Deleted

[mstateglfr]

Maxine Waters, perhaps the lowest-IQ person in Congress, and certainly one of the least-impressive people to ever hold a house seat, won her district with 71% of the vote. People vote for the incumbent because they don't know what's good for them, and they can't think for themselves.

Maxine Waters' district is crime-ridden and crumbling. She doesn't even live in her own district - she lives in a mansion in a different district. Her opponent was actually from the district and was a young, impressive guy. She still got 70% of the vote. People are stupid.

When this is who has run against her multiple times now, its tough to blame the voters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Navarro
- pepper spraying kids
- illegally tracking his ex-wife
- releasing a forged letter to smear Waters
- multiple restraining orders
- guilty of stalking and sentenced to half a year in prison


This is not defending Waters. If people dont vote for her, then they vote for Navarro, and nobody should honestly say they want to vote for someone with that list of issues at only 32 years of age.

Sure, people are stupid. But when they are presented with a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, its tough to criticize how they vote.
View attachment 19439

 

[mstateglfr]

On the democrat side, voters are always going to vote for the person that promises them the most free stuff.

I am not as old as some here and I am not as smart as some here, but from what Ive seen in my lifetime, this isnt a democrat issue- its reality for all sorts of voting groups on within both parties.

 

[Mobile Bay]

The US Senate was created to preserve slavery.

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Term limits don’t solve much if you don’t stop the flow of money.

It's ALL about the money and it would shock people if they ever dug down to find out where these people have gotten and are still getting money. Dems and Repubs.

 

[Drebin]

I am not as old as some here and I am not as smart as some here, but from what Ive seen in my lifetime, this isnt a democrat issue- its reality for all sorts of voting groups on within both parties.

Both parties have them, yes. It's far, far more prevalent on the democrat side. Only look to every inner city in every major city in the United States as evidence.

 

[Drebin]

When this is who has run against her multiple times now, its tough to blame the voters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Navarro
- pepper spraying kids
- illegally tracking his ex-wife
- releasing a forged letter to smear Waters
- multiple restraining orders
- guilty of stalking and sentenced to half a year in prison


This is not defending Waters. If people dont vote for her, then they vote for Navarro, and nobody should honestly say they want to vote for someone with that list of issues at only 32 years of age.

Sure, people are stupid. But when they are presented with a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich, its tough to criticize how they vote.
View attachment 19439

A reasonable fact check and some context around your list of offenses for this guy is something you should probably consider. This came straight from her campaign. When you can't beat people on the issues, you go to the personal attacks.

 

[johnson86-1]

I am curious why you want to insulate Senators from having to face voters?

Because senators aren't supposed to represent voters. Representatives are. Senators are supposed to represent states. Or they were before the 17th amendment at least.

 

[johnson86-1]

Yep. Two terms for Senate. Three, maybe four, for House. Congress should not be a career path.

That sounds great, but then you'll have a lot of congressmen and senators looking out for their post congress/senate employment opportunities. You'll end up with something similar to what a lot of the regulators have, which is you are more likely to get favorable private sector employment opportunities if you play nice.

You'll also end up with lobbyists having even more power, because you'll have more people in congress and the senate that know nothing.

Not saying that means it's a bad idea. Just saying there are tradeoffs.

 

[mstateglfr]

A reasonable fact check and some context around your list of offenses for this guy is something you should probably consider. This came straight from her campaign. When you can't beat people on the issues, you go to the personal attacks.

Its from wikipedia and I had never heard of the guy until this morning. Ironically, I didnt come across this due to the thread conversation. I happened to see his name as an alum of ITT Tech and it just happened to apply to this fun thread.
I have no interest in researching him. What claims are incorrect- Was he not sent to jail for half a year? Did he not have multiple restraining orders?

 

[johnson86-1]

No Democrat ran against her and the Republicans (wisely) don't even bother investing money into non-winnable districts. I don't disagree that a lot of voters are idiots, and probably more so in that district. But they really never get a chance to vote for a realistic better candidate than Waters. Same with us here in Mississippi. We get Cindy Hyde-Smith because no decent potential Republican candidates want to commit political suicide.

