The”Myth of Bipartisanship”: Kyrsten Sinema Becomes The Latest Victim of Rage Politics

Below is my column in the Hill on the Democratic members and groups attacking Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) after she repeated her support for the filibuster rule. The reaction to her floor speech reveals the depth of the addiction to rage in our body politic.  It is the same license that we saw this weekend in Florida when Florida agriculture commissioner and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Nikki Fried compared the support of Gov. Ron DeSantis to the rise of “Hitler.” It is not enough to disagree. You have to compare your opponent to a genocidal murderer. It seems that we cannot discuss even agriculture policies without raising Anschluss in the age of rage.  Many of us criticized former President Trump for his personal attacks and attacks on the press, but many of those same voices are now denouncing others, like Sinema, as enemies of democracy and the people. Sinema is a case study in rage politics.

Here is the column:

In Shakespeare’s “Othello,” the character Iago famously declared that “men in rage strike those that wish them best.” It was a warning that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) now understands all too well. Both Sinema and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) have refused to be bullied into changing the filibuster rule — a rule that forces the parties into dialogue and compromise.

Sinema supports the voting rights legislation but sees this move as endangering any chance of national healing and resolution. She stated on the Senate floor that “we have but one democracy. We can only survive, we can only keep her, if we do so together.” That deeply felt speech was met with vile, threatening attacks. It appears that, in a nation addicted to rage, even those seeking an intervention can become the casualties of our political distemper.

Sinema offered the same arguments long used to support the filibuster — indeed, the same arguments made by President Biden until this week. Biden once called earlier efforts to change the filibuster “disastrous” for democracy and proclaimed, “God save us from that fate. … [It] would change this fundamental understanding and unbroken practice of what the Senate is all about.” Others joined him then in demanding that Senate Republicans preserve the rule in the name of democracy itself, including then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who insisted that abandoning the rule would be “doomsday for Democracy” and reduce the United States to a “banana Republic.”

All of those speeches were celebrated back then in the media and by Democrats as powerful and poignant.

Yet that is the liberating quality of rage: It is pure and absolute without the burden of reason or recognition. Liberal commentators this week went after Sinema with sputtering, blind fury, many mocking that she became emotional as she described the anger and divisions in the country.

MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell wrote, “Sinema delivers the Senate’s stupidest speech by a Democrat in an edge-of-tears voice to give childish words a melodramatic effect.” Onetime MSNBC host Keith Olbermann tweeted that Sinema “needs to resign or be removed from office immediately. … [She] has become a menace to the continuation of American democracy.” MSNBC’s Malcolm Nance went further and said Sinema’s staff should “resign at the shame of being handmaidens to the death of Democracy.”

Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, who previously called for burning down the Republican Party, tweeted, “Sinema is effectively asking the authors of Jim Crow and vote-rigging to give their permission for her to stop it. This is worse than incoherent or cowardice. It’s a moral disgrace. Ask the segregationists for permission to vote for Civil Rights Act?”

So, senators voicing the same position recently held by Democrats such as Biden, Obama and Schumer are now “segregationists”?

The “Jim Crow on steroids” reference to the Georgia election law was voiced by Biden, who has now yielded entirely to rage politics. He recently pledged to do “whatever it takes” to pass the legislation, and his solution was to go full blind rage in Atlanta by accusing anyone voting for the filibuster as siding with segregationists and seeking the destruction of democracy. The next day, Biden unleashed a tirade denouncing half of the Senate for seeking to establish autocracy through voter suppression.

The president, who once insisted he would be the nation’s unifier, has discovered the license of rage politics — the same license shown by those who chased Sinema into a bathroom last year. Likewise, after Sinema’s floor speech, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) staffer Sarah Michelsen was thrilled to see Sinema close to tears and encouraged activists to “keep going” with the attacks because they are “breaking her.”

It is the same license to hate and harass that was shown by ACLU lawyer Samuel Crankshaw, who opposed high schooler Nicholas Sandmann being accepted into college even after he was shown to have been falsely accused of harassing a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial. It is the license that recently led a Los Angeles Times columnist to defend mocking the deaths of unvaccinated people.

Some Democrats were quick to promise that Sinema had just ended her career; CNN’s Joe Lockhart wrote, “Probably more accurate to refer to her as former Senator Sinema.” Her speech was, in that sense, reminiscent of another courageous senator, Edmund Ross of Kansas, one of seven Republicans who voted to acquit then-President Andrew Johnson in 1868. He described his fateful vote as “literally [looking] down into my open grave.”

Ross is celebrated as a “profile of courage” for taking such a stand despite the anger of his own party.

So, too, was Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) when he voted to convict then-President Trump in his second impeachment trial; liberal commentators showered him with praise. In 2020, Stephen Colbert heralded Romney as “a ray of hope” who spoke the truth and was “willing to put up with whatever the blowback for this decision is.”

O’Donnell tweeted that “each day for the rest of his life [Lindsey Graham] will live in enraged jealousy of [Romney’s] courage.” While Romney also got emotional on the floor, O’Donnell did not mock him for his “edge-of-tears voice to give childish words a melodramatic effect.”

Schumer went public to “salute” Romney: “The pressure on every Republican was enormous. … The fact that this is bipartisan holds up a beacon to what was right and what was wrong.”

Yet, according to the Liberal pundits, Sinema is no Romney. She had the audacity to stand on principle rather than politics. It is widely believed that other Democratic senators share her discomfort with changing the filibuster, but, thus far, they have not summoned the same courage to face such withering criticism. As I wrote last year, such integrity is rarely rewarded by one’s own party: “Ross, like Romney, jumped — to the applause of the opposing party. In the Senate, self-sacrifice remains an act best admired from a distance.”

Sinema’s speech was denounced by those who insist that bipartisanship is a “myth” in the age of rage. She is, according to MSNBC’s Nina Turner, a “soulless coward” for seeking common ground and compromise. She is hated precisely because she did not hate enough. She did not hate Republicans so blindly as to declare them modern Bull Connors like Biden did or to call the filibuster “a relic of Jim Crow.”

In the age of rage, civility is repulsive and intolerable. Sinema made herself a reference point that exposed how unhinged many of her fellow Democrats have become. Remove that reference point, and only rage remains.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

246 thoughts on “The”Myth of Bipartisanship”: Kyrsten Sinema Becomes The Latest Victim of Rage Politics”

  1. @anonymous

    I do not want to have a “good faith discussion” with any s@@tlib and I doubt you really want one either. I want a divorce and an amicable one. If the US were a couple, a divorce would already have occurred. I don’t even propose to tell leftists how to live or run their multicult paradise.

    Appreciate you not calling me a racist though. “Hispanic” is an artificial designation created by the US Government that covers individuals from 30 different countries and various ethnicities. I can honestly say I have little trouble from other “Hispanics” concerning my views on immigration, assimilation, multiculti and other hot button issues that s@@tlibs go crazy over if you disagree.

    I WANT A DIVORCE. And if people like me are as bad as you think you should welcome this.

    antonio

    1. You clearly don’t understand my desire for good faith discussion with those who have different views than me. I think it’s essential for the country’s well-being. I consider it our patriotic duty.

      1. Can you have a good faith discussion with people who continue to lie to you that an election was stolen? I say no.

        1. I think it depends on the person. If they’re aiming for good faith discussion — they don’t lie (saying things they know to be false), they’re civil, they’re open to changing their mind, … — then yes. People can be sincerely mistaken. I can deal with that. It’s the willfully dishonest, the willfully closed-minded, … who shut off good faith discussion.

          1. I agree, but saying the “election was stolen” IS a not a sincerely held mistaken belief. It is a willful lie by Trumpists. Perhaps, the Q-Anon followers are that delusional, but I would not insult a Trumpist by claiming they are that unhinged from reality. No sir, they are just lying, and we all know it because there is no evidence of massive fraud. Turley certainly does not believe that the election was stolen despite the fact he will not condemn those Trumpists who continue to lie. If he did, most of his followers would desert him. So, he bites his tongue.

            1. I think some of them are liars, but a lot of them *are* that unhinged from reality, because they’re in a media bubble where they’re fed a lot of lies and few facts that would help them develop a more accurate understanding.

              Agreed about Turley. He clearly values something other than academic integrity.

              1. I agree with your analysis- the media bubble. I happen to watch both MSNBC and Fox prime-time to get both narratives. Had I only been fed Fox’s narratives, I would have been able to perceive that I was being misled even in the absence of MSNBC! Their lies are no longer plausible unless you WANT to believe them (because the idea of agreeing with the Left is anathema). Fox and the Rightwing claim that the Left is destroying America; hence, it follows that everything the Left says and does has got to be found wanting in order to substantiate and never undermine the gospel that the Left is evil. Everything. Even once acknowledging that something Biden has done could possibly be beneficial raises doubts whether he is as bad as Fox claims. So, he can do nothing right. Period.

