MID-TERMS are coming fast and the outcome is clear. What happens then?

I think you may have missed the sarcasm in my post.

 

On a few occasions, when it comes to immigration, I have already put my proposals out there. The premise is to solve the root problems of illegal immigration, not its symptoms, aka the border wall. This would include the 2007 Comprehensive Immigration Bill that Bush proposed, including the Blue Card, streamline the processing for 485 adjustment status and lower the cost, keep the FBI background checks when applying for 485 adjustments, shorten the wait times, and allow businesses and industries, especially agricultural industries to hire outside of the US to work in the field using the US embassy or consulate or any other industry and job with priorities to job shortages that we have, and a few others. Allow refugees and Asylees, if coming to the US, be allowed entry while the case is being processed. If they fail to show up two times, then the application is considered abandoned and self-deportation within 30 days. In addition, get rid of quotas for that A number.

All of that will significantly reduce illegal immigration in the next five years once passed and implemented.

I do not blame administrations for things not in their control, like high gas prices or higher food costs or inflation. I have used your own arguments against you and yet you think its different on one side than the other. Go figure.

 

I just ignored the Trump comment and focused on your question with the implied that tourism is a touristy state argument.

 

Ok, suit yourself.

 

My argument is not about going to a rally, but political party base. People make the mistake that how many people at a rally for a specific candidate describe his base. Hogwash. Don't care if it's Trump, Biden, Harris, or any other candidate, D or R, national, state, or local.

 

A fence around my yard also doesn't stop a burglar, bit it slows them down enough to get an accurate shot off.

The border wall was never intended to be an end-all be-all solution for illegal immigration. That's a strawman fallacy.

You know what DOES encourage more immigration and tens of thousands of people flooding the border? The perception of desperate people that we are no longer enforcing immigration, and that's exactly what this administration portrayed..

People are being persecuted for being LGBTQ?

They can be whatever they want. What they can't do is force everybody else to support their lifestyle or use the public education system as a means of indoctrination of other people's kids in alignment with their views.

That isnt a Civil Rights issue, thats some person offended that they cant demand others use their preferred pronouns. Absolutley nothing like Civil Rights as we historically know it.

 

You seem to be unaware that bad management is the worst enemy of any business or institution; it easily destroys a great one- while good management can take a bad one and turn it into a winner. All this crap we put up with is mostly self-inflicted by bad management. And management is not necessarily direct control; it's the vision or lack of vision to see things that are coming or could happen, and be properly prepared for them. Any CEO knows he is fully responsible for what happens on his watch- and so is any president or administration.

 

That was one of the compromises in the bill here. And 700 miles is not what Trump proposed originally in his campaign. We have a 2000 mile plus border between US and Mexico. 1100 miles in Texas alone with the Rio Grand River being the distinguishing feature that separate the US and Mexico. Trump also said that "Mexico will pay for it" and that didn't happen, did it, even with a GOP congress, GOP senate, and a GOP White House. That 700 miles was not every effective, was it. It didn't stop the flow of drugs, it didn't stop the flow of illegals, and it really didn't do anything except be a complete embarrassment. But hey, it looked beautiful, didn't it. And if we look at America's most secured spot, the San Diego Corridor where a wall actually exists, more drugs are found there than any other part of the country. They have dug under it, through it, over it, etc. Or in other words, not very effective. So again, why build a wall when it really does not work?.

Second, I really don't care who voted for what here. My argument is the wall's effectiveness or lack thereof. In this case, it is a lack thereof.

The only thing you got right was the war in Ukraine has influenced the price per barrel with price volatility at its core. Other than that, all you have argued is political policy decisions that will not affect the overall price significantly. It may affect it for a few cents here and there, but not as significant as you think it will.

Second, oil-producing companies are wanting handouts from the government. This gives them the capital with little ot no risk whatsoever. That is bad policy. Private oil-producing companies have the capital to invest in additional refineries right now. The question is where. Nearly 60% of all oil refineries are located in the gulf coast, especially in Texas, Louisiana, Alabama and the Florida panhandle. There are others in the NE corridor, California and the West Coast, and a few in the midwest. Won't matter if there is an oil pipeline or not, and that will not help unless the refineries start producing more. And that means more labor to work there, with three standards, staggered shifts, 24/7, etc. No amount of getting rid of regulation will help that or allow that to happen unless said oil companies are willing to meet the needs of its customers instead of getting handouts for capital by the Federal government.

