Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Schumer Reiterates Dems Still Plan On Adding States and Eliminating the Filibuster

Schumer Reiterates Dems Still Plan On Adding States and Eliminating the Filibuster

“We are going to get a whole lot done. As I said, everything, everything is on the table.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qurCZ2mYFe4

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer did not hold back on MSNBC’s The ReidOut Wednesday night.

Schumer poured out his wish list if the Democrats retake the Senate, including adding two states, packing the courts, and ending the filibuster.

From Breitbart:

On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The ReidOut,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that he would “love to” make D.C. and Puerto Rico states and addressed the prospect of ending the filibuster if Democrats take the Senate by stating, “I’m not busting my chops to become majority leader to do very little or nothing. We are going to get a whole lot done. And as I’ve said, everything, everything is on the table.”

Schumer said that Senate Democrats are “using all the tactics we can” to slow down Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court confirmation.

Host Joy Reid then asked, “Would that include adding, if the Senate becomes a Democratic majority, adding D.C. and Puerto Rico as states and ending the filibuster?”

Schumer responded, “I would — believe me, on D.C. and Puerto Rico, particularly if Puerto Rico votes for it, D.C. already has voted for it and wants it. I’d love to make them states. And as for the filibuster, I’m not busting my chops to become majority leader to do very little or nothing. We are going to get a whole lot done. And as I’ve said, everything, everything is on the table.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

In other words, he has given up trying to block Barret’s confirmation and is instead focusing on motivating the completely dispirited Dems to show up and vote.

    Reeks of desperation, doesn’t it?

      Schumer is changing the subject (successfully as the comments below indicate). As committee members drop out of the Barrett chase, Kamala Harris will become the main focus of the hearings. Or maybe it will become the Elizabeth Warren show. Utter disaster.

      The debate has left Trump voters as enthusiastic as ever while Dem voters are struggling to find a reason to even vote at all. Is voting to retake the Senate going to do the trick? It changed no minds about who people would vote for. But it put another damper on the Dem vote who are already struggling with whether to vote at all.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to UJ. | October 1, 2020 at 1:21 pm

      You got it.

      Even elected black DEM reps are declaring today their endorsement of President Trump.

      More good reading on this at Ace of Spades. From a really long daily post:

      “…..Thursday and the fallout over the orchestrated media attempted high tech lynching of President Trump, otherwise known as the first presidential debate, continues to rain down. As in virtually everything, with time comes perspective and even just 24 hours to reflect on something is enough. While those who had their hair on fire about Trump’s performance being terrible, horrible, or whatever, including a number of commenters here who are for sure not trolls, I am now upping my initial reaction of “clear advantage Trump” to at least a TKO of the tweener-groping Nexus 6 factory reject skin-job that goes by the name of Biden.

      In this bizarre election year, Trump did something different: He wants to get 100% of his base to show up. He’s helped by knowing that there are secret Trump supporters amongst both the independents and the Democrats, people who have learned to ignore his bombast and focus on his extraordinary economic and foreign policy accomplishments. He made it clear that he’ll govern in his second term as he did in first, only better.
      Meanwhile, Trump forced Biden to declare himself (although Biden managed to avoid stating explicitly that he’ll pack the Supreme Court, ending the American experiment). This is what Trump got Biden to say:

      “The party is me. Right now, I am the Democratic party.” The Democrat party is a doddering old man who everyone knows was hopped up on Adderall to handle the debate.

      On the subject of socialist medicine, “There is no manifesto…” Biden just disavowed the Democrat Party platform, which Bernie Sanders’ team wrote. It’s filled with socialist ideas.

      “The Green New Deal is not my plan.” First, this is a lie. Second, this is an atom bomb against the base, as it would be if Trump were to tell his base, “I’m going to tear down the wall.”

      “Nobody’s going to build another coal-fired plant in America. No one’s going to build another oil fire plant in America.” What’s that? Did I just hear Pennsylvania and West Virginia throw their weight to Trump?

      “Antifa is an idea, not an organization.” Tell that to those Americans — many of them Democrats — who saw “ideas” clad in black and spewing vile obscenities, burn down their businesses and drive from the streets the police who keep their communities safe.

      Trump gave his base red meat. Even those who disliked his style will vote for him. Meanwhile, Biden left his base with a sour taste in their mouths, knowing they’re being used.

