St. Nick stirring things up a bit
- Thread starter thatsbaseball
- Start date
- Status
Yep.
Smart move for Nick. He’s telling recruits and players that he cares for them.
And this is obviously similar to what the state’s coaches did a year and a half ago by going to the State Capitol regarding a new state flag.
Smart move for Nick. He’s telling recruits and players that he cares for them.
And this is obviously similar to what the state’s coaches did a year and a half ago by going to the State Capitol regarding a new state flag.
The flag change and this "voting rights" bill shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence.
Funny that he signed a letter promoting a “level playing field and neutral referees”.
Last edited:
I chuckled when I saw that too.
Classic Saban: Being magnanimous while folks who know him know how things have worked for Alabama.
Classic Saban: Being magnanimous while folks who know him know how things have worked for Alabama.
Different chapters.
Fifteen years from now, I wouldn’t be surprised if some young kid writes a dissertation on sports and politics during this time period.
Olbermann himself probably wishes he was a lot younger & didn’t have the baggage he has now so he could write a book about it himself.
Fifteen years from now, I wouldn’t be surprised if some young kid writes a dissertation on sports and politics during this time period.
Olbermann himself probably wishes he was a lot younger & didn’t have the baggage he has now so he could write a book about it himself.
Every single citizen of the United States has had the federally protected right to vote for almost 60 years. That bill has nothing to do with voting rights, and Nick should be smart enough to know that. My only guess is that he's aware that Democrats have successfully painted the narrative that somehow black people in the United States still don't have the right to vote, and that this bill gives them that right. And he's taking advantage of that narrative to recruit gullible people who believe that narrative. In actuality, it's a pretty racist thing to do. He's assuming the recruits and their parents are too dumb to know better. Nick does lean pretty far left in his politics, and that's never been a secret.
It’s insane people are being brainwashed by the media to believe every citizen of the US doesn’t have the right to vote. Or somehow citizen’s voting rights are under attack. Remarkable times in our world.
Not a fan of ballot harvesting, at least make the harvesters invest in a fish plate or pint of whiskey per vote .
The Booster's who donate to the school to pay's his salary listens to what he says as well. Why voluntary dip you toe into the water? You will piss off half the people most of the time and in this case being Alabama probably pissing off even more of a percentage.
Last edited:
It is hilarious the hoops you have to jump through to get a meal at a restaurant in NYC but you can vote without an ID????? Ha ha, the country is on the brink of insanity! Even third world countries require citizenship.
I could certainly see it being in a book in a few years but the two issues aren’t similar in any way other than politics.
Wonder if this federal law “standard” would reverse that?
My tongue is squarely in my cheek as I ask that.
My tongue is squarely in my cheek as I ask that.
Many here would benefit from reading this from start to finish- https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/07/politics/voting-rights-electoral-count-john-lewis-act/index.html
Doubt itll happen though, legit start to finish reading.
- It is completely absurd that someone just threatening to filibuster will effectively end legislation(this applies to both sides of the aisle equally. We all should want legislation to be voted on for the merits of the legislation and not base voting on aligning with a side. Again, that applies to both sides equally. I guess if someone wants to literally stand up in front of Congress and talk forever, cool- good luck with that. But that is the only way a filibuster should work- when someone actually stands and talks forever. After they pass out or **** themselves, then vote. That person can have their 4 minutes of fame and the legislature can get back to doing what it is supposed to do.
- The 2020 election was determined to have been secure. That wasnt a 1 sided determination, it was determined by government administrations(Trump's government), courts, and independent non-partisan groups. In spite of that, many states claimed voting laws needed to change because of security. You take laws that allowed for a secure election and change them for...security. And how exactly will many of the laws improve security?...they wont.
1st example- reducing drop boxes from 87 to 20 in the Atlanta metro doesnt increase voting security. It doesnt reduce fraud. All it does is reduce convenience. If someone wants to commit voter fraud, they are motivated enough to easily find and use one of the 20 drop boxes that are present. Reducing drop boxes only makes it less convenient to vote.
2nd example- reducing how early an absentee ballot can be requested from 180 days to 67 days doesnt increase voting security. It doesnt reduce fraud. All it does is reduce convenience. 67 days is still plenty of time for some nefarious cheater to request an absentee ballot and use it for voter fraud. Its 3 damn months still, its plenty of time to request a fraudulent ballot and find one of those fewer drop boxes too.
Really- this **** just makes voting less convenient. That is the end result- voting is more difficult/less convenient now than it was. These changes wont reduce voter fraud since voter fraud wasnt an issue before the changes.
And to be very clear- some states that are blue, like New York, had more restrictive voting laws. They have since relaxed the laws, but they are still an issue in their own right. This is not just a bash on Republicans. I did use a couple of examples from Georgia that were created by the Republican legislature, but mostly because their changes are widely known at this point(due to how transparent the effort to change was, and how little it will change what they claim is the issue).
