XPost: alt.news-media
From: atropos@mac.com
On Feb 9, 2026 at 1:30:43 AM PST, "Ubiquitous" wrote:
> Two prominent Democrats - one in the House and one in the Senate -
> spoke out on Sunday against a move suggested by President Donald Trump
> even though both championed a similar move five years earlier when
> their party was in control.
>
> For those who don't spend their Sunday mornings glued to the television
> - and their Sunday afternoons attempting to dig through a week's worth
> of network and cable news media spin - The Daily Wire has compiled a
> short summary of what you may have missed.
>
> House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senator Adam Schiff
> (D-CA) both responded to President Trump's wild suggestion that
> Republicans should "nationalize" voting, saying that laws dictating
> election procedures, constitutionally speaking, belonged to the
> individual states.
>
> Trump sparked the debate with an apparently off-the-cuff comment during
> an interview with former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, when he said
> of the illegal aliens who'd flooded into the United States through
> former President Joe Biden's open border, "If we don't get them out,
> Republicans will never win another election."
>
> "The Republicans should say, `We want to take over.' We should take
> over the voting, in at least, many, 15 places," Trump added then. "The
> Republicans ought to nationalize the voting."
>
> The White House later explained that Trump had been referring to states
> where he believed election fraud was a real problem, and the president
> has not previously pushed the notion of "nationalizing" voting - but
> that did not stop Jeffries and Schiff from running with the idea as if
> he had.
>
> The House Minority Leader joined CNN anchor Dana Bash to discuss the
> situation on STATE OF THE UNION and she began by noting that
> Republicans had argued that passing the SAVE Act - which would require
> all voters in the United States to show proof of citizenship at the
> polls - was the best way to prevent voter fraud in any state.
And it's the norm worldwide. Of the countries that have elections, the U.S. is
in a very tiny minority of those not requiring ID to vote. The overwhelming
majority of democracies-- even those whose governments are actively trying to
replace the native populations with 3rd-world foreign nationals-- require an
ID to vote.
> "I understand that you don't support things like a passport, for
> example," Bash began. "But requiring basic ID in order to vote is
> really popular. A Pew poll from a few months ago showed 83% of
> Americans, including 71% of your fellow Democrats, support requiring an
> ID to vote. Why are they wrong?"
Yes, this is something Chuckie Schumer twists himself into knots trying to
explain how voter ID is "racist" and "Jim Crow 2.0", but the vast majority of
his own party supports it. And when asked if that means his own party is
racist, he sputters and blubbers and tries to change the subject.
> "I haven't said that they're wrong," Jeffries insisted before
> explaining why he was still opposed to the measure. "We know that
> states are the ones that are empowered to conduct elections, and every
> state should be allowed to decide the best way to proceed to ensure
> that there's a free and fair election."
That isn't what Democrats were saying during Biden's term. They were all for
nationalizing many aspects of elections. Apparently it's only racist and a
threat to democracy when Republicans do it.
> Schiff took a similar tone with "This Week" host Jonathan Karl, who
> asked the California Senator to explain what the president meant when
> he'd told Bongino he wanted to "nationalize" voting in certain places.
>
> "Senator, what does he mean? What do you think he means?" Karl asked.
>
> "I think he fully intends to subvert the elections," Schiff declared.
> "He will do everything he can to suppress the vote."
>
> Schiff, who still has not provided the evidence he claimed to have
> regarding President Trump and Russian collusion, went on to insist that
> Trump would take action if he did not like how the elections played
> out: "He's prepared to try to take some kind of action to overturn the
> result, and we really shouldn't question that."
>
> And yet both Jeffries and Schiff were all in when their own party
> pushed for national control over elections via 2021's H.R. 1 -
> laughably nicknamed the "For the People Act."
>
> The bill's purpose, according to the Democrats who wrote it, sounded
> reasonable enough: "To expand American's access to the ballot box,
> reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules
> for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for
> the purpose of fortifying our democracy and for other purposes."
>
> But as former Manger of Election Law Reform Initiative at The Heritage
> Foundation Hans Von Spakovsky explained, what the bill would actually
> have done was pretty much the exact opposite of what its stated
> "purpose" suggested.
>
> "A better description of it is that this bill would be a federal
> takeover and nationalization of the running and administration of
> elections, basically taking it away from the states," he said. "It
> would change election rules to make it easier to cheat and easier to
> manipulate election results. And on the ethics and campaign finance
> rule changes, it's designed to restrict and chill speech, political
> speech and political activity. So it's just . this is one of the worst
> bills I've ever seen in my years in Washington."
But the same Democrats who are throwing a tantrum over Trump now were all-in
with the "For the People Act".
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
