For the People Act: Senate Bill H.R. 1

One of those rare instances where progressives and a segment of the right will agree is the For the People Act (Senate Bill H.R. 1) which would get rid of limitations on voting rights.

Some writers at the Washington Times (here): Why the aptly named For the People Act deserves Senate support - Washington Times and progressive journalism (Harpers): How the For the People Act Would Revolutionize Voting ( endorse the bill.

Per Washington Times:

“Yet one thing that the vast majority of Americans will say is that they do not want a government run by the rich and powerful at the expense of everyone else. They do not want working people and people without access to billionaires’ bank accounts to be shut out of running for office, or prevented from voting. And they definitely do not want their elected representatives in the pockets of big corporations”

The always anti-democracy Breitbart predictably disagrees: 37 Things to Know About H.R. 1, ‘For the People Act’ (

Question for @mick: Both the left and right wing media are calling for this bill, which puts a ban on dark money in elections. This leads to 2 questions:

  1. Does this disagreement between Breitbart and the Wash Times not clearly show Breitbart has a far right, anti-democracy agenda?
  2. Does this agreement between the Wash Times and left leaning progressive publications poke holes in the theory that ‘media’ wants certain outcomes?
  3. Do you support this bill?

Looks like a middle ground is quite possible when it comes to expanding voter rights in the name of Democracy.

EDIT: Note change from Wash times to Some writers at Wash times.


That article above is not an editorial from the Washington Times… It’s just an opinion piece. This appears to be an editorial from the Wash Times which opposes HR 1:

And here is an example of another opinion piece from the Washington Times with a differing view from the one you provided: Liberals attack First Amendment, again with H.R. 1 - Washington Times

I always take it as a good sign when there is bi-partisan consensus on an issue, even if that consensus is coming only from a “segment of the far right”, which I noted in my post.

Your OP is incorrect. You stated the Washington Times endorses HR 1. It clearly does not.

You’re right.

I’ve modified my sentence to indicate some not all Washington Times writers support the bill. It’s still great to see that some democratic ideas are gaining traction in traditionally anti democratic publications.

Thanks for the partial correction, but Ben Jealous the author of that opinion piece is not a Washington Times writer. He is president of People For the American Way. A progressive group.

Newspapers often run opinion pieces from authors completely unaffiliated with their publications and totally opposed to the paper’s viewpoints. So to claim that HR 1 appears to be gaining traction with any faction of the Washington Times is probably quite erroneous.

(Some publications have regular contributors who routinely write in opposition to the editorial board’s positions. But again, providing contrary opinion in a publication does not indicate acceptance of it by an organization’s editorial board or regular staff writers.)

1 Like

I find it interesting that suddenly after 4 years of yelling about THE MEDIA, refusing to read the entire NY Times, dismissing entire newspapers as MSM without explanation…suddenly RWers have found they have a nose for journalistic accuracy after all. :wink:

Let’s leave it at: It’s good to see a traditionally anti democratic publication running pieces favoring democracy and expanding voting rights? I’m encouraged it found its way in there.

How does that flow?

It’s utter garbage like the above, that I usually ignore your posts. It has nothing to do with what I wrote. You made factual errors, which you at least acknowledged, but are now acting like an octopus by ejecting blank ink. I will not waste my time rebutting the nonsense above. (You did have a wink thingy at the end so maybe you’re just caricaturing your inaccurate portrayal of media criticisms by groups you don’t like. Winking back)

(I’ve been critical of the media for a lot longer than four years, but will in no way address it further here.)

LOL @ the bolded text. You love to throw around loaded words and phrases. It’s one of many reasons I usually ignore your posts.

The “conservative” Wall Street Journal Op/Ed section has been running opinion pieces contrary to their stands for years. I would guess the Washington Times has been doing similar. I can’t say either way. I don’t read it.


Edited to add: To state it succinctly, I would not be “encouraged” unless I ascertained that it’s only recently that WT is inviting opposition columnists to step forward with contributions.

1 Like

You’ve done a great job of deflecting away from the original post, which was regarding the Senate Bill H.R.1.

An editorial that finally makes some sense found its way onto their rag, one way or the other. Maybe the filter missed one or something.

So enough making it about me instead of the topic: Do you think this bill is a good idea? The WT ran a very sensible editorial from Ben Jealous making a case for it.

And yeah, the fact that RW refuse to read entire publications is very relevant. It comes off as a double standard, these gymnastics now about the WT. They ran it on their page, it must mean something to them. Suddenly we care who wrote what? Lol.

LOL… This is one of many reasons why I cannot have a discussion with people like you. You need to learn the difference between an editorial and an opinion column in a newspaper. There is a significant difference.

Another reason why I’m not interested in talking to you.

You stated the WT posted an editorial endorsing HR 1 which is something they are drastically opposed to! You claimed I was making my post about you… LOL… you are incredible. Your post attempted to show there was bi-partisan support for HR 1. Most of the entire thesis of your OP was incorrect because you mistook an opinion piece for an editorial.

Yet you call this major correction, deflection and about you.

See there are two elements here;

  1. Your original OP thesis was incorrect… there appears to be no bi-partisanship on HR 1. So that is not about YOU, but content.

  2. The part that is about you is how you respond.

My question was:

Not interested in the rest so if its more crapola about what of my posts you read or dont or why we can leave it here.

But I am interested on whether you think the bill is a good idea. Up to you.

1 Like

Well, that’s three questions.

Firstly to your question of being bipartisan, this passed in the house with 0 votes from Republicans and 1 vote against from Democrats. see here

It’s a very big bill, but my 20,000 ft view is if it is going to address voting the goal should be to make voting easy for those eligible to vote, make sure only those who are eligible to vote can vote and finally once people have voted should the need to audit arise it can be audited quickly efficiently and accurately.

I think the Republican concern is the emphasis is on ease of voting, not on verifying who is voting which leads to difficulties in auditing. You guys are still dealing with the fallout from the 2020 election.

Everybody in the population both Democrat and Republican want free transparent and accurate elections. Without cheating. This bill seems to solidify the kind of rules that were used in the 6 contested states nationwide and will result in accusations of cheating on a massive scale.

“Let me get this straight: I can make a same-day gun purchase in Georgia, but I can’t give a voter in line a water bottle?”

1 Like

That’s not true, the GOP is doing everything they can in their minority position to undermine the voting procedure.

1 Like

Which is wrong, Democrats on the other hand are doing everything they can to minimize authenticity of who is voting and making sure it is accurate, which is also wrong.

That’s the goal, I think Taiwan does it well, @Belgian_Pie brought up Belgium elections which I looked up and commented they look to be very good.

My technical analysis of US elections is they are a shitshow. Absolute disaster, which should be fixed because everybody (excluding politicians) want fixed.

Voter fraud is not a problem. It wasnt then. It isn’t now. It won’t be in the future. In fact, it’s one of the very few things you can look at in the US and say it isn’t a problem.

The US elections are not a shit show and have never have been because our country is predicated on the right to vote as the cornerstone of our democracy. They run efficiently–despite the GOP’s best efforts to derail them.

1 Like

I know that you’re wrong.

1 Like

What exactly is your technical analysis? The US elections were never accused of being rigged by neutral parties, impartial poll observer. What exactly is your problem? Even Trump’s lawyer would tell you no reasonable person would believe in election lie.

1 Like

Well, lets start with counting machines, how confident are you in their accuracy and why, and while we are at it, should they be used at all?

Machines work better than humans for repeating work. So 1 for machines. Are those the same machine Ivanka Trump made a deal with?
2-0 for machines.

1 Like