Just asking, but isn't the Senate election important as well?

Interested to hear your views?

Can the Democrats win enough seats to form a majority?

What will be the Republican results be depending on whether they stick with Trump or abandon him?

Will it be a tie with the VP having the deciding vote?

---

I don't know about other states, but Kentucky(mine) is probably going to re-elect Republican Senator, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell is already firmly entrenched. I wish term limits would be placed on the Senate and the House, plus, why is the Senate 6 years, and House, 2 years?

---

The mind is a weird and mysterious place

Generally speak almost half of all the position are up for grabs in state and federal.

This is a big election across the board for most all of us Electorate and citizens.

---

...

I don't know about other states, but Kentucky(mine) is probably going to re-elect Republican Senator, Rand Paul, and Mitch McConnell is already firmly entrenched. I wish term limits would be placed on the Senate and the House, plus, why is the Senate 6 years, and House, 2 years?

The House is 2 years. Since 1/3 of the Senate is supposed to come up for election (and all the House) every 2 years, the Senate terms were fixed at 6 years.

I agree with Term limits... 1 Term should suffice.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Just asking, but isn't the Senate election important as well?

Interested to hear your views?

Can the Democrats win enough seats to form a majority?

What will be the Republican results be depending on whether they stick with Trump or abandon him?

Will it be a tie with the VP having the deciding vote?

Well, under the Constitution, the Senate has, as its primary role(s), confirmation of appointments to various positions, AND foreign policy.

The House's role is more focused on the domestic side of things, with the power of the purse.

The Presidential election is not that important. The Senate (and House) elections ARE.

Essentially, the President is the head bureaucrat. The position was added to the US Government in the change from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, primarily so that European Governments would have a person functioning as Head of State of the US. You guys just weren't comfortable negotiating things with whoever the Head of Congress happened to be, that day.

But, the Speaker of the House, and the Majority Leader of the Senate pretty much run things in Washington D.C.

The Country would be better off if they got rid of all the Republicans AND all of the Democrats in Washington D.C. (as well as the rest of the Nation). Neither Party really does stand for anything, and they flip-flop positions on issues frequently. The ONLY real difference between the D's and the R's is just the name. Once upon a time, the Party was called the Democratic Republicans. All their partisan bickering is in reality much ado about nothing... But it IS tearing the Country apart.

Can the Democrats win enough seats to form a Majority? Gawd, I hope not.

Can the Republicans keep enough seats to preserve their Majority? Gawd, I hope not.

Either way, the USA is screwed.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Can the Democrats win enough seats to form a Majority? Gawd, I hope not.

Can the Republicans keep enough seats to preserve their Majority? Gawd, I hope not.

Either way, the USA is screwed.

Constitutional amendment, no party can control more than 40% of either house or senate. That might Make America Strong Again.

Maybe not, but it would damn well force the extremism out of attempts at legislation.

Constitutional amendment, add a third house of congress who can only propose to repeal laws.

---

That would certainly break the 2-party stalemate we perceive from this side of the Pond.


(Question, I know there are Democrats and Republicans, but are there any other "parties" with Senators or Representatives?)

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

That would certainly break the 2-party stalemate we perceive from this side of the Pond.


(Question, I know there are Democrats and Republicans, but are there any other "parties" with Senators or Representatives?)

Well...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_officeholders_in_the_United_States

Since the end of Reconstruction, there have been a total of 30 U.S. Senators, 111 U.S. Representatives, and 28 Governors that weren't affiliated with a major party. There are now two U.S. Senators (King and Sanders), and four major city Mayors. Hundreds of third-party officeholders exist at the local level (including those in nonpartisan positions who are affiliated with a third-party), including 146 Libertarian Party members and 131 Green Party members.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Essentially, the President is the head bureaucrat. The position was added to the US Government in the change from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, primarily so that European Governments would have a person functioning as Head of State of the US. You guys just weren't comfortable negotiating things with whoever the Head of Congress happened to be, that day.

MajorKong, although I am not an American citizen myself, I happen to disagree with you here.

Both the President as well as the U.S. Senate is supposed to be representing the American people in a Democracy, but the fact is that the members of the Senate are not elected by the members of the general public
in the same way as the members of Congress are supposed to be.

Rather they should be appointed to such a position.

As far as I am able to tell, we do not see the members of the Supreme Court taking part in every discussion being around.

But next it should be remembered that the main purpose of being a President, is that of performing or carry out his duties with an executive power when signing a paper, or perhaps giving an order.

Remember that there always could be a crisis around the corner and for such a thing we are supposed to be having a President.

Both the Senate and Supreme Court, which is at the top of the Judicial Branch is next in rank after the President.

