(09-13-2021 12:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(09-13-2021 12:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(09-13-2021 11:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:   California voters go to the polls only to find they have already voted

Yep, voter ID requirement really sucks.

All of them Republicans? Nothing suspicious there. In truth, if they were to hint at any wrongdoing, they would be labeled conspiracy theorists and dismissed out of hand. Typical right-wing kooks.

Regardless of affiliation --- a record that you have voted when you have not SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

But when the law says you do not need an ID (as Cali does), it doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that the prevalence of this happening rises dramatically.

I think I told you all what happened to me in one minor election in CA. But requiring voter ID is racist to some (or somefink like that).

The idea behind their opposition to voter ID putatively is that somebody somewhere might have trouble getting an ID.

Stupid premise. Even my sister, who does not drive and lives in senior living, needs an ID.

Anyone who wants one can get one.

The truth is, ID would make situations just like this one more difficult. And that is why Democrats oppose it, in truth.

(07-30-2021 03:33 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 02:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 02:01 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 04:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  SammyOwl

Was wondering if you could clarify your assertions of:

Quote:No ballots were mailed to voters in violation of the code..

and

Quote:Absentee ballot applications were mailed to all registered voters.

With section 84.012 that requires any such mailing to be at the request of a voter.

Quite simple. I've seen no evidence that a ballot was mailed that wasn't properly requested. I did see the fact that applications, not ballots, were mailed to registered voters somehow morphed into the claim that ballots were mailed.

84.012 requires the clerk to mail applications to those who request it. It does not prohibit mailing applications to others. If that's what the Lege intended it would have said "mail...only to those requesting"

Interesting methodology to delete text from a statute. That only makes sense if you discard the entire idea of the power allocation from Texax to the counties as a whole.

Can you point to any positive grant of power to a clerk, any clerk, to allow them to do such a mailing at their discretion?

Hate to tell you, the Texas Constitution requires such a positive grant for such officials for that type of action. Interesting tidbit there, isn't it

The ellipses etc were added to condense the language. Here's the full text of 84.012:
Sec. 84.012. CLERK TO MAIL APPLICATION FORM ON REQUEST. The early voting clerk shall mail without charge an appropriate official application form for an early voting ballot to each applicant requesting the clerk to send the applicant an application form.
It does not say:
Sec. 84.012. CLERK TO MAIL APPLICATION FORM ON REQUEST. The early voting clerk shall mail without charge an appropriate official application form for an early voting ballot only to each applicant requesting the clerk to send the applicant an application form.

It also does not say:
Sec. 84.012. CLERK TO MAIL APPLICATION FORM ON REQUEST. The early voting clerk shall mail without charge an appropriate official application form for an early voting ballot to everyone.

I mean, it seems pretty clear that IF you request one, the clerk must send it to you.

in terms of needing a positive grant, it certainly seems consistent with everything else in government. The government employee can't simply decide on their own to do something. The risk of a clerk sending them to SOME zip codes but not others seems quite obvious. At the very least, there should be a similar grant that 'if the clerk decides to send them to anyone who doesn't request it, they must send it to EVERYONE who doesn't request it.

(09-13-2021 02:30 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-30-2021 03:33 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 02:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-29-2021 02:01 PM)Old Sammy Wrote:  

(07-16-2021 04:44 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  SammyOwl

Was wondering if you could clarify your assertions of:


and


With section 84.012 that requires any such mailing to be at the request of a voter.

Quite simple. I've seen no evidence that a ballot was mailed that wasn't properly requested. I did see the fact that applications, not ballots, were mailed to registered voters somehow morphed into the claim that ballots were mailed.

84.012 requires the clerk to mail applications to those who request it. It does not prohibit mailing applications to others. If that's what the Lege intended it would have said "mail...only to those requesting"

Interesting methodology to delete text from a statute. That only makes sense if you discard the entire idea of the power allocation from Texax to the counties as a whole.

