Who says there is no bipartisanship in Congress?

[Votto]

Senate GOP predicts it'll have 10 votes for debt deal

Top Senate Republicans are predicting that they'll get enough GOP support to help advance a deal on the debt ceiling as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pitches his caucus on the agreement.Under the deal, the House and Senate will first need to pass a bill that sets up a subsequent...

news.yahoo.com

Don't believe the lies, there is full bipartisanship in Congress, that is, depending on what both parties want.

What do both parties want? They want more spending by both agreeing to raise the debt ceiling for the gazillianth time for another gazillion dollars, blah, blah, blah!!!

Meanwhile, none of us can afford to gas our car or buy groceries at the store because of all the reckless spending and subsequent inflation that goes along with it..

No bipartisanships my ass.

What we need is a little less bipartisanship and more gridlock if you ask me, but that will never happen.

 

[Votto]

Congress: "We need another hit! We need another hit!!!"

"Ah, yes, that spending felt sooo good"

Next day: "We need another hit!!"

What they need is an intervention and to hell with both parties.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Don't believe the lies, there is full bipartisanship in Congress, that is, depending on what both parties want.

What do both parties want? They want more spending by both agreeing to raise the debt ceiling for the gazillianth time for another gazillion dollars, blah, blah, blah!!!

All the hate that they pretend to have for each other in DC is as real as the WWE. That is why anyone that votes for the duopoly is part of the problem

Meanwhile, none of us can afford to gas our car or buy groceries at the store because of all the reckless spending and subsequent inflation that goes along with it..

Sorry you are hurting, but most of us can afford gas and food just fine,

What we need is a little less bipartisanship and more gridlock if you ask me, but that will never happen.

Then quit voting for the Rs or the Ds

 

[Votto]

All the hate that they pretend to have for each other in DC is as real as the WWE. That is why anyone that votes for the duopoly is part of the problem



Sorry you are hurting, but most of us can afford gas and food just fine,



Then quit voting for the Rs or the Ds

So all I have to do is stop voting and this will stop?

LOL.

But who it not hurting right now with higher prices on everything?

You?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So all I have to do is stop voting and this will stop?

LOL.

But who it not hurting right now with higher prices on everything?

You?

No, do not stop voting, stop voting the same way as you always have and then whine because nothing changes.

We are not, nor is anyone I know personally.

 

[Votto]

No, do not stop voting, stop voting the same way as you always have and then whine because nothing changes.

We are not, nor is anyone I know personally.

I see, so don't vote for either party but keep voting.

Sounds like a great plan. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[colfax_m]

none of us can afford to gas our car or buy groceries

Maybe you should get a job.

That’s how I afford gas and groceries.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I see, so don't vote for either party but keep voting.

Sounds like a great plan. What could possibly go wrong?

I agree, what could possibly be worse if we voted in a 3rd party than we have now?

 

[task0778]

All the hate that they pretend to have for each other in DC is as real as the WWE. That is why anyone that votes for the duopoly is part of the problem

GG, I'm going to take exception to your 2nd sentence. There are a goodly number of people on this board and elsewhere who do not vote cuz they don't like either party or person on the ballot. Which is understandable, I'm not too happy myself with the way things are going and have gone for some decades now. BUT - this is the hand we are dealt with, for better or worse and mostly worse. There are differences between the 2 parties, and we don't need to get into that here, but I maintain that every responsible American can and should vote for whichever person or party is the least damaging to the country. Saying they're both bad is a copout; every legal vote that is not cast gives more influence the any illegal vote that shouldn't have been cast. See, here's the thing - every vote that is cast against the incumbent party is a message sent to everybody in Washington: if you fuckup you get replaced. And of course, every vote that is cast for the incumbent is a vote of confidence to keep doing what you're doing. Maybe for some people by not voting they believe they are giving the finger to both parties; but the absolute truth is that if you don't vote then they don't give a rat's ass about you. If you aren't counted at the ballot box then you don't count at all. In my book, that's pretty fuckin' stupid.

 

[Votto]

The issue is not the party, it is the system

Over the years the Federal government has gained more and more power over the states and the people, and with increased power comes increased corruption.

