Maybe because the Governor of Kentucky is a Democrat and would appoint a Democrat to replace McConnell. If that is the process in Kentucky.
Sorry it is not hyper-partisanship. He is a flat out dishonest. Just look at things he said throughout the past several years that were flatly false. Hyper-partisanship will keep you from recognizing that.
I notice the absence on a link or any specificity. I’m always willing to change my mind when facts show I’m wrong. You’ve presented none, and I’m unaware of anything he said which were flatly false.
As I said, I'm not the one caught up in hyper-partisanship. I'm sure you won't accept these. https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c1cf...0aGUtbWFueS1saWVzLW9mLWFkYW0tc2NoaWZmLw&ntb=1 Legal Implications of Outing the Whistleblower - FactCheck.org https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=d886...cm5lci9hZGFtLXNjaGlmZi1rZWVwcy1seWluZy8&ntb=1 https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=a050...HJ1bXBzLXVrcmFpbmUtY2FsbC9pbmRleC5odG1s&ntb=1
Yes. Kentucky passed a law barring the governor from replacing Mitch with a Dem but the gov might do it anyway and see if a legal challenge holds up.
I dont think McConnell's impact is massive (like it doesnt tilt the majority in partisan way or change the filibuster calculus), but the extra vote if he were to step down before a replacement could be made or couldnt show up would definitely speed things up when it comes to Senate business, it also pushes Manchin/Sinema more to the side on anything that requires a majority to move on, so less internal wrangling or headaches if Feinstein or some other Senator is sick or cant vote. He's also the minority leader, so it throws up a leadership question too.
It is very sad and does happen on both sides of the aisle. I'm concerned it may be happing down the street in WH also. Unelected bureaucrats are one of the big factors ruining our form of government.
Unfortunately unelected bureaucrats are probably the only reason this system of government is functional lol. If social security checks being mailed and various other every day things that keep the lights on were Senate level dysfunctional, Feinstein being a vegetable would barely register as a problem.
Yes, you are correct!! I was more referring to them making policy but yes it wouldn't work if we didn't have at least some of them.
It would be nicer to have sharper people in government, but making/enacting policy in the American system is going to necessarily entail deferring to unelected people, we've created a modern technocratic state that runs on expertise, and no one is an expert on everything. Basically the alternative is a state that runs on corruption and patronage, a return to the 19th century spoils (er Jacksonian 'democracy') system. So you either get unelected technocrats or unelected cronies that arent experts at anything that have a hand in policy making. That's how US governance has worked under the Constitution.
Great point, although I believe that California should break up into about 60 states. This would give the voters there the same power as the voters have in Wyoming. I know there would be a problem with getting all of those stars onto the flag, but it seems only fair.
The house is where the voters in Cali get more power. Constitution was set up to have the Senate represent the state’s interest. Cali could break into North and south as they are really quite different in many ways. But 60 states.. LOL I’m sure you’re joking. Back to the Game, hoping it turns around it’s really getting ugly.
Thank you for those, seriously. I'm always willing to consider facts and opinions interpreting them. I read two of your links and have these observations. - Many more people believe the Russians helped get Trump elected (including me) than believe President Biden profited in Ukraine. In other words, I don't think Schiff lied, but rather expressed an opinion. He would have done better by not having done so, but at least there was some factual basis for it. - I didn't read the second link because it began: "Adam Schiff’s numerous fabrications have gone largely unchallenged by a fawning political media, ..." I stopped reading The National Review years ago due to the type of blatant and unapologetic bias shown in that introductory sentence. I don't much care for such bias from the left either. They both have a role to play, I suppose. - As for the final one, CNN, let me first say it has been deemed the "fawning political media" by the right, so I find it wonderful that you linked their criticism of Schiff. It shows that at least one person on the right considers them unbiased. However, it's a weak lie and more in the nature of hyperbole to make a point. In a word, it's the kind of thing politicians say all the time. Still, I agree he could have been more forthright.
It's sad Diane Feinstein has dementia. Interesting that her cognitive abilities are still on par with those of a healthy leftist.
I appreciate you considering, at least what is right in front of you. As far as Russia helping Trump, I don't think anyone on the right really doubts that Russia medaled in our election and probably helped Trump more than Hilary with what they did, problem is that is not what Schiff said. As chairman he omitted facts and distorted facts to say it was coordinated by Trump and Co and had hard evidence showing that. This was his lie and deception on the America sheeple that still believe the dossier was real and Trump had a direct line with Putin telling him what to do with the election. I know politicians bloviate and use hyperbole to try and make a point, but when you say, "I have seen the evidence" and it is never brought forward that is where I part ways with Schiff. I say that and firmly will say the same with the investigation on Hunter and the big guy. A lot has been claimed and I tend to believe most of the dots but will call out the right if they don't show a better connection than what we have seen so far.
