Mitch McConnell Received Donations from Voting Machine Lobbyists Before Blocking Election Security Bills

  
Via:  ender  •  4 months ago  •  63 comments

Mitch McConnell Received Donations from Voting Machine Lobbyists Before Blocking Election Security Bills

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell squashed two bills intended to ensure voting security on Thursday, just one day after former special counsel Robert Mueller warned that Russians were attempting to sabotage the 2020 presidential elections "as we sit here."

McConnell said he wouldn't allow a vote on the bills because they were "so partisan," but, as previously reported, earlier this year McConnell received a slew of donations from four of the top voting machine lobbyists in the country.    

"Clearly this request is not a serious effort to make a law. Clearly something so partisan that it only received one single solitary Republican vote in the House is not going to travel through the Senate by unanimous consent," said McConnell on the Senate floor.

The plans would likely burden the two largest electronic voting machine vendors in the United States, Election Systems & Software and Dominion Voting Systems, with new regulations and financial burdens. Together, the companies make up about 80 percent of all voting machines used in the country and both have far-reaching lobbying arms in Washington D.C. Many of those lobbyists have contributed to the McConnell campaign, reported  Sludge  last month, an investigative outlet that focuses on money in politics.

Sludge found that Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck lobbyist   David Cohen , who has worked on behalf of Dominion Voting Systems this year, donated $2,000 to McConnell during this time.  Brian Wild , who works with Cohen and has also lobbied Dominion, gave McConnell $1,000.

Around the same time, on February 19 and March 4   Emily Kirlin and Jen Olson , who have lobbied on behalf of Election Systems & Software over the last year donated $1,000 to McConnell each.

Thursday's first bill, presented by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would authorize $775 million to bolster election security and require states to keep paper trails of all votes cast. The second, presented by Senator Richard Blumenthal, would require political candidates and their staff and family members to notify the FBI about any offers of assistance from foreign governments. 

Election Systems & Software's  CEO Tom Burt   did speak in favor of creating paper trails for digital election systems and urged Congress to pass legislation requiring states to do so. Election Systems & Software has said it no longer sells machines without paperless ballots, so a rule change would benefit them. 

"It's not surprising to me that Mitch McConnell is receiving these campaign contributions," the Brennan Center for Justice's Lawrence Norden   told Sludge  last month. "He seems single-handedly to be standing in the way of anything passing in Congress around election security, and that includes things that the vendors might want, like money for the states to replace antiquated equipment."

McConnell's actions seemed even more out of balance with his party, as the Senate Intelligence Committee⁠—led by Republicans⁠—released a report later on Thursday claiming Russians have targeted voting systems in all 50 states in 2016. Though there was no evidence votes were changed, in Illinois "Russian cyberactors were in a position to delete or change voter data."

In 2018, there were 14 states that used electronic voting systems in 2018 with no paper trail, that means that if votes were inaccurately tallied or machines malfunctioned, there would be no way to investigate or recover those votes. Voting machine companies are not currently subject to any federally-mandated security standards.

Morning Joe 's Joe Scarborough slammed McConnell for blocking the votes Friday morning.

"He is aiding and abetting [Russian President] Vladimir Putin's ongoing attempts to subvert American democracy, according to the Republican FBI, CIA, DNI, intel committee," he said. "All Republicans are all saying Russia is subverting American democracy and Moscow Mitch won't even let the Senate take a vote on it. That is un-American."

Nicole Goodkind

Photo: © Win McNamee/Getty  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) answers questions at the U.S. Capitol on July 09, 2019 in Washington, DC.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Ender
1  seeder  Ender    4 months ago

He always has an excuse.

Voting needs to be secure and I believe in a paper trail.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2  XDm9mm    4 months ago
Morning Joe's Joe Scarborough slammed McConnell for blocking the votes Friday morning. "He is aiding and abetting [Russian President] Vladimir Putin's ongoing attempts to subvert American democracy, according to the Republican FBI, CIA, DNI, intel committee," he said. "All Republicans are all saying Russia is subverting American democracy and Moscow Mitch won't even let the Senate take a vote on it. That is un-American."

