Republicans win Senate Majority - Democrats win House

Jump to Last Post 1-13 of 13 discussions (141 posts)
  1. Ken Burgess profile image89
    Ken Burgessposted 2 years ago

    Trump has solidified his support in the Senate, the Rino politicians like Flake and McCain are gone, and Republicans now hold a solid majority that cannot be compromised by a rogue vote.
    The Democrats have taken control of the house, so all investigations, budgets, and lawmaking will be under their control.  What will they do with that power?
    Democrats can spend their time investigating, instigating, and delaying anything Trump tries to accomplish.  Healthcare reform is now dead, the Wall is now dead, nothing of benefit for the American people will get done in the next two years as political grandstanding will commence enroute to the 2020 elections.
    Florida will remain under Republican control, Ohio will remain under Republican control, two states that will decide the 2020 election more than any others. 
    How wise do you think the Democrats in the House will be... will they go for Impeachment or will they go for the win in 2020?

    1. profile image0
      Hxprofposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Ah,but the gross tide of liberal policy making will still be some years away.

    2. profile image0
      Hxprofposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      To answer the question.....they'll go for victory in 2020.

    3. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      It would be wise for the the Democrats to avoid using impeachment in a partisan fashion, but use their power to moderate the Trump agenda and his proposals.

      With the congress no longer dominated by the GOP, that removes Trump's carte Blanche and that is good enough for me now. We are certainly working to make Trump a one term president in the way Mc Connell intimidated Obama during his first term.

      It was exciting to see that arrogant Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin have his head handed to him last night....

      1. RJ Schwartz profile image89
        RJ Schwartzposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        not sure if I'd call a victory by 1% of the vote, a "head handing" but nevertheless it's still a win for your side.  I'm hearing that they are going to have a recount due to "damaged ballots" - not sure what that refers to, but seems like a waste of money.

        1. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          The difference between the Senate race and that of the Governor of Florida is less than 1/2 of a percent, a recall is mandated and I certainly insist upon it, RJ. I live here and I am watching intently for any improprieties.

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Then you must be really focused on Broward county Cred. Even without the extreme partisan claims, it is a controversial situation.

            GA

    4. Sharlee01 profile image85
      Sharlee01posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Just my gut feeling...I think they have gone too far to turn back. Actually, I don't think they have the sense to turn back. One only has to look at their history. Yes, they will continue their hysterical rhetoric, maybe even shift into overdrive.  Will they stop president Trump from accomplishing more of his agenda? No, they won't. Will they have a chance in 2020 of taking the WH, no they won't. So, will they go for impeachment, yes they will. However, Trump now has the Senate, and the fact is to impeach they need 2/3 of the Senate to impeach him. Will, they ever get 2/3 of the vote to impeach Trump, no they won't. Not sure why some of the pundits don't bring this up?    ( Being sarcastic..)

      It appears many are under the opinion Trump may be stymied by a Congress that blocks whatever he proposes. One must just think beyond Congress and their approval. Would it not be a great accomplishment to see North Korea denuclearize? Would it not be wonderful to have our trade wars behind us, coming up the winner. And yes, Trump promised to improve our immigration laws, perhaps he will. I would think another conservative judge on the Supreme Court would be a nice feather inTrump's hat. So, will the Dems owning the House and having the power of Congress gain them the presidency in 2020?  I very much doubt it.

    5. crankalicious profile image94
      crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Ken,

      You should be thrilled by the election outcome because it means Trump will be re-elected in 2020. Here's what's going to happen. The Democrats will be painted as obstructionists, which they will be. Trump will malign them and everyone will believe it. Lacking any coherent message, the Dems will enter the 2020 election with nothing. They will be handily defeated.

      That's my guess. They simply can't counter Trump's powerful ability to control the media. They will flail with their anti-Trumpism and go nowhere.

  2. profile image0
    PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago

    Democrats will focus on protecting health care, Medicare, and Social Security; getting consensus on an infrastructure bill; lowering the cost of prescription drugs; and last but not least,  oversight of a corrupt administration. Impeachment will not be on the table unless it becomes a bipartisan endeavor.

    A reason to celebrate: a record number of women in both houses, mostly Democrats.

    Last comment: Gillum came very close becoming the first black Governor of Florida. That is real progress and we'll keep on working!

    1. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Beto O'Rourke, a man with a spirit dear to my heart within the Dark Star known as Texas almost removed the unlikable Ted Cruz. The fact that a Democrat came so close in crimson red Texas may be a harbinger for better things to come

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Yes! And Abrams in Georgia is hanging on by a thtead. These are all positive signs for the future.

        Also, if you look at total votes cast in the Senate races, Democrats won handily. That bodes well for 2020.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I would hope that depends on the candidate that they put forward and the platform they present.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Sure, but you know it's highly unlikely I would view anyone likely to get the D nomination as a worse choice than Trump and his delicate ego.