Can you point to any positive grant of power to a clerk, any clerk, to allow them to do such a mailing at their discretion?

Hate to tell you, the Texas Constitution requires such a positive grant for such officials for that type of action. Interesting tidbit there, isn't it

The ellipses etc were added to condense the language. Here's the full text of 84.012:
Sec. 84.012. CLERK TO MAIL APPLICATION FORM ON REQUEST. The early voting clerk shall mail without charge an appropriate official application form for an early voting ballot to each applicant requesting the clerk to send the applicant an application form.
It does not say:
Sec. 84.012. CLERK TO MAIL APPLICATION FORM ON REQUEST. The early voting clerk shall mail without charge an appropriate official application form for an early voting ballot only to each applicant requesting the clerk to send the applicant an application form.

It also does not say:
Sec. 84.012. CLERK TO MAIL APPLICATION FORM ON REQUEST. The early voting clerk shall mail without charge an appropriate official application form for an early voting ballot to everyone.

I mean, it seems pretty clear that IF you request one, the clerk must send it to you.

in terms of needing a positive grant, it certainly seems consistent with everything else in government. The government employee can't simply decide on their own to do something. The risk of a clerk sending them to SOME zip codes but not others seems quite obvious. At the very least, there should be a similar grant that 'if the clerk decides to send them to anyone who doesn't request it, they must send it to EVERYONE who doesn't request it.

Most progressives are somewhat clueless on the idea of a grant of power. Or for that matter, on the concept of 'express rights'. Kind of a one and the same problem at the core of each.

I extended my invitation to the poster on whether he wants to play the "the word 'only' isnt included" in the statute for a larger number of items. I think I noted as a first blush, using that method of statute analysis, the TCEQ should be able to render real estate ag exemptions to anyone and everyone.

(09-13-2021 03:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I extended my invitation to the poster on whether he wants to play the "the word 'only' isnt included" in the statute for a larger number of items. I think I noted as a first blush, using that method of statute analysis, the TCEQ should be able to render real estate ag exemptions to anyone and everyone.

To me it seems like more of a...
This is my goal...
This is what the statute says...
How can I interpret the statute to allow what I want to happen to happen??

I mean, the specific requirement that the clerk send an absentee ballot to anyone who requests one seems clear in its intent... To not have the clerk make any 'value judgements' about whether or not someone who has requested a ballot, get one. If they had intended for everyone to get one, they would have just said... send them to everyone. There is now no need for anyone to request them and no need to ensure that the clerk sent them to anyone who requested them. It seems clear that you have to request one, and that the clerk has to honor that request.

Since the goal of the left is to send them to everyone, which is only a good idea if you can ensure that the intended person is the ONLY person who gets them, then they see all sorts of possibilities, clearly never intended by the original writings nor part of the actual actions in response to those actions.

The best example I have is that the Constitution says 'all men are created equal'.
Clearly by their actions, they did not mean all men... they meant all WHITE men. Today if we were to say something about 'all men' we would not need nor intend a racial qualifier. Also they clearly didn't mean to include women. ... since they didn't. It would remain unclear today if they wrote something about 'men' having to register for the draft if that included women. Of course these statutes aren't that old, but clearly you have to include the context of the time when they were written and the actions taken in response to them.

Have clerks sent out ballots to 'everyone' before?? Of course not. Clearly if they had intended that, they would have said something about it.

It's a bit like someone finding a loophole in the tax laws and exploiting it. Nobody (except oddly, some of the left) begrudges them for finding such a loop hole, but obviously few laws are written with the intention that people be able to skirt them.

(09-13-2021 03:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Today if we were to say something about 'all men' we would not need nor intend a racial qualifier.

Have you tried saying "All Lives Matter" at a BLM protest?

(09-13-2021 03:28 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  The best example I have is that the Constitution says 'all men are created equal'.

A clarification: that's the Declaration of Independence.
The word "men" does not appear in the Constitution.