It is still supposed to be a democracy and for that we are having the Constitution.

Right now I forget where I came across this, but the Executive Branch is not supposed to be about paperwork at all.

For that we are having the Legislative Branch, which is at the bottom of the three.

Make it possible intrigues and even competition at times, but this system should better be working most of the time.

Right now the choice probably is between the clown and the sharp tongue when it comes to a possible decision making.

Laws and regulations are only one part of the system. Decision making could next be a shared responsibility most of the time.

Compare with those rare systems where either dictators or tyrants are enforcing the laws with "powers" given in their hands.

It could still be part of a given system, or it could be those of an individual.

Is it perhaps easier to throw out Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton because we readily know that Mr. Trump is standing for one thing, while Mrs. Clinton is standing for the other thing?

Perhaps poor wording, but we know that Bill Clinton once was being impeached for having a possible affair.

Next I make no relationship with the two when it comes to a couple of things.

Tell a man that he is doing something wrong and he could be a possible clown.

Tell a woman the same thing and the fact is that she most likely will not become impeached.

Perhaps rather the system itself should be blamed.

Should perhaps make an analogy.

Before settling in my home, I had a rather bad job experience.

The woman who was in charge of me was having a quite strong mind, or perhaps character and at times this also showed up.

Really, for one thing is that I should not be making any similarities when it comes to a couple of things, but we could also be left with the pros and the cons.

If we for some reason should be concerned about or perhaps dealing with such a thing like an ice age, is the only solution that of speaking with a common tongue?

I happen to be mentioning a couple of things related to science at times.

Do you?

Read most of the threads here and they most likely are not supposed to be about any pros and cons, at least when it comes to science.

Essentially, the President is the head bureaucrat. The position was added to the US Government in the change from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, primarily so that European Governments would have a person functioning as Head of State of the US. You guys just weren't comfortable negotiating things with whoever the Head of Congress happened to be, that day.

MajorKong, although I am not an American citizen myself, I happen to disagree with you here.

Both the President as well as the U.S. Senate is supposed to be representing the American people in a Democracy, but the fact is that the members of the Senate are not elected by the members of the general public
in the same way as the members of Congress are supposed to be.

Rather they should be appointed to such a position.

As far as I am able to tell, we do not see the members of the Supreme Court taking part in every discussion being around.

But next it should be remembered that the main purpose of being a President, is that of performing or carry out his duties with an executive power when signing a paper, or perhaps giving an order.

Remember that there always could be a crisis around the corner and for such a thing we are supposed to be having a President.

Both the Senate and Supreme Court, which is at the top of the Judicial Branch is next in rank after the President.

It is still supposed to be a democracy and for that we are having the Constitution.

Right now I forget where I came across this, but the Executive Branch is not supposed to be about paperwork at all.

For that we are having the Legislative Branch, which is at the bottom of the three.

bluestar:

I don't know where you are from, but I don't think you understand how our system works here.

1. The US Senate. Initially, under the US Constitution, members of the Senate WERE appointed (2 per State, by the State Governments). That changed under the 17th Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified April 8, 1913. Senators are elected by direct popular vote in each State now. The President, however, is still elected by the Legislatures of the several States.

2. Members of the Supreme Court are NOT supposed to be political, and instead are supposed to confine themselves to the specific cases brought before the Supreme Court.

3. The Executive Branch. The Great Majority of Bureaucrats are in the Executive Branch. The President is the head of the Executive Branch. Sure, the Executive Branch has some additional duties, such as the FBI, the NSA, and a few others, but by and large members of the Executive Branch are bureaucrats. Even the DoD civilian employees are most all bureaucrats.

The President has some duties assigned to him/her by the Constitution, in addition to managing the bureaucracy. But, each and every one of the powers, with the sole exception of his/her power to issue Pardons for Crimes either REQUIRES Congressional Approval or can be overridden by Congress (or, for that matter, by the Supreme Court if they choose to hear a suitable court case involving it).

In *theory*, in our system, the three Branches are supposed to be approximately equivalent in power...

But, in practice, Congress (the Legislative branch -- Both House and Senate) is on the top, Likely as it should be, considering that Congress (both the House and the Senate) are the directly elected representatives of the People.

Sorry, but the Speaker of the House, and the Majority Leader of the Senate, together, have a better claim on 'running the country' than the President does.

Why would we want a single person (the President) running things? That way lies an easier road to tyranny.

Oh, and for the record... Bill Clinton was NOT impeached for having an affair, lots of Presidents have had trouble keeping their pants zipped.

