Trump is the WWE and Mueller is The Undertaker

[Jack Sawyer]

The thing is that the Reps have party loyalty as such a ridiculous us-vs.-them standard that a Rep voting Dem 39% of the time would receive widespread condemnation and attacks from the entire Rep party, whereas a Dem voting Rep 61% isn't causing that kind of blowback.

In today's US senate reality, this will never happen. All republicans basically vote in lockstep with whatever the party's donors want. And one democrat will pretty much always vote in lockstep with the rest of the republicans.

So, 50 100% votes for A, 49 80% votes for B, 1 additional 61% vote for A gives you Kavanaugh. A dude who lied under oath, making a complete mockery of the system, aided and abetted by a sham investigation by the fucking FBI, sitting on the Supreme Court whose whole job is to apply the law (the one he just made a mockery of because he LIED UNDER OATH) for the next 40 fucking years.

[Jack Sawyer]

Not at all. I would be more likely to vote for someone who votes based on his conscience than someone who is simply pandering to popular opinion. They were entrusted by the voter to do a job... that job involves voting, and there is no law in place that says they must vote along party lines. So any expectation on the part of the public for them to vote in a certain way is naive. Maybe do your research into who you're voting for. And I might note, they guy we're talking about is a Dem who bucked the trend of Virginia to turn red. So the voting public appear to have put him in precisely because of his bipartisan tendancies.

Ong, you seem to forget that as an elected representative you should vote in accordance to those who put yout here. Fuck your conscience. No one knows what the fuck your conscience says while they are voting to put you in that position. They do know what you campaigned on, however, and THAT is the sole reason they voted for you.

That, and particularly in the US, parties. There is a large contingent of people who have no time to actually follow politics and see track records of the politicians, so they have no idea how they what a politician stands for other than who's party they are on and what the general position of that party is on the issues that matter to them.

When your constituents tell you, loudly and clearly, DON'T YOU FUCKING DO THIS, you can't pull the "my conscience" trick and do it anyway. Again, fuck your conscience. As a politician you are a public servant(even though they seem to conveniently forget this part), serving the will of the people who voted for you.

It sucks, and it's certainly idiotic, but that is what they have. One party that is vastly center-right and another that is completely off the deep end

So is it better for the Dems to have a bipartisan Dem in office, or a party-loyal Republican?

Party loyal Republican. At least there is no pretense there. Does not make sense to have a dude there who's "on your side" but whose only real job is to break 50/50 ties for the other party 61% of the time and keep up the tie the other 39% of time (math, yo). Decisions lasting way longer than the shelf lives of any of these politicians.

Actually funny how you (a state) vote for a Democrat who is basically a Republican in all but name. See my point above about the "busy people".

Remember how republicans shut down the government? It's ironic how those same guys responsible for that shit now want to fast track their own shit through.

This a the real victory of the Republican party. If you can pass anything you want knowing you can count on manchin's vote to break any ties, you go ahead and shove your turtle dick (mcconnel) down the opponents throats.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-judges-895168
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_...y_Donald_Trump

There is not a single liberal one among those. You as a country are becoming so conservative your national motto should become "git off my lawn"

Also



Fun part at 4:58

P.S.

Mobs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.154f9bb956ae

Protesters on your side are "very fine people", protesters on the other side are "uncivil mobs"

[Jack Sawyer]

Reality is no republican would ever vote for any democratic position. Ever. Democrats, though, sometimes do cross party lines and vote for the republican position. Manchin, Heitkamp, Tester and Donnely are notorious for this. This gives an undeniable advantage to the republicans, getting them to pass pretty much anything they want. IOW, democrats passing or blocking anything is basically untenable.

Work with me here: how can the democrats get anything passed, realistically, under this system that you guys have in place? Even when Republicans do not have majority, they can still count on these votes to reach majority and still pass anything they want. And this has been going on for years now. And the result of this shit is felt all over the world.

Also, realistically, the one more reason why the "vote your conscience" line is such bullshit: US politicians consciences are basically whatever their donors think. Not the masses who have to vote to put them there. Not their campaign promises. But whatever the ones who write their checks tell them to do.

[OngBonga]

Ong, you seem to forget that as an elected representative you should vote in accordance to those who put yout here.

Didn't they put him there BECAUSE he's a Dem who doesn't toe the party line?

No one knows what the fuck your conscience says while they are voting to put you in that position.

So? The voter is putting their trust in the moral integrity of such a person.

They do know what you campaigned on, however, and THAT is the sole reason they voted for you.

So why did they re-elect him twice?

There is a large contingent of people who have no time to actually follow politics and see track records of the politicians, so they have no idea how they what a politician stands for other than who's party they are on and what the general position of that party is on the issues that matter to them.

So what you're saying here is that people are too politically ignorant, so we need to dumb politics down to the point where one person represents the blanket views of an entire party. Fuck that.

Politicians should be, I know this is a pipe dream but bear with me, they should be intelligent people of high moral integrity. The idea is that they are entrusted by the people to make decisions, and it is their conscience that got them into a place of trusted office.

As a politician you are a public servant

Yes, and it is your duty to do what you believe is the right thing to do for the people, not what your party tells you is the right thing to do, and not what you think politically ignorant people want you to do.

It sucks, and it's certainly idiotic, but that is what they have. One party that is vastly center-right and another that is completely off the deep end

And this only represents the extremes, when actually most people fall somewhere in between. So why shouldn't politicians fall somewhere in between? That's a more accurate representation of the electorate.

This a the real victory of the Republican party. If you can pass anything you want knowing you can count on manchin's vote to break any ties, you go ahead and shove your turtle dick (mcconnel) down the opponents throats.

