13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But there’s a problem.

 

The rational members of the GOP know that the extremism that had got a grip of the party is losing them votes and motivating the opposition.

 

Those facing re-election in 2024 need to think very carefully about what message they want to send voters in their own constituencies.

 

It’s the extremists who cost the GOP the ‘red wave’.

 

I doubt very much anyone missed that.

Which means a sure win in 2024 with moderate decisions. Biden has already lost, Pubs just need to not shoot themselves in the foot. 

Edited November 17, 20223 yr by Sparktrader

1 minute ago, Sparktrader said:

Which means a sure win in 2024 with moderate decisions. Biden has already lost, Pubs just need to not shoot themselves in the foot. 

I’d hold calling the result of the next election just yet.

 

I don’t have much expectation of anything moderate coming out of the GOP, let’s see who they choose for Leader of the House, we’ll know then which way the infighting is going.

 

Will they double down on extreme rightwing ideology or will they return to moderate policies to attract swing voters?

 

 

14 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

President Biden has already said that he's open to working with the Republican majority on a wide range of issues.  But he also said that he will not allow the GOP to put federal restrictions on abortion, nor will he allow them to cut social security/medicare.  Thank you Mr. President.     

I would agree on the abortion issue.  Leave it up to the states to decide for themselves.  No federal restrictions, but also no federal guarantees. None of this "Codify Roe v Wade" nonsense.  The Democrats had 40 years to propose legislation to do so but didn't.  Too late now.

12 minutes ago, Henryford said:

I never understood the American system where you can have a President and House from different political parties. Isn't that a recipe for confusion and misgovernment?

IMO intentional from the founding fathers. They feared a government grown too powerful, so made it possible for the people to divide the government and restrict the power of government, so IMO the system they designed is working.

 

One has to remember they overthrew a powerful king and had no desire to see new "kings" in the USA.

17 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Which means a sure win in 2024 with moderate decisions. Biden has already lost, Pubs just need to not shoot themselves in the foot. 

Not selecting Trump to run for POTUS would be a good start.

54 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Most oppositions win by not being the gov. Voters are gun shy. Avg voter is a sheep, you will scare them with big policies. 

Maybe you think Republican proposals for cutting back on Social Security and Medicare (but calling it strengthening them) aren't big policies, but I think most voters would disagree.

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I just read the linked article and I'd forgotten that Nancy loses the speaker position. Oh the joy not having to see her on tv any more.

It's getting better and better.

Careful what you wish for. Liz Cheney may replace Nancy as minority speaker. Under House rule, anyone can be chosen as speaker. That will make Rep's slim House majority more precarious to manage and vote as a unified team with more factions with different views. 

28 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I would rather the entire Homeland Security Department be dissolved.  No purpose that I see that cannot be handled by other agencies.

Whatever works. But the border needs to be secured. The current flow of illegals is not sustainable.

9 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I would agree on the abortion issue.  Leave it up to the states to decide for themselves.  No federal restrictions, but also no federal guarantees. None of this "Codify Roe v Wade" nonsense.  The Democrats had 40 years to propose legislation to do so but didn't.  Too late now.

Why is it too late now? What political reason would stand in its way? The only one I can think of is that politically it's better for the Democrats to keep having the Supreme Court as an issue in elections.

1 hour ago, placeholder said:

Why is it too late now? What political reason would stand in its way? The only one I can think of is that politically it's better for the Democrats to keep having the Supreme Court as an issue in elections.

It is too late because the Dems have had 40 years of control of Congress to enact any national legislation on abortion. Especially after the Supreme Court became right leaning, it was obvious that Roe would be overturned. Yet they did nothing still.  Maybe it IS politically expedient, but it is also hypocritical.

2 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

Which means a sure win in 2024 with moderate decisions. Biden has already lost, Pubs just need to not shoot themselves in the foot. 

Trump was soundly beaten by the unpopular Biden in 2020. His chances of improving on that must be vanishingly small. What changed?

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

It is too late because the Dems have had 40 years of control of Congress to enact any national legislation on abortion. Especially after the Supreme Court became right leaning, it was obvious that Roe would be overturned. Yet they did nothing still.  Maybe it IS politically expedient, but it is also hypocritical.

Well, you start saying it's too late and wind up by saying that maybe it's politically expedient. Make up your mind.

4 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, you start saying it's too late and wind up by saying that maybe it's politically expedient. Make up your mind.

I say it is too late on a moral level, but still can be politically expedient to do now. Is that too complicated to understand.  They should have done it earler if the Dems had wanted to show any actual character or genuine concern about it.  They didnt.

18 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I say it is too late on a moral level, but still can be politically expedient to do now. Is that too complicated to understand.  They should have done it earler if the Dems had wanted to show any actual character or genuine concern about it.  They didnt.