Furthermore, Companies like ExxonMobile control most of the renewable energy patents and do most of the research right now. And yet, they want the handouts for that too. You may want to research this before you respond to this specific argument.

The SEC climate rule change is not going to affect how a company produces anything. The SEC is the financial regulatory agency. What that means is more disclosure and accountability on the balance and income statement sheets, where the environmental impact may apply. These will be extraordinary items on the financial reporting disclosure forms that investors will use to make a financial decision. It has nothing to with producing anything. Period. The rule will affect only publicly-traded companies and publicly traded ETFs. Currently, there is no defined rule on where to disclose such items unless it has a clear impact of an extraordinary item, such as an oil spill for instance. This rule would allow to standardize environmental regulatory disclosures on its comprehensive profit and loss statement along with the various SEC reporting financial disclosure forms. Somehow, you think it will cost the company money to produce something. Go figure.

You do realize Trump admires strong men who are totalitarians. '

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/politics/donald-trump-dictators-kim-jong-un-vladimir-putin/index.html

Even Reagan never did that sort of thing. And praising Kim Jung Un is not what North Korean Defectors want and they have criticized them for it.

Yeah, because teaching kids about their environment is gibberish. Boy, you are so clueless.

False provisions? Don't you mean fake accounts, aka bots. But it is still on hold right now. Whether it will go through or not is anyone's guess.

Criticizing Israel is their prerogative, a right to free speech, and their obligation if they do not like what Israel is doing. YOu do not have to agree with them but you cannot call them UnAmerican because that is about as UnAmerican you can get. It does not excuse what Trump said and it does not show how Trump can get the country United. In fact, he further divided it with that little comment. It also showed his general anti-immigration stance to anyone different from him. He has a history of that too. Even Ronald Reagan criticized Israel after they did the infamous bombing raid in 1982. And Israel has done some pretty bad things to the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. They have done some good things too. So, we really need to stop tiptoeing about Israel and stop treating them with kid gloves.

For starters, it was more like threats. Second, NATO has been slowly increasing its defense budget from its member countries, some more than others. Third, every administration has been talking to them. Right now, because of Putin, NATO has increased it even more and that is how nation's respond when it comes to defense spending on NATO. But that still does not excuse Trump of withdrawing troops from Germany, a move that is seen more as a threat to NATO. The compromise was Poland, and that got Putin's attention, for all the wrong reasons.

You know Trump was really good friends with Epstein and his girlfriend, right? And there are reports that he took that very same plane according to the plane logs.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/01/jeffrey-epstein-and-donald-trump-epic-bromance

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/02/politics/donald-trump-dictators-kim-jong-un-vladimir-putin/index.html

The link shows 15 times where he admired totalitarian strong men and regimes.

I know you are a big Trump supporter, one of the biggest on this forum. And the point is that everything you throw at Biden or Obama or whatever Democrat comes your way, Trump has done it too, in the past., among other things. After all, if he can say that his father was born in Germany, no I mean Switzerland, no I mean Scandanavia, then I guess he is always telling the truth, isn't he? And yet, you are only critical of Democrats while you give countless excuses to Trump and his antics. Again, showing you that you look through a political kaliedoscope.

 

For starters, the government is not a company. If it were, it has 535 board of directors, aka the House and Senate, each with its own agenda, each person with its on criteria that vary very differently,. If the Government was a company 98% of them would never be on the Board of Directors, period. But that is government.

Second, some of the best leaders delegate authority. If you ever read 7 habits of Highly Effective People or books on leadership, the art is knowing when to delegate and when not to. Second, at the CEO and board level, they look at strategic objectives, not day-to-day objectives. The Day to Day objectives should match the overall strategic objective, such as increasing revenue or increasing taxpayer access, the government equivalent. With business, it goes from the top down while the government goes from the bottom up. The bottom is the taxpayers by the way, who elect their representative or Senator, the board, who then have committees and pass laws for the so-called strategic objective.

The biggest problem in government is its structure. It's too complex, too convoluted, and not enough front-line employees and too many front-line managers. Take the military, for instance; we have more general officers today than we had at the peak of WW2, yet with have one-sixth of the manpower today compared to WW2. In the government sector, we have over 4000 political appointees with 1200 needing to be confirmed by the Senate for approval. That number needs to drop 75% and let government employees rise to those offices. They are the SMEs after all by the time they get to that position. And since government is not concerned with a profit or profit motive, the deciding factor in any business model, then we need to stop using qualitative business profit motives as a reason why or wny not to go a certain direction. It simply needs to be a simple goal with the funding to back it up.