If Dem voters in W Virginia have a problem with this, the solution is very simple. He's been re-elected twice. So who are you, or anyone, to tell him how he should vote? He has the mandate to do as he pleases.

[Jack Sawyer]

Didn't they put him there BECAUSE he's a Dem who doesn't toe the party line?



So? The voter is putting their trust in the moral integrity of such a person.



So why did they re-elect him twice?



So what you're saying here is that people are too politically ignorant, so we need to dumb politics down to the point where one person represents the blanket views of an entire party. Fuck that.

Politicians should be, I know this is a pipe dream but bear with me, they should be intelligent people of high moral integrity. The idea is that they are entrusted by the people to make decisions, and it is their conscience that got them into a place of trusted office.



Yes, and it is your duty to do what you believe is the right thing to do for the people, not what your party tells you is the right thing to do, and not what you think politically ignorant people want you to do.



And this only represents the extremes, when actually most people fall somewhere in between. So why shouldn't politicians fall somewhere in between? That's a more accurate representation of the electorate.



If Dem voters in W Virginia have a problem with this, the solution is very simple. He's been re-elected twice. So who are you, or anyone, to tell him how he should vote? He has the mandate to do as he pleases.

That's the thing, he doesn't fall in between, he falls on the Republican line, giving them clear advantage to pass whatever the desire

Do you not see how this is gaming the system?

[OngBonga]

US politicians consciences are basically whatever their donors think.

There's a word for this... corruption. Don't vote corrupt people into office, and prosecute those who are corrupt. Don't assume the solution to corruption is to enforce the whip on politicians. That just results in puppets for politicians who are there because they are good at selling votes, not because they want to make the country work better for everyone.

Politics needs one hell of an overhaul, both in USA and in Europe. Nerfing those we vote in is not the solution for me.

[OngBonga]

Do you not see how this is gaming the system?

So why do they keep putting him back into office?

[Jack Sawyer]

So what you're saying here is that people are too politically ignorant, so we need to dumb politics down to the point where one person represents the blanket views of an entire party. Fuck that.

Politicians should be, I know this is a pipe dream but bear with me, they should be intelligent people of high moral integrity. The idea is that they are entrusted by the people to make decisions, and it is their conscience that got them into a place of trusted office.

We live in an information age, but I see that it's an oxymoron, as there are nowadays perhaps more disinformed people than ever before

Fact: manchin tips the scales to the Republicans in every issue, as there is no Republican equivalent to manchin. This makes the Republicans have an unfair advantage in the Senate, getting them to tan pretty much anything they want through.

Fact: the US Republican party is about as far right as right comes. This tips the whole country right. This is obviously bad.

Fact: manchin gets reelected mostly due to the disinformation I briefly mentioned previously. Incumbents also have inherent advantage in newcomers, statistically.

Fact: watch a manchin interview trying to get his position on anything. Good luck. You'll need it.

You are speaking as to what you want there to be, I'm speaking about what there is right now and the consequences of this.

[wufwugy]

Debating labels never convinced nobody

[OngBonga]

an unfair advantage

You have deemed it unfair, but the fact remains he has a mandate based on him being elected three times into office.

Fact: manchin gets reelected mostly due to the disinformation I briefly mentioned previously. Incumbents also have inherent advantage in newcomers, statistically.

Disinformation? If I pulled that word out, you'd say I'm watching too much infowars.

There's lots of disinformation out there, it's the responsibility of the voter to try to sift through what's out there and make a judgement call on what they believe. That's why control of the media is so important to any political party, in particular the Dems.

Fact: watch a manchin interview trying to get his position on anything. Good luck. You'll need it.

How the fuck does he get votes then? I wouldn't vote for him if I didn't know what he stood for.

You are speaking as to what you want there to be, I'm speaking about what there is right now and the consequences of this.

What's there is because of democracy. You're complaining about him voting R when he's a D. Well, he's been doing that for a long time now, and they keep voting him in. So it's not a problem to the voter. The bitch about democracy is sometimes the other guy wins. If you're democratic, you accept it.

[Jack Sawyer]

You have deemed it unfair, but the fact remains he has a mandate based on him being elected three times into office.

To sway every every issue that matters to the republican side. 51/49 to pass, 50/50 to stalemate. Brilliant, actually.

Disinformation? If I pulled that word out, you'd say I'm watching too much infowars.

There's lots of disinformation out there, it's the responsibility of the voter to try to sift through what's out there and make a judgement call on what they believe. That's why control of the media is so important to any political party, in particular the Dems.

Dude, Trump got millions of votes. Do you seriously believe the majority of those were actually properly informed voters?

How the fuck does he get votes then? I wouldn't vote for him if I didn't know what he stood for.

I thought I already mentioned how incumbency is quite an advantage

This coupled with the average busy person who has no reason, wish nor (direct) need to follow politics, et voilá

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php

What's there is because of democracy. You're complaining about him voting R when he's a D. Well, he's been doing that for a long time now, and they keep voting him in. So it's not a problem to the voter. The bitch about democracy is sometimes the other guy wins. If you're democratic, you accept it.

I don't think we are discussing the same thing

[OngBonga]

Dude, Trump got millions of votes. Do you seriously believe the majority of those were actually properly informed voters?

This is true of any politician.What's your point?

I thought I already mentioned how incumbency is quite an advantage

It's not an unfair advantage though, seeing as it takes an act of democracy to get into office in the first place.

This coupled with the average busy person who has no reason, wish nor (direct) need to follow politics, et voilá

What's your point? That politics should dumb down to the lowest common denominator?

I don't think we are discussing the same thing

What are you discussing then? You seem outraged about a guy being democratic, within the law. I don't know what your problem is, other than the fact he's doing something you wish he wasn't doing.