      2. Ken Burgess profile image89
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I think you hit on the key there, he was a far more charismatic fellow than Cruz could ever hope to be.

        The fact that a warchest of cash was given over to his campaign from outside the state didn't hurt either.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Texas will end up going liberal.  The state is (sadly) moving towards an urban environment for most of it's people, and with that comes liberalism and a dependency on government.  It may take a few years, but Texas will no longer be the place of ranches and farmers; it will be just another concrete jungle.

        2. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I hear you Ken, but lets not forget that the GOP uses the same techniques, so no one is innocent here. We will turn Texas blue, yet!!!

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            That I do not doubt.  Texas is joining the states with giant concrete rat mazes for it's people, and with that comes the color of sadness and despair.

            Ever wonder why rural areas don't go blue?  Why is it only those steel and concrete jungles with their masses of humanity living like bacteria on a petri dish that turn blue? 

            "Money is the root of all evil" - is it because they are so much richer relative to rural dwellers?  Is it that innate desire to control others that we all have, but rural people don't display?  Is it because they're too lazy to take responsibility for themselves?  Is it because they've lost all sense of morality and require a government committee to declare right from wrong?

            Why is it only giant cities that typically go blue?  An interesting question.

            1. Credence2 profile image82
              Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Interesting question, but what choice do people have? This is far from an agrarian economy. People have to go where the jobs are. Who remains in the vast wilderness these days? The younger people have to go to the cities to earn their way. So you basically have older retired people that have the luxury of living in the open spaces. Because they are older and set in a pattern, they are going to lean more conservative than most.

              People who work in cities and urban environments are not lazy, but it is not "American Gothic". Everybody is busy, outside of the welfare stereotype, people work hard in these "urban" environment to support themselves and their families.

              What morality? This is a complex world with complex problems and the America that you reminisce about simply no longer exists. In the face of the modern world, it cannot.

              People in urban areas know that they have coexist to make it work. In Denver, I was not allowed to water my lawn on certain days, burn wood on other days, and have to obtain a "clean air" emissions tag for my car.  We all simply could not do what we wanted or we would all exacerbate commonly shared problems. Who has to worry about that in Burlington, Colorado or Boise Idaho?

              Rural people have prerogatives that Urban people don't have nor understand and appreciate. I have lived in both environments. This a cultural and political difference.

              1. Readmikenow profile image97
                Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I agree with you.  I have lived in large cities and very small communities.  I prefer rural life.  My other relatives wouldn't stay out to where I live because they don't want to be in any place but an urban environment. Rural communities and urban communities tend to look at things a bit different.  The rural people I know believe in being independent.  The urban people seem to have a sense of "we're all in this together...all for one and one for all."  You are right about the cultural and political differences.

                1. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Mike, to be honest with you I preferred the life outside the city, crowds, noise, rules about everything, etc. If it were not for my wife's preferences, I would live in just such a place, now that I need not be concerned about being gainfully employed there. But, we are semi-rural, we have deer in the area, while the Walmart is 15 minutes away.

              2. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Didn't ask why they live there - the question was why only large urban settings go blue.

                "Everybody is busy, outside of the welfare stereotype, people work hard in these "urban" environment to support themselves and their families. "

                I understand that.  But I was thinking more about 2 earner parents where kids have no real upbringing.  There are far more requirements to living than simply providing food and a roof, and city dwellers typically delegate those to government.

                "What morality? This is a complex world with complex problems and the America that you reminisce about simply no longer exists. In the face of the modern world, it cannot."

                Again, I gave no judgements as to the morality of either people.  Only that city dwellers do not typically make their own; they require a committee in the bowels of City Hall to do it for them.

                "In Denver, I was not allowed to water my lawn on certain days, burn wood on other days, and have to obtain a "clean air" emissions tag for my car."

                LOL  Boise area has irrigation canals from the 1800's for water, so irrigation is seldom a problem.  But I can't burn anytime in city limits and require an emissions inspection as well (even got a notice to get one for my Chevy Volt - an electric car smile )

                "Rural people have prerogatives that Urban people don't have nor understand and appreciate. I have lived in both environments."

                This, I think, is the root of the question...but what are those prerogatives (from both) that the other does not have.  That is what I'm asking - what is different about the two that causes cities to go blue, but not towns, villages or farms?  Is it because the city has too many people, too close together, to get along without a giant set of laws covering everything imaginable?  Is that the #1 priority in the city - simply to get along with each other when crammed too close together, while the smaller town doesn't need that at all?

                I really wonder about that one.  Example: I haven't lived in a lot of different communities, but have noted that all the new ones in cities (Boise area) have HOA's.  And one huge one in Va. did as well.  As the city grew, people wanted more and more to control their neighbors and HOA's took over.  Small towns, on the other hand, don't have them at all.  People crowded too close together to get along without the law making rules.

                1. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  People crowded too close together to get along without the law making rules....

