US 2018 November elections

[pErvinalia]

They are required for spending bills.

[Scot Dutchy]

They can start inquiries but Trump can just ignore them?

[Forty Two]

Bitch, shut the fuck up. I don't see "voter suppression everywhere, in everything".

Based on your links, you do. You think voter suppression includes voters proving citizenship.

This is just too comical. Based on what you just wrote, Coito, one might conclude with no less justification that based on your links, you see left wing attempts to kill freedom of expression and other political malfeasance everywhere.

For the record, I do not think either assertion can be justified. Sometimes Seabass also posts about other political crimes perpetrated by the fascists Republicans, and sometimes you also post about other political crimes perpetrated by the socialists Democrats.

Get a room, you two

I don't see left wing attempts to kill freedom of expression "everywhere", but the left wing does tend to oppose freedom of expression as a concept (at least the far left) - recently, the very notion of "freedom of speech" was called by leftists "racist" and a "tool of the white patriarchy." The left tends to support laws prohibiting "hate speech" (and include in hate speech things like "expression of opposition to alternative lifestyles or gender expressions or sexual orientations" and anti Islam statements and the like). Many mainstream folks on the left that I've talked to - and even in threads here - vigorous defense is raised to government silencing of speech. Some left leaning folks here have even said the very "American" (read, stupid) concept of "freedom of speech" is antiquated and absurd, and it's perfectly fine to police people's political speech (especially the right wing, who are Nazis or borderline Nazis).

Typically, people are bitching at my posts of ridiculous leftist conduct in the "problematic stuff" thread which is specifically for ridiculous stuff - stuff that are minor things, blown out of proportion into "everyday sexist" stuff by the left (or equivalent from the right). Here, the links Seabass posts link after link, suggesting a mountain of "voter suppression" (a very serious allegation), and I spent quite a bit of time researching several of the issues raised that were supposed to be so egregious as to be threatening democracy itself - and it amounts to "moving the polling place 4 miles over to an easily accessible location and also providing for free transportation to the polling place for anyone who needs assistance, and providing weeks of early voting at other polling places, and providing open absentee ballot mail-in votes for anyone who wants to do it...." And, another was the egregious conduct of Kansas in requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote when voting is only for citizens. And, the list goes on and on. Requiring an ID, but providing free IDs for low income people, and also allowing several alternatives to standard ID. And, then there was the "it's voter suppression for Indiana to comply with state and federal law in maintaining its voter registration rolls" (which are used not only to let poll workers know who is eligible to vote in given precincts, but to determine the percentage voter turnout and other statistics).

Anyway - my intent is to expand the voter suppression discussion from posting a series of links with the basic notation next to them "see! look at all this voter suppression! And, it's the Republicans!" to a detailed discussion of instances of alleged voter suppression (setting out what, exactly, is claimed to have been done and why) so that we can see if what is being billed as voter suppression is, in fact, voter suppression. Without looking at the details, we're left with one side just assuming it occurs at a significant rate, and the other side saying "no it doesn't," and then the first side responding with "oh, come on, you're stupid" or as Seabass likes to say "Shut up, bitch!" or other dopey insults and angry responses - the words of someone who doesn't know how to defend his position.

[Forty Two]

They can start inquiries but Trump can just ignore them?

It's endless inquiries, now. Adam Schiff for Brains and Nancy "Skeletor" Pelosi are going to get their fangs out. 80% of Democrats say they want impeachment, so they'll hit the ground running in January to get that ball rolling. Trump's only real chance is to peel away some of the more moderate Democrats by offering them legislative honey pots that they can dip into, in exchange for giving Trump some of what he wants. There will be a bunch of Democrats with their hands out. Find some Dems whose seats are not particularly secure or solid for 2020, and offer them cherry pies to bring back to their constituencies.

[Forty Two]

That's the bloody problem.

The House of Reps has limited powers? Not enough to really change anything.

It has the power of any Parliament, which generally in western civilization is properly limited. Decentralization of power among different levels and departments of government is generally seen as a good thing.

They can make laws.

They do need to convince the Senate, though. So, that means they have to - gasp - work with Republicans and give Republicans some of what they want, too. It's not a one way street.

But, since their power is not absolute to push whatever Democrats want in terms of legislation, you'll see the House use the tools it has internally - House investigations, subpoenas and such - I was watching MSNBC this morning over coffee, and the pundits on Morning Joe said "the headline is: to every Trump administration cabinet official --- 'Lawyer Up!'" And, unfortunately, he was right.

The House Dems will spend their time (compensated at $50,000,000 plus benefits and perquisites in compensation we pay their House members) setting up investigations and looking to impeach Trump.

[Rum]

Here we call it a 'hung parliament' (thought the structure is very different of course). Basically, it means nobody can get anything done and a massive amount of energy is spent on just frustrating the plans of the other party. It is the sort of thing that made Trump so appealing to many people. who saw him as cutting through the political bullshit and endless bickering - costing a fortune and with no end result.

