A Liberal View

alohafri wrote:Here's an interesting thing that I heard brought up over the weekend. If Barrett is put onto the Supreme Court before the election, that would give the conservatives a majority for the foreseeable future. Theoretically, the Court will rule in favor of conservative policies (although even Trump's appointees have ruled against him already, giving credence to my thought that justices listen to each other and are much less ideological than people claim they are). That makes Trump expendable. Face it. Trump is NOT a conservative. He is NOT a Republican. If anything, he is an economic liberal of the worst kind. The thought is that many Republicans, at least the true conservatives will, maybe quietly, turn their backs on him and vote for Biden, knowing how Trump is destroying the economy of the nation. 


According to Michael Steele, 4 TRILLION dollar deficit, not debt, but deficit, thanks to his handouts and tax breaks.

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:Here's an interesting thing that I heard brought up over the weekend. If Barrett is put onto the Supreme Court before the election, that would give the conservatives a majority for the foreseeable future. Theoretically, the Court will rule in favor of conservative policies (although even Trump's appointees have ruled against him already, giving credence to my thought that justices listen to each other and are much less ideological than people claim they are). That makes Trump expendable. Face it. Trump is NOT a conservative. He is NOT a Republican. If anything, he is an economic liberal of the worst kind. The thought is that many Republicans, at least the true conservatives will, maybe quietly, turn their backs on him and vote for Biden, knowing how Trump is destroying the economy of the nation. 


According to Michael Steele, 4 TRILLION dollar deficit, not debt, but deficit, thanks to his handouts and tax breaks.

It's definitely about 4 trillion.  It was going to be 1 trillion and then they did 3 trillion more in stimulus.  

I think the GOP wants Trump to win because they sense that they're about the lose the senate, potentially.  If they lose the senate, I have a sense that Dems might go nuclear and do some drastic things.  The GOP doesn't want to see a Dem win president unless they at least have the House or the Senate, or both.  If all three chambers go blue, I expect some of the following may occur:
1. Dems say "fuck it" and we're getting rid of the filibuster because democracy is at stake.  
2. Dems use that power to convert DC to a state.  Two more Dems in the senate.
3. Dems use that power to try convincing Puerto Rico to consider and move on US statehood under the belief that they could perhaps get a couple more blue senators.  Not sure that's a smart assumption, but initially....maybe.  
4. Dems use that power to shore up ACA, or possibly sensing ACA is going away via a SCOTUS decision, they create a public option situation whereby people can buy into Medicare for an affordable amount that grants credits to people with low income (i.e. ACA credits).  This resolves the pre-existing conditions issue once and for all by allowing us to buy into the national group policy.  
5. Dems use that power to lower Medicare age to 55.  This would be shocking at first, but it would benefit folks who are most likely to vote Republican so it reduces the amount of noise and arguments against it, because let's face it....if a 56 yr old can suddenly get Medicare for no $$ out of pocket, he'll recover quickly from any blow to his political ideology.
6. Dems begin talking to political powers in CA and pushing for them to expand to 5 or 6 states.  I mean, why not?  Shouldn't a state with 40 million people...the 5th biggest economy in the world, have more than 2 senators?  They have so many different socio-economic areas and sub-economies that splitting up makes sense.  
7. Packing the SCOTUS with a couple more justices.  I can't imagine this, but some in the know say it's far more likely to be attempted than I'm granting.  

I ain't saying any of this WILL occur, but I think some will be attempted and/or successful.  I think the Dems are getting to a point where they are seeing the writing on the wall.  We're a nation of minority rule.  Presidents are elected with a minority.  The 53 seat current senate majority is representative of about 45% of our population, and that majority, which is really a minority, is responsible in the last few years for what will be a 6-3 majority on the Court, even though it was put there by a senate that is a minority representation of the population.  Pro-choice is a majority position.  Gun regs is a majority position.  And yet, abortion rights are at risk to some degree while nobody will even consider gun regs.  Shit, for several years, the House was red, but was getting more votes for Dems due to gerrymandering.  Even now, the Dems need about a 5% edge in votes to hold their House majority.  Much of this minority rule is due to the granting of equal power to states via the senate, even though states are drawn completely arbitrarily.  It's kind of crazy that California and its 40 million people get two senators, while 23 states with a combined 40 million people get 46 senators.  That's just too lopsided to be called fair, and I suspect Dems are beginning to see this.  Then again, maybe I'm wrong.  LOL.

sharpy wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:Here's an interesting thing that I heard brought up over the weekend. If Barrett is put onto the Supreme Court before the election, that would give the conservatives a majority for the foreseeable future. Theoretically, the Court will rule in favor of conservative policies (although even Trump's appointees have ruled against him already, giving credence to my thought that justices listen to each other and are much less ideological than people claim they are). That makes Trump expendable. Face it. Trump is NOT a conservative. He is NOT a Republican. If anything, he is an economic liberal of the worst kind. The thought is that many Republicans, at least the true conservatives will, maybe quietly, turn their backs on him and vote for Biden, knowing how Trump is destroying the economy of the nation. 


