GOP blocks Senate Democrats' revised elections bill

[mystery-ak]

GOP blocks Senate Democrats' revised elections bill
By Jordain Carney - 10/20/21 03:36 PM EDT

Senate Republicans on Wednesday blocked Democrats from advancing a revised bill to overhaul federal elections, marking the latest blow to hopes of getting voting legislation to President Biden.

The Senate voted 49-51 to end debate on whether to bring up the bill, known as the Freedom to Vote Act, falling short of the 60 needed.

The bill would make Election Day a national holiday, set national minimum standards for early voting and voting by mail and include standards for states requiring voter identification. It also has new requirements on disclosing who is behind online ads and aims to stop partisan gerrymandering


Democrats view voting rights and election reform as a top priority as GOP states debate and, in some cases, enact new laws in the wake of the 2020 election, which former President Trump and some of his closest allies have falsely claimed was stolen.

“For every two steps forward, sometimes there are those who try to pull us one step back. Unfortunately, we find ourselves today in the midst of such a struggle. Across the country, the Big Lie – the Big Lie – has spread like a cancer as many states across the nation have passed the most draconian restrictions against voting that we’ve seen in decades. If nothing is done, these laws will make it harder for millions of Americans to participate in their government,” Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on Wednesday.

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/577615-gop-blocks-senate-democrats-revised-elections-bill

[mystery-ak]

Chad Pergram
@ChadPergram
·
1m
A) Schumer on GOPers filibustering voting rights bill:
Every single Republican Senator just blocked this chamber from having a debate—simply a debate—on protecting Americans’ right to vote in free and fair elections.




Chad Pergram
@ChadPergram
·
48s
B) Schumer: Let there be no mistake, Senate Republicans blocking debate today is an implicit endorsement of the horrid new voter suppression and election subversion laws pushed in Conservative states across the country.

[rustynail]

Jim Crow republicans just like they did in slavery times.

[EdinVA]

Poor chuck... he is just not having a good year..

[Kamaji]

Good.  Let's hope it stays that way.

[Killer Clouds]

If it's 51 senators that voted NO then it's a BIPARTISAN NO!

[Kamaji]

If it's 51 senators that voted NO then it's a BIPARTISAN NO!

Nope.  It was 50-50, but Schumer switched to a "no" vote so he can bring it up again at a later date.

[Killer Clouds]

Nope.  It was 50-50, but Schumer switched to a "no" vote so he can bring it up again at a later date.

If Chuck voted NO then it is a bipartisan NO vote. I get what you're saying but if the final vote is 51 NO then ...............

[Kamaji]

If Chuck voted NO then it is a bipartisan NO vote. I get what you're saying but if the final vote is 51 NO then ...............

He only voted no as a procedural move to give him the right to bring it back for another vote.  So no, it wasn't a bipartisan vote.

[Killer Clouds]

He only voted no as a procedural move to give him the right to bring it back for another vote.  So no, it wasn't a bipartisan vote.

It doesn't matter why he voted NO. One DCP disciple voted NO so that makes it a bipartisan NO vote.

[Kamaji]

It doesn't matter why he voted NO. One DCP disciple voted NO so that makes it a bipartisan NO vote.

It matters very much why he voted no, and the fact that he did so as a procedural trick, and not because he authentically wanted the bill to fail means that it was not a bipartisan vote.

You can spin it any way you want to, but no, it was not a bipartisan vote.

[Killer Clouds]

It matters very much why he voted no, and the fact that he did so as a procedural trick, and not because he authentically wanted the bill to fail means that it was not a bipartisan vote.

You can spin it any way you want to, but no, it was not a bipartisan vote.

And no matter how much 6ou try to deny it , in the end, it was a bipartisan NO vote.

[Smokin Joe]

Kinda like voting against Obamacare....

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And no matter how much 6ou try to deny it , in the end, it was a bipartisan NO vote.

Agreed.  It was a bipartisan turndown.

Like a ballgame, the final score makes no distinction on how you win or lose in the record books.

Every single vote that takes place in Congress has the same issues.

[Kamaji]

And no matter how much 6ou try to deny it , in the end, it was a bipartisan NO vote.

No, it wasn't.  It was a partisan vote that was end-run by a parliamentary trick indulged in by Schumer so he could bring the bill up again.

[Killer Clouds]

No, it wasn't.  It was a partisan vote that was end-run by a parliamentary trick indulged in by Schumer so he could bring the bill up again.

The bipartisan no vote killed the bill for now. A DCP disciple voted no so that makes it a bipartisan no vote. That is the definition of a bipartisan no vote when republicants and DCP disciples vote NO. BIPARTISAN!

[christian]

Do you think the democrats realize yet, that if Biden hadn't been such an AZZ for so long, their spending bill would have likely sailed through without a hitch?
 

[Kamaji]

The bipartisan no vote killed the bill for now. A DCP disciple voted no so that makes it a bipartisan no vote. That is the definition of a bipartisan no vote when republicants and DCP disciples vote NO. BIPARTISAN!

No, it wasn't bipartisan.

Is there even a single Democrat demanding that Schumer explain his vote?  No, there isn't.  Because they all know that he didn't vote against the bill, he played a parliamentary trick so he could bring it on for a vote at a later point in time.

If the democrats are going after Manchin and Sinema for frustrating their spending plans by refusing to vote for the $3.5T "infrastructure" bill, they would also be going after Schumer if his vote had actually been a vote with the republicans against this bill.

The fact that they are not is all the evidence necessary to show that it was not a bipartisan vote.

[Killer Clouds]

No, it wasn't bipartisan.

Is there even a single Democrat demanding that Schumer explain his vote?  No, there isn't.  Because they all know that he didn't vote against the bill, he played a parliamentary trick so he could bring it on for a vote at a later point in time.

If the democrats are going after Manchin and Sinema for frustrating their spending plans by refusing to vote for the $3.5T "infrastructure" bill, they would also be going after Schumer if his vote had actually been a vote with the republicans against this bill.

The fact that they are not is all the evidence necessary to show that it was not a bipartisan vote.

Did a DCP disciple vote NO on the bill with all the republicants? YES or NO?
The undisputable answer is YES Chuck did vote NO. Chuck is the DCP leader in the senate. Whatever his reason is doesn't matter. By definition it is a bipartisan NO vote and you are WRONG.