Hillary & Bernie VS. A Republican Congress & 2/3 Majority Governorships!

Currently there are 31 Republican Governors...out of 50. en.wikipedia.org...

There are 247 Republicans vs. 188 Democrats in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
There are 54 Republicans vs. 44 Democrats in the Senate. en.wikipedia.org...

We have a LARGELY Republican Congress entirely, and an almost TWO TIMES (x) majority in Governorships.

So......

While it's really great to talk about what each Candidate would do, their Pros and Cons, their Policies, etc.

Hillary and Bernie would get NOWHERE outside of Executive Orders if they were to be elected in 2016.

The Republicans do not like Hillary, there would be an outright revolt against her at almost every level on almost ALL Legislation. This country would come to a grinding halt as she would Veto MANY of the Republicans' Bills. She outright stated that the Republicans are her "#1 Enemy", verbatim. So that's a no go.

Then there is Bernie, who while more nuanced and Populist in some of his stances, is MORE "Left" and "Progressive" than Hillary. And he does not have the ear of any top Republican Senators or House members. His stances are scoffed at and opposed by both Establishment GOP and the "Tea Party" Republicans.

So what the EFF are we talking about? Change? Nope. Improvement? Nope. A better Union? Nope.

It can't be done. They would both need to run our Government through every Executive loophole and edict they can. Regardless of how much you may like or support them, this is a NET NEGATIVE for our nation. If you want to see TRUE stagnation, put either of them in the White House.

Again....WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT??

Yeah. Pretty much.

It will be the Rhapsody in Blue all jazzed up.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Whatever the outcome of a Democrat President, good thread.
The stomping ground may remain the same as Obama's constant
complaint of a Congress working against him--- and the song re-
mains the same for maybe a different effect.

We had 5 1/2 years of gridlock: I'd call it more charitably a decent
separation of powers, for what looks to be of little worth anyway.
If Hil gets in and no buffering element to Da Queen is seen--- imagine
the results. Even more so for some extra strength socialism of Bern's.
I'm expecting that nothing done by an asylum this stuffed with loons
is almost a desirable alternative to a smoothly running money mulcher.

No matter the party affiliation, I applaud the effort to minimize bipartisan
slush funnies, unilateral skullbugery and other federal criminality. I now
believe the engine has no governor and will soon run out of oil too. Bampfh.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Does that mean the plan is, 'Give it up Dem's, just vote GOP?'

If you listen to Bernie from the start it's a 'political revolution.' It's not just about voting for Bernie Sanders, but voting for his ideas and voting for people who will support those ideas.

You're right though, the GOP has gerrymandered themselves into a lock for a majority in the House until the next decade. A combination of low-voter turnout and locked districts means that, unless there truly is a political revolution, the GOP will hold the house. They might lose the senate, we've got months before making any solid predictions on that.

As for governors, the majority of states are red states. The majority of the population lives in blue states.

The numbers are there, in 2012 there were 58,228,253 votes for the GOP and 59,645,531 for Democrats. Yet the House had 234 representatives for the GOP compared to 201 for the democrats.

I wonder if the way I feel about our government and our politics in not only America but globally is how roman citizens felt shortly before the world plunged into the dark ages?

Don't need the blessing of Clinton or Sanders if the Republicans can get the support needed to override a veto.

Why can't they get a veto-proof majority?

Better yet, why are they not willing to work with these people if they are elected to compromise on issues? Small steps are important.

a reply to: links234


I'm not telling Democrats to give up and not vote. I'm saying that a DEMOCRAT, right now, no matter what the flavor or policy, will get nowhere with the current majority.

My simple question is, for the good of the nation, is ONE lone Democrat in a field where every major political legislative and State branch is Republican, good for business? Just based on the numbers alone.

Is America ready for 4 MORE years of gridlock and battles? Because if people think it's bad now, try a Bernie or Hillary at the helm. Veto veto veto veto, EO...EO...EO...down the line.

Bernie historically works with Democrats on legislation, not Republicans. Hillary already has stated her bias...repeatedly.

I don't see how either would even work for the "great Good" they both state to be after.

a reply to: links234

I'd respectfully refute only one of your statements, being that
the major urban areas are Democratic strongholds-- surrounded
most times with a red sea. Illinois and Texas are a couple of
examples that spring up, like Chicago/Cook Co. and Austin
respectively. The result I concede is the state's still blue.

