USA How The Democrats Can Win the Senate

[Josiah]

The House today (by pure partisan vote) voted to grant statehood to the District of Columbia. This because Democrats outnumber Republicans by nearly 3 to 1 there, so if it's a State, the Democrats would be assured of gained 2 seats in the Senate. This being the only way they can do that.

The news (predictably) is simply speaking of how fair Democrats are and how they want EVERYONE (illegal aliens, Russians, etc.) to have the vote, and how this shows Republicans want people to be forbidden to vote. The news never mentioned that to grant Statehood to DC would require an Amendment to the Constitution which would require a 2/3's vote of Senate (currently controlled by Republicans) AND 2/3's of the 50 States where likely none would vote to do this. The News implied that now that the House has voted, this will happen unless the evil and demonic and stupid Trump stops it. Nothin' about the Constitution because the Constitution don't matter, not a bit.

In California, Democrats for years have been all about creating 3 to 7 states out of California, claiming if the boundries are just so, perhaps 10 new Democrat senators could be added and Democrats would take the Senate. Heck, if you cut up just LA County into 5 parts, you'd gain 10 Senators - all Democrats. And if you cut up Detroit into 5 states, there's another 10 Senators. Pretty soon, you've taken the Senate.

Of course, the Democrats might consider doing good things and winning votes that way, but....

 

[Lazy Suesun]

With NP as SotH, I can believe they'd try this. The lengths the Democrats will go in order to destroy America and unseat Trump now and preclude his second term, is still shocking. This though is beyond the pale. The 51st state, Washington District of Columbia.
Predictably, it'll never get past the Republican majority Senate. Not a single House Republican voted yea for this measure. And only one brave Democrat voted no. Representative Collin Peterson, of Minnesota. I'm sure he's very popular among his peers on the Hill now.

 

[psalms 91]

I predict that if the Republicans keep doing or not doing what they are they will take the Senate without any problem

 

[tango]

I predict that if the Republicans keep doing or not doing what they are they will take the Senate without any problem

If the Democrats keep lurching ever-further left it's hard to see the silent majority being happy with that. When one party seems obsessed with taking guns away while also letting rioters run out of control, why would anyone want to take the chance they will be next on the rioters' hit-list with the police ordered to stand down and no means to defend themselves?

 

[Josiah]

Update....

Article in today's paper cleared up a couple of things about this ploy by all but one Democrat in the Senate...

1. They've crafted this so as to avoid the need to amend the Constitution: The Federal District would remain, but it would only be the land under the Capitol building and the White House. It would effectively eliminate DC but technically not.

2. Turns out there IS support to transfer most of DC to Maryland. This was done some years ago when some of the land was transferred to Virginia. OF course, the Democrats don't support this because it would not get them more senators (Maryland is already a one-party state and both senators are already Democrats). So, this whole ploy has NOTHING to do with getting the good people of DC voting senators.... it's exclusively about trying to get MORE Democrat senators without needing to gain more voters to their agenda. A move to transfer much to Maryland (which it was suggested would pass) could be done by simple vote and give the resident a vote for their senators but is rejected by the Democrats because it won't give them more senators. I wonder if the good people of DC see through this? In California, the Democrats have been proposing for years splitting the state into 3 - 7 separate states for exactly the same reason.... even got it on the ballot once... Californians (mostly Democrats) saw it as a pure political move to take control of the Senate without gaining more voters and didn't vote for it. I'm sure the Democrats won't stop. Perhaps the Republicans should lower themselves to the same shameless ploy and move to divide Utah into 3 states and Texas into 10 states and so be sure to retain control of the Senate.



.

