AlleyPack said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

There are tons of issues with this bill because of how many different things were crammed in, and the fact that it was released just hours before the vote.

This was negotiated between Pelosi, McConnel and the whitehouse. The bill was not public to other members of congress to read and give feedback. There was no debate and amendments could not be offered.
Congress is broken because we've allowed the House Speaker and Senate Majority leader to use procedural rules to concentrate power in their hands. Congress was meant to be a deliberative body, not something run by only a few people in leadership of the majority party.

---

I agree with you; however, does the constitution lay those rules out or are the rules developed by each chamber?

---

They are procedural rules within each chamber. The constitution gives congress a lot of leeway on how to conduct it's own business. The next congress can change the rules back if leadership allows it to be voted on. Permanent reforms would require a constitutional amendment.

---

Correct. My point of asking was to point out the the Constitution gives a lot of freedom for each Chamber to set it rules.

By you saying that the chambers were meant to be deliberative body's is missing one key understanding. We are talking about Man and the failings of man. Men are power hungry! You will not change that failing of Man.

If we were truly following the Constitution, we would never (potentially) see these types of bills. Hopefully, Trump vetos this thing, as per his video last night, and we start over with the true context of the bill.

---

There is nothing in the constitution to prevent the sham legislative process we have right now.

Our government needs structural reforms to modernize. But those reforms should be pursued via constitutional amendment. The burden in passing an amendment is so high that it will ensure reform is bipartisan and largely fair

---

Our structure is perfectly fine. The problem is you, me, and everyone else. We keep electing these people. We need to work harder to elect new representatives.

It's easy to blame someone, something, or anything other than ourselves. Look at yourself first for change!

---

Honestly, though -- would whomever they are running against in any given year/election be any different?
Every candidate is essentially a "career politician". You don't reach that point without having a certain mindset... a mindset that does NOT have "the best interest of the people" at the forefront.

---

Don't know. It's a start. Again, take the responsibility in your own hands and make change. If we do it enough, the congressional folks will start to get the message. Primary everyone!

In a representative republic, that's the peoples power...

GOP member speaking some truth here:

statefan91 said:

---

---

Veto everything. Make congress override the veto!

pineknollshoresking said:

---

AlleyPack said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

There are tons of issues with this bill because of how many different things were crammed in, and the fact that it was released just hours before the vote.

This was negotiated between Pelosi, McConnel and the whitehouse. The bill was not public to other members of congress to read and give feedback. There was no debate and amendments could not be offered.
Congress is broken because we've allowed the House Speaker and Senate Majority leader to use procedural rules to concentrate power in their hands. Congress was meant to be a deliberative body, not something run by only a few people in leadership of the majority party.

---

I agree with you; however, does the constitution lay those rules out or are the rules developed by each chamber?

---

They are procedural rules within each chamber. The constitution gives congress a lot of leeway on how to conduct it's own business. The next congress can change the rules back if leadership allows it to be voted on. Permanent reforms would require a constitutional amendment.

---

Correct. My point of asking was to point out the the Constitution gives a lot of freedom for each Chamber to set it rules.

By you saying that the chambers were meant to be deliberative body's is missing one key understanding. We are talking about Man and the failings of man. Men are power hungry! You will not change that failing of Man.

If we were truly following the Constitution, we would never (potentially) see these types of bills. Hopefully, Trump vetos this thing, as per his video last night, and we start over with the true context of the bill.

---

There is nothing in the constitution to prevent the sham legislative process we have right now.

Our government needs structural reforms to modernize. But those reforms should be pursued via constitutional amendment. The burden in passing an amendment is so high that it will ensure reform is bipartisan and largely fair

---

Our structure is perfectly fine. The problem is you, me, and everyone else. We keep electing these people. We need to work harder to elect new representatives.

It's easy to blame someone, something, or anything other than ourselves. Look at yourself first for change!

---

Honestly, though -- would whomever they are running against in any given year/election be any different?
Every candidate is essentially a "career politician". You don't reach that point without having a certain mindset... a mindset that does NOT have "the best interest of the people" at the forefront.

---

Don't know. It's a start. Again, take the responsibility in your own hands and make change. If we do it enough, the congressional folks will start to get the message. Primary everyone!

In a representative republic, that's the peoples power...

---

I think the best way to improve the quality of congressional representation would be to have more competitive elections.

"Safe" congressional seats leads to the primary being the only elections of importance, and those low turnout elections are not producing quality congressional representation.

