Texas Democrats flee Texas because they do not want to pass Republican voting law.

[Timur]

Thoughts?

Edited July 14, 2021 by Timur

[Pringles]

It's crazy man. Something that you'd see in House of Cards. 

I'd need to see more specifics of the bill but if the generalization (which I happen to agree with) of this voting law is truly restrictive like other bills that have been going around GOP states... sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I don't hold dirty political plays against either party. I firmly believe in preventing the tyranny of a majority. This happens to be a potential case of that.

[vcczar]

As someone born and raised in TX, I don't blame them from walking out. It's the best tactic they have to protect voting rights. If they show up, the bill passes. Currently, there's no protocol to stop them from doing this. So it is, in effect, legal. It's a good tactic so long as it doesn't hurt them in election. I doubt it will. TX is becoming Purple, in part, because of radicalization of the TX GOP. This voting rights bill, as are most of the bills being proposed and passed to restrict voting, are undemocratic and unAmerican. They're completely partisan, and they exclusively help the one party proposing them. Democrats can often seem like pansies, sticking only to rhetoric. I'm glad to see Democrats with some backbone. Maybe I'll move back to TX again when it becomes Blue. 

 

[Pringles]

5 hours ago, Patine said:

"Tyranny of the majority," can only be a valid counterpoint to, "tyranny of the minority," or a, "paternalistic, artificially-balanced, and easily-manipulated system that cannot, by nature, accomplish anything of value." In fact, "tyranny of the minority," is usually only a watchword of those in an ideologically-shrinking minority, defending outmoded and unpopular doctrines, and wanting to maintain artificial relevance because of a lack of true, natural competitiveness, without changing, modernizing, or broadening said views, or feeling a need to do so. Also, avoiding and preventing, "tyranny of the majority," was a rallying word of the old Southern Democrats, the National Party of South Africa, and the Rhodesia Front. It is antithetical thinking to any system of Governance Constitutionally empowered by it's citizens.

When any government starts politicizing voting rights and screwing with it like this, that's tyranny of the majority. 

I don't know what you're talking about or trying to accuse me of, but I dont really care.

Tyranny of the majority can be a broad, subjective term, but I think this is a good example as it's clear to me that that's what a lot of these majority GOP states are trying to pass these unfair voting laws. Democrats are doing whatever they can to stop them. 

That's all I'm saying lol.

[vcczar]

34 minutes ago, Patine said:

I don't think you understand the ramifications of your usage of the term. "Tyranny of the majority," is a disingenuously and manipulatively worded term for the democratic process. Anything else IS tyranny, in truth, of some level or another.

And, in case you didn't notice, both major parties are politicizing voting rights. And neither major party has been fully and completely accepting of a U.S. Presidential Election they officially lost since the '90's. It's a bipartisan issue of spinning it like a partisan top. Please, let's not pretend otherwise.

Yeah, the whole "tyranny of the majority" concept was based on the idea that the majority would attempt to guillotine the politicians, hang the lawyers, and physically revolt against the bankers, etc. That was during the time of uprisings. Today, at worst, we get peaceful protests that get slightly out of hand because a small portion of the protesters smash windows. 

The worst that would happen if more people voted is that we would have universal healthcare, higher wages, legalized marijuana, and fewer military interventions. Sounds pretty good to me. If that's "tyranny of the majority," I'm all for it. It beats "autocracy of the few."  

[MrPotatoTed]

10 hours ago, Pringles said:

It's crazy man. Something that you'd see in House of Cards. 

Normal politics, actually, for those of us who've been around for a while.  ;c)  As soon as I heard it was happening, I immediately recalled when Wisconsin Democrats did the same thing ten years  ago.  https://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote

[Pringles]

1 minute ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Normal politics, actually, for those of us who've been around for a while.  ;c)  As soon as I heard it was happening, I immediately recalled when Wisconsin Democrats did the same thing ten years  ago.  https://www.npr.org/2011/02/17/133847336/wis-democratic-lawmakers-flee-to-prevent-vote

Oh yeah, I'm aware. It's still relatively rare though. And it is something that happened in house of cards. 😛

[MrPotatoTed]

19 minutes ago, Patine said:

House of Cards is a cynical, destructionist, Frankfurt-school, hot-take on American politics. It aggregates all of these of these sort of rare incidents, and puts them in a blender to create a dark and caustic commentary. The design is deliberate. Real life has no such deliberate design.

