Posted on Dec 7, 2019
House Democrats have passed nearly 400 bills. Trump and Republicans are ignoring them.
692
16
12
6
6
0
Responses: 6
3
3
0
This type of complaint makes me laugh. The founding fathers, in a period of near divine inspiration, designed the ship of state to turn slowly and with great difficulty. Is there a single person out there in RP land that will deny that we are a nation divided? The entire system of government, from the three branches and separation of powers to the rules used in the legislature to the electoral college our government was designed with a single-minded intent..
IF AN ISSUE DOES NOT MERIT OVERWHELMING SUPPORT, WITH THE POPULACE AND ELECTED OFFICIALS, IT GOES NOWHERE!!!
It was intentional, and it is what carries the day here and now. Until we, as a voting electorate come to a clear and convincing consensus as to the direction our country should go, the status quo is just fine. When we the voting electorate decide something must change, and this is how we want it to change, it is supposed to remain unchanged. When we the voting electorate decide that the price of the status quo is greater than the price of reasoned and rational compromise, we're SUPPOSED to live with what we've got. This is not a problem this is a democratically elected, constitutional republic functioning as designed. Does ANYONE truly want to live in a Republic ruled by the passions of the moment?
Instead of complaining, we should thank the founding fathers for their foresight, and get back to the serious business of well-intentioned, reasonable and rational compromise.
IF AN ISSUE DOES NOT MERIT OVERWHELMING SUPPORT, WITH THE POPULACE AND ELECTED OFFICIALS, IT GOES NOWHERE!!!
It was intentional, and it is what carries the day here and now. Until we, as a voting electorate come to a clear and convincing consensus as to the direction our country should go, the status quo is just fine. When we the voting electorate decide something must change, and this is how we want it to change, it is supposed to remain unchanged. When we the voting electorate decide that the price of the status quo is greater than the price of reasoned and rational compromise, we're SUPPOSED to live with what we've got. This is not a problem this is a democratically elected, constitutional republic functioning as designed. Does ANYONE truly want to live in a Republic ruled by the passions of the moment?
Instead of complaining, we should thank the founding fathers for their foresight, and get back to the serious business of well-intentioned, reasonable and rational compromise.
(3)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MSgt Steve Sweeney - Your link makes assumptions in a vacuum. Many legislators vote against laws because of unrelated , but unpalatable riders. Second the vast majority of voters are not "well-informed." They are party line voters, single issue voters, or low-information voters who vote based on the "outrage of the day."
If the vast majority of the voters took the time to educate themselves, to vote intelligently, based on weighted priorities,and to trust no political party; "legal corruption" would have no traction. The privileged elite referred to in your link provide enough cash for candidates to purchase name recognition and to spout meaningless platitudes with which no candidate would disagree. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of voters, name recognition and not being offended, will be their determining criteria.
If the vast majority of the voters took the time to educate themselves, to vote intelligently, based on weighted priorities,and to trust no political party; "legal corruption" would have no traction. The privileged elite referred to in your link provide enough cash for candidates to purchase name recognition and to spout meaningless platitudes with which no candidate would disagree. Unfortunately, for the vast majority of voters, name recognition and not being offended, will be their determining criteria.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MSgt Steve Sweeney - My counter argument is based on asking my elected officials "why in hell did you vote against...?" I have received multiple responses from multiple elected officials that exposed "poison pills" within proposed legislation. Armed with that knowledge, I'd have voted the same way they did.
Voting intelligently is not a subjective standard. A person can vote intelligently on an issue if they know for what they are voting. Whether you or I agree with that vote is not relevant to the intelligence of that vote. Unfortunately we now have a case that people believe that anyone who does not think like they think and vote like they vote is "stupid." I believe that is not the case. I think that people who know why they vote for or against an issue and have an accurate and well-informed understanding of the consequences of their vote are voting intelligently, whether I agree with them or not. We just disagree.
Lastly, I was not referring to the reason the donor class donates. The donations are used by candidates to increase their name recognition and to pin their name to a set of promises.
Here's a problem, most campaign promises are not within the powers of the office for which they are running, (i.e. I'm going to create private sector jobs, or I'm going to end domestic violence) or not within the limits of the Constitution, (i.e. I'm going to seize all center fire, semi-automatic rifles) or the campaign promise is a non-differentiating "vision" that every candidate is for, (I'm for full-employment, or I'm for more home ownership).
Or candidates use the donations to pin their opponent's name to a set of "bad stuff" that is often not true, or is presented in a misleading manner. "My opponent wants everyone to stop using fossil fuels tomorrow and does not care that they will freeze to death in the next few days." or my opponent wants people with mental illness and violent anti-social history to be armed and does not care if kids are killed in school by mass murderers."
Low information voters buy those messages.
Voting intelligently is not a subjective standard. A person can vote intelligently on an issue if they know for what they are voting. Whether you or I agree with that vote is not relevant to the intelligence of that vote. Unfortunately we now have a case that people believe that anyone who does not think like they think and vote like they vote is "stupid." I believe that is not the case. I think that people who know why they vote for or against an issue and have an accurate and well-informed understanding of the consequences of their vote are voting intelligently, whether I agree with them or not. We just disagree.
Lastly, I was not referring to the reason the donor class donates. The donations are used by candidates to increase their name recognition and to pin their name to a set of promises.
Here's a problem, most campaign promises are not within the powers of the office for which they are running, (i.e. I'm going to create private sector jobs, or I'm going to end domestic violence) or not within the limits of the Constitution, (i.e. I'm going to seize all center fire, semi-automatic rifles) or the campaign promise is a non-differentiating "vision" that every candidate is for, (I'm for full-employment, or I'm for more home ownership).
Or candidates use the donations to pin their opponent's name to a set of "bad stuff" that is often not true, or is presented in a misleading manner. "My opponent wants everyone to stop using fossil fuels tomorrow and does not care that they will freeze to death in the next few days." or my opponent wants people with mental illness and violent anti-social history to be armed and does not care if kids are killed in school by mass murderers."
Low information voters buy those messages.
(0)
(0)
Maj John Bell
MSgt Steve Sweeney - Admittedly my standard, and one that others may not use, but it is one size fits all..."people who know why they vote for or against an issue and have an accurate and well-informed understanding of the consequences of their vote are voting intelligently." The intelligence quality is not based on the subjectivity of their belief but upon understanding of the consequences of their vote.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
The problem with Trump and the REPs is there defense is based on lies, innuendos, and attacking witnesses.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
Passing a bill in the house is meaningless unless it can pass in the Senate and the President will sign it or they have the votes to overturn a presidential veto. The democrats have hundred of pet bills they will pass that have no chance of going anywhere. Moving bills forward with zero chance is a waste of time. The democrats have buried loads of time in Mueller first then impeachment. Neither of those will have their desired outcome. We know Mueller failed epically and impeachment is on the way to the morgue. They have no interest in finding common ground really. The USMCA is the exception that proves the rule.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google