We got Cindy Hyde-Smith because several better choices declined the nomination. I think if somebody decent ran against her, you'd see a lot of support for them.

 

[mstateglfr]

Both parties have them, yes. It's far, far more prevalent on the democrat side. Only look to every inner city in every major city in the United States as evidence.

I genuinely cant quantify how much federal money per person goes to major inner city blue versus rural red. I do not know of a way to confirm your claim or reject it.
A lot of cities that vote blue are receivers of tons of federal money and a lot of states that vote heavily red are also receivers of a ton of federal money, thanks to representatives. That is really all I can say with confidence.

 

[dorndawg]

Because senators aren't supposed to represent voters. Representatives are. Senators are supposed to represent states. Or they were before the 17th amendment at least.

Could you flesh out more how representing the voters of a State and representing the State are different?

 

[patdog]

I certainly didn't realize that. In fact, it was just the opposite. dorn is right. Slavery was a huge reason the Senate exists.

 

[dorndawg]

Lol wut

I don’t disagree with increasing the House membership but the Senate serves its purpose like it is.

I didn't know that it was possible to not know the US Senate was created to preserve slavery. I'm happy to pass along some reading if you'd like.

 

[dorndawg]

You do realize the majority of the “slave” states in the South were in favor of a proportional representation at the Constitutional Convention?

Correct, Southern states wanted to count slaves as 3/5 of a person. And also have an equal number of Senators for each state, thereby diluting the power of non-slaveholding states. This is US History 101 level stuff.

 

[dorndawg]

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

You... didn't know the Senate was created to preserve slavery? I am sorry the education system failed you.

 

[dorndawg]

And what is continually going on in DC isn't? This country is in trouble and they are spending this week trying to remove a guy from office who is not longer in that office. Regardless of party they don't give a **** about us. Regardless of political side we fall on they are gong to tell us what we want to here to get reelected. They never follow through. They are going to look after themselves first. Bank on that. They are there to get rich off thier foundations. Laws they do pass usually jams a big one up our asses and they exempt themselves from it.

Which law(s) has Congress recently passed that don't apply to members of Congress?

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina were in favor of a senate based on population. The small states like Massachusetts, Delaware, etc were in favor of equal representation.

 

[wsjmsu75]

The guy running against her ran aggressively and money was pumped into that race. He had a couple of really good media spots. Those voters had a choice. They chose to take the cyanide pill instead of the vitamin.

As for Cindy Hyde-Smith, I agree. She has the machine behind her. But I think you're going to see a different landscape in 2022. There's going to be lots of effort to primary entrenched republicans across the country. I don't think it helps the party, but it at least starts to get people thinking about their options. On the democrat side, voters are always going to vote for the person that promises them the most free stuff.[/QUOTE]

Stereotype much? I am neither Democrat or Republican, but I can assure you that when I vote for a Democrat candidate, I am not looking for "free stuff". And I feel sure there are millions of others like myself in that respect.

 

[Drebin]

The guy running against her ran aggressively and money was pumped into that race. He had a couple of really good media spots. Those voters had a choice. They chose to take the cyanide pill instead of the vitamin.

As for Cindy Hyde-Smith, I agree. She has the machine behind her. But I think you're going to see a different landscape in 2022. There's going to be lots of effort to primary entrenched republicans across the country. I don't think it helps the party, but it at least starts to get people thinking about their options. On the democrat side, voters are always going to vote for the person that promises them the most free stuff.[/QUOTE]

Considering that the vast majority of democratic candidates pander to voters with promises of what the government is going to do for them, and given the primary policy points we are seeing coming out of the house, and by executive fiat from the president right now, I'd say that my commentary is right on point there.

Stereotype much? I am neither Democrat or Republican, but I can assure you that when I vote for a Democrat candidate, I am not looking for "free stuff". And I feel sure there are millions of others like myself in that respect.