Pelosi's takes her shot at destroying the GOP
As Joe Biden signs executive orders en masse and the US Senate ponders a pork laden covid relief bill and our southern border falls into crisis mode, it seems all but certain that the democratic congress will have all of two years to put forward it's radical agenda. After that they should lose control of both houses in 2022. However there is a plan to hold onto power. It was orchestrated as soon as democrats took the House in 2018.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called her 791-page bill, chock-full of election-related changes, House of Representatives Bill Number 1 or HR 1. Her top priority is clear - winning elections by changing election laws. We got a preview of how it works in the 2010 election. I guess that was the test run.
It will be addressed in the House today, to be voted on soon. It will be passed by the House because House democrats do as they are told. We learned that with Obamacare. The US Senate may be a different story. We can only hope1
HR 1 would take all of the worst changes in election law made in blue states & battleground states in 2020 and nationalize them. If HR 1 were to become law it would nationalize elections. I suppose the Constitution allows for Congress to to this. Any thoughts on that?
From what we learned in 2020, it could destroy the GOP and then we would have only one political party.
Here are a few of it's provisions:
• H.R. 1 would make fraud easier by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration and no-fault absentee balloting
• Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by requiring states to automatically register all individuals on state and federal databases. This would include many ineligible voters, including aliens
• It would require states to allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to register. Combined with a ban on voter ID, this would allow underage individuals to vote
• Require states to count ballots cast by voters outside of their assigned precincts, a recipe for election fraud
• Mandate no-fault absentee ballots, which are the tool of choice for vote thieves, force states to accept absentee ballots received up to 10 days after Election Day and force states allow ‘ballot harvesting’
• Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and removing ineligible voters
• Ban state-voter ID laws by forcing states to allow individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are
• Create vague and broad language that could be used to criminally charge someone who questions the eligibility of a voter
• Destroy the bipartisan composition of the Federal Election Commission and places a partisan majority in control of every aspect of our federal elections
• Require states to restore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison
• Force disclosure of names of Americans who donate to nonprofit organizations — thus subjecting them to political harassment
• Declare statehood for Washington DC to be ‘constitutional’ despite evidence it is not
• And finally, HR 1 would effectively ban nonprofits from contacting a member of Congress or their staff about pending legislation — a direct assault on the right of Americans to petition their government
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1/text
Bottom line:
It would gut state voter ID laws
It would codify ballot harvesting
It would spend taxpayer dollars on campaigns
It would weaken election security
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
47 visitors
[deleted]
Hopefully there are enough honest and decent Democrats that will keep this from happening.
prove it, once and for all, starting with the last election.
Here's another view about the potential horrifying harm of HR-1
The gop's problem is they are contrary to voters...
The gop is against every good idea and has none!
That is why Democrats won every branch 11-3-20.
They "won" the Supreme Court?
I bet they wish they did, and t won't surprise me if they tried in the next few years.
Trump's supposedly loyal stacked court has ruled against Trump multiple times...
Why is this surprising? H.R. 1 is about the Census.
Democrats lost control of redistricting because Republicans were more successful across the ballot in 2020. And shifts in population means the Democrats' Blue Wall will be losing districts. And Democrats are finding that they really don't hold a sustainable advantage in the growing Hispanic population.
Democrats are confronted with a choice. Either rig how elections are conducted in a totalitarian manner - or - become more competitive by shifting their politics. Naturally Democrats have chosen the totalitarian path. That's how the Democratic Party has done things since the 1820s.
I have a feeling Gov Cuomo is ready to make a statement.
He is embarrassed and sorry! He has learned an important lesson. It wasn't intentional. No word on the seniors he killed.
The only thing he's "sorry" about is that he was caught. You're right - no mention of the nursing home murders. I'm still waiting for somebody ... anybody ... to get a coalition together to expose what Whitmer and Murphy did in their states, because they followed and copied Cuomo's lead.
That would be something - adding Whitmer and Murphy to Cuomo and Newsom. A four bagger!
Yeah, well, you got to focus on the important things, right. 15,000 dead vs. some light on-the-job sexual harassment. Tough choice. I mean, neither is good, but you got to have your priorities.
Yup the priorities of the left. Not a single question on the nursing home deaths at that press conference today.
It wasn't very long ago that many of these teens ate Tide Pods, drank hand sanitizer or did vodka shots through their eyeballs to get high, and snorted Smarties (creating maggots in their nasal cavities). After a year of (needless) Covid imprisonment, I highly doubt they've matured to the point of being responsible enough to cast an educated vote.
