Not really.

When Trump was President in his first two years with a majority in the House and Senate he tried to kill Obamacare using Reconciliation and failed when McCain gave the thumbs down (joined by Murkowski and Collins).

Trump also couldn't get major funding for his wall in Reconciliation either.

Or an infrastructure bill that he wanted based on privatizing everything.

Its possible that Republicans would try to pass some kind of National Abortion ban bill but that would be the beginning of the end for the party.

I think the bigger picture is that when Democrats regain control of the House, Senate and Presidency based on what Rebublicans do pass without the fillibuster you will see massive and important bills passed (like a ban on assault rifles, climate change energy bills, expanding the Supreme Court, etc.).

Do you believe the bolded to be accurate?

I like to think that the majority of the politicians, until more recent times were more moderate and interested in what was ultimately good for the country, despite the partisan battles. That they could vote across party lines and in bipartisan ways if they could see an ultimate 'good' for the country and that they would feel it shameful to launch frivolous impeachments against a POTUS who had did no real wrong that warranted such. That there was some pride in the Institution and some reverence for the various leadership offices.


I feel the driving change is that as the voters have changed to ones who not only do not care about this partisan scorched earth stuff but demand it the complexion of the Congress people have changed to the type who have the opposite of reverence for gov't. They brought in a bias and disdain and a desire to just disrupt and destroy the operation of gov't.

I am super pessimistic about gov't but I like to think they were mostly honest brokers, interested in doing their job for the good of the country in prior generations.

I don't see the GOP ever wanting to kill the Filibuster as the main things they want to ever accomplish of taxes and Judges they have already exempted from the Filibuster.

The Filibuster is really just in place mostly to block any initiatives that could help working people and make no mistake as it is the Corporate Dems who want it in place the most.

What the Filibuster does for the Corporate Dems is allow them to go out and say to Voters 'we want to fix things and rebalance gov't so that you too get some of the benefits of gov't you deserve' and then it sets a threshold for votes where the GOP can almost always block it.

Make no mistake that when the Filibuster rules were set and then changed, that both Parties did absolutely know that with such a high number needed to win to over ride the Filibuster, that ultimately it would be a tool block most, if not all legislation from happening. Generally it has been a position of the GOP that the less gov't does the better it is for society, but the Dem brass want that too. They WANT the GOP to block their more aggressive promises as they then can go to the voters and say 'see those bad GOP blocked us again, dammit. You need to elect more of us the next time so we can over come it'. But the chance of them electing enough is very rare, and when they do, such as with Obama, you see the Dem brass scramble to find ways to mostly scuttle their own agenda anyway. They are like the dog that caught the car. It is an Oops moment because they do not really want to deliver those things and it would anger their corporate donors which is the only group they care about. They prefer to keep them perpetually as voting issues.

I think these 2022 MT and the 2024 GE are everything for the GOP.

This is why Mitch is so frustrated as the GOP was set to take the House and Senate, until Trump got involved, and if they could have done that, and took the POTUS in 2024, they would have built in protections for this current Supreme Court, they would strengthened State rights to the extreme and they would have supported all these extremes State voting rights, vote rigging initiatives that would have made it really difficult for Dem's to get back power simply by winning the Popular vote by any number.

Until recently it was thought there was almost no math that could see a POTUS candidate get 5MM more popular votes and not win the Electoral College as well. The gerrymandering has been so effective that even with Bidens 7MM win, he was a hair away from losing the Electoral College.

I think the GOP holding all offices and having such control of State legislatures, would push that up to 15MM or 20MM margin. That a DEM POTUS candidate could be ahead by 15MM-20MM in the popular vote and yet the GOP could still win.

And the Supreme Court is actively setting that up by actively siding with the taking down of all the most aggressive gerrymandering and vote suppression laws and throwing it back to the States, while saying the problems of the past with regards to gerrymandering to deny POC (and Dem's generally) their voting power are behind them.


In a weird way Trump may save the US being set back nearly a hundred years by helping to keep the Dems holding enough power to block these things and if the Dems do get back enough power (again thx to Trump), I do believe they will try to fix much of the Voting Rights issues as they are a legit threat to Dem power and that is one thing they do not want to lose. Then the next battle will be in the Supreme Court as I am quite certain that any Federal Voting Rights legislation they push out, will be challenged by the GOP States as encroachment and this SC will bend over backwards trying to reverse logic someway to agree with that and invalidate the Federal legislation.

I am quite certain we will see the same for any new Federal RvW legislation. Everyone seems to think the easy fix is new Federal RvW legislation but this SC has been pushing in most areas State rights and independence and I expect they will find a way to invalidate any new RvW National legislation in favour of State rights.

Someone doesn’t understand what gerrymandering means.

Just want the mod that blocked me from the transformers tread to know that this is still what ppl see on the front page of taptalk lol

You are describing a world that may have existed 50 years ago, not 20 years ago. The poison ivy that has strangled government was visibly creeping up the walls for quite some time, at least since Newt Gingrich in the mid 1990s.

Thanks for the reminder, we still see you as an unimportant loser.

K, bye.

Were's Jackie?

If Biden runs again is it likely that he selects a new VP?

quiet down parrot

Hey its a legitimate question. I think Biden can beat Trump again but Harris may drag him down.

Biden/Newsom ticket ?? sounds more attractive

Biden/Abrams seems even more attractive.

Larry Wilson or Richard Parker seems more appropriate.

At least your old Weekend at Bernie's(1989) reference is less ancient than Cuepee's Sgt. Schultz reference from the 1960's sitcom Hogan's Heroes (in another thread).

"Jackie?"

"End of quote. Repeat the line."

That is the lady that had been dead for a month that Biden praised and asked her to stand up at an event even though she was dead. Of course the competent WH tried to spin it instead of just saying. " He forgot she was dead Oops "

Biden had an old man moment. Lets be honest he is still the best person to go against Trump in 2024 .

ya sure
I know what you meant You were implying that the Presidents brain is so far gone he would try to get a dead person to run as his running mate

No not at all were did I say he should have a dead person as his running mate? Though she would do a better job than the current one.

Were did I say he was so far gone? I said he had an old man moment .

Looks like Biden is going for the devil's lettuce. Cringed at the LSD comparison but this is a step in the right direction:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...ijuana-reform/

This is huge!

Why did you cringe at the LSD comment? That may not be as "bad" as heroin as far as overall societal impact. But it should definitely not be on the same level as Marijuana. If he Saud shrooms, then yes it would be cringe.

Have you done both shrooms and LSD? They are very comparable, equally relatively harmless, and both seem possibly beneficial in therapeutic setting. If shrooms are okay I'm not seeing the problem with LSD.

I've done LSD. Not shrooms. Might be because I was 13 when I did it, but I think there was lasting damage.

Fascinating study. Looks like 30 MG of psilocybin gives the best results.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-022-01297-2