US Politics - 2020 Presidential Election - GOP v Dem cage fight (ENTER AT YOUR PERIL)

[Nick Pappageorgio]

Wow. There is some facts in there that don't support some of the narratives Republicans state and claim.

There are facts in that graph? What was posted there was very colorful but only slightly factual. Not only was it rife with subjective language to confuse the reader….but no where it is sourced. I can show you a graphic that tells you that my Johnson is huge….but if I don’t tell you that I only polled women with small hands, some of the truth is lost.

the type of person who could be swayed by a pile of shit graphic like that….well, like I said rubes or mentally deficient.

And then you’ve got your garden variety liberal, when Da Geezer wrote an actual response, goes straight to gaslighting (“yawn”) instead of proffering an actual retort.

The parties…while they superficially act differently….they are the same. You’re standing too closely….from insurance, to pharma, to Internet, to gas, ect., ect. If you look at the long-game being played here….it’s all about money.

Racism, gay/straight/trans, abortion….it’s all a red herring. Politicians (and the people they serve) don’t really care about any of it….it’s only the stuff they distract you with so you don’t ask what’s really going on or who you should be angry with. The game that is being played is about money…not people’s rights or feelings.

For intstance….Blackrock (not blackwater), Vanguard, Vanguard services inc. most people don’t understand (or have even heard of for that matter) how these shadowy “corporations” even fit into the world economy….because they’re too worried about which bathroom/pronouns everyone should use.

[Da Geezer]

I'd also bet the same Republicans who are now against the elimination of the filibuster would be for it if they were to get the house, presidency and 50 senators again. It's a very safe bet. The democrats will suddenly be against it. Both parties stances have already shifted more than once with It's a power battle that could easily lead to the downfall of the nation or at least the downfall of its democracy.

That is just not true, JG. The Dems filibustered over 300 bills during the Trump administration. It was used once last year. There has not been any significant effort by Republicans to eliminate the filibuster. Ever.

The Dems have stated that, but for the filibuster, they would expand the SC to 15 Justices, and admit D.C. and Puerto Rico as states. Manchin and Sinema stopped the Ds from canceling the filibuster.

Maybe you would like to live in a one-party country. Can you "expand" on your comments and give me any example in world history where single-party rule has succeeded over time? China? Russia? Rome?

[JGSpartan]

That is just not true, JG. The Dems filibustered over 300 bills during the Trump administration. It was used once last year. There has not been any significant effort by Republicans to eliminate the filibuster. Ever.

The Dems have stated that, but for the filibuster, they would expand the SC to 15 Justices, and admit D.C. and Puerto Rico as states. Manchin and Sinema stopped the Ds from canceling the filibuster.

Maybe you would like to live in a one-party country. Can you "expand" on your comments and give me any example in world history where single-party rule has succeeded over time? China? Russia? Rome?

1. Republicans removed the ability to filibuster Supreme Court justices so that's not true.

2. Yes, I'm aware that they want to remove the filibuster

3. Why would I provide you with such information when I'm saying removal of the filibuster is bad because it would lessen bipartisanship even further.

Its not like i wasn't clear in my opinion. You just got upset and in denial that your party has been complicit in it's erosion.

[Da Geezer]

I believe it was Harry Ried who did away with the filibuster for judicial nominees.

What I noted was that it is the Democrat party that is pushing to have the filibuster removed. And it has never been an issue the Rs favored. You seemed to me to claim "... a pox on both their houses...". The parties are not similar. IMO, one is evil, one is stupid.

The reason the Ds want it removed is to create a one-party system, with the SC and Senate completely controlled by the D party. I point out that this has never worked in the history of the world.

I agree with you, though, that the filibuster should remain, and that having it almost requires some bi-partisan agreement. That is good. I wish it was still used for spending bills, particularly these omnibus monstrosities that seem to come up every year.

[JGSpartan]

I believe it was Harry Ried who did away with the filibuster for judicial nominees.

What I noted was that it is the Democrat party that is pushing to have the filibuster removed. And it has never been an issue the Rs favored. You seemed to me to claim "... a pox on both their houses...". The parties are not similar. IMO, one is evil, one is stupid.

The reason the Ds want it removed is to create a one-party system, with the SC and Senate completely controlled by the D party. I point out that this has never worked in the history of the world.

I agree with you, though, that the filibuster should remain, and that having it almost requires some bi-partisan agreement. That is good. I wish it was still used for spending bills, particularly these omnibus monstrosities that seem to come up every year.

The facts just aren't on your side on this.

