Welcome to third world style politics

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,665
Location
The Golden State
right here in the good old USA, where the Congress can't come up with a budget. The best they can do is partisan gamesmanship and sniping, but can't do their Constitutionally required duty of formulating a budget.

Republicans like to say that the Democrats want to help illegal aliens, but don't care about our military, and there is some truth to that. The Democrats like to point out that the Republicans have a majority, which is true, but not a strong enough one to pass a budget over objections by Democrats. Then, there is the issue of the Great Wall of Trump, which Democrats claim is holding up the budget. In reality, neither of those peripheral issues should prevent a budget from being done, but they shut the government down amidst finger pointing and blame gaming.

We, the people, have an obligation to replace as many of the incumbents that are engaging in this childishness to the detriment of our nation as possible by voting the rascals out regardless of their preferred political party. We won't, of course, since we seem to identify more closely with being Democrats and Republicans than with being Americans.

It's a lot like people who insist on being hyphenated Americas: I'm an African-American, a Hispanic- American, a Whatever - American. Now, it's a Democrat - American, a Republican - American, a conservative, a liberal, a whatever.

What a sorry situation this is. The last time the country was this divided it was over the war in Vietnam. Once we finally gave up and pulled out of that morass, it seemed we were once again able to work together for a while.

What, exactly, is it we're divided over now? Let's pull out of whatever it is and start acting like Americans again. That should be a way to make America Great Again instead of heading down the road toward third world status.
 
Werbung:
Not really 3rd world unless Don declares himself emperor and tosses Congress and the judiciary.
I say vote every hour until something passes and shut down everything but the military.
That will put some urgency into the mix.
 
Not really 3rd world unless Don declares himself emperor and tosses Congress and the judiciary.
I say vote every hour until something passes and shut down everything but the military.
That will put some urgency into the mix.
I'd rather give them a deadline with the understanding that, if they don't meet it, a special election will be held with every seat up for grabs.
 
Just to note, there is not actually a constitutional mandate that requires a budget be passed as you allude to - I would like to see a balanced budget amendment added to the Constitution however.

Additionally, on the topic of "third world" governing style, you do not get to throw duly elected people out of office before their term expires because you disagree with something that is going on.
 
Just to note, there is not actually a constitutional mandate that requires a budget be passed as you allude to - I would like to see a balanced budget amendment added to the Constitution however.

Additionally, on the topic of "third world" governing style, you do not get to throw duly elected people out of office before their term expires because you disagree with something that is going on.
How about for not doing their jobs?
 
You mean the gerrymandered districts that have mainly voters of one party inside, those districts?

I'm not interested in moving the goalposts with you...the simple fact is that if the voters of a district elect someone who then literally never bothers to even show up for work and then they continue to elect that person - the idea that you suddenly have the prerogative to override the voters of that district because you believe their elected official should behave differently is downright preposterous.

You want to vote someone out of office, campaign against someone, give money to candidates, then by all means do exactly that - but the notion that you get to circumvent the basic principles of democracy because you are inconvenienced by the choice of the electorate is as stupid as it is dangerous.
 
I'm not interested in moving the goalposts with you...the simple fact is that if the voters of a district elect someone who then literally never bothers to even show up for work and then they continue to elect that person - the idea that you suddenly have the prerogative to override the voters of that district because you believe their elected official should behave differently is downright preposterous.

Yep. As usual integrity, honor, truth, have no place in your world even when they destroy the integrity of the country.

And you're a fool if you think gerrymandering in a way that ensures one parties success does not distort the purposes of an election. Then too, it was you that brought up the question of districts:

"That is up the voters in their district - not you."

https://www.citizen.org/media/press...dling-demolishing-safeguards-and-self-dealing
 
Yep. As usual integrity, honor, truth, have no place in your world even when they destroy the integrity of the country.

And you're a fool if you think gerrymandering in a way that ensures one parties success does not distort the purposes of an election. Then too, it was you that brought up the question of districts:

"That is up the voters in their district - not you."

https://www.citizen.org/media/press-releases/trump’s-first-year-influence-peddling-demolishing-safeguards-and-self-dealing

I remain just as uninterested in moving the goalposts with you....the discussion is over whether duly elected members of Congress should be drummed from office before their term ends because they did not pass a budget.
 
I'm not interested in moving the goalposts with you...the simple fact is that if the voters of a district elect someone who then literally never bothers to even show up for work and then they continue to elect that person - the idea that you suddenly have the prerogative to override the voters of that district because you believe their elected official should behave differently is downright preposterous.

You want to vote someone out of office, campaign against someone, give money to candidates, then by all means do exactly that - but the notion that you get to circumvent the basic principles of democracy because you are inconvenienced by the choice of the electorate is as stupid as it is dangerous.
Can we just shoot them?
 
I'm not interested in moving the goalposts with you...the simple fact is that if the voters of a district elect someone who then literally never bothers to even show up for work and then they continue to elect that person - the idea that you suddenly have the prerogative to override the voters of that district because you believe their elected official should behave differently is downright preposterous.

You want to vote someone out of office, campaign against someone, give money to candidates, then by all means do exactly that - but the notion that you get to circumvent the basic principles of democracy because you are inconvenienced by the choice of the electorate is as stupid as it is dangerous.
I wouldn't vote them out anyway. It would be up to the residents of the district whether they would reelect the clown or not.
 
I remain just as uninterested in moving the goalposts with you....the discussion is over whether duly elected members of Congress should be drummed from office before their term ends because they did not pass a budget.

Well, that may be where you want it to end, however, in the real world that is an impossible goal when the districts are set to insure the election/re-election, of the Republican, or the Republican incumbent.

Try reality for a change. You might like it.
 
Werbung:
Back
Top