According to Michael Steele, 4 TRILLION dollar deficit, not debt, but deficit, thanks to his handouts and tax breaks.

It's definitely about 4 trillion.  It was going to be 1 trillion and then they did 3 trillion more in stimulus.  

I think the GOP wants Trump to win because they sense that they're about the lose the senate, potentially.  If they lose the senate, I have a sense that Dems might go nuclear and do some drastic things.  The GOP doesn't want to see a Dem win president unless they at least have the House or the Senate, or both.  If all three chambers go blue, I expect some of the following may occur:
1. Dems say "fuck it" and we're getting rid of the filibuster because democracy is at stake.  
2. Dems use that power to convert DC to a state.  Two more Dems in the senate.
3. Dems use that power to try convincing Puerto Rico to consider and move on US statehood under the belief that they could perhaps get a couple more blue senators.  Not sure that's a smart assumption, but initially....maybe.  
4. Dems use that power to shore up ACA, or possibly sensing ACA is going away via a SCOTUS decision, they create a public option situation whereby people can buy into Medicare for an affordable amount that grants credits to people with low income (i.e. ACA credits).  This resolves the pre-existing conditions issue once and for all by allowing us to buy into the national group policy.  
5. Dems use that power to lower Medicare age to 55.  This would be shocking at first, but it would benefit folks who are most likely to vote Republican so it reduces the amount of noise and arguments against it, because let's face it....if a 56 yr old can suddenly get Medicare for no $$ out of pocket, he'll recover quickly from any blow to his political ideology.
6. Dems begin talking to political powers in CA and pushing for them to expand to 5 or 6 states.  I mean, why not?  Shouldn't a state with 40 million people...the 5th biggest economy in the world, have more than 2 senators?  They have so many different socio-economic areas and sub-economies that splitting up makes sense.  
7. Packing the SCOTUS with a couple more justices.  I can't imagine this, but some in the know say it's far more likely to be attempted than I'm granting.  

I ain't saying any of this WILL occur, but I think some will be attempted and/or successful.  I think the Dems are getting to a point where they are seeing the writing on the wall.  We're a nation of minority rule.  Presidents are elected with a minority.  The 53 seat current senate majority is representative of about 45% of our population, and that majority, which is really a minority, is responsible in the last few years for what will be a 6-3 majority on the Court, even though it was put there by a senate that is a minority representation of the population.  Pro-choice is a majority position.  Gun regs is a majority position.  And yet, abortion rights are at risk to some degree while nobody will even consider gun regs.  Shit, for several years, the House was red, but was getting more votes for Dems due to gerrymandering.  Even now, the Dems need about a 5% edge in votes to hold their House majority.  Much of this minority rule is due to the granting of equal power to states via the senate, even though states are drawn completely arbitrarily.  It's kind of crazy that California and its 40 million people get two senators, while 23 states with a combined 40 million people get 46 senators.  That's just too lopsided to be called fair, and I suspect Dems are beginning to see this.  Then again, maybe I'm wrong.  LOL.

Thats all great .. and I truly hope they do every single thing you wrote .. but first, tell me how they are going to get Trump out of the WH , even if he loses?  I'm sure you've seen the Atlantic article where trump and his friends are working on having electoral colleges vote against their states popular vote (which I believe the scotus already said was constitutional). and how do he dems win a SCOTUS decision on who won?  They already lost once in 2000, whats to prevent another loss? 

sharpy wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:Here's an interesting thing that I heard brought up over the weekend. If Barrett is put onto the Supreme Court before the election, that would give the conservatives a majority for the foreseeable future. Theoretically, the Court will rule in favor of conservative policies (although even Trump's appointees have ruled against him already, giving credence to my thought that justices listen to each other and are much less ideological than people claim they are). That makes Trump expendable. Face it. Trump is NOT a conservative. He is NOT a Republican. If anything, he is an economic liberal of the worst kind. The thought is that many Republicans, at least the true conservatives will, maybe quietly, turn their backs on him and vote for Biden, knowing how Trump is destroying the economy of the nation. 


According to Michael Steele, 4 TRILLION dollar deficit, not debt, but deficit, thanks to his handouts and tax breaks.

It's definitely about 4 trillion.  It was going to be 1 trillion and then they did 3 trillion more in stimulus.  

I think the GOP wants Trump to win because they sense that they're about the lose the senate, potentially.  If they lose the senate, I have a sense that Dems might go nuclear and do some drastic things.  The GOP doesn't want to see a Dem win president unless they at least have the House or the Senate, or both.  If all three chambers go blue, I expect some of the following may occur:
1. Dems say "fuck it" and we're getting rid of the filibuster because democracy is at stake.  
2. Dems use that power to convert DC to a state.  Two more Dems in the senate.
3. Dems use that power to try convincing Puerto Rico to consider and move on US statehood under the belief that they could perhaps get a couple more blue senators.  Not sure that's a smart assumption, but initially....maybe.  
4. Dems use that power to shore up ACA, or possibly sensing ACA is going away via a SCOTUS decision, they create a public option situation whereby people can buy into Medicare for an affordable amount that grants credits to people with low income (i.e. ACA credits).  This resolves the pre-existing conditions issue once and for all by allowing us to buy into the national group policy.  
5. Dems use that power to lower Medicare age to 55.  This would be shocking at first, but it would benefit folks who are most likely to vote Republican so it reduces the amount of noise and arguments against it, because let's face it....if a 56 yr old can suddenly get Medicare for no $$ out of pocket, he'll recover quickly from any blow to his political ideology.
6. Dems begin talking to political powers in CA and pushing for them to expand to 5 or 6 states.  I mean, why not?  Shouldn't a state with 40 million people...the 5th biggest economy in the world, have more than 2 senators?  They have so many different socio-economic areas and sub-economies that splitting up makes sense.  
7. Packing the SCOTUS with a couple more justices.  I can't imagine this, but some in the know say it's far more likely to be attempted than I'm granting.  

I ain't saying any of this WILL occur, but I think some will be attempted and/or successful.  I think the Dems are getting to a point where they are seeing the writing on the wall.  We're a nation of minority rule.  Presidents are elected with a minority.  The 53 seat current senate majority is representative of about 45% of our population, and that majority, which is really a minority, is responsible in the last few years for what will be a 6-3 majority on the Court, even though it was put there by a senate that is a minority representation of the population.  Pro-choice is a majority position.  Gun regs is a majority position.  And yet, abortion rights are at risk to some degree while nobody will even consider gun regs.  Shit, for several years, the House was red, but was getting more votes for Dems due to gerrymandering.  Even now, the Dems need about a 5% edge in votes to hold their House majority.  Much of this minority rule is due to the granting of equal power to states via the senate, even though states are drawn completely arbitrarily.  It's kind of crazy that California and its 40 million people get two senators, while 23 states with a combined 40 million people get 46 senators.  That's just too lopsided to be called fair, and I suspect Dems are beginning to see this.  Then again, maybe I'm wrong.  LOL.

Thats all great .. and I truly hope they do every single thing you wrote .. but first, tell me how they are going to get Trump out of the WH , even if he loses?  I'm sure you've seen the Atlantic article where trump and his friends are working on having electoral colleges vote against their states popular vote (which I believe the scotus already said was constitutional). and how do he dems win a SCOTUS decision on who won?  They already lost once in 2000, whats to prevent another loss? 

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I'm inclined to avoid allowing myself to become hysterical about her joining SCOTUS.  It's likely going to happen and I'm not going to lower myself to screaming and crying about it.  I suspect that she's going to seem fine in her hearings, and I figure a few Dems and a few Repubs will embarrass themselves making too much of a spectacle out of the whole thing.  

That said, my only concern about her on religious grounds is that she's said to belong to a sect of the Catholic religion that believes women are subservient to men, or that wives are subservient to their husbands.  I'm not even sure if that alleged affiliation is true, but it's something I've seen brought up a few times.  And honestly, I don't even care if she has an affiliation with a group that thinks that, as long as that personally held belief doesn't cross streams with her judicial views of personal and civil rights in this country.  It seems hard to understand how someone would be able to think women are subservient while also protecting the rights of women in court cases, but I don't think it's impossible.  Maybe she's figured out how to separate the two.  