Ground_Chuck said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

AlleyPack said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

There are tons of issues with this bill because of how many different things were crammed in, and the fact that it was released just hours before the vote.

This was negotiated between Pelosi, McConnel and the whitehouse. The bill was not public to other members of congress to read and give feedback. There was no debate and amendments could not be offered.
Congress is broken because we've allowed the House Speaker and Senate Majority leader to use procedural rules to concentrate power in their hands. Congress was meant to be a deliberative body, not something run by only a few people in leadership of the majority party.

---

I agree with you; however, does the constitution lay those rules out or are the rules developed by each chamber?

---

They are procedural rules within each chamber. The constitution gives congress a lot of leeway on how to conduct it's own business. The next congress can change the rules back if leadership allows it to be voted on. Permanent reforms would require a constitutional amendment.

---

Correct. My point of asking was to point out the the Constitution gives a lot of freedom for each Chamber to set it rules.

By you saying that the chambers were meant to be deliberative body's is missing one key understanding. We are talking about Man and the failings of man. Men are power hungry! You will not change that failing of Man.

If we were truly following the Constitution, we would never (potentially) see these types of bills. Hopefully, Trump vetos this thing, as per his video last night, and we start over with the true context of the bill.

---

There is nothing in the constitution to prevent the sham legislative process we have right now.

Our government needs structural reforms to modernize. But those reforms should be pursued via constitutional amendment. The burden in passing an amendment is so high that it will ensure reform is bipartisan and largely fair

---

Our structure is perfectly fine. The problem is you, me, and everyone else. We keep electing these people. We need to work harder to elect new representatives.

It's easy to blame someone, something, or anything other than ourselves. Look at yourself first for change!

---

Honestly, though -- would whomever they are running against in any given year/election be any different?
Every candidate is essentially a "career politician". You don't reach that point without having a certain mindset... a mindset that does NOT have "the best interest of the people" at the forefront.

---

Don't know. It's a start. Again, take the responsibility in your own hands and make change. If we do it enough, the congressional folks will start to get the message. Primary everyone!

In a representative republic, that's the peoples power...

---

I think the best way to improve the quality of congressional representation would be to have more competitive elections.

"Safe" congressional seats leads to the primary being the only elections of importance, and those low turnout elections are not producing quality congressional representation.

---

I agree. We have to primary these people and ultimately elect new representatives. If we don't get out and vote new people in; we can only blame ourselves...

The stimulus should probably be more than $600 and way less than $2000! I don't know the best way to do this crap but a lot of people are hurting. Hopefully the vaccines will get rid of this virus for good but it could keep morphing into something worse too?

It's a big modern world out there and I don't know when the first Senators and Representatives started adding other things to bills, that is not what the bill is named for, but it's been going on at least 100 years. Why they think that is a good idea, I have no clue. Maybe that's the only way to get money to places some think need it. It's not a 1 nation earth, we need help and we need to provide some help but I'd prefer each country we help, fall under the We Help You Bill because we depend you your help to help us make this a great earth for everyone?

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

There are tons of issues with this bill because of how many different things were crammed in, and the fact that it was released just hours before the vote.

This was negotiated between Pelosi, McConnel and the whitehouse. The bill was not public to other members of congress to read and give feedback. There was no debate and amendments could not be offered.
Congress is broken because we've allowed the House Speaker and Senate Majority leader to use procedural rules to concentrate power in their hands. Congress was meant to be a deliberative body, not something run by only a few people in leadership of the majority party.

---

I agree with you; however, does the constitution lay those rules out or are the rules developed by each chamber?

---

They are procedural rules within each chamber. The constitution gives congress a lot of leeway on how to conduct it's own business. The next congress can change the rules back if leadership allows it to be voted on. Permanent reforms would require a constitutional amendment.

---

Correct. My point of asking was to point out the the Constitution gives a lot of freedom for each Chamber to set it rules.

By you saying that the chambers were meant to be deliberative body's is missing one key understanding. We are talking about Man and the failings of man. Men are power hungry! You will not change that failing of Man.

If we were truly following the Constitution, we would never (potentially) see these types of bills. Hopefully, Trump vetos this thing, as per his video last night, and we start over with the true context of the bill.

---

There is nothing in the constitution to prevent the sham legislative process we have right now.

Our government needs structural reforms to modernize. But those reforms should be pursued via constitutional amendment. The burden in passing an amendment is so high that it will ensure reform is bipartisan and largely fair

---

Our structure is perfectly fine. The problem is you, me, and everyone else. We keep electing these people. We need to work harder to elect new representatives.