Does anyone have an idea why Schumer went ahead to try and explicitly dismantle the filibuster just recently, even though he knew the move would fail due to Manchin and Sinema?

For the life of me I cannot discern why he would put some other more centrist Democrat Senators in red or purple states into the position that he put them.

(01-20-2022 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Does anyone have an idea why Schumer went ahead to try and explicitly dismantle the filibuster just recently, even though he knew the move would fail due to Manchin and Sinema?

For the life of me I cannot discern why he would put some other more centrist Democrat Senators in red or purple states into the position that he put them.

I agree with Bernie Sanders(!) that congressional Democrats are wasting an opportunity to get politically popular things done, while pushing hard to get nonstarter ideas through a Congress where they don't have nearly enough of a majority.

The voter id clauses of the voting rights bill are some of the most-publicized and well-known elements of the bill, but are also unpopular. Why not drop them, and promote other less publicized elements that have a better chance of passing?

Same sort of thing happened with the infrastructure legislation. There's some sort of ideologically-based imperative to make symbolic and futile efforts to get certain things done, whether they have sufficient public and congressional backing or not; and this imperative trumps opportunity to actually accomplish anything.

(01-20-2022 03:09 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Does anyone have an idea why Schumer went ahead to try and explicitly dismantle the filibuster just recently, even though he knew the move would fail due to Manchin and Sinema?

For the life of me I cannot discern why he would put some other more centrist Democrat Senators in red or purple states into the position that he put them.

I agree with Bernie Sanders(!) that congressional Democrats are wasting an opportunity to get politically popular things done, while pushing hard to get nonstarter ideas through a Congress where they don't have nearly enough of a majority.

The voter id clauses of the voting rights bill are some of the most-publicized and well-known elements of the bill, but are also unpopular. Why not drop them, and promote other less publicized elements that have a better chance of passing?

Same sort of thing happened with the infrastructure legislation.

Don't know either... MAYBE so they can try and align the public behind the less publicized elements?? So they can start saying... I know you're against the voter ID elements, but since you don't really care that much about voter ID either way, is it REALLY worth holding up this other aspect that you DO care about??

(01-20-2022 02:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Does anyone have an idea why Schumer went ahead to try and explicitly dismantle the filibuster just recently, even though he knew the move would fail due to Manchin and Sinema?

For the life of me I cannot discern why he would put some other more centrist Democrat Senators in red or purple states into the position that he put them.

It's a risky political gambit. He now can point to 48 Senators willing to end the fillibuster to get legislation passed.

Dems can now run against R's or even Manchin/Sinema that if they can flip just two seats, they can pass the legislation that many people are interested in passing. It's just two seats - a very real possibility.

It's all about firing up voters, and Schumer is making the gamble that this fires up Dem voters.

IMO, most Americans are more interested in the Senate actually legislating than keeping legislation from happening, regardless of which way the cookie crumbles. The fillibuster has become a tool of obstruction, and reform is needed to keep things operating in some way or another.

(01-20-2022 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, most Americans are more interested in the Senate actually legislating than keeping legislation from happening, regardless of which way the cookie crumbles.

Indeed, which is exactly what the Democrats aren't doing, choosing instead to demonize party members that don't vote the party line while trying to ramrod unpopular legislation by any means necessary.

Quote:The fillibuster has become a tool of obstruction, and reform is needed to keep things operating in some way or another.

The filibuster has always been a tool of obstruction, by definition. The Democrats won't like it when they're unable to obstruct legislation they don't like, but that's future Democrats. Elderly politicians don't have to concern themselves with the consequences of their actions down the road, so they don't.

(01-20-2022 06:02 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, most Americans are more interested in the Senate actually legislating than keeping legislation from happening, regardless of which way the cookie crumbles.

Indeed, which is exactly what the Democrats aren't doing, choosing instead to demonize party members that don't vote the party line while trying to ramrod unpopular legislation by any means necessary.

Quote:The fillibuster has become a tool of obstruction, and reform is needed to keep things operating in some way or another.

