Unclear if key system has been set up

"I don't even have a declaration from the Postal Service: 'This is how it will work.' I don't have it. I have nothing," Talwani said, adding later that it felt like the government was running an "experiment" to see if the system would work in the upcoming election.

"As you sit here today, you can't tell me the government has a program ready to go?" Talwani asked.

Velchik repeated that the Postal Service would "fully implement the rule" that it published last month, triggering the latest round of litigation. He argued the main issue is whether Talwani has the legal power to stop it.

"The $64,000 question is, is this authorized by the statute?" Velchik said.

Talwani is considering whether to extend her temporary order barring the Postal Service from requiring use of the system through Sept. 10. The first state to send out all its mail ballots, North Carolina, is scheduled to begin shipping them out Friday, with other states quickly following.

Talwani has been here before. In June, she prohibited the administration from implementing Trump's executive order for the November election, ruling the changes came too close to voting for the federal government to embark on such a project.

But the Supreme Court late last month ruled that Talwani's order was premature because the Postal Service had not yet published regulations governing how it would apply Trump's order. The agency did so just before the high court ruling came down, prompting Democrats and voting rights groups to swiftly re-file their lawsuits.

They counter that the president has no authority to set election rules, which is a power designated by the Constitution to the states and, in some cases, to Congress.

Tangled legal fight goes up to election deadlines

They won an initial victory with Talwani's 14-day restraining order. In a sign of the pressures on the administration, its lawyers already appealed that order to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, but they added the Supreme Court appeal Thursday and urged the top justices to act quickly.

Illustrating the challenge, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the high court justice designated to deal with appeals from the region, set a Sept. 8 deadline for the plaintiffs to file their arguments, likely pushing any decision into the middle of next week at the earliest.

Trump has long opposed mail voting and falsely blamed it for his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, even though he often uses that method to cast his own ballot.

Election officials say there's simply no way they can comply with the Postal Service directives, which could require a complete overhaul of their operations. Before it delivers mail ballots for any state, the Postal Service would have to approve the design of the envelopes that contain them and have the state upload a list of voters receiving them to an online portal.

Some ballots have already gone out. A few municipalities in Wisconsin opted to send mail ballots to voters earlier this week, but Friday marks the full kickoff of voting as North Carolina starts shipping its mail ballots to all voters who requested them.

The administration has contended the changes are relatively minor and legal.

"While the States have primary authority to regulate the manner of elections, they cannot choose to use the federal mails to carry out their elections but then insist that their election-related mail is somehow exempt from the Postal Service's rulemaking authority, conferred by Congress, to regulate envelope design and addressee information," Trump's solicitor general, John Sauer, wrote in the appeal.

No red states have said they'll use system

Still, the hearing before Talwani focused more on practicalities — especially that the portal was still not active, while most election offices have already printed their envelopes and ballots.

Velchik told the judge that the federal government is offering states the choice to opt into the system, but the Postal Service has yet to identify a single state that has done so. None of the 12 states that intervened in the lawsuit to argue the Trump administration has the right to require the program have announced that they have voluntarily opted into it.

Talwani scolded Missouri Solicitor General Lou Capozzi for arguing on behalf of the project.

"You want the voters in your states to be disenfranchised," Talwani said. "I don't understand the interest."

Capozzi said that was misinformation: "There is no risk that people would be disenfranchised."

A whistleblower report made public this week warns that the postal system's requirements could lead to millions of mail ballots never being sent. The new rule requires all ballots to be physically brought to post offices before being mailed to voters. But if a single one's bar code registers an error, the whole batch gets thrown out, even if it contains tens of thousands of legitimate ballots.

Riccardi reported from Denver.

Now we learn that Musk meddled in the 2024 election, odds are trump is going to do the same thing. Watch as all swing state races magically go to republicans right outside the margin of recounts.
All the voter suppression is just because he can.

It is so cute watching John Roberts pretending to be annoyed by Trump every so often.
You created a mnonster and let him run loose, moron. WTF did you think was gonna happen?
Clarence Thomas is the only honest justice on the Court. He just wants a nice RV to take his family camping, and a little cash on the side. Everyone else on the Court is fucked up.

>>1533926
What about the liberals on the court?

>>1533925
That's what I'm worried about the most.
Like, Trump rigs the election in a really, really obvious way. Then what? There's nobody that can hold them accountable.

>>1533925
What was the last election without billionaires meddling in the results?

So is this going to be like any other Trump thing that it falls apart and fails, or is his conspiracy to mess up voting actually cause massive problems in blue and purple States?

>>1533931
>Trump rigs the election
>By making it more secure
I don't get it.

>>1533959
If you throw out every vote but one, it'd be secure as fuck, but that wouldn't exactly be democratic now would it?

>>1533959
>Making the election more secure by preventing people from being able to vote in it

>>1533960
Who is throwing out every vote but one? What are you talking about?

>>1533962
>Who is throwing out every vote but one? What are you talking about?
I'm just pointing out the flaw in your argument. More secure doesn't mean there isn't an impact on fairness.

Do you deny a one vote election would be more secure than our current system?

Also, they are in fact trying to cull votes.

>>1533965
No one is talking about one vote elections. What is being talked about is common sense controls on a system that otherwise has no controls.
>Also, they are in fact trying to cull votes.
Who? How?