Nancy Pelosi and Stacey Abrams seems to think they should be the deciding factor in close elections. Go figure!
Are they trying to change election laws?
For 245 years only states had the right to make election laws. They want to change that. I told everyone here that they would try and make what they got away with in 2020 permanent. They want everything listed in the article. The people you named want to preserve election integrity. Let us see how much power the left has.
Democrats want ballot harvesting, ballots sitting around for days and invalidated signatures. Facts are facts. They can't win honestly. Pure and simple. Today they tried to lower the voting age to 16.
Do you want proof?
If they don't get HR 1 through the Senate, watch what happens in the 2022 midterms. That's why they are trying this. They know they are out otherwise.
So what?
Oh and BTFW, despite what your seed states, 16 and 17 year olds would be PRE-registering and would NOT be eligible to vote until they turn 18.
But hey, THE SKY IS FALLING!
[DELETED]
Only ONE state in the nation does NOT allow 'ballot harvesting'. SOLID RED states allow it. So where the fuck do you get the bullshit about this being what 'Democrats want' Vic?
EVERY state sets a date for all ballots to be counted and certified Vic. Our population makes it IMPOSSIBLE to count EVERY ballot on the DAY of the election. Just STOP!
Evidence Vic? Trump spent MILLIONS on trying to prove that lie yet NONE of his many lawyers submitted ONE iota of evidence. But you've got proof right Vic?
Yes they are Vic. Why not try citing some.
'They' just DID.
That is a lie.
YES! Got any Vic?
Ya, I know, everything is a lie or bullshit.
Ballot harvesting is the process where organized workers or volunteers collect absentee ballots from voters and drop them off at a polling place or election office. Nothing can go wrong there; right? So let's see, the same people who encourage ballot harvesting are against voter ID laws or having county registrars clean the voter rolls. And yes, they happen to be democrats!
Not EVERYTHING Vic. Though your false claim that ' they tried to lower the voting age to 16' most certainly IS.
Of course, you COULD have refuted MY statement with FACTS to support yours but alas 'we' can all see that you didn't and can't because YOUR comment is a LIE.
Instead you DEFLECTED to a DIFFERENT topic, ballot harvesting.
THAT is the paleo-conservatives definition. The VAST majority of 'ballot harvesting' that you and yours whine about is about a neighbor, friend or family member dropping off a ballot. As I stated earlier, THAT practice is LEGAL in 41 states, including yours and mine.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_harvesting_(ballot_collection)_laws_by_state
It's your nightmare fantasy Vic, you tell me.
So let's see, the same person who votes via mail in ballot insists the EVERYONE ELSE should have to vote in person...
Yes, I think that I should be able to have someone else to drop off my ballot.
Yes I think that voter ID is bullshit since I voted for decades based on my signature AND they have already confirmed my identity when I registered.
Yes I think that wholescale purges of voter rolls is BAD because it unduly disenfranchises voters.
Yes, I am a Democrat.
It seems like much of this would be unconstitutional or wield very limited authority. Notwithstanding the constraints of certain amendments (i.e.,15th, 19th, 26th), the federal government has little authority to regulate elections. When Congress tried to lower the voting age to 18, for example, the Supreme Court said the legislation could only apply to federal elections. Thus, we have the 26th Amendment.
Notwithstanding this limited ability to regulate federal elections, constitutionally, states still have the right to select presidential electors however they choose, so I question whether any of this could apply to the presidential election. It seems like it could only cover House and Senate elections. I imagine that even if they can pass this bill, there will be court cases aplenty.
How many Pelosi's are we talking about here?
H.R. 1 would make fraud easier by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration and no-fault absentee balloting
Funny how a proposal that supposedly makes fraud easier is only assumed to be abused by Democrats. Hell, as John Fetterman has repeatedly reminded us, Donald Trump received 100% of the dead relative vote in Pennsylvania. If it were easy to cheat by using these voting methods, Republicans would surely be in favor of them.
Then let us work together to clean up the voter rolls in all 50 states....right?
8,000+\- people die per day in the US. Countless Americans legally lose and gain their voting rights per day. It’s clearly an ongoing maintenance issue, not a yearly clean up issue. The assumption that somewhere in the margins exists an effort the cheat has no evidence to support it.
So in other words you didn't mean what you said. You prefer the door wide open to fraud?
I see.
I quoted him.
I guess this bears repeating for some: The assumption that somewhere in the margins exists an effort the cheat has no evidence to support it.
