HR1

alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior MemberPosts: 8,775 Senior Member
https://www.npr.org/2019/01/05/682286587/house-democrats-introduce-anti-corruption-bill-as-symbolic-first-act

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/11/30/18118158/house-democrats-anti-corruption-bill-hr-1-pelosi

HR1 is a large bill submitted by Democrats to try to reform elections and reduce corruption. Here are a few articles that outline what the bill does. Explain to me the conservative arguments against this bill. Feel free to pick out specific parts and tell me why they are bad and why Republicans should be against such a bill?

Also feel free to tell me what would needed to be added to achieve the same goals while being more bipartisan. Voter ID requirements of some kind seem to be one that I think could be included. What else?
"Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
-DoctorWho
«13

Replies

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,760 Senior Member
    Wow!
    I'll be real interested in hearing the arguments of opposition. 
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,189 Senior Member
    edited February 2 #3
    Who gives a damn about their bill? Not going anywhere!
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • AxeAxe Member Posts: 375 Member
    I find it comical that a politician would introduce a corruption bill. 
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,812 Senior Member
    Feel free to pick out specific parts and tell me why they are bad and why Republicans should be against such a bill?

    Can't speak for Republicans but this (if true) rubs me the wrong way:

    "This is obviously a pretty radical expansion of the regulation of political speech," said David Keating, president of the conservative Institute for Free Speech. "If this bill had become law now," he said, anti-Trump groups "would find it very difficult to speak as effectively as they have over the past two years."

    Some of the bill's provisions push the envelope, including reaching into state law...

    Regulation of political speech and messing with state election laws is blatant overreach, and likely unconstitutional. 
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,760 Senior Member
    Mitch McConnell already spoke out against it today.

  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,699 Senior Member
    If Republicans even bother to add amendments that would turn it in to what everybody thinks it is, the Democrats won't vote for it.

    As usual, it is just a bunch of crap, so the Democrats can send their hired guns out to CNN and MSNBC to screech about the evil Republicans. It gives their burnt out spin doctors something new to demagogue, while their ambulance chasing lawyers are preparing their lawsuits and shopping for judges to block the emergency that they expect Trump to declare for border security.

    Gridlock and outraged politicians for the next two years, get used to it. Republicans are probably relieved, because they won't have to do anything but campaign, themselves. If I were Trump, I would spend my time on foreign policy and cleaning up the bureaucracies, because the only bills that will pass are the ones the Senate caves on.

  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,760 Senior Member
    edited February 2 #8
    They could use inflammatory language like Replicans prefer hammer and sickle reform.

    Given the current climate, if the Dems can't make extensive hay out of the oppositions obtuse denial of a problem, they deserve the results.

    And rest of us can pound more wall sand, excluding of course, the enchanted.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,496 Senior Member
    So a House majority has introduced a bill proposing sweeping changes that has ZERO chance of passing through the Senate or of being signed by the president??

    Wow... that's new. 

    Wake me when somebody does something that is even the slightest bit more than pussyfooting, pandering symbolism. 
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,760 Senior Member
    Yep, waste of time. No reason to waste tax payer money trying to legislate.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,183 Senior Member
    That bill has about as much chance of passage as a bunch of the rest of the ones the House has entered into the system. Just go to the House of Representatives website and laugh your donkey off at some of the crazy stuff the Dems are wanting to make into law. They're smoking the good stuff! :D

    About that bill:

    The bill would crack down on efforts to take voters off the rolls or prevent them from casting ballots. Felons could regain their voting rights after finishing their sentences.

    There may be a big problem with that first sentence. Democrats seem to want to codify having dead voters continue to vote in perpetuity, and to leave illegal alien voters on the voting rolls. Democrats dealing dishonestly? Surely you jest!

    Federal elections would require paper ballots to prevent computer tampering. State chief election officials couldn't get involved in federal campaigns.

    By all means let's bring back paper ballots. No chance of ballot box stuffing with paper ballots, like what may have happened in Broward County, FL. Maybe a refresher course on the volatility of paper ballots and ballot stuffing needs to be reexamined. Battle of Athens, TN ring a bell?

    Presidents and vice presidents would have to release their tax returns, something that happened routinely in past administrations but not in this one.
    House members would be forbidden to use taxpayer money to pay penalties for employment discrimination. Former Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, used $84,000 in federal funds to settle a sexual harassment claim by a former staffer, said he would repay it, but changed his mind after leaving office. Congress passed a bipartisan measure in December requiring members to pay out of their own pocket for some settlements and court judgments in sexual misconduct cases.

    It is CUSTOM, not LAW for a President to release their tax returns. If these nitwits want to make that law, then they will have to make significant changes in the tax code to do that. Stupid fools don't even know what the law is, but want to do another vindictive act against Trump and Pence, no more, no less.

