Republicans Rounding Up Democrats in Texas

by **Page** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 5:54 am

If you added up all of the total fraudulent votes in Presidential elections of the last 20 years in America, the sum of those votes would likely be insufficient to even alter the outcome of a very small town's city council election.

If you had a penny for every credible allegation of voter fraud in America for the last 20 years, you would literally not be able to afford to buy a can of Coke.

Basically no one commits voter fraud because it's the dumbest crime in the universe, you are risking a felony charge for having the most infinestimal impact on the election results.

Committing voter fraud is the equivalent of a robbing a bank at gunpoint when you know beforehand that there is only a single penny at the bank.

by **The Caleshan Valkyrie** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 7:38 am

The Church of Satan wrote:Regardless of what was up for vote, the fact of the matter is that the people those democrats were elected to represent voted them in to do their jobs; to introduce, vote on and pass legislation. Instead, they ran away from their responsibilities like children. If they had worked at a retail store and left the state to avoid working on Christmas, they would have been fired. Now not only did they get paid to run from work, they did so on tax payer money and still have their jobs. No politician, regardless of party, should be able to get away with it. Those particular democrats should be jailed and replaced by politicians that are willing to do their jobs, for better or worse. The harsh reality is that we rarely get what we want. They are (shockingly) adults and should know better.

If their ends are achieved by denying quorum, and it is the only feasible way for them to do it, then they are fulfilling their responsibilities.

by **Fahran** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 8:16 am

ImperialRussia wrote:A-least Texas can return to its glory days not to influenced not foreign democrat voters.

Wait... are you supporting my sovereign Anglo-Latin esoteric state with copious maternalistic green conservatism, cottagecore, and neoclassical pretensions? 'Cuz based. And litty.

by **Great Algerstonia** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:12 am

Donald Trump, once again, probably LOVES TEXAS right now.

by **The Black Forrest** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:14 am

Great Algerstonia wrote:Donald Trump, once again, probably LOVES TEXAS right now.

Oh that’s a given. Trump loves anybody who praises him and furthers his wants.

by **Deacarsia** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:30 am

The title of this thread is misleading. Republicans are not rounding up all the Democrats in Texas; Republican legislators are compelling Democrat legislators to attend legislative sessions.

This is very common historically in the United States, so there really is no cause for alarm.

by **The Church of Satan** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:34 am

The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:If their ends are achieved by denying quorum, and it is the only feasible way for them to do it, then they are fulfilling their responsibilities.

They could deny quorum in a lot of ways but I assure you most of them are wrong. Their jobs are to vote on potential laws, not to skip out on work. If it's unacceptable for a pizza delivery person to do it, then it's even more so for our elected officials.

by **Fahran** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:35 am

Great Algerstonia wrote:Donald Trump, once again, probably LOVES TEXAS right now.

Texas was actually one of the states he lost in the first primary.

by **Neutraligon** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:41 am

The Church of Satan wrote:
The Caleshan Valkyrie wrote:If their ends are achieved by denying quorum, and it is the only feasible way for them to do it, then they are fulfilling their responsibilities.

They could deny quorum in a lot of ways but I assure you most of them are wrong. Their jobs are to vote on potential laws, not to skip out on work. If it's unacceptable for a pizza delivery person to do it, then it's even more so for our elected officials.

no their job is to represent their constituents. if representing their constituents means preventing a vote from taking place by not having a quorum then they are doing their job. Being present when they have no way to prevent the law from being signed in would them be not doing their job.

by **The Church of Satan** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:52 am

Neutraligon wrote:no their job is to represent their constituents. if representing their constituents means preventing a vote from taking place by not having a quorum then they are doing their job. Being present when they have no way to prevent the law from being signed in would them be not doing their job.

Then why should anyone show up? When one side doesn't like a piece of legislation that's up for vote, why not just run away every single time? After all, they'd be representing their constituents in doing so.

by **Neutraligon** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 10:57 am

The Church of Satan wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:no their job is to represent their constituents. if representing their constituents means preventing a vote from taking place by not having a quorum then they are doing their job. Being present when they have no way to prevent the law from being signed in would them be not doing their job.

Then why should anyone show up? When one side doesn't like a piece of legislation that's up for vote, why not just run away every single time? After all, they'd be representing their constituents in doing so.

Because they have things they want to pass. Being out of the office because they feel so strongly about this issue means that things they want to pass also cannot be passed. It is a last-ditch effort to defend their constituents.

by **The Church of Satan** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:04 am

Neutraligon wrote:Because they have things they want to pass. Being out of the office because they feel so strongly about this issue means that things they want to pass also cannot be passed. It is a last-ditch effort to defend their constituents.