[Hermit]

Bitch, shut the fuck up. I don't see "voter suppression everywhere, in everything".

Based on your links, you do. You think voter suppression includes voters proving citizenship.

This is just too comical. Based on what you just wrote, Coito, one might conclude with no less justification that based on your links, you see left wing attempts to kill freedom of expression and other political malfeasance everywhere.

For the record, I do not think either assertion can be justified. Sometimes Seabass also posts about other political crimes perpetrated by the fascists Republicans, and sometimes you also post about other political crimes perpetrated by the socialists Democrats.

Get a room, you two

I don't see left wing attempts to kill freedom of expression "everywhere"...

Thanks for agreeing with me. There's no need for the wall of words that follow below. An admission that you were wrong when you wrote that based on Seabass's links, he sees voter suppression everywhere, in everything, would have sufficed.

[Forty Two]

I wonder how much the Repugs paid to keep the Senate.

Paid? They don't have to pay.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... reme-court

Then there’s the Senate. Because of its bias toward smaller, rural states, a resident of Wyoming has 66 times the voting power in Senate elections as one in California. Thus, in 2016, the Democratic party got 51.4 million votes for its Senate candidates. The Republicans got 40 million. And despite losing by more than 11 million votes, the Republicans won a supermajority (22 of 36) of the seats up for election, holding their majority in the chamber.

The Democrats might never hold the Senate again. The Senate is so broken that one party can get 11 million more votes than the other one and lose seats. The president can get 3 million more votes and lose, thanks to the electoral college. The Dems can get more votes in House races than the Republicans and lose seats, because Republicans are more ruthless with gerrymandering. Our whole system of government is fundamentally broken and there is no hope of fixing it because to fix it would require help from the Republicans, but there is no incentive for them to fix it because they are the ones who benefit.

Bernie's policies are most popular, and yet we have Trump instead. It's absurd. It would be hilarious if the habitability of the planet wasn't at stake.

The Senate represents the States as separate, well, states - entities. It's about like the UN, where Tuvalu gets one vote, and China gets one vote. The reason is simple - the states qua states are stakeholders in the political process, and that a system that is purely based on popular vote, when population is not distributed evenly, is patently unworkable. Something has to protect the Tuvaluians, so Tuvalu gets one vote, like every other country.

Take the EU, which has a maximum of 750 parliament members. Each country gets a guaranteed number of parliament members. That's undemocratic in and of itself, given that the voters in Austria might well want to vote for a Hungarian to represent them. But, even moreso, the smallest number of seats a country can have is 6, regardless of its population, and therefore Malta, Cypress, and Luxembourg each have 6 members of parliament, even though the proportion of their populations would see them having fewer. Malta, for example, as a percentage of the European population, would have less than one member of the European parliament. Instead, it has 6, which is the minimum. Thus, each Malta citizen has many times the representation as someone in Germany.

Yes, Wyoming has 2 Senators. So does New York, Florida, Texas, and California. There is a good reason for that. Each of these states has a different set of interests. To bind a nation together, you cannot simply have the majority interests in LA, Chicago and New York City metropolitan areas setting national policy, because they will not have the knowledge or the interest in addressing the concerns of Wyoming ranchers. It's the same reason why Malta has to be guaranteed a minimum number of Members of Parliament. There has to be some protection for its voice as a political unit, or it doesn't make sense for it to become part of the union in the first place. If I were in Wyoming or Alaska, and the country became ruled purely by House of Representatives by popular vote only, proportional in population with no minimum number of legislators per state, then I'd start thinking about seceding. Given the size of the US, it would start, real quick, to look like the "rural areas" are there to do the bidding of the urban areas, and that doesn't last long.

[Sean Hayden]

You're not supposed to get much done in government. ~95% of bills die by design.

Still, the people demand action! Get something done nowwwwww!

just stop

[Forty Two]

No worries white males. Trump has not done much yet, other than mess up manufacture with steel tariffs
Dems Vs Repubs by the numbers. *
last 50 yrs Years held Presidency
Repub-28yrs Dem-22 yrs
Total jobs created R 24 Million D 42 Million
Stock market return R 109% D 992%
GDP R 2.7% D 4.1% Income growth R 0.6% D 2.2%

Just wait two years and the economy will continue, globally, to grow.

If we stick with Trump, we don't have to wait two years. The economy is growing now.

Just wait until the Democrats get started. They'll be busy impeaching Trump, raising taxes, reimposing mandatory Obamacare, jacking up insurance prices, and increasing burdensome regulations and requirements on American business. That'll get the economy roaring.

You didn't sign up for free Medicare yet? If you sign up before Democrats pass it, it's free!

