Republicans Rounding Up Democrats in Texas

[Catsfern]

well than that's debatable, I'm sure some people on support their side walking out, but I'm somewhat confident in saying most people wat the members of their state legislatures to actually be ya know... legislating. not just draining taxpay money while avoiding the responsibilities of their positions

That's a fair point, but let's say that you know, (purely hypothetically,) that 90% of your voters, (and you won the vote 60%-40%,) want you to do nothing, so that they can enjoy a smaller government. Wouldn't it be fair to say that you should break quorum, if there's an expansive new law that'll give government more power to spy on Americans on home soil?

in that purely hypothetical situation I would say yes, with that much overwhelming support go ahead and do what the people want, but this is a rather extreme situation.

[San Lumen]

Republicans are trying to destroy democracy and actively harm people. The complete opposite of what Democrats were trying to pass in Oregon.

Republicans don't believe in Democracy or the rule of law so they should just pass what they want without a quorum.

One group of Republican politicians =/= all Republicans, so nice "all X are Y" comment.

Have you seen the amount of voter suppression bills they've introduced and the number of Republicans who've bought into the big lie? From from all X are Y. Its literal fact.

[Catsfern]

what if the democrat's wanted to socialize all industries or outlaw all firearms?

see I can jump to unreasonable extremes too.

legislatures exist to legislate, and politicians on both side of the isle get away with enough BS as it is. I'd much rather see their butts in seats casting votes to show their disapproval of a decision then seeing them pettily refuse to do their jobs.

They wouldn't.

And let the bill pass and hundreds of thousands if not millions are unable to vote? Screw that. You want to mess with the democratic process for personal gain then stop the legislature from working. Staff of Republicans legislators should walk out too.

Let their phone calls and constituent work go unanswered. The Governors staff should stop showing up to work too.

so you actively support the government being completely useless and just continuing to sap taxpayer money while not actually doing anything. got it.

[Diarcesia]

Republicans are trying to destroy democracy and actively harm people. The complete opposite of what Democrats were trying to pass in Oregon.

Republicans don't believe in Democracy or the rule of law so they should just pass what they want without a quorum.

So as long as it's "good" (TM) it's find to round up members of the opposing party, but when it's "evil" (TM) then the opposing party should totally run away? What determines good versus evil?

A lot of atrocities happened in the name of the "good" (TM).

[San Lumen]

They wouldn't.

And let the bill pass and hundreds of thousands if not millions are unable to vote? Screw that. You want to mess with the democratic process for personal gain then stop the legislature from working. Staff of Republicans legislators should walk out too.

Let their phone calls and constituent work go unanswered. The Governors staff should stop showing up to work too.

so you actively support the government being completely useless and just continuing to sap taxpayer money while not actually doing anything. got it.

When said government is trying to undermine Democracy and actively harm people then yes I do.

[New Odrana]

what if the democrat's wanted to socialize all industries or outlaw all firearms?

see I can jump to unreasonable extremes too.

legislatures exist to legislate, and politicians on both side of the isle get away with enough BS as it is. I'd much rather see their butts in seats casting votes to show their disapproval of a decision then seeing them pettily refuse to do their jobs.

They wouldn't.

And let the bill pass and hundreds of thousands if not millions are unable to vote? Screw that. You want to mess with the democratic process for personal gain then stop the legislature from working. Staff of Republicans legislators should walk out too.

Let their phone calls and constituent work go unanswered. The Governors staff should stop showing up to work too.

While I don't support these bills, the actual evidence that they'll significantly lower turnout isn't entirely established. Mail-in ballots modestly increase turnout, but there's no partisan benefit in either direction. Voter ID laws have no detectable effects on either voter fraud or voter turnout (though, whether this is true in the long-term is currently unknown), though they do disadvantage minorities more than whites. Early voting has little effect on turnout other than to shorten queues, which itself does slightly impact turnout, especially among minorities. Overall, I agree with Saagar Enjeti's analysis that these laws likely won't have the wide-scale effects people in both parties think they will.

[The Lone Alliance]

I see nothing wrong with Democrats ducking out on this.

Just like I saw nothing wrong with Republicans ducking out in Oregon to prevent a bill they hated, or when Democrats ducked out of Wisconsin to duck Scott Walker's right to work bill.

It's a desperation tactic but deliberately delaying the vote by not being there is just another type of Filibuster.

[San Lumen]

They wouldn't.

