I'm WELL aware of subsidies to all but believe there should be none. The failure of Congress to allow 'clean' one-issue bills is one reason why we have all these subsidies.
What a groundbreaking article. Partisans accept election results and court decisions that are in their favor, but reject them when they’re not? This is an incredible new insight. So glad I took the time to read it.
This is just a short-term, 2026 and 2028, situation. The real changes will come with the 2030 census when blue states lose congressional districts and electoral votes to red states. All the gerrymandering in the world can’t create more congressional seats when they aren’t there.
Unless they somehow get PR and DC statehood, abolish the Electoral College or stack SCOTUS and reverse recent rulings. I put NOTHING past the Dems if they are seriously considering firing the VASC just to pass their gerrymandering. Wait for it.
Here is a lame question on my part. Naive as well. I was shocked to learn that the Supreme Court of VA was not unanimous, and that the two dissenting votes were cast by Democratic-appointed judges. This was about VA's constitution and the failure to follow the law, which seemed procedurally quite clear. What does this say about these two judges to thumb their noses at their state's constitution? This was too "in your face" in terms of partisan politics for my taste. A slippery slope for sure. These two should be removed. This has really bothered me.
If it weren’t for BS and hypocrisy there would be no Democrats. Glad you pointed out how they ignored the will of the majority on gay marriage, but now they whine about democracy and Jim Crow, and ignore two black senators (including one who beat another Herschel Walker) who won SEC states or as they say “confederate states”. Be a lib, but just stop lying and projecting.
With inflation approaching 4%, gas prices going higher, multi trillion dollar annual deficits, munitions being drained on a war that may put us in a worse place than where we started, etc. - It's comforting to know that there is now a slightly easier path to continuing the important work of this Admin's agenda: spending tax payer money to slap the name of a fat felonious douchebag on as many things as possible for the next couple of years....
I think I may have been a bit harsh on calling him out for allegedly scamming a dog rescue charity out of all of their money ($400k ish) - which probably scared him off this thread.
I feel a little guilty about it - then I remember all of the dogs that will now die as a result of these alleged misdeeds and that pity goes away fast.
The Republicans must remember that in order to maintain the house and senate quality candidates must be put forward for the voters. Ken Paxton in Texas is just 1 example. He has so much "baggage" that the democrats could potentially win a senate seat if Paxton wins the primary and is the candidate for the general election
The Republicans are not doing well on messaging this election season.
Revenge politics are not good long term for the Republicans. Although many of President Trumps candidates won in Indiana, revenge does not work well nationally
The biggest problem this election cycle is Donald Trump himself.
He has no plan for Iran execpt hoping for a negotiated settlement. He must realize that he must finish the job and remove the Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon and also have regime change.
And now both Democrats and Republicans will rig the system to suit themselves whenever they are in power, rather than just every ten years after the census; which was bad enough. So, Erick, while you may see this as a victory for James Blair and the Republican Party for now, will this new reality be a victory for the American political system the long term? I think it will just make things worse.
Although I'm just beginning to look at this in detail, the case conclusively deciding that the Supreme will not interfere with partisan gerrymandering was pretty well reasoned. The Court relied in part on its long history in American politics. However, I don't believe that gerrymandering (a) after already done once for the purpose of reapportionment after a census, and (b) for PURELY partisan reasons can be defended on a historical basis. I think the first redistricting meeting both these criteria was done in the 1980's.
Also, the Court will often beg the next question by explicitly stating what it is not deciding. In Rucho, Roberts' majority opinion said "Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering." There can be no more excessive partisan gerrymandering than when done for purely partisan reasons (that is, unrelated to reapportionment). There is also the classic "slippery slope" argument to be made, pointing to the possibility that redistricting could eventually be undertaken after each and every congressional election.
All this is to say that I don't think the Court has said all it's going to say on this topic. Legislation prohibiting non-reapportionment related redistricting might also be favored by incumbents in both parties who don't want to run the risk of being redistricted out of office every time power changes hands in state legislatures. Either way, I am hopeful that redistricting between censuses won't long be with us.
