No, for the love of God, No!

Just so we’re on the same page, the most viable third party would probably come from the right in the form of a more traditional pre-Trump Republican party..a party that made Trump look more appealing in the first place. Democrats are toying with running Hillary again…a candidate so bad that she lost against Trump with his many, MANY red flags that should have disqualified him the instant he mentioned he was thinking about running.

I don’t think it’s possible for them to have their heads wedged even further up their own asses. They honestly believe the solution to a clearly failed system is to return to that same system.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
Just so we’re on the same page, the most viable third party would probably come from the right in the form of a more traditional pre-Trump Republican party..a party that made Trump look more appealing in the first place. Democrats are toying with running Hillary again…a candidate so bad that she lost against Trump with his many, MANY red flags that should have disqualified him the instant he mentioned he was thinking about running.

I don’t think it’s possible for them to have their heads wedged even further up their own asses. They honestly believe the solution to a clearly failed system is to return to that same system.
Click to expand...
We need someone young(er), sharp as a tack, and liberal to appeal to the masses if such a thing exists and is possible at this point in our decline. Here is the thing, if our option is a vote for Hillary or the typical Right Wing Ass Hat, who would be the better choice?
 
SuperMatt said:
They didn’t actually create nobles. But if you read the words of the founders, many of them saw themselves as superior to "the people" and wanted to make sure they had elites in place to keep the people in check. It’s just nobility under another name. There are many examples of the founders expressing the idea that people were incapable of governing themselves, and the Senate was created for that reason. America only allowed people to vote for their own Senators starting in 1913.
Click to expand...
but, shouldn't the Senate as a whole be the check? You know, voting on an issue??

Joe Manchin singlehandedly doing this, with no voting in the process and with no mechanism for stopping it, is my issue.

Oh, and thanks, all, for the additions to my Senate history lessons.
 
T
sgtaylor5 said:
but, shouldn't the Senate as a whole be the check? You know, voting on an issue??

Joe Manchin singlehandedly doing this, with no voting in the process and with no mechanism for stopping it, is my issue.

Oh, and thanks, all, for the additions to my Senate history lessons.
Click to expand...
That’s because the Senate is split down the middle and Manchin is a DINO.
 
Huntn said:
We need someone young(er), sharp as a tack, and liberal to appeal to the masses if such a thing exists and is possible at this point in our decline. Here is the thing, if our option is a vote for Hillary or the typical Right Wing Ass Hat, who would be the better choice?
Click to expand...
Have we tried cloning Obama? ;)
 
Herdfan said:
Because it is not 1, it is 51. A majority is stopping it.
Click to expand...

While technically correct, we’ve had to write off Republican’s blanket brick wall obstruction as being perfectly acceptable. No debate or justifications beyond broad stroke platitudes needed or expected. That tactic may align with your desired outcome, but it’s hardly representative of a diverse group of citizens. Not everybody agrees that the only win to be had in government is your party’s person in office and most people aren’t going to put concern over the national debt above their current economic crisis, if they are in one.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
While technically correct, we’ve had to write off Republican’s blanket brick wall obstruction as being perfectly acceptable. No debate or justifications beyond broad stroke platitudes needed or expected. That tactic may align with your desired outcome, but it’s hardly representative of a diverse group of citizens. Not everybody agrees that the only win to be had in government is your party’s person in office and most people aren’t going to put concern over the national debt above their current economic crisis, if they are in one.
Click to expand...

The problem is that simply because he has a "D" beside his name, he is supposed to vote the party line no matter what. If he had not run, or lost, there would be an "R" in that seat and none of this would have ever been an issue.

I do wish I could access the PRSI archives just to see the comments when the GOP was upset with one of their members for not voting the party line (and not even referring to the Impeachment vote as their votes didn't matter). I am going to guess most on the left were perfectly OK with it.
 
As I stated in the other place numerous times, the R side of the aisle is a lost cause. We should just assume they won’t vote for anything to help regular people. So why bother with the boilerplate reminder of that. The public at large isn’t swayed by the GOP not helping when Manchin is the face of opposition right now (shielding the other corporate Dems who don’t want to vote for BBB).

The democrats are as big a problem for working people as the GOP is, far too many are bankrolled by the same interests that fund their GOP counterparts.
 