If her view of abortion is different from mine, that's fine.  The only way R v W is going away is if they can make a clear case that a fetus is a person with rights on an equal level with a living, walking, talking mother.  Short of that, it's probably not going away.  R v W stands on our right of privacy.  That right isn't going away, so the only way abortion is made illegal is if the right of a fetus is found to be on equal grounds with mom, and that's hard to imagine happening.  I mean, if a pro-life person has to choose to either stop 5 or 10 abortions from happening OR save a 20 yr old girl from a burning building, I think 99 out of 100 are choosing the woman in the burning building because they realize that a fetus is something less than a 20 yr old girl.  And that, I believe, is what'll ultimately keep R v W from going away.  And while I find abortion to be immoral and a terrible choice, considering the other options out there, I don't see how a legal argument will ever be made that overturns it completely because the mom's rights will generally outrank the fetus' rights.  Perhaps I'm just naïve as fuck.

blondy28 wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:I'm inclined to avoid allowing myself to become hysterical about her joining SCOTUS.  It's likely going to happen and I'm not going to lower myself to screaming and crying about it.  I suspect that she's going to seem fine in her hearings, and I figure a few Dems and a few Repubs will embarrass themselves making too much of a spectacle out of the whole thing.  

That said, my only concern about her on religious grounds is that she's said to belong to a sect of the Catholic religion that believes women are subservient to men, or that wives are subservient to their husbands.  I'm not even sure if that alleged affiliation is true, but it's something I've seen brought up a few times.  And honestly, I don't even care if she has an affiliation with a group that thinks that, as long as that personally held belief doesn't cross streams with her judicial views of personal and civil rights in this country.  It seems hard to understand how someone would be able to think women are subservient while also protecting the rights of women in court cases, but I don't think it's impossible.  Maybe she's figured out how to separate the two.  

If her view of abortion is different from mine, that's fine.  The only way R v W is going away is if they can make a clear case that a fetus is a person with rights on an equal level with a living, walking, talking mother.  Short of that, it's probably not going away.  R v W stands on our right of privacy.  That right isn't going away, so the only way abortion is made illegal is if the right of a fetus is found to be on equal grounds with mom, and that's hard to imagine happening.  I mean, if a pro-life person has to choose to either stop 5 or 10 abortions from happening OR save a 20 yr old girl from a burning building, I think 99 out of 100 are choosing the woman in the burning building because they realize that a fetus is something less than a 20 yr old girl.  And that, I believe, is what'll ultimately keep R v W from going away.  And while I find abortion to be immoral and a terrible choice, considering the other options out there, I don't see how a legal argument will ever be made that overturns it completely because the mom's rights will generally outrank the fetus' rights.  Perhaps I'm just naïve as fuck.

During the Kavanaugh hearings, the dems were pretty professional, except possibly Hirano from Hawaii.  They were just asking questions.  I've never seen Harris act anything but professional in a hearing, and I expect the same from here on the American Sharia Law nominee.

blondy28 wrote:

sharpy wrote:

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:Here's an interesting thing that I heard brought up over the weekend. If Barrett is put onto the Supreme Court before the election, that would give the conservatives a majority for the foreseeable future. Theoretically, the Court will rule in favor of conservative policies (although even Trump's appointees have ruled against him already, giving credence to my thought that justices listen to each other and are much less ideological than people claim they are). That makes Trump expendable. Face it. Trump is NOT a conservative. He is NOT a Republican. If anything, he is an economic liberal of the worst kind. The thought is that many Republicans, at least the true conservatives will, maybe quietly, turn their backs on him and vote for Biden, knowing how Trump is destroying the economy of the nation. 


According to Michael Steele, 4 TRILLION dollar deficit, not debt, but deficit, thanks to his handouts and tax breaks.

It's definitely about 4 trillion.  It was going to be 1 trillion and then they did 3 trillion more in stimulus.  