Nothing like quoting such an unbiased source!!  //S//

Voting needs to be secure and I believe in a paper trail.

Now as to that statement, I agree.

HOWEVER......   voting machines and the security of those machines is in fact the responsibility of the states.   While we have "national elections for President and Vice President", the federal government does not run those.  The states operate the machines that have the position of President when appropriate.  All other votes are for state and local positions and or state or local initiatives (bonds, etc.)

 
 
 
Ender
2.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @2    4 months ago

I still think there should be a nation wide standard and security of these machines and how they are run needs to be more of a priority than it seems to be.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
2.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Ender @2.1    4 months ago

I vote by mail, and make a copy of my votes before I mail them in. I prefer the paper trail compared to a computer that someone can rig to vote the way they want the votes to go.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @2.1    4 months ago

So the Feds should have control over the rights of the states. If one party was in complete control, all kinds of mischief is possible

I have the option of mailing my ballot, or dropping it in the large metal container at the polling place.

No voting machine ballots were changed, the mistakes were made by humans.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.3  seeder  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.2    4 months ago

Last I heard we were the UNITED states of America...not Georgia, California, etc.

Having a national standard is not taking away state rights any more than having a standard for roads and bridges.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @2.1.3    4 months ago
Having a national standard is not taking away state rights any more than having a standard for roads and bridges.

Only for federal highways is there a national standard.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/design/0625sup.cfm

Non-National Highway System . As provided in 23 U.S.C. 109(p), there will be no federally required or approved standards for Federal-aid projects off the NHS regardless of the funding source. Non-NHS projects are to be "designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in accordance with State laws, regulations, directives, safety standards, design standards, and construction standards." While there is no direct applicability of the safety provisions of 23 U.S.C. 109(o) or the historic and scenic values provisions of 23 U.S.C. 109(q) to non-NHS projects, the States are strongly encouraged to consider and apply these provisions in developing and applying their non-NHS standards

As stated anything that is not a part of the NHS is to meet the state's design standards.

As for you national standard for voting. The two parties cannot even agree who should be allowed to vote, and regulations regarding the authenticity of the voter. How the hell are they ever going to agree on a standardized voting system?

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.5  seeder  Ender  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.4    4 months ago

A standard, secure voting process is one thing I would think most could agree on.

That has nothing to do with eligibility or requirements.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  Ender @2.1.5    4 months ago

If it's in governmental control, it's not likely to be secure.

For an example....Hillary's supposedly secure government emails! jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.7  seeder  Ender  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.6    4 months ago

Well you all say they were never found, so....

 
 
 
nightwalker
2.1.8  nightwalker  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.6    4 months ago

Why don't you get your ear pierced so you could wear her as a ear ring? She's not even running in this election, obsess much?

Sheesh

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.9  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @2.1.5    4 months ago

Really? Then why does it very so much not just state to state; but from district to district in some cases?

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.6    4 months ago
Hillary's supposedly secure government emails!

Huh? But you have said that Russia never attacked us.... Now you are implying they did? Weird how that story keeps changing to fit an agenda.. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.1.11  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Greg Jones @2.1.6    4 months ago

Both Ivanka and Jarrod had secure servers in the WH.  Get over it.

 
 
 
nightwalker
2.2  nightwalker  replied to  XDm9mm @2    4 months ago

Why the states? They could break it down to each county, and make the security have even less effective and organized as they could all hire cousin Boris to count the votes.

What does security matter anyway? Who cares, it's only a Nation.

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.3  Don Overton  replied to  XDm9mm @2    4 months ago

"Nothing like quoting such an unbiased source!!  //S//"          [Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3  Texan1211    4 months ago

Gee, the very same people trying to insinuate that McConnell is taking money for killing a bill are the same ones who didn't bat an eye when a company donated money to the Clinton Foundation while negotiating to get 20% of our uranium.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @3    4 months ago
Clinton Foundation while negotiating to get 20% of our uranium.

Debunked a long time ago, even by fox news. 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/11/15/fncs_shep_smith_hillary_clinton_had_nothing_to_do_with_uranium_one_sale.html

Once again, your, "what about..." deflection has failed. 

800

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @3.1    4 months ago

I didn't say that Hillary sold it.

I stated that a company donated to the Clinton Foundation.

Why do you always seem to want to argue what I DON'T state?

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-clintons-russia-trump-688592

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/fa

Clinton’s role in the Uranium One sale, and the link to the Clinton Foundation, first became an issue in 2015, when news organizations received advance copies of the book “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” by Peter Schweizer, a former fellow at a conservative think tank.
On April 23, 2015, the New York Times wrote about the uranium issue, saying the paper had “built upon” Schweizer’s information.
The Times detailed how the Clinton Foundation had received millions in donations from investors in Uranium One.
The donations from those with ties to Uranium One weren’t publicly disclosed by the Clinton Foundation, even though Hillary Clinton had an agreement with the White House that the foundation would disclose all contributors. Days after the Times story, the foundation acknowledged that it “made mistakes,” saying it had disclosed donations from a Canadian charity, for instance, but not the donors to that charity who were associated with the uranium company.
The Times also wrote that Bill Clinton spoke at a conference in Moscow on June 29, 2010 — which was after the Rosatom-Uranium One merger was announced in June 2010, but before it was approved by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States in October 2010. The Russian-based Renaissance Capital Group organized the conference and paid Clinton $500,000.
Renaissance Capital has “ties to the Kremlin” and its analysts “talked up Uranium One’s stock, assigning it a ‘buy’ rating and saying in a July 2010 research report that it was ‘the best play’ in the uranium markets,” the Times wrote.
 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.1    4 months ago

Ain't capitalism great!? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.2    4 months ago
Ain't capitalism great!?

It damn sure is--and it beats the living hell out of the alternatives!

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.3    4 months ago

So then what is your problem with the Clintons making money? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.4    4 months ago
So then what is your problem with the Clintons making money?

Where in the HELL did you get THAT from????????

For just ONCE, can you direct your replies to me on something I have ACTUALLY stated---and not some bullshit you make up?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.5    4 months ago

Can I ask you a question? Why do you ask so many questions?  

Some people could maybe possibly find that annoying. Just trying to be helpful, so dont take it personally. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.2  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @3    4 months ago

apple-and-orange.png

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4  livefreeordie    4 months ago

The Federal Government has NO Constitutional authority to regulate how the states conduct elections just as there is NO Constitutional right to vote.   

“…since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.” – Federalist No. 39, Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles , Independent Journal , January 16, 1788

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” – Federalist No. 45, Alleged Danger from the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered , Independent Journal , January 26, 1788

Hamilton state Sovereignty  

"But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32

Alexander Hamilton Speech to the New York Ratifying Convention

Date: June 17, 1788

The State governments possess inherent advantages, which will ever give them an influence and ascendancy over the National Government, and will for ever preclude the possibility of federal encroachments. That their liberties, indeed, can be subverted by the federal head, is repugnant to every rule of political calculation  

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @4    4 months ago
The Federal Government has NO Constitutional authority to regulate how the states conduct elections just as there is NO Constitutional right to vote.   

So those, "legal voting rights" are all just made up BS? 

Thanks for letting us know... [eye roll] 

Also? What does the DHS do? Protect the country from threats from OUTSIDE the USA... Pretty sure that Russia is outside the USA? Just a guess though. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.1.1  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @4.1    4 months ago

There is NO affirmative voting right in the Constitution or Constitutional Amendments.   The amendments only prohibit efforts to limit or otherwise restrict voting.   A fact noted by some on the left

Americans are so terribly ignorant about the Constitution. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE CONSTITUTION. This fact has been observed by some on the left in the past few years.

“The Bill of Rights, as the name implies, lists a wide variety of privileges of citizenship that cannot be taken from Americans without due process. You have the right to free speech, you have the right to bear arms, you have the right to a fair trial, etc. The right to vote, however, isn’t mentioned.

By Steve Benen, Producer of Rachel Maddow Show

Matt Yglesias had a good piece on this yesterday.

When the constitution was enacted it did not include a right to vote for the simple reason that the Founders didn’t think most people should vote. Voting laws, at the time, mostly favored white, male property-holders, and the rules varied sharply from state to state. But over the first half of the nineteenth century, the idea of popular democracy took root across the land. Property qualifications were universally abolished, and the franchise became the key marker of white male political equality. Subsequent activists sought to further expand the franchise, by barring discrimination on the basis of race (the 15th Amendment) and gender (the 19th) — establishing the norm that all citizens should have the right to vote.

 

But this norm is just a norm. There is no actual constitutional provision stating that all citizens have the right to vote, only that voting rights cannot be dispensed on the basis of race or gender discrimination. A law requiring you to cut your hair short before voting, or dye it blue, or say “pretty please let me vote,” all might pass muster. And so might a voter ID requirement.

 

The legality of these kinds of laws hinge on whether they violate the Constitution’s protections against race and gender discrimination, not on whether they prevent citizens from voting. As Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier has written, this “leaves one of the fundamental elements of democratic citizenship tethered to the whims of local officials.”

All of which leads to the question about a constitutional amendment, making the affirmative right of an adult American citizen to cast a ballot explicit within our constitutional system.

 

For some in Congress, this isn’t just an academic exercise. TPM had this report back in May.

A pair of Democratic congressmen is pushing an amendment that would place an affirmative right to vote in the U.S. Constitution. According to Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI), who is sponsoring the legislation along with Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the amendment would protect voters from what he described as a “systematic” push to “restrict voting access” through voter ID laws, shorter early voting deadlines, and other measures that are being proposed in many states.

 

“Most people believe that there already is something in the Constitution that gives people the right to vote, but unfortunately … there is no affirmative right to vote in the Constitution. We have a number of amendments that protect against discrimination in voting, but we don’t have an affirmative right,” Pocan told TPM last week. “Especially in an era … you know, in the last decade especially we’ve just seen a number of these measures to restrict access to voting rights in so many states. … There’s just so many of these that are out there, that it shows the real need that we have.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/adding-the-right-vote-the-constitution

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.1.2  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @4.1    4 months ago

“The Missing Right: A Constitutional Right to Vote

Put simply—and this is surprising to many people—there is no constitutional guarantee of the right to vote. Qualifications to vote in House and Senate elections are decided by each state, and the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that “[t]he individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States.”

https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28/the-missing-right-a-constitutional-right-to-vote/

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.2    4 months ago

So how do we elect our reps? "Ene meanie miney mo"?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.1.4  livefreeordie  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.3    4 months ago

No one said no elections. Voting is under the authority and direction of the States.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.5  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.1    4 months ago

Do not lecture me on the Constitution, LFOD. I have read the document and in fact, I have a link to it and read it often from top to bottom. I know what your 'game' is with this and as I stated above, it makes me want to puke. I better stop here before I. . . .

 
 
 
CB
4.1.6  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.4    4 months ago

More similar to 'hook and crook' elections than Rule of Law. Been there - got T-shirt. Don't need a return invite.

 
 
 
CB
4.2  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4    4 months ago
The Federal Government has NO Constitutional authority to regulate how the states conduct elections just as there is NO Constitutional right to vote.   

As you surely know from a life time of watching how elections play out in the states and around the world, the devil is in the details. It is the responsibility of the Congress to hold safe, secure, and accurate (as possible) elections. Otherwise, yahoos in various states (as history has recorded) would surely certify and submit inaccuracies - thus, compromising any number of elections.