Technically, it's an Americanization of a cynical, destructionist, Frankfurt-school hot-take on British politics.  ;c)

[Rodja]

1 hour ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Technically, it's an Americanization of a cynical, destructionist, Frankfurt-school hot-take on British politics.  ;c)

House of Cards is my favorite TV show,to be honest the first 4 seasons of it not the mess of seasons 5 and 6,but it is much more dark pessimistic portrayal than a realistic one,but Spacey breaking the 4th wall was enough to make me fall in love with show,its a shame he turned out to be a pedo asshole.

[MrPotatoTed]

Just now, Rodja said:

House of Cards is my favorite TV show,to be honest the first 4 seasons of it not the mess of seasons 5 and 6,but it is much more dark pessimistic portrayal than a realistic one,but Spacey breaking the 4th wall was enough to make me fall in love with show,its a shame he turned out to be a pedo asshole.

Yep, great actor, bad person.  

I too loved the first couple seasons of the show, but was already losing interest before the allegations came out.  I stuck with it for one more episode after his departure, but quickly realized that I'd already lost interest a season or so prior, and nothing in this new episode convinced me to keep going.

[Rodja]

3 minutes ago, MrPotatoTed said:

Yep, great actor, bad person.  

I too loved the first couple seasons of the show, but was already losing interest before the allegations came out.  I stuck with it for one more episode after his departure, but quickly realized that I'd already lost interest a season or so prior, and nothing in this new episode convinced me to keep going.

Good for you,you didnt watch the complete nonsense of the final scene of final season.

Spoiler Alert:

Claire kills Doug with letter opener in the Oval Office.

[jvikings1]

4 hours ago, vcczar said:

Currently, there's no protocol to stop them from doing this. So it is, in effect, legal.

This is not entirely accurate. There are house rules that allows the sergeant in arms to enforce a call to order (which was voted on and approved). Anytime any of the lawmakers steps foot back in Texas, they can be arrested and forced to return and remain on premise of the state legislature. Though they have to be in Texas for it to apply (essentially forcing them out of state for as long as they are wanting to hold out).

[vcczar]

4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

This is not entirely accurate. There are house rules that allows the sergeant in arms to enforce a call to order (which was voted on and approved). Anytime any of the lawmakers steps foot back in Texas, they can be arrested and forced to return and remain on premise of the state legislature. Though they have to be in Texas for it to apply (essentially forcing them out of state for as long as they are wanting to hold out).

I'm assuming the GOP won't do that, since they favor limited government.

[MrPotatoTed]

40 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm assuming the GOP won't do that, since they favor limited government.

I know that you know that’s not actually true, but for the sake of anyone else reading: that is of course not true.

No party that wants to legislate the bedroom and the womb is in favor of limited government.

[jvikings1]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

I'm assuming the GOP won't do that, since they favor limited government.

They’ve already passed a motion in the house. And enforcing contracts (which being elected to a position entails) is a widely accepted role of government across all spectrums.

[Zenobiyl]

16 hours ago, Pringles said:

It's crazy man. Something that you'd see in House of Cards. 

I'd need to see more specifics of the bill but if the generalization (which I happen to agree with) of this voting law is truly restrictive like other bills that have been going around GOP states... sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do. I don't hold dirty political plays against either party. I firmly believe in preventing the tyranny of a majority. This happens to be a potential case of that.

As a matter of fact this exact sort of scenario happened in house of cards.

[DakotaHale]

6 hours ago, Patine said:

House of Cards is a cynical, destructionist, Frankfurt-school, hot-take on American politics. It aggregates all of these of these sort of rare incidents, and puts them in a blender to create a dark and caustic commentary. The design is deliberate. Real life has no such deliberate design.

Isn’t that the point of the show though?