Having more federal election laws for federal elections isnt a bad thing at this point. States running elections made sense 200+ years ago, due to what they were dealing with at the time. It is a completely different world now. States should continue to run their elections, but with an increased baseline for all.
Doubt itll happen though, legit start to finish reading.
- It is completely absurd that someone just threatening to filibuster will effectively end legislation(this applies to both sides of the aisle equally. We all should want legislation to be voted on for the merits of the legislation and not base voting on aligning with a side. Again, that applies to both sides equally. I guess if someone wants to literally stand up in front of Congress and talk forever, cool- good luck with that. But that is the only way a filibuster should work- when someone actually stands and talks forever. After they pass out or **** themselves, then vote. That person can have their 4 minutes of fame and the legislature can get back to doing what it is supposed to do.
- The 2020 election was determined to have been secure. That wasnt a 1 sided determination, it was determined by government administrations(Trump's government), courts, and independent non-partisan groups. In spite of that, many states claimed voting laws needed to change because of security. You take laws that allowed for a secure election and change them for...security. And how exactly will many of the laws improve security?...they wont.
1st example- reducing drop boxes from 87 to 20 in the Atlanta metro doesnt increase voting security. It doesnt reduce fraud. All it does is reduce convenience. If someone wants to commit voter fraud, they are motivated enough to easily find and use one of the 20 drop boxes that are present. Reducing drop boxes only makes it less convenient to vote.
2nd example- reducing how early an absentee ballot can be requested from 180 days to 67 days doesnt increase voting security. It doesnt reduce fraud. All it does is reduce convenience. 67 days is still plenty of time for some nefarious cheater to request an absentee ballot and use it for voter fraud. Its 3 damn months still, its plenty of time to request a fraudulent ballot and find one of those fewer drop boxes too.
Really- this **** just makes voting less convenient. That is the end result- voting is more difficult/less convenient now than it was. These changes wont reduce voter fraud since voter fraud wasnt an issue before the changes.
And to be very clear- some states that are blue, like New York, had more restrictive voting laws. They have since relaxed the laws, but they are still an issue in their own right. This is not just a bash on Republicans. I did use a couple of examples from Georgia that were created by the Republican legislature, but mostly because their changes are widely known at this point(due to how transparent the effort to change was, and how little it will change what they claim is the issue).
Having more federal election laws for federal elections isnt a bad thing at this point. States running elections made sense 200+ years ago, due to what they were dealing with at the time. It is a completely different world now. States should continue to run their elections, but with an increased baseline for all.
A little hijacking here... What's up with gerrymandering? How is that ******** constitutional. I just happened to get an email a while back showing my new Congressional district if I still lived in TX. This **** is as crooked as the mail in ballot harvesting.
Old district fast growing suburbs of McKinney and Frisco North of Dallas)
View attachment 23634
Now... A little 17ing sliver of the burbs, and all kinds of other stupid **** mixed together.
View attachment 23635
There is no logical argument to that new district other than someone wanting to get a few more terms.This **** is all about leaches in Congress keeping their seats and the gravy train rolling. Those sorry, worthless 17ers all need to be booted after 8 years and banned from lobbying after serving. Term limits for Congress, everyone wants them except for the scumbags themselves.
Old district fast growing suburbs of McKinney and Frisco North of Dallas)
View attachment 23634
Now... A little 17ing sliver of the burbs, and all kinds of other stupid **** mixed together.
View attachment 23635
There is no logical argument to that new district other than someone wanting to get a few more terms.This **** is all about leaches in Congress keeping their seats and the gravy train rolling. Those sorry, worthless 17ers all need to be booted after 8 years and banned from lobbying after serving. Term limits for Congress, everyone wants them except for the scumbags themselves.
Nick is a pro at this. He sent a letter petition to Manchin urging him to do exactly what Manchin is already saying he is doing! Manchin says he supports this voting bill, but won’t vote to change the Senate filibuster rules in order to pass it. That’s exactly what Saban asked him to do. As many have said, Saban gets credibility with recruits, while really accomplishing nothing politically. But Saban can say he helped the process because Manchin did what was asked in the letter, even though that’s really already been Manchin’s stated position.
We agree.
With that said, as we all know & whether we like it or not (and for many if not most of us, we don’t since SPS is primarily a community of folks interested in MSU athletics and the university as a whole) politics is everywhere.
With that said, as we all know & whether we like it or not (and for many if not most of us, we don’t since SPS is primarily a community of folks interested in MSU athletics and the university as a whole) politics is everywhere.
Pardon my ignorance, but a filibuster is just a symbolic threat now? As in they don't actually speak/read some bs for hours on end?
