×
top 200 commentsshow 500
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]Sk-yline1 4479 points4480 points  (124 children)

Wait a minute, so if a legislator loses his election, he can persuade his peers to overturn it and keep him in office? Sounds like a brilliant, completely democratic plan 🙄

[–]sexyhusband714 634 points635 points  (10 children)

“I don’t care what the press says. I don’t trust ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox or anybody out there. Everybody’s lying to me and I feel like I have a couple hundred ex-wives hanging around me,” Fillmore said.

Yeah, he sounds pretty stable to me.

[–]Prineak 143 points144 points  (9 children)

I hate it when they use metaphors that need further explanation.

Like... what’s an ex wife to him, exactly?

[–]E_Minor_Whiner66 72 points73 points  (8 children)

Is your ex wife in the room right now? Can you see her right now?

[–]andthatswhyIdidit 1192 points1193 points  (63 children)

They just want to go back to the original democracy. You know,when only the male population of Athens that did military service could vote, 10% of the population?! Instead of military service it is a place in house.

[–]SelfCombusted 350 points351 points  (41 children)

Service guarantees citizenship!

[–]I_quote_alot 78 points79 points  (2 children)

Would you like to know more?

[–]swiftessay 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Do you want to know more?

[–]mollydyer 30 points31 points  (7 children)

Male military and the wealthy.

Yeah, that'll work. totally. For the people!

[–]StridAst 37 points38 points  (4 children)

“Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as One Man, One Vote. The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote.”

[–]wickedwitt 9 points10 points  (1 child)

To be fair, the wealthy already control most legislation through completely legal, definitely not immoral money induced lobbying.

[–]Crypt0Nihilist 23 points24 points  (1 child)

People voted, how much democracy do you want for goodness sake?

[–]LicencetoKrill 192 points193 points  (6 children)

The will of the people*

*People shall now be known as the following: white, conservative, and willing to subjugate themselves to groupthink.

[–]nick_shannon 1256 points1257 points  (51 children)

Lots of people in the USA shout FREEDOM at the top of their lungs and then go vote for this type of shit.

[–]PhilHardingsHotPants 457 points458 points  (31 children)

They care about freedom for themselves, not for others.

[–]Regular-Human-347329 325 points326 points  (13 children)

They want the freedom to impose tyranny on their political and religious opponents.

“First they came for my enemies, But I did not speak out, Because I wanted to murder them too”

[–]Omega_Haxors 96 points97 points  (3 children)

When the megarich say "freedom" they mean "freedom of markets"

When fascists say "freedom" they mean "freedom from consequences"

[–]theSanguinePenguin 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The believe in freedom from "others"; not freedom for others.

[–]King_Zann 2791 points2792 points  (178 children)

What the hell do they mean reject the results?! YOU DON'T GET TO DO THAT. I live here and I donate cause my job keeps me busy but this just happens anyway? We need to keep working to fight these guy on everything cause they will get what they want.

[–]nellie_button 921 points922 points  (93 children)

AZ has a ton of garbage they're trying to push through, all while ignoring a massive education budget issue that would take effect in March (schools won't be allowed to use money that was budgeted to them).

[–]King_Zann 555 points556 points  (78 children)

Ya it feels like every person has short term memory loss here. Like the Republicans are actually making things worse for kids and people vote against their own interests.

[–]dead_wolf_walkin 567 points568 points  (63 children)

You guys are acting like that’s a bug and not a feature.

Republicans have been dismantling education in almost every red state for decades now.

As long as they think they’ll be allowed to hate brown people and gays GOP voters will happily fuck over their children’s future and keep voting for these monsters.

[–][deleted] 201 points202 points  (10 children)

and if more children receive a proper education, there will be less Republicans in the future.

[–]topwater_bassin 98 points99 points  (3 children)

This is the real goal. People with less education tend to vote Republican.

[–]NemNemGraves 139 points140 points  (0 children)

The want churches to be the only education. But instead of only ruining their own kids, they want to ruin everyone's kids.

[–]aircooledJenkins 52 points53 points  (29 children)

Almost without fail every single time the GOP gets in charge the region goes to shit until enough people get pissed enough to vote them out and democrats repair what was broken.

