McConnell blocks bi-partisan bill to prevent Russian meddling.

1. 60

   Randy Godwinposted 4 years ago

   Despite yesterday's warning from Robert Mueller about the Russian meddling, Mitch McConnell and other Republican senators blocked a voter securitybill from coming to the floor. They're afraid of Trump so much they believe passing such a needed bill will make Trump angry. So much for the integrity off the Right.
   
   
   https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … spartanntp

   replyreport
   1. 89

      GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Great headline Randy, but are you sure it is accurate?
      
      Also, it is just your opinion that the bills were blocked because the Republicans didn't want to anger Pres. Trump isn't it? I didn't see anything like that in your link.
      
      I haven't read enough to take a stand, but . . . a couple of the noted objections were that one bill or another would mandate that states return to paper ballots - not just a paper-trail backup and that several issues would give the Federal government supercedent control over the states' Constitutional power to control their elections. In other words - a usurpation of state powers by the central Federal government.
      
      I don't know if these are legit objections - yet, but, did you look into this before claiming the Republicans were doing it out of fear of the president's anger?
      
      Or are you just the kid on the corner hawking papers?
      
      GA.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         The part about McConnel blocking the bill was on anther site, Gus. He's already blocked 8 such efforts to help stop the meddling.
         
         Yes, rolling papers...   

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            In that case, I will take two. ;-)
            
            Regarding the blocking of those 8(?) bills . . . it wouldn't be hard for the cynic in me to see politics as a primary reason. Even if there are other valid objections.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 88

               MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, McConnell is playing politics. The bill was bipartisan, not Republican. Can't pass anything that has a democrat stamp of approval on it, now can he?

               replyreport
               1. 89

                  GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Don't take this as a "you're full of stuff" rebuttal, but the little that I have read indicated it was only "bi-partisan" because it/they had one Republican vote.
                  
                  That impression may be wrong, but if it isn't I don't think a single opposing party vote qualifies as bi-partisan.
                  
                  However, I do agree that the Republicans will do all they can to thwart any Democrat-sponsored legislation that could be seen as a good thing.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 88

                     MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     That's because none of the Republican house members wants to cross McConnell. He's already bragged about blocking any democrat bill that comes up for vote in the house. Some say that McConnell and the right-wing house members are afraid of Trump, but what are they afraid of? Congress is supposed to be part of the checks and balances? What do they know that we don't. I'm not sure they aren't just kissing his a$$.

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        My opinion is that it is all politics MizBejabbers. I bet if the Democrats came up with a cure for cancer the Republicans would block it until either after the election, or until they can find a way to share the credit.
                        
                        Of course, the Democrats would do the same.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 88

                           MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           Sadly, yeah.

                           replyreport
      2. 96

         wildernessposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, the rest of the story rather changes the picture, doesn't it?  A moment's reflection tells us the no one WANTS Russia or anyone else meddling in our elections (unless it is the party we're affiliated with, anyway); there must be something else wrong with the bill.  Not terrible difficult to understand with politician's propensity for loading popular bills with unpopular additions.

         replyreport
   2. 67

      JAKE Earthshineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "Mitch McConnell Is The Most Hated Senator In America" **** "Mutt" McConnell is TOAST Randy, not only for his un-patriotic anti-American and many would say CRIMINAL behavior of trying to KILL our HealthCARE System along with Bozo Trump and the corrupt DOJ, but for his complicity while this oval office runs amock in it's insane chaos:
      
      "Mutt" McConnell approval 36% disapproval 50%: About the same as Bozo Trump and he's TOAST in so many ways as well:
      
      "Mitch McConnell Is The Most Hated Senator In America"
      
      https://www.politicususa.com/2019/07/18 … erica.html

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         No doubt Mitch is a b###h, Jake. And so are those who turn a blind eye to the Mueller report. They do not care if Trump flouts the law. Traitors in reality...….

         replyreport
         1. 67

            JAKE Earthshineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Absolutely Randy: "Mutt" McConnell BLOCKS a bill to prevent Russian Meddling, he and Trump are trying desperately to KILL our HealthCARE System and his mouth remains SHUT when Donald trashes our law enforcement while practically KISSING Vladimir Puttin's filthy boots ON GLOBAL TELEVISION in Helsinki !! Who else but a Russian Asset Poodle would do this ???? And he and Donald are not on trial for TREASON ???? Are we SERIOUS ????

            replyreport
   3. 82

      Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      S. 1562 Foreign Influence Reporting in Elections Act
      
      Here is the text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con … /1562/text
      
      If someone could point out exactly which part of the Bill is partisan (biased in favor of a particular party or political cause) that would be appreciated, because I can't see it.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         That is an interesting perspective, Don.
         
         Perhaps it is wrong, but my perception, relative to any description of "bi-partisan,"  is that it would refer to party efforts in the construction, support, or co-sponsoring of legislative action. Not the action itself.
         
