The Save Act

bdgan said:

I dislike politicians on both sides but democrat hypocrisy has no limits. These people opposed gay marriage and offered civil unions as an alternative. They supported more border fencing before opposing a wall. Since then they've learned that they can buy votes with the special interests by flipping positions.

Here's Harry Reid back in the 90s

Click to expand...

• Tough-on-Crime/Criminal Justice: The 1990s party supported aggressive incarceration policies and expanding the death penalty, a sharp contrast to the current focus on criminal justice reform.
• Welfare Reform: Democrats pushed for "ending welfare as we know it," aiming to reduce government dependency, whereas current policy focuses on expanding social safety nets.
• Fiscal Conservatism: The party prioritized deficit reduction and, at times, deregulation to appeal to fiscal conservatives, rather than the current focus on high government spending for social programs.
• Immigration: In the 90s, the party adopted a more restrictive stance on illegal immigration.
• "Third Way" Centrism: The 1990s party sought a moderate middle ground between liberalism and conservatism, shifting away from state-driven solutions toward market-based approaches.

• Free Trade vs. Protectionism: In the 1990s, Republicans largely championed international trade agreements like NAFTA. Now, the party is heavily focused on tariffs, protectionism, and bringing manufacturing back from overseas.
• Foreign Policy and Interventionism: The 1990s GOP generally supported a proactive international role, including nation-building and humanitarian interventions. The modern party favors an "America First" stance, which is more isolationist and reluctant to engage in foreign conflicts.
• Fiscal Austerity vs. Deficit Spending: While still promoting tax cuts, the 1990s party prioritized balancing the federal budget. The current party is less focused on austerity, having overseen significant deficit spending to prioritize other goals.
• Optimism vs. Populist Grievance: The GOP of the 1990s was characterized as optimistic and pro-business, embodied by figures like Reagan and later Bush. The party has shifted toward a populist style that is often described as angry, pessimistic about existing institutions, and focused on cultural grievances.
  

fskillet said:

I mean ****, this took 2 minutes to google.

Key differences from the 1990s Democratic Party include:

• Tough-on-Crime/Criminal Justice: The 1990s party supported aggressive incarceration policies and expanding the death penalty, a sharp contrast to the current focus on criminal justice reform.
• Welfare Reform: Democrats pushed for "ending welfare as we know it," aiming to reduce government dependency, whereas current policy focuses on expanding social safety nets.
• Fiscal Conservatism: The party prioritized deficit reduction and, at times, deregulation to appeal to fiscal conservatives, rather than the current focus on high government spending for social programs.
• Immigration: In the 90s, the party adopted a more restrictive stance on illegal immigration.
• "Third Way" Centrism: The 1990s party sought a moderate middle ground between liberalism and conservatism, shifting away from state-driven solutions toward market-based approaches.

Key differences from the 1990s GOP include:

• Free Trade vs. Protectionism: In the 1990s, Republicans largely championed international trade agreements like NAFTA. Now, the party is heavily focused on tariffs, protectionism, and bringing manufacturing back from overseas.
• Foreign Policy and Interventionism: The 1990s GOP generally supported a proactive international role, including nation-building and humanitarian interventions. The modern party favors an "America First" stance, which is more isolationist and reluctant to engage in foreign conflicts.
• Fiscal Austerity vs. Deficit Spending: While still promoting tax cuts, the 1990s party prioritized balancing the federal budget. The current party is less focused on austerity, having overseen significant deficit spending to prioritize other goals.
• Optimism vs. Populist Grievance: The GOP of the 1990s was characterized as optimistic and pro-business, embodied by figures like Reagan and later Bush. The party has shifted toward a populist style that is often described as angry, pessimistic about existing institutions, and focused on cultural grievances.

Click to expand...

baltimorened said:

so you're saying politicians change their positions depending upon their reelection needs. I hope that's not a surprise to anyone. John kerry "voted for it before he was against it" in just one year. Same applies to republicans, flip flopping is not the purview of only one party

Click to expand...

fskillet said:

Yeah absolutely, I think both parties do it - and i also think it's a good thing.

Click to expand...

Allornothing said:

This also proves you have no morals. Everyone should just go with the flow, and base their opinion on what it takes to get re-elected?

You showed up (two weeks ago you could afford to pay $9.99 a month) less than 2 weeks ago. You got a long way to go BOY!

Click to expand...

fskillet said:

Not really - I was talking about a party's policies, not an individual running for office. If an individual flip flops around every election cycle because they're just trying to get elected, yeah that's a problem. If a party's political stances change/evolve because societies change/evolve over time, then yeah that's a good thing.

I reactivated before the spring game because I'm curious to see how the new changes (coaching/NIL) are going to impact the team this year, and I've always liked Larry/Paul's offseason articles. Apparently, since my acct wasn't active during the yahoo-On3 buyout, my account wasn't moved over. Feelsbadman bc i made this account back in '06

Click to expand...

Allornothing said:

I'm just speaking to your first paragraph.

Would you be willing to share your core beliefs? Show me yours, and I'll show you mine.

Fair enough?

Click to expand...

fskillet said:

Sure thing my dude.
Support: strong borders, lower taxes on the middle class, robust social services to help those most in need, being a positive steward for our environment, anti-interventionist policies, but i do support soft power initiatives that are aimed at helping the unfortunate in other countries.

dislike/don't care about: any of the culture war **** that's been so prevalent the last 2 decades.

pretty generic responses, but that's all i could really think off of the top of my head

Click to expand...

