Rant!!! - Whether I'm right, wrong or whatever ... IMO there is something inherently wrong with

[RKP5637]

a system wherein one person, Joe Manchin, for example, can gum up the future for millions of people. Much the same could be said about Mitch McConnell! On another topic, why does our political system essentially allow bribery! Rant Off!

[leftstreet]

1. Whatever happened to "end the filibuster?" n/t

[LymphocyteLover]

59. we need Manchina and Sinema and every Dem to change it

and those two are in firm opposition against it plus probably some other more moderate Dem senators (e.g. Coons, Bennett) who are oh so worried about destroying Senate collegiality.

[Trueblue Texan]

64. With Dems like Manchin and Sinema...

...who needs...? You finish the question.

[Poiuyt]

2. You just listed two of the major problems with American politics

I agree 100%

BTW, it seems like Rand Paul likes to block things too.

[Ruby the Liberal]

45. We only have 2 Ambassadors confirmed

And both of them were former senators. Ted Cruz is holding all the others.

Biden went to Europe last week, and had no team in place.

[Bev54]

3. I agree but could we always keep in mind that it is not just Joe Manchin

alone but 50 republican senators, that mindlessly follow their leader instead of having an original thought in their heads, leaving them unable to govern.

[DENVERPOPS]

23. Does anyone know

the name of the French guy, who in the 1700's stated: "Democracy will work, until certain groups learn that they can vote themselves money" ?????

What a visionary............

[TheProle]

53. A Scot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler,_Lord_Woodhouselee

[DENVERPOPS]

57. Thanks NC

[Galraedia]

51. New strategy: Try to get just one republican to vote yes and it passes

I don't see the point in negotiating with this asshole. Turn the media's attention towards the republicans and you will either break one of them to do the right thing or at least make Manchin irrelevant so that he jumps on board just for the attention.

[LymphocyteLover]

61. Good luck with that. It honestly is easier to get Manchin on board than get a Repub

public pressure doesn't do much for Manchin, why would it change a Repub?

[Galraedia]

73. It would focus attention on to the republicans and not one trojan horse pretending to be a democrat

Republicans love the fact that democrats are focusing on Manchin. Their goal is to have Manchin be the target so that the American people will blame democrats for nothing being done when there are 50 republicans in the senate literally doing nothing. It may not get the bill passed but it will at least turn attention on to the fact that republicans are unwilling to do anything to help the American people. Also, I don't expect public pressure to do anything for Manchin, I expect that attention being focused on his republican friends and not on him will.

[LymphocyteLover]

76. that is true

of course Manchin could make it so he's not the target, but NOOOO!

[The Wizard]

65. Manchin is the king maker

If he leaves the Democratic Party for the GQP, McConnell will be Majority Leader and in a position to scuttle the government. Mitch takes no prisoners.

[Galraedia]

74. Manchin isn't going to switch to republican.

Manchin knows he would never win a republican primary and that the republicans don't want him. If he switches to anything it will be to an independent but he hasn't because he knows that without the support of a major political party he will never win an election in West Virginia. Manchin is no king maker. His power is derived from the democrats that gave him their support both financially and on the ground.

[Demsrule86]

78. You won't get any GOP types...lets deal with the real word here. Manchin will

have a big say in what doesn't go in a bill...no way around that. But we will get quite a bit... amazing bill even at 1.7 trillion

[PoliticAverse]

4. It's not 1, it's 51 (or 52 with Sinema). There will always be a problem...

when sides are split evenly of a single person being able to hold everything up.

[bluewater]

21. Good point.

And, of course, the Senate was designed to allow a minority of the population block the efforts of the majority of the population as represented in the House.

[sop]

49. This wouldn't happen if we had proportional representation in the Senate.

[Demsrule86]

79. We have 50 Senators not 51. Harris breaks the tie.

[Tommymac]

81. Really? The filabuster is Not in the Constitution.

It is simply a rule, that got lots of muscle over the years. It was designed to deprive Minorities of their rights. Along with Citizen's United it has allowed minority obstructionism to occur.

The Senate was designed to give SMALL States a voice in the government - NOT to allow Minority Rule. The founders made a bit of a mistake - and it should have been corrected via amendment or Constitutional Convention - another thing they missed the boat on. They expected to see several CC's in the first 50 years of the republic - again design flaws have kept that from occurring.

[brush]

5. You're absolutely right. The Senate is broken and the filibuster...

is the reason. Manchin and Sinema may as well be republicans as they continue to toe the big pharma/big coal lines.