Only issue I have is at the mid-terms, most of the blue voters
don't bother showing up for some reason... this next general
election could elicit a mighty big turnout all around.

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: links234


I'm not telling Democrats to give up and not vote. I'm saying that a DEMOCRAT, right now, no matter what the flavor or policy, will get nowhere with the current majority.

My simple question is, for the good of the nation, is ONE lone Democrat in a field where every major political legislative and State branch is Republican, good for business? Just based on the numbers alone.

Is America ready for 4 MORE years of gridlock and battles? Because if people think it's bad now, try a Bernie or Hillary at the helm. Veto veto veto veto, EO...EO...EO...down the line

Let's assume that is true. Why can't the Republicans gather enough support to override that veto and eliminate the need for EO?

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Agreed, the only way from here is a revolution resulting in the complete deconstruction and reconstruction of the US government and her entire make-up - that starts with banning lobbying and dynastic career bloodlines, limiting terms to 8 years for all levels of representation and maybe even capping salaries inline with the GDP and installing live-feed body cameras on all politicians.

Or war, murder, money, stripping the constitution will continue on it's merry way.

"We the people"

a reply to: Brotherman

That's assuming the Roman Empire fell in a few decades. Just as Rome wasn't built in a day, it didn't fall in one either.

Just a hint, it took a few hundred years for the empire to completely collapse.

originally posted by: derfreebie
a reply to: links234

I'd respectfully refute only one of your statements, being that
the major urban areas are Democratic strongholds-- surrounded
most times with a red sea. Illinois and Texas are a couple of
examples that spring up, like Chicago/Cook Co. and Austin
respectively. The result I concede is the state's still blue.

Only issue I have is at the mid-terms, most of the blue voters
don't bother showing up for some reason... this next general
election could elicit a mighty big turnout all around.

When it comes to a battle of will and might, I think Trump voters are way more enthusiastic about him than the Bernie voters are about Bernie.

I think the 'show up' crowd will be huge for Republicans this time. HUGE

a reply to: Sublimecraft

and dynastic career bloodlines

That idea in and of itself, while agreeable considering recent candidates, is contradictory to the Constitution itself. Any American that meets the requirements can run for the office. The constitution does not include a "bloodline" clause.

a reply to: introvert


I honestly don't know the numbers required for overrides, plus it's a Bill by Bill basis isn't it?

And why would we even want the gridlock from constant Veto overrides in the first place?

What a mess that would be.

I don't care if Bernie can't get any thing passed. Just him getting in without a corporate bribe and knowing he works for us is good enough for me. Get Bernie in and then the floodgates open and we can start replacing congress with people that work for us as well.

I'd rather a lame duck that's on our payroll than someone who's passing all the legislation desired by big business to rape the working class.

Unless there is an indictment, the Bernie movement will fade as Hillary blitzkriegs through the South and the West.

You Bernie people (God Bless You)...have got some spunk...but, really, you MUST know the DNC is going to hang you out to dry. If Hillary fades, Biden will push you out.

For the record, I'm not calling for a Republican "Empire". I'm stating that all the houses except the executive are Republican ruled right now.

A Republican President would essentially shore up all legal movement and go forward on Bills much faster.

What I can't state is if those Bills would be bad or good. Just stating that they would GO.

originally posted by: Puppylove
I don't care if Bernie can't get any thing passed. Just him getting in without a corporate bribe and knowing he works for us is good enough for me. Get Bernie in and then the floodgates open and we can start replacing congress with people that work for us as well.

I'd rather a lame duck that's on our payroll than someone who's passing all the legislation desired by big business to rape the working class.

So you want rather a lame duck, than ANYTHING be passed?

How, right now in 2016, is that helpful overall? I just don't see it

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

I honestly don't know the numbers required for overrides, plus it's a Bill by Bill basis isn't it?

That is government 101. 2/3rds vote is required by both houses.

And why would we even want the gridlock from constant Veto overrides in the first place? What a mess that would be.

That is how a congress gets past a presidential veto. The Constitution may be inconvenient for some, but that is how it works.