And let the bill pass and hundreds of thousands if not millions are unable to vote? Screw that. You want to mess with the democratic process for personal gain then stop the legislature from working. Staff of Republicans legislators should walk out too.

Let their phone calls and constituent work go unanswered. The Governors staff should stop showing up to work too.

While I don't support these bills, the actual evidence that they'll significantly lower turnout isn't entirely established. Mail-in ballots modestly increase turnout, but there's no partisan benefit in either direction. Voter ID laws have no detectable effects on either voter fraud or voter turnout (though, whether this is true in the long-term is currently unknown), though they do disadvantage minorities more than whites. Early voting has little effect on turnout other than to shorten queues, which itself does slightly impact turnout, especially among minorities. Overall, I agree with Saagar Enjeti's analysis that these laws likely won't have the wide-scale effects people in both parties think they will.

You have any proof of your claims?

Why are they doing it then?

[Immortan Khan]

what if the democrat's wanted to socialize all industries or outlaw all firearms?

see I can jump to unreasonable extremes too.

legislatures exist to legislate, and politicians on both side of the isle get away with enough BS as it is. I'd much rather see their butts in seats casting votes to show their disapproval of a decision then seeing them pettily refuse to do their jobs.

They wouldn't.

And let the bill pass and hundreds of thousands if not millions are unable to vote? Screw that. You want to mess with the democratic process for personal gain then stop the legislature from working. Staff of Republicans legislators should walk out too.

Let their phone calls and constituent work go unanswered. The Governors staff should stop showing up to work too.

Weren't you getting angry at the notion of a majority of the people supporting continued anti-COVID measures? Calling for things to open up, regardless what people want be damned? Something about medical staff just needing to do their jobs or resign? In fact, that's a common message of yours. So I guess for the Texas Democrats I say...do your jobs or resign.

[Diarcesia]

While I don't support these bills, the actual evidence that they'll significantly lower turnout isn't entirely established. Mail-in ballots modestly increase turnout, but there's no partisan benefit in either direction. Voter ID laws have no detectable effects on either voter fraud or voter turnout (though, whether this is true in the long-term is currently unknown), though they do disadvantage minorities more than whites. Early voting has little effect on turnout other than to shorten queues, which itself does slightly impact turnout, especially among minorities. Overall, I agree with Saagar Enjeti's analysis that these laws likely won't have the wide-scale effects people in both parties think they will.

You have any proof of your claims?

Why are they doing it then?

If you take their words in face value, it's to prevent voter fraud. If voter fraud is actually nonexistent, then the turnout difference will be infinitesimal.

Edit: I'd say if I were in charge of the Democrats in Texas, I'd call their bluff, personal ramifications be damned.

[Kowani]

Actually, he said, "things Republicans want to pass in the special session" (emphasis mine), which indicates this specific special session, not just special sessions in-general. It's a subtle-but-important distinction.

Ok, fair enough. So, once again, what determines good and evil? Is requiring a voter to show a driver license when voting, evil? Is updating the voting rolls every two years, evil? For instance, one of the provisions includes "protections for partisan poll watchers" but all a poll watcher can do is watch the vote. Why's that evil? Why should my ballot box watchers rely on the opposition's ballot box watchers showing up?

well, the law prevents the poll watchers from being evicted by a judge for violating elections law unless the judge both witnesses the violation and has warned them before

so there's a problem in and of itself

They wouldn't.

And let the bill pass and hundreds of thousands if not millions are unable to vote? Screw that. You want to mess with the democratic process for personal gain then stop the legislature from working. Staff of Republicans legislators should walk out too.

Let their phone calls and constituent work go unanswered. The Governors staff should stop showing up to work too.

While I don't support these bills, the actual evidence that they'll significantly lower turnout isn't entirely established. Mail-in ballots modestly increase turnout, but there's no partisan benefit in either direction. Voter ID laws have no detectable effects on either voter fraud or voter turnout (though, whether this is true in the long-term is currently unknown), though they do disadvantage minorities more than whites. Early voting has little effect on turnout other than to shorten queues, which itself does slightly impact turnout, especially among minorities. Overall, I agree with Saagar Enjeti's analysis that these laws likely won't have the wide-scale effects people in both parties think they will.

anyone telling you voter ID laws don't effect turnout is lying to you
or they're uninformed which isn't much better

[Torisakia]

Imagine voting for a state representative only to have them run away to avoid voting for something. And imagine voting for a state representative only to have them want to round up other representatives by the boxcar load because they ran away. Neither of those two situations sound very democratic to me.

