117th Congress

cajunrevenge said:
3ce0ce073a67264534866c754c526e7b6a-chart.rhorizontal.w700.jpg




Senate Republicans havent represented the majority of Americans in the Senate since.......1996. 24 years ago. Democrats currently representing almost 60% of the nation while at a 50/50 tie. I think one things clear, Republicans are clearly the minority party in this country.
Click to expand...

I've thought about this a little today and I have a few thoughts on it.

First, rating percentage of the country senators represent is a terrible way to judge this. A Senator could win a knife thin margin and yet "represents" the entirety of their state.

Second, the idea that any party in the US represents the views of a majority of Americans is laughable. Joe Manchin and Bernie Sanders caucus together in the Senate. Those guys probably disagree on more than they agree on but they're part of the same party.

What if you're a fiscal conservative but pro-gay rights? You might vote Democrat because they're the lesser of two evils to you but that party hardly represents your views. What if you're anti-abortion but pro-immigration? How about those that want legalized marijuana but also lower taxes?

If the two party system ever fractured and you saw other parties gain significant power, we'd never have a "majority" party again. Only coalitions of smaller parties. I really hope this happens. You might actually see movement on issues neither party prioritizes as a smaller party could prioritize that issue and use getting it addressed as a bargaining chip with other parties. How great would it be if you could find a party that actually fits your beliefs, fields, candidates, and isn't throwing your vote away?
 
striker42 said:
I've thought about this a little today and I have a few thoughts on it.

First, rating percentage of the country senators represent is a terrible way to judge this. A Senator could win a knife thin margin and yet "represents" the entirety of their state.

Second, the idea that any party in the US represents the views of a majority of Americans is laughable. Joe Manchin and Bernie Sanders caucus together in the Senate. Those guys probably disagree on more than they agree on but they're part of the same party.

What if you're a fiscal conservative but pro-gay rights? You might vote Democrat because they're the lesser of two evils to you but that party hardly represents your views. What if you're anti-abortion but pro-immigration? How about those that want legalized marijuana but also lower taxes?

If the two party system ever fractured and you saw other parties gain significant power, we'd never have a "majority" party again. Only coalitions of smaller parties. I really hope this happens. You might actually see movement on issues neither party prioritizes as a smaller party could prioritize that issue and use getting it addressed as a bargaining chip with other parties. How great would it be if you could find a party that actually fits your beliefs, fields, candidates, and isn't throwing your vote away?
Click to expand...

I’m feeling too lazy to check the numbers, but I’d venture that the percentage of people overall that voted for a Democratic Senator is actually more lopsided than the percent represented number. The large states with Democratic Senators lean much further than the large states with Republican Senators.

I agree with the rest, though. Everything is so absurdly polarized that damn near any topic becomes a Democrat vs. Republican thing.
 
Last edited:
mqt said:
I’m feeling too lazy to check the numbers, but I’d venture that the percentage of people overall that voted for a Democratic Senator is actually more lopsided than the percent represented number. The large states with Democratic Senators lean much further than the large states with Republican Senators.

I agree with the rest, though. Everything is so absurdly polarized that damn near any topic becomes a Democrat vs. Republican thing.
Click to expand...

You can take POTUS popular election results as a good yardstick too. Judging by that the Democrats have a slight edge but very slight. A percentage point or two. Nowhere near 60-40. A 50-50 slip with tiebreaker to Dem is probably right.

In fact, dromcrats are probably overrepresented in the House.

You bring up a good point with polarization. People would be less your enemy if their party represented only a relatively small amount of the power pie.
 
“[The GOP knows] they are the minority party, the party that most people do not want to be with—

and so they’re trying to figure out how to change the laws to make sure they can…

keep advancing an out-of-the-mainstream right-wing agenda as a way to hang onto power."

-E Warren
 
57Brave said:
“[The GOP knows] they are the minority party, the party that most people do not want to be with—

and so they’re trying to figure out how to change the laws to make sure they can…

keep advancing an out-of-the-mainstream right-wing agenda as a way to hang onto power."

-E Warren
Click to expand...