                  Well in most cities there are ordinances. There a couple, one dealing with noise past 10pm for one, that had to become an ordinance because people living in close proximity were rude and inconsiderate with stereo equipment. You need a city ordinance requiring people to leash their dogs, otherwise people in close proximity could get hurt.

                  People that live in rural areas a mile apart do not need such rules. By the way, I hate HCAs. Rural Hawaii allowed people to build rock walls surrounding their homes and property, try that in your standard subdivision.

                  Libs support rules and regs because people could not coexist without ordinances defining behavior that would be irrelevant in most Idaho counties, just as one example. In big cities the rules are necessary.

                  The idea of collective fate is part and parcel of Democratic ideas.

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Well, they are in small towns, too.  But it is the big cities that have 5 times as many.  Does that build into using government for everything possible?  Is it that plethora of laws (most of which should not be necessary, but often are) that becomes the entitlement society, with no responsibility for self?  Those ARE the two primary objectives of the blue community - is it the result of so many people that they cannot live in harmony without hard and fast rules building into government controlling everything?

            2. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I agree Wilderness, that is an interesting question. It would probably be a good thread topic.

              GA

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                So theorize!  Give with a talking point for discussion - most of what has been given has concerned who lives in cities, not why they vote blue.  Give us a thought on the "whys" of rural vs urban voting habits to discuss.

                1. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Okay bud, here's a thought - It's all about individual responsibility.

                  Here's my explanation: Why Do Metropolitan Areas Usually Vote Blue And Rural Areas Vote Red?

                  *didn't want to be a party to you and Cred's hijacking of the thread. ;-)

                  GA

      3. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image91
        Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I voted against him. I don't know a single Hispanic in Texas who did vote for him. Mexican Americans don't appreciate being played for fools by someone who may as well be a white Obama.

    2. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I am not as optimistic about the Democrat House as you are PrettyPanther. I see a Democrat version of the Republican Obstructionism in the Obama years as a more likely outcome.

      But, like you, I am glad to see the record number of women legislator wins - regardless of their party affiliation.

      GA

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        We can hope for better, but you might be right.

        Edit: First election ever where white men were not the majority of Democratic candidates for the House.

      2. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I fully agree.  I highly doubt that the election of Trump has taught anyone anything - partisanship has grown, not dropped.  Congress just became a cement block, unable to do anything at all.

        I see immigration reform as dead, any form of health care change as dead and very little infrastructure work being done.  Pelosi touts that Democrats will be bi-partisan and work to accomplish things, but the only thing she will work on is to disable anything that the white house supports, whether needed or not.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this



          I see the situation as improved actually.

          In the Senate, they now have a legitimate Majority, which they did not have the last two years, as we saw when McCain torpedoed efforts at healthcare reform and Flake almost torpedoed the Cavanaugh vote.

          When you have Republicans like those two, that are nothing more than 'establishment' politicians who have no loyalty to the party or their constituents who put them there, you don't have a majority.

          It was the same with the House, those Republicans that resigned or lost last night spent more time obstructing than getting things done.

          So let the Dems have it, lets see where they take things... I can tell you what all the moderates and independents DON'T want to see the Democrats wasting their time on during the next two years... Impeachments and Investigations.

      3. Jean Bakula profile image95
        Jean Bakulaposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I hope the Democrats use their win to do better, and not to be obstructionists. At the least maybe they can compromise on infrastructure, that's pretty neutral. And the people spoke loudly about health care being their main concern. Obstructionism wastes everyone's time, we saw 8 yrs. of it when the R's never expected Obama to win the 2nd term.

        Bravo for all the women, both parties. It's about time! It's been a white man's country for, well, always. And these women were so qualified. At least our governing people are finally beginning to look like the ones who they represent. Too many older men who held offices for many terms got complacent.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Lets see if the leadership in the House improves under the guidance of Pelosi, Waters, and their sisterhood.

          Or will it just be more of a circus, a fiasco, where the only thing they prove is that they can be as equally corrupt and callous to the needs of our citizens as any man.

          1. crankalicious profile image94
            crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Sadly, Ken, I think it will be the latter - not so much corruption, but a lack of direction. Or a direction that just makes everyone mad.

        2. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I think it will be a predictable two years Jean. There will be no "neutral" issues, even infrastructure. I can be hopeful I am wrong, but not optimistically so.

          GA

      4. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I don't trust Republicans and I do not want them to freely legislate solely without some sort of restraint.

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          I think you will soon see your desired restraint Cred. And I also think it will look very familiar.

          GA

    3. Readmikenow profile image97
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      PP, Do you have any idea of the agenda Gillim was proposing?  He would have destroyed Florida like Hugo Chavez destroyed Venezuela.  You really should rethink identity politics.

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Medicare expansion via ACA. That hasn't destroyed my state or any other state that I'm aware of.

        He is pro-science, supporting basing decisions about how to deal with climate change on available science instead of politics. Would that destroy Florida?