>>1533967
>No one is talking about one vote elections, and I'm not smart enough to understand how you can extrapolate information from hypothetical examples.
NTA, but yeah, to be fair 1533965, you are talking to a complete imbecile, you should have expected that to go over their head.
>that otherwise has no controls.
Cool, now watch how you just btfo your own argument.
So if there's no other controls, how did they detect fraud necessitating the controls?
>There are other controls. I'm a disingenuous piece of shit, I'm actively lying here.

>>1533967
>No one is talking about one vote elections
You just ignored everything I said huh?

Do you deny a one vote election would be more secure than our current system?

>Who? How?
The Trump administration. By preventing as many mail in votes as possible.

>>1533974
>So if there's no other controls, how did they detect fraud necessitating the controls
That is literally my argument.
>There are controls!
Oh yeah a pinky swear that the person submitting the ballot is who they say they are and suuuper sketchy signature verification and voter registration protocols.

Like, this should be non-partisan.

>>1533975
>Do you deny a one vote election would be more secure than our current system?
Argumentum absurdum.
>By preventing as many mail in votes as possible.
How?

>>1533982
First of all, it's argumentum ad absurdum. Second of all, that's a method of argument, not a fucking fallacy, you fucking idiot. Yes, I am making an argumentum ad absurdum. Answer the fucking question, you fucking buffoon.

>>1533991
>argumentum ad absurdum
Omg who cares.
>Second of all, that's a method of argument, not a fucking fallacy, you fucking idiot.
Who said it's a fallacy? It's irrelevant because no one is talking about reducing the numbers of votes.
>But one vote would be more secure!
Depends on the security procedures.

>>1533996
>Who said it's a fallacy?
So why did you bring it up and then not respond beyond that?

>Depends on the security procedures.
So you're claiming the difficulty of implementing security procedures is not number of votes dependent?

So you're an idiot?

>It's irrelevant because no one is talking about reducing the numbers of votes.
>Under Trump's executive order, the U.S. Postal Service could refuse to deliver ballots
Also, you appear to be illiterate.

>>1534044
>So you're claiming the difficulty of implementing security procedures is not number of votes dependent
No.

I'm saying your argument is retarded. One vote with no security can be less secure than a billion votes with extreme security.

>>Under Trump's executive order, the U.S. Postal Service could refuse to deliver ballots
That's not a reduction in voters. That's a reduction in ballots.

>>1533883
It's funny how Republicans are clearly so aware of their unpopularity that they know that the only thing they can do to get elected is to ensure that as many 'wrong people' lose their voting rights as possible.

>>1534082
God forbid we conduct our elections with the same security protocols as the rest of the world.

>>1534086
you're literally not american

>>1534097
HUGE if true. Source?

>>1534101
your defensiveness

>>1534097
Its funny that esl shill doesn't realize they out themselves as non-american all the time

>>1534081
>That's not a reduction in voters. That's a reduction in ballots.
God damn, you people are stupid.

>>1534086
Like?

>>1533981
>Oh yeah a pinky swear that the person submitting the ballot is who they say they are and suuuper sketchy signature verification and voter registration protocols.
They wouldnt be getting a ballot unless they registered, and they wouldnt be able to register unless they were eligible to vote. Its worked that way for decades. Why is it suddenly a problem when the GOP is about to get landslided?

>>1533883
One election without this nonsense would be amazing.
CA needs this to heal from mass voter fruad.

>>1533965
Nobody in America should be voting except white Americans of European stock. Everyone else is either here as an invader or as hired help, they should have no say in the way our elections are conducted.

>>1533965
Sloppery slap?
Fake and gay-quivalence?
You look eactly like a gay fucking retard right now. Don't you feel bad?

>>1534191
you're literally not white or american

>>1534191
Glad someone finally said it

>>1534195
Even if I believed that you were white, liggerals count as honorary brownoids. You are a turdskin

it's pretty pathetic how often esl shill talks to himself

>>1534201
All liggerals on the Internet are faggots or stupid women.
he only thing bolstering liggerals into power are billionaires via their media orgs tricking idiots who aren' paying attention into voting against their inerests because it's advertised are more moral.
Dspicable creatures. They're even less human than browns.

>>1534086
Hahahaha. HAHAHAHAHA.
I'm Australian you retard. Our electoral system, which I have directly worked in for years, is quite possibly the best in the world. It's secure, efficient, and extremely accessible because the mandatory vote means that the government literally cannot deny people access to the ballot for any reason. They'll even set up polling booths in fucking Antarctic research stations.
No voter ID fuckery, no gerrymandering, nada. We put election day on the weekend, offer mail-in ballots, and utilise early voting for two weeks ahead of time. Our ballots are ranked-choice so you can put your rando small-time parties at number one and shake it down to other parties if they get eliminated, so there's no such thing as a 'wasted vote' unless you deliberately 'spoil' it, in which case that's on you for being a fuckwit but there's no legal consequences.
Looking at the American electoral system makes me break into fucking hives. What do you MEAN you put elected officials in charge of electoral maps?

>>1534282
Man, that sounds great.

>>1534282
>Looking at liggeral propaganda...
Call me when you have bordering nations and some form of power in the world.

>>1534282
>mandatory vote
>ranked-choice
Cringe
>Australian
That explains it

>>1534282
You couldn't pay me to live in irrelevant Australia.