It's easy to blame someone, something, or anything other than ourselves. Look at yourself first for change!

---

We are probably not going to agree on this, but our constitution, while revolutionary at its time, is showing its age. There is an amendment process for a reason and it should be used to pursue structural reforms to make our republic more representative and accountable

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

There are tons of issues with this bill because of how many different things were crammed in, and the fact that it was released just hours before the vote.

This was negotiated between Pelosi, McConnel and the whitehouse. The bill was not public to other members of congress to read and give feedback. There was no debate and amendments could not be offered.
Congress is broken because we've allowed the House Speaker and Senate Majority leader to use procedural rules to concentrate power in their hands. Congress was meant to be a deliberative body, not something run by only a few people in leadership of the majority party.

---

I agree with you; however, does the constitution lay those rules out or are the rules developed by each chamber?

---

They are procedural rules within each chamber. The constitution gives congress a lot of leeway on how to conduct it's own business. The next congress can change the rules back if leadership allows it to be voted on. Permanent reforms would require a constitutional amendment.

---

Correct. My point of asking was to point out the the Constitution gives a lot of freedom for each Chamber to set it rules.

By you saying that the chambers were meant to be deliberative body's is missing one key understanding. We are talking about Man and the failings of man. Men are power hungry! You will not change that failing of Man.

If we were truly following the Constitution, we would never (potentially) see these types of bills. Hopefully, Trump vetos this thing, as per his video last night, and we start over with the true context of the bill.

---

There is nothing in the constitution to prevent the sham legislative process we have right now.

Our government needs structural reforms to modernize. But those reforms should be pursued via constitutional amendment. The burden in passing an amendment is so high that it will ensure reform is bipartisan and largely fair

---

Our structure is perfectly fine. The problem is you, me, and everyone else. We keep electing these people. We need to work harder to elect new representatives.

It's easy to blame someone, something, or anything other than ourselves. Look at yourself first for change!

---

We are probably not going to agree on this, but our constitution, while revolutionary at its time, is showing its age. There is an amendment process for a reason and it should be used to pursue structural reforms to make our republic more representative and accountable

---

The amendment process is the proper place to make change; however, we have to be careful when we do. Remember, we created prohibition via the amendment process...

Also, think about the 17th amendment and how that changed our representative republic. I'm a big fan of keeping decisions as local as possible and allowing states to recall Senators that are not voting according to States rights. Our voice is heard when we elect our state representatives. If they don't do what we want, we vote them out. People will say: you can do the same thing with US Senators. My argument back is: it broadens the voter pool to a point where we lose local representation. This is probably too big of a debate in a forum...

IseWolf22 said:

---

We are probably not going to agree on this, but our constitution, while revolutionary at its time, is showing its age. There is an amendment process for a reason and it should be used to pursue structural reforms to make our republic more representative and accountable

---

DEFINITELY agree with this. I'm sorry, but times have changed since 1776. The Constitution, while an incredible document, allows for change and we are not taking advantage of this.

PackBacker07 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

We are probably not going to agree on this, but our constitution, while revolutionary at its time, is showing its age. There is an amendment process for a reason and it should be used to pursue structural reforms to make our republic more representative and accountable

---

DEFINITELY agree with this. I'm sorry, but times have changed since 1776. The Constitution, while an incredible document, allows for change and we are not taking advantage of this.

---

People always say that constitution is old, outdated, or times have changed. Those statements really mean something. What do those words mean?

I typically don't get the argument/debate as to why the constitution needs to be changed or even: those guys could have never imagined the change our country would see through things like technology, etc...

I would say: I disagree! They knew we would have significant change; however, they didn't know what it would be. So, the constitution is a structural document that gave the federal government few powers. I don't see anything wrong with that in today's world.

It's all the same stuff with just different media and means to do things. So, please tell us why this document needs to be changed...

Pacfanweb said:

---

The biggest change needed in our government is term limits.

This was not supposed to be a career, we're not supposed to have a ruling class.

Get them out of there. 1-2 terms, depending on what the office is, and lifetime ban on lobbying or any other job up there. Go home and resume whatever it was that you did
before getting elected. Enough of these people getting identified at a young age as a future elected official, being
"groomed" as such, then getting elected and staying in office 30-40 years without having actually held a legitimate job for any length of time outside government in their lives.

---

One other thing to consider...

