Republicans will win control of the House

Clyburn would probably be favored over Hoyer... even though he's 82 years old, after all, he's BLACK! Steny Hoyer is White, and, he's 83 years old (scratch that one).

Hakeem Sekou Jeffries (!) might be the one... he's only approaching his mid-50's, he's Black, and... well, what else does he need to please the Democrat Party?

 

Yes, do.

 

I had already made my point earlier in the thread.

 

That's what I thought too. Picking someone who isn't already drawing Social Security is a bold choice. But it might be a good one.

 

None of you guys remember what happened when Ross Perot ran against everybody as a third-party candidate in the 1990's, do you...? You should study it well!

Much could be said about 'third-parties' in the United States, but it all boils down to 'blah-blah-blah'. All a 'third-party' candidate does is GUARANTEE a Democrat Party win. Democrats are very focused and disciplined during elections -- they know exactly what they want -- FREE STUFF.

And whoever promises them the most 'free stuff', while doing little or nothing to earn it, will always get the enthusiastic endorsement of 'the-rank-and-file' of Democrat voters. It's all about long, fat lists of welfare handouts and 'subsidies'... nothing else really even matters to a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat.

 

Your only possible support for that is that Democrats do want to solve problems. That's what "progressive" means.

And, there is no doubt that solutions cost money, even when the design is as efficient as possible and relies on principles such as free market capitalism as much as possible.

The real question is, how will Republicans spend their time in office?

To date, all that is mentioned is targeting Biden with subpoena power.

But, they were totally against that action when Trump was president. They even have the Republican Supreme Court protecting Trump against any type of investigation.

All we're seeing is an attempt at strengthening partisanship.

As if we need more of that!!

 

Nah. After all, whenever the Dems squeak out the slimmest margin of victory, they claim voters gave them a "mandate" for their agenda. A mandate is an overwhelming victory, not a squeaker. But hey, words (and other things LOL) don't seem to have fixed definitions anymore.

 

As always, I hope we move beyond the emotion elections always engender.

I'm more interested in how Republicans will now spend their time in the House.

All I hear about is investigation. Are we looking at years of investigating Hunter Biden?

Are we looking at even more efforts to ignore the assault on our democracy of Jan 6?

Is there some plan to do something else?

 

I'm so in favor of age limitations for government workers.

 

Its all about the show. Both sides do it.

When they have these “hearings”, its not about guilt of innocence, it’s about the information gathered thru that subpoena power being selectively released to hurt the guy they are “investigating”. BOTH sides do it. Nothing ever comes from them, other than political gain. Both sides do that because they know if they actually do find some dirt, or something illegal,they wont proscute it, because they know that if not in the next election cycle, it will happen in the one after that and they will then be in the minority and the cycle starts again, only they are on the other side of the courtroom.

Our politics is so devisve now that I truely believ that this experiment in democracy is about over. It NEVER about what they wil do for the people they represent, its about themselves, how they can benefit, and/or how they can hurt the “other side”

 

Am I reading correctly that you thought that was a serious, fact-based recap of what T**** had done??

Assuming we are talking about the same thing, which is always a crap shoot...

 

I'm not even slightly in favor of limits on who may apply. That includes term limits, too.

If my best representation comes from someone who is older, or darker skinned, or doesn't share my religious views, or has an outstanding performance record, etc., then that's who I want.

Even the fact that we can vote in a president who has ZERO experience in elective office is something our system has to tolerate - though in general it is a profound negative.

The disturbing parts about our democracy have more to do with how candidates attain office.

Unfortunately, that includes the FABULOUS WEALTH from hidden sources that is so central to who wins office. So, those in office work to gain the favor of the big money as their primary goal, as they will probably lose their next election if they fail at that.

And, it comes in the form of gerrymandering and election controls used to ensure that election outcomes are NOT the same as the will of the electorate.

Why have we allowed Trump's stupendous war chests of the last years twist the representation of state after state? Etc.

 

In reality! The only reason it's gotten this far is because the BULLSHIT sells and it garners votes.. Now ask yourself what party gravitates to shock and aw, drama, fear, threats and follows media marching orders above their own common sense..

I'll ask you be as honest as you were in your post. please!

 

That's all they will have power to do, really. It's, frankly, a much better use of their time than passing meaningless bills that the Senate will ignore or Biden will veto.

ETA: maybe they could do something like fire 87,000 IRS agents when it comes time to pass a budget, but I doubt they've even got the grit to do that much.