[colsohlibgal]

6. Plus

The System is out of whack. We really didn’t have a need for two Dakotas and both of those States are similar population wise with sparsely populated States like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. whose combined population would be a fraction of the Population of New York, California and other heavily populated States. But all these get the same two Senators.

Way more people vote for Democrats than Republicans but because of our system that advantage is blunted. The game is rigged between this and the nonsense of the Electoral College....and all of this tilting sprung from institutional racism.

Chris Hayes did a taped show on this that aired last Christmas.

It’s a constant struggle to overcome these institutional inequalities.

[brush]

10. Very true. It all stems from institutional racism which protected...

the rights of slave states/sparsely populated states. It's almost impossible to change though. The filibuster can be changed though without Constitutional amendments.

Let's hope so, at least carve outs of it for voting rights.

[NJCher]

58. And should we attempt to rectify these inequities

They scream that we are gaming the system.

Excellent points in this post; I had not thought about the Dakotas.

[world wide wally]

7. It was a sad night for America when we elected Joe Manchin President.

Ooops...
Nevermind

[RKP5637]

40. Yep, been thinking the same ... n/t

[DeeNice]

8. But remember when it was John McCain's thumbs down that saved the ACA

from the GOP's craven attempt to repeal.

[RKP5637]

11. Yes, very good point! n/t

[Jon King]

9. America's system of governing is bizarro world.

The entire system is a joke. The electoral college, 2 Senators regardless of population, none of it makes a bit of sense.

Add in the filibuster and you have the most unfair system posing as a democracy imaginable. A country where the minority rules to this extreme is a joke.

The ironic thing is, the minority that is benefiting from the terrible system are complaining that the system is unfair to them!

[RKP5637]

13. Kind of reminds me of religious people that claim they are persecuted, because

they can't persecute other people.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

12. What's wrong is 2 Senators / state. Montana & Wyoming voters have same power as 70 California voters

[RKP5637]

16. The system needs changes, but what a cat fight that would be. n/t

[rurallib]

18. the people affected by the change would have to make the change

and they are already making it big off the current system so why would they change?

[RKP5637]

39. Yep, they won't. It's a gravy train for them. n/t

[SWBTATTReg]

19. But that power is represented in the House of Representatives via...

California with 53 members in the House of Rep and Montana and Wyoming each having 1 member each in the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, as you say, a lot of things are exclusively done in the Senate, such as confirming presidential picks, etc.

That's the one thing that gets me, is that they didn't push down the responsibilities of confirming picks down to the House of Representatives level...why not? Don't these representatives more accurately reflect American values (in the House) vs. what the Senate is now, with 1/2 and 1/2, when republicans are clearly a minority party...

Gerrymandering can go only so far, after a while, you run out of people to gerrymander things to your liking.

[Poiuyt]

54. The problem started when they capped the House at 435 members

It used to be that each Congressperson would represent a certain number of constituents. They changed that in 1929 to keep the number of Representatives to a manageable number. This results in large, growing states like California being under represented, while small rural states like Wyoming are over represented.

[LymphocyteLover]

60. the bigger problem is the Senate though

for the House, it's still about 750,000 people per Rep. I don't think Wyoming has that much advanatge in the House compared to it's outsized power in the Senate.

[Poiuyt]

68. That's very true, but that was in the Constitution

The two houses of Congress were designed to be a compromise between state's power (the Senate) and the general population (the House of Representatives).

I think I'm remembering by civics classes correctly, but that was over 50 years ago.

[LymphocyteLover]

77. Yes, it is ... it's just super out of whack now with giant states like California and Texas

[Dark n Stormy Knight]

62. I'm embarrassed to say I didnt know that.

Now I'm even more angry.

[forthemiddle]

63. The Senate was never meant to represent the voters

It was set up specifically to represent the interest of the States, not the people. The House was to represent the people, the Senate the States.
We can argue the unfairness of the representation of the House, and that should probably be expanded, but the Senate is what it is, and barring an Amendment (which small States will NEVER agree too), we are stuck with 2 Senators per State.

[MoonlitKnight]

14. Look at it this way

The Constitution allows for an override of a Presidential veto with 66%. Mitch McConnell has to overridden with 60% because of a rule that the Senate imposes upon itself.

[George II]

15. There are a few in the House who are doing what you're implying. Remember, the BIF has passed....,

....the Senate and has been scheduled for a vote twice in the House.

Both times it was postponed due to a few House members.

It's not all on Manchin or any Democratic Senator.

