arrow74

Be more considerate, allow them to at least cup their hands first . Then they at least have something to sip on

That's the house, and only because it was a bill passed back to the house, after previous passage, to review senate revisions. Otherwise they would have been allowed to debate much more if this was the first time the house had the bill.

Ah yes technically correct. Alligator Auschwitz is just catchier for political purposes and frankly close enough to evoke the intended feelings

I mean yeah, dying in a war isn't high on my list of activities. The only way to fix this will probably be armed conflict, but I don't see you starting the revolution right now either

If there was a god none of this needed to happen

How lame, I hope the people of Alaska aren't dumb enough to vote for her again.

Or at least if we have elections again

Although if the house edits it the senate would have to vote for it again.

Ironically some of the house hardliners may kick the bill back because the senate changed some of the things the Trump wanted

We actually did, his name was Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Sure if we hold him up to today's standards not a progressive by any means, but he campaigned on working class issues and helped steer the country out of the depression. He created virtually all our modern safety nets or their predecessors.

He was so popular a president that Congress amended the constitution to ensure no other president could have more than 2 terms. He was so popular congress was afraid it threatened the power of their branch of government.

Running on and actually accomplishing worker centric policy works.

And to fend of the inevitable yes he was not that progressive by today's measures and had a mountain of flaws. But his accomplishments were revolutionary for the country in his time.

You're wrong there. A senate parliamentary can be removed by the majority leader.

To amend the constitution take a 2/3rds majority vote, 2/3rds of states ratifying an amendment, or a constitutional convention being called and amendments voted on.

Of course these are just the legal means. Ignoring it and doing what you want seems to be working just fine for them

You don't have to convince me you must convince the voters. That's the whole point of this thread and the data makes it clear that to get people to show up and vote you have to demonstrate how you're going to govern in ways that improves their lives. Crazy concept i know.

Also how fucking crazy to suggest the "non-voters" should be help responsible for not voting. That's Trump levels of anti-democracy behavior. Best get those pesky 3rd party voters punished too, you thinking camps or a simple banishmment?

I do agree with the object permanence issue. But your the only one putting "feels over reals". Like who votes based on comparative affordability to other nations. You vote based on your own situation.

I still blame the dems more though. One canidate is saying the economy is great, the other is saying that he will fix the economy. Many people were struggling to put food on the table their votes or lack thereof make sense.

Of course things just got worse, but you know you could at least try to campaign to the average person's concerns.

This may come to shock you but when people vote on the economic issues within their own country they don't reason "well I can't afford housing, but compared to Denmark housing inflation in the US has actually increased at a much slower rate so I guess it's fine". They simply stop with "I can't afford housing" because they vote for what they can change.