Harry Reid and the Democrats made the move to repeal the filibuster for Federal Judge appointees as Republicans opposed.

Mitch McConnell and the Republicans went back on that opposition to further erode it with a Supreme Court exception as Democrats opposed.

Now many Democrats are for it again. Republicans are against it again.

As I said before, I understand that you want to ignore your chosen parties sins and point the finger all one way. It's easier to blame the other side than admit that both parties do incredibly undemocratic things to remain in power.

There isn't a good guy, there's just whichever side wants to govern in the manner you prefer.

[Fraquar]

The facts just aren't on your side on this.

Harry Reid and the Democrats made the move to repeal the filibuster for Federal Judge appointees as Republicans opposed.

Mitch McConnell and the Republicans went back on that opposition to further erode it with a Supreme Court exception as Democrats opposed.

Now many Democrats are for it again. Republicans are against it again.

As I said before, I understand that you want to ignore your chosen parties sins and point the finger all one way. It's easier to blame the other side than admit that both parties do incredibly undemocratic things to remain in power.

There isn't a good guy, there's just whichever side wants to govern in the manner you prefer.

When are people going to realize that politicians once elected are literally a pawn for a party?
When you have a system which only really tolerates 2 parties - none of this shit should come as a surprise.
Shit, even when you have politicians jump parties - it's the same merry-go-round.
When there is only two - one wants everything at the expense of the other - or moreover at the expense of doing what is right or what needs to be done.
Shit never works, and all we end up with is an endless spiral of wasted taxpayer dollars on shit that doesn't even matter.

[dpatnod]

Well, to start, I guess figure out which of those two are least objectionable and go that direction. And if you encounter a candidate who actually wants to push for CHANGE, and you know, make actual progress then definitely support them. About all you can do, if you can muster the effort.

OR, you can sit on your porch and yell and shake your fists at all the whiper-snappers walking by about how things were better back in your day.

[Da Geezer]

The facts just aren't on your side on this.

Harry Reid and the Democrats made the move to repeal the filibuster for Federal Judge appointees as Republicans opposed.

Mitch McConnell and the Republicans went back on that opposition to further erode it with a Supreme Court exception as Democrats opposed.

Now many Democrats are for it again. Republicans are against it again.

As I said before, I understand that you want to ignore your chosen parties sins and point the finger all one way. It's easier to blame the other side than admit that both parties do incredibly undemocratic things to remain in power.

There isn't a good guy, there's just whichever side wants to govern in the manner you prefer.

Correct. Harry Reid repealed the filibuster for Federal Judges. Supreme Court Justices are Federal Judges. Ergo.

The Rs have never favored doing away with the filibuster. But when the Ds did away with it for Federal Judges, I suppose the Rs were expected to let 41 Dems block appointments to the SC? The Dems made it clear they were going to approve Garland with 51 votes if they could get them. The Rs followed the rules that Reid had changed.

Philosophically, the Rs believe in individualism and small government. Almost all of their policy prescriptions seek to minimize the power of government. On the other hand, Ds tend to receive their income from the government, so they want a bigger government because it is about more money and more job security. It is really not that hard to understand.

Futureshock wrote an exposition claiming to have worked in the private sector after three decades in government. Translated, that means Future vested his pension, and then went to the private sector. And he drew his pension while "working" in that private sector. Any of you private sector folks out there get a pension after 30 years? I have a friend who retired from teaching at age 52. We calculated the present value of his pension when he retired at $ 3,000,000. No wonder the public sector unions are so powerful. Future is just another who is on the government payroll, and he votes his pocketbook. Add that to the 45% of the population that receives various forms of welfare, and one can see why the Ds are most often in charge. There are more takers than makers.

[JGSpartan]

Democrats did NOT include Supreme Court nominees in the Reid move. There was a vote, by Republicans, to remove it for Gorsuch. They were against it, until it benefitted them. That's all easily verifiable. I'm not going to argue with you over your unwillingness to accept reality.

[chemiclord]

Let's not forget "We don't think Supreme Court justices should be nominated and pushed through in the year of a presidential election... but in the two weeks before a new president is elected, THAT'S fine and dandy!"

[Whitley]

The problem with the parties right now.

Republicans are crazy with Trump having a strong grip on the party. If Trump was not fixated on his 2020 loss then it would be an iron grip.

Dems are weak. They are concerned with norms (Republicans don't give a shit), extremely corrupt and beholden to their corporate donors/masters. And every defeat they have they blame on progressives.

[Futureshock]

Correct. Harry Reid repealed the filibuster for Federal Judges. Supreme Court Justices are Federal Judges. Ergo.

