Welcome to Thunderdome

Vince wrote:

TheCatt wrote:Getting rid of the Senate? Or how do you mean

Going back to them being appointed by the states. This was a brilliant idea from the founders. It provided another check against federal overreach. Plus I think it would be a moderating force against either party swinging too far to the left or right. Your senators would be more in line with the politics of your state's government rather than the national party.

I like this, but I could still see where problems would show up. The same problems too. However, with states watching their reps, it might make corruption a touch more difficult to pull off?

Leisher wrote:I like this, but I could still see where problems would show up. The same problems too. However, with states watching their reps, it might make corruption a touch more difficult to pull off?

I'm seeing so much out of state money flooding into Texas for their senate race. This would minimize that. I mean, you could still influence state races, but they'd have to really shotgun that approach. I don't think it would be perfect. A lot of the Jim Crow laws were a result of too much abuse of state control. But we have seen in the last 10 years how businesses can pressure for changes in individual states. I think the up side would outweigh the downside.

Vince wrote:I'm seeing so much out of state money flooding into Texas for their senate race.

Robert Patrick O'Rourke reported raising $38.1 million in this past quarter. To put this in context, Jeb Bush's entire 2016 Presidential campaign raised $35.5 million.

Vince wrote: Jeb Bush's entire 2016 Presidential campaign raised $35.5 million.

To be fair, Bush barely registered once the race got going. Maybe if he had had $355 million?

TheCatt wrote:To be fair, Bush barely registered once the race got going. Maybe if he had had $355 million?

And yet he still had a better shot at winning than O'Rourke

Leisher wrote: Arizona candidate doesn't disavow her party, but insults it and is running without mentioning it.

To be fair, she insulted both parties.

Asked on Arizona radio station KTAR if she was a "proud Democrat," Sinema responded, "Gosh, it's hard to say proud. I don't know that -- I'm not sure that people are even proud of parties anymore, because I feel like the parties are not doing a good job.

She's not wrong.

No, almost everyone is incredibly tribal about their party, and they mistake it for pride. When they attach their self-worth to how their party does, they end up crying hysterically on election night.

I've always said there really aren't that many atheists. They worship something.

TheCatt wrote: To be fair, she insulted both parties.

I know. My bad for not making that clearer. I thought the noteworthy part was her attacking Dems while being a Dem.

TheCatt wrote: She's not wrong.

Based on that alone I'd vote for her.

Saw this walking to a wine tasting last night

OMG he's so ra....cist. Wait.

That sign would get my vote. Hilarious.

Someone's sending bombs, or suspicious packages, or something.

Clinton, Obama, Soros.

A right wing Unabomber?

I have a dollar that the person will be caught, will turn out to be a leftie, and only FoxNews will report that.

The WH also got a package.

Gordon's theory is still in play as the others could have been decoys...

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Not hearing the WH package claim repeated.