[Dobs]

8 hours ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, the whole "tyranny of the majority" concept was based on the idea that the majority would attempt to guillotine the politicians, hang the lawyers, and physically revolt against the bankers, etc. That was during the time of uprisings. Today, at worst, we get peaceful protests that get slightly out of hand because a small portion of the protesters smash windows. 

The worst that would happen if more people voted is that we would have universal healthcare, higher wages, legalized marijuana, and fewer military interventions. Sounds pretty good to me. If that's "tyranny of the majority," I'm all for it. It beats "autocracy of the few."  

Tyranny of the majority is when 51% of the country repeal the 2nd amendment and then the another angry 51% repeal the 8th to get back at them.

[vcczar]

1 hour ago, Dobs said:

Tyranny of the majority is when 51% of the country repeal the 2nd amendment and then the another angry 51% repeal the 8th to get back at them.

No majority wants to repeal the 2nd amendment. Many democrats own Guns oR donT care about them enough to Ban them . Sorry for typos at an event and have only a split second 

[WVProgressive]

3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

No majority wants to repeal the 2nd amendment. Many democrats own Guns oR donT care about them enough to Ban them . Sorry for typos at an event and have only a split second 

That's not what Dobs is saying, he's using it as an example of what tyranny of majority could look like in a constitutional republic, to argue against your assertion that tyranny of the majority only applies to violent uprisings.

[vcczar]

4 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

That's not what Dobs is saying, he's using it as an example of what tyranny of majority could look like in a constitutional republic, to argue against your assertion that tyranny of the majority only applies to violent uprisings.

Oh ok 

[Dobs]

9 minutes ago, Patine said:

But 49% forcing an unpopular policy to remain by default is, "tyranny of the minority," which is a term you, @Pringles, @jvikings1, and a few others don't even recognize as the valid counterpoint situation. Most supporters of dying, but once mainstream, ideological viewpoints struggling for relevance and lacking the ability to maintain natural competitiveness in support often fail to acknowledge that, "tyranny of the minority," is the logical flipside of, "tyranny of the majority." Also, those who tend to use the term, "tyranny of the majority," tend to be, or be quoting, arrogant, self-righteous, and often paternalistic, elitists and often (not always, and not accusing it's supporters here of this, but often, all in all) bigots and fearmongers.

Rights are not the same as policies. They can’t be stripped away by 50%+1. We are a Republic with checks to ensure legal protection of the minority, not a democracy where all legal rights are subject to plebiscite.

^This is all Prongle and I are saying.

[Timur]

10 hours ago, vcczar said:

Today, at worst, we get peaceful protests that get slightly out of hand because a small portion of the protesters smash windows. 

Ever heard of the Storming of the Capitol?

[Zenobiyl]

38 minutes ago, Patine said:

But 49% forcing an unpopular policy to remain by default is, "tyranny of the minority," which is a term you, @Pringles, @jvikings1, and a few others don't even recognize as the valid counterpoint situation. Most supporters of dying, but once mainstream, ideological viewpoints struggling for relevance and lacking the ability to maintain natural competitiveness in support often fail to acknowledge that, "tyranny of the minority," is the logical flipside of, "tyranny of the majority." Also, those who tend to use the term, "tyranny of the majority," tend to be, or be quoting, arrogant, self-righteous, and often paternalistic, elitists and often (not always, and not accusing it's supporters here of this, but often, all in all) bigots and fearmongers.

Gun ownership is a constitutionally guaranteed right, not a policy.

[WVProgressive]

19 minutes ago, Patine said:

Alright, @Pringles, please enlighten me, as to why voting methods and regulations, which are matters that can, and many, many times have been, changed by simple 50+1 votes of support, as I've mentioned the immensely and extremely different form they took in 1790 when the Bill of Rights was passed, should NOW, MAGICALLY be given a Constitutional Amendment weight of protection when such was never required before, and such changes easily passed over the many years by simple 50+1 laws.

Voting rights are essential to democracy, and to a republic, and the bill in question tramples all over those rights in a sad, desperate attempt by the Republicans to maintain power over a growing Democratic party. When an incumbent political party uses their power to make it harder for supporters of the opposition party(or parties) to vote, that is tyranny by the majority.

Edited July 15, 2021 by WVProgressive