NT1440 said:
(shielding the other corporate Dems who don’t want to vote for BBB).
Click to expand...
No one wants to talk about that. I wonder if all the other 49 would vote yes if forced to vote.

I would love to see what an anonymous vote for it would look like.
 
Herdfan said:
The problem is that simply because he has a "D" beside his name, he is supposed to vote the party line no matter what. If he had not run, or lost, there would be an "R" in that seat and none of this would have ever been an issue.

I do wish I could access the PRSI archives just to see the comments when the GOP was upset with one of their members for not voting the party line (and not even referring to the Impeachment vote as their votes didn't matter). I am going to guess most on the left were perfectly OK with it.
Click to expand...

The main issue is the razor thin majority. What would solve a lot of this mess, and I forgot exactly what the name for it is, but you put the top federal issues on the ballet and let the voters decide. It doesn’t have to be everything but more than the absolute zero that it is now. This would help to counter corruption and having major national issues come down to just 1 member of Congress being the tie breaker.
 
Herdfan said:
No one wants to talk about that. I wonder if all the other 49 would vote yes if forced to vote.

I would love to see what an anonymous vote for it would look like.
Click to expand...

Honestly they should vote and it shouldn’t be anonymous. They are wasting way too much time not voting and not exposing who is for and who is against. Frankly, they should vote every week, make some tweaks, and vote again.
 
SuperMatt said:
They didn’t actually create nobles. But if you read the words of the founders, many of them saw themselves as superior to "the people" and wanted to make sure they had elites in place to keep the people in check. It’s just nobility under another name. There are many examples of the founders expressing the idea that people were incapable of governing themselves, and the Senate was created for that reason. America only allowed people to vote for their own Senators starting in 1913.
Click to expand...
In practical terms, the people are not capable of governing themselves. What I want is more important than what you want, so if there are more of us, you guys are screwed. Pure democracy works out to mob rule, or whatever the glib can convince us is the better choice, because people in general average pretty stupid and short-sighted.

Which, of course, is one of the drawbacks to rigid interpretation of 1A: if the well-spoken (or the loud) can say whatever they want, they can sway the people into bad tacks. As long as we rely on up/down yes/no questions, where discussion and compromising to the middle ground is a non-option, democracy remains a flawed ideal. Niccolo Macchiavelli himself observed that a form of democracy underlies any national governance, as even the regent despot cannot overcome the net good will of the people and the peerage.
 
Herdfan said:
The problem is that simply because he has a "D" beside his name, he is supposed to vote the party line no matter what. If he had not run, or lost, there would be an "R" in that seat and none of this would have ever been an issue.

I do wish I could access the PRSI archives just to see the comments when the GOP was upset with one of their members for not voting the party line (and not even referring to the Impeachment vote as their votes didn't matter). I am going to guess most on the left were perfectly OK with it.
Click to expand...
Manchin is basically stopping a significant, important part of what Biden ran on. I suppose that makes him a great Democrat in your opinion. ;)
 
Herdfan said:
The problem is that simply because he has a "D" beside his name, he is supposed to vote the party line no matter what. If he had not run, or lost, there would be an "R" in that seat and none of this would have ever been an issue.
Click to expand...
And therein lies the problem. That not a single Republican will support even a stripped-down bill that is strongly supported by their constituents, would measurably improve their living conditions, and would at least do something to address a crisis that threatens the continued existence of humankind should be a level 11 (Spinal Tap reference) issue. Nobody, Democrat, Republican, or Independent, should base their vote on their own or their party's political fortunes — they should do it because it's the right thing to do.
 
Huntn said:
Manchin is basically stopping a significant, important part of what Biden ran on. I suppose that makes him a great Democrat in your opinion. ;)
Click to expand...

Biden ran on it. Manchin didn't. So why should Manchin have to support Biden's agenda simply because he has a D beside his name?
 

Similar threads

Huntn
General Your Love of Dentists :D
Replies
15
Views
927
Roller
R
fooferdoggie
Thou shall not arrest a man of God when he's on a church mission trip, even if he's wanted for sexual battery. Georgia 2:5
Replies
0
Views
341
fooferdoggie
fooferdoggie
Back
Top