 

[Lazy Suesun]

It does cause one to wonder how educated the Democrats in the House are, at this point. District of Columbia is situated partly in Virginia and partly in Maryland. Which is why it was not a state in the first place and is situated perfectly to be the seat of governance for the entire nation.
This effort that will absolutely fail in the Senate, and if by some miracle not, will be vetoed by Trump, shows how desperate the Democrats are.
What is very sad in this whole thing is that when Trump is re-elected, if the Dem's take majority in both houses, God forbid, he'll be under siege in the soft coup ramp up like never before.
Article 1 section 6 of the U.S Constitution allows for remedy of the worst of the House Dem's, starting with Pelosi and Schumer, being removed from office. Then go down the list according to record.

We can't drain the swamp if we don't utilize the remedies made available.

 

[tango]

It's hard to imagine anyone who has been a career politician on either side of the gravy train to make too many waves to disrupt the gravy train. If neither side will rock the boat because they're busy getting rich out of it, neither side will be thrown out of the boat.

Until such time as the people of the country realise that term limits already exist (they're called "elections") and stop re-electing career politicians nothing will change.

 

[Lazy Suesun]

It's hard to imagine anyone who has been a career politician on either side of the gravy train to make too many waves to disrupt the gravy train. If neither side will rock the boat because they're busy getting rich out of it, neither side will be thrown out of the boat.

Until such time as the people of the country realise that term limits already exist (they're called "elections") and stop re-electing career politicians nothing will change.

I don't know that I trust elections to effect term limits anymore. When Nancy Pelosi, who was called out of her mind and needed to be unseated from the House Speaker seat by members of her own party under Obama, is not only re-elected but is put back in that same seat under Trump, I think something else puts a career politician back into office.

I remember not long ago when a woman who has single-handedly taken attention away from blonde jokes, AOC,as the only Democrat on record who pursued a cost of living pay raise shortly after taking the Representative seat. And she , a former bartender, who should have stayed behind the bar, was to make a little less than $140G. at the time. More than she made slinging drinks I'm sure. She was called down for it by Pelosi who told her, that's not how we make our money.
So glad she said that on the record.

It was a blessing that AOC was that bold because it may have caused many voters to ask themselves, how do people in Congress, who make less than $200G. per year, end up millionaires while serving as career politicians?

 

[tango]

I don't know that I trust elections to effect term limits anymore. When Nancy Pelosi, who was called out of her mind and needed to be unseated from the House Speaker seat by members of her own party under Obama, is not only re-elected but is put back in that same seat under Trump, I think something else puts a career politician back into office.

If the people in Nancy Pelosi's district decided it was time someone else took her place, she wouldn't be there. The trouble with purely using elections as enforcers of term limits is that it would require people who want to vote for their party to be willing to vote for the other party if it were the only means to get an incumbent out of office. Frankly with tribal voters on both sides it's hard to imagine people being willing to give the other party the seat rather than leave their own incumbent in office and yet until voters are willing to do that it's hard to see the status quo changing. It really would be like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.

I remember not long ago when a woman who has single-handedly taken attention away from blonde jokes, AOC,as the only Democrat on record who pursued a cost of living pay raise shortly after taking the Representative seat. And she , a former bartender, who should have stayed behind the bar, was to make a little less than $140G. at the time. More than she made slinging drinks I'm sure. She was called down for it by Pelosi who told her, that's not how we make our money.
So glad she said that on the record.

She might be one to talk about it very soon after taking her seat but it's not as if it's a new concept. Bernie Sanders has been talking about a $15/hr minimum wage for a while.

It was a blessing that AOC was that bold because it may have caused many voters to ask themselves, how do people in Congress, who make less than $200G. per year, end up millionaires while serving as career politicians?

If people didn't wonder that until AOC opened her mouth they haven't been paying attention. The question of why people spend hundreds of millions of dollars and subject themselves to such intense scrutiny for a job that pays less than half a million has been around for a while. I'm sure not all of them do it for the prestige of sitting in the Oval Office.