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury (lying under oath in a court proceeding about the affair) and obstruction of justice (trying to cover up the affair). If Clinton had just stood at that podium during that press conference and instead of pounding on it denying the affair, and just stood up and said "Yeah, I did it!", he would not have been impeached. His approval rate would likely have gone up for his honesty and bravery (cause he would have caught even more hell from Hillary).

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

My private opinion only here and not that of Seti@home.

The possibility of free speech does not necessarily condone, or make a possible endorsement for that of idiots either.

A free society, or a democracy, if you will, is supposedly ruled or governed by the laws of such a society.

Forget the Legislative Branch, or even the Executive Branch here, because this is about the laws being given themselves.

If I ever was giving here a possible suggestion that Bill Clinton was a tyrant, such a thing would most likely not be true.

Yes, definitely moral obligations and possible self-justice, if you will.

If I was the one or happened to be one of those who made the suggestion that the United States is a possibly tyrrany, I probably would be out of here.

Read my lips. One word of meaning, or at least possible opinion does not necessarily please or meet that of someone else.

If we for some reason were lead to believe that either the opinion of an individual, or even that of the Supreme Court should be having any special meaning or importance, so that is possibly, or most likely for the record.

Are you ever supposed to question the decisions or decision making being carried out by the U.S. Senate?

Or should I perhaps say the Supreme Court, because the Chief Justice could make the choice of overruling one decision for another.

So it goes, at least when it comes to decision making, including the Supreme Court.

Edit: 2. above as mentioned by MajorKong.

Guess this should already be clear or evident to everyone.

Edit: Define a possible crisis if you will.

If such a crisis perhaps defined or created by possible such "idiots"?

Among several misunderstandings you have, I will ignore all but the last.

Or should I perhaps say the Supreme Court, because the Chief Justice could make the choice of overruling one decision for another.
So it goes, at least when it comes to decision making, including the Supreme Court.

That is not true or even close. The Chief Justice helps to decide which cases are heard and in what order.
The decisions and rulings are made by majority, (or not).

In my opinion, possible decision making is part of the Supreme Court and nothing or nowhere else.

Make it 5 (five) such members of the Supreme Court, if you will.

Always the single voice or vote in regards or in favor of any others.

My best guess is that when it comes to the Law and Justice, there is always the one at the top, in this case the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

He is not supposed to be speaking on behalf of anyone else, but this does not make him an idiot either.

Make it science if you will.

Edit: The laws, or rule of law could at times be "final" when it comes to possible decision making, or policies.

At least when it comes to a possible outcome, or decision making when it comes to such a thing.

Such a thing becomes a part of the world and such laws appearently, or most likely makes room for tyrants as well.

Remember, at least decision making is a part, or gives room for a free, or plural society.

It is like "slipping on a slope" when there are no alternatives, or option.

If for some reason a civil cervant dealing with economical questions happened to be "sacked" because he or she was "fombling" the clothing of a fellow employer or employee, or at least member of staff,
would such a thing be because of or as a result of a hand written note?

Edit: Buh!

Always adhere to the laws for the lack of anything else.

The fact is that a possible idiot could tell me about possible laws, but next I am supposed to believe that there could be something else to it, or at least possible options.

Sigh!

If posting in Politics, it is not about Seti@home.

Don't tell me the answer to a given thing or question, because it most likely is not part of our physical world, or reality.

Read the lips of the scientists for this and not someone else.

In my opinion, possible decision making is part of the Supreme Court and nothing or nowhere else.

Make it 5 (five) such members of the Supreme Court, if you will.

Always the single voice or vote in regards pf or in favor of any others.

My best guess is that when it comes to the Law and Justice, there is always the one at the top, in this case the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

He is not supposed to be speaking on behalf of anyone else, but this does not make him an idiot either.

Make it science if you will.

Edit: The laws, or rule of law could at times be "final" when it comes to possible decision making, or policies.

At least when it comes to a possible outcome, or decision making when it comes to such a thing.

Such a thing becomes a part of the world and such laws appearently, or most likely makes room for tyrants as well.

Remember, at least decision making is a part, or gives room for a free, or plural society.

It is like "slipping on a slope" when there are no alternatives, or option.

If for some reason a civil cervant dealing with economical questions happened to be "sacked" because he or she was "fombling" the clothing of a fellow employer or employee, or at least member of staff,
would such a thing be because of or as a result of a hand written note?

Edit: Buh!

Always adhere to the laws for the lack of anything else.

And not necessarily the laws related to or pertaining to science, should say.

Really!

This is not what this is supposed to be all about.

Does color or even race really matter?

The fact is that a possible idiot could tell me about possible laws being present or around, but next I am supposed to believe that there could be something else to it, or at least possible options.

Sigh!

Edit: Makes it better.

What is the word here?

