McConnell blocks bi-partisan bill to prevent Russian meddling.

Jump to Last Post 1-3 of 3 discussions (31 posts)
  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
    Randy Godwinposted 8 weeks 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

    1. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 8 weeks 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.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 8 weeks 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...    tongue

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 8 weeks 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

          1. MizBejabbers profile image91
            MizBejabbersposted 8 weeks 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?

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 8 weeks 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

              1. MizBejabbers profile image91
                MizBejabbersposted 8 weeks 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$$.

                1. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 8 weeks 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

                  1. MizBejabbers profile image91
                    MizBejabbersposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Sadly, yeah.

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 8 weeks 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.

    2. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
      JAKE Earthshineposted 8 weeks 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

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 8 weeks 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...….

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
          JAKE Earthshineposted 8 weeks 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 ????

    3. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 8 weeks 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.

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 8 weeks 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

        1. PrettyPanther profile image85
          PrettyPantherposted 8 weeks 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.

        2. Don W profile image84
          Don Wposted 8 weeks 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.

          1. MizBejabbers profile image91
            MizBejabbersposted 8 weeks 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?

            1. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 8 weeks 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.

          2. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 8 weeks 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

            1. Don W profile image84
              Don Wposted 7 weeks 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

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 7 weeks 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

                1. Don W profile image84
                  Don Wposted 7 weeks 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.

                  1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
                    JAKE Earthshineposted 7 weeks 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:

                  2. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 7 weeks 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

          3. Randy Godwin profile image92
            Randy Godwinposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

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

    4. promisem profile image98
      promisemposted 8 weeks 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.

  2. GA Anderson profile image92
    GA Andersonposted 8 weeks 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

  3. PrettyPanther profile image85
    PrettyPantherposted 7 weeks 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.

    1. Randy Godwin profile image92
      Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      yikes That breaks my damn heart, Pretty!

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)