    Read it and weep:

    Individual income tax returns — including those of public figures — are private information, protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. Indeed, the Internal Revenue Service is barred from releasing any taxpayer information whatsoever, except to authorized agencies and individuals.

    Like all other citizens, U.S. presidents enjoy this protection of their privacy. Since the early 1970s, however, most presidents have chosen to release their returns publicly. In the hope of making this information more widely available, the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts has compiled an archive of presidential tax returns.

    Trump is certainly free to do so if he chooses, and there is no law requiring U.S. presidents to release their taxes. In fact, publicizing tax filings has only been a custom in the United States since Richard Nixon released his tax returns in 1973 during the backlash of the Watergate Scandal. Since Nixon, Gerald Ford is the only president not to release his tax forms. Ford instead provided a public summary of a decade of his past tax data.



    Now if they included ALL House and Senate members, then we might have the start of a meaningful discussion.




    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 8,729 Senior Member
    Funny how they can come up with crap like this, but nothing to stop another Gov. Shutdown in less than two weeks.
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,183 Senior Member
    Democrats have become the party of NO! Like spoiled children, if they don't get their way then they pitch a temper tantrum. I'm sick of the whole lot on both sides of the aisle. Despite differences they used to be able to at least work together. Now they just retire to their respective corners and play with their dollies, or diddle interns.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,775 Senior Member
    edited February 3 #14
    tennmike said:
    Democrats have become the party of NO! Like spoiled children, if they don't get their way then they pitch a temper tantrum. I'm sick of the whole lot on both sides of the aisle. Despite differences they used to be able to at least work together. Now they just retire to their respective corners and play with their dollies, or diddle interns.
    I don't remember you complaining about Republicans saying nothing but no for 8 years under Obama. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,760 Senior Member
    Hmmmm?

    Well maybe the Republicans can introduce a real election reform bill.

    We'll make it so all public, private, and financial records of candidates are sealed from public disclosure upon announcement of candidacy.

    Instead of repealing Citizens United, we'll double down on it, passing a new mandate where by not only is money speech and corporations people, but now they're intitled to 51% of the Electoral College.

    Then for the really good part. We'll offer federal budgetary incentives for states and local governments to strengthen voter suppression laws. We'll require everyone to reregister by submitting to a new FBI finger print and facial recognition background check 90 days prior to all elections.

    The horizon could reveal an entire brave new conservative Republican utopia.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,812 Senior Member
    Diver43 said:
    Funny how they can come up with crap like this, but nothing to stop another Gov. Shutdown in less than two weeks.
    They didn't just come up with this. It's 571 pages. Pelosi has been sitting on this bill waiting for the House to be Dem majority again. How many of them have actually read the damn thing?
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,189 Senior Member
    I don't remember you complaining about Republicans saying nothing but no for 8 years under Obama. 
    Maybe they didn't like Obama's Hell bent rush to Marxism!
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,183 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    Democrats have become the party of NO! Like spoiled children, if they don't get their way then they pitch a temper tantrum. I'm sick of the whole lot on both sides of the aisle. Despite differences they used to be able to at least work together. Now they just retire to their respective corners and play with their dollies, or diddle interns.
    I don't remember you complaining about Republicans saying nothing but no for 8 years under Obama. 
    No, I didn't.  But if you look back then with what is left of the forum archives you'll see that I was hammering the dog crap out of the Democrats back then for their headlong rush to emulate Marx, Lenin, and Stalin in their headlong rush towards Socialism and eventual Communism. I can see no advantage to that mess, then or now. But I do see that three Muslim women and one crazy Bronx Democrat woman, AOC, are pushing for full socialism and taking over the Democrat party. Good luck with that; they'll drive the party so far Left that nobody but basement dwelling millennials will vote for their communist/socialist platform.

    And I didn't hold back hammering my two Republican senators that were nothing more than Democrats disguised as RINOs. Didn't hold back on the turncoat Ryan, either. And quite a few so-called Republicans got my notice with their stupidity and was mentioned here.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,805 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    they'll drive the party so far Left that nobody but basement dwelling millennials will vote for their communist/socialist platform...
    I hope and pray that you're right.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,760 Senior Member
    Three Muslem women?
    Basement dwelling millennials???

    Are they pulling the party left or is it being pushed by inflammatory and discriminatory rhetoric???

    The way I see it, empty talk isn't going to please any constituency at re-election time. If a socialist agenda is a threat to the party of evil, why worry???
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,183 Senior Member
    The three Muslim Congresswomen's statements speak for themselves. Google them up and read what they're pushing. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez is still spewing crazy stuff that a good part of the House Democrats are getting behind. Her statements are in the news and on the Congressional Record when she speaks on the floor of the House.