Oh yes, they certainly do. And if the other side doesn't want it to pass when it comes up to vote, why not just run off every single time?

by **Neutraligon** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:06 am

The Church of Satan wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:Because they have things they want to pass. Being out of the office because they feel so strongly about this issue means that things they want to pass also cannot be passed. It is a last-ditch effort to defend their constituents.

Oh yes, they certainly do. And if the other side doesn't want it to pass when it comes up to vote, why not just run off every single time?

Because the other side also has bills they want to pass. What the Democrats are doing here by running away is saying that this bill is so important that they are willing to hold off or even have other bills they want to pass not pass because they are not in the state.

by **The Church of Satan** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:15 am

Neutraligon wrote:Because the other side also has bills they want to pass. What the Democrats are doing here by running away is saying that this bill is so important that they are willing to hold off or even have other bills they want to pass not pass because they are not in the state.

Well they can't run forever. That bill is next on the list and the law is wrangling them up to come back and be a legislator whether they like it or not.

by **Neutraligon** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:17 am

The Church of Satan wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:Because the other side also has bills they want to pass. What the Democrats are doing here by running away is saying that this bill is so important that they are willing to hold off or even have other bills they want to pass not pass because they are not in the state.

Well they can't run forever. That bill is next on the list and the law is wrangling them up to come back and be a legislator whether they like it or not.

Except the law cannot round them up, because they are no longer in Texas.

by **The Church of Satan** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:24 am

Neutraligon wrote:
The Church of Satan wrote:

Usually, crossing state lines makes something a federal crime. I suppose, being politicians, that doesn't much matter. They get a pass for such things.

by **Kannap** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:25 am

holy shit, I said in the Oregon thread that I thought Democrats wouldn't have the backbone to do something like this but here we are. Gonna commend them for once.

Also, Lumen not sticking to his "legislatures were elected to do a job and can't just run away from that" stance as soon as the roles are reversed, not surprised to say the least.

I think this whole situation is funny all the way around.

by **Neutraligon** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:25 am

The Church of Satan wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:

Usually, crossing state lines makes something a federal crime.

It is not a crime to not show up to vote for a bill. And state law does not apply to other states.

by **Washington Resistance Army** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:25 am

The Church of Satan wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:

Usually, crossing state lines makes something a federal crime.

I don't think preventing quorum is a crime, it's just avoiding your duties.

by **Neutraligon** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:26 am

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
The Church of Satan wrote:Usually, crossing state lines makes something a federal crime.

I don't think preventing quorum is a crime, it's just avoiding your duties.

It isn't avoiding your duties either.

by **Kannap** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:28 am

The Church of Satan wrote:
Neutraligon wrote:

Usually, crossing state lines makes something a federal crime. I suppose, being politicians, that doesn't much matter. They get a pass for such things.

I suppose the Texas legislature has no jurisdiction over federal law enforcement agencies, what's the law being broken here anyway?

by **Deacarsia** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:32 am

“QUORUM; ADJOURNMENTS FROM DAY TO DAY; COMPELLING ATTENDANCE. Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.” (The Constitution of the State of Texas, Article 3, Section 10)

by **Neutraligon** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:38 am

Deacarsia wrote:“QUORUM; ADJOURNMENTS FROM DAY TO DAY; COMPELLING ATTENDANCE. Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.” (The Constitution of the State of Texas, Article 3, Section 10)

Which is nice and all, but does not apply outside of Texas. Police in Texas cannot legally enforce Texas law outside of Texas, and police forces from places outside of Texas cannot enforce Texas law at all. Federal law enforcement itself cannot enforce state law.

by **Kannap** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:40 am

Deacarsia wrote:“QUORUM; ADJOURNMENTS FROM DAY TO DAY; COMPELLING ATTENDANCE. Two-thirds of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.” (The Constitution of the State of Texas, Article 3, Section 10)

Okay, this doesn't apply outside of Texas though. If the legislatures have left Texas, as many have - presumably knowing about this procedure to round them up - then this doesn't mean anything in regards to compelling them to return, by force or otherwise.

by **Thermodolia** » Sun Jul 18, 2021 11:41 am

Kannap wrote:holy shit, I said in the Oregon thread that I thought Democrats wouldn't have the backbone to do something like this but here we are. Gonna commend them for once.

Also, Lumen not sticking to his "legislatures were elected to do a job and can't just run away from that" stance as soon as the roles are reversed, not surprised to say the least.

I think this whole situation is funny all the way around.

This isn’t the first time the democrats have done this. Back in 2011 the democrats walked out of the Wisconsin legislature to halt a anti-Union bill.