How's about putting a SOCK in it, Majorie?

1. 79

   Credence2posted 2 years ago

   This witch consistently tries the very boundaries of decorum and decency. In addition to that, she has a nasty fascist/authoritarian bent. The  Republican Party knows full well the stupidity of such a statement but resists censoring her, why? What type of dumb idea is this, red states having new residents from blue states not being allowed to vote as a "cooling off" period? As if that is going to change their political affiliation, it would just intensify my hearts desire to, all the more, vote against them.
   
   Somebody needs to shut her up as a crazed loon within the Republican Party.
   
   https://news.yahoo.com/rep-marjorie-tay … 37269.html
   
   Any thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I could be wrong but isn't there already a cooling off period, even if it isn't called that?  Don't you have to live somewhere for 30 days or so before voting?
      
      Would you support requiring residency for, say, 60 days or even 6 months before voting in local and state elections?  Regardless of residency you are still an American citizen and should vote in national elections, but is a 60 day period out of line for state/local elections?  How would you stop 10,000 New York residents from moving to Missoula Montana and immediately voting on, say, a city gun control measure and then "moving" back to their home in New York that they never sold, all in a weeks time?  I don't see that happening now, but at some point it is likely to.  Certainly we already see thousands travelling to participate in protests and riots...

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Of course, you are right, all states should have a time requirement for residency before newcomers can vote in state or local elections. That is reasonable.
         
         I let this lady "get my goat", as she just applies itching powder to those on the left as an irritant knowing that such statements are contrary to democracy and the right of citizens to vote.She spoke specifically of denying those newcomers from blue states from voting in red states (temporarily) in reaction to the rightwing oriented fear of having these people eventually out vote them in what they consider their own private preserve. Well, private reserves do not exist in America, changing demographics changes the reality on the ground, they always have and always will. Marjorie's itching powder will annoy many of us but not change the larger upcoming narrative. I have to remember that. But, why say such things?

         replyreport
   2. 79

      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Oh my, I can only say her wish list is unconstitutional, and certainly, these kinds of ideas do not promote citizen unity in communities or our Nation.
      
      I realize we have some in Congress (on both sides) that are outspoken, and have, I guess one could call them progressive ideas. But, realistically would the majority of American's support what would seem destructive, anti-social ideas?  Should we ever choose who can vote and who can not vote or divorce states? We have ended up with a Congress that has some real nut jobs. So, what do we do from this day on?

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

         Progressive ideas do not mention disenfranchisement as a method of gaining and maintaining power and control. That is a pet peeve for me.
         
         With what I have seen the last year, there is concern about the continued existence of democratic (small D) principles that we all agreed to adhere to.  Our Constitution explicitely states who is entitled to vote by law, are we to question that now?
         
         We have Congress full of rich plutocrats who too often serve for money that primarily comes from conservative and moneyed interests. Much like in the Supreme Court ruling where it was found that  "Corporations are people".
         
         I don't like the idea of a country controlled and managed solely from and for interests of the wealthy. I have natural distrust regarding them. Those that have been bought and bribed and forget who they are working for.
         
         The exceptions, like the Liz Warren's, Bernie Sanders or the late Edward Kennedy are too far and few inbetween these days.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I can't argue with your logic...

            replyreport
2. 60

   Live to Learnposted 2 years ago

   I’m afraid if we shut up all of the crazed loons in Congress we wouldn’t hear a peep out of the vast majority. Would you support shutting up the idiots in the squad? The senile leader in both the house and senate? Just curious.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      You don't have a lot of faith in Government institutions, do you L to L. Is that what it means when conservatives say that they "hate government"?
      
      Has anyone in the squad talked about actively disenfranchising people or are your objections based on the fact that they are not Republicans?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Live to Learnposted 2 years agoin reply to this

         My objections are entirely based on policies that disenfranchise people. Although, I doubt you would support any of my beliefs on fighting for equality, fair play and against anti racist views.

         replyreport
         1. 79

            Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

            No, I probably would not agree with you, but it certainly would not bring the house down to listen to your suggestions.

            replyreport