Allornothing said:

Are you the same person that I thought I was responding too?

Click to expand...

fskillet said:

lol yeah i think so

Click to expand...

bdgan said:

Meanwhile the house passed (I think 6) clean funding bills that couldn't overcome the senate filibuster. If it only required 51 votes none of this would ever have happened.

Click to expand...

bdgan said:

Just like Schumer and his shady cast of characters are under orders not to pass the republican bill.

Click to expand...

LafayetteBear said:

Not so fast, my friend. There are a number of Republican senators who are against the outlawing of mail in voting. They generally represent larger, less populated states where mail in voting is regarded as essential, and widely used. Montana and Alaska are just two of those states. I'm not sure the Repos could even muster 51 votes in the Senate for the Save Act.

Click to expand...

LafayetteBear said:

Good for Senator Schumer. He's a good American. He will make a good Majority Leader next year, although I would prefer someone with a more pronounced "take no prisoners" attitude. We need to not just impeach Trump, We need to convict and remove him from office. And then prosecute him.

Click to expand...

bdgan said:

Face it LB, dems want no part of voter ID of any kind. Not even requiring the voter rolls to be cleaned of non citizens, dead people, and people who have moved. Otherwise they'd jump on board but ask that a few things are relaxed to make it easier.

Click to expand...

dpic73 said:

You're a joke if you think it would be safe for a state to turn their voter rolls over to this corrupt administration to be culled, especially when states already do it themselves. Just because you supported putting the inmates back in charge of the asylum again, doesn't obligate non-criminals to participate.

Where the hell have you been the last 6 years?

Click to expand...

dpic73 said:

You're a joke if you think it would be safe for a state to turn their voter rolls over to this corrupt administration to be culled, especially when states already do it themselves. Just because you supported putting the inmates back in charge of the asylum again, doesn't obligate non-criminals to participate.

Where the hell have you been the last 6 years?

Click to expand...

baltimorened said:

dpic, do you really believe that all of the states voters rolls have been "culled" to the point where there are no ineligible voters there? We already know that's not true just from discovery that people who are ineligible have voted.

Now, if your position is that the states should do their own reviews, I'd agree. But to say the roles have been culled, I don't think is 100% accurate.

Click to expand...

bdgan said:

I didn't say anything about turning voter rolls over to the federal government. I said that democrats would be against any form of ID even if adjustments were made.

Do you have any idea how owners of corporations elect directors, approve auditors, and approve other important matters? How do you think they know who's eligible to vote? Do you think the vote is wide open? Do you think you can buy a share this morning and vote this afternoon? Do you think people who no longer own the stock are still allowed to vote?

Two years ago I went to vote in a blue state. No voter ID, just a signature. I had to submit a provisional ballot because for some reason my name was removed from the roll. My children were both on the roll even though they've been gone for a decade. I asked what I had to do to remove my children but was told they would have to come back to the state, wait in a line, and complete a form. Guess what? There's no way that's going to happen. Meanwhile I noticed the name of a deceased neighbor on the roll. Is this is what you call a secure system? Don't answer, it was a rhetorical question. Even Schumer and many fellow democrats agreed until they learned that voter ID might hurt their turnout.

Click to expand...

bdgan said:

Face it LB, dems want no part of voter ID of any kind. Not even requiring the voter rolls to be cleaned of non citizens, dead people, and people who have moved. Otherwise they'd jump on board but ask that a few things are relaxed to make it easier.

Click to expand...

dpic73 said:

Do you think they'd be more or less accurate if we put the decisions on who to cull into a psychotic election denier's hands?

Click to expand...

TigerGrowls said:

Click to expand...

bdgan said:

You're saying that if a person moves from NY to FL they shouldn't have to register to vote in FL elections and that they should be allowed to continue voting in NY?

The 69 million women whose birth certificate doesn't match their driver's license is a red herring. That's true of almost every married woman in America. After you prove your citizenship and register to vote you don't get a new birth certificate with you married name. That's just dumb.

Half of the 29 million people who move are men whose name hasn't changed. Furthermore 75% of the people who move stay in the same state, most in the same county.

You've lost your mind

Click to expand...

tigres88 said:

It is for the 10s of millions of people who don't have access to their birth certificate or don't have a passport. They have to purchase a passport or purchase access to their birth certificate to register to vote.

That is a poll tax

Click to expand...

dpic73 said:

Who said anything about abolishing the entire agency? Dems are asking for reasonable reforms, not ending ICE altogether.

Maybe they did work out things in the past but they didn't have the problems presented by this wrathful, deranged POTUS.

Trump says he won't sign any bills until SAVE America Act passes https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/do...-not-sign-bills-america-act-passes-rcna262336

Click to expand...

Hotshoe said:

Wow. Then how do they get a drivers license? You guys really are pathetic. These same people can't fly on a plane. 10's of millions don't have access to a birth certificate? Really? Who would those people be? You're simply making sh&t up. Everyone has access to their birth certificate. It's one of the easiest items to obtain. It $10-$20 bucks. You're like Biden saying Blacks don't have access to the Internet or understand it. More white liberal racism.

Click to expand...

baltimorened said:

well, I have to admit, that was a really good answer to a question, but not the question I asked.

I think both of us agree that the voter rolls have people, I don't know how many, who are ineligible to vote on their rolls. I personally don't care who reviews them, but apparently to this point, if states have that responsibility, they have failed.

Click to expand...