With Trump as nominee the GOP will lose the presidency no matter who runs against him. Nothing to do with Biden last time and it will be the same again next election. The GOP is a spent force because they have allowed the freedom party to take control.

 

Democrats have been buoyed by voters' repudiation of a string of far-right Republican candidates, most of them allies of Trump, including Mehmet Oz and Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania's Senate and governor's races respectively, and Blake Masters in Arizona's Senate contest.

 

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-one-seat-away-winning-house-us-midterm-vote-2022-11-16/

Edited November 17, 20223 yr by ozimoron

9 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I say it is too late on a moral level, but still can be politically expedient to do now. Is that too complicated to understand.  They should have done it earler if the Dems had wanted to show any actual character or genuine concern about it.  They didnt.

Well, politics is about the art of the possible. And before the Supremes decided to stomp on Roe v Wade, most people took it for granted that the right to abortion was protected even though the Supreme Court had pretty much vitiated it. So, it's only now that Americans have gotten a wake-up call, that it's possible to do something about it. I think as more horror stories come in about the fatal results of strict anti-abortion laws, that will help the Democrats get the law passed. But not so likely in this Congress thanks to the Republican majority in the House.  I would enjoy watching the Republicans get twisted around on this.

26 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Well, politics is about the art of the possible. And before the Supremes decided to stomp on Roe v Wade, most people took it for granted that the right to abortion was protected even though the Supreme Court had pretty much vitiated it. So, it's only now that Americans have gotten a wake-up call, that it's possible to do something about it. I think as more horror stories come in about the fatal results of strict anti-abortion laws, that will help the Democrats get the law passed. But not so likely in this Congress thanks to the Republican majority in the House.  uld enjoy watching the Republicans get twisted around on this.

I would argue that politics is the art of the pAssable, but that's just me.  

 

I actually lay a big part of the blame for the red fizzle on Sen. Graham. He stupidly proceeded with an abortion bill that was doomed to fail and only served to inflame people for no discernable reason.  He is the kind of calcified senator (on both sides) that needs retiring. Twenty years in the Senate is more than enough.

1 hour ago, Hanaguma said:

It is too late because the Dems have had 40 years of control of Congress to enact any national legislation on abortion. Especially after the Supreme Court became right leaning, it was obvious that Roe would be overturned. Yet they did nothing still.  Maybe it IS politically expedient, but it is also hypocritical.

Baffling.

 

You're criticizing the Democrats for not passing legislation that was made completely unnecessary by the Supreme Court, in Roe v Wade?

 

Anaolgy:

 

1 -- "You should eat something!"

 

2 -- "I'm full already."

 

1 -- "You should eat something anyway!"

 

2 -- "Why would I eat something when I'm full already?"

 

1 -- "So you can show the world that you are serious about eating!"

 

Why would the Democrats....... even in 40 years' time....... make a law making abortion "legal".......  when the Supreme Court had already prohibited any law that would make it illegal?

 

(The rule-of-thumb is......... and always has been........ "Everything is legal unless or until there is a law saying it is not legal." Cocaine and Heroin were legal until there were laws saying they werent. More recently, Ecstasy was legal for a time, until new laws were passed saying it wasn't. If there are no Speed Limit laws, there are no Speed Limits, and so forth.)

 

Roe v Wade made laws prohibiting abortion unconstitutional. Therefore, abortion automatically became  legal, nationwide.

 

If the Supreme Court had already made abortion legal nationwide.......... by what logic would you criticize the Democrats for...... "for 40 years"........ "failing" to make laws that say the exact same thing?

 

If you cant have laws prohibiting it.......... it's automatically legal, anyway! That's how it works!

 

-------------

-------------

 

As for the idea that they should have anticipated  Roe v Wade being overturned, that's silly. Even the newer right-leaning judges on the Supreme Court declared that Roe v Wade was "settled law," when asked about it in their confirmation hearings. NO ONE could have adequately predicted that this unassailable, untouchable decision would get overturned! NO ONE! Bah!

The election has been executed. Please look forward to the next election...

 

Wondering whether will be one day when the population -  not only the one of the election country - will not be entertain (and distracted) by the election?

 

7 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

Hopefully they can roll back some of Biden's worst excesses.   

 

As for the committees and hearings, to be honest I think they should tread easy.  It might look too vindictive to spend months doing public investigations of various scandals and so on.  Better to use the time to press forward with sensible legislation to bring the American economy back on track.  Then let the Democrats look bad when the Senate refuses to table them, or Biden vetoes them.  Simply being obstructionist isn't the path to victory in 2024.

They will not have any other choice than "tread easy", because they have nothing.

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I just read the linked article and I'd forgotten that Nancy loses the speaker position. Oh the joy not having to see her on tv any more.

It's getting better and better.