The Rs have never favored doing away with the filibuster. But when the Ds did away with it for Federal Judges, I suppose the Rs were expected to let 41 Dems block appointments to the SC? The Dems made it clear they were going to approve Garland with 51 votes if they could get them. The Rs followed the rules that Reid had changed.

Philosophically, the Rs believe in individualism and small government. Almost all of their policy prescriptions seek to minimize the power of government. On the other hand, Ds tend to receive their income from the government, so they want a bigger government because it is about more money and more job security. It is really not that hard to understand.

Futureshock wrote an exposition claiming to have worked in the private sector after three decades in government. Translated, that means Future vested his pension, and then went to the private sector. And he drew his pension while "working" in that private sector. Any of you private sector folks out there get a pension after 30 years? I have a friend who retired from teaching at age 52. We calculated the present value of his pension when he retired at $ 3,000,000. No wonder the public sector unions are so powerful. Future is just another who is on the government payroll, and he votes his pocketbook. Add that to the 45% of the population that receives various forms of welfare, and one can see why the Ds are most often in charge. There are more takers than makers.

Wooooooo So Snakiest. I must have hit a nerve.

Dude I am not changing my vote or views by where my assets come from. That's childish and immature. And stupid. No matter how many times you utter that nonsense, you are wrong. But you are also stupid so it fits.

I vote for how it will push PEOPLE forward. All people. YOU believe in some, "them vs us team death fight." I believe that we all could be better if we voted and supported IDEALS that work.

No matter how you try to re-frame reality your turd still stinks. ALL politicians turds stink. Sucker!

You see, I can speak without sounding like a party's mouth piece. That's real. And the pension I got was because the municipality, like most in Michigan during the state's heyday, had to try and come close to what was being offered by the big three automakers to get and retain talent. So it is a mirror of the PRIVATE SECTOR. Dummy. I have many, many, many family and friends that have never worked for "Government" and vote Democratic.

Maybe you should have went with your traitorous bros on June 6th. You are a person who has gotten his mis-information from a terrible source(s).

Philosophically, the Rs believe in individualism and small government. Almost all of their policy prescriptions seek to minimize the power of government. On the other hand, Ds tend to receive their income from the government, so they want a bigger government because it is about more money and more job security. It is really not that hard to understand.

You are an idiot if you believe in that generalism. It is stupid and so are you. So you believe in individualism huh? Well riddle me this; why does everyone that doesn't follow the party line be shunned as a "liberal?" There's many, many, many examples where "Rs" absolutely do NOT forgive individualism. i.e. Every "R" who said anything that was in-contrare to a Trump spoken word or act. We saw it time and time again. As a matter of fact, one of the "R's" strengths is their unwavering loyalty to whatever your leaders tell you to be loyal to. Even down to the words coming from you. Sucker.

One of my closest friends here locally is a REPUBLICAN state senator. I guess I must not be a "Dem" because I voted for a Republican?

BTW, generalism is the basis of racism. You can't be racist without thinking in generalist terms. And while I am not a generalist, I do believe this to be true, in general. IJS

[Futureshock]

The problem with the parties right now.

Republicans are crazy with Trump having a strong grip on the party. If Trump was not fixated on his 2020 loss then it would be an iron grip.

Dems are weak. They are concerned with norms (Republicans don't give a shit), extremely corrupt and beholden to their corporate donors/masters. And every defeat they have they blame on progressives.

Yup.

And Democrats seem to act as though it's 1978 and we have a bunch of money around to throw at problems.

Republicans act as though subtraction unlimited is the secret sauce.

Both of those are highly flawed ways of running a government. How about we make efficiency a thing. NOT just eliminating services THAT WE PAY FOR. Or spending money just to be spending it. Research solutions that work and make them a thing.

[Futureshock]

Nah. Too hard. Makes ya brain hurt. Just throw $ at it/Eliminate it

[CGVT]

I see that Geezer brought his special racist, "I'm not racist, but..." ridiculous world view over from the M side of the forum. Nice.

You're wasting your time Future. Just wait until he starts telling you that only net earners should be allowed to vote. He misses the days the you were only counted as 3/5 of a person. Oh wait. You may be one of the "good ones"

He actually believes that Repubs believe in financial austerity, even though the facts and actions say otherwise.

He wants to destroy all government programs, starting with public education and thinks the county is going to shit because people would like to see a level playing field and old white guys shouldn't be the only people making the rules..

Pull yourself up by your bootstraps man, even if the Republican have cut those straps off at the boots.