There is no majority party in America. Simply two parties who represent fragments of American and that the rest of us have to try to put up with because for some reason they're the only to real choices.
 
no talk of Elaine Chao ( Mrs Mitch McConnel) DOT Ig Report of abusing her office.
Sans investigation from Trump DOJ

Something something fly on the wall
//////////
 
Last edited:
When Republican Senator Mitt Romney voted to convict and remove Donald Trump, his rationale was clear enough. He’s more popular in his home state than Trump is, he doesn’t have to seek reelection for a few more years anyway, and his prior statements make clear that he despises Trump. So why not vote to convict a guilty man?

But all above criteria also apply to Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski. So why didn’t she also vote to convict Trump? Now we have our unfortunate answer. She posted this tweet, which pretty much says all that needs to be said:


Sen. Lisa Murkowski
@lisamurkowski
·
Feb 12, 2020
The Port of Alaska is our state’s primary import terminal, ensuring the delivery of food, construction materials, fuel, & other goods. It's an essential part of our nation’s defense infrastructure & serves deep-water vessels to support the reliable & affordable transfer of cargo. https://twitter.com/ktva/status/1227641015005261824

Sen. Lisa Murkowski
@lisamurkowski
Thank you to @USDOT & @SecElaineChao for allocating a $20M Port Infrastructure Development Program grant to the Port of Alaska to help offset the 1st phase costs of the Port’s desperately-needed modernization program, enabling safe, cost-effective, & reliable Port operations.









That’s right, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s wife Elaine Chao has just steered $20 million to Lisa Murkowski’s home state of Alaska – just a few days after Murkowski fell in line and voted with McConnell to acquit Donald Trump. This is bribery at its worst. To give you an idea of just how negative the reaction to Murkowski has been, her tweet got about five hundred likes, and about seven thousand negative comments. We should all remember this when Murkowski faces a Democratic challenger for her Senate seat in 2022.
/////

Bill Palmer | 8:22 pm EST February 15, 2020
 
57Brave said:
When Republican Senator Mitt Romney voted to convict and remove Donald Trump, his rationale was clear enough. He’s more popular in his home state than Trump is, he doesn’t have to seek reelection for a few more years anyway, and his prior statements make clear that he despises Trump. So why not vote to convict a guilty man?

But all above criteria also apply to Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski. So why didn’t she also vote to convict Trump? Now we have our unfortunate answer. She posted this tweet, which pretty much says all that needs to be said:


Sen. Lisa Murkowski
@lisamurkowski
·
Feb 12, 2020
The Port of Alaska is our state’s primary import terminal, ensuring the delivery of food, construction materials, fuel, & other goods. It's an essential part of our nation’s defense infrastructure & serves deep-water vessels to support the reliable & affordable transfer of cargo. https://twitter.com/ktva/status/1227641015005261824

Sen. Lisa Murkowski
@lisamurkowski
Thank you to @USDOT & @SecElaineChao for allocating a $20M Port Infrastructure Development Program grant to the Port of Alaska to help offset the 1st phase costs of the Port’s desperately-needed modernization program, enabling safe, cost-effective, & reliable Port operations.









That’s right, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s wife Elaine Chao has just steered $20 million to Lisa Murkowski’s home state of Alaska – just a few days after Murkowski fell in line and voted with McConnell to acquit Donald Trump. This is bribery at its worst. To give you an idea of just how negative the reaction to Murkowski has been, her tweet got about five hundred likes, and about seven thousand negative comments. We should all remember this when Murkowski faces a Democratic challenger for her Senate seat in 2022.
/////

Bill Palmer | 8:22 pm EST February 15, 2020
Click to expand...

I haven't read deeply into this so I'm just going on the facts as they are stated in this post.

First, this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc. It happened after therefore it happened because. There would need to be evidence of a quid pro quo agreement on this.

Second, even if the facts are exactly as this person states, it's not bribery. It's logrolling. It's a distasteful practice but members of congress trade votes for things that benefit them all the time. It keeps the legislative wheels moving at least a little bit.

Third, if it is exactly as described, it's a pretty shrewd move by Murkowski. Might not be the move with the most integrity, but it is shrewd. It was clear before the vote that Trump wasn't being convicted. Murkowski voting for impeachment would just be symbolic. Instead of taking a symbolic stand that does nothing, she got something for her people. Might not be the move I'd have made but it's hardly as bad as this guy is making it out to be.
 