            2. and yet Democrats such as Gore, Hillary, Abrams etc spout the SAME. Explain why Zuckerberg and Bloomberg were allowed to BUY $500 Million in Votes?

            3. This is why there is never going to be a civil conversation with leftists…..were WAY beyond that now. You could not be a better example. An leftist tool actually lamenting that people’ who support Trump are ‘just liars’. The democratic party is the party of lies….your politicians lie even when they don’t have to. CNN and MSNBC have been caught in more lies in the last 5 years than you can count. Go back the Kennedy….proflic liars one and all. Both Clintons lied every time they open their mouths, and are still doing it today. Adam Schiff, the keeper of the ‘irrefutable proof’ that Trump was a Russian plant. Pelosi, Harris, and for God’s sake Biden…this faux president is a pathological liar, and so is his wife. FBI agents who are far left wingers lied through their teeth to get Clinton off the hook for hammering and bleach bitting her phones that had subpoenaed info on them, but went out of their way to sway the pendulum against Trump as far as they could simply because they hated him. And you, you mindless leftist dolt, sit there with a straight face and say it’s Trump and his supporters who are the liars. Yeah, the right is done with the fake ‘lets have a conversation’ snowflake.

              1. I agree Jensen. This country will never come to terms about Trumpism until Trump is exposed as a fraud in a court of law. People like you will never accept a jury’s guilty verdict, but hopefully the majority of Trumpists will realize they were duped. Dead-Enders like yourself who will call the trials a “hoax” will become marginalized and hopefully break off from the RINO’s who finally turn their back on the felon Trump. You can then form you own political party and continue to lie that the election was stolen.

                1. “I agree Jensen. This country will never come to terms about Trumpism until Trump is exposed as a fraud in a court of law. People like you will never accept a jury’s guilty verdict, but hopefully the majority of Trumpists will realize they were duped.”

                  You’re on another planet. Trump was better than Hillary or Biden, and thus we all correctly and without regrets voted for him. Being “duped” would mean that he turned out to be the worse choice.

                  1. No, being duped means believing Trump’s lie that the election was stolen with absolutely no evidence of massive fraud. Don’t take my word for it. Jonathan Turley does not believe it. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

            4. “The election was stolen” is a fact. You just obtusely pretend that you don’t know what “stolen” means.

          1. No, it’s not an insurrection to investigate abnormalities during elections. It’s an insurrection to violently interrupt the peaceful transfer of power via certification of the EC vote and to try to pressure Pence to act unconstitutionally to keep Trump in office longer than the term to which he was elected.

          2. So, F. Lee Bailey Jr, why is it that over a year later not one person has been charged with insurrection, nor has any plan been stated that anyone will be charged with insurrection? You’re a prouct of this snowflake, virtue signalling generation that squealed from the mountain tops that Trump was a Russian plant. When that didn’t work, you all swore up and down he would be indicted for ‘something’ within 6 months. You actually believed the left wing activists at CNN and MSNBC when they told you that the evidence to impeach Trump was strong, when their was not a shred of impeachable evidence..just more TDS by the leftists, and gullible sheep such as yourself. Keep trying though….you little Nancy’s sure do serve as a great source of humor for normal Americans.

    2. Antonio, you’re always misunderstood when the topic is that certain ethnic group you love to comment on. In fact, you only show up when ‘they’ are the topic. But of course you’re not a ‘racist’. With the name ‘Antonio’ you can’t possibly be hostile to other minorities.

  2. Professor Turley Writes:

    “Democratic gubernatorial candidate Nikki Fried compared the support of Gov. Ron DeSantis to the rise of “Hitler.” It is not enough to disagree. You have to compare your opponent to a genocidal murderer”.
    ……………………………………………………………

    Every day on this forum, Turley’s conservative regulars compare Democrats to ‘fascists’. Yet Turley only notices the gratuitous use of this term when liberals apply it to a wayward Democrat.

    1. Anonymous notes:

      “Every day on this forum, Turley’s conservative regulars compare Democrats to ‘fascists’. Yet Turley only notices the gratuitous use of this term when liberals apply it to a wayward Democrat.”

      It’s called the “Fox effect.”

      1. ……said the leftist tool who apparently hasn’t noticed that there is a violent group of leftists called antifa, viiolently attack anyone who might have conservative values. Leftists and their far left politicians in Congress ignore it, and they also ignore black lives matter advocating for dead cops. It’s call ‘The CNN effect’.

      2. “It’s called the “Fox effect.”

        Do you honestly think that statement makes you look smart? In case you are under that impression, it doesn’t. It makes you sound like a jerky kid.

    2. “Every day on this forum, Turley’s conservative regulars compare Democrats to ‘fascists’.”

      If you had any understanding of the different ideologies, you would clearly understand why Democrats are being called fascists. Since the word fascist dumbfounds you, you stutter and demonstrate a total lack of understanding.

      Why don’t you read a book about fascism so you can talk with a bit of knowledge?

  3. Has anyone noticed that those in this forum who support the voting rights act never want to get into the details? It would be nice if the act’s supporters would do a point by point defense of each provision of the act. Of course they want nothing to do with actually informing us what is to be found in their legislation so that we can make an informed decision on our own. They conveniently shy away from the specifics. Reminds me of “First we have to pass the bill so you can see whats in it.” Come on man we are waiting for your point by point defense of your pet project. Please just show us that you are not just doing the old Pelosi lock step. Rest assured that we will not be holding our breadth waiting for your explanation of the value of what you proposing to the nation. Come on man.

    1. OK, here goes: from the Brennan Center:

      On Thursday, the House passed an omnibus voting rights bill that included the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, an effort to restore and revitalize the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The bill is now before the Senate, where despite bipartisan support it faces an uncertain future due to the filibuster.

      The VRA was the most successful civil rights legislation in our country’s history until the Supreme Court gutted the law in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013. The Court further weakened the law’s protections against voting discrimination in another case in 2022 in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee.

      Now, we are in the midst of a crisis. The nation faces a wave of voting restrictions and redistricting abuses, both of which often target communities of color. We need a full-strength Voting Rights Act to prevent this suppression from happening and root it out quickly where it does.

      The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore the law to full strength, in part by once again requiring states with histories of voter discrimination to receive approval from the Department of Justice or a federal court before enacting voting changes. Nonetheless, Republicans in Congress and their allies in the states oppose it. These opponents have now made their case in several congressional hearings, including an October 6, 2021, hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

      They do not — and cannot — offer reasoned explanations for why the law’s protections are any less important now than they were in 2006, when it was reauthorized with overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress. Instead, they offer a combination of misinformation and a regurgitation of the criticisms made against the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Their claims are wrong, and many rely on blatantly false statements.

      MYTH: The bill is a federal takeover of elections

      Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) called the John Lewis Voting Rights Act “a power grab” designed to let “unelected bureaucrats . . . strike down . . . laws enacted by democratically elected legislatures in the states.” By his telling, “one unelected bureaucrat” can “say to hell with democracy” and strike down laws on a whim.

      This argument is incorrect for three reasons. First, the DOJ would play the same role under the John Lewis Voting Rights Act that it played so successfully for almost five decades under the Voting Rights Act. Criticizing the DOJ’s authority under the bill is just a revival of an argument made against the original Voting Rights Act.

      Back in 1965, segregationist senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina similarly argued that the bill would cause “despotism and tyranny” if passed into law. Not only is it wrong to describe the restoration of a decades-old practice a “federal takeover,” but it is nonsensical to claim that it undermines democracy when there is universal agreement that the preclearance process was tremendously successful at rooting out discrimination and improving our democracy. Even Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-IA) conceded that preclearance “worked wonders.”

      Second, a state or subdivision does not have to involve the DOJ in the preclearance process. It can bring its case directly to a federal court. If a state seeks approval from the DOJ and the DOJ denies the request, the state can still bring its case to court.

      Third, the DOJ’s review authority is limited. It must consider only whether the proposed change to voting rules would result in discrimination against minority voters — a result that would violate the Constitution or federal law. The department cannot simply block laws it does not like. The evidence bears this out: the DOJ approved 99.86 percent of submissions when preclearance was in effect.

      MYTH: Preclearance is a major burden

      According to Former Virginia Secretary of State Ken Cuccinelli, preclearance creates an “extraordinary burden” on states and counties because “it covers the smallest of trivia.” He asserted that even moving a polling place down the hall would trigger extensive work for a state to clear the DOJ review.