Good morning, MAGAs! Of course, Erick's propaganda completely misrepresents the truth that the MAGA/GOP not only dominates the gerrymandering map but also started the current war: https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/ My favorite sentence from this morning's propaganda: "Democrats had already boxed themselves in with maximum partisan redistricting and constitutional restrictions in some states that would prohibit radical gerrymandering." In other words, Democrat-led states have passed provisions that prohibit gerrymandering, while the GOP votes against such restrictions at both the state and federal levels.
Democracy only counts when it is in favor of the left. Any other time, like the rule of law, Constitution, local laws, or any other rule, they are illegitimate when not serving the purposes of the left. The ends justify the means. This is easily seen through their word definitions. Take the word "Fair" for example. Things are only "fair" when the left's favored class, whoever that is at the time of speaking, are getting ahead. If that favored class is not getting ahead, things are unfair especially when the right's definition of fairness is used.
The right's definition of "fair" is very simple. It is fair when the standard is set at a known quantity. For example in a widget factory everyone meets quota if you make six (6) widgets. Make seven and get a bonus. Make five and get a reprimand for everyone in the factory no matter what. In that example, the left wants the number lowered for the person who can't make six because that's fair to them. Instead of requiring that person to learn how to improve him or her self, they want the standard lowered. They claim that's fair. What they don't care about is that it is unfair to everyone else.
All the left's word definitions are malleable like this. Don't let them get away with it. Instead of having the conversation or just answering questions when they try to redefine things like this, stop the conversation dead, reject the premise, and call them out on their inaccuracy. Be ready for a fight though because the Rainbow Mafia has them convinced you can get more than two genders out of two chromosomes. They are destitute where intellectual honesty is concerned. Good luck.
It's like the Left's definition of "compromise".... It's when they get some, or half of what they originally wanted, while giving up nothing themselves... the other side gets nothing...
Yes, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the republicans agree to that definition of "compromise"? Why do they do that? I mean, it is quite obvious they have no spine and ALWAYS give in to the left. Always. Leave it to the GOP to be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in ANY situation. It's their super-power.
It goes back to the same old crap that's been going on for at least 35 years now: Republicans want to hold office. Democrats want to hold power. The GOP is perfectly fine being the party not in power, just so long as they have a seat at the table. That way, they can't be expected to actually deliver the results they always promise. As long as they play ball and don’t rock the boat too much, they get invited to the best parties and let in on all the sweetheart deals to enrich themselves…. And for the most part, the media leaves them alone.
If a Republican does get into office and tries to rock the boat, they get destroyed by the media.... so, they generally keep quiet and just go along with it. Their own futures are financially secure, as are their own kids', so why push it?
And what's even worse, is when a conservative minority female runs for office on a GOP ticket, no matter what level, she gets ignored by the state and national GOP. Otherwise, the bottom line is this: The Democrats are in it to win it. The Republicans are in it to get paid.
Yes. It is patently obvious when you say it like this. We don't want it to be like this because they say all the right words when campaigning, but then they get to DC and never deliver. I'll believe there is a change in the Republican party when they repeal the ACA and not before.
Even before the ACA came around, back in the 90's, the GOP was all like: "Well, we don't control SCOTUS, we don't control the White House, the House, or the Senate! What are we supposed to do??"
So, in 1994 we gave them the House.
Then it was: "Well, we don't control SCOTUS, we don't control the White House or the Senate! What are we supposed to do??"
So we gave them the Senate too.
Then it was: "Well, we don't control SCOTUS or the White House! What are we supposed to do??"
In 2000, we gave them the White House.
Then it was: "Well, the media hates us! What are we supposed to do??"
The GOP had a trifecta for a while in the 2000's, and all GW Bush did was try to cram a bunch of illegal aliens down our throats.
Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House was a huge disappointment.
Stacey Abram’s “Fair Fight” was another example of amateur grift which resulted in that organization being $2.5 million in debt and folded up….. all the while Stacey herself got wealthy.
This is the same Stacey Abrams who said that abortion can help address inflation issues:
"Having children is why you’re worried about your price for gas, it’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs”.
First, going with: “Y'all gotta be able to kill the kids to save money” isn’t really as relatable as some people might want to think.
And second…. maybe, just maybe, if you’re 50+ years old, have never been married, and have never had kids, you should probably shut the hell up about what’s good and not good for families so you don’t come off sounding like a frikkin’ ghoul..
I have been saying for a few years that we need to stop legitimizing idiocracy by arguing over it. When someone wants to argue there are 72 genders, dismiss this as the idiocy that it is. In my day, if some dude would have shown up at school wearing a dress and wanting to enter the girls locker room, there wouldn't have been a discussion, it would have been rejected for the lunacy it is. By debating, you give validity to the debate.
Interesting first two sentences as it works both ways with the change of just one word. As in: "Democracy only counts when it is in favor of the MAGAs. Any other time, like the rule of law, Constitution, local laws, or any other rule, they are illegitimate when not serving the purposes of the MAGAs. The ends justify the means."
The fact that it is most common for the elections in the mid terms to go the party out of power in the mid terms indicates to me that voters are the biggest part of the problem. Why on earth would we not give the person we put in the white house the opportunity to complete the agenda when we have control of both the House and the Senate? Clearly, if the opposing party is put in place in the mid terms, all momentum is gone and we have a stalemate for two years. Especially when the entire goal of the democrats is to stop any progress, impeach and regain complete power. Clearly this idea of citizens being able to drift around knowing practically nothing about politics is not doing the country any good.
Me thinks the person we put in the White House has no will, interest or fortitude to finish the job and congress is just one uniparty, spending our tax dollars Willy nilly. I’m disgusted with them all.
Somedays I wish a viable third party would emerge. Key word being "viable", not one that would just split the vote and give all the power to the Leftist controlled Dems.
I have a "friend" that every election cycle debates me on voting for the Libertarian party. While I align with a lot of the ideas, I know it's just throwing away my vote as there is zero chance they will succeed.
I think the party out of power tends to speak loudest, trying to overcome a loss and they work harder. Those who win sit back and revel in it. - Up to a point, anyway.
It’s easier to get a person out to vote when he believes his vote will help change whatever he doesn’t like. When voters are at least content with what’s happening, they tend to be far less engaged. To your point, I agree it’s mostly a human condition.
Perhaps the losses are due to discouragement from the realization that both sides kinda suck and people get deflated from taking a chance for change and nothing really changes, at least it doesn't feel like it. People are also stupid. How has it worked for deportations when a huge majority agreed that deportations had to take place, but have a few hiccups and now even the GOP are introducing amnesty bills? It's absurd. No one has the stomach to do the hard things.
Because the propaganda masters only get your or my eyeballs when there is bad news....so there is always bad news for the party "in power". That translates to a swing whether intentional or not. The republicans get the bad news because the American Media Industrial Complex hates republicans so they lose the midterms. The democrats lose because while the propagandists try to cover up what they are doing, the American people actually see and feel it which is real bad news, and they lose. What we really need is an honest press in this country but I fear what we have is too far gone for that.
With that said, it ultimately lies in the stupidity and inability of people to stand by their principles. As mentioned, people overwhelmingly know that our immigration laws should be enforced and polling indicates they are in favor of it, but a few over blown incidents and suddenly the sentiment changes. Nothing has changed, the basic reasons for enforcing laws and deporting illegals is still in place, but now stupid people are shamed into saying that perhaps we should be "kinder" and begin to wobble. I posit the change is more a result of the GOP, in this case, lacking the conviction to stand by their beliefs instead of letting the media and left shame them into changing their minds. It boils down to voters being cowards.
That is definitely part of it, but the voters don't seem to be willing to give a president the full four years with congress in his court. Rather, if it isn't all done the way we want it, we flip on year two. Who knows how it would go if we stuck to the same congress and the same president for four years.
I guess I base the unwillingness to stay the course partially at least on cowardice to stand by their convictions. Too many are squishy and easily swayed.