States need to amend the Constitution and regain many of their former rights, or more to the point, take power away from the Federal government they have subverted for themselves over the years.

Otherwise, we are just shuffling chairs around on the Titanic.

The Article V movement is the only movement that is out there trying to achieve this. Our state elected officials are the ones that need targeted.

Convention Of States: Last Chance To Save The Republic - Freedom Wire

The Federal Government continues to abuse its power, and it's time for the states to take action. An Article V Convention might be our only hope.

freedomwire.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

GG, I'm going to take exception to your 2nd sentence. There are a goodly number of people on this board and elsewhere who do not vote cuz they don't like either party or person on the ballot. Which is understandable, I'm not too happy myself with the way things are going and have gone for some decades now. BUT - this is the hand we are dealt with, for better or worse and mostly worse. There are differences between the 2 parties, and we don't need to get into that here, but I maintain that every responsible American can and should vote for whichever person or party is the least damaging to the country. Saying they're both bad is a copout; every legal vote that is not cast gives more influence the any illegal vote that shouldn't have been cast. See, here's the thing - every vote that is cast against the incumbent party is a message sent to everybody in Washington: if you fuckup you get replaced. And of course, every vote that is cast for the incumbent is a vote of confidence to keep doing what you're doing. Maybe for some people by not voting they believe they are giving the finger to both parties; but the absolute truth is that if you don't vote then they don't give a rat's ass about you. If you aren't counted at the ballot box then you don't count at all. In my book, that's pretty fuckin' stupid.

What has voting for the "least bad" gotten us? 29 trillion dollars in debt, less freedom, fewer rights and not a damn fucking thing to show for that 29 trillion dollars.

How long should we keep doing the same thing hoping the outcome will finally be different? Is that not the definition of insanity.

The message in DC is if you fuck up the other party will get power for a few years and then you party will get it back...rinse and repeat.

Why would the Repubs do any better when they know that you all will vote for them no matter how bad they are? What incentive is there for them to do any better?

 

[task0778]

Why would the Repubs do any better when they know that you all will vote for them no matter how bad they are? What incentive is there for them to do any better?

The exact same questions apply to the democrats. The answer is that too many people will vote for one party regardless of their actions, and that is downright dumbfuck stupid. And there are also too many people like you who won't vote for either party and thereby refuse to hold the incumbent party accountable. The incentive to do better is in keeping their jobs, which people like you allow to happen too many times. People bitch all the time about not holding anyone accountable. Well, you are a part of that problem.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The exact same questions apply to the democrats. The answer is that too many people will vote for one party regardless of their actions, and that is downright dumbfuck stupid.

On this we agree.

And there are also too many people like you who won't vote for either party and thereby refuse to hold the incumbent party accountable.

There is no holding the incumbent party accountable. They know they will be back in power in less than a decade if it even takes that long. The only way to hold them accountable is to take away their guarantee of retuning to power.

The incentive to do better is in keeping their jobs, which people like you allow to happen too many times. People bitch all the time about not holding anyone accountable. Well, you are a part of that problem.

No, the problem is the people that keep voting for their party no matter what, which seems to include you. 30 years ago a little guy with big ears showed us that it is possible to challenge the duopoly. And since that time they have done everything in their power to make us hate the other side, to make us always pick the "least of the bad" which always happens to be the power you all have sold your soul to.

 

[task0778]

There is no holding the incumbent party accountable. They know they will be back in power in less than a decade if it even takes that long. The only way to hold them accountable is to take away their guarantee of retuning to power.

There is no possible way to guarantee against a political party from returning to power. No way in hell, and I think you know that. The best we can do is in the next election, where everybody votes against the incumbent if it is warranted, rather than blindly voting for the same fuckups no matter what they do. That's it dude, it's really our only option but guys like you won't even take that. Maybe we vote different people in during the primaries, like that new governor in Virginia. It really does send a message, and if we keep sending that message to both parties then maybe it eventually takes root. And what's the alternative? Say nothing? Do nothing? What's the message then? We can do whatever the fuck we want without repercussions. Anyone who does not vote at all is sending that message.

