(He actually did yell it, thus the all caps.)
(no message)
(no message)
The Demographics have been moving the Dems way but they are still way behind statewide.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Stacey Abrams just found 17 points for the Dawgs and they beat Florida this weekend.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(At least I get to say it without somebody chiming in that I don't know the actual definition.)
Now, about this unrestricted immigration thing...
Severely limit campaign spending.
Reduce Presidential power.
Restrict federal authority while expanding state authority.
Build a wall between the DOJ and the Administration.
Balance the budget.
That's just Day 1.
And, after all, the Left was discussing packing the Senate and the Supreme Court...both things that they can do without a constitutional amendment if they take the Senate.
Introduce term limits on congressmen, senators, and judges. Requires constitutional amendment, so not possible merely by taking the Senate (which is what Schumer meant when he said "take Georgia." Still, not a bad idea.
Severely limit campaign spending. Requires overruling Supreme Court precedent. Possible, but doing that worries Democrats because it opens to the door to overruling other initiatives that have been successfully legislated by the Dems lobbying the Supreme Court.
Reduce Presidential power. Sounds good to me. That would require Congress to pull back the authority it granted the president. Won't happen, because that requires backbone, one thing Congress does not have. Repeal the 17th Amendment (to let the States select Senators), and Congress might gain some backbone (since Senators wouldn't have to directly pander to the public, and they would have an interest in preserving power for governors).
Restrict federal authority while expanding state authority. Very conservative principle. I agree totally. This is also easily achieved by repealing the 17th Amendment. All Democrats would oppose that, of course. Whenever I mention federalism and putting power at the state level, Chris94 jumps in and says there is more corruption at the state level than the federal level. I don't buy that, but either way, the Democrat party does not like differences between the states, and has been working hard the last many decades to centralize power at the federal level, and make America look the same all across the country. If an idea is good enough for California or Massachusetts, then it must be imposed on Texas and South Dakota. It used to be that if you didn't like how things were in one state, you could move to another. They are working hard to end that possibility.
Build a wall between the DOJ and the Administration. Who would they report to? Not sure that is workable. Prosecution power has always been responsible to the elected executive power.
Balance the budget. Both parties oppose that. Won't happen. Great idea, though.
I think you need isolate the noisiest extremes of the left and right and find that silent, moderately conservative majority of the population that wants a small, reasonable government to work. You're absolutely right that it won't be easy and is a bit farfetched, but you have to at least try. Schumer won't be the champion of this, nor will Biden or McConnell or Pelosi. But you have to hope that eventually enough reasonable people in the next generation will see this current system isn't working as well as it can be and needs a major tune up.
(no message)
The chance of Schumer doing something positive...is about the same as the chance of his fat cousin actually doing something funny.
I don't know or care about Schumer's agenda because he's powerless to do anything anyway.
would change.
Your wish list is nifty...but, for some reason, I suspect it will have less impact than his if he "takes" Georgia.
Call me crazy...
Don't say left...don't say left...
(no message)
(no message)