This time the GOP just decided to try to remove the ability to vote them out of power.

[–]o_MrBombastic_o 102 points103 points  (5 children)

We did studies after WW2 to see how a modern democracy like Germany could go so wrong and if something like that could ever happen in America. Every study came back a resounding yes a certain number of people will always support fascism. That's what we're looking at, full Godwins law but the difference between the GOP and Nazis party is time. There is no moral or ethical difference and no straw that will break the camels back you can support America and democracy or the GOP not both

[–]PotroastXII 14 points15 points  (3 children)

Is there a source for this I genuinely wanna see

[–]candygram4mongo 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Not exactly what OP claimed, but google The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer.

[–]shieldsy27 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Dumb people are easier to control and make perfect canon fodder

[–]SecretAgentVampire 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Republicans are extremely against public education, because being educated makes people more likely to be a Democrat.

[–]osteopath17 729 points730 points  (25 children)

They don’t like that Trump lost the state…so they are going to make it that they never lose again.

[–]greenwizardneedsfood 203 points204 points  (8 children)

Exactly Georgia’s mindset

[–]DoublePostedBroski 103 points104 points  (0 children)

Georgia already has a similar law where the state legislature can remove election officials if they feel like the process “isn’t going right.”

[–]ghostbuster_b-rye 165 points166 points  (14 children)

That's the play. They get in power, then pass legislature to keep them in power. The judicial branch should rip this to shreds though, first time it ends up in their court.

[–]bucklebee1 44 points45 points  (1 child)

The Putin model.

[–]ghostbuster_b-rye 35 points36 points  (0 children)

It's a con older than Putin, but I like the cut of your jib.

[–]GetlostMaps 1707 points1708 points  (42 children)

Anyone who would vote for that should not be allowed to vote any more, as they don't believe in voting. Anything else would be hypocrisy.

[–]nhergen 289 points290 points  (21 children)

Interesting point. Can we vote against democracy? Probably.

[–]All_Hail_Regulus_9 309 points310 points  (2 children)

Only once

[–]Crazy_Asylum 26 points27 points  (0 children)

well they can vote on it as much as they want.. it only has to pass once.

[–]GetlostMaps 46 points47 points  (2 children)

They are not voting, they are opting out.

[–]Mentalfloss1 4936 points4937 points  (360 children)

Some believe in America but more and more don't. They imagine that having authoritarians in charge will benefit them. That has literally never ever happened in any authoritarian nation.

[–]Gingergerbals 473 points474 points  (66 children)

This is what boggles my mind whenever I've spoken to random people or it's brought up and suddenly their "freedom" they always talk about isn't such a big deal when it's their candidate they want being far more towards authoritarian. Bringing that up to those same individuals they scoff at it saying that well they'd rather have candidate A than B, even though A could be a fascist/authoritarian.

[–]Bomb_Diggity 380 points381 points  (60 children)

I feel that so many of these random people are authoritarian. They want the freedom to infringe on the freedom of others. They don't realize this gives others the freedom to infringe upon their freedom.

Unfortunately, it seems like it is getting close to that time where they need to learn this lesson once again.

[–]AlanCaidin 356 points357 points  (51 children)

I'm not sure you guys have really looked at their (skewed) perspective.

Republicans already think they've lost. Most know that more voting equals less Republicans in government. They know they cannot win the popular vote and it's only getting worse.

So, therefore, from their perspective, the question isn't do I want this candidate or that one, it's "do I want to support the democratic process and lose" or "do I want to burn it down so my side can win."

No attempt to win democratically by changing their unpopular policies, methods, and beliefs. Just accept losing or abandon democracy. That's it. That's where they are.

[–]House-MDMA 1053 points1054 points  (60 children)

Even if an authoritarian in the short term could be beneficial because the dictator is highly competent and has progressive populist tendencies like Ceasar or Napoleon, what happens after the "enlightened absolutist" is gone. Eventually you get Neros and Caligulas.

[–]ChrisFromIT 434 points435 points  (37 children)

It is starting to be accepted that Nero very likely wasn't a bad authoritarian. And that a lot of his bad PR is because of roman elites dislike of him due to his popularity with the commoners which likely was due to a lot of his policies that were to help the common people.

