RITTENHOUSE Verdict unleashes CELEBRATIONS, on the RIGHT

Seems so. I can't believe McConnell is promoting the needs of his state by doing everything he can to unhorse a sitting President.

 

It's how various political systems work, not just civics.

 

I could if senators weren't directly elected and he was still doing it.

 

McConnell is not only a Senator for Kentucky. He is also the leader of the opposition. He will get the Kentucky gravy regardless.

 

Yeah well I don't remember seeing political parties any where in the Constitution. Therefore "majority leader" is not a position nor is "minority leader".
He's a senator, from Kentucky. He should be representing the interests of the state of Kentucky and he should be elected by a vote from Kentucky legislators. That was the system originally envisioned.

 

It would be closer in that the majority has more power to effect change. That power in the British Parliamentary System has a history of being used with far more discretion than we wield power when we have the votes to effect change.

No, I'm just comparing the impact of the two systems.

I think the filibuster should ended for all legislation.

 

As far as Parliamentary Systems, I admittedly do not have a grasp on the finer points of that form of governance.

With that being said, I do not like the legislation that has arisen in UK, Canada etc, with them being far further left than my desire. As such, I personally have zero desire to copy their system that has brought them to their current state.

With the current US system, I am in favor of any rules (filibuster included) that make legislation more difficult to pass. It forces some level of compromise or nothing gets accomplished rather than the current majority ramming home their wish list only to be overturned the next time that power changes, and it WILL change probably sooner rather than later. The government that governs least, governs best, IMHO.

 

It's not just a matter of federal money for his state.

 

So do I. Originally senators did represent the states because the state legislatures voted in the senators. The 17th amendment put senatorial elections in the hands of the public.

 

A single term limit for every elected office. Nothing else can make a bigger dent in political corruption.

 

Living in both this country and Canada, I can speak to the nature of their politics. There is, I submit, very little difference between the two countries. I'm not sure what you see as "their current state" in Canada. We in both countries are North Americans. I've been involved in politics in Canada and the U.S. They may have different systems, but often have similar laws.

Legislation doesn't have to be a bad thing. Canada, for example, dumped a long gun registry (not a ban!) because it was a waste of money considering how few people in Canada are killed by a rifle or shotgun.

I keep trying to point out the power of majority government in Canada causes those in power there to exercise restraint.

Governing doesn't have to mean adding layers of bureaucracy or control.

 

As you wish. There were parties from the beginning, even if they didn't have names. Adams was Washington's VP to balance the government.
As for McConnell, I'm confident he believes he's serving Kentucky by leading his party wisely.

 

I wonder. It may be power brokers have even more influence in choosing candidates. That said, the objective of weeding out corruption is one I share. Seeing Pelosi, McCathy, McConnell and Schumer year after year bothers me.

 

I think he's doing an admirable job.

 

That would lead to more corruption, IMHO. That single term would be a "smash and grab" opportunity.

 

What any of these pols really believe is an unknown.

 

I do not.

 

Well there you go.

 

I don't see how working from the moment Obama was elected to defeat him four years later was in anyone's interest. Keep in mind he had no idea what Obama would do as President.

 

That's why the party out of power is called "the opposition."

 

But McTreason's interests don't lie in whether Obama's agenda was good or bad for the country. They lie in imposing the will of the minority on the majority. Doing so meant blocking Obama's agenda so he would not get credit for policy successes and thus enhance his chances of re-election. Luckily for the country McTurtle failed to prevent Obama's re-election. Sadly, he did block much of the popular agenda Obama pursued.

 

Vps and presidents used to be the 2nd and 1st past the post regardless of affiliation.

Can't tell with that conflict of interest though.

 

If he earnestly believed his policies and or choices which were stymied were bad. People can have different beliefs of course. It's just hard to tell if it's earnest because he has a conflict of interest.

Are you implying Obama had no policy goals or discussions? Surely you're not serious?

 

This farcical circus show of a criminal trial was not about a dumb kid falling on his ass LARPing. Kyle Rittenhouse was not on trial here - but rather the fundamental right of self defense. This should be obvious to any objective observer.

 

Washington was the consensus President. Adams agreed to run in order to serve as VP.