>>1534294
What's wrong with ranked choice? It's pretty much the only way third parties can actually become relevant.

>>1534304
>What's wrong with ranked choice?
look at electoral politics in Alaska and see for yourself.
>It's pretty much the only way third parties can actually become relevant.
Third parties will never be a thing in America.

>>1534304
esl shill probably thinks there's not enough child raping in it or something
mandatory, ranked choice voting fixes all the problems MIGA pretends they care about, but it'll make the GOP irrelevant so they'll never agree to it.

>>1534306
>mandatory, ranked choice voting
fixes zero problems and is anti-freedom, frankly its un-American.

>>1534305
>look at electoral politics in Alaska and see for yourself.
So nothing then?

>>1534308
>frankly its un-American.
Yeah. That's the point. If you haven't noticed, American politics is completely fucked and has been for decades.

How many centuries of complete gridlock do you need before you realize that maybe incentivizing extremist candidates that have zero motivation to reach across the aisle is bad actually?

>>1534309
>So nothing then?
Instead of the glib ignorant reply, maybe you should do some research and find out what is happening in Alaska.

>>1534306
Mandatory is dumb and would just lead to even more low info voters shitting shit up.

Ranked choice is (IMHO) the best way to unfuck our current system, but it's not the only option. Approval voting or ranked pairs would also work.

>>1534313
>American politics is completely fucked
Not really, no.
>How many centuries of complete gridlock
Gridlock is a feature, not a bug.

>>1534317
>Ranked choice is (IMHO) the best way to unfuck our current system
First, ranked choice is fundamentally immoral. Second, it doesn't actually achieve anything.

>>1534316
>maybe you should do some research and find out what is happening in Alaska.
I know what's happening in Alaska. Centrist candidates win instead of extremists.

>>1534318
>Gridlock is a feature, not a bug.
Motherfucker the current filibuster system was put in place in fucking 1972 and the current era of anti-bipartisanship started with the Gang of 14 Agreement in 2005 which was itself triggered by the extreme weakness of the Dem party due to the rally around the flag effect of 9/11 followed up with Citizen's United in 2007 (and made worse by Rucho in 2019). None of this bullshit is a feature. It's all new problems compounding on each other within the lifetime of my fucking parents. Fuck you, you ignorant cockwasher.

Also, when people say "gridlock is a feature, not a bug" and know what the fuck they're talking about, it's referring to us having 2 fucking houses that might end up controlled by different parties, not the shitshow our elections and Senate have turned into.

God, people that think the world has never and will never changed are the fucking worst. Read a fucking book.

>>1534319
>First, ranked choice is fundamentally immoral
Ranked choice fulfills both the later-no-help and later-no-harm criteria for election systems, making it so a person can't vote against their own interest while simultaneously completely disincentivizing strategic voting. It is one of if not the most moral voting systems.

>Second, it doesn't actually achieve anything.
If it didn't, you wouldn't be against it.

>>1534324
>I know what's happening in Alaska
Whats happening is Democrats found a guy with the same name as the Republican candidate, and then they had their second candidate drop out so its one Democrat v three Republicans.
>muh centrist candidates
You mean, a candidate who is less representative of a deep-red state?

>Motherfucker the current filibuster system was put in place in fucking 1972
the filibuster has existed for 180 years.
>current era of anti-bipartisanship started with the Gang of 14 Agreement in 2005
Also 1850s to 1877, and then 1890 through 1920 and then 1938-37 and then 1946-1955 and then 1960-70's (late) and then from 1990 to present. Yes, aside from roughly 120 years of an extremely partisan Senate, the Senate has been quite bipartisan.

>when people say "gridlock is a feature, not a bug" and know what the fuck they're talking about, it's referring to us having 2 fucking houses that might end up controlled by different parties, not the shitshow our elections and Senate have turned into.
No, it means those people have read what Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers.

>Fuck you, you ignorant cockwasher.
Ooof. Considering the above, that statement didnt age well.

>>1533951
Magically people stop crying when trump 'wins'

Actually I would encourage ranked choice as it would completely fracture the Dems while keeping the Republican party rock solid.

>>1534328
see, MIGA are retarded enough to trick into unfucking elections!

>>1534289
>>1534294
>>1534295
>"We should run our elections like other countries!"
>other country chimes in on how they run their elections
>"WEAK LIGGERAL PROPAGANDA CRINGE IRRELEVANT FUCK YOU REEEEE-"
That's our MAGA. It's almost like they don't actually believe in anything.

>>1534318
>American politics isn't complete fucked.
>It's SUPPOSED to be gridlocked and non-functional, so it's fine.

>>1534324
Rare to get a smart anon around here. It's appreciated.

>>1534334
>>It's SUPPOSED to be gridlocked and non-functional, so it's fine.
Yes.

>"We should run our elections like other countries!"
>other country chimes in on how they run their elections
>"WEAK LIGGERAL PROPAGANDA CRINGE IRRELEVANT FUCK YOU REEEEE-"
Because the idea is that we should have the same basic security protocols other countries have, not the same retarded system of governance.

>>1534332
>unfucking elections!
Alaska has ranked choice voting. Their elections are currently fucked.

>>1534335
>Yes.
Incredible.

>>1534338
>Incredible.
Yes. Federalist papers No's 63, 10, 62 and 51 by James Madison. Read them.