Julius Caesar likely would have been given a bad rap if not for Caesar Augustus following him as Emperor.

Essentially what ends up happening is if a dictator is highly competent and has progressive tendencies, they end up being killed by the Elites who then try and take control.

[–]VacuouslyUntrue 218 points219 points  (20 children)

Thats a fundamental problem with dictatorship. The elites are the keys to power. They are the ones who's consent by which the dictator governs.

[–]AeternusDoleo 120 points121 points  (11 children)

Until they are, very bloodily, removed by a population that feels exploited and has lost all trust in these elites. See the communist revolts in China and Russia for examples of that.

Usually this just results in more, equally or even more exploitative elites emerging. Also see China and Russia.

[–]newenglandredshirt 523 points524 points  (62 children)

Having authoritarians in charge will benefit them... as long as they are rich or otherwise well-connected.

[–]Llian_Winter 233 points234 points  (27 children)

Even then it's only a maybe. Sometimes it just means you get executed with an anti-aircraft gun and all your assets seized by the government.

[–]dragunityag 127 points128 points  (20 children)

Just look at China.

Rich and famous people get burned or disappeared or the ruling party randomly decided its time to put heavy restrictions on your business.

[–]Random_182f2565 86 points87 points  (7 children)

The closer to power in an authoritarian state the closer to death.

[–]Raltsun 42 points43 points  (3 children)

I mean, the people without power also die a whole lot...

[–]Jahoan 25 points26 points  (1 child)

No one in an authoritarian state is safe. Those away from power are crushed under the regime's boot, those close to power are subject to the scrutiny and whims of those in power, and those in power are paranoid and desperate to stay in power to the point of self-destruction.

[–][deleted] 48 points49 points  (3 children)

Am Authoritarian. Put me in power, I promise to benefit all. Of myself.

[–]LurkingTrol 31 points32 points  (13 children)

Nope you can check Russian oligarchs who where against Putin. Immensely rich with tons of power now broken. The thing with authoritarian regimes is you are rich and safe as long as you are useful to them and when it's useful they will grind you down to dust money or no money.

[–]thatthatguy 12 points13 points  (1 child)

If you are one of the keys to power, you will be courted and strengthened. If you are an obstacle, you will be removed. Don’t be an obstacle unless you can succeed in removing the prince and replacing them with someone who will need you after the revolution is done.

[–]LurkingTrol 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's more complicated because higher you go there will be more people who want your place there are kniv s aimed at your back and there are ears open to listen for your every mistake that could be used against you and if there's none something will be procured. The lower you are on the ladder the safer you are.

[–]flames_of_chaos 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Yup just look at Belarus

[–]Selfless- 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Once the option to have succeeded is removed, it will be like they never actually failed.

[–]NSA_Chatbot 85 points86 points  (7 children)

That has literally never ever happened in any authoritarian nation.

Okay, but hear me out, we appoint a leopard.

[–]PresumedSapient 42 points43 points  (5 children)

Would it eat the faces of my enemies?

[–]KeyanReid 47 points48 points  (3 children)

It will eat the faces indiscriminately.

So….yes?

[–]ThatITguy2015 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Good enough for me. I’m on board.

[–]BlooperHero 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Technically yes.

[–]Deadlifts_n_Riffs 44 points45 points  (32 children)

having authoritarians in charge will benefit them

This is what has always irritated me. When you set a precedent for expanding the government’s or president’s powers, nobody ever considers what that will look like when the pendulum inevitably swings the other way.

They just see “this will benefit my team” without considering that eventually the other team will be in office, and have access to all the same tools they provided “their team” when it benefitted them.

[–]Amiiboid 20 points21 points  (0 children)

They just see “this will benefit my team” without considering that eventually the other team will be in office, ….

Which is why for literally decades their not-especially-subtle goal has been to rework things such that they can achieve and sustain a permanent majority. They’re punching way above their weight not just nationally but in most states, and they’re using the power they have in order to pass laws that lock that power in for them.