[San Lumen]

You have any proof of your claims?

Why are they doing it then?

If you take their words in face value, it's to prevent voter fraud. If voter fraud is actually nonexistent, then the turnout difference will be infinitesimal.

The rules they want to put in place to prevent a non existent problem will harm turnout. Thats whole point of it. There is an old saying "if voting didn't matter one party wouldn't be trying so hard to prevent it."

[Ethel mermania]

This is pretty typical state politics, didn't this happen a few years ago in Oregon or somewhere in the northwest chasing down no show republicans doing the same thing.

I think this makes them all look like children, and now its the Texans turn

[New Odrana]

While I don't support these bills, the actual evidence that they'll significantly lower turnout isn't entirely established. Mail-in ballots modestly increase turnout, but there's no partisan benefit in either direction. Voter ID laws have no detectable effects on either voter fraud or voter turnout (though, whether this is true in the long-term is currently unknown), though they do disadvantage minorities more than whites. Early voting has little effect on turnout other than to shorten queues, which itself does slightly impact turnout, especially among minorities. Overall, I agree with Saagar Enjeti's analysis that these laws likely won't have the wide-scale effects people in both parties think they will.

You have any proof of your claims?

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump ... 8f3582dd0d
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... y-research
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ea ... t-turnout/

Why are they doing it then?

Because it placates their base.

[Diarcesia]

If you take their words in face value, it's to prevent voter fraud. If voter fraud is actually nonexistent, then the turnout difference will be infinitesimal.

The rules they want to put in place to prevent a non existent problem will harm turnout. Thats whole point of it. There is an old saying "if voting didn't matter one party wouldn't be trying so hard to prevent it."

Hypothetically speaking, in this context, let the Republicans legislate it and the Democrats enforce it.

[Ghost Land]

One group of Republican politicians =/= all Republicans, so nice "all X are Y" comment.

Have you seen the amount of voter suppression bills they've introduced and the number of Republicans who've bought into the big lie? From from all X are Y. Its literal fact.

Not all Republicans want to suppress people's ability to vote - and a lot of these so-called "voter suppression bills" (removing dead voters, requiring ID, etc.) are nothing more than common sense. So in other words, yes, it is an "all X are Y".

[Kowani]

They wouldn't.

And let the bill pass and hundreds of thousands if not millions are unable to vote? Screw that. You want to mess with the democratic process for personal gain then stop the legislature from working. Staff of Republicans legislators should walk out too.

Let their phone calls and constituent work go unanswered. The Governors staff should stop showing up to work too.

Weren't you getting angry at the notion of a majority of the people supporting continued anti-COVID measures? Calling for things to open up, regardless what people want be damned? Something about medical staff just needing to do their jobs or resign? In fact, that's a common message of yours. So I guess for the Texas Democrats I say...do your jobs or resign.

by a broad definition, not showing up for work is doing their jobs

Imagine voting for a state representative only to have them run away to avoid voting for something. And imagine voting for a state representative only to have them want to round up other representatives by the boxcar load because they ran away. Neither of those two situations sound very democratic to me.

they're not "avoiding voting for something"
if they wanted to do that, they'd just abstain
they're preventing bad law from going into practice
very different things

[San Lumen]

Have you seen the amount of voter suppression bills they've introduced and the number of Republicans who've bought into the big lie? From from all X are Y. Its literal fact.

Not all Republicans want to suppress people's ability to vote - and a lot of these so-called "voter suppression bills" (removing dead voters, requiring ID, etc.) are nothing more than common sense. So in other words, yes, it is an "all X are Y".

Preventing poll watchers from being evicted for violating election law makes sense? Does limiting mail in voting make sense? Is taking away power from election boards sensible too?

Many Republicans do want to suppress votes because they know their rural base can't sustain them much longer.

[New Odrana]

Ok, fair enough. So, once again, what determines good and evil? Is requiring a voter to show a driver license when voting, evil? Is updating the voting rolls every two years, evil? For instance, one of the provisions includes "protections for partisan poll watchers" but all a poll watcher can do is watch the vote. Why's that evil? Why should my ballot box watchers rely on the opposition's ballot box watchers showing up?

well, the law prevents the poll watchers from being evicted by a judge for violating elections law unless the judge both witnesses the violation and has warned them before

so there's a problem in and of itself

While I don't support these bills, the actual evidence that they'll significantly lower turnout isn't entirely established. Mail-in ballots modestly increase turnout, but there's no partisan benefit in either direction. Voter ID laws have no detectable effects on either voter fraud or voter turnout (though, whether this is true in the long-term is currently unknown), though they do disadvantage minorities more than whites. Early voting has little effect on turnout other than to shorten queues, which itself does slightly impact turnout, especially among minorities. Overall, I agree with Saagar Enjeti's analysis that these laws likely won't have the wide-scale effects people in both parties think they will.