>>1534339
You are making the argument that the government being non-functional isn't fucked up. I ain't reading shit on your recommendation. You can feel free to strut around like someone not putting in the work for your argument for you somehow proves you right, though.

>>1534341
>You are making the argument that the government being non-functional isn't fucked up.
I'm not making that argument, James Madison is.
>I ain't reading shit on your recommendation.
Ignorance is a choice, and I supposed blissful too.

>>1534328
If that's the case, why are Republicans hell bent on banning it?

>>1534328
>Leftist voters fragment and put their own weird little parties as number one on the ballot
>Democrat party proper is somewhere on there
>Weird little parties inevitably fail to garner enough votes
>Choice priority ensures that votes that otherwise would have been wasted on socialists or something still filter through to the Dems

>>1534328
>completely fracture the Dems while keeping the Republican party rock solid.
You say this like the Republican party isn't gonna fracture like the Mongol Empire the moment Trump croaks.

>>1534341
>You are making the argument that the government being non-functional isn't fucked up
In the American system, its not fucked up. Our system is designed in such a way that the States are supposed to do 90% of the governing.
>You can feel free to strut around like someone not putting in the work for your argument
>I ain't reading shit
A rhetorical self-inflicted gunshot wound.

>>1534326
>Whats happening is Democrats found a guy with the same name as the Republican candidate, and then they had their second candidate drop out so its one Democrat v three Republicans.
None of which matters because with ranked choice the final round will be one Dem vs one Republican. Also no evidence the guy is a Dem plant and even if he were they could have done the same shit with a primary. Has nothing to do with ranked choice.

>You mean, a candidate who is less representative of a deep-red state?
A lot of Republicans doesn't mean a lot of far right Republicans.

>the filibuster has existed for 180 years.
Stopped reading here since apparently you're illiterate and weren't even responding to what I actually fucking wrote, but some nonsense you thought I wrote.

CURRENT filibuster system, dipshit. How filibusters have worked has changed over the years, for the worse.

As I said, read a fucking book.

>>1534355
I wonder
https://abcnews.com/Politics/doj-launches-investigation-alaska-candidate-same-sitting-senator/story?id=134442958

>>1534439
https://apnews.com/general-news-e8b70ce3270bd170e37a71ca80b5aaae
Are you posting this because you're butthurt that Democrats stole from the Republican playbook?

>>1534447
its typical MIGA chuddery, they think they're clever figuring out legal loopholes to fuck over America then cry when someone else uses the exact same loophole
its doubly funny that despite all the tantruming there's never any talk of actually amending the law to fix the loopholes, because chuds want to keep using them

this isn't a problem with voting by mail either, further cementing it as the best voting method

>>1534326
>No, it means those people have read what Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers.
Madison wrote that party politics are bad actually.

You're arguing against ranked choice voting.

Fucking step on a rake.

We need more mechanisms that allow our politicians to stop these obstructionist, ideologically driven, activist judges. It's common sense. Liggers would feel the same way about conservative judges as well, they're already bitching about the Supreme Court justices, despite it being clear the SC has betrayed Trump and sided with the ligs

>>1534447
I thought both sides was whataboutism

>>1534454
>whataboutism
its already been litigated
why are republicans complaining about it now?

>>1534454
Turnabout is fair play, bitch

>>1534450
>Madison wrote that party politics are bad actually.
In the Federalist Papers that I quoted he talked about the importance of divided power and its ability to slow things down.

Do a quick google before responding to my shit.

>>1534463
>In the Federalist Papers that I quoted he talked about the importance of divided power and its ability to slow things down.
Oh, hey, so nothing to do with the current shit breaking our politics?

Also
>Also, when people say "gridlock is a feature, not a bug" and know what the fuck they're talking about, it's referring to us having 2 fucking houses that might end up controlled by different parties, not the shitshow our elections and Senate have turned into.

>>1534466
>it's referring to us having 2 fucking houses that might end up controlled by different parties, not the shitshow our elections and Senate have turned into.
Yes.

Which is what you're complaining about, and I am telling you that is by design.

>>1534467
What I'm complaining about is hyper partisan primaries made worse by partisan gerrymandering and unlimited money in politics and a political environment that disincentivizes working across the aisle and a 60 vote threshold for getting anything through the Senate implemented in the fucking 1970s.

Learn to read and fuck off. The idea that Madison would be okay with extreme partisanship when he explicitly warned against it or that he had in mind a vote threshold almost 200 years removed from the fucking Federalist Papers is fucking total nonsense.

>>1534473
The system is working completely fine. You see that they can vote to legally require universities to support Israel and ban criticism against Israel without any problem

>>1534473
>What I'm complaining about is hyper partisan primaries
Primaries are, by definition, partisan.

>unlimited money in politics
Meaningless.

>and a political environment that disincentivizes working across the aisle
Nope, leftwing politics disincentivizes working across the isle. And its nothing new to America. Its been the norm for ~120 years.

>and a 60 vote threshold for getting anything through the Senate implemented in the fucking 1970s.
1800's

>>1534477
>unlimited money in politics
Meaningless.
Fucking really?

>>1534477
>leftwing politics disincentivizes working across the isle
I'm sorry, which party got the government shut down 3 times in the last few years because they couldn't do ANY partisan negotiations or concession with the other party?