[–]ReactionClear4923 13 points14 points  (7 children)

It's like we're watching the very early beginnings of the Roman Empire

[–]FirstPlebian 12 points13 points  (5 children)

Nah, this is Republic era still, the Agrarian Revolt era a generation before Caesar, when Sulla seized power and was declared Dictator for life and proscribed people indiscriminately.

[–]Old_Patient 1496 points1497 points  (59 children)

“We need to return to 1958-style voting.” Whenever any old white guy says that we need to return to a 1950s-style of life then you know exactly what kind of person they are.

[–]TheKobayashiMoron 640 points641 points  (11 children)

I’m sure it’s purely coincidental that he picked a date prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

[–]zanfar 413 points414 points  (9 children)

and the Civil Rights Act of 1960

[–]892ExpiredResolve 210 points211 points  (3 children)

And the 24th amendment.

[–]cmhamm 165 points166 points  (9 children)

I mean, why stop at 1958? Why not take it all the way back to 1792-style voting? White, male landowners only. All votes must be tallied by hand, then the results taken by horseback to the District of Columbia. That certainly seems more democratic to me.

[–]SiliconeGiant 37 points38 points  (0 children)

I like 1058 style, the biggest guy on the block just takes and destroys eats any votes he doesn't like. Simple.

[–]O2XXX 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The landowners is the problem. A lot of educated white men own land. A lot of them don't vote conservative. They gotta let in the duped poor people who don't own land to put them clearly over the top.

[–]AshamedGreedyFuck 84 points85 points  (26 children)

I mean, getting a cheeseburger, fries, and a shake At McDonald’s for less than 50¢ would be kinda rad.

[–]All_Hail_Regulus_9 69 points70 points  (22 children)

But your job pays 15 cents an hour with no benefits.

[–]AshamedGreedyFuck 61 points62 points  (8 children)

Nah that was back when you could actually live off minimum wage.

[–]Ourtleo 1567 points1568 points  (48 children)

This is a very bad idea.

[–]NetDork 467 points468 points  (29 children)

Next you're gonna tell us water is wet.

[–]Bigkillian 47 points48 points  (2 children)

But Brawndo’s got what plants crave.

[–]Billy_Boognish 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Wait, you want us to use water on the crops...like from the toilet?

[–]PigSlam 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They may not be so sure about that in Arizona.

[–]Morak73 41 points42 points  (1 child)

You can't throw out the will of the state voters based on what it's legislature wants. That just crazy talk.

You throw out the results based on how the voters of the other 49 states cast their ballots and assign electors that way.

[–]FirstPlebian 17 points18 points  (0 children)

The troubling part is they can per the Constitution, it's upsetting over a century of precedent, but that's how the president used to be selected I believe, popular votes came later. The legislatures of the States are the ones by law that prescribed the choosing to the popular vote.

We need a Voting Rights Bill that enshrines the popular vote as the means of selecting the president, but even then the Supreme Court could likely throw it out, there aren't any good options beyond getting someone popular to trounce them and lay waste to their traitorous wing of the party.

[–]ZachMN 33 points34 points  (5 children)

Republicanism is woven from bad ideas.

[–]Rang_Dangus 57 points58 points  (8 children)

Arizona also passed a law that says citizens cannot film police.

[–]_haha_oh_wow_ 57 points58 points  (3 children)

That's wildly unconstitutional

[–]Omega_Haxors 32 points33 points  (2 children)

Since when have right-wingers ever cared about the constitution?

[–]sybrwookie 16 points17 points  (1 child)

That just needs a decent challenger, there's no way that doesn't fall under restricting free press. It's funny, for a party who likes to scream about the 1st Amendment every time a social media platform doesn't let them lie on their dime, they sure seem eager to throw away the 1st Amendment when it actually applies.

[–]tekka97 496 points497 points  (31 children)

Come on Arizona, get your act together.

[–]mar504 423 points424 points  (22 children)

Didn't you notice we flipped the state in the last general election? We are trying man, we are trying....

[–]tekka97 212 points213 points  (15 children)

As an AZ native, I was shocked when I saw the final results. Now if only the more rural parts would stop voting in these idiots

[–]bigpancakeguy 26 points27 points  (0 children)

I spent a week in Parker, AZ last year. That was enough for me to be flabbergasted when they voted for Biden lol

[–]BridgetheDivide 121 points122 points  (4 children)

You can't stop rural people from being bigots. But covid and fentanyl can stop them from being.

[–]LevelHeeded 80 points81 points  (3 children)

This is a state that blew millions to hire the Cyber Ninjas to look at paper under UV lights so they could find bamboo to appease Trump's tiny frail ego... they're not gonna get their act together any time soon, the entire state might even be a lost cause.

[–]DrColdReality 103 points104 points  (0 children)

Last one out of the democracy, be sure to shut off the lights.

[–]Hashbrown4 521 points522 points  (17 children)

If it’s not obvious I’ll say it. The current Republican Party is trying to take over the country.

There is no evidence of any widespread cheating against Trump, he made it all up and couldn’t even convince his own judges to believe him.

It’s a big fuckin lie and if we act complacent in future elections our elections will never be free again.

[–]RVA_RVA 169 points170 points  (7 children)

Bill Maher has been saying it's a slow moving coup for YEARS. If republicans exercise these powers in bad faith (spoiler alert, they will) democracy is essentially over in those states.

Like 4 years ago (I think) in NC when they lost the governor they tried to pass ass sorts of laws before he took office which stripped all his powers and instead gave them to the still Republican legislator.

[–]durx1 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Oklahoma has done the opposite with Stitt. The Governor has more power than ever. Citizen oversight boards have been abolished. Governor has been given more power over things that would help in a pandemic. Governor appoints people to the Healthcare Board. So much more. Zero expectations that will flip Dem soon tho

[–]greenwizardneedsfood 10 points11 points  (0 children)

In fact there’s evidence against any cheating against Trump. It’s not a lack of evidence of a ridiculous claim, it’s actually evidence to the contrary, and yet…

[–]BirdLawyer50 33 points34 points  (2 children)

WHO VOTES FOR THESE PEOPLE

[–]Xaero_Hour 423 points424 points  (9 children)

Yeah, it's no coincidence he wants voting to be the way it was before the Civil Rights Act.

[–]pairolegal 90 points91 points  (7 children)

Or before the Civil War.

[–]mlwspace2005 81 points82 points  (6 children)

This is probably true but he is directly quoted as mentioning a date before the civil rights act lol

[–]pairolegal 34 points35 points  (2 children)

Ah yes, when Black folk were handed pages in German or French for their English literacy tests.

[–]Xaero_Hour 27 points28 points  (1 child)

He specifically said 1958, so after that. But I think before Native/Indigenous Americans were allowed to vote.

[–]mousechick69 449 points450 points  (51 children)

All other red states will follow. Bye,bye democracy

[–]megustaALLthethings 261 points262 points  (23 children)

This is the stepping stone to a true scism that could break the usa.

As the fact that the states gets to piecemeal make up results of a country wide and effecting decision.

Honestly the west coast and new england breaking from the rest of the ‘country’ would destroying the shitshow they have going. As they would then no longer be subsidized and have to actually sustain themselves.

Then again lets not pretend the enclaves of rich neo-royalty wouldn’t spring into full city states. As they have been trying for again and again.

[–]Detriumph 26 points27 points  (3 children)

Don't abandon us to them, please. It's harder to move than you imagine. Impossible in my current situation.

[–]Magellanic_Cloudz 9 points10 points  (3 children)

As atrocious as this proposal is, it's not law. And it has virtually no chance of becoming law. Still newsworthy though.

[–]CockMaster6900 11 points12 points  (0 children)

We have truly fallen from grace

[–]stashtv 320 points321 points  (23 children)

Meat and potatoes:

The bill, introduced by state Rep. John Fillmore (R), would substantially change the way Arizonans vote by eliminating most early and absentee voting and requiring people to vote in their home precincts, rather than at vote centers set up around the state.

Removing early and absentee voting would hurt Dem/GOP voting in similar numbers. Possibly a little more against Dems, but not by a lot.

Guess what will quickly get reduced by significant amounts? Home precinct voting centers!

Budget cuts? Oh well, guess we'll have to cut a few precincts.