The filibuster has always been a tool of obstruction, by definition. The Democrats won't like it when they're unable to obstruct legislation they don't like, but that's future Democrats. Elderly politicians don't have to concern themselves with the consequences of their actions down the road, so they don't.

To be precise, Democrats campaign incessantly to end the filibuster when they have a non-filibuster majority. In those time other than that, it is a great tool of restraint.

For your education, there is a wonderful video of Tom Cotton defending the filibuster and its role beautifully and wonderfully.

At the end, he says 'not a single word of that is mine. I simply repeated the Majority Leader's speech to this body several years ago.

And lad, what is actually needed is actual legislation that 60 Senators can back. Not shotgunning the filibuster to pieces.

(01-20-2022 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 06:02 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, most Americans are more interested in the Senate actually legislating than keeping legislation from happening, regardless of which way the cookie crumbles.

Indeed, which is exactly what the Democrats aren't doing, choosing instead to demonize party members that don't vote the party line while trying to ramrod unpopular legislation by any means necessary.

Quote:The fillibuster has become a tool of obstruction, and reform is needed to keep things operating in some way or another.

The filibuster has always been a tool of obstruction, by definition. The Democrats won't like it when they're unable to obstruct legislation they don't like, but that's future Democrats. Elderly politicians don't have to concern themselves with the consequences of their actions down the road, so they don't.

To be precise, Democrats campaign incessantly to end the filibuster when they have a non-filibuster majority. In those time other than that, it is a great tool of restraint.

For your education, there is a wonderful video of Tom Cotton defending the filibuster and its role beautifully and wonderfully.

At the end, he says 'not a single word of that is mine. I simply repeated the Majority Leader's speech to this body several years ago.

And lad, what is actually needed is actual legislation that 60 Senators can back. Not shotgunning the filibuster to pieces.

^^This.

If the legislation in question were popular enough and important enough, the votes would be there to override the filibuster. The filibuster - or threat thereof - has saved we the people from many an unpopular or unneeded law.

Does anybody else think it is weird that that the Democrats are complaining that 52 Senators are blocking them from passing legislation with 51 votes?

How about that DC requires photo ID (along with a vaccination record) to enter a restaurant, at the same time they are claiming that voter ID suppresses blacks?

How about that Biden has said the 2022 election may be illegitimate, if the Voter Acts are not passed? The Big Lie, in ADVANCE of the election?

(01-20-2022 06:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 06:02 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 05:48 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  IMO, most Americans are more interested in the Senate actually legislating than keeping legislation from happening, regardless of which way the cookie crumbles.

Indeed, which is exactly what the Democrats aren't doing, choosing instead to demonize party members that don't vote the party line while trying to ramrod unpopular legislation by any means necessary.

Quote:The fillibuster has become a tool of obstruction, and reform is needed to keep things operating in some way or another.

The filibuster has always been a tool of obstruction, by definition. The Democrats won't like it when they're unable to obstruct legislation they don't like, but that's future Democrats. Elderly politicians don't have to concern themselves with the consequences of their actions down the road, so they don't.

To be precise, Democrats campaign incessantly to end the filibuster when they have a non-filibuster majority. In those time other than that, it is a great tool of restraint.

For your education, there is a wonderful video of Tom Cotton defending the filibuster and its role beautifully and wonderfully.

At the end, he says 'not a single word of that is mine. I simply repeated the Majority Leader's speech to this body several years ago.

And lad, what is actually needed is actual legislation that 60 Senators can back. Not shotgunning the filibuster to pieces.

Yes, I would love legislation on major, broad issues that could get 60 votes. But I don't see that happening, from either party, for the foreseeable future.

We're only moving towards greater partisanship, and I actually think lowering the required number of votes would allow for less partisanship for one main reason.

Currently, as it stands, there may be a few Republicans that support Democratic bills, but they are unwilling to waste political capital on a yes vote if they know that said yes vote will not result in a win for them. So there is not much incentive for them to compromise and work together if they can't find 9 other Senators to go along with them - and in our hyper-partisan world that is tough. You drop that to 55, or 50, and I bet you actually see more cross-party votes.