         If that isn't your view of what bi-partisan means then that may explain why you don't see what others are talking about.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Would you be willing to point out what you consider to be wrong with the bill? I'm not going to pick them apart; I'm  just curious.

            replyreport
         2. 82

            Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            In the article Randy linked to, Mitch McConnell reportedly described the Bill as: "so partisan it received just one Republican vote over in the House."
            
            Partisan means biased in favor of a particular party or political cause.
            
            I see nothing in the Bill that is partisan. Perhaps when you've read it, you'll be able to tell, which part is.

            replyreport
            1. 88

               MizBejabbersposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               Don W. I read the bill. I was a legal editor for 30 years, and this is my take:  I see nothing partisan in it at all. It seems to refer to any political party or candidate. None are named. I do see some ambiguities in the bill, however, those may be clarified in their referral to other sections and subsections. I have not looked up the cites referenced. I also saw a grammatical error or two in the bill (Gawd, I'd like to get hold of it as an editor to make some corrections, but none have anything to do with partisanship!)
               The problem I think McConnell sees is that Trump has already expressed his welcome for more Russian interference, and this bill would prevent anyone with any sense from any type of collusion. But who has ever accused our unduly elected president of having any sense?

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks for your take MizBejabbers.
                  
                  The question is, why should Republicans object to mandatory reporting requirements when a foreign adversary targets U.S. elections?
                  
                  The idea that the Senate is getting pushback from the White House seems more plausible in the absence of a clear and sensible objection, especially in the current political climate.

                  replyreport
            2. 89

               GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               It looks like we will need to ask Mitch what he meant by "so partisan."
               
               I took it to mean it was a completely Democrat crafted bill with no Republican participation or support. I went back to the linked article to find the context surrounding your quote:
               
               "On Thursday, McConnell called the House-passed legislation Democrats wanted to clear "so partisan it received just one Republican vote over in the House." He added that any election security legislation the Senate takes up must be bipartisan and also alleged that this bill is being pushed by the same Democrats who pushed the "conspiracy theory" of President Donald Trump and Russia."
               
               Maybe I am misreading it, but the context of his remarks, and others further on in the article, all seem to point to the origins of the bill not its contents. Should we flip a coin?
               
               I did read/scan the majority of your linked bill before making my response to you. Complete with dropping into another rabbit-hole of links all the way back to the 1971 Federal Elections Campaign Act to find your linked Bill's definition of "Foreign National" and "Foreign Principle."
               
               It took a while because your link's text refers to Sec. 319(b) of the 1971 Act when the correct citation was 30119(b). I couldn't find a Section 319(b) in the entire pdf of the act.
               
               I am a bit disappointed that would think I wouldn't read your links before responding. Especially since I have complimented you before on your talent for finding just the right nuggets to support your contentions. *(or was that just a little jab based on my comment to PrettyPanther?)
               
               I would never take a knife to a gunfight if I have a choice.
               
               GA

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Semantic shenanigans, but that's ok.
                  
                  We've read the Bill. We know it's nonpartisan (not biased in favor of a particular party or political cause) so we can eliminate that as a valid objection.
                  
                  That leaves the objection that the Bill is not "bipartisan", which raises the question, why? Why does the Bill lack Republican co-sponsors and/ or likely Republican votes? We know it's nonpartisan, so it can't be that. Why would Republicans object to the mandatory reporting requirements for when a foreign adversary targets U.S. elections as outlined in this Bill?
                  
                  With Trump's well-documented, mafia-style demand for "loyalty", and an obvious absence of any clear objection to the content of the Bill, the explanation that "[t]they're afraid of Trump" is certainly not an unreasonable one.
                  
                  Also, lack of "bipartisanship" doesn't seem to be something McConnell has been previously troubled by when it comes to bringing something to a vote. In 2017 "The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act" made the most significant changes to the tax code for thirty years.
                  
                  Number of Democrats who co-sponsored the Bill: zero.
                  Number of democratic votes it received in the House: zero.
                  Number of Democratic votes it received in the Senate: zero (1)(2)(3).
                  
                  So much for bipartisanship being an important criteria for bringing Bills to a vote. A key difference between that Bill and this, is that the former was supported by Trump, the latter is opposed by Trump.
                  
                  Again the idea that the current Bill has received no GOP support because "[t]they're afraid of Trump" is not looking like an unreasonable explanation.
                  
                  The big question is, why is Trump opposed to legislation that would make it harder for foreign adversaries to meddle with US elections? Especially when the man who spent the last two years investigating the issues says:
                  
                  "Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy . . . The Russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American."(4)
                  
                  (1) https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-con … =1&s=3
                  (2) http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2017/roll637.xml
                  (3) https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ … vote=00303
                  (4) https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics … spartanntp

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                     Well damn Don, I am wounded that you would accuse me of a semantics shenanigans argument.
                     
                     How do we deal with this? I am in agreement with almost the entirety of your comment. Even though almost none of it deals with the current topic of discussion. But, none of that agreement encompasses my argument that "bi-partisan" implied participation by both parties rather than the contents of the bill - as you proposed.
                     
                     Are you still disagreeing with the determination that bi-partisan had nothing to do with the content of the bill but everything to do with the construction of the bill? Do your other points in this comment pertain to the issue of "bipartisan," or are they just explaining why you object to the politics involving anything to do with Pres. Trump?
                     