Terrific article Erick! As a native Virginian what happened there is more than theater worthy! Some don’t know this but Sen Mark Warner nominated the Supreme Court Justice in Virginia who decided to follow the rule of law instead of following Warner’s directive! Too bad so sad.! Also could the Calais decision be used to overturn the California gerrymandering vote just like Louisiana?? Some pundits are saying so… still hoping that the Red team pulls it out in November which I believe it can! We just have to get off our backside and vote!!!
Exactly. The democrats believe in the rule of law except when it doesn’t give them or keep them in power. I have said this before if our government cared more about their constituents instead of just being in power think of how much better this country would be. Just what has Congress gotten accomplished over the last say ten, twelve, twenty years? Oh yeah, the unaffordable care act and in debt up to our eyeballs. Call me cynical but that’s how I feel.
I wish more people would hold the republicans accountable for what they fund raised on for over a decade; repeal of the ACA. Bastards. We have a worse situation now than before they passed it. That was their goal of course as a step to get to single payer government run healthcare. All we have to do to know what that will look like is look at the VA. THAT is government run healthcare. It's all about power and money for the America aristocracy that is our political class.
I, for one, will not give $ to an R anymore because as soon as I did 3 yrs ago, I was & am up to my eyeballs in WinRed texts cajoling, begging & belittling me for more $. Blocking doesn't work as every # is different (rotary #s). They keep promising to take me off the list but never, sadly, do. I should have sent an anonymous cash donation using snailmail.
This. All of this. So much this. I gave Ted Cruz money in 2016 and worked his campaign and now I can't get them to stop texting me. To any and all GOP candidates who read this I delete and block every single text I get now. If you want to make sure I do NOT donate to you, text me.
It's so interesting that your cynicism only falls on one side of the political aisle! Let's see, which of these examples more exemplifies our government caring about its constituents?
Example 1: At great political peril, at least attempting to provide access to healthcare for millions of middle and lower-class American who previously were unable to obtain coverage (Obama)
Example 2: Eliminating access to healthcare for up to 20 million of these middle and lower-class Americans so the wealthiest among us can become a little more wealthy (Orange Jesus)
Government subsided healthcare. Millions were forced off the their existing healthcare plans with Obamacare. “ You can keep your doctor or you can keep your healthcare.” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Trav, not sure you understand this, but the US Government subsidizes literally thousands of aspects of American society. Generally speaking, the GOP favors subsidies that benefit the corporate class (fossil fuel companies, large agricultural companies, tech companies, defense contractors, etc.) while DEMs favor subsidies that benefit middle class and working class Americans. Why are you only upset when YOUR money benefits those who most need assistance? I mean, isn't helping the needy what Jesus demanded of us???
You Sir have really drank the cool aide if you think that the democrats are only out to help the needy. One example, look what they have done for the homeless. Their solution is to throw tons of money at a problem without solving it. Let’s give them free drugs and a place where they can hang out. Jesus is all for helping the less fortunate with a hand up, hand outs solve nothing.
The ultimate goal of any government is to control or enslave all its people to do the will of those in control. The difference between governments is the method used to achieve this goal.
I'm WELL aware of subsidies to all but believe there should be none. The failure of Congress to allow 'clean' one-issue bills is one reason why we have all these subsidies.
What a groundbreaking article. Partisans accept election results and court decisions that are in their favor, but reject them when they’re not? This is an incredible new insight. So glad I took the time to read it.
LOL. So subtle. Love it.
This is just a short-term, 2026 and 2028, situation. The real changes will come with the 2030 census when blue states lose congressional districts and electoral votes to red states. All the gerrymandering in the world can’t create more congressional seats when they aren’t there.
Unless they somehow get PR and DC statehood, abolish the Electoral College or stack SCOTUS and reverse recent rulings. I put NOTHING past the Dems if they are seriously considering firing the VASC just to pass their gerrymandering. Wait for it.