This is a genuine question (I am not American). I heard a few times on various news channels that if both Pres. Biden and VP Harris could not be President then the  Speaker of the House is next in line. Does this still apply if the Speaker is a Republican ?

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hurrah!

It should have been a big majority, but a win is a win. It's enough to see certain committees vanish, and to slow, if not halt, the Biden agenda.

Amd that's exactly the problem! America doesn't get <deleted> done because the opposing parties always block each other on principle instead of finding and implementing what's best for the nation! 

 

I still remember the official mantra of the republicans being "whatever Obama wants, we're opposed!"

 

America used to be looked up to by the rest of the world, the land of wonders, where everyone can go from dishwasher to millionaire, now it's a joke! They totally screwed it up with their foreign policies and their infighting. The whole place is a mess! 

 

7 hours ago, Sparktrader said:

You need to get real. The senate was narrow. Pubs winning the house and just missing the senate. Joe is lame duck now.

 

 

Lame duck as in bipartisan support for 1. Infrastructure Framework. 2. Inflation Reduction Act. 3. Foreign Policy.

McCarthy will not get zero passages with the two Senate lead. Truth is Trump is going to cost a forth loss as in 2018, 2020 2022

1 hour ago, TKDfella said:

This is a genuine question (I am not American). I heard a few times on various news channels that if both Pres. Biden and VP Harris could not be President then the  Speaker of the House is next in line. Does this still apply if the Speaker is a Republican ?

yes

My Son Hunter should be required viewing for all of Congress. 
A gridlocked Congress should be good for America.  Although the southern border will remain a disaster, as well as the deliberate phaseout of the fossil fuel industry.

14 minutes ago, Isaan sailor said:

My Son Hunter should be required viewing for all of Congress. 
A gridlocked Congress should be good for America.  Although the southern border will remain a disaster, as well as the deliberate phaseout of the fossil fuel industry.

It's a hit job distributed by Breitbart, a disgusting website dedicated to spreading lies and libel.

10 hours ago, Henryford said:

I never understood the American system where you can have a President and House from different political parties. Isn't that a recipe for confusion and misgovernment?

Only if they say at the outset that they will not let the will of the people or the president get anything done like they did with Obama and will probably do with Biden.  But the young people who determined these record poor gop mid term results will not tolerate that old political BS.   Its a new age.  Dinosaurs not welcome.   

We need age limits like 70 max and and competency evaluations.  

Bad ideas for gop  to even think about:

Anymore voting restrictions

Any more gerrymandering

Touching SS or medicare.

touching the green new deal, Paris accord or any solution to global warming. 

Abortion stirred up the youth, and women like a hornets nest that will never go away. 

It's ok if hunter is serving time next to Trump. 

GOP can  benefit from pointing out Bidens glaring omission of tesla in all his electric car talks.  

 

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

It's a hit job distributed by Breitbart, a disgusting website dedicated to spreading lies and libel.

Have you seen it? 

6 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Have you seen it? 

No, I was talking about Breitbart but this comment will do. That some people can uncritically promote this as legit in the face of such criticism as published by the Guardian says a lot about extremism. Just throw caution to the wind and lap it up?

 

My Son Hunter: the rightwing Hunter Biden movie is for fringe lunatics

 

In the case of far-right ear-flicking such as this fiction-laced retelling of the Hunter Biden laptop nothingburger, a writeup in a semi-reputable publication like the Guardian gives hyperventilating Breitbart commenters all the ammo they need to prove that the libs have been thoroughly and irrefutably triggered. The truth is that the latest feature-length output from the conservative peanut gallery poses little threat to the viewing public, its foamy-mouthed partisanship speaking only to those already simpatico to its theories and alienating the saner majority within its opening minutes. It doesn’t deserve time or mental energy from right-thinking citizens, but if the past decade of American politics has taught us anything, it’s that ignoring extremism does not make it go away.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/sep/06/my-son-hunter-review-rightwing-biden-movie

Edited November 17, 20223 yr by ozimoron

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

But there’s a problem.

 

The rational members of the GOP know that the extremism that had got a grip of the party is losing them votes and motivating the opposition.

 

Those facing re-election in 2024 need to think very carefully about what message they want to send voters in their own constituencies.

 

It’s the extremists who cost the GOP the ‘red wave’.

 

I doubt very much anyone missed that.

I'm sure they'll bear your sage advice in mind.

11 hours ago, Henryford said:

I never understood the American system where you can have a President and House from different political parties. Isn't that a recipe for confusion and misgovernment?

No sir it’s how excesses are kept in balance the dems are a bit to giving and the republicans want to take away health care and kill social security ,it’s messey and ugly at times but somehow it seems to work out in the end.personally I’m a bit bummed that progress will be slowed but on the other hand it will keep the spotlight on the republicans greed and emptiness on performing for the American people it will balance out in the end enjoy the show !