It is not challenging to understand the Democratic Party. In fact, it is quite basic. Everything that the Democrats support or oppose – and I mean everything — can be connected to the ballot box with a maximum of two points.
Perfect example: proof of citizenship for voting.
Even more perfect: The weasel majority leader in the Senate, Chuck Schumer, and his refusal to say why he is against A bipartisan bill in the House of Representatives that would require proof of citizenship for voter registration.
In an interview with ABC News on Wednesday, Schumer (D-NY) said funding for the government could only be secured through bipartisan legislation. That’s true. But House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) is expected to propose a stopgap measure to fund the government through the spring. That includes fresh rules requiring proof of citizenship to vote – a no-go for Chucky.
Presenter Kayna Whitworth asked:
Let’s talk about Speaker Johnson, who is expected to propose an interim measure to the House of Representatives to fund the government until the spring, but will link it to fresh rules that will require proof of citizenship when voting.
And we know that a handful of Democrats in the House say they would support this. If this voter ID bill gets attached to the government funding bill, would you put it on a vote or are we looking at a government shutdown here?
Easy, right? Not for Chuck, who babbled about “poison pills” in his answer (lied).
Look, Speaker Johnson should learn from the past. You can only keep the state fund if[ed] in a bipartisan way. You can’t have a group of Republicans, especially led by right-wing, hardcore Republicans who don’t even represent the entire Republican Party, put together a proposal with all kinds of poison pill legislation and then say this has to pass. This bill may not even pass the House. I think there are some Republicans who might vote against it.
Um, Chuck? The House of Representatives has passed a bill to require national citizenship – the Protecting American Voters’ Rights Act (SAVE) — by a vote of 221 to 198 on July 10, with 216 Republicans and five Democrats vote for its adoption.
The bill is unlikely to even come to a vote in the Democratic-dominated Senate. Schumer told ABC that a stopgap spending bill that also includes requirements for proof of citizenship would suffer the same fate.
It certainly has no chance in the Senate and no chance of being signed by the President. So, Speaker Johnson, look at what’s going on here. You can’t pass a bill unless we agree on a bipartisan deal, that’s what’s happened every time in the past. You tried to appease your right wing, it failed, and you had to come to us and negotiate. We’re ready to negotiate a bipartisan deal.
Whitworth pressed further: “Some Democrats support it, though. And what if it doesn’t pass the Senate?”
Again, Chuck refused to answer, twisting himself even more into an illogical pretzel and repeatedly coming back to the “poison pills” excuse.
There’s so much in your bill. There’s poison pills in it on abortion. There’s poison pills in it on so many issues. You’re cutting spending on programs that the expansive majority of Americans support. This bill is a failure. And the voting idea is now law. If you’re not a citizen, you can’t vote, period. You can’t do that at the federal level.
Whitworth, to her credit, tried one more time: “So why don’t we support voter ID?”
But Chuck refused to admit the obvious.
Well, the bill, as I said, is full of all kinds of poison pills that the Democrats would not propose. And the reason for that is because, as I said, Speaker Johnson was afraid of his right wing at the beginning, he was afraid of his majority. So he said, “What can I put in the bill that you like?” It will never pass, and then they will have to negotiate with us. That’s what will happen.
Like a weasel until the end.
OK, Chuck, it’s time for logic
Let’s start with an effortless question to answer. If Schumer and the Democrats believed that a majority of illegal immigrants – “undocumented immigrants,” whatever – would vote republican If they were allowed to vote, Chuck and the Democrats would be strongly in favor to require proof of citizenship? In any case, they would.
The same logic applies to border security. Schumer, Pelosi and the entire Democratic Party would unite at the southern border, forming a human chain from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico in a desperate attempt to keep illegal immigrants out of the country.
There is no excuse not to pass the SAVE Act
No ID required: Biden administration rejects bill requiring proof of citizenship to vote
ID for you, not for me: Harris campaign requires ID to attend rally in Arizona, but not to vote
The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds. And neither does their dishonesty.