>>1534479
he wants you to call him a retard, it gets him off

>>1534480
I assume you are talking about these shutdowns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States#2025
>On October 1, 2025, at 12:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), the US government shut down after Senate Democrats blocked a continuing resolution passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Senate Democrats voted against the Republican appropriations legislation because it lacked an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that were temporarily expanded under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdowns_in_the_United_States#2026
>On January 31, 2026, about half of the departments of the federal government shut down after Congress failed to pass appropriations legislation for the 2026 fiscal year. A funding bill was passed by the Senate hours before the deadline, funding DHS for two weeks and other agencies through September, but the House was not able to vote in time. OPM ordered affected agencies to commence shutdown procedures at midnight. The shutdown ended on February 3, 2026, after the House voted to advance the funding bill, and President Donald Trump signed it a few hours later.[154]

>On February 14, 2026, a second shutdown occurred, affecting the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).[62]

>>1534479
>Fucking really?
Yes. Whats the problem?

>>1534480
>ANY partisan negotiations or concession with the other party?
Yes, the government was shut down because one party demanded things that the other party could never ever possibly agree to.

As I said, Democrats have become increasingly radicalized which has made governing more difficult.

this is why you don't feed the esl shill

>>1534477
>1800's
Up until the 70s filibusters had to be talking filibusters, you ignorant shitbag. It wasn't just a simple vote check.

>>1534484
>Yes, the government was shut down because one party demanded things that the other party could never ever possibly agree to.
Yes the Republicans, who absolutely refused to negotiate on any matter.

Notice how this is only a problem when Republicans are in power; Democrats tend to actually give concessions to get bills through. Republicans just try to ignore the other party and are fucking shocked when they don't play ball.

>>1534490
>Yes the Republicans, who absolutely refused to negotiate on any matter.
Because there was nothing to negotiate. Democrats demands were things that Republicans could never, ever, agree to.

>Democrats tend to actually give concessions to get bills through.
No they don't, Republicans just avoid government shutdowns because they know its bad politics.

>>1534491
>Democrats demands were things that Republicans could never, ever, agree to.
Alright. Name it. Name what was so horrible that Republicans never in a million years could agree to it.

>>1534494
>Senate Democrats voted against the Republican appropriations legislation because it lacked an extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies that were temporarily expanded under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
The other one was because Dems wanted to neuter ICE.

Not happening. Negotiation is a two way street.

>>1534491
>No they don't, Republicans just avoid government shutdowns because they know its bad politics.
That's why the two longest government shutdowns in US history have been during the last two Republican administrations, with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress

>>1534497
>US history have been during the last two Republican administrations, with Republicans controlling both houses of Congress
Yes. Democrats keep shutting down the government.

>>1534490
Notice how you ignored the wikipedia post above his which puts responsibility firmly on the democrats
>>1534483

>>1534477
>Primaries are, by definition, partisan.
And Madison was pro primaries, right?

Also, I said hyper partisan. The fact is safe seats+FPTP turn primaries into elections where the best course of action is run towards the fringes since the partisan primary IS the election. Ranked choice creates a real threat of disaffected moderates pooling with an independent or 3rd party candidate that will be a choice of the disfavored party if they're ignored in the primary process so candidates can't just run to get the majority of the majority party's primary voters and instead have to actually try to get a majority of voters.

>Meaningless.
You're mentally ill.

>>1534499
Why is the onus on the minority party to vote for legislation they don't agree with, and not on the majority party to offer concessions to incentivize members of the minority party to vote in favor of the legislation?

>>1534496
Wow, two things with majority bipartisan support! Amazing how apparently upwards of 60% of Americans including both Dems and Repubs approved, but Republicans couldn't be fucked to even give a minor concession.

The ICE one was particularly egregious because at the same time they were already bragging they'd given ICE their budget in other ways, so shutting down the government happened for no fucking reason as they wouldn't be out of funds either way.

>Negotiation is a two way street.
Yeah so tell me more about how the party unwilling to budge on ANY LEVEL even when it becomes clear the bill will not pass as it stands is not the one causing the problem?

>>1534500
>The fact is safe seats+FPTP turn primaries into elections where the best course of action is run towards the fringes since the partisan primary IS the election
And? Whats the problem here?
>Ranked choice
Means some votes count more than others and everyone ends up with a candidate they dislike.

>You're mentally ill.
You're not explaining your position. What is the problem with politics having money in it?

>>1534503
>Means some votes count more than others
You're thinking of the electoral college

>>1534502
>Wow, two things with majority bipartisan support!
Clearly not.
>so shutting down the government happened for no fucking reason as they wouldn't be out of funds either way.
Yes, as we said at the time: Democrats shut down the government for no fucking reason.
>he party unwilling to budge on ANY LEVEL even when it becomes clear the bill will not pass as it stands is not the one causing the problem?
That would be the Democrats, making demands that they know Republicans literally cannot accept.

>>1534504
No, that would be ranked choice. If my guy stays in my vote gets counted once, if your guy falls out and your vote gets assigned to someone else, your vote has been counted twice.

>>1534505
>That would be the Democrats, making demands that they know Republicans literally cannot accept.
Such as?

>>1534507
>>1534496

>>1534505
>Clearly not.
Polls say otherwise.

>>1534509
Okay. Republicans answer to their voters not "polls".

>>1534508
Republicans are literally incapable of accepting bodycams and better training for ICE agents?