 

[Lazy Suesun]

If the people in Nancy Pelosi's district decided it was time someone else took her place, she wouldn't be there. The trouble with purely using elections as enforcers of term limits is that it would require people who want to vote for their party to be willing to vote for the other party if it were the only means to get an incumbent out of office. Frankly with tribal voters on both sides it's hard to imagine people being willing to give the other party the seat rather than leave their own incumbent in office and yet until voters are willing to do that it's hard to see the status quo changing. It really would be like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.

Vegan Thanksgiving, coming up. The feather party is majority.
Sadly, term limits would only be applied through a Constitutional amendment. The ridiculous matter of history is that until George Washington took issue with no term limits applying to any branch of Government, there was not a term limit even for the office of POTUS. If only he'd have gone the full route and insisted on all branches having term limits. As it stands, Congress has to amend the Constitution by a 2/3rds majority to insure their office has limits. That's never going to happen.
As long as loyalist party members keep voting for the same name every two years, Congress will never change by our reckoning across the whole strata of the chamber.

She might be one to talk about it very soon after taking her seat but it's not as if it's a new concept. Bernie Sanders has been talking about a $15/hr minimum wage for a while.

No, it is not a new concept for someone in Congress to put forward a bill pertaining to a cost of living pay raise for all members of Congress. It is however a new concept that one of the Representatives that did do this was berated for it by House Speaker.
Congress has stayed steady with their salaries w/no cost of living pay raise, since 2009. That's likely what made AOC think to advance the idea as long overdue.
Sanders speaks to a lot of things he'd like to see happen in America, as a Socialist. Interestingly as pertains to minimum wage, he failed to provide that for people on his own campaign staff. I wasn't surprised. Bernie has long been one to advance Socialism for us, but not for himself or his own 1% associates.

If people didn't wonder that until AOC opened her mouth they haven't been paying attention. The question of why people spend hundreds of millions of dollars and subject themselves to such intense scrutiny for a job that pays less than half a million has been around for a while. I'm sure not all of them do it for the prestige of sitting in the Oval Office.

It pays far less than half a million when a member of Congress. It pays far less than that when in the Oval.

 

[tango]

Vegan Thanksgiving, coming up. The feather party is majority.
Sadly, term limits would only be applied through a Constitutional amendment. The ridiculous matter of history is that until George Washington took issue with no term limits applying to any branch of Government, there was not a term limit even for the office of POTUS. If only he'd have gone the full route and insisted on all branches having term limits. As it stands, Congress has to amend the Constitution by a 2/3rds majority to insure their office has limits. That's never going to happen.

Well, yes. Since it's clear Congress isn't going to clean out its own house the only way forward is for the people to do it for them. That means voting out incumbents, even if it means voting for a different party. It probably won't take many incumbents swept out of office for the powers behind the curtains to take the hint. Better for the incumbent to stand down voluntarily and endorse a successor than know they'll lose the seat to the opposition.

Sanders speaks to a lot of things he'd like to see happen in America, as a Socialist. Interestingly as pertains to minimum wage, he failed to provide that for people on his own campaign staff. I wasn't surprised. Bernie has long been one to advance Socialism for us, but not for himself or his own 1% associates.

Sadly it's far from rare for people to want Everybody Else to abide by the rules they don't want to follow themselves, and come up with all sorts of clever reasoning as to why they don't have to obey the rules.

It pays far less than half a million when a member of Congress. It pays far less than that when in the Oval.

I thought the Presidential salary was $400,000. Maybe I'm wrong. It's not as if I'll ever hold the office so it's not something I've particularly sought to verify.

 

[Lazy Suesun]

Well, yes. Since it's clear Congress isn't going to clean out its own house the only way forward is for the people to do it for them. That means voting out incumbents, even if it means voting for a different party. It probably won't take many incumbents swept out of office for the powers behind the curtains to take the hint. Better for the incumbent to stand down voluntarily and endorse a successor than know they'll lose the seat to the opposition.