But it’s like cable TV, introductory offer. You will get the regular rate, 600 a month for you, the 2nd year.

Ocasio-Cortez is in Congress now. So, you know, "you just pay for it!"

[Forty Two]

This just in! Republicans countrywide viting on tried and true principle: government is bad! On the other side, Beto O’rourke supports:
reducing defense spending. (Sep 2012)
Restrict domestic monitoring of phone calls. (Oct 2013)
End bulk data collection under USA PATRIOT Act. (Oct 2013)
Exempt Veterans Affairs from federal hiring freeze.

A different kind of less government! Taxes good!

Sounds like he opposes everything Obama did - racist!

An example of the monstrous media bias that occurs in the US - in favor of Democrats - is this Beto O'Rourke nonsense.

This article was published before the election:

The Only Remarkable Thing About Beto O’Rourke Is How Much The Media Loves Him
A perfect example of bias, advocacy, and wishful thinking.
David Harsanyi By David Harsanyi
OCTOBER 16, 2018
Despite my best efforts, I know exactly what Texas Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke’s post-punk indie band from the mid-’90s sounds like (not as bad as you’d think!). At the same time, I don’t know much about Senate candidate Josh Hawley, who is 38 years old (meaning, around eight years younger than “rising star” Beto), the attorney general of Missouri, and the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate.

In fact, Hawley’s name recognition outside of his state is probably negligible. When his name does come up in national political coverage, it’s mostly as a tack-on in pieces accessing opponent Claire McCaskill’s latest face-saving move or a panicky story about voter registration in Missouri. As with most other Americans, I don’t have any idea if Hawley likes to air drum to The Who when he pretends to win a debate. What I do know is that Hawley is slightly leading McCaskill, a two-time incumbent, in the RealClearPolitics poll average in a race that could decide which party controls the Senate.

O’Rourke, who is also up against an incumbent, Ted Cruz, is down seven points and falling. It wouldn’t be completely surprising if Cruz ends up winning Texas by nearly the same margin he did in 2012. Yet you might not have discerned this reality if you were merely paying attention to Betomania.

As with Hawley, I didn’t know much about Arizona’s GOP Senate nominee, Martha McSally, either. I’m probably not alone. She didn’t get to kibbitz with Stephen Colbert or Ellen DeGeneres. Maybe if she used a nickname given to her as a teen she’d have better luck getting attention from the national media. Anyway, what could one of the highest-ranking female pilots in the history of the Air Force and first woman pilot on a combat mission possibly have to offer Colbert’s audience? Beto skateboarded through a Whataburger parking lot.

Also, McSally has a chance to win her Senate race.

So I’m sorry, Associated Press and LeBron James, but O’Rourke isn’t “shaking up” the Texas Senate race any more than Hawley and McSally are shaking up the Missouri and Arizona races. You’re just far more interested.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/10/16/me ... sponsible/

O'Rourke lost, as expected.

Hawley and McSaly both beat their opponents, Claire McCaskill and the other media darling, Kyrsten Sinema.

[Tero]

It was not expected, it was close. Next time, 2020, the state may go for Democrat for president. Pocahontas 2020!

[Sean Hayden]

Yep, Beto did amazingly well, and it's more evidence that the ugly party can't rely on Texas going forward. It will turn blue, especially after the next Democrat lets all the illegals in!

[Forty Two]

It was not expected, it was close. Next time, 2020, the state may go for Democrat for president. Pocahontas 2020!

It was expected, by anyone looking at the issue - Cruz was leading the whole way, and if Beto had won it would have been a major upset. And, I loathe Cruz. I think the guy's religious nuttery is bad, and I would never have voted for him for President if he was the nominee in 2016.

If you think Texas would vote for Elizabeth Warren in 2020, you're delusional. I hope she runs. No chance in hell she gets elected, all her "energetic motion - 75 year old grandma in open toed mules" aside - a Warren nomination would guarantee a Trump reelection. Her policy positions are laughable.

[Forty Two]

Yep, Beto did amazingly well, and it's more evidence that the ugly party can't rely on Texas going forward. It will turn blue, especially after the next Democrat lets all the illegals in!

When you have the major media outlets sucking you off on the news nightly, it certainly helps prop up a candidate.

It really was pathetic. Even last night, MSNBC was Beto Beto Beto Beto. It's ridiculous. They wouldn't mention the John James in Michigan, and he was almost as close to unseating long time senator debbie stabenow. And, Hawley in Missouri, and McSally in Arizona. The mainstream media is so in the tank for the Democrats that it's not even funny. Beto skateboarded through Whataburger parking lot and had a band in the 90s - oh boy! he's Presidential material.

Chris Matthews yesterday was about hair away from declaring he got a thrill up his leg for Beto, just like Obama.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2018/ ... 56678.html

And Beto is a manufactured candidate, just like most everyone else - https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/ ... s-coverage