        He wanted to shift more money to education. I guess that would really destroy Florida, eh?

        As for identity politics I don't know what you're talking about. Noting and being happy for greater diversity in government should be pretty universal I would think. Are you opposed to diversity in government?

        And please don't accuse me of supporting a candidate because they are black, female, purple, or teptile. I support candidates based on their positions. It so happens that I closely align with Democratic policies and it so happens that Democrats fielded a diverse group of candidates in the midterms. I am pleased. Why would anyone not be pleased about that?

  3. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    Credence , Prettypanther , Could have saved a lot of space and just said  "YEEaaa! For free Stuff !"

    1. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I know, that caravan is a greater threat than losing your health care, Medicare, or SS or not being able to afford your meds.

      That irrational fear mongering only works on people like you, Ed. The rest of us realize what issues truly affect our daily lives and long-term well being.

      1. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        No, Panther, that's "Mr Ed".

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          big_smile

  4. IslandBites profile image88
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    Including the youngest woman to Congress, first muslim women to congress, first native american women to congress. Plus a number of "first woman to" from different states.

    Also, the first openly gay man governor.

    A celebration indeed.

    1. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      All Democrats, too.

    2. Ken Burgess profile image89
      Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this



      Will be a great day when we no longer break things down into black, white, man, woman, muslim, jew, etc.   I probably won't live long enough to see that day, but it sure would be nice.

      I guess politics in America wouldn't be able to exist without such efforts to divide.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        My thoughts exactly.  When issues and philosophy are more important than gender it will be a great day.

        Sadly, I highly doubt that either of us will see that day.

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Lol, you two will not recognize that systemic power entrenched in one demographic must be consciously pushed against. An inert object stays inert....

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I went through Affirmative Action, with it's government sponsored and required racism.

            You may like voting for a specific sex, race or religion rather than a philosophy or issue; I find it a travesty.

            1. hard sun profile image84
              hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I like seeing women and minorities win office as it just seems correct. I mean ,not that long ago these groups could not even vote. At the same time, I'm not big on affirmative action either. I vote for who I think is the best man or woman for the job, whether white, brown, etc. It's just starting to look like many of these old white guys lost their mojo when other groups started moving in. It SHOULD make for better candidates all the way around.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                I like seeing both the numbers running, and the numbers winning.  It indicates a change in our society of how we view women, IMO.  My only concern is the insinuation that a woman won...because she is a woman, for that indicates nothing but additional division.

                Now if we could only extend the same attitudes to religion...

                1. hard sun profile image84
                  hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Right...like an atheist President...that's not happening anytime soon no matter how qualified he or she may be.

                2. profile image0
                  PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  There was no such insinuation, except in your imagination.

                  1. IslandBites profile image88
                    IslandBitesposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Thank you.

            2. profile image0
              PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Well, that was a leap. I don't vote for a specific sex, race or religion and your making that leap when I said no such thing shows you're not interested in a real discussion but an ideological showdown.

            3. Ken Burgess profile image89
              Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this



              It is a travesty, this is what politics has become... and I think it is a deliberate thing fostered by the media, the politicians, and even many of our 'higher learning' institutions.

              I don't think our current politicians try to address the issues with real solutions or platforms near as much as they try to slander the other side as racist, sexist, etc. and the media is no different.

              I would love to listen to JFK give a speech rather than listen to Trump argue with the media... the reporters ask him the most infantile or loaded questions and he responds in kind, as if they were all kids on a playground arguing over something stupid.

              But our politics are where they are, because the politicians no longer served the people.. .they serve corporations, they serve special interests, they serve international interests over the American people.

              And that's how we get Trump, because instead of stomaching someone we knew was corrupt and was willing to sell out the American people, enough Americans chose the alternative, no matter how abrasive and obtuse he can be.

              1. hard sun profile image84
                hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Some Americans chose an abrasive guy who sells out the American people to make a buck on a daily basis through violations of the emoluments clause, dividing our country on purpose, etc etc. Most Americans still don't support Trump..just look at the raw numbers of Tuesday's elections.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  You do realize that every president with a single share of stock in a single internationally operating company has also violated that clause?

                  1. Ken Burgess profile image89
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I would contend the people don't care about that either way, what they care about is their lives being improved, their kids having opportunity, and being able to walk throughout the neighborhood in safety.

                    Russian Collusion, Tax Returns, this crud only matters to the D.C. elites and the idiotic media that lives and breaths such stupidity. 

                    If in two years, the average wage for 'blue collar' workers in America is $14.00 an hour and unemployment is at 3.9% and yet prior to 2016 the average wage for them was $9.00 an hour and unemployment was twice that with no let up in sight... that should be what matters most, not whether the idiots that want to see his taxes have gotten them or not.

        2. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Why is it always white men bent out of shape about identity politics and women and minorities winning office and people celebrating that?