Maybe they'll be back in power in 4 years or whatever. Maybe it'll be different people at least, who will maybe not be as intransigent as the last bunch. But you know what? That's 4 years from now. How about we worry about that when the time comes. Maybe if you keep keeping incumbents out of office often enough the denand for better governance gets finally understood. There ain't no guarantee, you know that. The best we can do is right fucking now.

No, the problem is the people that keep voting for their party no matter what, which seems to include you. 30 years ago a little guy with big ears showed us that it is possible to challenge the duopoly. And since that time they have done everything in their power to make us hate the other side, to make us always pick the "least of the bad" which always happens to be the power you all have sold your soul to.

I've voted for democrats before, the latest being Obama in 2008. And I've voted for 3rd party people too, the latest Ross Perot in 1990. News flash: not everyone has sold their soul, that is an assholish thing to say. Let's not make this personal, I didn't mean to attack you personally but I'm not going to take bullshit lying down either.

True, there are some close-minded people who will blindly vote for their party no matter who or what and there's not anything we can do about that. Maybe some of them wise-up eventually and use their votes more constructively, meaning that they vote for whoever actually helps them and the country the most. But certainly the decision not to vote does absolutely nothing about that problem, and in fact acerbates it because there won't be as many votes cast by people with some reasoning to their decision. You get it, right? When people don't vote they have effectively empowered those people a little bit more than otherwise.

When people vote for the "least of the bad", it is a repudiation of the worst of the bad. If we do it enough times and with some strong numbers, a change is encouraged. And eventually incentivized. There's no other way as far as I can tell. There's a saying about evil wins when good people do nothing. Well, when people don't vote, they're doing nothing.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Senate GOP predicts it'll have 10 votes for debt deal

Top Senate Republicans are predicting that they'll get enough GOP support to help advance a deal on the debt ceiling as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pitches his caucus on the agreement.Under the deal, the House and Senate will first need to pass a bill that sets up a subsequent...

news.yahoo.com

Don't believe the lies, there is full bipartisanship in Congress, that is, depending on what both parties want.

What do both parties want? They want more spending by both agreeing to raise the debt ceiling for the gazillianth time for another gazillion dollars, blah, blah, blah!!!

Meanwhile, none of us can afford to gas our car or buy groceries at the store because of all the reckless spending and subsequent inflation that goes along with it..

No bipartisanships my ass.

What we need is a little less bipartisanship and more gridlock if you ask me, but that will never happen.

I keep saying they are two sides of the same coin, but the sheeple actually think only the other tribe is destroying the country while their tribe is saving it.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

There is no possible way to guarantee against a political party from returning to power. No way in hell, and I think you know that

There is a way to remove the guarantee they return to power, and that is to have more than 2 parties. With the current system the return to power is guaranteed.

And what's the alternative? Say nothing? Do nothing? What's the message then? We can do whatever the fuck we want without repercussions. Anyone who does not vote at all is sending that message.

I never "not vote". The alternative is to have a 3rd or even 4th and 5th option. But right now with the current system as long as we keep voting only for the same two parties, the message is clearly they can do whatever the fuck we want without repercussions.

True, there are some close-minded people who will blindly vote for their party no matter who or what and there's not anything we can do about that.

Some? do you not read the post on this forum. A good 95% of the people on here would not vote for the other party if you put a gun to their head.

When people vote for the "least of the bad", it is a repudiation of the worst of the bad. If we do it enough times and with some strong numbers, a change is encouraged. And eventually incentivized. There's no other way as far as I can tell. There's a saying about evil wins when good people do nothing. Well, when people don't vote, they're doing nothing.

The way I see it, voting the same way "least of the bad" and hoping that something finally changes is the same as doing nothing. Fuck voting for the "least bad" we are better than that. We need to band together and vote for something that is not a D or an R. Show them they are not gods.

 

[Jets]

The duopoly strikes again….

 

[task0778]

There is a way to remove the guarantee they return to power, and that is to have more than 2 parties. With the current system the return to power is guaranteed.

Except that currently we don't have more than 2 viable parties. By not voting for one of the two, people who do that are effectively allowing those 2 parties to fight it out without interference or as much influence from the independent voters. I think that is most unwise.

But right now with the current system as long as we keep voting only for the same two parties, the message is clearly they can do whatever the fuck we want without repercussions.