 

Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
Democrats voted for 700 miles of border long before Trump entered the picture. And they did it unanimously no matter how many excuses you throw at it.

Yet here we are with the highest gas prices in history due to these same policies.
You can stick your head in the sand all day if you want.

Nobody claimed that but you love those deflections, don't you.
I said it makes production more expensive, hence your gas prices are more expensive.
If you can't keep up, may I suggest Facebook.

Blah blah blah blah

Blah blah blah blah

But criticizing the idiots who criticize Israel isn't.
Funny how that works

More Blah blah blah blah

NATO increased their portion of provision by 40% after Trump threatened them.
So you can stop with all the lefty BS. Ain't nobody buying your garbage.

You know Clinton visited Pedophile island dozens of time, Right?

You don't know ***** from shinola.

 

Not really. If your house is paid for, that burglar can still your house without even stepping foot inside it. And burglars really don't care if you have a fence or not. The experienced ones will use deception to get inside the house or will recon the house for a couple of days before they actually break-in. In my first apartment, the person, quite literally, smashed my front door while I was at work. By the time police arrived, the burglar was gone and I was out a $200 stereo. this occurred in the mid-1980s.

Second we are enforcing the immigration laws. Depending on where they are caught and how long they are here will depend on the avenue they take. Being caught and then released is still being caught. This practice was started under Bush Jr, I believe. But you have to catch them, don't you? If a car goes through a port of entry in Larado across the land bridge, you will be asked by CBP if you are a citizen or not, your car will be scanned, and a drug and human sniffing dog will skower around the car to see if there is any probable cause. You will be asked to provide ID and passport to prove your identity, and they may ask you some simple questions, and finally, after all that, you will be let go and then get caught in the Border Patrol inspection point on IH 37. There, you might be doing this all over again or not.

https://www.borderreport.com/hot-to...ess-of-legally-crossing-the-us-mexico-border/

If you are taking away their free speech rights because it is inappropriate to talk about the topic to anyone, per HB 7, then yes, it is a civil rights case. If a law was passed so that no conservative can identify themselves as conservative or even discuss conservative topics, that too will be a civil rights case. And that falls under the definition of creed, among other things.

The Supreme Court ruled that LGBTQ is protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and is a protected group in Bostock v Clayton County, a 2019 Supreme Court Case.

Use of the preferred pronoun is the proper thing to do and not doing it is like using the word "boy" to an African American kid only.

 

Instead of all the deflections, why do you cower away from my post?
I know why you do, because you can't dispute them.
Are you up to the task? Lets find out.

Just last week, his administration put new restrictions on building liquefied-natural-gas terminals in the United States, which are needed to liquefy our abundant (and clean) natural gas and place it in tankers to be shipped to Europe and the rest of the world. The cancellation of oil and gas pipelines, such as the Keystone XL, and gas-drilling permits in Alaska, Texas and other oil-rich states have also lowered our domestic production.
Dispute it if you think you can.

The Energy Information Administration’s data show that the United States is producing roughly 1.2 million fewer barrels oil per day than we were under Trump.
Dispute it if you think you can.

When Trump left office, the price of oil was at roughly $1.89 a gallon nationally. Now it is $4.49 and headed to more than $6 a gallon.
Dispute it if you think you can.

Biden may say he wants domestic oil producers to invest the money necessary to increase domestic oil production, but when it comes to actual government action, the Biden administration again made it more expensive to produce domestic energy.
Dispute it if you think you can.

By a 3-1 vote, with all Democratic members voting "yes" and the sole Republican member voting "no," the Securities and Exchange Commission advanced a proposed rule compelling public companies to disclose “climate-related risks” to the government.
The goal of the new regulation is to discourage Wall Street investment managers from giving oil and gas companies the investments they need to increase domestic energy production. Once the regulation is fully implemented, publicly traded companies would be forced to provide data on their own carbon emissions, how much energy they consume, and how many carbon emissions are generated by their suppliers and customers.
Dispute it if you think you can.

Environmental, social, and governance investors would then use this data to deprive fossil fuel producers of the capital they need to increase domestic energy production. The new regulation will also force companies to get their emissions data independently certified by a third party. This will be a huge windfall for consulting and accounting firms but will only hurt consumers who will be forced to pay for their high fees.
Dispute it if you think you can.