      It’s a head-scratcher that so many folks who supposedly love Trump because he’s a fighter and defends himself by going on offense suddenly had a case of the vapors because – gasp! – he fought back during a debate, and actually had a strategy to prevent Goofy Joey Bivalve from doing what he did to Paul Ryno by rattling his cage. Guess what; it worked! The fact that Chris Wallace confirmed his status as a red diaper baby hack propagandist doing the job that Candy Crowley couldn’t is neither here nor there. I take that back; it only underscored the characterization of that worm’s profession as “fake news.” Mewling quim voice: “Ooh, but Trump should’ve known Wallace would do this, and Trump shouldn’t have interrupted!!” Please, give me a freaking break. Trump energized and solidified the base and I think it’s fair to say a good many others who had been gravitating towards him not only because of the frightening prospect of America turning into Venezuela but because Trump did indeed make the case that that is our fate if he – and we – lose this election.

      Here’s the tell; almost everywhere you turn in the Democrat-Media Complex and in Hollywood, the call is going up that Biden must not do another debate. Whatever their idiotic excuses and smears against Trump may be, the real reason is because they know he creamed Mr. Cream of Wheat-for-Brains on Tuesday, and no matter what other idiot Rollerball rule changes the Debate Commission will put in place for Round 2: Potemkin Town Hall Boogaloo, including a microphone kill switch, Trump will be prepared. If you wipe away the tears of Fake Jake Fapper Tapper’s kid’s BFF, what you are seeing is fear…..

      http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=390592

    Schumer ticked off the Atomic Turtle.

    Apex Predator Turtle update:

    Seung Min Kim
    @seungminkim

    Missed this yesterday –
    because Dems are procedurally forcing Republicans to stay in the Senate next week,

    McConnell just went ahead and filed cloture on five judges last night

No. What he is saying is goodbye America, Hello Communism. He is effectively saying that there will only be one party and that’s the Dems.
1.Add two states and 4 Senators. Giving the left a lifetime control of the Senate
2. Pact the courts. Add enough jurists to make the Highest court in the land a tool of the Dems.
3. End the filibuster. Which means no more trying to restrain one party from the other.
It will mean that judges throughout the country will take control of all our decisions. Therefore never again will we be anything other than Little Havana or Beijing.

    It would mean civil war and the slaughter of millions of Dims. Schumer would drown in the blood of his constituents.

    Jpzldoer: 1.Add two states and 4 Senators. Giving the left a lifetime control of the Senate

    Actually, even if they were added today, the Republicans would still control the Senate 53 to 51 — and they would represent an even smaller minority of the electorate.

    Jpzldoer: 2. Pact the courts. Add enough jurists to make the Highest court in the land a tool of the Dems.

    The size of the Supreme Court is set legislatively, but has been stable due to norms of behavior established over generations. When Republicans used raw power to stop Obama’s court appointments, going so far as to even deny a nominee to the Supreme Court a hearing, they broke the norm.

    Jpzldoer: 3. End the filibuster. Which means no more trying to restrain one party from the other.

    The filibuster isn’t a law, but just a procedural rule. It’s a norm, but was used to prevent consideration of Obama’s court nominees and to bottle up his legislative agenda.

      Paul in reply to Zachriel. | October 1, 2020 at 1:09 pm

      Once again you come here and spew your lies. Piss off troll.

        Paul: Once again you come here

        Start with the first point: The current makeup of the Senate is 53-47. If four more Democratic Senators are added, the makeup would be 53-51, meaning there would still be a Republican majority.
        https://www.senate.gov/history/partydiv.htm

        If you do not think this is correct, you might consider providing something more substantive than ad hominem.

        thetaqjr in reply to Paul. | October 1, 2020 at 11:48 pm

        Please be kind and point out which of his statements are lies and publish corrections here for your brand of public edification.

        Please.

      mailman in reply to Zachriel. | October 1, 2020 at 2:20 pm

      Republicans didn’t use”RWAAAAAAAR POWAAAAAAAAR” you mindless f88king zombie ??

      Republicans did exactly what pretty much every other Senate in the entire history of America when its a different party that holds the Presidency…they used their perogative to not bother wasting their time with a nomination from Barry “Peace Be Upon Him” Obama.