57Brave said:
When Republican Senator Mitt Romney voted to convict and remove Donald Trump, his rationale was clear enough. He’s more popular in his home state than Trump is, he doesn’t have to seek reelection for a few more years anyway, and his prior statements make clear that he despises Trump. So why not vote to convict a guilty man?

But all above criteria also apply to Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski. So why didn’t she also vote to convict Trump? Now we have our unfortunate answer. She posted this tweet, which pretty much says all that needs to be said:


Sen. Lisa Murkowski
@lisamurkowski
·
Feb 12, 2020
The Port of Alaska is our state’s primary import terminal, ensuring the delivery of food, construction materials, fuel, & other goods. It's an essential part of our nation’s defense infrastructure & serves deep-water vessels to support the reliable & affordable transfer of cargo. https://twitter.com/ktva/status/1227641015005261824

Sen. Lisa Murkowski
@lisamurkowski
Thank you to @USDOT & @SecElaineChao for allocating a $20M Port Infrastructure Development Program grant to the Port of Alaska to help offset the 1st phase costs of the Port’s desperately-needed modernization program, enabling safe, cost-effective, & reliable Port operations.









That’s right, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s wife Elaine Chao has just steered $20 million to Lisa Murkowski’s home state of Alaska – just a few days after Murkowski fell in line and voted with McConnell to acquit Donald Trump. This is bribery at its worst. To give you an idea of just how negative the reaction to Murkowski has been, her tweet got about five hundred likes, and about seven thousand negative comments. We should all remember this when Murkowski faces a Democratic challenger for her Senate seat in 2022.
/////

Bill Palmer | 8:22 pm EST February 15, 2020
Click to expand...

I haven't read deeply into this so I'm just going on the facts as they are stated in this post.

First, this is a post hoc ergo propter hoc. It happened after therefore it happened because. There would need to be evidence of a quid pro quo agreement on this.

Second, even if the facts are exactly as this person states, it's not bribery. It's logrolling. It's a distasteful practice but members of congress trade votes for things that benefit them all the time. It keeps the legislative wheels moving at least a little bit.

Third, if it is exactly as described, it's a pretty shrewd move by Murkowski. Might not be the move with the most integrity, but it is shrewd. It was clear before the vote that Trump wasn't being convicted. Murkowski voting for impeachment would just be symbolic. Instead of taking a symbolic stand that does nothing, she got something for her people. Might not be the move I'd have made but it's hardly as bad as this guy is making it out to be.
 
The other 2 names I have seen are/ were Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander.

NYT has done extensive research.
Interesting read but reported /ignored in real time.
Also interesting the comings and goings of not only Chao but Ginny Thomas.
 
57Brave said:
The other 2 names I have seen are/ were Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander.

NYT has done extensive research.
Interesting read but reported /ignored in real time.
Also interesting the comings and goings of not only Chao but Ginny Thomas.
Click to expand...

I think some people would be shocked at the amount of horse trading that goes on in Congress.
 
Have you joined the Rapid Response team?
I joke,

no I wouldn't be shocked.
Are you about to " both sides " me?
 
57Brave said:
Have you joined the Rapid Response team?
I joke,

no I wouldn't be shocked.
Are you about to " both sides " me?
Click to expand...

Nah, I just have a much lower opinion of politicians than most. This doesn't surprise me. If you wrote a book of the most corrupt things members of congress have ever done, this wouldn't even be a footnote.
 
striker42 said:
Nah, I just have a much lower opinion of politicians than most. This doesn't surprise me. If you wrote a book of the most corrupt things members of congress have ever done, this wouldn't even be a footnote.
Click to expand...

This is politics.

I'm not sure how this is news to anyone.
 
50 Democratic senators who voted for covid relief represent 41 million

more Americans than 49 GOP senators who voted against it
 
Mz Strega
@MzStrega
·
3h
Whilst Republican senators staggered off to sleep after a pointless all nighter
for the covid relief bill, Schummer briefly had a 2/3rds majority and called cloture
on Merrick Garland!. Debate is over! Vote to confirm is scheduled for next week.
Needs simple majority. Hahaha!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top