Deflections coming in 3----2----1----

 

I think you are closer this time.
No, government is not a company; if it were, it would be bankrupt. Government's survival does not depend on performance. Nor does a politicians, unfortunately.
Principles of management however remain similar, but the consequences come down in a different form in a government structure. The citizens ARE the stockholders, but not wise enough as a group to hold the "directors" to the rules and weigh the results by performance alone.

Yes, leaders must delegate- but that is hardly sufficient, and it does not change his accountability. It's who the leader chooses, how they instruct them how they supervise them. This is why it still comes back to the CEO in business, the top man in any organization. You know who Warren Buffet is, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. Owns around 100 companies, employs about 500,000. His headquarters in Omaha Nebraska oversees all this, and does so very, very well- and that office has only 25 employees. Had only 18 when I bought in. I've spent many hours there, listening to Buffet and his 2nd man Charlie Munger explain operations and answer questions of shareholders. I consider that as high education, and I certainly paid attention. I've also done management training programs for major companies like Boeing. I've seen and worked with a conglomerate empire where the father ran it smoothly- but the son that took over after his death felt compelled to micro-manage everyone; drove the good people away and kept the yes men. The empire his father built still exists- but it quit growing when junior too over and continues to shrink. Still the same principle- When the people who fail work for you- YOU have failed. That's where the buck stops. The bigger the mess, the tougher CEO it will take to clean it up. Unfortunately, a president does not have the power of a CEO; each will inherit a lot of people that should have been fired long ago, but he can't make that all. He can however, usually fire the boss of such people. But the pursuit of excellence is strangled with regulations, and make it very difficult to fire worthless of troublesome employees in the general service area. Each area manager has to cope with incompetence... and frequently to get rid of such an employee they transfer them to some other department rather that tackle the elaborate documentation required to actually fire them. This is part of the regulations, that literally protect incompetence at lower levels. Thus, they don't give middle managers the tools to do their job. You may understand this better than most seem to.

I agree that government is far too large and complicated. That tends to make any organization unmanageable. So long as people elect politicians who are not good managers, and fail to accept the challenge of cleaning and leaning the machine of government, that will remain true. So long as management itself lacks focus and courage, nothing will be done. One of the reasons Trump appealed to voters is the business management reputation, that of getting jobs done where others failed. Ross Perot, one of IBM's most successful people ran for president as an independent in 1992; he had that ability too. I actively supported him because he knew how to get things done.

Now right here, on this forum- people are trying to micro-manage government; complaining about every personal feeling and perceived injustice, and eager to vote for the person who tells them what they want to hear. Government does not have a corporate profit objective, but it should have something quite similar, in that the desired end result should be a more efficient government that takes less from the citizens, does the necessary work well and beyond that- stays the hell our of the way. That is not on the political objective list of either (or any) party.

At the same time- the people are also to blame. The more of us that want government to take responsibility for us, the weaker we become. A strong nation requires strong people- who believe in themselves, who want to stand on their own feet, control their own lives- and are willing be accountable for their own actions. The ratio of those who want to do that and those who won't do that impacts the kind of governance they will elect. It's easier to buy votes than to earn them, sell promises instead of delivering performance- so politicians tend to promote weakness and dependency, while talking strength and independence.

Without strong people, government will rule the citizens. If you think about what's happening right now, you see a lot of effort directed toward diminishing people's confidence in themselves, in self-esteem and strength. All the reasons why any government or political entity would do that are immoral, literally evil- or downright stupid, and you won't find me supporting any that.

I've read the books, been to the classes- worked very hard at it. But I've also done what very few have done. In my business career, I've had the opportunity to meet and work with a good number of exceptional entrepreneurs- millionaires, a couple billionaires, many whose names or companies you would immediately know. When the opportunity presented itself, I would respectfully ask them the secrets of their success. IF you approach that right, ask right, almost all are happy to tell you- and that will be advice you can't buy anywhere.

So- figure our how to change these problems. I mean seriously- complaints aren't solutions, and they won't fix things. And I mean actual solutions, not generalities. Not just a plan, but a viable and effective plan passing all the hurdles, that can be accepted by the congress, compatible with law, supported by the people- and be enforced and upheld. Something simple- so people can understand it.

40 million or so expert complainers have no idea how to do that- and apparently, no interest in trying. How about you?

 

im not sure what all that has to do with the fence. The fence is intended to aid border control in slowing access across the border to better capabilities for apprehending thise that break our immigration laws.

Its absolutley effective in doing that.