If you think the federal government is 'big-footing' state elections with its oversight; it does so for good cause. Ultimately, someone has to stop the corrupting influences that power brings. We, the millions, police ourselves as a nation. That you can't process this or admit to the truth of it is a problem for you and others who refuse to get with the times. Your idea America simply has not bothered to materialize since founding—especially in the spectrum of voting.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.2.1  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @4.2    4 months ago

There is no such responsibility authorized to Congress by the Constitution. You are simply wanting them to have an authority that does not exist.

its not about my opinion. It’s about the Constitution which ENUMERATES the powers of the Federal Government and ENUMERATES that all other powers are reserved to the STATES and the people respectively 

statists like yourself despise this restriction on the Federal Government because you don’t believe in our Republic. You prefer a massive national government

 
 
 
CB
4.2.2  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.2.1    4 months ago

What the heaven are you writing about?! Get a clue. Here! Use the experience of your life time in this country. What you are advocating is states running the show any kind of way they wish -routinely a hodge-podge of chaotic activities and 'lying' outcomes based on the mindset of a crooked/shady governerm and his henchmen coupled with a crooked sheriff and his deputies —in the past such forces nearly broke this country. Time to grow up or 'grow away.' The changes in our laws, policies, and statutes were practical and necessary.

We have a body of law (and boats load of lawyers), statutes, and policies which are build up around the Constitution and clearly you wish to ignore it all, because somehow you see victory in standing on the Constitution as your only "connection" to this Union. Well, that is a problem for you, and your "millions." It has little to nothing to do with the rest of us!

Your namecalling reflects poorly on you and has nothing at all to do with me. Statist, qtatist.  I am aware some of us are 'ass-backwards' in the world and in need of a swift kick in the can to get turned around.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.2.2    4 months ago

What he so adeptly pointed out is what is clearly written in the Constitution.

Sorry you think that is irrelevant in some way.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.2.4  livefreeordie  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.3    4 months ago

Thanks Texan1211. My point was obvious to those who believe in the Constitution 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @4.2.4    4 months ago

Don't you mean oblivious?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  livefreeordie @4.2.4    4 months ago
My point was obvious to those who believe in the Constitution

And, sadly, completely unrecognizable by those who haven't read it or understood it.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.2.7  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @4.2.2    4 months ago

Thanks for proving my point. You have contempt for the Constitution. Leftists love to purposely omit that we are a Republic of STATES.

all authority not specifically enumerated to the Federal Government is left to the discretion of the States

but contrary to your nutty assertion, the State power cannot usurp or override the guarantees specified in the Constitution including all Amendments to the Constitution.

this isn’t “backwards” thinking.   We are a Federal Republic of Sovereign States.  That is part of the uniqueness of our experiment in liberty.   

Our Constitution was written to restrict and bind the power of the Federal Government

The Confederation, he continued, “being destitute of both, wants the great vital principles of a Political Constitution. Under the form of such a constitution, it is in fact nothing more than a treaty of amity of commerce and alliance, between independent and Sovereign States.”

James Madison in his paper Vices of the Political System of the United States (April 1787)

John Adams letter to John Taylor 12 April 1824 on Government

“...there is but one allusion—to the general Government in the whole work in that I expressly say that Congress is not a Reprecentative body, but a Diplomatic body, a Collection of Ambassadors from thirteen soverign States; a consolidated Government was never alluded to—or proposed nor recommended in any part of the work, Nor indeed in any moment of my Life did I ever approve of a consolidated government—or would have given my vote for it”

James Madison Republic of Dual Sovereignty 

“James Madison: Essay on Sovereignty

Dec. 1835

For security agst. oppression from abroad we look to the Sovereign power of the U. S. to be exerted according to the compact of Union; for security agst. oppression from within, or domestic oppression, we look to the sovereign power of the State. Now all Sovereigns are equal; the Sovereignty of the State is equal to that of the Union; for the Sovereignty of each is but a moral person. That of the State and that of the Union are each a moral person; & in that respect precisely equal". These are the words, in a speech which more than any other, has analized & elaborated this particular subject; and they express the view of it finally taken by the Speaker*, notwithstanding the previous introductory one, in which he says, "The States whilst the Constitution of the U. S. was forming, were not even shorn of any of their Sovereign power by that process" Tellegraph Mar. 23. 1834 or 3 et sequent in the Enquirer of Apl. 20.”