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Couldn't really say.  Maybe because women and minorities see society as "groups" more than white men do?  Because they identify with one (or more) groups more than white men do - white men are more blind to that sort of thing than women and minorities are, and don't care what group a person identifies with?

            1. crankalicious profile image94
              crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              Oh, right. Except when they are hiring. All data suggests that is when it makes a huge difference to white men.

              Seriously, I would laugh at your comment if it weren’t so sad.

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Well, frankly, it was intended as a sarcastic retort to an obnoxious post.

                But, as a white male myself, it does sadden me to see cheering when a specific sub-group of Americans wins a seat.  When people are happy that a woman, for instance, is elected - without regard to her political or philosophical stance, without caring what she stands for or will fight for, only that she is female - it says something sad about our society.  Sex, race, assumed gender, sexual orientation, age - none of these things should matter at all, and it is sad that they do matter to so many people.

                And it makes no difference whether those people are white male, black female, purple transgender or green and gay - it is still sad.

                1. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Sure, easy to say when you’re a white male. If you’re one of these other groups, you have probably experienced years of discrimination, so not so easy to just forget and try to hope everyone is just going to be fair suddenly.

                  Let me just use one easy example - equal pay for equal work. Still doesn’t exist. Women make what, 73 cents for each dollar a man makes? Blacks and black women make even less.

                  I am happy for you that you are so noble in your outlook. I only wish others were the same.

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "Women make what, 73 cents for each dollar a man makes?"

                    Check your figures again: women make around 95 cents on the dollar that men do for the same work.  Still not perfect, but a far, far cry from that 73 cents.  Of course if you declare that jobs are "similar" because it promotes that false-to-fact myth, the story is quite different; you could as easily show that women make 50 cents per dollar.  Or about any figure you might choose.  Or if you add up all the jobs in the country for both men and women, neglecting to mention that women tend to congregate in lower paying jobs...as a choice not a requirement...you can come up with that ridiculous figure.

                    https://www.prageru.com/videos/there-no-gender-wage-gap

      2. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Ah, but it is an effort to include, not divide.

      3. Credence2 profile image82
        Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

        No you won't live long enough and I won't either.

        We are already divided, it is not broken down by race but by policies of one party verses the other. The conservative, white dominated party, Republicans want to maintain the status quo, that keep whites, generally in the drivers seat. I, as the underdog, am duty bound to break up that power and influence. Of course, you are going to resist, it is natural.

        For example, black families earn ON AVERAGE $57.30 for every $100.00 in income from white families according to the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey as part of a 2017 NYT article. For every $100.00 in white family wealth, black families hold $5.04.

        When that disparity ceases to be as stark, perhaps we would get on board with the Status Quo as well. In the meantime, we agitate for continued changes, as we must. When it comes to the GOP and their policies, not even income is a much a determinant for how 'blacks" will vote. Oprah will vote the same as the poorest inner city resident.

        Since the founding of this republic OUR existence centers around agitation for change, and when I look at the political allegiance of other ethnic groups, I see much of that there as well. The vast majority of our folks simply cannot vote for your candidates, no more than chickens will vote for Colonel Sanders, regardless of candidates in blackface or whatever spin the GOP chooses to use.

        But not to worry, the demographic game changer may not be so significant because we know that in America money and power can compensate for greater numbers. This is why without any major upheavals the Anglo based system will be safe through this century at a minimum.

    3. Readmikenow profile image97
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Identity politics is alive and well in the Democrat party.  Just focus on gender, race, age etc. Completely forget who will do the best job.  That doesn't appear to be important.

      1. crankalicious profile image94
        crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Again, easy for you to say as a white male always getting the benefit of the doubt.

  5. profile image0
    Ed Fisherposted 2 years ago

    What BS ,  come on people .  Look at the conciliatory conversations here yesterday and last night I was almost sickened by the syrupy  sweetness of the left ," .......compromises , cross the aisle ,  bi-partisan ,........ please !     The left in America fully admitted their intentions for America in the last four years and in doing so have revealed their hatred of all things American , AND you wonder why the movement of true Americans elected Trump ?   

    The outsider Trump has suffered no less than a tyrannical political obstruction from the left , actual violence against his following , a maniacal news media so twisted in integrity as to render free speech all but useless , death threats , powdered substances in their mail ,
    all but ignored by the media ,and now the leftists here swing towards a conciliatory stance as they realize their blue Tsunami was but a purple puddle of ideological manure ?

    Trump will continue his policies towards  the glow in the sky of that which America should be and away from what Venezuela was .
    In spite of the liberal christmas list of entitlements , The present liberal scare tactics of ending SS , welfare , abortions and medicare /caid  is so lame as to make the stanchest conservatives laugh .

    He who thinks democrats will NOW focus on a platform is funny , full on Obstruction is the game of the day , make no mistake . BUT watch as Trump laughs at P.C.pick up lines and continues his quest towards the strengths of nationalism instead of OWO , towards a thriving economy and not Obamastagnation ,  towards  "jobs and not mobs".