anyone telling you voter ID laws don't effect turnout is lying to you
or they're uninformed which isn't much better

I specifically stated that the evidence on that is rather incomplete. Some sources say it does, some say it doesn't. It's hardly a consensus. The source I was referring to, specifically, was Vox, which from my understanding leans liberal, so I don't know what incentive they'd have to lie in favor of voter ID laws.

[Kowani]

Have you seen the amount of voter suppression bills they've introduced and the number of Republicans who've bought into the big lie? From from all X are Y. Its literal fact.

Not all Republicans want to suppress people's ability to vote - and a lot of these so-called "voter suppression bills" (removing dead voters, requiring ID, etc.) are nothing more than common sense. So in other words, yes, it is an "all X are Y".

the texas bill is not "common sense"
it was very much an attempt to suppress the vote from the beginning

it was actually so bad that after it failed in regular session, the republicans took out a section to let judges overturn elections, called it "atrocious law" and claimed they didn't know how it got in there

has anyone in here actually read the bill?

[New Odrana]

Not all Republicans want to suppress people's ability to vote - and a lot of these so-called "voter suppression bills" (removing dead voters, requiring ID, etc.) are nothing more than common sense. So in other words, yes, it is an "all X are Y".

the texas bill is not "common sense"
it was very much an attempt to suppress the vote from the beginning

it was actually so bad that after it failed in regular session, the republicans took out a section to let judges overturn elections, called it "atrocious law" and claimed they didn't know how it got in there

has anyone in here actually read the bill?

Well, I can say with certainty that I haven't. And my guess for everyone else would also be "no."

And I have to agree that I don't see anything particularly "common sense" about it, either. Trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist sounds like the exact opposite of common sense, imo.

[Kowani]

well, the law prevents the poll watchers from being evicted by a judge for violating elections law unless the judge both witnesses the violation and has warned them before

so there's a problem in and of itself


anyone telling you voter ID laws don't effect turnout is lying to you
or they're uninformed which isn't much better

I specifically stated that the evidence on that is rather incomplete. Some sources say it does, some say it doesn't. It's hardly a consensus. The source I was referring to, specifically, was Vox, which from my understanding leans liberal, so I don't know what incentive they'd have to lie in favor of voter ID laws.

interesting
i'll take a look, then

[Ghost Land]

Not all Republicans want to suppress people's ability to vote - and a lot of these so-called "voter suppression bills" (removing dead voters, requiring ID, etc.) are nothing more than common sense. So in other words, yes, it is an "all X are Y".

Preventing poll watchers from being evicted for violating election law makes sense? Does limiting mail in voting make sense? Does taking away power from election boards sensible too?

I said "a lot of", not "all" - and to use one example, the concerns about fraud resulting from hastily-implemented mail-in voting systems are IMO very valid. You're also failing to address my main point, which is that not all Republicans have the same views, and your painting all Republicans under the same broad brush of something you're obviously wording negatively is little different from saying "all Republicans are stupid/vile/filth/etc."

Not all Republicans want to suppress people's ability to vote - and a lot of these so-called "voter suppression bills" (removing dead voters, requiring ID, etc.) are nothing more than common sense. So in other words, yes, it is an "all X are Y".

the texas bill is not "common sense"
it was very much an attempt to suppress the vote from the beginning

it was actually so bad that after it failed in regular session, the republicans took out a section to let judges overturn elections, called it "atrocious law" and claimed they didn't know how it got in there

has anyone in here actually read the bill?

Can it be accessed easily online? If I'm able to read it, I'm better able to make my own conclusions.

Edit: HB3 and SB1, they're 47 and 52 pages long respectively so this could take a while.

[Torisakia]

Imagine voting for a state representative only to have them run away to avoid voting for something. And imagine voting for a state representative only to have them want to round up other representatives by the boxcar load because they ran away. Neither of those two situations sound very democratic to me.

they're not "avoiding voting for something"
if they wanted to do that, they'd just abstain
they're preventing bad law from going into practice
very different things

They still could've done something a bit more courageous(?) than just run away. Like at least try and vote against it. But putting forth effort isn't any given politician's strongest skills.