 
 
 
CB
4.2.8  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.3    4 months ago

Here Texan, have fun: th?id=OIP.plLjbEcozQIfz_9Bl_njzgHaFj&w=2

 
 
 
CB
4.2.9  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.2.4    4 months ago

I believe in the Constitution, but I am not willing to give it, the founding fathers, or Madison (a slave benefactor) divine influences. What is also clear to me is why you do. And, frankly it makes me want to puke.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.10  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.2.8    4 months ago
Here Texan, have fun:

That reads more like a cry for help from you---do you desire a clue as to WHAT exactly the U.S. Constitution says about elections and who has the power to conduct elections?

Or are you going to stick to what you think or want it to say and the Constitution be damned?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  livefreeordie @4.2.7    4 months ago

I suspect we are wasting our time here. 

Some minds are simply impermeable.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.12  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.10    4 months ago
 
 
 
CB
4.2.13  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.11    4 months ago

Possibly could you mean the closed minds around a cowardly, lying, cheating, thieving Donald J. Trump? Trump screwed his fellow republicans and now some of them sit around his 'throne' on their hands and knees.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.2.13    4 months ago
Possibly could you mean the closed minds around a cowardly, lying, cheating, thieving Donald J. Trump?

No.

Funny thing about me--I say what I mean and mean what I say.

That way, there is absolutely no need for folks like you to speculate as to what I have written.

Nice deflection to Trump (AGAIN!!!!!!) after getting your ass handed to you on the U.S.Constitution.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.2.15  XDm9mm  replied to  CB @4.2.9    4 months ago
And, frankly it makes me want to puke.

No one is stopping you.  Heave ho.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.2.16  livefreeordie  replied to  CB @4.2.9    4 months ago

Actually your words show you don’t believe in the Constitution.  The difference between those of us who believe the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land as it clearly states, and those like yourself, is that you believe it to be just a set of general guidelines in which whatever current popular opinion dictates, gives it legal meaning.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.17  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.14    4 months ago

Texan, you could not hand me my ass were it attached to you. I have no intention of debating 'settled' law/s with LFOD or you.

What I would suggest you study is the area of our Constitution which gives Congress the right to make laws for this nation in the first place. Oh, and how has handing Congress their asses been working out for your brand of conservatism? Seems to me - 'its steady as she goes' for the ship of State!

 
 
 
CB
4.2.18  CB   replied to  livefreeordie @4.2.16    4 months ago

Well, if by "supreme" you mean divine, yeah—no.

BTW, @4.1.1 don't think I did not buzz (alert on) this:

The Bill of Rights, as the name implies, lists a wide variety of privileges of citizenship that cannot be taken from Americans without due process. You have the right to free speech, you have the right to bear arms, you have the right to a fair trial, etc. The right to vote, however, isn’t mentioned.

There is no actual constitutional provision stating that all citizens have the right to vote, only that voting rights cannot be dispensed on the basis of race or gender discrimination.

"See the man. . . ." I see you, LFOD. I really do, dude! The Bill of Rights are not the end of the constitution. The Constitution is not whole until you read though the entirety of 27 amendments. In which case, it is ONE document, not some fragmented thing.

Now this:

What Is the 15th Amendment?

The 15th Amendment states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

The amendment goes on to state that “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

There is a right to vote. Now then, states play stupid, rabid, ass-backward games with the citizenry which is unconscionable but that just goes to a lack of reason and possibly collective immaturity.

Also, in bold, note that "The Congress shall . . . ." means no convening of a constitutional conference is necessary to make federal laws. Even where 'hardcases' such as yourself are concerned.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.19  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.2.17    4 months ago
Texan, you could not hand me my ass were it attached to you.

Never claimed that.

LFOD was doing just fine all by himself.

he certainly didn;t need any help.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.20  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.19    4 months ago

Sure he was. Sure he didn't.