Mocking?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mock_object

Yes, possibly fits a general purpose, including that of application development.

Rather look at such figures like Lenin or the like for the possible resemblance of or when it comes to historical figures.

Either make a laugh of it, or at least make it either symbolic, or another given perspective.

Google Translate apparently makes an attempt of making a translation of the word "imaging".

I guess "Imaging software" for such a purpose or tool, or at least purpose or intention.

Bah!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFLPVvES9pg

Make it free expression, if you will.

If not so, make it science.

Should better go in my own thread.

f I was the one or happened to be one of those who made the suggestion that the United States is a possibly tyrrany, I probably would be out of here.

If you made the suggestion that the USA is sliding into Tyranny, you would be correct. It is.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Oh, come on MajorKong.

At least you look friendly to me.

Some people, including politicians could be whimps, while others could be slightly rougher when it comes to their perfomance.

If you happen to be looking to conflicts, including possible wars, such things often have been between democracies and tyrant states, with dictators being in power.

If the only thing the police could be doing was shooting all the whimps, where would it be of the rest?

In fact, when posting, it should not be forgotten the title of the thread and its initial meaning.

I happen to be surfing around a bit using Google Maps.

Including a couple of cities in the United States.

Quite noticeable is the fact that most places are quite tidy and such a thing should go with the Senate as well.

Most likely Hillary Clinton would be a better President than Donald Trump, but we happen to know about each candidate's weaknesses.

Is a society only supposed to be working because there are laws that governs it?

Is there any difference between a Bill and a Law and if it is the responsibility of the Politicians to adopt such a bill, why are we still having the Justice system as well?

Here I was thinking more about the judges and lawyers, rather than the Police itself.

Perhaps a difference should be made between people or personalities and their possible duties being part of their lives.

Still, noone probably would like to have neither a clown or a possible tyrant being the Chairman of the Senate.

By the way, visiting the web page for the Senate, I find a list of the members being part of it, but for now perhaps have me corrected when it comes to the title above.

In the end it becomes one building for each of the Chambers, as well as those of others.

Edit: When reading, even the Senate is in fact part of the Legislative branch.

Only goes to show that it could be up to the rest of the system when making a couple of decisions.

The debasing of American politics

...
Not all those at Trump rallies are bigoted. But they are prepared to stand next to someone shouting chauvinist abuse or wearing a “Trump that b*tch” T-shirt and conclude that if that’s what’s needed to defeat Mrs Clinton, then so be it. The best of Mr Trump’s supporters hope that, by letting a wrecking ball loose to demolish the slums and tenements of Washington politics, public life can be rebuilt—so that it represents real people, rather than elites and interest groups. When people conclude that politics is disgusting or absurd they lose faith in it. That usually makes things worse.

If Mr Trump actually wins the election, Republicans will have to meet the expectations he has created—of protectionism, spending increases allied to tax cuts, hostility to foreigners and a retreat from decades of foreign policy. That would make America poorer, weaker and less secure. Meanwhile, the Republican Party would still need the support of those who have cheered on Mr Trump (see Lexington). Far from being renewed, politics would become even nastier and more brutal.

If Mr Trump loses, Mrs Clinton will begin her presidency with tens of millions of people believing that she ought to be in jail. Perhaps he will lose so comprehensively that he takes the Republican majorities in both chambers down with him. That would afford Mrs Clinton at least two years, before the next mid-term elections, during which she might push through an immigration reform, increase spending on infrastructure and change the balance on the Supreme Court. These would be big achievements, but something close to 40% of voters would feel they were being steamrollered by a hostile government. Politics could become yet more polarised.

Partly because Mrs Clinton is mistrusted and disliked, the more probable outcome in November is that she will be the next president but will face a House of Representatives controlled by Republicans—and perhaps a Senate, too. This is a recipe for furious, hate-filled gridlock. There would be more government shutdowns and perhaps even an attempt at impeachment. It would also mean yet more government by executive actions and regulation to get around Congress, feeding the widespread sense that Mrs Clinton is illegitimate.

Tied down and unpopular at home, Mrs Clinton would be weaker abroad as well. She could less easily take risks by, say, standing up for trade or robustly seeing off challenges to American power from China and Russia. America’s role in the world would shrink. Frustration and disillusion would grow.

...

---

Reality Internet Personality

bluestar,

Please continue surfing the web for your education,
or better, get some classroom instruction.
Perhaps you will be able to piece together a coherent opinion.

Your comprehension of what you are reporting on is quite lacking.

Your understanding of US government is almost non-existant.

I am unable to even start to point out your mistakes; they are too numerous and would require volumes to explain.

Reading what you post is extreamly confusing because there is no base of knowledge behind your words.