I don't actually agree with the idea that popular legislation would pass if it was popular enough. Look at polling on policy and then polling when the policy is connected to politics. Voters are very often very team-oriented, so even if they like a policy favored by the other team, they often won't vote for them to get the policy passed.

Voters are more motivated by what has been done it seems. I actually wonder if creating a situation where legislation is easier to pass would result in greater voter participation and less partisan voting. You're a Dem who doesn't like that their Senator voted for Bill X that was actually passed? You vote for the Rep who is trying to unseat them. That bill never passes? You keep voting D.

(01-20-2022 07:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Currently, as it stands, there may be a few Republicans that support Democratic bills, but they are unwilling to waste political capital on a yes vote if they know that said yes vote will not result in a win for them.

You did say "currently", but I think in a year we can reverse the Democrats and Republicans in this statement.

(01-20-2022 07:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 07:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Currently, as it stands, there may be a few Republicans that support Democratic bills, but they are unwilling to waste political capital on a yes vote if they know that said yes vote will not result in a win for them.

You did say "currently", but I think in a year we can reverse the Democrats and Republicans in this statement.

Absolutely. I figured I'd save a few words here and not be all encompassing.

I absolutely think the same is true in the reverse - that there are moderate D's who would be willing to vote with R's if there was an actual chance for legislation to pass.

(01-20-2022 07:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 07:25 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-20-2022 07:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Currently, as it stands, there may be a few Republicans that support Democratic bills, but they are unwilling to waste political capital on a yes vote if they know that said yes vote will not result in a win for them.

You did say "currently", but I think in a year we can reverse the Democrats and Republicans in this statement.

Absolutely. I figured I'd save a few words here and not be all encompassing.

I absolutely think the same is true in the reverse - that there are moderate D's who would be willing to vote with R's if there was an actual chance for legislation to pass.

55 to end the filibuster would be a good test of passability.

I don't think 60 is a magic number, but I think 55 would be a minimum to insure scant majorities on the order of 51 or 52 would not run roughshod over the others. Current 51-50 situation is a case in point.

I think 60 is as good a number as any so why change it? Moving the number closer to a simple majority (50+) would suggest it's implicitly (ww?) wrong.

Remember a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). A much higher threshold and rightfully so.

On second thought when I become King I think I'll set the Senate threshold at 67 votes. Hopefully that will kill off a tranche or two of 'unnecessary' legislation and related spending. After all it takes a vote of two-thirds vote of both houses to overturn a presidential veto.

For those arguing that the role of the Legislative branch is to continuously pass additional laws I'd point you to two sources:

Thomas R Dye's Understanding Public Policy, "Public policy is not only what you choose to do, but also what you choose not to do."

And the Austrian School of Economics (paraphrased), "Governmental intervention will always result in further governmental intervention."

I always liked the idea of a line item veto.

(01-21-2022 07:14 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  I think 60 is as good a number as any so why change it? Moving the number closer to a simple majority (50+) would suggest it's implicitly (ww?) wrong.

Remember a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). A much higher threshold and rightfully so.

On second thought when I become King I think I'll set the Senate threshold at 67 votes. Hopefully that will kill off a tranche or two of 'unnecessary' legislation and related spending. After all it takes a vote of two-thirds vote of both houses to overturn a presidential veto.

For those arguing that the role of the Legislative branch is to continuously pass additional laws I'd point you to two sources:

Thomas R Dye's Understanding Public Policy, "Public policy is not only what you choose to do, but also what you choose not to do."

And the Austrian School of Economics (paraphrased), "Governmental intervention will always result in further governmental intervention."

I always liked the idea of a line item veto.

OK, 60 is good, and so is 67. The whole point is to avoid a nearly evenly divided Senate, like we have now, from running roughshod over the minority.