Good old 'bold and beautiful,' just reserves the privilege to have select states write 'jumble' laws which make it incredibly awkward and 'puzzling' for some of the citizens to vote in their own country. And, he thinks no one can figure out the deceitful motive demonstrated in and by such activity/ities.

Well Texan, 'bold and beautiful' is transparent to me. I can see right through the glistening swell words of dead slave owners into the heart of men who wish to imitate them in these more modern times. Or did you forget that the 'orginal constitutionalists'  (The OCs) were slave holders? It is not to be ignored.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.21  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.2.20    4 months ago

This has NOTHING to do with slavery.

What are you going on about?

 
 
 
CB
4.2.22  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.21    4 months ago

Sure it does. Need I remind you that a large number of our founding fathers owned slaves? When LFOD keeps droning on and on about the greatness of the founding fathers it is necessary to remind him (and you) that not everybody in the colonies could in any shape, form, or fashion be considered prosperous and FREE in 1780's. It has nothing to do with slavery, maybe, for some. Especially, when one lays out an argument narrowly tailored to include only the Bill of Rights (which LFOD did) and not the other amendments which make our Constitution one complete document.. That's all.

 
 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.24  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.2.22    4 months ago

I cll bulshit on that premise.

You seem to be confusing things. 

What LFOD was talking about (so were you at one time) was elections and who is authorized to run them. That is all.

Since you don't like what it says, now you want to bring slavery into it for your own purposes. 

That is rather a lazy tactic when you can't refute what he stated.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.25  CB   replied to  Heartland American @4.2.23    4 months ago

I looked at it. What do you want me to do, research good old Mitch's rationale for why he can't help secure elections at the federal level? Huh? Maybe I will, if my time permits.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.26  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.24    4 months ago

You can call it any thing you wish, Texan. I have no expectation you would change your mind any time soon. And as you call it out; let me state it again:

Need I remind you that a large number of our founding fathers owned slaves? When LFOD keeps droning on and on about the greatness of the founding fathers it is necessary to remind him (and you) that not everybody in the colonies could in any shape, form, or fashion be considered prosperous and FREE in 1780's. It has nothing to do with slavery, maybe, for some. Especially, when one lays out an argument narrowly tailored to include only the Bill of Rights (which LFOD did) and not the other amendments which make our Constitution one complete document.. That's all.

Deal with it. What good old LFOD is actually doing (he does this often) is commend our constitution and the Bill of Rights even as he quotes the founding fathers with an almost religious fervor. Well, there is nothing holy about those men and our constitution, separate or combined. So I called, "Foul!" I remind LFOD (and you too if the shoe fits) that there is no need to get all sanctimonious about men who put their pants on like all other men, and who largely founded this nation while being slaveholders themselves.

You don't like that. You would love to ignore that while you read his speechifying. Well Texas, Boo. Hoo. The truth of slavery will always be chained to the founding fathers! Much like Donald Trump's trashiness will go down into the grave and rise up in history with him!

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  CB @4.2.26    4 months ago
You can call it any thing you wish, Texan.

Yes, I can, And I called it what it is.

 
 
 
CB
4.2.28  CB   replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.27    4 months ago

Boo-hoo.

Need I remind you that a large number of our founding fathers owned slaves? When LFOD keeps droning on and on about the greatness of the founding fathers it is necessary to remind him (and you) that not everybody in the colonies could in any shape, form, or fashion be considered prosperous and FREE in 1780's.
It has nothing to do with slavery, maybe, for some. Especially, when one lays out an argument narrowly tailored to include only the Bill of Rights (which LFOD did) and not the other amendments which make our Constitution one complete document.
 
 
 
MrFrost
5  MrFrost    4 months ago

Sen. Mitch McConnell's net worth: 2005: $2,962,015

2015: $26,927,535

Increase: $23,965,520 (+809.1%)

How does a senator earning $193,400 a year increase their net worth by nearly $2.4 million a year, every year for a decade?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Wheel
Kavika
igknorantzrulz
Gulliver-Swift
bccrane


27 visitors