  6. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    I think President Donald Trump and the Republicans had a good night.

    1. There was no blue wave.  That was talked about for months and months and didn't happen.

    2. Republicans lost the house. Not surprising. 43 Republican congressmen retired.  It is a common thing to happen in the mid term elections.  During Obama's first mid term the Democrats lost over 60 seats in the Congress and lost the Senate.

    3. Republicans increased their control in the Senate This is huge.  There is now nothing the Democrats can do to stop appointment of judges on the federal level.  This will have an impact for many years.

    4. Now the Democratic controlled Congress can be blamed for obstructing. Great.

    5. Almost all of the places where President Donald Trump campaigned the candidates won.    This is huge for the national election in 2020.

    6. Impeachment? Ho hum. Even if the Congress the votes to impeach, President Donald Trump will be put on trial in the Senate.  It won't go anywhere and will make the Democrats look pretty pathetic.

    So, all in all, a good night for Republicans.

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image73
      JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      In REALITY, we did experience a Blue Wave where congress was flipped from Red to BLUE by 28 seats which means we now thank God have a CHECK on the oval office insanity but don't worry right wingers, Donald can still continue to do serious damage to the USA but now at least the DEMS can mitigate it:

      1. profile image0
        Hxprofposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        In REALITY, we did experience a Red Wall where the senate in which the Senate was preserved, which means we thank God will have a CHECK on the leftist agenda of the House. It's unlikely, left wingers, that the leftist agenda can do serious damage to the USA while the Senate is still Red.

        1. Wesman Todd Shaw profile image91
          Wesman Todd Shawposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Absolutely. I couldn't be any more thankful for that. No antifa USA any time soon.

  7. Kenna McHugh profile image91
    Kenna McHughposted 2 years ago

    I like your take on the election.

    1. Readmikenow profile image97
      Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      In reality, 43 Republican congressman retired.  Since historic statistics have shown that incumbents win over 96 percent of the time, if these RINOs and never-trumpers would have stayed and run for office, add 43 seats to the Republicans.  They would have easily maintained control of the house.  So, it was a good night.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image89
        Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        Good point.  Probably would have maintained the majority.

        But it wasn't worth much when they weren't really Conservatives or willing to do what the people voted them there to do.

        1. Readmikenow profile image97
          Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          That is true. But it is a bit disconcerting to see who will be heading up the different committees.  Maxine Waters? Could be trouble.

          1. JAKE Earthshine profile image73
            JAKE Earthshineposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            Trouble for Mr. Trump that is:

          2. Ken Burgess profile image89
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            I suspect that it will be.
            When you put the criminally insane in charge, its not likely that good will come out of it.
            But I suspect this was planned for, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
            Even more interestingly, we will see how America reacts to it in 2020.

            1. Readmikenow profile image97
              Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              The Democrats have a golden opportunity to turn things their way.  This means they will screw it up in a major way.  I imagine the approval rating of the Congress will plummet to levels even lower than under Obama. This may prove to be a huge benefit for President Donald Trump when he runs for reelection in 2020.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image89
                Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                If the Democrats show restraint, accomplish something they can hang their hat on (Infrastructure, Healthcare) and leave Trump to his tweets not responding in kind, they likely would have the 'blue wave' they seek if they produce a solid Presidential hopeful in 2020.

                I find it hard to believe that the likes of Pelosi and Waters will play it this wisely, bide their time, and forget all about investigating and impeaching.

                I believe they will try to one-up Trump, create a very hostile and public debate with him.  Try to 'dress him down' in the political and public arena, while at the same time failing to get anything positive done.

                Should this prove out, that the Democrats can't control themselves and prove over the next two years to care only about tearing down Trump, I doubt the majority of American people will respond favorably to it in 2020.

                In 2017 and 2018 the emphasis was on the Republicans to get things done for the people, they deliberately failed at it.  McCain went against his promises, killing the reform.  And the Republicans in the House (Ryan and the rest) chose to resign, rather than accomplish more for the people.

                They showed what they really were, corporate bought hacks or worse.  And now those obstructionists are out of office.

                Hopefully these long tenured Democrats (Pelosi, Waters, etc.) show their true colors, show who they really work for, and by exposing themselves they too, get tossed out of Congress or are forced to resign.  Then maybe we will finally have enough people in there willing to work for the best interests of the people rather than working for their own profit.

                1. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  Our politics are different Ken, but this is exactly what I think the Dems will do too - screw it up.

  8. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    His increase in taxes would drive many companies and people away from the state.  That would decrease the tax revenue, but the tax obligations would remain.  Florida would become California II. Lots of resources, but extremely unattractive to companies.  Florida has no state income tax, he suggested they have a state income tax.  If you don't learn from Venezuela, you will become Venezuela or California.