Didn’t read. But can you give one real example of a legal US citizen recently who wanted to vote, but was denied because of their race, ethnicity, or gender? You can’t because it’s all ********.
I’m not sure if it’s symbolic or actually speaking reading for hours but the whole process seems silly. I don’t pretend to know why a filibuster is a thing but it just seems odd that it ever became a thing. All it is intended to do is prevent a vote right? That just seems odd to me. But like I said earlier, I don’t pretend to know why it’s a thing. I’m sure it serves some useful purpose. But if the senate needs 60 votes to pass something and they don’t have 60 votes, then what will a filibuster do?
On the actual voting bill, I agree that states need to make it easier to vote. But I also don’t understand what is so racist and wrong about requiring an ID to vote. Plenty of things in life you have to prove you are who you say you are.
I would agree that a filibuster should be an actual speaking filibuster (although I don't think you get how it would work; it would not be one senator talking, but 40ish senators taking turns talking, and the majority having to be on standby with at least 51 votes at all time to take advantage if they stop), but the senate agreed to the current procedure because it's easier for them.
No, it wasn't. First, "courts" didn't determine it was secure. But beyond that, there is a difference between not being able to prove fraud and disproving fraud. Even some of the reports that people claim proved the election in a particular state was secure acknowledged that there were things they couldn't check. There were a lot of people that worked to put things in place that make it easier to commit fraud, so people suspect fraud was committed. There very likely was more fraud than usual, because the incentives are the same but it became easier to do, but who knows whether it was enough to swing any electoral votes. If you want peaceful transfer of power to remain the norm, you don't want elections where people can't prove fraud was committed in sufficient numbers to flip the election. You want elections where people are convinced fraud would have been too hard to commit in sufficient numbers to flip the election.
Let me give you a Civics lesson, since obviously you came through school after Democrats nuked Civics out of the curriculum. The Senate was designed to NOT be like the House of Representatives, where a simple majority passes a bill. It was designed to give the minority a voice, so that legislation would be carefully considered and a bi-partisan consensus would be reached before a bill was passed. The Senate was not designed to ram through bills the majority wants to ram through. The filibuster gives the minority party in the Senate the power to bring the majority party of the Senate to the negotiating table, if they want to get a bill passed (as long as the minority party has more than 40 Senators). The filibuster is what has kept the United States from becoming a banana republic over the last 246 years. If the party in the majority of both chambers was given the ability to just ram through every bill that they took a whim to ram through, and completely ignore the minority party, this country would already be a failed Republic. BTW, you lost me at "read this article from cnn.com....."
If that's the case did Saban send it to the Republican Senator from WV? Honest Question.
The pushback to requiring an ID to vote blows my mind especially when you sit down and list all the things we do in everyday life that require an ID.
It's crazy to think that American democracy didn't start until 1965. But since it is now, some federal standards for when polls are open that give shift workers the same opportunity as salaried eight to fivers should be in place.
Have you ever been to a polling place where you didn't have to be registered, in the books, and show some proof of ID? I have not.
This is what's sad:
Trump called the Governors of the 5 states and tried to get them to sign and submit a fake electoral college list.
Trump Called the Governor of GA and told him to "FIND" the necessary votes for him to win.
Thrump Called the DOJ head and asked him to say the election was rigged. When he refused because there had been no evidence of any fraud. Trump said he didn't need him to prove it, he just needed him to say it that they would take care of the rest. Here is your say a lie enough times people will believe it.
When all that didn't work, he started a riot to intimidate congress into keeping him as president. If you don't think that's terrorism them you need to look up the defiinition.
[FONT=Roboto, arial, sans-serif]Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
[/FONT]As far voter rights laws: When was the last time any of you had to stand in line over an hour to vote. There were people in black districts standing in line for hours just to vote. Some stood in line for 4 hours or more and I heard of one place it was almost all day. That only happened in black disctricts. Funny how white supremacist have been trying to find ways to keep black people from voting and so few care.
Anyone still backing Trump at this point needs to start finding different news sources. That man is as evil as they come.
True statement. But...We all know what the pushback is about. No reason to beat around the bush. Requiring a vaccine ID is perfectly normal and not racist, discriminatory, or a violation of HIPAA laws. Requiring an ID to vote is racist and takes us back to the Jim Crow era. That's the narrative and they aren't budging from it
Thank you!
Too many people get their filibuster knowledge from the movie “ Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. The founding fathers got it right in doing what you just said. It allows for some sort of mandate before a bill can be rammed through by one party.
Too many people get their filibuster knowledge from the movie “ Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. The founding fathers got it right in doing what you just said. It allows for some sort of mandate before a bill can be rammed through by one party.
You do realize that's what absentee voting is for, right? That's been a thing for quite some time, now.
- Status
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.