      There is nothing unprecedented about that, as anyone possessing the critical ability to rub two or more brain cells together well knows.

        txvet2 in reply to mailman. | October 1, 2020 at 2:50 pm

        Accepting, as I did, his erroneous proposition that an opposition Senate needs the filibuster. The fact is, it only benefits the minority party because the majority party obviously only needs a simple majority (or, if the same party as the President, a tie).

        mailman: Republicans did exactly what pretty much every other Senate in the entire history of America when its a different party that holds the Presidency

        Before Obama, the last time the Senate took no action on a Supreme Court nominee (other than when due to nullification) was when Millard Fillmore was president. So if by “every other Senate in the entire history of America” means American history stopped with Millard Fillmore, then you are right!

          txvet2 in reply to Zachriel. | October 1, 2020 at 4:15 pm

          But that has nothing to do with the filibuster. Since you (apparently) approve of the Democrats doing away with it altogether, you shouldn’t have any real problem with the Republicans doing away with it for SC justices.

          txvet2: But that has nothing to do with the filibuster.

          You comment concerned the Senate taking no action on a Supreme Court nomination.

          txvet2 in reply to Zachriel. | October 1, 2020 at 5:10 pm

          Not my comment, it was a generalization. Maybe you meant “Mailman”‘s comment.

      txvet2 in reply to Zachriel. | October 1, 2020 at 2:33 pm

      “”but was used to prevent consideration of Obama’s court nominees and to bottle up his legislative agenda.””

      Obama was hardly unique. It’s been used by an opposition Senate to “bottle up” every president’s legislative agenda, which has never bothered the Dems when they controlled the Senate but not the presidency.

        txvet2 in reply to txvet2. | October 1, 2020 at 2:35 pm

        My mistake – when they control neither the Senate nor the presidency.

        txvet2: It’s been used by an opposition Senate to “bottle up” every president’s legislative agenda

        The most infamous is the bottling up of legislation to end slavery, Jim Crow, and lynching. Otherwise, the history is often one of compromise. This changed when Republicans decided that legislation and nominations should only move forward if it garnered a majority of the Republican caucus when the previous norm was to find common ground across the aisle. This led to gridlock when Democrats lacked control of either chamber of the Congress and a supermajority in the Senate).

      healthguyfsu in reply to Zachriel. | October 1, 2020 at 3:08 pm

      lol, Zach hive attack with the fictitious norm made up out of thin air. No opposition party majority has ever been required to confirm a Supreme Court nomination.

      If Democrats with the attention span of a gnat didn’t move their own goalposts periodically they wouldn’t know how to find them at all.

        healthguyfsu: No opposition party majority has ever been required to confirm a Supreme Court nomination.

        The question concerns the Senate not even bothering to consider the nomination. They claimed it was due to the closeness of the election.

          healthguyfsu in reply to Zachriel. | October 1, 2020 at 7:16 pm

          Actually no, they claimed it was the opposition party this close to an election. I remember it quite vividly, and you conveniently left out a key detail.

          healthguyfsu: Actually no, they claimed it was the opposition party this close to an election.

          * They claimed precedent. The last time the Senate took no action on a Supreme Court nominee, Millard Fillmore was president.

          * While some Senators made the distinction, the messaging was otherwise. McConnell: “The American people are about to weigh in on who is going to be the president. And that’s the person, whoever that may be, who ought to be making this appointment.”

          * They claimed principle. If it depends on control of the Senate, then it is a matter of power, not principle.

      Yo, genius. In order for the Dems to grant statehood to PR and DC, they would need to *already* have a majority in the Senate, or at least a 50-50 tie with Kamila as tiebreaker. The end result would be a 54-50 Dem Senate at least, giving them a comfortable majority to ram through the rest of their insanity.

        georgfelis: In order for the Dems to grant statehood to PR and DC, they would need to *already* have a majority in the Senate, or at least a 50-50 tie with Kamila as tiebreaker.

        The claim concerned “Giving the left a lifetime control of the Senate”. Presumably, in the future, the Republicans could still win in the states they control now, at least some of the time.

Radical to the point of Revolutionary. I am not sure the District can be added as a State. It is not a territory. It is the District. When the political Roberts loses control of the Court, the 5 law following Justices will properly interpret the law.

