• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A golden opportunity this November

DifferentDrummr

DifferentDrummr

Bald eagle
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
7,437
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Confirmation Bias Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Just a gentle reminder for everyone obsessed with the presidential races:

34 seats in the Senate are up for grabs this year. (By the way, 24 of those seats are held by Republicans.)

Every seat in the House is up for grabs, too.

It's time to vote smart. Vote for candidates who can and will work across the aisle, regardless of party. Candidates who understand that Washington has always worked by compromises. Not robots who make silly "pledges."
 
Totally off topic and I'll apologize in advance, but you might want to be cautious suggesting what is "voting smart" while suggesting Lady Gaga for President.

But to your point, there might be some degree of voters being upset with establishment. Understand for the last 4 elections for the US House, they have enjoyed 95%, 90%, 85% and 94% going back to 2008. And on the Senate side for seats in contest over the same period they have enjoyed 82%, 91%, 84% and 83% over the same period. Even with terrible overall approval ratings Congress generally enjoys high reelection rates. With very few exceptions going all the way back to the 1980s.

Welcome to Establishment Politics, money into Congress, and control over voter districts.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Totally off topic and I'll apologize in advance, but you might want to be cautious suggesting what is "voting smart" while suggesting Lady Gaga for President.
Click to expand...
If somebody doesn't understand that suggesting Lady Gaga for the top job is a joke, that individual would probably not have much to connect with in my posts anyway.

But to your point, there might be some degree of voters being upset with establishment. Understand for the last 4 elections for the US House, they have enjoyed 95%, 90%, 85% and 94% going back to 2008. And on the Senate side for seats in contest over the same period they have enjoyed 82%, 91%, 84% and 83% over the same period. Even with terrible overall approval ratings Congress generally enjoys high reelection rates. With very few exceptions going all the way back to the 1980s.

Welcome to Establishment Politics, money into Congress, and control over voter districts.
Click to expand...
Gerrymandering districts is certainly a problem, and I've mentioned ideas for what to do about it in other threads.

That aside, even the establishment understands the need to get things done by compromise. It always has.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Just a gentle reminder for everyone obsessed with the presidential races:

34 seats in the Senate are up for grabs this year. (By the way, 24 of those seats are held by Republicans.)

Every seat in the House is up for grabs, too.

It's time to vote smart. Vote for candidates who can and will work across the aisle, regardless of party. Candidates who understand that Washington has always worked by compromises. Not robots who make silly "pledges."
Click to expand...

It's time to vote for Democrats; Democrats, Democrats, Democrats. Were they handed a surplus? Did they cut revenue, put two wars on credit, hand over a crisis and then stall the recovery?

I think Lady Gaga will be a fine President she has all the qualifications, but why do I want to do this to her?
 
Exquisitor said:
It's time to vote for Democrats; Democrats, Democrats, Democrats. Were they handed a surplus? Did they cut revenue, put two wars on credit, hand over a crisis and then stall the recovery?

I think Lady Gaga will be a fine President she has all the qualifications, but why do I want to do this to her?
Click to expand...

She'd certainly be better than Trump.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
If somebody doesn't understand that suggesting Lady Gaga for the top job is a joke, that individual would probably not have much to connect with in my posts anyway.


Gerrymandering districts is certainly a problem, and I've mentioned ideas for what to do about it in other threads.

That aside, even the establishment understands the need to get things done by compromise. It always has.
Click to expand...

When it comes to the re-election of incumbents I would say that gerrymandering, while its an issue, isn't the big issue.
When polled almost 80% of the electorate in general thinks incumbents should be voted out / replaced.
But when asked about their own incumbent candidate almost 70% think they should be re-elected.
Its the disposition of most that everyone else should do it but me that keeps them in there.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
If somebody doesn't understand that suggesting Lady Gaga for the top job is a joke, that individual would probably not have much to connect with in my posts anyway.
Click to expand...

It's not like your avatar is of Trump.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Just a gentle reminder for everyone obsessed with the presidential races:

34 seats in the Senate are up for grabs this year. (By the way, 24 of those seats are held by Republicans.)

Every seat in the House is up for grabs, too.

It's time to vote smart. Vote for candidates who can and will work across the aisle, regardless of party. Candidates who understand that Washington has always worked by compromises. Not robots who make silly "pledges."
Click to expand...

Democrats' demands for compromise have increased in inverse proportion to the size of their House and Senate representation.
 
Jack Hays said:
Democrats' demands for compromise have increased in inverse proportion to the size of their House and Senate representation.
Click to expand...

You prefer a bunch of lazy idiots who say 'no' to every single thing that comes over the aisle? They came close to bankrupting the country doing that.
 
Jack Hays said:
Democrats' demands for compromise have increased in inverse proportion to the size of their House and Senate representation.
Click to expand...

And you are surprised by this?
 
Jack Hays said:
Not at all. It merely confirms my assumption that no principle is involved.
Click to expand...

I suspected principle is involved, so I looked the definition up in a dictionary. I think you would benefit from doing so yourself.
 
Jack Hays said:
On the contrary, I meant it exactly as defined.
Click to expand...

The Democrats, or Republicans, are in the minority, so they call for compromise. Seems like a principle to me.
 
BitterPill said:
The Democrats, or Republicans, are in the minority, so they call for compromise. Seems like a principle to me.
Click to expand...

In fact, your mistake was in using the word no before principle. Get rid of the no, and we'll both be on the same page with the dictionary.
 
Jack Hays said:
That's just a matter of seeking political advantage.
Click to expand...

And one principle of seeking political advantage is compromise.

Listen, I'm kind of bored by this, so I'm moving on. Thanks for the discussion nonetheless.
 
BitterPill said:
And one principle of seeking political advantage is compromise.

Listen, I'm kind of bored by this, so I'm moving on. Thanks for the discussion nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Seeking compromise is a tactic, not a principle.
 
BitterPill said:
That's very interesting.
Click to expand...

leo-cullum-it-s-not-enough-that-we-succeed-cats-must-also-fail-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom