Texas Democrats who fled elections bill vote get COVID Fully vaxxed.

[jimbo13]

1. They chartered a private jet, not a commercial jet, so the federal mask mandate apparently doesn't apply. It is indeed relevant.

The virus doesn't know if the jet is private or commercial.

Either 15 people on a Jet going through an airport need masks or they don't.

 

[Lacius]

What a bullshit meaningless platitude, they are fighting voter ID which 70-95% of the public supports across polls.

Everyone has a right to believe the elections have integrity, not just your partisan camp.

There's a lot more in the bill than just voter ID.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/16/politics/texas-voting-restrictions-whats-in-the-bills/index.html

In fact, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but is voter ID even in the Texas bill? I haven't checked, and I think the state already has a voter ID law.

 

[jimbo13]

• Mail-in ballot restrictions. Identification requirements for mail-in ballots would include requiring the last four digits of a Social Security number or a driver's license number on all vote-by-mail applications and ballot return envelopes.
• 
  
• Drive-thru voting ban. Each polling place in Texas would be "located inside a building" and "No voter may cast a vote from inside a motor vehicle" unless they met specific requirements.
  
• 
  
• Early voting hours. Early voting would be prohibited at polling locations statewide "earlier than 6 a.m. or later than 9 p.m."
• Tracking software. Election officials in large counties would be required to monitor "all input and activity" on voting machines via tracking software.
  
• 
  
• Video recording and livestream protocol. Election officials in large counties would be required to set up video surveillance systems, with livestreams made available to certain counties.
• Assistance restrictions. Anyone who "simultaneously assists three or more voters" would be required to fill out a form detailing their relationship to the voters and whether they're being paid by a political campaign or committee.

All reasonable, expected and necessary.

 

[Lacius]

Theoretically possible if their flight was a "part 91" charter, but unlikely. Part 91 is non-commercial. Most of the private charter flights that can be hired like this are "part 135," and they are subject to the mandate.

https://privatejetcardcomparisons.c...xtends-to-private-jet-charters-and-terminals/


https://freebeacon.com/democrats/unmasked-texas-dems-defy-biden/

You could be right, but everything I'm reading, including the news article in the first post of the thread, says it was private, not public.

Regardless, see my earlier point about the need for mask mandates and public conveyance. This wasn't an example of public conveyance, whether or not they technically should have been wearing masks (and it looks like there was no mask requirement).

 

[smf]

'AP reports Democrats fleeing Texas to avoid voting on election integrity contracted Covid. Luckily they were fully Vaccinated, therefore the symptoms were negligable.'

Fixed it for ya.

I don't think anyone cares about their symptoms, it's the symptoms of the people they infect that is the problem.

And the vaccine only increases the chances of the symptoms being negligible. You can require hospitalization even if you have been double vaccinated and you can also die.

In the UK for example the majority of serious cases are people who have been vaccinated.

Of course the fake reaction of the republicans who claim to be appalled is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[titan_tim]

In the UK for example the majority of serious cases are people who have been vaccinated.

Do you have statistics on that one? I've never heard it before.

 

[Lacius]

• Mail-in ballot restrictions. Identification requirements for mail-in ballots would include requiring the last four digits of a Social Security number or a driver's license number on all vote-by-mail applications and ballot return envelopes.
• 
  
• Drive-thru voting ban. Each polling place in Texas would be "located inside a building" and "No voter may cast a vote from inside a motor vehicle" unless they met specific requirements.
  
• 
  
• Early voting hours. Early voting would be prohibited at polling locations statewide "earlier than 6 a.m. or later than 9 p.m."
• Tracking software. Election officials in large counties would be required to monitor "all input and activity" on voting machines via tracking software.
  
• 
  
• Video recording and livestream protocol. Election officials in large counties would be required to set up video surveillance systems, with livestreams made available to certain counties.
• Assistance restrictions. Anyone who "simultaneously assists three or more voters" would be required to fill out a form detailing their relationship to the voters and whether they're being paid by a political campaign or committee.

All reasonable, expected and necessary.

1. Many of these would do nothing to fight against alleged voter fraud.
2. There is no evidence that widespread voter fraud exists.
3. Many of these are not reasonable and create unnecessary burdens for no reason other than making voting more difficult, such as assistance restrictions.
4. You seem to have cherry-picked the restrictions that seem more palatable, but you excluded things like partisan poll watcher protection. I suppose that means you agree there are things in the bills that are not "reasonable, expected, and necessary."
5. Please concede my previous statement that this is not, as you incorrectly stated, merely an issue "about voter ID." Even though voter ID laws also make voting unnecessarily more cumbersome and affect different people from different political groups inconsistently, that is not what the Texas bills are about.

 

[titan_tim]

1. Many of these would.....

Thank you for listing this out. I really didn't want to waste my own energy on this person.

He doesn't seem to understand that since there is or has ever been evidence of widespread voter fraud, there are no reasons to make voting more difficult than it already is. It's all for the sake of supression.

So is gun ownership, we still check IDs and tell felons to fuck off

The difference being, voting doesn't kill anyone. Kind of important to keep that in context of what right is being infringed on.

Also, if you really want to get technical, it's only regulated militias which are supposed to have guns. So not quite as wide-spread as voting is meant to be. The founders didn't want EVERYONE to have a gun, but they wanted everyone to vote.

But hey, what do I care about gun control? I live in Japan, the most safe country in the world when it comes to gun deaths.

 

[jimbo13]

Of course the fake reaction of the republicans who claim to be appalled is absolutely ridiculous.

I am not appalled by them being maskless or traveling, I am appalled by the perpetual hypocrisy of Progressive Democrats like Pelosi, Lightfoot, Newsom, Whitmere and this bunch supporting nonsense mandates & guide lines and continually getting caught flaunting their impositions they institute on citizens.

1. You seem to have cherry-picked the redirections that seem more palatable, but you excluded things like partisan poll watcher protection. I suppose that means you agree there are things in the bills that are not "reasonable, expected, and necessary."

I cherry picked nothing, I pasted the entirety Senate bill 1 listed on the CNN article, paste it yourself instead of hiding from it if you don't like my formatting.

Surveillance streams and making "Vote assistants" fill out a form to disclose they are a paid ballot harvester is not an imposition if they are helping numerous people are basically working a shift in a polling station.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Also, if you really want to get technical, it's only regulated militias which are supposed to have guns. So not quite as wide-spread as voting is meant to be. The founders didn't want EVERYONE to have a gun, but they wanted everyone to vote.

Ballots are more dangerous than guns, if you don't qualify for a firearm you don't qualify for a ballot.

And "Well regulated militia" meant the public needs to be able to aim, read a history book and learn the vernacular of the time. This is why they don't teach you fucking dunces cursive anymore.

 

[smf]

I am appalled by the perpetual hypocrisy of Progressive Democrats like Pelosi, Lightfoot, Newsom, Whitmere and this bunch supporting nonsense mandates & guide lines and continually getting caught flaunting their impositions they institute on citizens.

"Look at them without a mask" and
"The hypocrisy of them not wearing a mask when they ask me to"

are two separate arguments. The first one will get cut through with democrats, the second will get cut through with republicans.

They always choose to pretend they are outraged for maximum effect.

I don't believe they actually broke any rules though.

 

[titan_tim]

And "Well regulated militia" meant the public needs to be able to aim, read a history book and learn the vernacular of the time. This is why they don't teach you fucking dunces cursive anymore.

LOL, for someone who had to google the definition of negligible, and STILL seems to have issues with the correct usage of "Your" vs. "You're" and "Their" vs. "They're", you're quite uppity

Also, no. That's just what the NRA is cramming down your throat to parrot to people like a good zombie. Now go eat some more glue in the corner

Also ballots are more dangerous than a gun?! LOL! Sure thing there goober If I had to guess, I'd say you were about 16-18 years old, and have to listen to your daddy just rant every night about the libs ruining the country. I pitty that life.

 

[Lacius]

I cherry picked nothing, I pasted the entirety Senate bill 1 listed on the CNN article, paste it yourself instead of hiding from it if you don't like my formatting.

No, you didn't:

What’s in Senate Bill 1?

• Partisan poll watcher protection. Partisan poll watchers would enjoy broad new protection and access in Texas. This includes being “entitled to sit or stand near enough to see and hear the activity.” Effectively, the bill makes it illegal to obstruct or create distance for poll watchers in any way while also giving poll watchers more legal recourse against election officials.
• Voting rights activists for months have sounded alarms about empowering partisan poll watchers and expanding voter challenges, arguing it could lead to voter intimidation.
• Mail-in ballot restrictions. Identification requirements for mail-in ballots would include requiring the last four digits of a Social Security number or a driver’s license number on all vote-by-mail applications and ballot return envelopes.
• Drive-thru voting ban. Each polling place in Texas would be “located inside a building” and “No voter may cast a vote from inside a motor vehicle” unless they met specific requirements.
• Early voting hours. Early voting would be prohibited at polling locations statewide “earlier than 6 a.m. or later than 9 p.m.”
• Tracking software. Election officials in large counties would be required to monitor “all input and activity” on voting machines via tracking software.
• Video recording and livestream protocol. Election officials in large counties would be required to set up video surveillance systems, with livestreams made available to certain counties.
• Assistance restrictions. Anyone who “simultaneously assists three or more voters” would be required to fill out a form detailing their relationship to the voters and whether they’re being paid by a political campaign or committee.

The partisan poll watcher protections are some of the most controversial things in the bill. Among other things, they would make it difficult for election officials to remove "observers" for bad behavior like voter intimidation.

Also, please concede my previous statement that this is not, as you incorrectly stated, merely an issue "about voter ID." I'm not going to allow this to be a conversation where you quickly change the subject each time you're proven wrong.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

The virus doesn't know if the jet is private or commercial.

My point was that the law cares.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I don't think anyone cares about their symptoms, it's the symptoms of the people they infect that is the problem.

And the vaccine only increases the chances of the symptoms being negligible. You can require hospitalization even if you have been double vaccinated and you can also die.

In the UK for example the majority of serious cases are people who have been vaccinated.

Of course the fake reaction of the republicans who claim to be appalled is absolutely ridiculous.

Vaccines do several things:

1. They reduce the odds of being infected with the disease.
2. They reduce the odds of spreading disease, even if you have a breakthrough infection.
3. They reduce the likelihood of severe symptoms in a breakthrough infection.
4. They reduce the likelihood of death in a breakthrough infection.

I can't find any data that "the majority of serious cases are people who have been vaccinated." Did you mean to say "unvaccinated"?

 

[Lacius]

The reality is Dems have waves, but Conservatism isn't going anywhere it's a simple matter of time and age.

Every political ideology has waves of higher support and lower support. That's one of the reasons why party control swings back and forth like a pendulum. However, nearly every Democratic policy position I can think of has majority support from the American public: Climate change, reproductive rights, healthcare, LGBT rights, income inequality issues, racial issues, taxation, Medicare, Social Security, foreign policy, war, etc. These issues and more all have majority support on the Democratic side, and it has been this way for decades. The United States is, despite popular belief, a progressive country. It's because of anti-democratic systems that it isn't more obvious in government.

As I said earlier, Republicans are so unpopular that all non-incumbent Republicans (and relevantly, one incumbent Republican loser in 2020 named Donald Trump) have lost the popular vote in every presidential election after 1988. In my entire life, I have literally never seen a non-incumbent Republican win the popular vote in a presidential election, and that should be unsettling for any American who believes in conservatism as a political ideology.

 

[smf]

I can't find any data that "the majority of serious cases are people who have been vaccinated." Did you mean to say "unvaccinated"?

No, but the tipping point hasn't been reached for cases yet, just deaths. I can't find data on serious cases by vaccinated/unvaccinated.

https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-half-covid-19-cases-had-vaccine-study-zoe-delta-2021-7?r=US&IR=T

https://theconversation.com/most-co...ated-heres-why-that-shouldnt-alarm-you-163671

and of course I'm talking UK, rather than US, but it was to prove the point that vaccination isn't a guarantee.

88% have had a first dose, while 68% have had a second dose. 47% of current cases have had at least one dose. We don't know if the other 12% have already had covid and are naturally immune, or whether they are living in a low covid area or are ultra cautious. Maybe the vaccinated are more reckless.

Looking at the graphs for hospital admissions it seems to cut by 1/10th if you look back to when cases were at similar levels, but we've just exited lockdown and they estimate our cases were already doubling every three weeks. So in three months we might have hospital admissions at a level where we previously went into lockdown, just in time for flu season.

 

[MikaDubbz]

AP reports Democrats fleeing Texas to avoid voting on election integrity contracted Covid despite being Vaccinated.

https://www.chron.com/politics/article/Virus-Outbreak-Runaway-Lawmakers-16321727.php


There are so many take aways from this, Karma is real and and how can other states encourage Democrats to leave.

Play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Are you shocked that fully vaccinated people can still get the virus? They already made it clear from the start that you can still get it after vaccination, but if you do, it will be milder and easier to recover from. In fact, in the US right now, nearly all Covid deaths occur in the unvaccinated: https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187

 

[SG854]

No, but the tipping point hasn't been reached for cases yet, just deaths. I can't find data on serious cases by vaccinated/unvaccinated.

https://www.businessinsider.com/uk-half-covid-19-cases-had-vaccine-study-zoe-delta-2021-7?r=US&IR=T

https://theconversation.com/most-co...ated-heres-why-that-shouldnt-alarm-you-163671

and of course I'm talking UK, rather than US, but it was to prove the point that vaccination isn't a guarantee.

Many of them are 1 dose vaccination

 

[jimbo13]

Also ballots are more dangerous than a gun?! LOL! Sure thing there goober

Looks like this immature brat doesn't understand the concept of "The Pen is mightier than the sword".

However, nearly every Democratic policy position I can think of has majority support from the American public: Climate change, reproductive rights, healthcare, LGBT rights, income inequality issues, racial issues, taxation, Medicare, Social Security, foreign policy, war, etc. These issues and more all have majority support on the Democratic side, and it has been this way for decades. The United States is, despite popular belief, a progressive country. It's because of anti-democratic systems that it isn't more obvious in government.

You are conflating people gravitating to platitudes with support for Democrat positions. Not the same thing.

Environmental concern is universally non partisan, that does not default as support for Democratic proposals like carbon taxes.

Abortion issues are 50/50 according to Gallup. There is no overwhelming support or consensus on issues such late term, tax payer funding state vs federal etc. The number of people identifying as "prolife" edges out "choice" out by a slight majority
https://news.gallup.com/poll/313094/americans-abortion-views-steady-past-year.aspx

Whose opposing healthcare reform? Democrats opted not to engage single payer when they had a majority in '08. When Trump eliminated Obama's "Mandate & fine" it was popular.

Republicans wanting to eliminate Social security & medicare is a lie.

Progressives have no recent record against a non interventionist foreign policy or being anti-war anymore. Clinton & Obama both engaged the U.S in new conflicts. Biden has supported every military campaign we have had since entering public life, his votes in the Senate have universally been in the affirmative and extended the Afghanistan withdrawal date past Trumps pull out. Trump was very aggressive pulling us out of Bush incs. wars, (that HRC & Biden voted for). Trump is the first President in my life time that did not engage the U.S in a new foreign conflict.

The two most prominent Doves in the Senate are Paul and Sanders, is Sanders a democrat this week? The Democrat party went out of their way to disenfranchise Tulsi Gabbard & Sanders who held classic anti-war foreign policy positions. Non interventionism is a classical conservative libertarian position, Both parties have plenty of doves & (to many) hawks.​

We do have many "anti-democratic systems" because population centers such as California were never intended to lord over people in Montana. We are not a collectivist society and our government was designed to ensure individual rights in the face of collectivists and to maintain local determination.

Identification of platitudes does not equate to support for democrat proposals on paper, there is no policy monopoly as you claim on these issues.

 

[titan_tim]

Looks like this immature brat doesn't understand the concept of "The Pen is mightier than the sword".

That idiom is talking about an independant press or administrative power, not a single vote to put people in power. Stop bastardizing the meaning, while trying to sound like a pseudo-intelectual. It's quite transparent.

Environmental concern is universally non partisan, that does not default as support for Democratic proposals like carbon taxes.

Abortion issues are 50/50 according to Gallup.

You're talking about support within the population. Which yes, I would HOPE most people would be for. But still, as you said, it comes down to what's on paper that counts, right? And the republican lead states have been quite happy to roll back or eliminate environmental protections, and create draconian anti-abortion bills to placate to the religious right.

Whose opposing healthcare reform? Democrats opted not to engage single payer when they had a majority in '08. When Trump eliminated Obama's "Mandate & fine" it was popular.

I'm not even American, and I know that Obama was attempting to work together with the Republicans even though he had the house and senate during his first year. And yet, McConnell said outright that he was going to stop ANYTHING that Obama tried to do. Pretty blatant. At least they got Obama Care through in the end.

Republicans wanting to eliminate Social security & medicare is a lie.

Pretty blatant strawman there. Nobody said they were trying to "eliminate" social security. They WERE/ARE very focused on making enormous cuts to it. Even The Hill, which is more right leaning was against the last aministration's plans:
https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-...-against-administrations-dangerous-assault-on

For Trump's war record, I don't really mind it. Him talking to Jung Un, while it was quite cringe-worthy ("We fell in love"), was a step in the right direction. He was absolutely weak when it came to Putin, but we all know why. It still didn't stop him from fueling the military budget, but hey, whatever. But I guess it would be bad if the military was to ever run out of bullets again...

Now you've touched on a couple highly popular positions which the progressives have supported for a long time, and only mentioned that the Republican public are also kind of in favor of those mentioned. There's also LBGTQ rights, and gun control, which the vast majority are also in favor of. And yet that's the hill that the Republican politicans are willing to die on.

 

[jimbo13]

He was absolutely weak when it came to Putin, but we all know why. It still didn't stop him from fueling the military budget, but hey, whatever. But I guess it would be bad if the military was to ever run out of bullets again...

There's also LBGTQ rights, and gun control, which the vast majority are also in favor of.

Nonsense, Trump implemented economic sanctions on Russia which Biden has already rolled back.

It's strawman-ish because Lacius, much like you are citing platitudes & concepts that have support, not policy.

"Gun control" & "Identity rights" are not policies, they are undefined platitudes.

I support Gun control, when defining it as trigger discipline & using both hands. Doesn't mean I support any of the nonsense bullshit that comes out of progressive mouths who you can tell has never touched a firearm the second they start speaking.

My children carry a rifle to and from school everyday with a bear load chambered, safety off. The staff wouldn't let them walk home without it and rightfully so, because Bear, Bison, Moose & elk attacks are all common here.

Are you trained on what to do when a grizzly charges? Can you tell the difference between a Bluff charge and a bear that intends to attack? My 12 year old can, she bluffed a grizz down last season without hurting it BTW as most people here can.

The vast majority of my community open or conceal carries and it is far safer than where anyone calling for gun control lives.

These people don't live or belong in my community and haven't the slightest clue what they are talking about. Progressives in overcrowded cesspools who can't behave themselves have no business making policy for Montana.

 

[Lacius]

Looks like this immature brat doesn't understand the concept of "The Pen is mightier than the sword".





You are conflating people gravitating to platitudes with support for Democrat positions. Not the same thing.

Environmental concern is universally non partisan, that does not default as support for Democratic proposals like carbon taxes.

Abortion issues are 50/50 according to Gallup. There is no overwhelming support or consensus on issues such late term, tax payer funding state vs federal etc. The number of people identifying as "prolife" edges out "choice" out by a slight majority
https://news.gallup.com/poll/313094/americans-abortion-views-steady-past-year.aspx

Whose opposing healthcare reform? Democrats opted not to engage single payer when they had a majority in '08. When Trump eliminated Obama's "Mandate & fine" it was popular.

Republicans wanting to eliminate Social security & medicare is a lie.

Progressives have no recent record against a non interventionist foreign policy or being anti-war anymore. Clinton & Obama both engaged the U.S in new conflicts. Biden has supported every military campaign we have had since entering public life, his votes in the Senate have universally been in the affirmative and extended the Afghanistan withdrawal date past Trumps pull out. Trump was very aggressive pulling us out of Bush incs. wars, (that HRC & Biden voted for). Trump is the first President in my life time that did not engage the U.S in a new foreign conflict.

The two most prominent Doves in the Senate are Paul and Sanders, is Sanders a democrat this week? The Democrat party went out of their way to disenfranchise Tulsi Gabbard & Sanders who held classic anti-war foreign policy positions. Non interventionism is a classical conservative libertarian position, Both parties have plenty of doves & (to many) hawks.​

We do have many "anti-democratic systems" because population centers such as California were never intended to lord over people in Montana. We are not a collectivist society and our government was designed to ensure individual rights in the face of collectivists and to maintain local determination.

Identification of platitudes does not equate to support for democrat proposals on paper, there is no policy monopoly as you claim on these issues.

The Republican Party is filled with climate change deniers, including the former president.

About 60% of Americans favor abortion being legal in this country.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...bortion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases/

Republicans have no solutions on healthcare. They largely want to repeal Obamacare, they tried and failed to repeal Obamacare, and they offer no alternative to Obamacare. Republican states were overwhelmingly suing to invalidate Obamacare as recently as this year and last, during a pandemic. Republicans also oppose all meaningful changes to healthcare, including but not limited to single payer and/or a public option.

Republicans consistently try to effectively dismantle social programs like Social Security and Medicare. George W. Bush tried and failed to privatize Social Security, and the Republicans attempted to dismantle Medicare as we know it back during Obama's presidency. It was in the party platform. They've moved on to the strategy of chipping these programs away piece by piece through incremental cuts so nobody notices, since what they're doing is unpopular. It's verifiable fact that Republicans broadly want to at least make cuts to these programs.

I agree that there are military hawks on both sides, but the only anti-war voices I've heard are from the political left. Trump didn't actually pull is out of conflicts, he escalated pre-existing conflicts, and he was responsible for an increase in negligent behavior that results in more civilian deaths. You don't have to go back very far (the George W. Bush administration) to some of the worst foreign policy that ever existed, and despite some foolish initial votes, Democrats were consistently against the Republican war doctrine when it became clear that the wars were misguided, based on lies, and without an exit strategy. When you look at who voted against military authorization, you will see those votes come from the left. When you look at who ends wars and conflicts, you will see those presidents are Democratic. Those presidents include Obama and Biden.

Even if you were to remove anti-democratic systems like the electoral college, an unrepresentative Senate, etc., California would not "rule over Montana." That's not how a democratic system works. Over 6 million Californians voted for Trump in the 2020 election, and their votes would count in a democratic election too.