    MarkSmith in reply to dystopia. | October 1, 2020 at 9:58 am

    I really don’t understand why they don’t put this thing to rest. I say just give it back to Maryland and be done with it. They did it with the Virginia side of things.

    This gaming the system is getting really old. Why not just do your job.

      drednicolson in reply to MarkSmith. | October 1, 2020 at 10:21 am

      Give it back, make the major government buildings into historical monuments, and move the capital to somewhere in the Midwest. “Flyover country” becomes “Flyinto country”.

      I’d recommend somewhere in the Cimmaron (the Oklahoma panhandle). They once called it No Man’s Land for a reason. 150 years ago it was the refuge of outlaws, so the DC swampfolk should feel right at home. 🙂

        thad_the_man in reply to drednicolson. | October 1, 2020 at 12:34 pm

        I think there is some merit to your suggestion, but it falls short.

        If they move the capital then the new place will become just like DC.

        Kevin Philips, in a book, had a better suggestion. Break up the government. Trump has already done that with the department of the interior. Keep the Congress and the White House in DC. MOve the other parts: SCOTUS, Pentagon, Dept of Energy, HUD, etc all over the place.

        It will certainly make lobbying more issue focus rather then political affiliation focused, which I see as a plus.

      henrybowman in reply to MarkSmith. | October 1, 2020 at 3:03 pm

      I think the beatings and arsons in their cities explains why they can’t “just do their job.” It’s becuse they… well… just can’t do their job.

    “Radical to the point of Revolutionary”

    You bet. Explaining why the left wants to use Article V to call a new con-con. If they can get editing their hands on the Constitution the new version will bear NO resemblance to the 1787 version which protects individual freedom by limiting government. Their version will increase government and change us from citizens to subjects.

    Dangers of a con-con,

    https://jbs.org/concon/con-con-full-story/

    Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | October 1, 2020 at 10:27 am

    I am not sure the District can be added as a State. It is not a territory. It is the District.

    What has that got to do with it? Since when do states have to have been territories first? Congress can create states wherever it likes, except that if it’s taking territory away from any existing state it needs that state’s legislature’s consent. So if Congress says DC is now a state then it’s a state. If Congress says the moon is now a state, it’s a state.

      “If Congress says the moon is now a state, it’s a state.”

      FREE LUNA!

      alexm in reply to Milhouse. | October 1, 2020 at 10:39 am

      It matters, I think, because of it its relation to how it plays into the constitution:

      Article I, Section 9
      “… To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States”

      This has an implication that the seat of government is this land is *ceded* by states to become the Capitol. Can this land be a state if it’s the seat of government – which seems like it’s supposed to be separate from the states?

      I think no, personally…and I wouldn’t be surprised with the current SCOTUS makeup they’d strike it down on these grounds.

        Milhouse in reply to alexm. | October 1, 2020 at 7:08 pm

        Sorry, you’re incorrect. The capital doesn’t have to be in a separate district, it just can be. The capital was originally in NYC and then in Philadelphia.

        Read the clause you just cited. Just read it. It says one of the congress’s powers is to control such district as may become the capital. It says how that may happen: by the states’ cession and congress’s acceptance. But nowhere does it say it has to happen, or that once it happens it must be permanent.

        Congress can decide that it no longer wants DC to be a federal district, and can make it a state. It can also keep the capital there, or it can move the capital somewhere else. If it does that it can either ask the host state to cede it some territory for a new federal district, or it can choose not to have such a district at all.

        It can also make a state out of most of DC and keep the immediate area around the Capitol as a federal district. Personally I think it should give most of Washington back to Maryland, keeping only the federal precinct where very few people live. (This would leave that tiny remnant with three electors, which is not right, but Congress can fix that by simply declining to appoint those electors. No constitutional amendment needed.)

      dystopia in reply to Milhouse. | October 1, 2020 at 2:07 pm

      The District consists of land given to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States for the purpose of creating “The District” as specified in the United States Constitution.

      If the United States does not wish to use the land for its Constitutionally assigned purpose, the land would first have to be turned over to Maryland for disposition. The intent of the Constitution is that new States can not be purloined from existing States. The consent of that States Legislature is needed.

      You are punctilious to the point of obdurate. You make no real points, but offer technical irrelevancies.

        Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | October 1, 2020 at 7:11 pm

        If the United States does not wish to use the land for its Constitutionally assigned purpose, the land would first have to be turned over to Maryland for disposition.

        No, it would not. That land now belongs to the United States, it is no longer part of Maryland, and Congress can do whatever it damn well likes with it.

        You are punctilious to the point of obdurate. You make no real points, but offer technical irrelevancies.

        F*ck you too. I always make real points, backed by solid evidence and arguments; you never offer anything but nonsense you pulled out of your rear end. Go to Hell.

          dystopia in reply to Milhouse. | October 2, 2020 at 11:19 am

          You really are an officious little ignoramus with a vapid legal instincts. The District is ceded by the States for the purpose of being the seat of Government. Those areas that that were not needed to be part of the seat of Government in the past were returned to the State. The land is not there for what amounts to appropriation by Congress from one State to create another State.

          Your understanding of law and Statutory constuction is second rate You utterly misconstrued the law behind the Sandman case when you failed to understand that the accusation that Sandman impeded access of Phillips and in effect detained Phillips was Defamation per se.

          A tiny mind trying to puff itself up. No matter how much you bluster, you will always be second rate. Good, but not good enough to be at the top.

    stablesort in reply to dystopia. | October 1, 2020 at 10:43 am

    Another option is to really put the screws to the district: no votes at all, highest tax rates in the nation, nine PM curfew, no private vehicles, through the roof carbon taxes and no divorces.

    That would surely change the makeup of the district…

Schumer…decades of douchebaggery. He really hasn’t gotten better with age.

Dems have grown tired of governing. Now they insist on ruling. With an iron fist, even.

JusticeDelivered | October 1, 2020 at 9:59 am

I suspect that Joy Reed and Schumer have similarly low intelligence and poor ethical standards.

I don’t see why Mitch doesn’t offer up the same. If Repubs get elected, let’s do away with filibuster and split NY into two states, New York and Upstate York.

2 new red senators!

Time to start fighting back

    How about splitting the People’s Democratic Republic of California into two or more states? For that matter, why not Illinois, Washington and Oregon?

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to PrincetonAl. | October 1, 2020 at 10:31 am

    Add two more out west. The state of Jefferson.

    Milhouse in reply to PrincetonAl. | October 1, 2020 at 10:34 am

    Congress can’t split a state without its legislature’s consent.

      What good is a “Living Constitution” if it isn’t, well, living? If the Supreme Court can find room in the Constitution for abortion, homosexual marriage and Obamacare, it can find a way to split states six ways from Sunday.

      Perhaps we should ditch the Living Constitution and have the Free For All Constitution.

      thad_the_man in reply to Milhouse. | October 1, 2020 at 11:17 am

      Did Virginia agree to West Virginia’s splitting off?

      I think a “state succession” process would be very useful. Any region that is populous enough to form it’s own state can succeed from a state, temporarily become a territory then apply to become a state.
      The state that it left should also become a territory, needing apply to be reamitte4d.

      It would certainly ease a lot of tensions is states where there are two regions of polar opposite polities, but where one dominates over the other merely because of population.

        Virginia was not a part of the United States when West Virginia seceded and became the State of West Virginia. Virginia had already seceded from the US and US law and that US Constitution did not then apply to Virginia.

          thad_the_man in reply to Mac45. | October 1, 2020 at 12:05 pm

          No. They said theyw ere not part of the US, but technically they still were. There is this whole thing called the Civil War which established that principle.

          Virginia42 in reply to Mac45. | October 1, 2020 at 12:06 pm

          Well, no. The Federal government (which created WV) did not accept secession as legal, therefore Virginia had not “left the union” in a de jure sense and there was a war going on to see if it would be de facto into the bargain.

          The point remains–the Federals created WV to punish Virginia–there was nothing really “legal” about it. They could do it, so they did.

          alexm in reply to Mac45. | October 1, 2020 at 12:24 pm

          Virginia’s primary legislators went rogue/traitor. The loyalist legislature set up in West Virginia as a government “In exile” and that government consented to creating West Virginia and ceding all the territory they had control of.

          Mac45 in reply to Mac45. | October 1, 2020 at 1:57 pm

          Do not believe everything you read about the Civil War.

