics: “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable-the art of the next best”.

I’m finishing this book,
Amazon product ASIN 0593137787View: https://www.amazon.com/How-Civil-Wars-Start-Stop/dp/0593137787


Thought you might be interested in it. In it they talk about common things that lead to civil war (we’re very close to one). But also common policies/measures countries do to dig themselves out of democratic backsliding and civil war. Genuinely one of the most thought provoking books I’ve read since “How Democracies Die” back in 2016-2017ish.

 

[Bucknutz]

That's not nice. Bucknutz and Al-O-Meter are different people, and it's rude to say both are make a claim that only one of them is making. If you can't spare the mental currency to unblock and see to which you re responding, don't call them out.

Respect! Thanks One Brow.

 

[Red]

Thought you might be interested in it. In it they talk about common things that lead to civil war (we’re very close to one). But also common policies/measures countries do to dig themselves out of democratic backsliding and civil war. Genuinely one of the most thought provoking books I’ve read since “How Democracies Die” back in 2016-2017ish.

Thanks. I had come across a brief summary a week ago….

Expert on civil wars says the US is heading toward insurgency — the 21st-century version of civil war

Barbara F. Walter told The Washington Post that the US is exhibiting the two most common predictive behaviors of countries at risk of civil war.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[fishonjazz]

No. What I said was that the democrats (led by Schumer) are opposing this legislation because they wanted to pass their own more expansive reform. The Democrats are opposing this legislation. Schumer is opposing this legislation. Here is my actual quote from which you tried to pull pieces out of context:



Schumer and the democrats are lobbying to prevent the passage of this piece of legislation which de-powers the VP and makes it harder to decertify votes. It is the GOP with the help of Manchin, Sinema, and a handful of other democrats that are pushing this legislation which would weld shut the gray areas Trump seemingly wanted to exploit. When this VP-weakening legislation comes up for vote, I expect most democrats will vote against it and most republicans will vote to pass this legislation that depowers the VP's role along with making it harder to decertify votes.

What is the reason for the opposition of shumer to that legislation according to the article you provided?
Is it,A: shumer wants the VP to have more power to decertify votes and more loopholes?
Or B: shumer wants even less power for the VP in the vote certification process and less loopholes?

Again, acoording to the article you posted. After reading the article you posted i have to go with B. Nice self own though.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Al-O-Meter]

What is the reason for the opposition of shumer to that legislation

You've been hanging around One Brow too much and have picked up his habit of moving goal posts. I would remind you this started with a concern the GOP was trying to make it so the VP could choose whomever he wanted to which I pointed out this Electoral Reform Act does the opposite. It does do the opposite. I am glad that you now appear to see that Schumer is in opposition to this legislation that would close loopholes.

As for Schumer wanting to close even more loopholes, that isn't correct either. Schumer is trying to seize power by attaching power seizing provisions to legislation that would close the exact same loopholes the Electoral Reform Act closes. If the Electoral Reform Act is passed then the loopholes are closed and Schumer has nothing with broad public support to attach the power seizing provisions to. What Schumer is trying to do is so unpalatable to the electorate standing on its own there is zero chance it will go anywhere if it isn't hidden in something else they can sell to the public. The Electoral Reform Act does more than close loopholes. It also closes an opportunity to Schumer and that is why he opposes it.