GOP Senate majority leader John Thune is Deep State TRASH

Bcz the save act does not allow a drivers license or student id's to be used as an acceptable form of ID. You need to also bring along passports or naturalization certificates. Passports are expensive and are done through the feds so what's to prevent a republican government to not issue passports before an election to what they deem democratic voters.

Democrats agreed on basic voter ID law but save act goes beyond and Republicans are grandstanding knowing it won't pass

Doesn't have anything to do with minorities or women but more so not trusting the federal government with state elections

 

Stfu your cult leader is literally peddling billion dollar crypto scams stealing billions from every day Americans and you wanna gas light me about illegals?

You dumbasses worship the most corrupt admin in American history

 

Yes, exactly what I said it true.

Yes, and I agree with Thune. Not only do I agree with him, I want to just formalize a 60-vote requirement on all legislation (no exceptions), so no one has to declare a filibuster, it just requires 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate.

There is no need for recess appointments either. We need to get rid of everything that bypasses checks and balances.

The deep state is the opposite of what Thune is doing. The deep state is administrative agencies creating rules, it is bypassing procedures to circumvent elected representatives, it is using executive orders to do what you cannot do through legislation.

I don't believe those are his goals at all. I think he believes that these Senate traditions are important and that he is more concerned with what happens if they are eliminated than he is with any particular bill passing or failing.

I would oppose it then as well, just like I did when they tried it last time and Manchin and Sinema stopped them. You are in favor of eliminating the filibuster though, so why would the Democrats eliminating it concern you? Is it that you want Republicans to use powers you would deny to Democrats? Do you not realize that there will never be a permanent majority, and whatever expansion of majority power happens will be the same or worse when the other party takes control. Harry Reid thought it would be a good idea to eliminate the filibuster for confirmation votes so Obama could get his judges appointed. Then the Democrats lost control and Mitch McConnel confirmed three Supreme Court Justices without requiring a single Democrat to vote for them. Not one of the three got 60 votes. How happy do you think the Democrats are that they blew up the filibuster for confirmation votes?

You might want to let them know that, because their messaging has had nothing to do with state's rights and everything to do with disenfranchising women and minorities. It would also mark the first time the Democrats are opposed to shift power away from the states and toward the federal government.

 

Rhetoric, voting record, allies, opponents. I have no reason to believe he is in favor of the things I mentioned being the deep state. I am reasonably sure you think the deep state is whatever is good for Democrats from moment to moment, which isn't what it means.

By law, the filibuster doesn't exist. It is never mentioned once in the Constitution. There is no legislation enacting it. It is a byproduct of there being unlimited debate. There are no formal requirements. Senate rules have been enacted to limit the power of the filibuster, most notably cloture. The Senate enacted a rule that a 60-vote majority could limit debate to a set period (originally 1 hour per Senator (though there was a loophole that was exploited), then 100 hours in total (which closed the loophole), and then 30 hours in total. So no, there is no filibuster law that says or has ever said that going to the lectern and speaking is required, nor is the silent filibuster unconstitutional.

See above re: the silent filibuster's unconstitutionality.

I'm pretty sure everyone would like government to do good things and not do bad things. That is a meaningless statement.

Ideally we would eliminate the welfare state and any and all handouts, then have open borders. Since that is not the law, no, I don't support ignoring the law.

Are you saying that is not their messaging?

 

Just so you know. A few years ago I got my “real ID” drivers license. I had to go to the county office and pay to get a certified copy of my birth certificate. I had a birth certificate they gave my parents at the hospital when I was born, but that is not an official birth certificate. Long story short, I had to pay the county office money to get documents for my “real ID”.

The save act won’t even let me use my real ID to prove citizenship. Now, I do now have in my possession an official birth certificate which I suppose would suffice. But, I can see where a lot of people will have to go spend money to get the official documents needed to prove citizenship. Not everyone has extra money to get these documents. The save act in some ways becomes a poll tax. Something that will impact low income Americans more than the wealthy.

I am not against people having to prove citizenship to vote. But, the government needs to make it easy and free for people to get the required documentation to prove citizenship.