[totodeinhere]

17. I still think we better be careful with ending the filibuster.

With it seeming more likely that the Republicans will have a good day on election day 2022 we do not want to let the Republicans run rampant in the Senate if they should pick up at least one seat and return to the majority.

[inthewind21]

27. You mean rampant

like they are running right now? Newsflash Republicans control the Senate right now BECAUSE of the filibuster. But hey, McConnell is an upstanding guy, as long as WE don't alter the filibuster, surely he won't either.

[totodeinhere]

36. Then by your logic if the Republicans regain the Senate majority then the Democrasts

could control the Senate because of the filibuster. It should work both ways shouldn't it?

[MarcA]

28. Moscow Mitch could and probably would end it anyway.

Remember his hypocritical farce about when to appoint Supreme Court Judges.

[totodeinhere]

37. We don't know if he would end it or not. Say what you want about him. He may be evil but

he is also clever. If he eliminated the filibuster then he would surely know that the next time the Democrats regain control then he would need to use the filibuster again.

[Joinfortmill]

20. Agree

[berni_mccoy]

22. Citizens United. That's the problem.

And unless we ratify the constitution, that’s not going to change.

[Peregrine Took]

31. Yes! I heard a man say on the radio today that, thanks to Citizens United, we "auction" seats

in the House and Senate now so we shouldn't be shocked as to what happened in Buffalo. The highest
bidder "won" that seat in the end.

[crimycarny]

24. Can we at LEAST go back to standing filibuster?

I don't know if that would do much but it's adding insult to injury that the minority party can filibuster simply by stating they are going to do so. Make them stand their *sses up on the floor and debate. The GOP are a bunch of lightweights who complain when they have to stay in session during what's normally a break, so imagine what they'd do if they had to stand there and talk for hours?

[pazzyanne]

47. + 1 nt

[Sneederbunk]

25. That's why we need to win Dem Senate seats in 2022.

We need to win Wisconsin, Ohio, PA and NC. Missouri, Iowa and Florida should be in play

[Tumbulu]

26. We need a concerted effort of retired democratic voters

to take up residence in these small red states so that they can vote and put Democratic Senators in.

How many people would it take? Not that many. Why don’t we put an effort into this?

The minds of the rural voters has been taken over by 35 years of hate am radio propaganda, there is no hope to appealing to them. Period.

We need migrations of dedicated voters into just a few of these states.

[inthewind21]

29. Who pays for that?

[Tumbulu]

34. Instead of sending $ to campaigns, just make it a sabbatical

Why not? The campaigns have been milking retired dem donors for decades, to buy adds and proclaim that there was no need to stop Limbaugh and the like. Free speech and all the rest of the bull that have led to this disaster we are in only the beginning of.

I’ve utterly had it with these political money grabbers.

Just move to a low population red state once every 6 years, long enough to get residency and vote!

Simple solution.

Or get some left leaning billionaire to fund housing for seniors who will vote. How long does it take to get residency in Wyoming or Montana? How many votes are needed to flip the states into D?

I don’t see why all the money goes to advertising. That is such a stupid waste of money.

Another idea is for democrats to go around buying tanks of gas for people at gas stations. When the person says thanks, say something like ; “paid for by liberals who care”. We need to counter the endless vilification by the hard right. Not with adds that everybody ignores. But by real things like votes.

Or pay for dental appointments. Anything that actually is real, and not stupid money for advertising and media. Who are addicted to the money that flows into them because of strife. They fan the flames and are rewarded by making more and more money.

[RKP5637]

41. Absolutely correct, the ads are a waste of money, they pad the pockets of creators and media. And,

not the people. The money should be directed toward things that would gain traction with voters, not the air/cable waves.

[ShazzieB]

55. I would sign up for this, tomorrow!

Or get some left leaning billionaire to fund housing for seniors who will vote.

I would SO move to one of those places, if housing was funded! I know it wouldn't be hard to talk my husband into it, too. It costs a lot of money to move across the country, but that would make it affordable.

Somebody go find a billionaire to bankroll this, and I'll start packing, no joke!

[Tumbulu]

66. Thank you! I would too!

I feel that it is time we act!

[Captain Zero]

56. Which states do you think?

I'm in Indiana now, and nowhere close to flipping this bitchass state.

[Tumbulu]

67. I bet Montana, Wyoming.... Maybe this needs to be

an OP where experts can chime in.

Also, Arizona …

Where do snow birds vote? Do they register to vote in where they winter or summer?

If we knew how many D votes it would take to get it to flip, in each state, we could pick the two easiest ones and try it out.