      In reality, preclearance is not a heavy lift for the states. Attorneys general in several previously covered states, including Mississippi and North Carolina, have submitted friend-of-the-court briefs explaining that the process is “streamlined to minimize the burden,” requires materials that “are ordinarily both readily accessible and easy to assemble,” and takes “only a few minutes to prepare.” Submissions often received approval on nothing more than these simple information sheets. Again, 99.86 percent of proposed changes were precleared in the past.

      DOJ staff work cooperatively with local officials, and most submissions require only one or two pages of documentation. Smaller changes like the movement of a polling place require almost no documentation and are routinely approved. The John Lewis Voting Rights Act further streamlines the process in certain instances, providing for expedited consideration of changes that respond to exigencies such as natural disasters.

      MYTH: States will be covered by the law as a result of weak claims or unfounded lawsuits

      The bill’s opponents distort how states are brought into coverage. Todd Rokita, Indiana’s secretary of state, told the Senate that temporary rulings or cases on appeal count towards coverage and the bill would “incentivize frivolous lawsuits.” Cuccinelli alleged that merely filing lawsuits could bring states into coverage. Grassley attempted to muddy the waters by saying that the bill’s formula for deciding who is covered rests on “vague notions.”

      Even a cursory skim of the Senate bill reveals these claims to be misrepresentations. The bill clarifies that only a final outcome (such as a court judgment or certain types of consent decrees and settlements) that is not overturned on appeal counts. Only final resolutions that hold that a state’s voting law or practice violated the Constitution or federal laws against race discrimination in voting contribute towards coverage.

      Suggesting the bill incentivizes frivolous litigation is not just speculative — it is divorced from the reality of federal litigation. First, winning a final judgment in federal court is extremely difficult. Judges do not find that a state or locality violated the law unless plaintiffs put forth substantial evidence proving the allegations.

      Second, given how difficult these cases are to win, there is nothing to gain from bringing a weak claim. Litigation is costly and time-consuming. Third, defendants with strong cases have no incentive to settle frivolous claims. Their incentive is to continue the case to victory, which is a strong deterrent against future challenges.

      Finally, court rules such as financial sanctions on those who bring frivolous cases ensure that prospective litigants will carefully weigh the validity of claims before filing.

      Perhaps most importantly, a state has to rack up at least 10 of these violations of voting laws before it is covered. That is far too high a bar for litigants to be able to game a state into coverage.

      MYTH: We have eliminated the discrimination underlying the need for preclearance

      Opponents of the bill argue that racial discrimination in voting is a thing of the past. Grassley claimed that we “recently had record turnout for minority voters” and Rokita stated that “there is no evidence that voter suppression is on the rise.” Cuccinelli neatly summed up his view for the committee: “America has — thankfully — left its days of racially suppressive voting laws behind.”

      Sadly, these views simply do not reflect the reality of America today, where racism and voter suppression are alive and well. Notwithstanding the Republicans’ cherry-picked data, participation by nonwhite voters still lags behind that of white voters. While the 2020 election featured record turnout overall, only 58.4 percent of nonwhite voters cast ballots compared to 70.9 percent of white voters, a turnout gap of 12.5 percent. This turnout gap has been growing since 2012 — the last presidential election before Shelby County — when it reached its narrowest at 8.0 percent. And the gap is growing faster in states likely to be covered by preclearance than in the rest of the country.

      The bill’s opponents also ignore that laws and practices designed to suppress voters of color remain far too common. There was ample evidence of voter suppression and discriminatory conduct in the 2020 election cycle. Georgia purged hundreds of thousands of disproportionately nonwhite voters from the rolls, North Carolina rejected Black voters’ ballots almost twice as often as white voters’ ballots, and Texas allowed only a single drop-off location for mail ballots per county, mainly impacting its large, diverse counties. There were instances of race-based voter intimidation, harassment of minority election observers, and threats to election officials.

      Voter suppression remains on the rise today. In 2021 alone, at least 19 states enacted at least 34 laws that make it harder to vote, while at least 13 restrictive voting bills have been pre-filed for 2022 legislative sessions and no fewer than 152 restrictive voting bills will carry over from last year. Four of the restrictive laws that passed in 2021 are “monster” voter suppression packages that include dozens voting access rollbacks. Two of these monster laws are in states that would be covered by the version of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act before the Senate (Texas and Georgia) and a third is in a state (Florida) that would have been covered by the House version of the bill. (The fourth is in Iowa).

      In 1965, states and localities suppressed the votes of people of color with poll taxes and literacy tests. Today, we see insidious discrimination in new forms. We see it when a state bans 24-hour voting in response to its widespread use in a heavily nonwhite county. We see it when a state sets limits on drop boxes that make them harder to access after nonwhite voters used them in droves. We see it when a legislator says we should focus on the “quality” of voters over the quantity.

      • • •

      The critiques offered by opponents of the John Lewis Voting Rights Act are flimsy and transparent. The subtext comes through loud and clear. The critics haven’t identified flaws in the bill — they oppose the Voting Rights Act, the crown jewel of the civil rights movement that transformed our democracy.

      1. Here’s another source *the Grio”:

        The legislation restores the preclearance process of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Preclearance—which the Supreme Court eliminated in Shelby County v. Holder decision in 2013—requires certain states and localities with a history of voter disenfranchisement, threats, intimidation and coercion against Black people to seek federal permission before changing their election laws. Without that enforcement mechanism, the 15 states who were subjected to preclearance have had a Jim Crow free for all—enacting all types of racist voter suppression laws targeting Black people with “surgical precision.”

        Further, the new voting rights bill makes it easier for groups to challenge racially discriminatory laws. In Brnovich v. DNC, which challenged Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s anti-Latino voting laws and made it harder for people to sue for rules that disproportionately harm them.

        Meanwhile, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act also contains a host of election reforms across the 50 states, including expanded voting access and a national standard for access to the ballot. This comprehensive bill—the most sweeping in years—would create standardized election laws throughout the country, a national standard for states with voter ID laws and make Election Day a federal holiday—making it easier for people to vote.

        But the legislation doesn’t stop there. Early voting would extend to 15 days, and no-excuse voting by mail and same-day, online and automatic voter registration would be universal.

        In addition, this bill combats voter suppression by eliminating long lines at the polls—which are too common in Black neighborhoods—and limiting wait times to a half hour. The act would punish voter intimidation and deception and do away with outrageous laws such as the ban on giving food and water to voters waiting in line. And the formerly incarcerated would have their voting rights restored upon release from prison.

        In the area of redistricting, the bill would eliminate political and racial gerrymandering. Republicans are employing extreme redistricting right now to create state maps dominated by whiter and whiter majority-Republican districts–even in places like Texas, where Black and brown people are the majority population and account for the state’s population growth.

        Moreover, this piece of legislation would protect local election officials from removal for political reasons, stop voter purges and vote tampering, and allow people to sue for a failure to certify election results. And if signed into law, the Act would provide for election security by requiring paper ballots and transparent election audits.

        Finally, the bill tackles big money and dark money in politics by requiring secret groups to disclose their donors, halting the funneling of foreign money into U.S. elections, and establishing a campaign finance system based on small-donor matching funds.

        Now, Think It Through, if you can, please explain to me what’s wrong with these proposals, and why Republicans are universally against them.

        1. MYTH: Democrats supports Black women in high government offices particularly Black immigrant women like Virginia’s new Lt Governor, Winsome E. Sears

          Behold a beautiful sight, proof that anyone can reach the American dream:

        2. FACT: In the District of Columbia you do NOT need to show a government-issued photo ID to vote.

          FACT: In the District of Columbia, as of 1/15/22, you DO need to show a government-issued ID and Vax papers to buy food.

          1. FACT: In the District of Columbia you either need to show a government-issued photo ID tto register, or else you need to show it to vote.

            FACT: In the District of Columbia, as of 1/15/22, you do NOT need to show a government-issued ID and Vax papers to buy food at a grocery store or for take out, only to eat inside at a restaurant.

            1. When you eat IN a restaurant, you are buying food are you not?

              Currently, in Washinton DC you may stay in a hotel without presenting your Vax papers. But you must show your Vax papers and ID to have drinks in the hotel bar or dine in the hotel restaurant.

              Do Not Comply!

        3. Propaganda alert! Propaganda alert! Propaganda alert!

          Natacha is a Super Spreader of Propaganda and Misinformation! Alert! Alert! Proceed with Caution!

        4. OK, here goes: from the Brennan Center

          A cut and paste from someone elses work product. Yet, you failed to identify on line item in voting laws that discriminate.

