appreciated beyond words. certainly. if you could speak directly to russian president vladimir putin what would you tell him? based on your experience in ukraine? this important work you re doing with refugees. what would you say to him? i think that history changes, and i think that the plan, which is so basic and historically has been the same plan of hitler and napoleon and whoever else that wants to occupy and, you know, own territory, globally. history changes. today the warfare isn t the same as it used to be, and, you know, the fact we re seeing this with ukraine defending what was meant to be one of the biggest armys in the world. i just want to say that maybe historically history needs changed, and in this war, there s not a victory or loss but maybe he just needs to step down. you know? and i would love to see a
that required certain states to get clearance for any election system they did. that went on into perp pewty. in 2013 the u.s. supreme court said history changes. we can t keep pretending like it 1965 but don t we need preclearance still? when we look how republicans are redrawing the maps in texas, it s starting to look like 1965, is it not? we absolutely do need preclearance, which is why what you see from democrats in congress is a very intense and intentional effort to restore the preclearance provision in the voting rights act and to not only pass the freedom to vote act but you saw the house pass the john lewis voting rights advancement act. i will tell you congressman kinzinger voted against that bill. they have the opportunity to restore the act and stand by the protections in our constitution particularly to protect the vote of communities of color and
election system they did. that went on to perpetuity. it was intended to be temporary. in 2013, the u.s. supreme court said, history changes. we can t keep pretending like it s 1965. for the last eight years, we have not had that provision. the john lewis voting right would have that provision to have the justice department make any approval to any changes. by the way, that would have been the trump justice department and anything like that. yes, we can get to a solution. the problem is, i admonish my side all the time about playing politics. the democrats have to quit playing politics on some of this, too. you can call it the for the people act, which was the other one, and what that is is public funding for campaigns among other host of things. if we went into this as adults with real discussions, i think we can solve stuff. instead, we wait for the twitter comments of adam voted against whatever, and i can put a bill out there and see people vote against that and say they are agains
lewis voting rights act, reinstating the justice department s power to block some states and localities from enacting discriminatory voting rules. why did you not support those bills? is there a bipartisan effort that you and other republicans could get behind that could actually protect the rights of voters and get through the house and senate for president biden to sign? i certainly hope there is. i think there is. there s been discussions in the senate from last i have heard. you can call a bill the voting rights act and then left wing twitter goes nuts, by the way, and they can say you voted against voting rights without looking into the details. the quick details, the voting rights act in the mid 60s came out with preclearance which required certain states to get clearance for any changes. that went on. it was intended to be temporary. in 2013, the u.s. supreme court said, history changes. we can t keep pretending like