I think the GOP wants Trump to win because they sense that they're about the lose the senate, potentially.  If they lose the senate, I have a sense that Dems might go nuclear and do some drastic things.  The GOP doesn't want to see a Dem win president unless they at least have the House or the Senate, or both.  If all three chambers go blue, I expect some of the following may occur:
1. Dems say "fuck it" and we're getting rid of the filibuster because democracy is at stake.  
2. Dems use that power to convert DC to a state.  Two more Dems in the senate.
3. Dems use that power to try convincing Puerto Rico to consider and move on US statehood under the belief that they could perhaps get a couple more blue senators.  Not sure that's a smart assumption, but initially....maybe.  
4. Dems use that power to shore up ACA, or possibly sensing ACA is going away via a SCOTUS decision, they create a public option situation whereby people can buy into Medicare for an affordable amount that grants credits to people with low income (i.e. ACA credits).  This resolves the pre-existing conditions issue once and for all by allowing us to buy into the national group policy.  
5. Dems use that power to lower Medicare age to 55.  This would be shocking at first, but it would benefit folks who are most likely to vote Republican so it reduces the amount of noise and arguments against it, because let's face it....if a 56 yr old can suddenly get Medicare for no $$ out of pocket, he'll recover quickly from any blow to his political ideology.
6. Dems begin talking to political powers in CA and pushing for them to expand to 5 or 6 states.  I mean, why not?  Shouldn't a state with 40 million people...the 5th biggest economy in the world, have more than 2 senators?  They have so many different socio-economic areas and sub-economies that splitting up makes sense.  
7. Packing the SCOTUS with a couple more justices.  I can't imagine this, but some in the know say it's far more likely to be attempted than I'm granting.  

I ain't saying any of this WILL occur, but I think some will be attempted and/or successful.  I think the Dems are getting to a point where they are seeing the writing on the wall.  We're a nation of minority rule.  Presidents are elected with a minority.  The 53 seat current senate majority is representative of about 45% of our population, and that majority, which is really a minority, is responsible in the last few years for what will be a 6-3 majority on the Court, even though it was put there by a senate that is a minority representation of the population.  Pro-choice is a majority position.  Gun regs is a majority position.  And yet, abortion rights are at risk to some degree while nobody will even consider gun regs.  Shit, for several years, the House was red, but was getting more votes for Dems due to gerrymandering.  Even now, the Dems need about a 5% edge in votes to hold their House majority.  Much of this minority rule is due to the granting of equal power to states via the senate, even though states are drawn completely arbitrarily.  It's kind of crazy that California and its 40 million people get two senators, while 23 states with a combined 40 million people get 46 senators.  That's just too lopsided to be called fair, and I suspect Dems are beginning to see this.  Then again, maybe I'm wrong.  LOL.

Thats all great .. and I truly hope they do every single thing you wrote .. but first, tell me how they are going to get Trump out of the WH , even if he loses?  I'm sure you've seen the Atlantic article where trump and his friends are working on having electoral colleges vote against their states popular vote (which I believe the scotus already said was constitutional). and how do he dems win a SCOTUS decision on who won?  They already lost once in 2000, whats to prevent another loss? 

This is exactly what I think Trump & Co. plan to do...WITHOUT QUESTION.  They first have to see delays on counting ballots, just like we saw in Florida.  Then they cause a ruckus, making it difficult to count, so naturally it takes longer.  They, while Trump is up in the count, they will pass a law that they are stopping the counting and they will make Trump president through those states' legislatures.   As I've been saying, don't make a plan to vote...plan an exit strategy.

alohafri wrote:See, this all smacks of the politics of revenge to me. This shit has to end somewhere. Who is going to be US Grant and say "The war is over. The rebels are our countrymen again"?

SoxIlliniRob wrote:

alohafri wrote:See, this all smacks of the politics of revenge to me. This shit has to end somewhere. Who is going to be US Grant and say "The war is over. The rebels are our countrymen again"?

I don't know, Kevin.  I don't think it's coming anytime soon.  If there's a Biden win and the senate is won, maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Blues are gonna burn down some norms of their own and create some new ones, even if it comes back to bite them.

sharpy wrote:Americans need to get tired of sitting in the front row at center court watching a tennis match, watching the ball being smacked back and forth at a higher speed than the last volley.




seems that a lot of this shit has evolved with the evolution of the professional politician, who is also a millionaire. They are all millionaires, and even if not when first elected, they see they can become one so do anything to stay in office. Then they evolve into nothing more than wordsmiths, who lose touch with normal middle class people, and in reality, may not even care about middle class people anymore. Republicans bitching about an AOC $250 haircut is ridiculous, but when AOC was one of "us", was she even thinking about $250 haircuts? And now, is she starting to think - "I like $250 haircuts. How do I keep them babies coming?"... well you know how - become a professional politician 
so - either get rid of this bullshit and make it 2 terms and your gone, 6 terms for house reps (both 12 years) or - get rid of ALL PAC money and make them live on $50-100K a year so that sitting there doesn't look so attractive.