          1. Did you miss this: “In addition, this bill combats voter suppression by eliminating long lines at the polls—which are too common in Black neighborhoods—and limiting wait times to a half hour. The act would punish voter intimidation and deception and do away with outrageous laws such as the ban on giving food and water to voters waiting in line. And the formerly incarcerated would have their voting rights restored upon release from prison.”

            The bill would also reverse Republicans who have kicked black and Democratic election officials off of local election boards.

            1. Natacha: Just a few months ago, SCOTUS upheld the two provisions in Arizona’s voting law that the DNC had challenged as unconstitutional and illegal under the Voting RIghts Act. (the Brnovich case).They were neither. The two provisions are (1) persons who place a vote in person on Election Day must vote in the precinct in which they are registered. If they are not, they may cast a provisional ballot, but that ballot will be later discounted if the voter cast a vote outside of his/her precinct. (2) “ballot-harvesting” is

              criminalized for the collection of both completed and blank ballots, other than those collected by authorized persons under the statute. The DNC knew it would be unable to show discrimination or discriminatory intent, so instead, it charged that these provisions created “disparate impact” for a select group of minorities. Those now-upheld provisions (or reasonably-similar ones) are replicated in several other states, and if challenged, will likely be upheld as well. I regret that so many nurses, educators, and Anonymous implants on this great blog fail to disclose to others the true facts.

      2. FUNFACTS:

        John R. Luis was an anti- and unconstitutional, professional parasite that perpetuated parasitism for a living and never created one single penny of wealth; he was a fantasy created by effete, feckless, phantom-guilt-ridden cowards, and he was bound and determined to redistribute all the wealth created by other people.
        ______________________________________________________________________________________________

        Vote turnout was 11.6% in 1789 by design and intent of the American Founders.

        Never were “…persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others…” et al. intended to vote (i.e. everyone who gets any type of check from the government/taxpayer).

        America is a restricted-vote republic.

        One man, one vote democracy has never existed in history precisely because it is self-destructive and self-terminating.
        _____________________________________________________________________________________________

        “A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

        – Alexander Tytler
        ______________

        “the people are nothing but a great beast…

        I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”

        – Alexander Hamilton
        _________________

        “The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”

        “If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”

        – Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775

      3. Ms. Natacha,

        I have two questions for you, if you would be so kind as to answer them.

        1) Most conservatives believe that requiring in-person voting with a valid ID is the only way to ensure a safe and fair election. The modern Democrat party opposes these measures by saying that this system is racist; despite the fact that everyone needs a valid state issued ID to have a library card, see a rated R movie, and purchase alcohol and or tobacco products.
        Do you believe that the above proposal is racist in nature? If so, how would you modify it to not be so?

        2) What would you personally propose as a safe and fair alternative to our current voting system, bearing in mind that States are allowed to conduct their elections as they see fit; as enumerated in the Constitution?

        1. It’s not a fact that everyone needs a valid state issued ID to have a library card, and none of the things you mentioned are constitutional rights. Voting is a constitutional right.

          1. My apologies, though you do need to show a form of identification such as a bill to your current address to get a library card in most locations.

            The point is, one’s vote is more important than any of the things mentioned above, yet there are proposals to eliminate in-person voting and a requirement for a valid ID.

        2. Irregular poster: First of all, you don’t understand what a “conservative” is. It is false to equate the current ReTrumplican Party with conservatives.
          Republicans used to be mostly conservatives–i.e., people who believe in personal integrity, patriotism, adherence to Constitutional values, paying valid debts, marital fidelity and fundamental honesty–for example, people like Mitt Romney. Then, along came Trump, and all of these values went out the window, to be replaced by the cult of worship of this former reality television host who panders to things like misogyny, racism, xenophobia and white supremacy. Republicans are consistently losing the support of the American people, so they have to find ways to keep power, other than by honest voting. So, they gerrymander to push most probable Democrat voters into a limited number of districts to dilute the influence of Democrats in the remaining districts, they take steps to make it harder for working people to vote–for example, no weekend voting (no church buses taking “souls to the polls”). limited to no absentee voting and a requirement to come up with some form of proof as to “why” you want vote absentee, which makes it difficult for home-bound, disabled people and those without transportation to vote, limited polling places in Democrat districts, limited ballot drop boxes, requiring people to go further to deposit their ballots. For example, in a mostly-black and Democratic Georgia district, Republicans choked down polling places from 7 to just one, and there’s no public transportation to this location. There is a major city in Minnesota where Republicans removed all but one drop box. They have taken over local election boards, kicked off Democrats, especially black ones, replacing them with “team players” who would do the bidding of Donald Trump if there’s a next time: people who WOULD invalidate votes to help him “win”.

          I think it was Stalin who said something along the lines of “it doesn’t matter what the votes are–what matters is who counts them”. They set high standards for what constitutes acceptable voter ID–for instance, they refuse to accept student ID cards, even with photos, and those without driver’s licenses have to go to the trouble to get state-issued photo-ID cars, which is cumbersome for someone who doesn’t drive and doesn’t have a car. This disproportionately affects black and brown people, which Republicans know all too well, which is the basis for claiming racism in setting these requirements. Bear in mind: there is absolutely NO proof of widespread voter fraud that justifies taking these steps, which are calculated to make it more difficult for probable Democrat voters, especially black and brown voters, to cast their ballots. If these steps were justified by proof of widespread voter fraud, then maybe you could defend it, but there is no such proof.

          Conservatives believe in fair play. The current Republican party does not because they know they cannot win elections by playing fair. Although most elected Republicans in Congress know damn good and well that Trump lost fair and square, they want him to shut up and go away like all previous election losers have done, they abhor his endless lying, his refusal to accept that he lost the election and the insurrection he set off; however, most will not speak out against this, and some have gone all in, despite no evidence or proof, to avoid his vindictiveness. Conservatives believe in telling the truth and abiding by the Constitution, and those conservative Republicans who have told the truth and have spoken truth to power, like Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney, have paid a steep price.

          So, when you claim to speak for the beliefs of “most conservatives”, what you are saying isn’t true. What you’re saying is something you got from a pro-Trump news source that likes to equate Trumpism with conservatism, which is a false comparison. The notion that only in-person voting with a strictly limited type of ID is the only way to ensure a fair election is based on Trump’s sore loser lies about his “landslide victory” being stolen. The fact that you say that is the only way to ensure fair voting, shows that you, too, have been convinced that something was amiss in 2020, but there’s simply no proof of this, so why do you believe it? Absentee voting has always been allowed, especially for those who have to be out of state on election day–for example, almost all members of Congress vote absentee, college students, people in the military, and the disabled and home-bound have always voted absentee. in 2020, we had a pandemic, so more people wanted to vote absentee to avoid catching COVID. In many states, people had to wait in line for hours and hours to vote in person. This was in mostly-Democratic areas in states controlled by Republicans, of course. And, there are several states that have ONLY voting by mail. There has never been any problem with widespread voter fraud in states where everyone votes by mail.
          The Constitution does not conscience states disenfranchising voters by enacting barriers to voting.

          1. Here’s a concrete example of what the John Lewis Voting Rights Act would ban:

            In an unprecedented move, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ office has submitted a congressional map for the state’s redistricting process that seeks to cut the number of heavily Black districts in half.

            The state legislature, led by Republicans in Florida, typically oversees the redistricting process. But over the weekend DeSantis became the first governor in modern history to submit a congressional map that drastically alters district boundaries, according to Florida Politics. Lawmakers don’t have to accede to DeSantis’ preferred map, but the governor holds veto power over any final redistricting plan. DeSantis’ office told Politico that they have “legal concerns” with the proposed maps from the state legislature.

            “Nobody has commanded that orchestra like DeSantis,” one unnamed Republican congressman told Politico of the state legislature. “It would be a hell of a flex if he gets this map.”

            DeSantis’ map would cut the number of predominantly Black congressional districts from four to two, while increasing the number of districts with majorities of 2020 Trump voters from 16 to 18. Ryan Newman, the governor’s general counsel, submitted the map on Sunday night, shortly before DeSantis posted a tweet to “honor” Martin Luther King Jr.

            “This map is not only unconstitutional, but it dilutes black representation in Florida,” state Sen. Shevrin Jones, a Black Democrat, told Politico. “To add insult to injury, the Governor submitted this map all while tweeting a quote ‘honoring’ Dr. King.”

            RELATED: Are Dems really “winning” redistricting — in the face of voter-restriction laws and GOP extremists?

            DeSantis’ map would effectively wipe out a Jacksonville-area district currently represented by Rep. Al Lawson, a Black Democrat.