    You might be surprised at the number of the 18-35 y.o. crowd that is clamoring for full socialism. That's easy to look up, too. And surprisingly, the MSM is reporting it.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,760 Senior Member
    I figure I'm missing a bunch of it because of my intentional absence of cable tv.

    Trump came out tweeting and talking with wreckless abandon too. He wound up reined in. Them Dem freshmen/women will follow suite. The Nancy and Chuck show ain't gonna give up the spotlight. Yet. We'll see who gets mic time after Tuesday nights speech.

    Im sceptical of the medias portrayal of what any group wants. The only millenials I know are either working hard to pay the bills and raise a family or serving in the military.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,183 Senior Member
    edited February 4 #23
    Early,  here's a few articles that will explain wherte I'm coming from. There are a lot of smart millennials that took the right courses in college and had a job field waiting for them, and a lot of others are in the military serving, and getting some decent education benefits when they leave. They are the smart ones. Here's where the other ones are at with their worthless crap degrees and their entitlement mentality.











    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,760 Senior Member
    Those articles indicate a gathering populous wanting to embrace one form or another of socialism. From what I can see their numbers remain beyond ability to quantify.

    Like I said in the other thread and the posted links seem indicative of the same, these people are being pushed in that direction, not pulled. The redistribution of wealth has already occured. People want fair compensation. They want the cost burden of infrastructure shared by those that use it. A railroad and some ships no longer fill the bill. Today's infrastructure is gigantic. 

    There's no moderation here. Either you can have a free education or a lifetime of debt to pay for it. A little check and balance would help. If we don't get some, various alternatives are bound to gain traction.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,183 Senior Member
    Early, the cost of a college education regarding tuition, books, and on campus housing SKYROCKETED when the Federal Government got into the student loan program. That green lighted colleges and universities to raise those costs to whatever they wanted as 'Uncle Sugar' guaranteed payment, and the students that incurred those loans had to pay back Uncle Sugar at threat of the muzzle of a gun in their faces. Colleges made out like the bandits they were and still are. The colleges and universities get the gold mine, and the students get the shaft, with no lube.

    And a question to ponder. If those socialist professors believe in socialism so strongly, then why aren't they teaching for free?????
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,760 Senior Member
    Yea, that loan program stuff is part of where I got the phrase, corporate socialism.

    I don't know that desire for social programs equates to all out socialism. But now Im tuned in and attempting to understand.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,189 Senior Member
    tennmike said:
    Early, the cost of a college education regarding tuition, books, and on campus housing SKYROCKETED when the Federal Government got into the student loan program. That green lighted colleges and universities to raise those costs to whatever they wanted as 'Uncle Sugar' guaranteed payment, and the students that incurred those loans had to pay back Uncle Sugar at threat of the muzzle of a gun in their faces. Colleges made out like the bandits they were and still are. The colleges and universities get the gold mine, and the students get the shaft, with no lube.

    And a question to ponder. If those socialist professors believe in socialism so strongly, then why aren't they teaching for free?????
    There is also the fact that professors get automatic tenure after a certain amount of time, they are definitely overpaid and the entire university system is overloaded with professors and instructors teaching useless coursework that will not get students a real job.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,775 Senior Member
    Actually the rapid rise in tuition has more to do with the death of socialism than an increase in it. A huge chunk of the increase in the costs of public colleges is a direct result of massive state budget cuts to higher education. Back in the years boomers were going to college, higher education was heavily subsidized by states. State funding has nose dived over time. 

    20 years ago when I started school, in state tuition was maybe 1/4 to 1/3 the cost of out of state tuition or a private school. Today those number are well over 50% and heading rapidly towards parity. All of that increase is being shouldered by students. 

    As far as professors being overpaid, I'll say right now there is a big reason I dropped out of my PhD and it had 100% to do with the economics. No thank you. I make more with my Master's outside of academia than I ever would have with a PhD in it with lower stress. My lifetime earnings will almost certainly exceed all of my classmates who decided to stick with it and follow the academic path. 
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,805 Senior Member
    Academia is grossly inefficient and has a lot of irrelevancy - thus its insanely high price. It has its roots in monastic tradition - it could stand an update...
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,775 Senior Member
    Actually the rapid rise in tuition has more to do with the death of socialism than an increase in it. 

    Hahahahahahaha!!! Thanks for the laugh. 



    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • earlyagainearlyagain Posts: 3,760 Senior Member
    Incurring some debt for a degree is understandable. Mortgaging one's future is wrong. There has to be policy that improves this or the hopeful gets drained right out of the future.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.