    Read how California is being taxed into oblivion.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasdelb … 3f1a136bdb

    1. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I.stopped reading when the author referred to California as "impoverished." California currently has a budget surplus and is on track to have billions in savings for use in future recessions.

    2. profile image0
      Hxprofposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Even if Gillum were to win on recount here in Florida, the Republican legislature would keep him in check, so he wouldn't get the 40% tax increase he so dearly wants to impose.  That  balance could change over the next 4 years however.

  9. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    How about from the Orange County Register?  In California, the rich are very rich and the poor are very poor. 

    "These struggles are systemic, and California’s ruling political class, relishing the privileges of one-party rule, don’t have a workable program for solving them. Ambitious and comfortable, they’re convinced they’ve created a sort of paradise outside the reach of President Trump and the sorts of people who put him in office. But the dreams are running on unsustainable and unreliable gains among an elite that’s already looking well beyond Sacramento — toward Washington, D.C. — for its next trillion dollars. When the inevitable downturn comes, whether from outside forces or irresponsible bloat in the state, California’s big economy will face a hard fall."

    https://www.ocregister.com/2018/06/05/h … es-a-fall/

    1. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      I am certainly no expert on California's economy, but I am not surprised there would be a huge divide between the rich and the poor, since that divide exists nationwide despite that booming economy Trump takes credit for. It might even be more pronounced in California, I don't know. But you can't deny that Jerry Brown balanced the budget and left the California economy in significantly better shape than it was eight years ago when Schwarrzenegger left.

      1. Readmikenow profile image97
        Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I have a friend who lives in Orange County California.  He works in the finance field.  My friend believes there is a huge recession coming to California and there is not a financial structure in place that can absorb it. Remember that Venezuela was at one time a very wealthy country.  They have some of the largest oil reserves in the world.  Socialism, taking money from wealthy people and companies ruined it.  They quickly learned that wealthy companies and people go to where they can make money.  I'm glad the same won't happen to Florida.

        1. profile image0
          PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          Okay, your friend's prediction is noted.

  10. hard sun profile image84
    hard sunposted 2 years ago

    Here's an older but good story that showcases why so many people live in the cities these days. I can afford an urban farm but these family "owned" corporate farms make it hard to make a living solely on farming these days.

    We still hunt, fish, etc., at our parents' homes as the old folks live in the country cause they don't have to work anymore. Hell, it's easier to keep a strain clean in town also. Then you have the "no drift zones" which are laughable. I'd rather drink city water than from the country wells. That's saying something...a little less atrazine in city water generally. I don't drink either at this point though.

    People of all mentalities living in the cities and in the countryside when it comes down to it.

    City zoning laws, etc. definitely get on my nerves, but there's trade offs for sure. The county governments come snooping around properties in the country around here too. No matter whether their "small government" Republicans or Democrats.

    https://bleacherreport.com/articles/113 … t-football

  11. IslandBites profile image88
    IslandBitesposted 2 years ago

    Well, this is nice. smile

  12. hard sun profile image84
    hard sunposted 2 years ago

    "Whatever the scope of the President's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden," Gotta love checks n balances

  13. Readmikenow profile image97
    Readmikenowposted 2 years ago

    Why not?  Obama did when he created DACA.

    1. hard sun profile image84
      hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Maybe you should ask the judge that, or look deeper into his ruling. I do love check n balances..our forefathers put them there for a reason. I though I put this on the "invasion" thread.

      1. Readmikenow profile image97
        Readmikenowposted 2 years agoin reply to this

        I think this is headed to a Supreme Court ruling.

        That could happen as early as this spring.

        https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/jus … ng-n921686

        1. hard sun profile image84
          hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

          It does seem likely. No matter the outcome, I'm glad to see the system still being used. The temporary move shows Trump he still has to answer to some people whether he likes it or not.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            It will be interesting to see what rationalizations are created to prove that a president cannot cancel future requirements of a past president's Executive Order.  Could put a whole different outlook on EO's.

            But no, it does not show Trump has to answer to "some people": it shows that some people will use the courts as nothing but  a political tool to get their way.

            1. hard sun profile image84
              hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I know you're not a federal judge and I'm sure you thought the same way when Obama actions were reversed. We should just hand it all over to Trump. He has all the answers, lol. Screw the Constitution

              1. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                You seem to be ignoring that Trump's whole purpose with messing with DACA is to get Congress to do it's job and produce a decent policy/laws for immigration.  Yes?

                Given that, and that the whole DACA thing was illegal from the start (no President has the right to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens) it is all quite reasonable.  Still a screaming point for liberals that don't want to do their job, but reasonable.

                1. hard sun profile image84
                  hard sunposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I seem to be stating I'm glad we have checks and balances...nothing more and nothing less. Here we go again.

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    And I seem to be stating that it will be interesting to hear the rationalization.  Not that "We should just hand it all over to Trump. He has all the answers, lol. Screw the Constitution"

                    Yep - here we go again.