            “People were contacting me from all over when the map came out,” Lawson told Politico. “They were concerned about things like what it would do to places like Jacksonville’s urban core, which is African American. It does not sit well with people. For nearly 30 years it has had minority representation.”

            Florida voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 to ban partisan gerrymandering but that has not stopped Republican state lawmakers from carving out as many favorable districts as possible. The state Supreme Court threw out the Republican-drawn congressional map in 2015, implementing its own districts instead. Republican mapmakers in red states have largely sought to shore up their own seats rather than carve out new districts for themselves but DeSantis’ plan appears to be an exception, and would give Republicans two more favorable seats than the plan drawn up by the state Senate. The Princeton Gerrymandering Project graded the state Senate proposal a “B,” saying it only has a “slight Republican advantage.”

    2. Has anyone noticed that those in this forum who oppose the Voting Rights Act never want to get into the details?

      If you want a detailed discussion, demonstrate your desire by presenting a detailed discussion yourself.

      I don’t believe that you want a detailed discussion. I think you just want to complain.

      1. “Has anyone noticed that those in this forum who oppose the Voting Rights Act never want to get into the details?

        If you want a detailed discussion, demonstrate your desire by presenting a detailed discussion yourself. ”

        This is nonsensical. It is called the Voting Rights Act to make it sound palatable. It should be called the Voting Rules Act, which is what it is. One can add that the Act wishes to make voting more fraudulent.

        Some do not believe in one citizen one vote. The Voting Rights Act expands the ability of one citizen to vote many times.

  4. OT

    IF MASKS WORK, WHY DON’T MASKS WORK?

    IF MANDATES WORK, WHY DON’T MANDATES WORK?
    ____________________________________________

    A CHAIN LINK FENCE TO STOP MOSQUITOS
    ____________________________________

    “COVID-19 masks FAQs: How can cloth stop a tiny virus? What’s the best fabric? Do they protect the wearer?”

    I see spaces in the cloth. How can it stop particles?

    The virus that causes COVID-19 is about 0.1 micrometer in diameter. (A micrometer (µm) is one one-thousandth of a millimeter.) The holes in woven cloth are visible to the naked eye and may be five to 200 micrometers in diameter. It is counter-intuitive that cloth can be useful in this setting — it’s been compared to putting up a chain-link fence to stop mosquitoes.

    – TheConversation.com

  5. Shush. Be quiet. The Democrats are beginning to eat their own babies. Soon they will be down to their last toenail and the sounding of alarm will be heard in all the nation. The revealing of the true nature of today’s Democratic leaders is bubbling to the surface of the muck pit just has it always has in the authoritarian parties throughout history. When the bubbles get to the surface they pop. Please note that I write only of the leadership of the Democrats not the rank and file who are turning away from the madness. I feel your pain. My heart was filled with sadness when it was found that Cheney condoned torture. Thankfully the direction of the Republican party was changed by more sober minds.

  6. @anonymous

    “So many Republicans making statements today about how MLK Jr was a great man and they honor his memory, while they spit on his commitment to voting rights.”

    “They’re liars and hypocrites.”

    ONLY “CONSERVATIVES” DO THIS WHILE “CONSERVING” VERY LITTLE AND I WOULD GLADLY TELL THEM THAT SUCH SENTIMENT EARNS NO BROWNIE POINTS WITH LEFT. LEFTISTS STILL GLADLY HATE ANYONE TO THE RIGHT OF AOC.

    IN FACT, MLK WAS A FRAUD WHO PLAGIARIZED HIS DOCTORAL THESIS, HIRED PROSTITUTES WITH CHURCH MONEY, BEAT WOMEN AND ASSOCIATED WITH KNOWN RADICALS AND COMMUNISTS. THESE ARE FACTS, NOT OPINIONS. IT’S KIND OF IRONIC THAT MOST LEFTIST HEROES HAVE TO BE CREATED AND PROPPED UP BY THE ESTABLISHMENT.

    THERE I SAID IT, NOT PRAISING MLK AS A “GREAT MAN”. AND BEFORE YOU CALL ME A RACIST, JUST REMEMBER I AM HISPANIC AND CANNOT BE RACIST ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL LEFTIST DOGMA.

    antonio

    1. I’m a leftist. I don’t hate everyone to the right of AOC.

      I’m not calling you racist. You might be, but I don’t know if you are or aren’t. Being Latino is an ethnicity, not a race, and yes, it’s possible for a Latino to be racist. Anyone might or might not be racist.

      If you actually love the country, drop the hyperbole. Choose to have a good-faith discussion. Notice that I didn’t condemn all Republicans, only the many who are demonstrating dishonesty and hypocrisy. I don’t like dishonesy and hypocrisy on the left either.

  7. It is the same license that we saw this weekend in Florida when Florida agriculture commissioner and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Nikki Fried compared the support of Gov. Ron DeSantis to the rise of “Hitler.”

    Sinema supports the voting rights legislation but sees this move as endangering any chance of national healing and resolution. She stated on the Senate floor that “we have but one democracy. We can only survive, we can only keep her, if we do so together.” That deeply felt speech was met with vile, threatening attacks.

    Yet that is the liberating quality of rage: It is pure and absolute without the burden of reason or recognition. Liberal commentators this week went after Sinema with sputtering, blind fury, many mocking that she became emotional as she described the anger and divisions in the country.

    MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell wrote, “Sinema delivers the Senate’s stupidest speech by a Democrat in an edge-of-tears voice to give childish words a melodramatic effect.” Onetime MSNBC host Keith Olbermann tweeted that Sinema “needs to resign or be removed from office immediately. … [She] has become a menace to the continuation of American democracy.” MSNBC’s Malcolm Nance went further and said Sinema’s staff should “resign at the shame of being handmaidens to the death of Democracy.”

    Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, who previously called for burning down the Republican Party, tweeted, “Sinema is effectively asking the authors of Jim Crow and vote-rigging to give their permission for her to stop it. This is worse than incoherent or cowardice. It’s a moral disgrace. Ask the segregationists for permission to vote for Civil Rights Act?”

    So, senators voicing the same position recently held by Democrats such as Biden, Obama and Schumer are now “segregationists”?

    The “Jim Crow on steroids” reference to the Georgia election law was voiced by Biden, who has now yielded entirely to rage politics. He recently pledged to do “whatever it takes” to pass the legislation, and his solution was to go full blind rage in Atlanta by accusing anyone voting for the filibuster as siding with segregationists and seeking the destruction of democracy. The next day, Biden unleashed a tirade denouncing half of the Senate for seeking to establish autocracy through voter suppression.

    The president, who once insisted he would be the nation’s unifier, has discovered the license of rage politics — the same license shown by those who chased Sinema into a bathroom last year. Likewise, after Sinema’s floor speech, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) staffer Sarah Michelsen was thrilled to see Sinema close to tears and encouraged activists to “keep going” with the attacks because they are “breaking her.”

    It is the same license to hate and harass that was shown by ACLU lawyer Samuel Crankshaw, who opposed high schooler Nicholas Sandmann being accepted into college even after he was shown to have been falsely accused of harassing a Native American activist in front of the Lincoln Memorial. It is the license that recently led a Los Angeles Times columnist to defend mocking the deaths of unvaccinated people.

    In the age of rage, civility is repulsive and intolerable. Sinema made herself a reference point that exposed how unhinged many of her fellow Democrats have become. Remove that reference point, and only rage remains.

    I THOUGHT THAT S@@TLIBS WERE THE MOST TOLERANT PEOPLE IN THE WORLD. I ALSO THOUGHT THAT DISSENT WAS PATRIOTIC. WHAT AM I MISSING?

    THEY HATE US WITH SUCH INTENSITY BECAUSE THEY SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT IF NOT FOR US DEPLORABLES THE LEFTIST UTOPIA WOULD ALREADY EXIST AND BE FLOURISHING.

    AND BTW, JT, THESE SAME PEOPLE YOU DESCRIBE IN THE ARTICLE CONSIDER YOU A ‘NAZI’ TOO NOTWITHSTANDING YOUR OTHERWISE LIBERAL POSITIONS.

    S@@TLIBS I CAN ASSURE YOU THE FEELING IS MUTUAL AND HAVE NO DESIRE TO LIVE OR FUNCTION AROUND YOU. IN FACT, I FEEL NO EMPATHY WHEN YOU ARE UNABLE TO ESCAPE THE CONDITIONS THAT POLICIES YOU SUPPORT HAVE CAUSED (i.e. NYC, Chicago, CA).

    I WANT A DIVORCE.

    antonio

  8. OT

    ILLEGAL

    SAY IT WITH ME: ILLEGAL.