Here is a lame question on my part. Naive as well. I was shocked to learn that the Supreme Court of VA was not unanimous, and that the two dissenting votes were cast by Democratic-appointed judges. This was about VA's constitution and the failure to follow the law, which seemed procedurally quite clear. What does this say about these two judges to thumb their noses at their state's constitution? This was too "in your face" in terms of partisan politics for my taste. A slippery slope for sure. These two should be removed. This has really bothered me.
The other side argues the SCOTUS is doing the same but in the majority.
If it weren’t for BS and hypocrisy there would be no Democrats. Glad you pointed out how they ignored the will of the majority on gay marriage, but now they whine about democracy and Jim Crow, and ignore two black senators (including one who beat another Herschel Walker) who won SEC states or as they say “confederate states”. Be a lib, but just stop lying and projecting.
Say what you mean, mean what you say.
events my dear boy events
Yes - kudos to my fellow Blair.
With inflation approaching 4%, gas prices going higher, multi trillion dollar annual deficits, munitions being drained on a war that may put us in a worse place than where we started, etc. - It's comforting to know that there is now a slightly easier path to continuing the important work of this Admin's agenda: spending tax payer money to slap the name of a fat felonious douchebag on as many things as possible for the next couple of years....
As opposed to spending taxpayer money on open borders, illegals, scams......
I only like to criticize Trump and the Rs that enable him on this thread.
Where is Glen today? I kind of miss him!
I think I may have been a bit harsh on calling him out for allegedly scamming a dog rescue charity out of all of their money ($400k ish) - which probably scared him off this thread.
I feel a little guilty about it - then I remember all of the dogs that will now die as a result of these alleged misdeeds and that pity goes away fast.
Erick, An excellent article!!
The Republicans must remember that in order to maintain the house and senate quality candidates must be put forward for the voters. Ken Paxton in Texas is just 1 example. He has so much "baggage" that the democrats could potentially win a senate seat if Paxton wins the primary and is the candidate for the general election
The Republicans are not doing well on messaging this election season.
Revenge politics are not good long term for the Republicans. Although many of President Trumps candidates won in Indiana, revenge does not work well nationally
The biggest problem this election cycle is Donald Trump himself.
He has no plan for Iran execpt hoping for a negotiated settlement. He must realize that he must finish the job and remove the Iran's ability to make a nuclear weapon and also have regime change.
And of course the economy must be improved.
And now both Democrats and Republicans will rig the system to suit themselves whenever they are in power, rather than just every ten years after the census; which was bad enough. So, Erick, while you may see this as a victory for James Blair and the Republican Party for now, will this new reality be a victory for the American political system the long term? I think it will just make things worse.
Like they haven't already been doing for decades? At least courts cleaning it up a bit.
Both sides have been. Now they just won’t wait for the census years to do it.
Although I'm just beginning to look at this in detail, the case conclusively deciding that the Supreme will not interfere with partisan gerrymandering was pretty well reasoned. The Court relied in part on its long history in American politics. However, I don't believe that gerrymandering (a) after already done once for the purpose of reapportionment after a census, and (b) for PURELY partisan reasons can be defended on a historical basis. I think the first redistricting meeting both these criteria was done in the 1980's.
Also, the Court will often beg the next question by explicitly stating what it is not deciding. In Rucho, Roberts' majority opinion said "Our conclusion does not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering." There can be no more excessive partisan gerrymandering than when done for purely partisan reasons (that is, unrelated to reapportionment). There is also the classic "slippery slope" argument to be made, pointing to the possibility that redistricting could eventually be undertaken after each and every congressional election.
All this is to say that I don't think the Court has said all it's going to say on this topic. Legislation prohibiting non-reapportionment related redistricting might also be favored by incumbents in both parties who don't want to run the risk of being redistricted out of office every time power changes hands in state legislatures. Either way, I am hopeful that redistricting between censuses won't long be with us.
Two parties facing off in the midterms: the GOP vs the Angercrats.