>>1534510
And Democrats answer to their voters, hence why they couldn't vote to cut healthcare subsidies and writing a blank check for ICE on top of the billions in funding they already received
Or do only Republican voters matter?

>>1534511
Dem demands
>Judicial warrants / targeted enforcement
>Ban masks
>Mandatory identification
>Protected “sensitive locations”
>Anti-profiling restrictions
>State/local oversight
>Local consent for large operations
>Limit “paramilitary” appearance/equipment
Unacceptable, especially when you're offering literally nothing in return.

>>1534512
>And Democrats answer to their voters
Fully aware that dems respond to their increasingly radicalized base.

>>1534513
Which of those is the most egregious, in your personal opinion?

>>1534514
Should Democrat voters be ignored by their representatives?

>immigrants are taking all the jobs and we can prove it!
>no, we can't arrest them at their work because reasons
yep, defund ICE

>>1534513
All of which are completely reasonable.

>>1534513
>especially when you're offering literally nothing in return.
You know, other than "We'll pass the bill and fund the government". That's a pretty major thing actually.

>>1534519
but the US needs to be able to send unidentifiable goons who can enter any location for any reason and get away with murder
How dare democrats support unamerican ideas like, "safeguarding the right against unreasonable search and seizure' and 'states rights'

>>1534503
>Means some votes count more than others
Show me the math on that cause last I checked ranked choice is just a series of run-off elections where a single candidate is eliminated each round with every vote counting in every round.

This would contrast with a partisan primary system where a minority cull the options and then everyone votes in the final round.

>>1534439
>DoJ
>Trump's personal goon squad
Another fake investigation by the fascist right wing.

>>1534515
i only chose the egregious ones.

>>1534516
No, but the obligation on their leadership is to COMPROMISE. For the ICE shutdown they offered nothing in exchange, it was just a demand ditto for the healthcare shutdown.

>>1534518
>just gut ICE bro

>>1534519
>"We'll pass the bill and fund the government".
"Do what we say or we will hold the entire government hostage" is the kind of radicalization I'm talking about. You're basically complaining that you lost an election and someone else is ruling the country.

>>1534521
>Show me the math on that
Okay.

I vote for X and you vote for Y. Each vote is counted once.
Y doesnt make it so your vote is assigned to Z. My vote has been counted once, yours has now been counted twice.

>This would contrast with a partisan primary system where a minority cull the options and then everyone votes in the final round.
Or you could just have open primaries. Effectively, what you're complaining about is that minorities in deep blue or red states dont get as much of a say as you would like. Well, sucks for you.

>>1534524
it must be fun having someone take you seriously huh shill. i doubt they'll keep doing that much longer

>>1534524
>"Do what we say or we will hold the entire government hostage" is the kind of radicalization I'm talking about. You're basically complaining that you lost an election and someone else is ruling the country.
No retard this is the basics of how a fucking ruling body works. You need at least some level of agreement from the other party to pass things. If you do not get that agreement because you refuse to negotiate or given them even the slightest concessions, then things don't get passed.

This isn't 'radical'. It's like a shareholder thinking he can pass whatever he wants at a company because he has the biggest share even though he needs at least one other shareholder to agree to have a true majority.

>>1534526
its just a chatbot designed to respond to esl shill's posts and keep them riled up.
like an auto-pitcher set up so a dog can reload it. just lets them gas out when they need it.

>>1534527
>Republicans wont "compromise"
>In this scenario, "compromise" means doing what we want in exchange for literally nothing

>>1534524
>For the ICE shutdown they offered nothing in exchange, it was just a demand ditto for the healthcare shutdown.
Again, the "exchange" is approving the fucking spending bill. Don't try to force shit through with zero negotiation if you don't have the votes to do it without the other party.

>>1534524
>just gut ICE bro
If stuff like that is “gutting” ICE, then yes, ICE needs to be gutted.
>"Do what we say or we will hold the entire government hostage" is the kind of radicalization I'm talking about. You're basically complaining that you lost an election and someone else is ruling the country.
That’s not how our government works. One party being in power doesn’t mean the other party is irrelevant.
Also, it’s incredibly telling that you complain that dems are “radicalized” then casually refer to repubs “ruling” the country like it ain’t no thing.

>>1534530
>Again, the "exchange" is approving the fucking spending bill
So, Republicans who ran on immigration control (and won, massively) must implement Democratic policy on immigration control (again, just got rejected at the ballot box) in order to fund immigration control. In exchange, they will receive absolutely nothing.

Its like talking to a child.

>>1534531
>One party being in power doesn’t mean the other party is irrelevant.
True and usually the minority will make demands and give concessions to get things they want.

Here, Democrats demanded total Republican capitulation and offered nothing in exchange.

>>1534529
>in exchange for literally nothing
You get to pass the thing you wanted. It probably won’t have everything you wanted in it, but it will have some. It’s a compromise. That’s how our government works, or at least how it’s supposed to.

>>1534529
In exchange for "we'll approve the budget you cannot pass without us" you fucking retard. This isn't a radical idea, this is the basics of how the government works. If you don't have enough of a majority to pass things on your own, you have to make things the other side has no issue with passing. You can make the other sides have less issues with you passing things by giving them some things they want in that bill, or giving up things you want but they don't.

Very odd how Democrats are fully capable of doing this when they have the majority, but Republicans are fucking incapable of it when they have the majority. Especially in the cases of stuff like the ACA extensions, which had BIPARTISAN APPROVAL FROM VOTERS.