          First of all, there was no Constitutional prohibition against any state members leaving the Union. So, secession was entirely legal. Whether the other members of the Union agreed or not as irrelevant. See, before the Civil War, the United States was a voluntary federation of autonomous states, which had banded together to provide for mutual defense and to provide a means for reconciling disputes between member states. The big controversy within the US had always been whether the power and control should rest with the Federal or state governments.

          Second, Lincoln and his administration recognized the fact that secession was not prohibited. That is why they needed a trigger to justify any military action against the Confederate states. At the time, the Insurrection Act of 1807 could not be used to justify taking action against the states which seceded, because it required the permission of the state involved for federal action to be taken. The Insurrection Act required the insurrection to be against the will of thee state government. This was changed in 1861, after the Civil War started.

          Third, the secession of the southern states was sold to the American people as being treason or revolt against the Federal government, by the Federalists. It was a naked power grab which forever destroyed the original idea of the dominance of state’s rights. It was also necessary to gain the backing of ordinary citizens who thought of themselves as citizens of a state first, then as citizens of the United States. It is interesting to note that virtually all of the Union military units during the Civil War were state militia units and though of themselves as state military units; i.e., the 2nd Michigan, the 1 Massachusetts, The 3rd Pennsylvania. All belonging to individual states which placed under a unified command during the war, much the same as occurred during WWI and WWII.

          So, secession was not prohibited by either the US Constitution or US law. Leaving the Union was therefor not treason or rebellion, as the Federal government had no authority to prevent it. The “official” cause of the war was the forceful eviction of US troops from Fort Sumter, which was in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina, and was therefor outside the jurisdiction of the United States. The US simultaneously prosecuted the military action against the Confederate states as being conducted against a group in rebellion and as military action from an independent nation. You can’t have it both ways, yet that is exactly what happened.

          The result of the US Civil WAr was to forever subjugate the traditional power of the states to a centralized federal government. And, we can all see how that turned our. Now a fe states actually control th entire country. Voters in NY control water issued in Utah. Voters in California control health care in West Virginia. And, our federalist politicians want to increase the power of the federal government even more.

        Milhouse in reply to thad_the_man. | October 1, 2020 at 7:27 pm

        Did Virginia agree to West Virginia’s splitting off?

        Yes, it did. As far as the USA was concerned, the Restored Government of Virginia was that state’s legitimate government, and its legislative branch was the state’s legitimate legislature. Its representatives and senators were recognized seated in Washington. It consented to West Virginia’s secession and admission. From the USA’s point of view the rebels occupying Richmond did not speak for the state at all.

    I’d rather see all major urban cities be recognized as independent nation-states – who send non-voting embassadors to DC. They run themselves and are connected to the rest of DC for purposes of commerce, travel, etc. Their supreme leader is their mayor.

    Signs on the way in “Now Leaving the United States” and on the way out “Entering the Red Zone”. 😉

      “…and are connected to the rest of DC…”

      Geez … I meant “…and are connected to the rest of the US…”

Isn’t this the sleaze bag that got caught orchestrating the disgraceful “demonstrations” outside the Kavanaugh hearings?

He and Pelosi and Adam Schiff should be Tom Dashcle’ed

There have been at least four previous referendums about statehood in Puerto Rico, all of which have failed (each time the Joseph Goebbels media informed us they were expected to pass).

Perhaps Schumer plans to annex Puerto Rico anyway so they can have the joy of being taxed to death by the Communists while enjoying “antiracism” witch-hunts extolling the superiority of the black race? Or maybe the rolling blackouts and lack of life-saving drugs thanks to the Green New Deal is the best selling point? Possible the thrilling prospect of rationed health care (with Communist Party bigwigs getting the best treatment) will seal the deal.

Once this game starts, the Republicans can play, too. I imagine the Dems are counting on the Repubs to have more restraint, leaving the agenda to be set by the most obnoxious. The votes should do something about that.

If we’re going to use the SCOTUS as an ersatz legislature, it probably should be bigger, at least the size of the House. It would need term limits to get rid of ageing deadwood, or Washington won’t be big enough to hold it. We should have more states, too. As is, one crummy state government can cripple too large a chunk of the US economy and society in general. We should limit the damage any one “woke” career politician can do by splitting up their fiefdoms.