Good morning, MAGAs! Of course, Erick's propaganda completely misrepresents the truth that the MAGA/GOP not only dominates the gerrymandering map but also started the current war: https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/ My favorite sentence from this morning's propaganda: "Democrats had already boxed themselves in with maximum partisan redistricting and constitutional restrictions in some states that would prohibit radical gerrymandering." In other words, Democrat-led states have passed provisions that prohibit gerrymandering, while the GOP votes against such restrictions at both the state and federal levels.
ps. Erick, I'm surprised I didn't see you literally worshipping the golden calf with the other MAGA "Christians" this past weekend: https://www.newsweek.com/pastor-defends-golden-trump-statue-from-biblical-backlash-11933490
How many Republican congressmen and senators - total - come from northeast and west coast states?
Dude, is there a point to your question, or are you just letting me know that you have no idea about how representative government works?
Wonder where Glen is? Day off from the trolling job? Hospital? We know he’s not in court.
Democracy only counts when it is in favor of the left. Any other time, like the rule of law, Constitution, local laws, or any other rule, they are illegitimate when not serving the purposes of the left. The ends justify the means. This is easily seen through their word definitions. Take the word "Fair" for example. Things are only "fair" when the left's favored class, whoever that is at the time of speaking, are getting ahead. If that favored class is not getting ahead, things are unfair especially when the right's definition of fairness is used.
The right's definition of "fair" is very simple. It is fair when the standard is set at a known quantity. For example in a widget factory everyone meets quota if you make six (6) widgets. Make seven and get a bonus. Make five and get a reprimand for everyone in the factory no matter what. In that example, the left wants the number lowered for the person who can't make six because that's fair to them. Instead of requiring that person to learn how to improve him or her self, they want the standard lowered. They claim that's fair. What they don't care about is that it is unfair to everyone else.
All the left's word definitions are malleable like this. Don't let them get away with it. Instead of having the conversation or just answering questions when they try to redefine things like this, stop the conversation dead, reject the premise, and call them out on their inaccuracy. Be ready for a fight though because the Rainbow Mafia has them convinced you can get more than two genders out of two chromosomes. They are destitute where intellectual honesty is concerned. Good luck.
It's like the Left's definition of "compromise".... It's when they get some, or half of what they originally wanted, while giving up nothing themselves... the other side gets nothing...
Yes, and for the life of me I cannot understand why the republicans agree to that definition of "compromise"? Why do they do that? I mean, it is quite obvious they have no spine and ALWAYS give in to the left. Always. Leave it to the GOP to be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in ANY situation. It's their super-power.
It goes back to the same old crap that's been going on for at least 35 years now: Republicans want to hold office. Democrats want to hold power. The GOP is perfectly fine being the party not in power, just so long as they have a seat at the table. That way, they can't be expected to actually deliver the results they always promise. As long as they play ball and don’t rock the boat too much, they get invited to the best parties and let in on all the sweetheart deals to enrich themselves…. And for the most part, the media leaves them alone.
If a Republican does get into office and tries to rock the boat, they get destroyed by the media.... so, they generally keep quiet and just go along with it. Their own futures are financially secure, as are their own kids', so why push it?
And what's even worse, is when a conservative minority female runs for office on a GOP ticket, no matter what level, she gets ignored by the state and national GOP. Otherwise, the bottom line is this: The Democrats are in it to win it. The Republicans are in it to get paid.
Yes. It is patently obvious when you say it like this. We don't want it to be like this because they say all the right words when campaigning, but then they get to DC and never deliver. I'll believe there is a change in the Republican party when they repeal the ACA and not before.
Even before the ACA came around, back in the 90's, the GOP was all like: "Well, we don't control SCOTUS, we don't control the White House, the House, or the Senate! What are we supposed to do??"
So, in 1994 we gave them the House.
Then it was: "Well, we don't control SCOTUS, we don't control the White House or the Senate! What are we supposed to do??"
So we gave them the Senate too.
Then it was: "Well, we don't control SCOTUS or the White House! What are we supposed to do??"
In 2000, we gave them the White House.
Then it was: "Well, the media hates us! What are we supposed to do??"
The GOP had a trifecta for a while in the 2000's, and all GW Bush did was try to cram a bunch of illegal aliens down our throats.
Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House was a huge disappointment.
And on and on and on...
'Fair Fight Action' brought to you by Stacy Abrams anyone? 'Fair' has contributed to the dumbing down of America.
Stacey Abram’s “Fair Fight” was another example of amateur grift which resulted in that organization being $2.5 million in debt and folded up….. all the while Stacey herself got wealthy.
This is the same Stacey Abrams who said that abortion can help address inflation issues:
"Having children is why you’re worried about your price for gas, it’s why you’re concerned about how much food costs”.
First, going with: “Y'all gotta be able to kill the kids to save money” isn’t really as relatable as some people might want to think.
And second…. maybe, just maybe, if you’re 50+ years old, have never been married, and have never had kids, you should probably shut the hell up about what’s good and not good for families so you don’t come off sounding like a frikkin’ ghoul..
I have been saying for a few years that we need to stop legitimizing idiocracy by arguing over it. When someone wants to argue there are 72 genders, dismiss this as the idiocy that it is. In my day, if some dude would have shown up at school wearing a dress and wanting to enter the girls locker room, there wouldn't have been a discussion, it would have been rejected for the lunacy it is. By debating, you give validity to the debate.
Interesting first two sentences as it works both ways with the change of just one word. As in: "Democracy only counts when it is in favor of the MAGAs. Any other time, like the rule of law, Constitution, local laws, or any other rule, they are illegitimate when not serving the purposes of the MAGAs. The ends justify the means."
The fact that it is most common for the elections in the mid terms to go the party out of power in the mid terms indicates to me that voters are the biggest part of the problem. Why on earth would we not give the person we put in the white house the opportunity to complete the agenda when we have control of both the House and the Senate? Clearly, if the opposing party is put in place in the mid terms, all momentum is gone and we have a stalemate for two years. Especially when the entire goal of the democrats is to stop any progress, impeach and regain complete power. Clearly this idea of citizens being able to drift around knowing practically nothing about politics is not doing the country any good.
Me thinks the person we put in the White House has no will, interest or fortitude to finish the job and congress is just one uniparty, spending our tax dollars Willy nilly. I’m disgusted with them all.
Somedays I wish a viable third party would emerge. Key word being "viable", not one that would just split the vote and give all the power to the Leftist controlled Dems.
Yes! And it would quickly become a voting plurality since so many of us occupy that middle ground. But sadly it won’t happen in my lifetime.
I have a "friend" that every election cycle debates me on voting for the Libertarian party. While I align with a lot of the ideas, I know it's just throwing away my vote as there is zero chance they will succeed.
I think the party out of power tends to speak loudest, trying to overcome a loss and they work harder. Those who win sit back and revel in it. - Up to a point, anyway.
It’s easier to get a person out to vote when he believes his vote will help change whatever he doesn’t like. When voters are at least content with what’s happening, they tend to be far less engaged. To your point, I agree it’s mostly a human condition.
Perhaps the losses are due to discouragement from the realization that both sides kinda suck and people get deflated from taking a chance for change and nothing really changes, at least it doesn't feel like it. People are also stupid. How has it worked for deportations when a huge majority agreed that deportations had to take place, but have a few hiccups and now even the GOP are introducing amnesty bills? It's absurd. No one has the stomach to do the hard things.
Because the propaganda masters only get your or my eyeballs when there is bad news....so there is always bad news for the party "in power". That translates to a swing whether intentional or not. The republicans get the bad news because the American Media Industrial Complex hates republicans so they lose the midterms. The democrats lose because while the propagandists try to cover up what they are doing, the American people actually see and feel it which is real bad news, and they lose. What we really need is an honest press in this country but I fear what we have is too far gone for that.
With that said, it ultimately lies in the stupidity and inability of people to stand by their principles. As mentioned, people overwhelmingly know that our immigration laws should be enforced and polling indicates they are in favor of it, but a few over blown incidents and suddenly the sentiment changes. Nothing has changed, the basic reasons for enforcing laws and deporting illegals is still in place, but now stupid people are shamed into saying that perhaps we should be "kinder" and begin to wobble. I posit the change is more a result of the GOP, in this case, lacking the conviction to stand by their beliefs instead of letting the media and left shame them into changing their minds. It boils down to voters being cowards.