    COMMUNISTS (LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES, SOCIALISTS, DEMOCRATS, RINOS) STOLE THE 2020 ELECTION.
    _________________________________________________________________________________________

    “WISCONSIN JUDGE RULES BALLOT DROP BOXES USED IN 2020 ELECTION WERE ILLEGAL”

    A judge in the state of Wisconsin ruled on Thursday that the use of ballot boxes in the 2020 election was, in fact, illegal. Joe Biden was declared the winner over Donald Trump in the state by 20,682 votes.

    Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Bohren issued the decision in a lawsuit that had been filed on behalf of two voters by the Wisconsin Institute of Law & Liberty (WILL). WILL argued that the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) had unilaterally issued guidance to election clerks, authorizing the use of ballot collection boxes, in contradiction of state law.

    “The guidance from the Wisconsin Elections Commission on absentee ballot drop boxes was unlawful. There are just two legal methods to cast an absentee ballot in Wisconsin: through the mail or in-person at a clerk’s office. And voters must return their own ballots,” commented WILL Deputy Counsel Luke Berg. “We are pleased the court made this clear, providing Wisconsin voters with certainty for forthcoming elections.”

    – By Athena Thorne Jan 16, 2022 12:24 PM ET
    _____________________________________

    P.S. “Tuesday” is the law in the Constitution – Presidential Elections must begin and end within the 24 hours of Tuesday – Voting in person has been understood since the inception of democracy in Greece.

  9. So many Republicans making statements today about how MLK Jr was a great man and they honor his memory, while they spit on his commitment to voting rights.

    They’re liars and hypocrites.

      1. The bills being passed by Republicans in several states make it harder for legal voters to vote, and Republicans in the Senate have filibustered voting rights bills — they don’t introduce amendments, they just block it. The VRA was passed with bipartisan support, but many Republicans now oppose it.

        1. The bills being passed by Republicans in several states make it harder for legal voters to vote,

          Come on, that’s just the talking point. You said they are spitting on their commitment to voting rights. Are the laws being passed preventing legal voters from voting?

          1. No, it’s not just a talking point. I said they are spitting on HIS (not their) commitment to voting rights. They don’t support HIS views on voting rights. Some of the laws being passed make it harder for legal voters to vote.

            1. It’s an effing talking point until you get specific on how the voting laws being passed are spitting on his views of voting rights.

                1. How do you know it’s “good?”

                  I’m not going to do your work for you. How are the laws described as “restrictive”, actually disenfranchising voters?

                  1. I generally don’t have difficulty forming opinions of things I read.

                    I said “Some of the laws being passed make it harder for legal voters to vote,” and I gave you evidence for it. If you don’t want to read it, then I guess this exchange is at its end.

                    1. I said “Some of the laws being passed make it harder for legal voters to vote,”

                      I help Churches do security assessments and submit grant proposals. I do this because increased security makes it harder for the bad guys to do bad things. Increased security does have a downside; it makes things more inconvenient for the good guys.

                      Guess what: Church staff complain that layering security adds to their workload. Those complaints usually end when a house of worship is attacked.

                      So when you read that a voting law makes it harder…figure out whether there is a net tangible benefit for the franchise.

    1. MANDATORY HOLIDAYS?

      THIS IS THE MONDAY, THE WHOLE MONDAY, AND NOTHING BUT THE MONDAY
      ________________________________________________________________

      The slaves said they wanted freedom.

      America gave it to them.

      Then the ex-slaves said they wanted freedom, BUT, they also wanted “free stuff,” from the white man’s money.

      It ain’t stopped yet.

      America doesn’t owe anyone for the color of their skin, the content of their character, or any other aspect or facet of their corporality.

      The Founders gave Americans the one and only thing they could: Freedom.

      You wanted “free stuff.”

      The Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then, they had the capacity and acumen sufficient to the task.

      Reparations must be made to the fleeced wealth creators, not to the parasites – Atlas will shrug.
      ___________________________________________________________________________

      The American Founders said, “All men are created equal.”

      They meant that, after creation, all men are on their own and all men persist, succeed or fail of their own ambition, capacity and acumen.

      It is counter productive for effete, phantom-guilt-ridden, pseudo-American, pusillanimous milquetoasts to cower and cave in the shadow of feckless, incompetent and dependent minorities.

      Compulsory charity, coercive alms for the poor, redistribution of wealth and social engineering are unconstitutional and must be terminated with extreme prejudice.

      Cowardice and a complete loss of resolve are despicable.

      Where the —- is the Supreme Court, the Justices of which have sworn and oath to support the literal words of the Constitution, not false, despotic and arbitrarily contrived edicts.
      ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      “The lunatics have taken charge of the asylum.”

      – Richard A. Rowland
      _________________

      State legislatures must revert vote criteria to those of 1789 when turnout was 11.6%.

    2. So says another one of those racists that forget that character is more important than color. MLK wasn’t calling for fraudulent elections. He was asking for black people not to be prevented from voting. It sounds like this commenter doesn’t want black people voting. Instead, he wants a few people casting loads of votes his way. He doesn’t sound like one who cares about equality. He sounds like the worst type of ideologue who wishes to deprive others of their right to vote, whether white or black.

  10. George says:

    “These fools of Woke should be mocked, made fun of, cast aside as ignorant, and shunned as infected with a pathogen of deceit.”

    I wholeheartedly agree with your advice with one obvious exception: I would substitute “fools of Trumpism” for “fools of Woke.” Otherwise, we are in complete agreement!

    1. JeffSiberman never discusses the meat of a subject. He just jumps to Trumpism or Foxism or Turleyism or whataboutism. He really has little concern for the Biden hypocrisy concerning the filibuster. Silberman is just like Joe. He’ll like it today if it serves his purposes and hate it tomorrow if it doesn’t. Hell has no fury like a Democrat shunned.

      1. Biden has changed his mind for good reason: it used to be that Senators rarely used the filibuster, and now it’s used all the time and prevents the Senate from functioning. The Executive and Judicial branches are getting stronger and stronger as the Legislative branch shrivels. This is not good for the country.

        If you are never willing to change your mind, no matter what evidence you are faced with, then you have a closed mind.

        1. it used to be that Senators rarely used the filibuster, and now it’s used all the time and prevents the Senate from functioning.

          Your assumption appears to be that it is the filibuster that is the problem. The increasing use of the filibuster is a symptom of the increasing ideological divide within the Senate. And by extension, the widening divide within the country. Currently, a majority of Senators oppose changing the filibuster rules. That means whatever legislative agenda the Senate has will need to be done with bipartisan support. The filibuster is not preventing the Senate from functioning. It’s the gap in ideologies that is preventing the Senate from compromising.

          1. No, the filibuster contributes too. The gap in ideologies exists in the House, but it’s more functional because there is no filibuster in the House. That said, the country would be better off if gerrymandering were illegal and the gap were smaller in the House.

        2. Used by the Democrats over 300 times in 2019-2020. Used the same day they failed to abolish it. THEY used it. Seems like they are the one abusing the filibuster.

          1. Only a dishonest person cherrypicks a single year. If you look at the total number of times the Democrats have used it in US history and the total number of times the Republicans have used it, the Republicans have used it more often.

            1. Only an idiot doesn’t grasp that 2019-20 is two years AND that the period is chosen because it is the most recent period in which Dems were the minority.

              1. The legislative year went from 1/3/19-1/3/20, which is a single year. If the person was talking about the entire 116th Congress, that went from 1/3/19-1/3/21.

                I’m well aware of why the cherrypicker chose what he did. It’s still cherrypicked.

  11. The near Left, center left, and the far left are cut from the same cloth, belonging to a sect seeking total adherence to their new Religion of “Woke”. Their diatribe is to cast aspersions upon non-believes, not allowing any diversion even from cast members in their play of Horror. No independent thought or reasoning accepted.

    These fools of Woke should be mocked, made fun of, cast aside as ignorant, and shunned as infected with a pathogen of deceit.

    A few quick quotes from Garrett Hardin’s ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’: “Pathogenic Effects of Conscience The long-term disadvantage of an appeal to conscience should be enough to condemn it; but has serious short term disadvantages as well. If we ask a man who is exploiting a commons to desist “in the name of conscience,” what are we saying to him? What does he hear?-not only at the moment but also in the wee small hours of the night when, half asleep, he remembers not merely the words we used but also the nonverbal communication cues we gave him unawares? Sooner or later, consciously or subconsciously, he senses that he has received two communications, and that they are contradictory: (i) (intended communication) “If you don’t do as we ask, we will openly condemn you for not acting like a responsible citizen”; (ii) (the unintended communication) “If you do behave as we ask, we will secretly condemn you for a simpleton who can be shamed into standing aside while the rest of us exploit the commons.”

    “The individual benefits as an individual from his ability to deny the truth even though society as a whole, of which he is a part, suffers.”

    Another from Robert Louis Stevenson: “The truth that is suppressed by friends is the readiest weapon of the enemy.”

  12. Rage? Case in point. Turley once called Ted Nugent a “true lunatic” for saying:

    “What sort of racist prejudiced POS could possibly not know that Jews for guncontrol are nazis in disguise?”

    “Know these punks. They hate freedom, they hate good over evil, they would deny us the basic human right to self defense & to KEEP & BEAR ARMS while many of them have tax paid hired ARMED security! Know them well. Tell every you know how evil they are. Let us raise maximum hell to shut them down!”

    https://jonathanturley.org/2016/02/10/ted-nugent-unleashes-rabidly-anti-semitic-rant-over-gun-control/

    Not surprisingly, Nugent is a fervent supporter of Trump:

    “Donald Trump was sent here by God.”

    https://www.nme.com/news/music/ted-nugent-says-donald-trump-was-sent-here-by-god-2687501

    A belief, no doubt, shared by most Trumpists here, correct me if I am wrong.

    On August 5, 2021, Tucker Carlson provided this hate-monger a public platform WITHOUT confronting Nugent on his rabid anti-Semitism. (search YouTube). Because he has contracted himself to Fox, Turley likewise said nothing about Carlson legitimizing this raging Jew-hater and, worse, Turley routinely appears with Carlson to legitimize him.

    Turley will call out Trump’s rage filled rants, but will he ever criticize his Fox colleagues for fostering this rage?

    Find me one example where Turley has done so. Just one.

    1. “Donald Trump was sent here by God.”

      A belief, no doubt, shared by most Trumpists here, correct me if I am wrong.

      Nothing happens in God world by mistake.

      1. Nugent is one, Iowan2 is two. Anyone else want to publicly reveal their belief that Donald Trump is on a mission from God?

            1. OT,

              Mr. Silberman,

              You said, “Half the country supports Ted Nugent or believes Trump is divine?”

              I definitely would not say that. Only God is divine. I do believe that President Trump was elected by man and that he did a great job of exposing the filth and corruption that exists in American politics.

              No doubt you will take that to mean the filth and corruption in the Republican party. I will concede that point, but only if you concede that both major political parties are rife with kickbacks and alterior motives.

              President Trump showed the world that United States politicians are not doing their job. Their job was intended to be to represent the will of their constituents. Now, it appears as if a majority of their job consists of fattening their own wallets on the backs of the American populace.

              1. Irregular says:

                “I do believe that President Trump was elected by man and that he did a great job of exposing the filth and corruption that exists in American politics.”

                You don’t believe that Trump is as filthy as they come with his degenerate womanizing and fraudulent fund raising? Will you believe that he too is corrupt if he is ever found guilty of tax fraud by a jury?

                I don’t deny that there is corruption in both parties. My contention is that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar- far worse than your typical politician. And with few notable exceptions, Republicans refuse to acknowledge it because they don’t want to give the Democrats the satisfaction of their admitting that they have had to lie to protect Trump.

                It is unfathomable that you are so concerned with corruption but not repulsed by Trump’s mendacity. Trump is no good; the most respected Conservative opinion makers like George Will, whose Conservative credentials are unimpeachable, have turned away from Trump. Even Turley has called Trump a “carnival snake charmer” and his involvement in politics “obscene.”

                1. Mr. Silberman,

                  Could you please enumerate how President Trump, while in office, was corrupt or how he failed to attempt to deliver on his campaign promises as many of our current representatives do?

                  As to his personal affairs, I would say that President Trump has a history of being a womanizer and has, as have all successful businessmen, pushed legal boundaries in order to increase their profit margins. However, just as I don’t select my surgeon based on their sexual proclivities, rather their acumen in performing surgery, I did not vote for the man’s private affairs. I voted for him to do the job of President.

                  1. Irregular+Poster,

                    There is no point in my enumerating the potential lawlessness of Trump. I am content to let all the civil and criminal investigations take their course. I’ll accept the verdicts if he is acquitted. Will you accept the verdicts if he is found otherwise? No Trump supporter here has yet committed to accepting a jury’s guilty verdict.

                    It is patently disingenuous to assert that all successful businessman are as sexually degenerate as Trump. Like Clinton, he has been accused of sexual assault by numerous women, and he has even admitted privately how he takes advantage of women.

                    I am confident that Trump will be recorded by historians as one of the worse, if not the absolute worse, president to have served this country.

                    1. “I’ll accept the verdicts if he is acquitted. Will you accept the verdicts if he is found otherwise?”

                      Are you for real? The left has gone after Trump many times, both as President and as a businessman. Trump prevailed each time and was never found guilty, yet you want to try him again on charges that shouldn’t even exist and then ask the question if people will abide by the jury’s decision.

                      Obviously, you don’t believe in decisions until they give you what you want. You are still going after Trump after failing so many times. That makes you look insincere and sound like an idiot.

                    2. Ok. Got it. You will not accept a jury’s verdict. Wanna bet that Turley will accept a jury’s verdict?

                    3. Did you accept all those times Trump could not be convicted? Obviously not. Stop trying to prove you are a hypocrite. We already know that.

                    4. Jeffy, you are being assigned your opinions by your MSNBC television habit and it is corrupting your brain. Turn off the TV and get help.

                    5. Mr. Silberman,

                      You said, “There is no point in my enumerating the potential lawlessness of Trump.”

                      That’s because President Trump has not been convicted of any crime committed while he was in office. Neither, to the best of my knowledge, has he been convicted of any crime while out of office. Your statements of his lawlessness are therefore unfounded.

                      You also did not comment regarding his commitment to fulfilling the agenda on which he ran.

                      Let’s face it Mr. Silberman, you don’t want to give President Trump any credit for his presidency. You are fixated on him to a point where you regularly engage in forum sliding the topic towards a man who is no longer in office, nor is the central focus of the discussion. Please try to do better.

                    6. Irregular+poster,

                      I said *potential* lawlessness. I did not claim that he had been convicted of a crime- yet. You should look up the definition of “potential.”

                      I don’t care if Trump fulfilled his promises. I resent his lying to achieve those ends. Good ends do not justify bad means.

                      I give Trump credit for giving our Republic a stress test and the legal guardrails held! No man’s life is worthless. In Trump’s case, he served as an shining example of how not to act as president.

                    7. “Good ends do not justify bad means.”

                      What are you talking about? Trump enforced the law and did what every other president promised to do to seal the southern border. What were the “bad means”? You are very confusing because you never finish what you are saying. Could it be due to an expressive aphasia caused by underlying emotional issues?

                    8. Wow, that was fast. Thank you. What lies did Trump make when he stopped the flow of illegal aliens?

                  2. Trump, while in office, was corrupt: for example, he tried to pressure Pence into acting unconstitutionally during the certification of the EC vote, and he obstructed justice in the SCO investigation.

                    Trump, while in office, failed to attempt to deliver on multiple campaign promises, including his promise to replace the ACA with something better (he never even proposed something better) and to reduce the US debt (it increased a huge amount).

                    1. Do you know what the word corruption means? Apparently not. We don’t generally see people engaging in corruption so that what they say can be placed in the newspapers. You are telling us that the best you can find is an ill-tempered statement. You are a hoot!

                      “failed to attempt to deliver on multiple campaign promises, including his promise to replace the ACA with something better”

                      Trump must be better than anyone else has ever thought. The worst promise he broke was the promise to get rid of the ACA. He tried his best, but one Republican decided to sabotage him. That is not breaking a promise. That is attempting to fulfill a promise and not succeeding.

                      I think you ought to bone up on your vocabulary. So far, you place Trump in a good light.

                    2. You’re obviously not a lawyer. He never came close to obstructing justice. I agree that he didn’t deliver (or even try very hard to deliver) on some of his campaign promises.

        1. No man could have withstood all that was thrown at Trump by the deep state, the establishment, the power centers, the media, the haters, the saboteurs, the leakers, the liars…..unless he had the Divine protection of the hand of God over him. Trump withstood it all with a strength few men could muster.

          1. Hitler used to say the same thing, Anonymous. BTW: there’s no “deep state”–just people in government who ratted on Trump when he tried to get them do illegal things. Being a malignant narcissist whose world-view is that everything revolves around him, he never understood that government agencies exist to serve the American people, not him. Media and “leakers” reported the truth about him, which him look bad, so they’re bad. Republicans have let Trump get away with outrageous things, like cheating his way into office, trying to leverage aid to Ukraine in exchange for ginning up fake allegations against Biden, and fomenting an insurrection to prevent the peaceful transfer of power because he refuses to accept the rejection of the majority of the American people. Republicans let him get away with these things because they fear losing power. and, sadly, because there are a substantial number of gullible people out there who are immune to the truth.

            Trump is a chronic, habitual liar, a cheater in business, a cheater in his marriages (3 so far), cheated to “win” in 2016, lied about a pandemic, causing unnecessary deaths and suffering, and his incompetence caused the worst recession since the Great Depression, resulting the businesses closing, school children falling behind and suffering from loneliness and depression because they were forced to stay home. He is a racist, misogynist, xenophobe and an anti-Semite. The insurrection he started caused the death of 5 people and millions of dollar of damage to the symbol of our democracy, all because of his ego and refusal to accept defeat. God is not in favor of any of these things. You think that hog you worship has “withstood” unfair attacks because the “hand of God” has protected him? You are seriously delusional. Plus, you forgot about the House investigation of the insurrection and all of the criminal investigations that are underway.

            1. Natacha said something about Ukraine being ‘leveraged’…indeed…and those Burisma bribes are paying off now that Joe Biden is in the White House, eh?

              “Hunter Biden was reportedly paid $83,333 per month after being hired in 2014 by Burisma Holdings, one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies, while serving as a non-executive “ceremonial gig.”

            2. Natacha, speaking of a president who cannot ‘withstand’ even a deferentially-asked fair question, let alone nonstop media ‘attacks’ that Trump endured….when is the last time Joe Biden stood in front of the press corp and answered questions? Biden can’t take a hit — not even a little bit. Beyond shameful.

              1. Joe Biden cannot take even a polite question from a sycophantic press corps without lashing out in anger. He believes he should not be questioned, nor should he have to answer for anything.

                Biden is a corrupt, lying, entitled, mean-spirited, angry prick. That is a fact.

            3. Natacha said: “The insurrection he started caused the death of 5 people…”

              False.

              One of those officers, Billy Evans, was killed months later, in April, when a black man, a follower of Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, rammed into him with his car.

              Another died of natural causes. Others were suicides.

              The only death that happened on that day, was the cold-blooded murder of Ashley Babbit.

          2. I was trolling Trumpists when I suggested that they believe Trump was sent by god. I honestly did not believe Trumpists would actually affirm that belief in public or private.
            I know Trumpists lie, but I had not realized how completely irrational some of you are. It’s shocking. Are you pulling my leg?

            For what it is worth, Turley does not believe Trump is holy. Indeed, he has called him a “carnival snake charmer.”

            1. I was trolling Trumpists when I suggested that they believe Trump was sent by god. I honestly did not believe Trumpists would actually affirm that belief in public or private.

              I haven’t followed your trolling, so this might have been covered.

              Being sent by God does not mean Trump is holy. It means our 45th president was divine providence.

              1. I stand corrected and relieved. Phew! You are one of the last Trumpists on this blog who I would have suspected in believing that the hand of god sent Trump. I know you believe in Natural Law, but Trump?

                You’re trolling me! You had me going there for a minute! Ha ha.

      1. gg says:

        “Nugent is well known as a knee-jerk philosemite. You’re very confused.”

        So is Turley who said it better than I could:

        “Putting aside that this rant has become barely intelligible, Nugent’s hateful views are breathtaking. While he has been a darling with some on the political right, this posting exposes him as a true lunatic.”

        https://jonathanturley.org/2016/02/10/ted-nugent-unleashes-rabidly-anti-semitic-rant-over-gun-control/

        You can read Nugent’s lunatic rants in Turley’s take down of this darling of the Right.

  13. eb, I strongly agree with your comment, though I hope that they haven’t quite won yet and that there’s still time to save the country.

    And since your comments seem to be regularly removed for no good reason that I can tell, I’ve archived a copy of the page with your comment: https://web.archive.org/web/20220117161623/https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/17/themyth-of-bipartisanship-kyrsten-sinema-becomes-the-latest-victim-of-rage-politics/
    Perhaps at some point I’ll write a column about Turley’s hypocrisy in having perfectly civil comments deleted while he complains about Twitter deleting comments. Both choices are legal, of course, but if he’s going to complain about Twitter deleting disinformation, the least he can do is allow civil comments that disagree with him.

    Turley feeds the rage he complains about via his cherrypicking of what to comment on and how he reports on it, then he complains about “the age of rage” as if he’s not part of the problem. It’s especially shameful because he’s a law professor who has an ethical obligation to teach his students how to consider all of the relevant information.

    A bigger problem, I think, is that a lot of people get their news via newsfeed alorithms that push links based on the person’s prior choices, leading people to become insulated from views that are different from their own and leading people’s views to more extreme as they’re fed more extreme links. Somehow society needs to deal with the harm these algorithms are doing.

  14. Anyone who tells the truth is now the “Enemy of the People.” Human nature doesn’t change. Ibsen wrote about universal conditions of the human nature–and all of our advancements haven’t changed that one iota.
    What to do, what to do.

    1. What to do? Ibsen would be greatly relieved that we can now give our wives’ children DNA tests to make sure they’re ours.

  15. Back to someone earlier who claimed “Repubs use the filibuster to block legislation that the majority of Americans support.” WTF are the numbers on voter ID? 80% Yes, 80% agree on voter ID. You couldn’t get an 80% consensus on the moon not being made of cheese these days. So the Dems want to end the filibuster to buck the will of 80% of the people.

    1. And so our president, who promised to unite the country, called 80% of Americans racists, in the ilk of Bull Connor and George Wallace. But according to Jen the Spin Psaki, he was talking about ideas, not people. As if ideas have ears.

  16. “So, senators voicing the same position recently held by Democrats such as Biden, Obama and Schumer are now ‘segregationists’?”

    Today? Yes.

    Tomorrow? Who knows.

  17. I was taught in the Army that if everyone is thinking the same….then someone is not thinking.

    Group think has never been “thinking”…..it is brain washing.

    The Filibuster protects the Minority and affords it a say in debate over issues….NO MATTER WHICH PARTY IT IS.

    The Democrats except for two very brave Senators who have taken a stand when it is very unpopular with their fellow Democrats and the President….media…and other Leftist hacks…..think the only time to invoke and use the Filibuster is when THEY are the Minority and when not….simple Mob rule suits them.

    That is not subject to dispute….it is patently clear based upon their words AND ACTIONS.

    That is why they shall reap the whirlwind in the upcoming election….the American People can read them like it is yesterday’s newspaper.

    Even Rasmussen has Biden at a whopping 33% approval rating….despite having garnered Eighty-One Million Votes just a a bit over a year ago.

    Recall….this is not about two Men…Biden and Trump….it is about far more….agendas, policies, and their vision for what is best for the American People.

    When the Democrats made all sorts of. promises to win the vote…..then have not just failed to produce but have caused massive damage to the the Country……that is going to backfire big time.

    Grandma used to tell me…..”Meaning to….don’t pick no Cotton young’un!”.

  18. One has to wonder how much of that rage is genuine and how much is demagogic political theater — I mean, they all seem to respond on cue, like a Greek chorus. It seems like the more the Democrats drop in the ratings (including Biden, Harris and the liberal media) the more hyperbolic they become, like a 2-year-old who keeps shouting louder the more you ignore him.

    A recent article in the NYTimes may hint at how the Democrats will respond to the coming Red Wave: with violence, but they’ll be sure to present it as a defensive violence against Republicans who “rigged” 2022 and 2024. See, it’s OK for Democrats to deny election validity and respond with violence in the name of democracy, just as it’s OK for them to burn minority businesses in the name of racial justice. We are not dealing with rational people, but I suspect the unhinged ones at the top are in the minority (given their low ratings) and that not all liberals are as disconnected from reality. There is hope if we ignore the demagogues.

    1. Pavlov’s dog began to salivate when it heard the whistle because it had been conditioned to expect a treat immediately after it heard the whistle. Democrats, and their aligned media and academicians, have conditioned their voters to salivate when they hear Republicans described as racists, fascists, and all the rest.

      The “reward” isn’t a doggie treat. It’s the psychological belief that they are morally superior. That’s what makes them salivate like Pavlov’s dog. Watch Bill Maher some time. He’ll say something to demean Republicans, and the entire audience goes manic with clapping.

      Once their minds have been poisoned and they’ve been trained to respond when their opponents are described in the most vile and hateful terms, how do you untrain them? How do you untrain a dog so it no longer salivates when it hears the whistle?

    2. Giocon1 says:

      “There is hope if we ignore the demagogues.”

      I’ll take your advice to ignore Trump after he is ignored by Trumpists.

Leave a Reply