          2. Ken Burgess profile image89
            Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

            It is detrimental if it is merely for political grandstanding and delaying, Judge's aren't supposed to be political agents of change, they are supposed to be enforcers of the laws... they aren't put there to change law but to ensure that the law is upheld.

            1. Rodric29 profile image81
              Rodric29posted 2 years agoin reply to this

              I could not agree more. Unfortunately, with the powers of judicial expansion, judges legislate from the bench. I am not sure what steps need to be taken to curb that behavior. This is a new power for judges to exercise if they do not like the laws enacted by Congress or the states. What can be done? Whoever is put in those seats will run the country with the gavel. How is that even a thing?

              1. Ken Burgess profile image89
                Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                Good point, what is to be done.

                Congress could pass a law attempting to limit their ability to 'legislate from the bench', put punishments and even permanent barring from the bench, for those deemed to have pushed their politics ahead of duty, jurisprudence, adhering to the limits of their authority.

                California's 9th Ct is a good example of a body that 'legislates from the bench' which is constantly overturned.  Any judge or group of judges that is overturned more than 75% of the time (which the 9th is) should be barred from holding those positions, for life, if only to cut down on the needless costs and burdens they put on our judicial system.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  As I understand it, the ninth circuit is overturned something like 75% of the time, on cases reviewed by SCOTUS.  As SCOTUS only looks a small fraction of the total number of cases, and only at cases that they think bear review, that 75% is very misleading.

                  Not that I don't think the ninth circuit is not legislating from the bench - it most definitely is - but fair is fair, and giving the impression that 75% of their decisions are overturned is not reasonable.

                  1. profile image0
                    PrettyPantherposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    Excellent response, wilderness. Accurate and fair.

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image89
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    I do understand the point you are making, however:

                    " The San Francisco-based court has frequently been the most reversed among the circuit courts, with one term in the mid-1990s seeing 27 of its 28 decisions reversed or vacated by the high court."

                    That is a pretty clear cut sentence.  One year they made 28 decisions, and 27 of those decisions were overturned. 

                    I admit I don't know if that quote is miswritten, neglecting to mention 28 APPEALED decisions, but I do know with a turnover rate like that, almost ALL decisions they make must likely be appealed, which leads me to believe that 75% is fairly accurate... the 9th does not uphold the Law, it tries to Legislate from the bench.

                    http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/arti … sed_appeal

                    Eight of out of 10 cases from the 9th Circuit reviewed by the Supreme Court are overruled, according to a 2010 analysis published by the American Bar Association.

                    “No one familiar with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should be surprised at today’s ruling,” South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy said in a statement. “The 9th Circuit has a well-earned reputation for being presumptively reversible.”

                    Gowdy went on to say that it “seems clear judges are neither in a position, practically or jurisprudentially, to second guess national security determinations made by the commander in chief. There is a reason we elect the commander in chief and do not elect federal judges."

                2. Don W profile image82
                  Don Wposted 2 years agoin reply to this

                  I've never heard someone with right-leaning views complain that a right-leaning legal decision is "legislating from the bench". Is that coincidence?

                  Or is it more likely that right-leaning commentators are using the phrase "legislating from the bench" as a way to attack those in the judiciary who disagree with their political views? Is the criticism of the 9th circuit really objective?

                  The 6th Circuit had an 87% average reversal rate between 2010-15(1). So by the standard you have used, the 6th circuit is objectively worse when it comes to "legislating from the bench" than the 9th.

                  If this criticism were based on objective criteria, I'd expect to see right-wing commentators criticizing the 6th circuit just as much, if not more, than the 9th. I've seen no such thing. Why might that be the case?

                  The composition of the circuits may shed some light on it:

                  70% of judges on the 6th circuit were appointed by Republican presidents(2).
                  Only 49% of judges on the 9th circuit were appointed by Republican presidents(3).

                  So to some commentators, a 79% average reversal rate from a circuit with a slight majority of left or centre-leaning judges equates to "legislating from the bench". But an 87% average reversal rate from a circuit with a probable majority of right-leaning judges is fine(4).

                  That doesn't strike me as an objective criticism. It strikes me as a subjective, partisan one. That's why this criticism doesn't ring true for me. It's strikes me as an attempt by a certain section of right-wing commentators (including Trump) to disguise their outrageous partisan attacks on the judiciary as legitimate criticism.

                  (1)(4)https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete … -close-80/
                  (2) https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_C … th_Circuit
                  (3) https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_C … th_Circuit

                  1. Credence2 profile image82
                    Credence2posted 2 years agoin reply to this

                    "That doesn't strike me as an objective criticism. It strikes me as a subjective, partisan one. That's why this criticism doesn't ring true for me. It's strikes me as an attempt by a certain section of right-wing commentators (including Trump) to disguise their outrageous partisan attacks on the judiciary as legitimate criticism"

                    Funny, Don, I sort of see it this way as well......

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)