>>1534535
>In exchange for "we'll approve the budget you cannot pass without us" you fucking retard.
They can, and did, pass a budget without any Dem votes. Hence the utter and complete idiocy of the entire affair.
>This isn't a radical idea, this is the basics of how the government works.
Government works by the minority dictating how the country is run via the threat of a government shutdown?

No.

How a country is run is the minority makes demands and gives concessions. "We wont shut down the government" is not a concession.

>Especially in the cases of stuff like the ACA extensions, which had BIPARTISAN APPROVAL FROM VOTERS.
No it didnt.

>>1534534
>You get to pass the thing you wanted.
No they dont.
>It’s a compromise.
Its a copy paste of Democrat policy.

>>1534532
>So, Republicans who ran on immigration control (and won, massively) must implement Democratic policy on immigration control (again, just got rejected at the ballot box) in order to fund immigration control.
Evidently they didn't win enough that they couldn't pass anything with a supermajority. So get bent or at least try to placate at least a few dems so you can pass shit. That's how government works, stop insisting this is some radical extremist tactic.

>>1534536
>No it didnt.
https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/poll-support-for-extending-the-expiring-enhanced-aca-tax-credits-remains-high-but-dips-among-republicans-and-maga-supporters-as-shutdown-continues-and-partisanship-takes-hold/

Even among Republicans it had 50% approval you retard. Not extending them was unpopular.

>>1534539
fake poll

>>1534536
>They can, and did, pass a budget without any Dem votes. Hence the utter and complete idiocy of the entire affair.
So then why the fuck did it take them months to do so?

>Government works by the minority dictating how the country is run via the threat of a government shutdown?
Government works through compromise with the other half of it retard. You want to rule through tyranny of the majority? Get enough of a majority the other party refusing to play ball doesn't shut the government down for months.

>>1534539
>muh polls commissioned by people who totally dont have a horse in the race

>>1534540
Cope.

>>1534541
>So then why the fuck did it take them months to do so?
Because the other rout to funding takes longer.
>Government works through compromise
It does. What "compromise" did the Democrats offer?

>>1534544
none compromise, and its MIGA's fault.
cry some more about it

>>1534525
>My vote has been counted once, yours has now been counted twice.
It's a different round. Your vote is counted in both.

If you eat the same meal 3 times in a row, you didn't only have one meal. Maybe if you could figure that out, you wouldn't be such a fat dumbass.

>Or you could just have open primaries
An open primary system still limits you to a single primary. Also, it still lets parties consolidate their votes before a general. Jungle primaries are better, but still are just worse RCV.

>>1534544
which "rout" are you talking about esl shill? losing in iran?

>>1534533
>and offered nothing in exchange
Their votes.

>>1534537
>No they dont.
Yes they do.
>Its a copy paste of Democrat policy.
Then negotiate down from that.

>>1534542
Why does every poll on the topic say the same thing then?
>https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/trump-supporters-obamacare-subsidies-government-shutdown-poll-rcna235195
>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/key-voting-bloc-boosts-obamacare-highest-approval-ever-congress-battles-over-soaring-costs-poll
>https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/20/7-in-10-want-obamacare-tax-credits-to-continue-marquette-poll-says/87372672007/?gnt-cfr=1&gca-cat=p&gca-uir=false&gca-epti=z1172xxp000650c000650u113433e1172xxv001733&gca-ft=199&gca-ds=sophi

>>1534540
>>1534542
>d-doesn’t count!
It’s like talking to a child.

>>1534550
only poll that matters is the ballot box.

>>1534549
No.

>>1534544
Repubs pushed a bill to fund ICE.
Dems said “okay, but we want these things.”
Repubs told them to fuck off.
It is not on dems to offer a compromise in this situation. It’s not the dems that are refusing to negotiate.

>>1534552
>only poll that matters is the ballot box.
Alright so hold a vote in the moment. Because evidently judging by how many elections Republicans have lost since they gained their majority and the white house, the voters are pretty fucking displeased.

>>1534551
>It’s like talking to a child.
The fact that you repeated that back to me tells me it stung when I used it on you.

>>1534555
>Alright so hold a vote in the moment.
Sure.

>>1534554
>Dems said “okay, but we want these things.”
>these things just so happen to be a copy+paste of Dem immigration policy from the last admin that was so unpopular Republicans won a GENERATIONAL victory in the election

>>1534552
>>1534551

>>1534556
The fact that you felt the need to explain this tells me it stung to get that thrown back in your face.

>>1534557
>>these things just so happen to be a copy+paste of Dem immigration policy from the last admin that was so unpopular Republicans won a GENERATIONAL victory in the election
It's dem immigration policy to not allow ICE to run around killing people and then facing zero consequences because the primary body allowed to investigate them is themselves?

>the hyperpartisan politics are bad
>yeah its dems fault
>no you dont understand if you dont do what they say or they will shut down the government and thats your fault
Glorious thread.

>>1534561
there isn't a shred of glory in your life

>>1534561
>Another anon tries to convince us that Republicans being literally incapable of negotiation is actually just Dems being mean

>>1534558
>The fact that you felt the need to explain this tells me it stung to get that thrown back in your face.
You're just repeating my shit back at me like a parrot. I've spiritually raped you.