That is definitely part of it, but the voters don't seem to be willing to give a president the full four years with congress in his court. Rather, if it isn't all done the way we want it, we flip on year two. Who knows how it would go if we stuck to the same congress and the same president for four years.
I guess I base the unwillingness to stay the course partially at least on cowardice to stand by their convictions. Too many are squishy and easily swayed.
And the pendulum will continue to swing ever more erratically…
Terrific article Erick! As a native Virginian what happened there is more than theater worthy! Some don’t know this but Sen Mark Warner nominated the Supreme Court Justice in Virginia who decided to follow the rule of law instead of following Warner’s directive! Too bad so sad.! Also could the Calais decision be used to overturn the California gerrymandering vote just like Louisiana?? Some pundits are saying so… still hoping that the Red team pulls it out in November which I believe it can! We just have to get off our backside and vote!!!
Exactly. The democrats believe in the rule of law except when it doesn’t give them or keep them in power. I have said this before if our government cared more about their constituents instead of just being in power think of how much better this country would be. Just what has Congress gotten accomplished over the last say ten, twelve, twenty years? Oh yeah, the unaffordable care act and in debt up to our eyeballs. Call me cynical but that’s how I feel.
I wish more people would hold the republicans accountable for what they fund raised on for over a decade; repeal of the ACA. Bastards. We have a worse situation now than before they passed it. That was their goal of course as a step to get to single payer government run healthcare. All we have to do to know what that will look like is look at the VA. THAT is government run healthcare. It's all about power and money for the America aristocracy that is our political class.
I, for one, will not give $ to an R anymore because as soon as I did 3 yrs ago, I was & am up to my eyeballs in WinRed texts cajoling, begging & belittling me for more $. Blocking doesn't work as every # is different (rotary #s). They keep promising to take me off the list but never, sadly, do. I should have sent an anonymous cash donation using snailmail.
This. All of this. So much this. I gave Ted Cruz money in 2016 and worked his campaign and now I can't get them to stop texting me. To any and all GOP candidates who read this I delete and block every single text I get now. If you want to make sure I do NOT donate to you, text me.
Agreed
It's so interesting that your cynicism only falls on one side of the political aisle! Let's see, which of these examples more exemplifies our government caring about its constituents?
Example 1: At great political peril, at least attempting to provide access to healthcare for millions of middle and lower-class American who previously were unable to obtain coverage (Obama)
Example 2: Eliminating access to healthcare for up to 20 million of these middle and lower-class Americans so the wealthiest among us can become a little more wealthy (Orange Jesus)
Government subsided healthcare. Millions were forced off the their existing healthcare plans with Obamacare. “ You can keep your doctor or you can keep your healthcare.” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Subsidized. The word is subsidized. True to MAGA form, you're always making excuses for your Orange Jesus.
You do know subsidized means WE pay for it. It's MY money, NOT yours.
Trav, not sure you understand this, but the US Government subsidizes literally thousands of aspects of American society. Generally speaking, the GOP favors subsidies that benefit the corporate class (fossil fuel companies, large agricultural companies, tech companies, defense contractors, etc.) while DEMs favor subsidies that benefit middle class and working class Americans. Why are you only upset when YOUR money benefits those who most need assistance? I mean, isn't helping the needy what Jesus demanded of us???
You Sir have really drank the cool aide if you think that the democrats are only out to help the needy. One example, look what they have done for the homeless. Their solution is to throw tons of money at a problem without solving it. Let’s give them free drugs and a place where they can hang out. Jesus is all for helping the less fortunate with a hand up, hand outs solve nothing.
I could have sworn that our government included the republicans.
Yes, but your examples are always interesting. See explanation (above)
We All feel the same government has become a Big money grab
The ultimate goal of any government is to control or enslave all its people to do the will of those in control. The difference between governments is the method used to achieve this goal.