Term limits would be great for our representatives; we should not forget about career federal, State, etc. employees. That is where the true swamp is. They have more power that you realize. The DOJ is a cesspool!

pineknollshoresking said:

---

PackBacker07 said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

We are probably not going to agree on this, but our constitution, while revolutionary at its time, is showing its age. There is an amendment process for a reason and it should be used to pursue structural reforms to make our republic more representative and accountable

---

DEFINITELY agree with this. I'm sorry, but times have changed since 1776. The Constitution, while an incredible document, allows for change and we are not taking advantage of this.

---

People always say that constitution is old, outdated, or times have changed. Those statements really mean something. What do those words mean?

I typically don't get the argument/debate as to why the constitution needs to be changed or even: those guys could have never imagined the change our country would see through things like technology, etc...

I would say: I disagree! They knew we would have significant change; however, they didn't know what it would be. So, the constitution is a structural document that gave the federal government few powers. I don't see anything wrong with that in today's world.

It's all the same stuff with just different media and means to do things. So, please tell us why this document needs to be changed...

---

Agreed. Today's world shows just how wise our founding fathers were.

Agree here as well. It might be the biggest issue facing our federal government today.

Mitch just blocked $2000

waynecountywolf said:

---

Mitch just blocked $2000

---

Why?

pineknollshoresking said:

---

waynecountywolf said:

---

Mitch just blocked $2000

---

Why?

---

Same reason Pelosi did for so long in the house, an election

He didn't block it. He blocked a quick vote though.

This is turning into a Bernie/McConnell showdown on the straight $2000 clean vote. Bernie is going to hold up the defense veto vote.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

waynecountywolf said:

---

Mitch just blocked $2000

---

Why?

---

Same reason Pelosi did for so long in the house, an election

---

Pelosi blocked what? Was there a bill passed in the senate that the house refused to vote on? Didn't the house pass a bill in May with a second stimulus check that Mitch refused to bring to a vote?

this is more confusing than a tennis match. My head is just going back and forth watching this **** lol

Looks like McConnell is playing what Trumps wants... let see if everyone will join in.

FlossyDFlynt


I have thoughts, but they are irrelevant. I wish more would recognize that neither side gives a **** about them


What is it that that one famous comedian said one time...oh yea!

"It'ss a big club and you ain't in it!"

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

pineknollshoresking said:

---

waynecountywolf said:

---

Mitch just blocked $2000

---

Why?

---

Same reason Pelosi did for so long in the house, an election

---

Pelosi blocked what? Was there a bill passed in the senate that the house refused to vote on? Didn't the house pass a bill in May with a second stimulus check that Mitch refused to bring to a vote?

---

From October 27th (Link)

Quote:

---

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ended any hopes of a Covid-19 relief bill before the Election Day, blaming the White House for failing "miserably" in a letter to House Democrats on Tuesday.

---

From today (Link)

Quote:

---

The Kentucky Republican later Tuesday introduced a bill that would boost the size of the checks to $2,000 from $600, repeal Section 230 legal liability protections for internet platforms and create a commission to study election issues. The bill would meet all of President Donald Trump's recent demands, which are unrelated, but would not get Democratic support and become law.

---

To translate - neither party gives one iota of a **** about the American public. Both are playing games while the people they represent suffer.

I have thoughts, but they are irrelevant. I wish more would recognize that neither side gives a **** about them

---

The first link is talking about negotiations between the WH and House. Regardless what they agreed upon, the senate still has to pass it. The House never blocked a bill passed by the Senate. The Senate has spent the pass 9 months refusing to join the negotiations.

The second link is the Republican party playing games while the people they represent suffer.

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

The House passed bills they knew wouldn't get looked at in the Senate. Prior to the election, the House bill was enormous and the Senate wanted something smaller. I guess they'd couldn't come to an agreement...

That being said, it is documented that Nancy stalled till after the election < her words, not mine...

Games are going to be played, as they should. Passing a bill was never meant to be rubber stamped all the way through the process.

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

pineknollshoresking said:

---

Ground_Chuck said:

---

FlossyDFlynt said:

---

Just assume both parties are acting in self interest and youll never be wrong

---

House votes on $2,000 stimulus checks after Trump signs relief bill (cnbc.com)

Democrats passed a clean bill; Republican refuse to vote on it.

The parties are not the same.

---

McConnel now wants to give Trump a win. He is asking for the bill to include: section 230 changes and an election review. Nancy needs to get everyone to sign on to this. She got all the forts around the country to change the names in the last bill.

She won, now it's time for McConnell to win!

---

This is just a poison pill. Repeal of section 230 without any replacement legislation is an absolute disaster that won't pass either chamber.