alohafri wrote:See, this all smacks of the politics of revenge to me. This shit has to end somewhere. Who is going to be US Grant and say "The war is over. The rebels are our countrymen again"?

alohafri wrote:

sharpy wrote:Americans need to get tired of sitting in the front row at center court watching a tennis match, watching the ball being smacked back and forth at a higher speed than the last volley.




seems that a lot of this shit has evolved with the evolution of the professional politician, who is also a millionaire. They are all millionaires, and even if not when first elected, they see they can become one so do anything to stay in office. Then they evolve into nothing more than wordsmiths, who lose touch with normal middle class people, and in reality, may not even care about middle class people anymore. Republicans bitching about an AOC $250 haircut is ridiculous, but when AOC was one of "us", was she even thinking about $250 haircuts? And now, is she starting to think - "I like $250 haircuts. How do I keep them babies coming?"... well you know how - become a professional politician 
so - either get rid of this bullshit and make it 2 terms and your gone, 6 terms for house reps (both 12 years) or - get rid of ALL PAC money and make them live on $50-100K a year so that sitting there doesn't look so attractive.

I'd get rid of PAC money first. That will drive away anyone who thinks they can make a fortune serving in the government. Hell, my government position pays me zilch. I occasionally get a shirt from the national park district organization.

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:See, this all smacks of the politics of revenge to me. This shit has to end somewhere. Who is going to be US Grant and say "The war is over. The rebels are our countrymen again"?

I'm a little lost.  What smacks of the politics of revenge?  Maybe it's because I'm on the left, but I've seen the Republicans kicking us in the nuts, and us ALWAYS trying to be the bigger man.  I was no fan of John Kerry, but the bullshit they pulled out about his military service.  And outing a CIA agent because her husband wasn't pro-Iraq war? Then Obama vs. McCain.  The Republicans were so bad that John McCain finally had to step in to stop the racist narrative, and Sarah Palin was upset that there wasn't enough "red meat" for the base.  Then Obama is elected, and he thinks he's going to reach across the aisle, but the GOP decides that they will run the country off into the ditch to try to make him a one-term president.  First up is the stimulus, and there was negotiation, and Obama changes the original bill to give them some of what he asked for, and then they didn't vote for it.  Same shit with ACA.  They took out the end-of-life coverage (death panels!) and public option, then another kick to the nuts.  Fast forward to Scalia, and Obama chooses a moderate, and McConnell proceeds to fuck him over again.  And now there's Trump, who betrayed the country because he has too much debt and nobody will loan him money anymore.  Sorry, but there's payback coming, and rightfully so.  Not for the sake of it, but if the only way that we recover what they fucked us out of is to increase the size of the supreme court, then so be it.  There are 200,000 people dead, lives ruined, and if they can actually maneuver this election so that Trump and Bill Barr and McConnell don't steal it in the courts, then we all deserve to get back what was stolen from us.

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:

sharpy wrote:Americans need to get tired of sitting in the front row at center court watching a tennis match, watching the ball being smacked back and forth at a higher speed than the last volley.




seems that a lot of this shit has evolved with the evolution of the professional politician, who is also a millionaire. They are all millionaires, and even if not when first elected, they see they can become one so do anything to stay in office. Then they evolve into nothing more than wordsmiths, who lose touch with normal middle class people, and in reality, may not even care about middle class people anymore. Republicans bitching about an AOC $250 haircut is ridiculous, but when AOC was one of "us", was she even thinking about $250 haircuts? And now, is she starting to think - "I like $250 haircuts. How do I keep them babies coming?"... well you know how - become a professional politician 
so - either get rid of this bullshit and make it 2 terms and your gone, 6 terms for house reps (both 12 years) or - get rid of ALL PAC money and make them live on $50-100K a year so that sitting there doesn't look so attractive.

I'd get rid of PAC money first. That will drive away anyone who thinks they can make a fortune serving in the government. Hell, my government position pays me zilch. I occasionally get a shirt from the national park district organization.

How do you get rid of the PAC money?  Anything that limits money will end up in the supreme court, and the conservative court will overturn all of it.  

And, do any of you really know what a haircut costs?  I get my hair done once a year when we get our tax refund.  The last time I walked into a salon was June 2019.

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:See, this all smacks of the politics of revenge to me. This shit has to end somewhere. Who is going to be US Grant and say "The war is over. The rebels are our countrymen again"?

