• Registration has now been temporarily enabled and will close at the end of the month! Just keep in mind though that all new accounts will be subject to a manual bot check. If you have any questions, issues, or concerns, please email Arnox at "[email protected]".

The Official Congressional Blacklist

Arnox

Veteran
Staff member
Founder
Messages
3,922
These infamous men and women listed here are people in congress who have indefensibly voted yay in support of absolutely unacceptable bills. The objectionable bill(s) will be listed next to each congressperson along with the date.

CongresspersonObjectionable Bill(s) Supported
TX - Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee - Dem.H.R. 127 (Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act), Jan. 4, 2021

This list is for informational purposes only. Also, this is, sadly, an ongoing list and may be updated at any time in the future.
 
Last edited:

Arnox

Veteran
Staff member
Founder
Messages
3,922
First on the docket is H.R. 127 and all who voted for it. Thankfully, only one person currently seems to support this abomination, but we won't know for sure until tomorrow at the earliest in terms of who specifically will and won't vote in support of this bill.

There is another bill that would mess with Section 230 protections called the SAFE TECH act, but that hasn't even been solidified yet, so we'll cross that bridge later if it needs crossing.
 

gaijinkaiju

Disciple
Sanctuary legend
Sanctuary contributor
Messages
373

Arnox

Veteran
Staff member
Founder
Messages
3,922
Now sure if this counts, but thought it was worth mentioning
This is Senate Bill 4049. Passed the Senate but it didn't pass the House. Something else most likely got passed in its place.
 

Epyc Wynn

Adherent
Messages
37
Warren can kiss my ass after throwing Sanders under the bus during the debates. Total snake! Even Trump never did something as shitty during a debate.
 

Arnox

Veteran
Staff member
Founder
Messages
3,922
Warren can kiss my ass after throwing Sanders under the bus during the debates. Total snake! Even Trump never did something as shitty during a debate.
Then again though... Sanders backed Hilary Clinton. Not exactly a great position to take.
 

Epyc Wynn

Adherent
Messages
37
Then again though... Sanders backed Hilary Clinton. Not exactly a great position to take.
"How dare politicians make negative compromises for the greater good -they should take extreme good positions without compromise even if it means contributing to a greater evil!"

You're basically saying all compromise is bad by your own logic, which would fundamentally break governance as a whole. By its very nature, compromise involves tolerating somewhat bad outcomes for the greater good. Though, not surprising as a stance if you fundamentally oppose the government as a whole. Things like diplomacy, tolerating insertion of bad things into overall half-decent bills, allowing gradual progress even if there's a degree of regress.

Now of course you can just go "but Trump go elected anyway!" but at that point that's just a result of Sanders losing a safe bet, not Sanders making a bad bet -only a few tens of thousands of votes in the 'wrong' physical locations caused the loss of this otherwise safe bet. Sanders got unlucky with Trump winning insofar as Hillary lost causing a mass cultural division and shift in favor of fascist-style politics, but it would be foolish to equate unlucky with unwise.

To insist Sanders was wrong to compromise is not a criticism of Sanders but you conveying your ideological position in a roundabout way that one should take an extreme 'good' position to create a small direct good outcome even if it means indirectly causing an overall far greater evil outcome to occur. It's childish at best.
 

Arnox

Veteran
Staff member
Founder
Messages
3,922
You're basically saying all compromise is bad by your own logic, which would fundamentally break governance as a whole. By its very nature, compromise involves tolerating somewhat bad outcomes for the greater good.
Yes, that would be silly of me to say that, wouldn't it. Which is why I'm not saying all compromise is bad. What I AM saying though is that Hilary winning would not be a "somewhat bad" bad outcome. It's just bad, period. There is no good to come from that. But then again, Trump was and is acting retarded so I guess it didn't really matter that much really. We were going to get fucked either way, just the exact kind of penetration we'd get would be different.

No, not all compromises are bad, but some compromises will just leave you worse than where you were before, not better.
 

Vendor-Lazarus

Arch Disciple
Sanctuary legend
Messages
501
"Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC, by Donna Brazile. Per an agreement between the Clinton Campaign and the DNC: In exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings "


"In its self-described "pied piper" strategy, the Clinton campaign proposed intentionally cultivating extreme right-wing presidential candidates, hoping to turn them into the new "mainstream of the Republican Party" in order to try to increase Clinton's chances of winning, telling the press to take Trump, Ben Carson, and Ted Cruz seriously, rather than marginalizing them. "

 

Arnox

Veteran
Staff member
Founder
Messages
3,922

Both bills are thoroughly dead. Last action on them was about 2 years ago. But it does bring up an interesting question. How far back are we gonna go?

Maybe I should have some more concrete rules for this list.
 

Arnox

Veteran
Staff member
Founder
Messages
3,922
Top