[Tumbulu]

70. And what about NC and how many D votes would flip it?

I feel that we need a sort of Democratic voters Peace Corps. Where we move around state to state for tours of duty. It could be fun, actually.

How do we get Bloomberg to fund this?

Think of all that could be changed!

[Evolve Dammit]

30. That's the shortest rant ever. I was left longing for more! Good points though.

[MiHale]

32. Whether I'm right or wrong...you're right...

This system is broken, next question is …can it be repaired from within? I’ve done enough remodeling jobs to know that sometimes it’s best to rip it out and start over but I don’t think that would work with government.

Two people or one person should never be able to paralyze proceedings, no one person should be able to destroy an administration, no one should be able to enhance their wealth while in office.

This is supposed to be a representative government, for the people not corporations…but Citizens United fixed that for them I guess. Voting is our only recourse to rid our government from those slime and you know how they’re “fixing” that.

I can rant all day about the broken system, I wish I had an iota of an idea on how to fix it.
Voting Rights and ridding ourselves of Citizens United is what I have to throw in the pool. Eh.

[RKP5637]

42. Well said!!! n/t

[Grasswire2]

33. Add DC and PR as states, and add justices to restore balance to court.

Problems solved.

Add term limits for Congress, for a bonus.

Then go after gerrymandering.

Then Citizens United.

Everything would fall into place.

Oh, and hand-counted paper ballots with no optical scans or internet connections at elections, and with strong ballot security and audit trail.

Voila.

[dickthegrouch]

35. "Essentially allow"? Revolve around!

We really must frame the debate correctly and call spades “spades”.

[quakerboy]

38. Technically

Its the 52 elected RW'rs gumming up the system with the current situation.

Now.. the thing with McConnell controlling what comes to a vote for the past few years, and the thing with whichever shitheel is currently blocking nominations by his lonesome.. those are better evidence of the problem you are adressing.

[RKP5637]

43. Yes!!! n/t

[karynnj]

44. The reason is that even under reconciliation, you need 50 votes - that is just 50%

I had no problem that McCain voting "no" on a bill that would have gutted the ACA meant the Republicans failed -- because THEY did not have 50 votes in the Senate. In his case, he was against ACA, but thought it should not be eliminated thru reconciliation.

Reconciliation requires just 50% - and this is a bill that will make big changes. Are you seriously suggesting that something that fewer than 50% of the Senate will vote for should pass?

Yes, I know the things in question are big and good -- but we need the votes.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

46. The real problem is the GOP disregarding the needs of their constituents.....

and instead representing only the wishes of business interests.

Now, tell us why that's not being ranted about in the press as much or more than they're doing with coal baron Manchin.

KY..........

[pazzyanne]

48. Great rant!!! nt

[Galraedia]

50. Democrats need to get just one republican on board and it will pass

Stop playing Manchin's game. Either convince a republican to vote yes or at least give Manchin the impression that he's no longer relevant which will cause him to switch his vote to yes just for the attention.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

52. Money from lobbyists and others...

... is was one of the few things that Democratic and Republican voters agree should be strongly limited, according to past polls that I saw.

Many government representatives, corporate lobbyists and the Supreme Court obviously don't agree.

[Hortensis]

69. How do you reconcile your rant with democratic principles and

practices, though, or is your problem with them? Is it time to end our grand experiment in representative government after over 230 years of failure?

[RKP5637]

71. First step would be to get, somehow, all the money out of politics. Also, get rid of

Citizens United. IMO that would be some good steps.

[Hortensis]

72. Agree with doing what is possible, asap. Absolutely on board.

So you're still in with representative government.

Of course, the people are always the problem above and behind all problems, though. How to get all the people out of politics?!

If that's not possible, could we get rid of pleuralism (which tRump is working on) and just call whichever faction or cabal takes over representative?

My eyes are crossing at the problems. Start with getting money out. Of course, the internet has weakened the influence of big money but created the similarly, massively corrupting and whackadoodlery effects of small "grassroots" money. So getting the money out has to mean really getting virtually all money out.

Then, also of course, perniciously toxic internet influencing is so cheap and established that controlling money can now shift most of its remaining influence to increased reliance on internet corruption/subversion of electorates and elections. So that must be controlled.

Okay. All doable within the principles of democratic institutions and being done in various ways to various degrees somewhere.

[RKP5637]

75. We are in complete agreement!!! as always!!!

[Demsrule86]

80. Citizens United was a SCOTUS ruling, you would need an amendment and we have no prayer

of doing anything like that. The answer is simple...elect more Democrats.