                     When we saw the news proclamations of a bipartisan immigration bill, did you evaluate those immigration bills to see if they benefitted one party over the other, or did you perceive that "bipartisan" to mean a bill constructed and agreed to by both parties?
                     
                     
                     ps. I don't see the need for your citations in your response. We weren't discussing the validation of the bipartisan argument. What was your point in presenting them?
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 82

                        Don Wposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                        I'm accusing McConnell of Shenanigans.
                        
                        If by "partisan", he was referring to a lack of bipartisanship in the Bill's origin, then his comment is the equivalent of saying: the Bill got very little GOP support in the House, because it had very little GOP support in the House. Even McConnell is not that inept.
                        
                        I accept he later clearly raises lack of bipartisanship as an objection. That's why I think it's shenanigans. He seems to be insinuating the Bill is biased in some way, in addition to lacking bipartisanship. But I accepted your suggested meaning for the sake of argument, to see where it leads.
                        
                        It leads to the questions I raised: if McConnell's objection is based on the lack of GOP involvement in, or support for, the Bill, then why is there a lack of GOP involvement or support for the Bill?
                        
                        I see the suggestion that McConnell and other Republican Senators are frightened of Trump as a plausible one, and I laid out a counterexample to McConnell's new found concern for bipartisanship, which I think reinforce the idea that his current objections are just him politicking. 
                        
                        Then I looked further "upstream" and asked the question, if Trump is not in favor of the legislation, then why? And I quoted the Special Counsel, who is generally thought of by anyone who is not hyper-partisan, as an unbiased, honest source, to demonstrate that there is an impetus to act, which Trump and the GOP are not doing.
                        
                        Hope that helps.

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           JAKE Earthshineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           "Moscow" Mitch McConnell BLOCKED a bill to impede Vladimir Putin's espionage activity while we are at war with Russia, that's not called "shenanigans" it's called TREASON, "Aiding and Abbetting" our enemy and it's INSANE that he and Comrade Donald have not been ARRESTED and put on trial for these and so many other of their HIGH Crimes:

                           replyreport
                        2. 89

                           GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                           This is what helps most Don;
                           
                           "I'm accusing McConnell of Shenanigans."
                           
                           I am in complete agreement. If we can now dispense with the "bipartisan" aspect of your initial response we will have to find something else to argue about.
                           
                           I too think it is sh*tty politics. The merits or liabilities of the proposed bills were never an issue - in my opinion. It's all about political points. The good of the nation be damned.
                           
                           GA

                           replyreport
                           1. 67

                              JAKE Earthshineposted 4 years agoin reply to this

                              
                              
                              In REALITY GA this is SHEAR INSANITY, Treason right in our Stunned FACES committed by our own SENATE Leader to obviously protect Vladimir Putin and his little oval office puppet !!!!, UNREAL: "Moscow" Mitch McConnell's blatant betrayal of the American People by OBSTRUCTING legislation designed to impede our enemies ability to DESTROY our Democracy is called TREASON:
                              
                              If anyone else "Aided and Abetted" our enemies like this turtle looking strange man and the other Putin APPEASER who has infiltrated our oval office has, they would be facing serious charges:
                              
                              This is BEYOND INSANE: If you or anyone else around here who actually lives here in the USA ever did anything to help our enemies Commit Espionage and or unlawfully manipulate our elections you would be sitting in a jail cell right now pending jury trial and that's a fact:

                              replyreport
            3. 60

               Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               The bill was written and proposed by both a democrat and a republican senator, Don.

               replyreport
   4. 0

      promisemposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Even if the Democrats were grandstanding, McConnell could show true leadership by taking the initiative.
      
      Instead, he is putting party first and country second by not acting at all.
      
      It's a great way to tell our enemies, feel free to interfere.

      replyreport
2. 89

   GA Andersonposted 4 years ago

   No, I refuse to do that . . . that's my story and I'm sticking to it!
   
   Sorry, Ms., all joking aside, I haven't looked into any of them enough to form an opinion whether they are good or bad bills. My comments were only about disagreeing with the "bi-partisan" attribution.
   
   First glance shows all sponsors and co-sponsors were Democrats, (with one Independent). A bipartisan bill would be constructed, sponsored, or co-sponsored by members of both parties.
   
   It is the Republicans that are saying that makes them bad bills, not I. I even noted that I thought the obstruction of those bills was probably more due to politics than substance.
   
   However, I did see one thing that seemed out-of-whack, (unless I misunderstood it): I think one bill wanted to mandate that all states go back to using paper ballots in addition to their electronic ballots. Not just a paper-trail of ballots scanned for ballot tally verification, but physical individual paper ballots.
   
   That seems like a regression to me.
   
   GA

   replyreport
3. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

   Just heard that "Moscow Mitch" is super offended about his new nickname which, by the way, was bestowed upon him by a former Republican. congressman.
   
   Oh, the irony.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That breaks my damn heart, Pretty!

      replyreport