Multicolored Lemur

Well-known member
Atheist / Agnostic
Nov 23, 2021
722
265
If we go way back at look at the history of the Republican Party—

First there was the Liberty Party, then there was the Free Soil Party. Those had maybe some small effect. But it kept the issue of ending slavery alive, or at least stopping the expansion of slavery.

And then in a matter of weeks or months, the Republican Party came together and became the majority party.

* Maybe 6 years, from the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 to the election of Lincoln in 1860
 
Last edited:
Immigration is the dominant issue of our time.

If the “Middle of the Road” Party wins on immigration, if it has a comfortable majority of 280 or 290 members, none of this 218 or 219 stuff.

It might be able to win on other issues has well.

* This is my name for a potential new party.
 
_132993637_gettyimages-2081424284.jpg



‘ . . . As the House of Representatives was voting to approve a $1.2tn (£950bn) spending package that would avert a partial government shutdown at midnight, the Georgia Republican filed a "motion to vacate".

‘If she takes the next step and formally introduces the measure, the House could vote on Mr Johnson's fate within days. . .’

————————

This was Friday 5 days ago, so it’s probably not going to gain traction. But this is the kind of thing, that next time, let’s start a new party.

========================


images


I think this is Boebert and Greene heckling Biden from like 2 years ago. It’s like a high school basketball game.

It’s also not serious.

I think some people become interested mainly in the Internet clicks.
 
I think this is Boebert and Greene heckling Biden from like 2 years ago. It’s like a high school basketball game.
I don't think those two are friends anymore. Greene actually called Boebert a "little b*tch" on the house floor. Unless they were both drunk girls, that might be the end of their little sorority.
Immigration is the dominant issue of our time.

If the “Middle of the Road” Party wins on immigration,
I hear ya! I think Washington needs to change on even a more fundamental level. Their behavior (voting) is largely influenced on maintaining power (getting reelected or keeping their party in power) and money. We need to come up with policy that would take away from that, like having term limits and having transparency when it comes to their money earnings, make it easy for other parties to be on the ballot, etc.

Yes, your Middle of the Road party, would be a solution for that but I think we need to do more. Right now, I feel like the system is rigged, and it's not in the favor of ordinary Americans.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
transparency when it comes to their money earnings
Maybe require that investments held during their years in Congress be in a blind trust, managed by Fidelity or Vanguard or other highly reputable firm ? ?

To the goal of transparency, I often add “rapid-cycle feedback.”

PS I hope Boebert and Greene have patched things up. They make a fun dynamic duo!
 

“The final nail in the Whig coffin was the Kansas–Nebraska Act, passed by Democrats in 1854. It was also the spark that began the Republican Party, which would take in both Whigs and Free Soilers and create an anti-slavery party that the Whigs had always resisted becoming. The Act opened Kansas Territory and Nebraska Territory to slavery and future admission as slave states, thus implicitly repealing the prohibition on slavery in territory north of 36 degree 30 minute latitude that had been part of the Missouri Compromise. This change was viewed by anti-slavery Northerners as an aggressive, expansionist maneuver by the slave-owning South.”

==========

Okay, so this Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 sounds like a complete repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and a complete capitulation to the pro-Expansion forces.

I wish Northerners had been against slavery root and branch. But they seemed mostly against the expansion of slavery.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AgnosticBoy
term limits
My problem is that we are then going to have essentially amateurs trying to regulate Big Tech or Big Pharma.

I favor a rule that if someone, for example, serves on the Senate Banking Committee, they can’t work for a major bank until 3 yrs after being on that committee. And believe it or not, I think three years might actually be enough.
 
term limits
My problem is that we are then going to have essentially amateurs trying to regulate Big Tech or Big Pharma.
IN some cases, it may actually be the aides doing most of the work just as former President Trump, having probably never read a full policy proposal (it's been reported that he at times reads the first and last few pages), had his advisors informing him what to do. Each elected member of congress have staff, and from reading about each role it reminds me of the advisors/cabinet members for the president. Here are some of the congressional staff titles and their roles:

Legislative Assistant (General): Handles issues outside the Member’s priority areas; briefs Member on votes and hearings; staffs Member at hearings; meets with constituents; answers constituent mail;
prepares speeches and record statements.

Legislative Assistant (Priority): Same duties as General Issues LA, but handles Member’s priority issues (committee, district or mission related);
develops legislation and strategies for legislative priorities; staffs Member at mark-ups and hearings.

Legislative Correspondent:
Researches and writes legislative correspondence; conducts legislative research; assists Legislative Assistants as needed.

Legislative Director:
Establishes legislative agenda; directs legislative staff; serves as resource person for LAs; briefs Member on all legislative matters; reviews constituent mail.
Source: https://www.congressfoundation.org/...e/85/136-job-descriptions-house-office-sample

My idea of term limits would involve the Congress members being able to hold office only for 2 terms, and if they wanted to stay longer, then they can become aides and advisors. And of course, all of existing congressional aides can stay around indefinitely. I also thought about this issue when asking myself how would an ordinary citizen, like you and I, fare as a US president. I think the same point applies where we'd have to rely on aides and advisors to inform us before making a decision.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur
I also thought about this issue when asking myself how would an ordinary citizen, like you and I, fare as a US president.
You’re sincere and bright, and you’d do fine provided that—

Your views are generally centrist.

You have experience, preferably as a governor,

you have a team and know who to call to get a world-class expert in just one additional phone call on — picking 2 random issues — on Syria and your the best estimate of how much a surge in oil prices would led to a bump in inflation, a number estimate. And these issues are only loosely connected because Syria is not a major oil producer.

And probably several other unofficial qualifications! :)
 
You’re sincere and bright, and you’d do fine provided that—

Your views are generally centrist.

You have experience, preferably as a governor,

you have a team and know who to call to get a world-class expert in just one additional phone call on — picking 2 random issues — on Syria and your the best estimate of how much a surge in oil prices would led to a bump in inflation, a number estimate. And these issues are only loosely connected because Syria is not a major oil producer.

And probably several other unofficial qualifications! :)
That is too much praise. Thanks! I just want to be better than Trump and prove that anyone can do it, nowadays.😝
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Multicolored Lemur