Interestingly enough, the US added a state a while back, solely because the Democrats were douchebags back then, too. Maine was split off from Massachusetts as part of the Missouri Compromise of 1820. This generated two free-state senators to compensate for the two new senators from Missouri, a slave state.

    stablesort in reply to tom_swift. | October 1, 2020 at 10:47 am

    At our founding, there was one representative for every 30,000 residents. We need to return to that level of representation.

Schumer is a loathsome turd.

As if we needed anymore proof that leftilibrals are sore losers and even sorer winners.

The Friendly Grizzly | October 1, 2020 at 10:39 am

Schumer is one of those people who – when i see his face – I want to slap him repeatedly, and hard.

On healthcare, the Speaker of the House declared that we need to pass the bill to find out what’s in it. On packing the Supreme Court, Biden says we need to elect him to find out what’s in him.

Don’t laugh, it worked the first time…

States are not created for purposes of changing the balance of political power. Wake up America, everything the Dems are proposing is to overturn the country. Sore losers from 2016 – now they are actively encouraging voter fraud and will take radical actions to change America. Therefore, we must vote against every single Democrat on the ballot in November.

When Biden said that “I am the Democratic party” in the debate, Trump missed a great opportunity in not asking what about Pelosi and Schumer.

Hopefully in the next debate he will get another chance.

2smartforlibs | October 1, 2020 at 11:26 am

Time to stop letting these spoiled brats have power

Watch very carefully what they are NOT saying.

Amnesty.

I would bet cash money that the Dems have a “Every illegal alien in the US is now a citizen” bill all set and ready to go the instant they dump the filibuster. It would be introduced in the House, sent to the Senate, and signed by Joe as his signature accomplishment about ten minutes before he ‘retires’ and lets the Veep take over.

He’d look great on an embalming table.

Schumer: “Oh, screw it. Let’s see just how bad our electoral fortunes can really get. If this doesn’t kill us off, next time I’ll come out in favor of literally blowing up the planet to save the environment. That oughta do it.”

Someone who doesn’t carry water for the Democrats needs to get this guy on air asking him about the small fortune that it will cost the taxpayers to create these new state governments.

And I’m guessing PR won’t just want to give up it’s inept and corrupt power base. How will their citizenry survive paying federal taxes? They barely show up to work as it is and consider it a huge favor to the business owner when they do so.

What about when the left coast starts flirting with the plan to split up Cali again? Is Cali proper magically just going to shrink it’s government spending to apportion these new states? Not proportionately, I can assure you. This will be a scam to funnel more money to the parts and the political party in charge will make sure that their pet projects get the bulk of that feeding trough.

Schumer is a nebesh without a spine. His original base has deserted him so now he relies on the ignorant voters to be re-elected. His legacy is trash.

The important takeaway, ladies and gentlemen (note the homage I pay to the gender binary, AKA reality) is that on the one hand Biden insists, “I am the Democrat party” when Trump points out the Democrats’ violent hard lurch even more to the left.

Biden of course implying that a) he’s some sort of moderate and b) he’s the leader of the party and any leftists will be kept on a leash.

Then along come Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, et al to remind of us (as if we need reminding) that none of that is true. Hell, Biden himself reminds us IN THE SAME DEBATE IN WHICH HE DECLARES HIMSELF TO BE THE PHYSICAL EMBODIMENT OF THE “MODERATE” DEMOCRAT PARTY that he even knows it’s not true.

When asked why, if he condemns the violence, he doesn’t call the governors of Washington and Oregon and the mayors of Seattle and Portland and tell them to put a stop to it he says he isn’t in elected office. Oh, thanks Grandpa Gropey. To be the real leader of the Democrat party you have to currently be in elected office. See the list I mentioned earlier.

As to obvious lie Biden advances that he isn’t as much of a leftist as everyone else at the top of the Democrat dung heap, he lies and says the Green New Deal isn’t his plan. Funny; he says it is his plan on his campaign website. Unless we are to use pretzel logic and conclude that plans he endorses and even calls “crucial” aren’t part of his agenda.

The bottom line is if this senile fool who’s being propped up as the “reasonable face” of the Democrat party tricks enough gullible fools into committing electoral and perhaps literal suicide this November, Grandpa Gropey will be sitting at the kiddie table eating a puddin’ cup while the real leaders lay waste to the country.

I love it when the mask wearers rip the mask off their faces, don’t you?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend