- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Senate is set to vote on the SAVE Act; Thune is setting it up for failure
Posted on 3/14/26 at 7:51 pm to JiminyCricket
Posted on 3/14/26 at 7:51 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
, Republican principles put an emphasis on limiting federal overreach that extends beyond the powers legitimately granted to the them via the constitution
You realize that federal powers are near infinite, right?
1
Posted on 3/14/26 at 7:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You realize that federal powers are near infinite, right?
That’s great but it doesn’t address my question.
quote:
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Tell me why it would be unconstitutional for the Congress to make a law to alter regulations.
This post was edited on 3/14/26 at 7:55 pm
Posted on 3/14/26 at 7:55 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
Tell me why it would be unconstitutional for the Congress to make a law to alter regulations.
Who said anything about unconstitutionality?
You're trying to change the discussion actually being had by focusing on a non sequitur
Posted on 3/14/26 at 7:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're trying to change the discussion actually being had by focusing on a non sequitur
How? You made a claim that Republican principles say we must limit federal overreach. I responded that I agreed in cases of overreach but not on issues that are clearly constitutional in nature. You tried to change the discussion by going down a rabbit hole of infinite federal powers and I brought the conversation back to its origin. If the feds have constitutional grounds to make laws, that’s that.
This post was edited on 3/14/26 at 7:58 pm
Posted on 3/14/26 at 7:58 pm to Major Dutch Schaefer
You demanded the vote now you got your vote. With the stupid war this failure will be immediately memory-holed as well.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
or have Trump act as a dealmaker to craft legislation that can pass (Something he's been very weak on his 5+ years as President)
Can’t do anything about RINO being RINO. This is happening because it’s Trump, not because of anything he did or didn’t do. Trump was voted in to do exactly what he ran on. It’s the RINO votes that don’t want what the people want.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:13 pm to JiminyCricket
quote:
How?
Nowhere were any of my comments focused on, directed towards, or related to, constitutionality.
That's a framing you've tried to insert, for some reason, despite me giving you 3+ opportunities to walk it back and get back on subject.
quote:
You made a claim that Republican principles say we must limit federal overreach.
Yes, which isn't focused on, directed towards, or related to constitutionality.
quote:
I responded that I agreed in cases of overreach but not on issues that are clearly constitutional in nature.
And I pointed out that federal power is near infinite, which means you don't support states rights, if that's your standard.
quote:
You tried to change the discussion
No. Look in the mirror.
I tried to bring the conversation back on topic and get off your "constitutional" digression attempt.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
SFP - you didn't answer my question earlier in the thread so I looked quickly at what's in the SAVE Act. What exactly are you calling MAGA silliness in the bill?
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:28 pm to David_DJS
quote:
What exactly are you calling MAGA silliness in the bill?
The reference to MAGA silliness wasn't about what words are in the legislation and more the circus of MAGA that marginalizes discussions from the outset.
With this bill, that silliness started in November 2020 with "The Steal" and all the silliness that came about from it. Basically marginalized the entire discussion from the outset.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:32 pm to LuckyTiger
quote:
How is he setting it up for failure?
By playing politics and protecting the no votes. I want them exposed if we’re to still fall under a talking filibuster. He’s a shitty majority leader. This is an easy legislation to pass but he is getting paid to squash it.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:33 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The reference to MAGA silliness wasn't about what words are in the legislation and more the circus of MAGA that marginalizes discussions from the outset.
With this bill, that silliness started in November 2020 with "The Steal" and all the silliness that came about from it. Basically marginalized the entire discussion from the outset.
Okay, so you support the SAVE Act, you're just critical of there being too many that argue 2020 was stolen, and I presume also too many that think 2016 and 2000 were stolen, as well?
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:37 pm to David_DJS
quote:
Okay, so you support the SAVE Act,
I don't support it for other reasons
In terms of principles, the violation of states rights
In terms of practicality, this gives the Left more power long-term. A lot more power. You don't want to hand them this precedent. What the left can do with this precedent is a lot scarier than what the right can gain (temporarily)
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
If you’re not scared of the left…what about the act do you object to?
This post was edited on 3/14/26 at 8:39 pm
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Nowhere were any of my comments focused on, directed towards, or related to, constitutionality.
Allow me to steel man your argument then. Your claim is that republican principles dictate advocation for limiting of federal powers whether those powers have constitutionally legitimate grounds or not?
quote:
Yes, which isn't focused on, directed towards, or related to constitutionality.
For the record, your claim is that Republican principles of limited federal powers supersede Republican ideals of supporting constitutionally legitimate roles of federal government?
quote:
And I pointed out that federal power is near infinite, which means you don't support states rights, if that's your standard.
Please explain how federal power is infinite in a constitutional republic? Are you saying that supporting federal government operating within its constitutional purview means one must simultaneously back seat states rights?
quote:
No. Look in the mirror. I tried to bring the conversation back on topic and get off your "constitutional" digression attempt.
I keep bringing up the constitutional point because it undermines your original assertion that Republican support for a bill regulating federal elections is antithetical to Republican values of limited federal government. Republican values typically adhere to constitutionality, not limited government for limits sake.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The "MAGA silliness" here started after the 2020 election,
Hey, everybody. We have a true believer in Sleepy Joe getting 81 Mega-trillion Legitimate votes.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
You honestly believe the Left cares about precedent? Did Harry Reid? How about Barack Obama with his Elections have Consequences statement?
I give the Dems credit for one thing, They dont hesitate to use power when they have it. They will not when they get it back. If the filibuster gets in their way they'll get rid of it so fast you won't know what hit you.
As they pack the Supreme Court reopen the border add DC and Puerto Rico as states and ensure their majorities for a very long time,
I give the Dems credit for one thing, They dont hesitate to use power when they have it. They will not when they get it back. If the filibuster gets in their way they'll get rid of it so fast you won't know what hit you.
As they pack the Supreme Court reopen the border add DC and Puerto Rico as states and ensure their majorities for a very long time,
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:46 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
If you’re not scared of the left…what about the act do you object to?
Election regulation should remain in the domain of the states
quote:
If you’re not scared of the left
This is impossible to separate from states rights. Baked into that is a fear of leftism, because their worldview/policymaking is much more efficient and effective with a more powerful fedgov and states' rights eroded. The precedent of this SAVE Act presents all sorts of examples of that.
Imagine mandatory mail in voting nationally.
Mandatory election day voter registration.
Banning voter ID.
etc.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Just own it for once.
You should take your own advice.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:48 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Imagine mandatory mail in voting nationally. Mandatory election day voter registration. Banning voter ID.
Supreme Court will settle that. Boesberg can only rule on so many cases.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 8:54 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Supreme Court will settle that.
Those would be based on the same authority as the SAVE Act.
If the feds can impose voter ID on states, they can make it illegal for states to require it.
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News