 

Bold goes right back atcha.... The main advantage we had was that our mediocrity wasn't also a corrupt grifting liar, which led to a solid win.

BUT, we are talking about Democrat leadership posts, and I haven't seen anything negative about any of the 3 in consideration, so I'll take you deflections back to Biden as evidence you don't have anything....

 

I think what you need to consider is that our system demands transparency.

We are even transparent in our moves in national "defense", even when it involves decisions on war.

So, we have public hearings, press access through freedom of information requests, etc.

As for your assessment concerning democracy:

>>> What other system would you choose?

I do not believe there is a better system, and what we need to do is to strengthen the one we have. It has to be open to all citizens freely and equally. We have to reduce the effect of MASSIVE dollars. Our votes can NOT be allowed to be discarded, as per Republicans in several states are giving their officials the right to do.

Also, American citizens living in Washington, DC have NO CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION! We all know where that came from, but it is absolutely unacceptable today. There are two states that are smaller in population than Washington, DC. Those in the district can't even vote when their federal taxes are being decided.

 

Nonsense.

Congress was designed for the purpose of negotiation and compromise. THAT is what congressmen are supposed to be doing.

And, the super wealthy absolutely DO want to reduce the size of the IRS, as it means they can continue dodging taxes, which means that the rest of us shoulder their load.

 

That is actually the first election in my living memory. My dad took me to the polls with him. I know it well.

You're going to go with the old "a vote for reasonable candidate is just a vote for kick to the nads! That's why you HAVE to vote for punch to the nads!!! Because no one would vote for reasonable candidate!!! Don't throw your vote to kick to the nads!!! It HAS to be punch to the nads!".
Its a nonsensical argument. A vote for a 3rd party candidate is simply that: A vote for that candidate. If you can't attract enough votes to win, that's on your candidate for sucking diseased moose wang.
The reasonable candidate can win just as soon as you stop demanding to be punched in the nads.

I'm voting for the best candidate. If you want me to vote for your candidate, make them the best candidate. If you are unable or unwilling to do that, if you insist I vote for a ****ing ham sandwich because you put a letter next to its name on the ballot, you deserve to lose and I hope you have terrible indigestion.

Pointing out that the dems are also unacceptable does not encourage me to vote for the pubs when they likewise are unacceptable for various reasons. If you made yourself acceptable to the voters, you wouldn't have this problem. But no, you run folks like Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, and Jeb ****ing Bush for president, and your senate and house candidates are mostly worse than that for the fact that no one really scrutinizes them so they're able to get far more corrupt bullshit done (like insider trade legally).
Tell me what policy the pubs put forward that you think is so great. Not a talking point, not some mealy mouthed feel good bullshit. Give me a concrete policy, hell give me several.
You gonna institute term limits? You gonna legalize marijuana at the fed level? You gonna repeal the NFA? You gonna lower taxes? What the **** are you going to do?

 

There definitely are better election methodologies - ones that give third party candidates and independents greater chances.

One problem with the way we vote is that there are two major parties that control congress and most of politics in general.

There are places where I can vote for two candidates, one having priority. If my number one loses, then my vote goes to my number 2.

That makes it easier to vote for candidates that don't have the HUGE advantage of major party endorsement and all their $$$ brings.

 

I don't believe the Democrats are willing to truly compromise, so it'll be mostly gridlock for the next two years, and I'm ok with that. It's better than Dems having unified control and stripping out the last vestiges of minority power that made that compromise and negotiation you seem to think is so important a reality.

This is nonsense. Those 87,000 new IRS agents are going to spend plenty of their time auditing the middle class. If Democrats didn't want that to be the case, they would not have voted down this amendment:

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 117th Congress - 2nd Session

But they did, because Democrats WANT these 87,000 IRS agents to audit the everloving-**** out of the middle-class.

 

No. "Progressive" is a euphemism for socialist, and in some cases communist.

That's the term the Soviets used for their fellow travelers in the West and it's the name that Henry Wallace and the Soviet sympathizers in the Democratik Party used when they walked out of the DP and formed the Progressive Party in 1948. Today, the socialists in the DP still use that term to refer to themselves, and that's why I refer to them as "progressives" because they're socialists and there's nothing progressive about them.

 

sure you didn't mean Trump?

 

this is pretending to be black

oops, a republicans forgot to change accounts before posting?

 

Trump has his own evil, but I am sure that I meant the true Wicked Witch of the House of Representatives. The one and only Nancy Pelosi, taking milk money from children for decades.

 

So your point when you replied to me was not understanding my point then? Got it.