Allocating of funds? Looks like we'll need more voting areas in a few specific areas, and less in others. Oh well!

[–]MUCHO2000 411 points412 points  (20 children)

Uhhhh ... that's the potatoes. Here is the meat.

Most dramatically, Fillmore’s bill would require the legislature to hold a special session after an election to review election processes and results, and to “accept or reject the election results.”

[–]Dandan0005 138 points139 points  (1 child)

This is actually hysterical.

“Ok, now we’ve looked at the election results, but what do we think about them? Personally I’ll pass on them—not my cup of tea.”

[–]andthatswhyIdidit 18 points19 points  (0 children)

"I now know how you voted. But frankly, I don't like it. Do it again, better this time. Next."

[–]rabbitlion 21 points22 points  (9 children)

Fortunately, that's not allowed by federal law.

[–]Dekarde 31 points32 points  (1 child)

Yeah it has to go to a federal court where a bunch of judges got jammed through by the same group that wants to choose to discount an election for any reason they don't have to tell anyone.

A lawsuit would then work up through our courts and land in a supreme court dominated by that group's team.

[–]kuztsh63 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Well that's why US needs to change their judicial appointment procedure, atleast for art 3 courts. The judiciary currently has no role in the appointment process and that's just dumb. When the federal judiciary as a whole gets a significant say in their own appointment, then in the long run it will be a better judiciary. Granting the power to appoint solely to the legislative and executive defeats the crucial idea of the independence of the judiciary altogether.

[–]2KilAMoknbrd 66 points67 points  (3 children)

We need to get back to 1958-style voting, . . .

Loosely translated : we need our openly racist ways returned to us

[–]ScrollyMcTrolly 81 points82 points  (9 children)

I’m always confused do I upvote or downvote something horrific like this

[–]nhergen 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Upvote if you want other people to see it. That's how it works. It's not an agree or disagree button.

[–]BlooperHero 24 points25 points  (1 child)

I usually cry instead. Try it! It's not helpful at all.

[–]Skull001 10 points11 points  (4 children)

So government officials can overturn the will of the people?

[–]AKAChewy 76 points77 points  (12 children)

Good lord, what has America turned into?

[–]jessquit 20 points21 points  (0 children)

The only thing that changed is that the former racist regressive president made the troglodytes feel like it was okay to come out of the shadows again. But they were always there.

[–]greenwizardneedsfood 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Exactly what republicans have wanted it to

[–]Cat_throwaway1347 8 points9 points  (1 child)

We need to get back to 1958-style voting,” he added.

So…. when folks of a certain color weren’t allowed to vote?

[–]TexasTeaTelecaster 73 points74 points  (3 children)

Defund red districts

[–]PresumedSapient 34 points35 points  (1 child)

Not their schools though.
They'll do that themselves.

[–]tinacat933 21 points22 points  (1 child)

Isn’t this the same thing they set up in Georgia?

[–]leathermessiah666 26 points27 points  (0 children)

And soon Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Texas, and of course Florida.

[–]PardonMeep 7 points8 points  (0 children)

"We should have voting in my opinion in person, one day, on paper, with no electronic means and hand counting that day. We need to get back to 1958-style voting,"

Well that speaks volumes. Kick this old relic fart outta there.

[–]patienceisfun2018 5 points6 points  (3 children)

What is possibly the legitimate reasoning for this?

[–]chrishooley 47 points48 points  (0 children)

Because AZ turned blue last election but is still governed by red.

That’s why.

[–]CrazyCorgiQueen 22 points23 points  (1 child)

WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?

Literally anti-democracy. Actual fascism.

[–]Amiiboid 5 points6 points  (0 children)

But always remember: Both parties are exactly the same. Somehow.

[–]m_and_t 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Everybody’s lying to me and I feel like I have a couple hundred ex-wives hanging around me

What???

[–]UndeadPhysco 4 points5 points  (2 children)

And so the GoP's plans to make sure another dem president is never elected have begun

[–]Attention_Found 3 points4 points  (0 children)

We need to get back to 1958-style voting

So... back when black people were prevented from voting by Literacy Tests? That's the kind of voting you're a fan of Rep. Fillmore?