The Save Act

[Moogy]

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

You finally did it! You uncovered the rouse!

Oh, wait ... what's that? The party that represents more progressive views PROGRESSED throughout the years?!? Say it ain't so! How could that be?!? Sparkles, the Democratic party from 2059 will be supporting different things than they do in 2026, too. Oy.

Hell, even the "don't change anything" cons changed ... do we need to post Reagan's comments again: “Rather than … talking about putting up a fence, why don’t we (US and Mexico) work out some recognition of our mutual problems and make it possible for them to come here legally, with a work permit, and then while they are working and earning here, they pay taxes here? And when they want to go back, they can go back, and they can cross. And open the border both ways, by understanding their problems.”

Meanwhile, speaking of hypocrisy with no limits ... compare Trump saying a war with Iran is the result only of a person who is a terrible negotiator, and claiming there will be no new wars, and no regime change if he's President ... and, now, only a few years later ... that same person is proactively (not defensively) bombing the ish out of Iran in a war he started, without the approval of Congress.

You are terrible at defending your Fuhrer.

 

[fskillet]

Why are we acting surprised that a political party's stances on specific topics have evolved? Are parties supposed to have the same stances they had 100 years ago, and not change as demographics in the country/constituents' priorities change?

 

[fskillet]

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.
  

 

[baltimorened]

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.

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

 

[fskillet]

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

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

 

[TigerRagRob]

 

[TigerGrowls]

This testimony is from a former democrat governor. Its very obvious that cheating is the primary Democrat strategy to win elections.



BREAKING: Former Democrat Governor of Illinois Rod Blagojevich WARNS of Democrat efforts underway to STEAL the 2026 midterm elections by way of MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD. He says that RIGGED ELECTIONS by his party were commonplace during his time as Illinois Governor through illegal aliens voting, fraudulent electronic voting machines and phony mail-in ballots and the fraud was particularly egregious in the Democrat-controlled city of Chicago. When asked if the Democratic Party steals elections, Blago's answer was quite blunt: "Is The Pope Catholic?" Thank you to Governor Blagojevich, who also says that the 2020 election was STOLEN from President Trump, for having the courage to put country over party by coming forward to EXPOSE the evil deeds and corruption of the Democratic party that he has PERSONALLY WITNESSED during his time as a Democrat Governor.

 

[Allornothing]

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

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!

 

[fskillet]

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!

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

 

[Allornothing]

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

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?

 

[fskillet]

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?

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

 

[Allornothing]

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

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

 

[fskillet]

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

lol yeah i think so

 

[Allornothing]

lol yeah i think so

Should have been to instead of too, but I digress. I don't know that I could disagree totally with anything you posted.

 

[LafayetteBear]

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.

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.

 

[LafayetteBear]

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

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.

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[bdgan]

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.

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.

 

[bdgan]

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.

Schumer is largely responsible for shutting down the government twice even though he was widely critical of republicans for doing the same thing. He calls every other issue Jim Crowe 2.0. Back in the 90s he supported voter ID laws calling them a sensible anti fraud measure to prevent abuse. Schumer's approval rating is much worse than Trump's approval rating.

 

[dpic73]

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.

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?

 

[baltimorened]

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?

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.

 

[bdgan]

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?

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.

 

[dpic73]

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.

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?

 

[dpic73]

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.

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.

How can you twist poll results that show a large majority of Democrats support voter ID into a misstatement that dems want NO PART of voter ID of ANY KIND?

That hardly frames the issue accurately as opposed to the Republican viewpoint that their elections are being stolen by (imaginary) massive fraud....because a pathologically lying sociopath told you so?

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[baltimorened]

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?

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.