Time to Expand the House?

[candycorn]

Generally, the presidents rely on their team to talk to lobbyists and relay important data. Somehow this country came up with the nutty idea that lobbyists are bad people. They are simply experts in their working fields.

Thanks for the chuckle. Funniest shit ever.

 

[pknopp]

Okay. How has not choosing worked out for you?

Bad all around. Not something I put into office though.

I voted for McCain as my senator twice (I think). He’s a moderate. Obama was more moderate than most democrats.

Find me a person who has never lied...do you think you can do that? Do you think that is a reasonable standard?

You are simply enforcing my point. They lie and lie and lie to you and you make excuses for it.

There are issues that do exist elsewhere despite the rhetoric of the day. Saving GM was one of those. Obama did that. He did a lot of good things; he also had his share of fuckups. Drawing Iraq to a close. Killing Bin Laden. The ACA.

Iraq was never closed. We are still there. I won't bother with the rest (again).

Can’t argue that. For six years (I think it was), he had an opposition Congress. He had to deal with Austerity measures. Still stuff he could control was lacking. Too big to fail banks were still too big to fail; nobody got punished for the VA and IRS scandals.

The whole, “I found about about it in the morning newspaper” was shocking.

Unlike most of his supporters, I was happpy to say that I thought it was nonsense.

On balance the positives outweigh the negatives by several tons.

He had an opposition government because he blew a huge majority.

 

[postman]

We need 330,000 house members.

Actually the number based on the original constitutional enumeration (and not the later limiting law)

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;

330 million divided by 30 thousand

Gives us 11,000 members of congress.

 

[postman]

Where would they operate? What about housing them? Ever been to DC?

Calm down, the constitution caps our current house at around 11,000

 

[Robert W]

Thanks for the chuckle. Funniest shit ever.

Posters reading this exchange, realize this. See the reply? This is precisely how an uneducated Democrat operates.

So why me? I served for years as a director of the nation's largest Real Estate group, the California Association of Realtors. We were constantly exposed to lobbyists. We were educated about them.

If Lobbyists were bad, we would know all about this.

If lobbyists were bad, nobody in congress would listen to them.

 

[pknopp]

Posters reading this exchange, realize this. See the reply? This is precisely how an uneducated Democrat operates.

So why me? I served for years as a director of the nation's largest Real Estate group, the California Association of Realtors. We were constantly exposed to lobbyists. We were educated about them.

How much money did they give you?

If Lobbyists were bad, we would know all about this.

If lobbyists were bad, nobody in congress would listen to them.

$$$$$$$$

 

[postman]

If lobbyists were bad, nobody in congress would listen to them.

No.

If lobbyists don't have MONEY, nobody in congress would listen to them.

 

[Robert W]

Actually the number based on the original constitutional enumeration (and not the later limiting law)

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;

330 million divided by 30 thousand

Gives us 11,000 members of congress.

Calm down. What building can accommodate that many representatives? Where in DC can you house that many?

 

[candycorn]

Bad all around. Not something I put into office though.

Well there is that. Disavowing your responsibility as a citizen is one way to go.

You are simply enforcing my point. They lie and lie and lie to you and you make excuses for it.

No. I asked you a question. And you’re sidestepping it.

Tell me an adult who has never lied.

You can’t.

How you can logically set that as your criteria for a politician being worthy of your vote is therefore illogical. Many would say juvenile.

So please answer my question. How do you practically apply your standard?

Iraq was never closed. We are still there. I won't bother with the rest (again).

When Obama got there we were spilling blood by the gallon. Obama changed that.

He had an opposition government because he blew a huge majority.

So has virtually every president who had a midterm election where they had a majority.

 

[Robert W]

How much money did they give you?





$$$$$$$$

I have explained this. Why don't you explain what you mean? And when you explain your view, why isn't all of congress in prison?

 

[pknopp]

Well there is that. Disavowing your responsibility as a citizen is one way to go.

Just have to resort to dishonesty sadly. I have voted in every election since 1980.

No. I asked you a question. And you’re sidestepping it.

Tell me an adult who has never lied.

You can’t.

That's NOT what we are discussing.

The discussion is politicians outright lying to you and then you still supporting them.

How you can logically set that as your criteria for a politician being worthy of your vote is therefore illogical. Many would say juvenile.

So please answer my question. How do you practically apply your standard?

I vote for who I believe will best represent my views and will actually follow through on them.

When Obama got there we were spilling blood by the gallon. Obama changed that.

Not what you claimed. Obama did pull back and then put them right back.

So has virtually every president who had a midterm election where they had a majority.

yeah, same old same old.

 

[pknopp]

I have explained this. Why don't you explain what you mean? And when you explain your view, why isn't all of congress in prison?

The bribery is sadly legal.

 

[candycorn]

If lobbyists were bad, nobody in congress would listen to them.

If lobbyist didn’t come with a suitcase full of cash, nobody in congress would listen to them.

 

[Robert W]

No.

If lobbyists don't have MONEY, nobody in congress would listen to them.

Where do you get your information?

Would you suggest congress take a flying fling and decide important matters and never get information from experts?

I believe you can illustrate what you mean by accusing Hakeem Jeffries.

 

[Robert W]

If lobbyist didn’t come with a suitcase full of cash, nobody in congress would listen to them.

Where did you get that idea?

Those saying this then admit to us all that is how they would operate if in congress, that money would buy you all off.

 

[Robert W]

The bribery is sadly legal.

Then by definition it is not bribery.

 

[pknopp]

Then by definition it is not bribery.

I disagree.

 

[Robert W]

If lobbyist didn’t come with a suitcase full of cash, nobody in congress would listen to them.

Apply that to Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer.

 

[Robert W]

I disagree.

No problem. I have simply tried to educate posters.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Actually the number based on the original constitutional enumeration (and not the later limiting law)

The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;

330 million divided by 30 thousand

Gives us 11,000 members of congress.

I like it. They could meet in tents in Death Valley, and held there by the Army every year until they pass a balanced budget.
Outside the Box problems require Outside the Box solutions!