I'm a little lost.  What smacks of the politics of revenge?  Maybe it's because I'm on the left, but I've seen the Republicans kicking us in the nuts, and us ALWAYS trying to be the bigger man.  I was no fan of John Kerry, but the bullshit they pulled out about his military service.  And outing a CIA agent because her husband wasn't pro-Iraq war? Then Obama vs. McCain.  The Republicans were so bad that John McCain finally had to step in to stop the racist narrative, and Sarah Palin was upset that there wasn't enough "red meat" for the base.  Then Obama is elected, and he thinks he's going to reach across the aisle, but the GOP decides that they will run the country off into the ditch to try to make him a one-term president.  First up is the stimulus, and there was negotiation, and Obama changes the original bill to give them some of what he asked for, and then they didn't vote for it.  Same shit with ACA.  They took out the end-of-life coverage (death panels!) and public option, then another kick to the nuts.  Fast forward to Scalia, and Obama chooses a moderate, and McConnell proceeds to fuck him over again.  And now there's Trump, who betrayed the country because he has too much debt and nobody will loan him money anymore.  Sorry, but there's payback coming, and rightfully so.  Not for the sake of it, but if the only way that we recover what they fucked us out of is to increase the size of the supreme court, then so be it.  There are 200,000 people dead, lives ruined, and if they can actually maneuver this election so that Trump and Bill Barr and McConnell don't steal it in the courts, then we all deserve to get back what was stolen from us.

Expanding the Court, adding Puerto Rico and DC as states, getting rid of the filibuster..."you fucked us, now we're going to fuck you so you can't regain power." Guess what "they" will regain power, and guess what, they are going to turn around and fuck "you " too. So don't get pissed off if I call everyone out on their cries of "payback". It's fucking bullshit and it needs to end.

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:See, this all smacks of the politics of revenge to me. This shit has to end somewhere. Who is going to be US Grant and say "The war is over. The rebels are our countrymen again"?

I'm a little lost.  What smacks of the politics of revenge?  Maybe it's because I'm on the left, but I've seen the Republicans kicking us in the nuts, and us ALWAYS trying to be the bigger man.  I was no fan of John Kerry, but the bullshit they pulled out about his military service.  And outing a CIA agent because her husband wasn't pro-Iraq war? Then Obama vs. McCain.  The Republicans were so bad that John McCain finally had to step in to stop the racist narrative, and Sarah Palin was upset that there wasn't enough "red meat" for the base.  Then Obama is elected, and he thinks he's going to reach across the aisle, but the GOP decides that they will run the country off into the ditch to try to make him a one-term president.  First up is the stimulus, and there was negotiation, and Obama changes the original bill to give them some of what he asked for, and then they didn't vote for it.  Same shit with ACA.  They took out the end-of-life coverage (death panels!) and public option, then another kick to the nuts.  Fast forward to Scalia, and Obama chooses a moderate, and McConnell proceeds to fuck him over again.  And now there's Trump, who betrayed the country because he has too much debt and nobody will loan him money anymore.  Sorry, but there's payback coming, and rightfully so.  Not for the sake of it, but if the only way that we recover what they fucked us out of is to increase the size of the supreme court, then so be it.  There are 200,000 people dead, lives ruined, and if they can actually maneuver this election so that Trump and Bill Barr and McConnell don't steal it in the courts, then we all deserve to get back what was stolen from us.

Expanding the Court, adding Puerto Rico and DC as states, getting rid of the filibuster..."you fucked us, now we're going to fuck you so you can't regain power." Guess what "they" will regain power, and guess what, they are going to turn around and fuck "you " too. So don't get pissed off if I call everyone out on their cries of "payback". It's fucking bullshit and it needs to end.

Well of course you're calling for it to end.  If it did, you're perfectly comfortable with the left being rat fucked and the end result being that your ideology prevails.  Something tells me that if it ended with us being a socialist nation, you'd think quite differently.  You said you wouldn't even vote for Bernie if he were the nominee, so I just can't see calling for a group hug.  You can call it "payback"...I call it justice.  The idea that "the country just needs to heal" that Ford started is bullshit.  Have a look at the number of indictments have come out of republican administrations.  There has to be consequences for your actions.

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:See, this all smacks of the politics of revenge to me. This shit has to end somewhere. Who is going to be US Grant and say "The war is over. The rebels are our countrymen again"?