Be honest Vic, if Donald Trump were offered a means to cheat and was promised that it wouldn’t be discovered, he’d jump at it like stink on shit. The fact is it is extremely hard to cheat and get away with it, especially on a large scale. Trump himself has openly stated that if everyone had equal access to voting Republicans would never win. You all know that that is one of the only truths to ever come out of his mouth, so you pretend your efforts to “clean up” aren’t what they really are - efforts to suppress those who don’t vote against their best interests, ie Republican.
No, it's on you to be honest. You claimed that Donald Trump received 100% of the dead relative vote in Pennsylvania. I said let's therefore clean up the voter rolls, yet you don't want to. There is only one conclusion to be drawn - democrats want the door open to fraud!
I said I don’t want to? Where? I said it’s an ongoing maintenance issue, not a yearly cleanup issue. The fact is that it’s not the problem your side is trying to characterize it as.
Oh but it is - one of many!
I said I don’t want to?
Do you? Yes or No?
Of course the routine ongoing maintenance of voter rolls needs to continue and be improved where necessary and possible. Your side isn’t interested in that though. Your only interest is in wildly exaggerating the “problem” and using that well timed rhetoric to influence an election with a similarly well timed massive purge.
Thank you.
That is a lie.
He was quoted in Post 8.1.
Stop calling people liars. Address the comments.
Irrelevant.
I didn't call anyone a liar Vic. I said your COMMENT is a lie. Do try to learn the difference.
I did.
It's a silly loophole in NT rules widely abused by lefties!
Actually, it's a simple CoC that is widely misconstrued by righties.
There is NO evidence that any of those provisions 'make fraud easier'.
In person voter fraud is infinitesimal, early or otherwise.
Automatic and same day registration has the same ID requirements as regular registration.
41 states and D.C. have online voter registration, some for over a decade.
No-fault absentee ballots are scrutinized in the same way every other ballot is.
It's sad that they to have to make such weak excuses for why they lost the election.
It's called common sense. A persons identity can easily be verified with in person voting, not quite as easy via the mail.
It's only 'common' in your circle Vic.
Yet YOU voted by mail, did you not Vic? Your identity was verified when you initially registered. The data that they collected then was used to verify your ballot in November, just like they did mine...
Yes I did! I'm a senior. The first time I every voted by mail was last year during a pandemic. Seniors & the military should always have that privilege. People who need reminding or prodding should not.
BTW I am not the topic. Pass it on.
Yet how on earth are their identities verified Vic?
YOU allege identity verification is THE issue right?
Is it your claim that the identities of senior and military voters aren't somehow part of your 'FRAUD' scenario? That a crap load of voters that you're giving a pass. Are you aware that a proportional percentage of senior and military voters are the very liberal baby boomers you so abhor Vic?
There is ID verification and there is signature verification. One is more reliable than the other. It's one thing to make voting easier, it's another to make fraud easier.
YOU allege identity verification is THE issue right?
The main one, yes.
Is it your claim that the identities of senior and military voters aren't somehow part of your 'FRAUD' scenario?
Of course not. Seniors can't always physically get to the polls. The military has issues with deployment. Thus those two groups do rate a mail in vote. Do you disagree?
That a crap load of voters that you're giving a pass.
A privilege dictated by logic & decency.
Are you aware that a proportional percentage of senior and military voters are the very liberal baby boomers you so abhor Vic?
I do, I don't use that in estimating the privilege they should have.
I'm not the topic and btw, it was Barak Obama that called them lazy
Vic, when I show my photo ID at a polling place, they compare my SIGNATURE on that ID to my SIGNATURE on the voters registration roll. They have NO FUCKING clue what I LOOK LIKE.
I find it utterly hilarious that paleo-conservatives actually think that somehow picture ID are sacrosanct. I could get a photo ID AND a SS card with ANY name I want in a couple of hours with a couple hundred bucks.
But obviously not for seniors or the military.
So seniors and the military get a pass from you on the issue of alleged identity FRAUD? That's MILLIONS of voters Vic. Shouldn't your hair be on fire trying to figure out a way to address senior and military identity fraud?
They and EVERY registered voter rate a mail in voting IMNSOHO.
Yet one that you deny others without citing any logic and lacking all decency.
That claim is refuted by your prior post in your another seed.
But he was quoted in The Washington Post:
"We have to leave no doubt. We can't be complacent. We were complacent last time. Folks got a little lazy. Folks took things for granted. And look what happened."
I think it's time for you to accept a fact.
Right after you accept the FACT that your Obama quote FAILS since it doesn't say a fucking thing about mail in ballots.
It's March and Congress is still working on HR 1?
I see we can continue to expect a consistent level of efficiency and effectiveness from Congress.
That's right. HR 1 was the first thing Pelosi did back in 2018. She waited for democratic control of the Senate to prepare it for consideration. In the meantime a lot of what is in it was given a test run with all those rule changes during the 2020 election.
Sadder and sadder.
From YOUR link:
H.R. 1
Thanks for the confirmation Vic.
You'll note he was not a Republican, contrary to what you told us in post 9.1.1
Dulay quoted the 115th Congress, you provided a link to the 116th.
No Vic, what I will note is that you seem to be incapable distinguishing FACTS when you read them. I posted:
YOUR BS claim was about HR1 in 2018, which DOESN'T exist. I cited the 115th Congress whose session ran 2017-2018 and as SP confirmed, THAT Session's HR 1 WAS sponsored by a Republican.
Keep digging Vic.
You may have become confused by HR 1. Other congress's use the number 1 and so will future ones.
YOUR BS claim
My claim wasn't bullshit - HR 1 was the first thing Pelosi did. If there was any BS it was YOURS!
As Perry Mason used to say "the defense rests, your honor."
More bullshit Vic. There is NO confusion on my part. YOU stated:
The FIRST thing Pelosi did back in 2018 Vic.
That and the rest of your comment is FALSE, PERIOD, full stop.
You seem to be of the confused belief that no one should be able to call you out for your false statements.
That's NOT how this shit works Vic.
You just keep pretending that what you posted is true even after it has been proven to be FALSE and in doing so show an utter lack of credibility.
But you told us that:
HR 1 for the 115th Congress was sponsored by a Republican and passed in 2017.
Wrong HR 1
As you say Full Stop!
Behind?
"Me" and my fellow patriots are stepping up!
YOU told us:
WRONG YEAR!
WRONG SPEAKER!
NO HR 1!
Three strikes, you're out...
No, Dulay it was you who got confused.
Are we going to keep the dance going like children?
But you told us that:
HR 1 for the 115th Congress was sponsored by a Republican and passed in 2017.
Wrong HR 1
You know that everyone in that picture dies right?
Why keep posting bullshit Vic?
The only one dancing is YOU.
YOU told us:
WRONG YEAR!
WRONG SPEAKER!
NO HR 1!
Three strikes, you're out...
TWICE!
Part of the reason I posted that was for my old friend It is me.
There is no reason for any early morning outrage.
No outrage Vic, just pointing out how laughable your comment is.
The article happens to be very important. The democrats are ready to try an end the filibuster over HR 1. You know, their HR 1. The HR 1 that belongs to the 116th Congress.
Thanks for helping me get the message out.
My comment was in reply to your bullshit comment Vic.
The article is bullshit too BTFW.
The HR 1 from the 116th Congress was NEVER brought up in the Senate and the Democrats weren't in control of the Senate during that session Vic.
Today, 3/6/2021, the 117th Congress is in session...
But ya, I'm the one that's confused.../s
You need more help with your 'message' than I can give Vic.
According to GovTrac, HR-1 was introduced to the 116th Senate on 3/12/19 and read on 3/14/19 before being placed on the General Orders Calendar, #39 for future discussion. Thus far, no discussion has occurred.
3/03/21, the Clerk was authorized to make changes/amendments to the 117th 2021 H.R.1 and, as of today, it has not been submitted to the Senate after being passed by the House on 3/03/21.
Exactly as I said, NEVER brought up in the Senate. Note that for the 2019 HR 1 there was never a motion to proceed in the Senate.
When a Session of Congress is over EVERY bill passed by both Houses DIES.
So you're saying that Vic is wrong when he claims that the Senate is ready to end the filibuster over it? Here I thought I was the only one here the realized that the Senate is debating a totally different bill right now.
All too often when I’m debating/ discussing anything here with any of the progressive left persuasion
[DELETED]
Yes. However, I think our readers got the point.
French philosopher Voltaire said he had only one prayer in life — “O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous” — and that it was uniformly granted by God.
Yes, 'our' readers do and the point is, your comment and seed are bullshit.
He had a stroke a little while ago.
Donald Trump, now trying desperately to stay relevant, was seen flashing people in central park. He went up to three older ladies sitting on a park bench and flashed them. The first conservative old lady had a stroke. The second Fox watching conservative old lady had a stroke. The third conservative old lady couldn't reach that far...
To be fair, the first old lady was Sean Hannity dressed in drag, the second was Tucker Carlson also in old lady drag, the third was Kayleigh Mcenany who could have reached but backed off simply because her wrist was sore after being white House press secretary for so long...
[DELETED]