It's precisely those powers behind the curtain that cause me to say, I don't think career politicians are actually voted in so as to be incumbent career politicians.
Case in point, the now departed Strom Thurmond. He retired at the age of 99 and died months later at the ripe old age of 100. He was made to retire because he was so mentally infirm that his own party would not suffer his presence in office any longer. He should have been retired in that manner a couple of decades prior.
However, his presence for that long as a Democratic Senator representing the people of South Carolina for 48 years, even when it was impossible to miss he was infirm, shown poorly on the voters of his district. And that would be due to their having re-elected him long after he was mentally fit and worthy of the office. Which is why I think powers behind the curtain are a factor in determining careerism in Congress.

Of course now there's a move started by a former South Carolina football player to remove ST's name from the U of SC recreational center. The Erasure movement keeps itself busy.

Sadly it's far from rare for people to want Everybody Else to abide by the rules they don't want to follow themselves, and come up with all sorts of clever reasoning as to why they don't have to obey the rules.

In this case Sanders is the typical politician using the Socialism ruse to befuddle a certain demographic in the electorate. When politicians talk about making sacrifices they're speaking to us about us, not themselves.
Sanders calls himself a Democratic Socialist. He's all Socialist when it comes to his ideas about us. The Democrat part of it is his way of saying, if we fall for his rhetoric, we'll have voted ourselves into his ideal box.
Meanwhile Sanders, who's Senate salary is $174G, became a millionaire in 2016, per his tax returns. He also owns three houses.
That's not Socialism, that's Capitalism. But the voters he wants to sway with his rhetoric are in a particular demographic. See here.
Along with his protege' AOC, promising pie in the sky appeals to those who are 18 to 24 years of age. That age group is 59% of Sanders supporters.

Imagine! Wake up, get high,grab a beer, plop in front of the video game, and wait for the paycheck to appear, while the rent/mortgage is paid by government, as well as utilities. What's not to love if those are someones favorite things? Problem is, that age demographic doesn't seem to notice nor care that when asked , where's the money coming from, Sanders turns red and sputters without a qualified answer forthcoming. AOC doesn't go red, she just sputters and continues to make no sense as she attempts to dodge the need for a qualified answer.

It's the promise that sounds good. Not the matter of financial facts related to the promise. Keeping in mind, Sanders has never had a job and was once on welfare. How's he identify with the working class when he's never been a member.

I thought the Presidential salary was $400,000. Maybe I'm wrong. It's not as if I'll ever hold the office so it's not something I've particularly sought to verify.

Yes, $100G per quarter or, $400G per annum, plus $50G in additional expense allowance. (See Title 3 of the U.S Code). This current President however does not receive his full salary, by his choice. Which is why members of Congress earn more.

 

[tango]

It's precisely those powers behind the curtain that cause me to say, I don't think career politicians are actually voted in so as to be incumbent career politicians.
Case in point, the now departed Strom Thurmond. He retired at the age of 99 and died months later at the ripe old age of 100. He was made to retire because he was so mentally infirm that his own party would not suffer his presence in office any longer. He should have been retired in that manner a couple of decades prior.
However, his presence for that long as a Democratic Senator representing the people of South Carolina for 48 years, even when it was impossible to miss he was infirm, shown poorly on the voters of his district. And that would be due to their having re-elected him long after he was mentally fit and worthy of the office. Which is why I think powers behind the curtain are a factor in determining careerism in Congress.

If the people keep re-electing him then he keeps returning to office. It's not clear whether it's some kind of sinister "power behind the curtain" thing going on or if it's simple as the mantra of "vote blue, no matter who" taking hold and people tolerating someone who isn't fit for purpose because he has a (D) after his name and the only alternative is - horror - someone with (R) after their name. If people vote along tribal lines even when the candidate isn't even competent they don't really get to complain that the candidate is incompetent once elected.

In this case Sanders is the typical politician using the Socialism ruse to befuddle a certain demographic in the electorate. When politicians talk about making sacrifices they're speaking to us about us, not themselves.

Of course, "shared sacrifice" means shared among the people. The rulers rarely if ever sacrifice anything of consequence.