There are repercussions when your party gets voted out of office. Do it enough times and the clear message that they can do whatever they want becomes somewhat less clear.

A good 95% of the people on here would not vote for the other party if you put a gun to their head.

First of all, I kinda doubt that statistic, there are more than a few people around here who won't vote for either party and many who won't only blindly support one party. But in any case, the USMB may not be an accurate sampling of the American voters. AND, what other people do with their vote should not influence anyone's decision for what to do with theirs.

The way I see it, voting the same way "least of the bad" and hoping that something finally changes is the same as doing nothing. Fuck voting for the "least bad" we are better than that. We need to band together and vote for something that is not a D or an R. Show them they are not gods.

I think you're mistaken, voting against someone or something isn't doing nothing. The way I see it, voting for the least bad isn't the best thing, but doing nothing while the worst bad gets voted in has to be really stupid. Politicians only care about who votes, if you don't vote then as far as they're concerned you don't count. Right now, we only have 2 viable choices, one or the other of those 2 choices will get elected and that's the truth. Maybe the day will come when there is a 3rd alternative that actually has a chance, but that day is not today. So, we are stuck with the current situation; we can make the best of a bad situation by voting in the least worse, or not vote at all or vote for a non-viable person/party and then bitch about what happens for the next 4 years.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Except that currently we don't have more than 2 viable parties. By not voting for one of the two, people who do that are effectively allowing those 2 parties to fight it out without interference or as much influence from the independent voters. I think that is most unwise.

We do not have more than 2 viable parties because people have been programed to vote for the "least bad". We could have a viable 3rd party if people quit doing that.

There are repercussions when your party gets voted out of office. Do it enough times and the clear message that they can do whatever they want becomes somewhat less clear.

Are there really? Did Nancy suffer or is Mitch suffering now?

Maybe the day will come when there is a 3rd alternative that actually has a chance, but that day is not today. So, we are stuck with the current situation; we can make the best of a bad situation by voting in the least worse, or not vote at all or vote for a non-viable person/party and then bitch about what happens for the next 4 years.

This is circular logic. It is the old "A third party cannot win because nobody votes for them. Nobody votes for them because they cannot win." We are not making the best of a bad situation by accepting that the way things are is the way they have to be. We the people can change it, but you all have to want it to change, and that does not seem to be the case yet

 

[task0778]

We do not have more than 2 viable parties because people have been programed to vote for the "least bad". We could have a viable 3rd party if people quit doing that.

Pure supposition supported by absolutely nothing. Suppose for example the GOP splits into 2 parties, one pro-Trump and the other not so much. What happens? The conservative vote is split and the democrat wins. At that point instead of 3 viable parties you only have one. Pure supposition? Yup, but in any case we do not have a 3rd viable party at the moment, so your point is moot.

Did Nancy suffer or is Mitch suffering now?

I kinda think Nancy suffered somewhat when she lost her speakership the 1st time. And I kinda think Mith isn't real happy being the Senate minority leader. All of which is beside the point; as Obama reminded us, elections do have consequences.

We are not making the best of a bad situation by accepting that the way things are is the way they have to be.

Yeah, we are. Maybe by accepting the situation as it is in reality is better than saying "well, let's allow everything to go to hell until the happy day comes when we have a viable 3rd party". In no way does that mean that's the way it has to be in the future. There's no logic at all in saying otherwise.

We the people can change it, but you all have to want it to change, and that does not seem to be the case yet

At last, common ground. We don't yet have the popular grass roots movement like we did when the TEA Party came into being. Maybe that'll change at some point and hopefully soon. BUT - until then it makes no sense to sit back and allow the worst of the 2 currently viable parties to do their will, unimpeded. And that is what people who don't vote or vote for a non-viable candidate are doing. Might as well vote for Bugs fucking Bunny.

I see no value in not voting for the best of 2 bad options, since that's all we really have at this point. You don't like it and I don't like it either, but that's the way it is. At least we can limit the damage. Or try to. Until that 3rd alternative comes along, I see no choice but to vote out the incumbents if they ain't doing a good enough job. In my book, that is a good thing. So, if anyone is not voting at all or voting for Bugs fucking Bunny, then they aren't doing that and that is a bad thing.