>>1534560
>It's dem immigration policy to not allow ICE to run around killing people and then facing zero consequences because the primary body allowed to investigate them is themselves?
No, but all this
>Judicial warrants / targeted enforcement
>Mandatory identification
>Protected “sensitive locations”
>Anti-profiling restrictions
>State/local oversight
>Local consent for large operations
>Limit “paramilitary” appearance/equipment
Is literally the "reforms" Mayorkas pushed through under the Biden admin which resulted in a 77% drop in deportations.

>>1534561
It literally is their fault. Democultists can't cope with the fact that maybe their saints aren't so saintly.

>>1534557
One, they’re not, and two, so what? What difference does that make?
Again, one party winning an election doesn’t mean the other party stops mattering. It doesn’t matter how GENERATIONAL that victory was, it doesn’t mean they can now just do absolutely whatever they want. That’s not how our government works, or at least not how it’s supposed to.

>>1534563
>being literally incapable of negotiation
"Do what we say or we will shut down the government"

>>1534563
What were Dems offering in return?
If it was simply an open government that's not really a negotiation tactic, but more like extortion.

>>1534571
how many devices are you posting from

>>1534566
>I've spiritually raped you.
Cope’s just getting weirder.

>>1534571
Their votes.

>>1534569
>one party winning an election doesn’t mean the other party stops mattering
Yes.
> it doesn’t mean they can now just do absolutely whatever they want
Yes.

Totally agree. However, the problem lies with Democrats and how they behave. As you have seen in this thread "funding the government" is considered, by Democrats, to be a "compromise". This thread is a perfect encapsulation of the dysfunction on your side of the isle. Take the L like a man, negotiate small wins on the fringes, govern the country properly.

>>1534573
So, extortion? Got it.

>>1534570
>"Do what we say or we will shut down the government"
Yes, what Republicans are saying.

>>1534571
>My fellow stockholders, I know I need at least a few of you to sign off on this deal, but if you refuse to agree to the deal at all (since I won't compromise at all) then it's basically extortion

>>1534574
>negotiate small wins on the fringes
>guys just don't ask for anything that actually matters

>>1534574
>This thread is a perfect encapsulation of the dysfunction on your side of the isle.
Oh, believe me, the feeling is mutual.
>As you have seen in this thread "funding the government" is considered, by Democrats, to be a "compromise".
No, a compromise would be what a functioning Republican party would offer in response to the Democrat’s demands.

>>1534577
No, just a functional government.

>>1534579
The Wikipedia article seemed to suggest that was what senate democrats were doing with Obamacare subsidies

Like, what do repubs think the dems SHOULD have done in this situation? Not even tried to curtail ICE? Just voted along with the repubs in exchange for absolutely nothing? Just give up on representing their constituents completely? Why the fuck would they do that? Why the fuck would anyone think they should do that?

>>1534592
notice how the shill has once again derailed the thread about trump dismantling democracy

>>1534592
I'm not sure. We could probably look at how Democrats handled the passage of Obamacare to get a playbook for how they negotiate across the aisle.

>>1534591
You have to agree with me on this, so I'll just ignore your shilly reply

>>1534596
Yeah, yeah, I know. It’s at least sort of connected, though.

>>1534602
Dems deliberately watered down Obamacare to get Republican votes. It not working doesn't mean there wasn't a fuckton of outreach at the time. Just means Republicans are cunts.

When is the last time Republicans tried to get Dem votes they didn't need so they could market something as bipartisan?

>>1534602
Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate to pass Obamacare, they didn't need a single Republican vote. The fact that they did include Republicans in the development of the bill in spite of not needing to do so actually proves how much more reasonable congressional Democrats are than congressional Republicans.
Republicans only have 52 seats in the Senate now and act like Democrats are supposed to just bow down and give them everything they want with nothing in return.
Then you have Trump throwing his hissy fits on his twitter knockoff demanding Republicans repeal the filibuster and ram through everything they want. I don't know if he genuinely thinks Democrats are never going to be in control of the Senate again or if he's truly so myopic and spoiled that he can't think ahead beyond "GIVE ME WHAT I WANT RIGHT NOW!". Either way it's retarded.

>>1534618
This is also setting aside the fact that the version of Obamacare we got was based on a fucking Republican plan. Republicans ran to the fucking right to avoid even the fucking appearance of bipartisanship.

Also, from that same year
>https://www.politico.com/story/2010/10/the-gops-no-compromise-pledge-044311
>Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell summed up his plan to National Journal: “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

>>1534592
>Not even tried to curtail ICE
Yes. As no one aside from the most radical Democrat voters are against immigration control.
I think Dems would ignore these radical fuckwits if they weren't terrified of their own terrorist base.

>>1534622
Most of America disapproves of trumps immigration policies
cope more, faggot

>>1534622
>There is no middle ground between poorly trained, unaccountable masked thugs disappearing people and shooting American citizens in the street and complete open borders

>>1534622
>I think
I bet, retard.

>>1534626
I will.
>Here's my fake and gay weighted survey
>Wait so surveys are tweaked?
Yes
>As with any nationally representative survey, we use weighting to fine-tune the demographic balance of the YouGov Ratings sample. We calculate weight values using rim weighting (raking), which ensures that the marginal proportions in the sample match those of the target population across a set of key demographic variables.

>>1534632
That doesn't say what you think it does, anon.