I'm a little lost.  What smacks of the politics of revenge?  Maybe it's because I'm on the left, but I've seen the Republicans kicking us in the nuts, and us ALWAYS trying to be the bigger man.  I was no fan of John Kerry, but the bullshit they pulled out about his military service.  And outing a CIA agent because her husband wasn't pro-Iraq war? Then Obama vs. McCain.  The Republicans were so bad that John McCain finally had to step in to stop the racist narrative, and Sarah Palin was upset that there wasn't enough "red meat" for the base.  Then Obama is elected, and he thinks he's going to reach across the aisle, but the GOP decides that they will run the country off into the ditch to try to make him a one-term president.  First up is the stimulus, and there was negotiation, and Obama changes the original bill to give them some of what he asked for, and then they didn't vote for it.  Same shit with ACA.  They took out the end-of-life coverage (death panels!) and public option, then another kick to the nuts.  Fast forward to Scalia, and Obama chooses a moderate, and McConnell proceeds to fuck him over again.  And now there's Trump, who betrayed the country because he has too much debt and nobody will loan him money anymore.  Sorry, but there's payback coming, and rightfully so.  Not for the sake of it, but if the only way that we recover what they fucked us out of is to increase the size of the supreme court, then so be it.  There are 200,000 people dead, lives ruined, and if they can actually maneuver this election so that Trump and Bill Barr and McConnell don't steal it in the courts, then we all deserve to get back what was stolen from us.

Expanding the Court, adding Puerto Rico and DC as states, getting rid of the filibuster..."you fucked us, now we're going to fuck you so you can't regain power." Guess what "they" will regain power, and guess what, they are going to turn around and fuck "you " too. So don't get pissed off if I call everyone out on their cries of "payback". It's fucking bullshit and it needs to end.

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:

blondy28 wrote:

alohafri wrote:See, this all smacks of the politics of revenge to me. This shit has to end somewhere. Who is going to be US Grant and say "The war is over. The rebels are our countrymen again"?

I'm a little lost.  What smacks of the politics of revenge?  Maybe it's because I'm on the left, but I've seen the Republicans kicking us in the nuts, and us ALWAYS trying to be the bigger man.  I was no fan of John Kerry, but the bullshit they pulled out about his military service.  And outing a CIA agent because her husband wasn't pro-Iraq war? Then Obama vs. McCain.  The Republicans were so bad that John McCain finally had to step in to stop the racist narrative, and Sarah Palin was upset that there wasn't enough "red meat" for the base.  Then Obama is elected, and he thinks he's going to reach across the aisle, but the GOP decides that they will run the country off into the ditch to try to make him a one-term president.  First up is the stimulus, and there was negotiation, and Obama changes the original bill to give them some of what he asked for, and then they didn't vote for it.  Same shit with ACA.  They took out the end-of-life coverage (death panels!) and public option, then another kick to the nuts.  Fast forward to Scalia, and Obama chooses a moderate, and McConnell proceeds to fuck him over again.  And now there's Trump, who betrayed the country because he has too much debt and nobody will loan him money anymore.  Sorry, but there's payback coming, and rightfully so.  Not for the sake of it, but if the only way that we recover what they fucked us out of is to increase the size of the supreme court, then so be it.  There are 200,000 people dead, lives ruined, and if they can actually maneuver this election so that Trump and Bill Barr and McConnell don't steal it in the courts, then we all deserve to get back what was stolen from us.

Expanding the Court, adding Puerto Rico and DC as states, getting rid of the filibuster..."you fucked us, now we're going to fuck you so you can't regain power." Guess what "they" will regain power, and guess what, they are going to turn around and fuck "you " too. So don't get pissed off if I call everyone out on their cries of "payback". It's fucking bullshit and it needs to end.

Well of course you're calling for it to end.  If it did, you're perfectly comfortable with the left being rat fucked and the end result being that your ideology prevails.  Something tells me that if it ended with us being a socialist nation, you'd think quite differently.  You said you wouldn't even vote for Bernie if he were the nominee, so I just can't see calling for a group hug.  You can call it "payback"...I call it justice.  The idea that "the country just needs to heal" that Ford started is bullshit.  Have a look at the number of indictments have come out of republican administrations.  There has to be consequences for your actions.

Yes. It would be different if it ended up as us being a socialist nation. Only a handful of lunatics want that. Only a handful of lunatics want a Nazi regime as well. Why do I deserve more venom from you than Kark ever did? You want to see wanting the left ratfucked? Go back and look at his posts over the years. He would have you brought to fucking gas chambers if he could. I'm not the "far righty" you think I am. But you are such a fucking commie that you consider Biden a Republican.