Teachers, in the capacity of their employment do not have the right of free speech. Just as any employee doesn't have those rights.

Customer service people dont have the right to treat customers poorly behind the shield of free speech. They would be fired.

Same for teachers and education.

And nobody is denying them the right to be LGBTQ. What is being denied is their use of a platform through their employer to push that agenda.

What's "right and proper" has no bearing.

In my opinion, people who don't identify as their biological gender have a mental disorder. I don't think it's right or proper for me to enable this disorder by playing make believe with facts to protect their feelings.

I dont really care how they sold identify, nor do I care what they or you call them. What I have an issue with is the belief that I should have to call them something they are not.

 

The GOP tends to sit on their asses and posture in the hopes that you don't notice that they are actually aren't doing a damn thing. We've held the majority for twice the amount of time that the Dems have since 1994 and except for the last 6 years of the Clinton Presidency, when actually a great deal was accomplished the GOP did nothing to slow the slide toward big expansive intrusive government. And they won't if they can avoid it.

In the South they have a term when you ask Bubba if he has done something that he claimed he was going to do. He'll reply that "I'm fixin' too." Which if you drill down means they haven't done a damn thing. At best it means "I'm getting ready to get ready to do something about it."

Take Trey Gowdy and how he was going to get to the bottom of Benghazi. Oh he was "fixin' to really do a lot of stuff" and never got any further. Hillary still had classified clearance until the summer of 2018.

The Republicans did nothing to protect Trump while the massive intelligence operation designed to run him from office was conducted by the FBI, DOJ, DNC, former Crooked Hillary Campaign and Congressional Democrats. Hell, they joined in a time or two, Senate investigations even "confirmed" the lies and smears and pretended that evidence of Russian Collusion was grounded in more than Hillary Clinton disinformation.

Republicans slow walked Trump's cabinet nominees and made sure that Trump didn't fire Jeff Sessions or Rat Faced Rosenstein that was overseeing Dirty Bob Mueller's farce.

Dems see the majority as a means to push their agenda. The GOP sees the majority as the point amd once they have it, they sit on it, try not to stir up opposition while they pretend to do enough to keep the base fooled into continuing to turn out. If we could get Scalise as majority leader, maybe we would get something, but McCarthy is a silver haired Paul Ryan.

Now if in 2024 we can elect someone like DeSantis, then maybe in 2025 we could start to see some action, but, he'll fight the GOP majority who will try to slow walk him on everything and nearly every attempt to devolve power from the national government to the elected State Legislatures. Oh sure, these lawmakers will all show up on Fox News and get exercised and endlessly bloviate about all that they are "fixin'" to do, but, if you pay attention you note that they never quite get around to it or always come up just a bit short.

Winning is never as good as you dream it will be,
Losing is never as bad as you fear.

 

If our conveyances had CNA engines I can see your point. However, you are arguing that natural gas is affecting the price per oil. Hogwash.

For the last time, the "clean climate" rule of the SEC has to do with the FEC filings through their income, aka P&L, statements. Under GAAP, the rules are, well, murky, at best. The rule actually follows more closely to IFRS, which is making headway into the US Accounting system, especially for MNC. It has nothing to do with building anything per se, just disclosure. The rule applies to all publicly traded companies, not just oil and gas companies. Furthermore, that may be the fear, but it is an added complexity if a oil and gas company were to obtain bonds or loans for such projects. On the other hand, it will only apply to US investments and big oil-producing companies can still obtain the capital elsewhere, like Switzerland or Saudi Arabia or even Maylasia if they want. Thus, more clarification on the statement balance when looking at those numbers to give an accurate description of the company's value on the stock market.

ExxonMobile and other big oil-producing companies own about 90% of all patents in the "green" or alternative energy field. Although the sales of green fuel and alternative sources of energy is not significant in their gross receipts, they get the research credits and deductions fo help with their bottom line. Furthermore, I don't see that anytime soon to change until the oil-producing companies decide that it is more profitable to go green energy than with fossil fuels. Remember, ExxonMobile has walked away from the $4 billion investment in Russia because of the Ukraine war. That will be on the P&L as an extraordinary loss, and will probably take a portion of that loss each year until the amortization runs out, like 15 years. More fear from the right than actual analysis.

Finally, although we are producing less, that is on the oil-producing companies, not the Biden administration. You may want to ask those oil-producing companies WHY they are producing less. The United States Government does not control oil-producing companies. Oil is not a nationalized industry. Not even the Military-Industrial Complex is a nationalized industry. And the fact is, despite all your rhetoric and pseudo-intellectual arguments, the United States is STILL producing more than what we consume as a whole. So, we are still energy independent and have been since 2015 or so.

Since both natural gas and oil are global commodity markets, not local or specific to one country, the prices we are seeing, is being affected and influenced worldwide. Biden does not have that control, at all, and neither does Trump.

 

There are a couple of main questions. One, will Republicans take back the Senate and two, if they do, will they get rid of the filibuster?

 

national border walls in the modern era are not that very effective. And history tells us that as well. Hadrian's Wall was breached plenty of times. The 9000 or so Roman soldiers that manned the defense were held up in various forts. However, in between those forts is where the breachers occurred. With the Great Wall of China, it was also breached numerous times. Three dynasties of China were "foreign" and the Great Wall did not protect them despite having millions of troops stationed.

You were making a point that a fence will protect your property. Not necessarily. One of the more recent type of crimes is cyberstealing, namely property deeds. A thief can still steal your house without ever stepping foot in it. Just need a computer, some hacking skills, a little bit of luck, etc.

Actually, Supreme Court cases would disagree with you on that. Teachers, as well as students, can and do have certain free speech rights available to them. What usually happens to a teacher or student is violating policy by the school board, such as the Fort Worth Teacher who tweeted about letting ICE know who the undocumented children are. She had that free speech but got into trouble because she violated policy.

When it comes to Florida, Gov DeSantis said that no grade should teach LGBTQ issues or sexual orientation or gender identity, not just kindergarten through third grade.

Actually, they are. When you replace "gender" with "sex" under Florida's Civil Right Act through HB 7, then you are taking away the protected group under said bill. HB 7 does this systematically in the first few pages of the bill. Conservatives argued that they are still protected, but that is not the case because a transgendered person does not fall into any of the categories per se. Hence the problem.

And that's where you are wrong. It is not a mental disorder. If we did that, then all conservatives who still believe AND talk about the 2020 election also have a mental disorder; well, actually several, and should also seek medical help before anyone employs them, gives or loans them money etc. Do you really want to play that game here?

The problem you have is first, you do not understand what being gay or transgender means or the issues involved. I do not fully understand either, but I have relied on medical professionals to guide me. And second, conservatives are really good if they don't understand something or someone, they really, really, really go all out to dehumanize them. To some extent, liberals do this too, but not to the extent that conservatives do. It is not just with LGBTQ, but also includes political party affiliation, people or groups from countries they do not like such as Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Mexican, Muslims, Mormons, Catholics, Germans, etc. It is not just today, but also in our past as well.

For Transgender, the medical professionals know what they are doing. And my disdain is government interference between physician and patient. Arbitrary rules, such as Texas laws/directives which are going after parents trying to seek professional medical help for their children who are identifying with transgender issues is interfering with physician and patient interaction. Let the medical professionals do their job. Or is that too much to ask.

 

I agree nobody ever gets it right, and that is in part due to the fact we govern by committee (congress) and everybody wants the president to align with their personal view.

It really shouldn't be just a flurry of doing things- but a purposeful effort to do the things that are most important to do, and to do them right.
So long as either party thinks it is a competition in which one side must destroy the other to win, the people will lose.

It is often a matter of which party will do the most good and the least damage.

 

Current Vegas odds say the chance of Republican control is 86% for the house, 77% for the senate.
While not "polls", these statistics are typically very good at predicting outcomes accurately.

https://www.bonus.com/election/midterms/

The fillibuster is sort of like a roadblock to restrain a bulldozer. Serves both sides at one time or another. When it's working against them they hate it, when it's working for them, they love it.
It's a sorry tactic that is only there because the members of congress lack the honor to play fair across the board. Until, and if they ever learn to do that, I think the filibuster will remain.

 

"The republicans will easily own both houses of Congress"

So let me see if I understand correctly. Dems cheated to win the presidency but won't cheat to win seats on congress? People DO realize that makes no logical sense, right?

 

If Mitch McConnell is the majority leader I think he will do his best to keep the filibuster in place. If he is replaced by a far right person, the filibuster may die. Democrats know how important the filibuster is because if you have the presidency, the House, and the Senate with the filibuster gone, you have unlimited power to stack the deck in your favor on pretty much everything throughout all eternity and that is what the Democrats very badly wanted.

I consider the Senate to be a close to 50/50 proposition. I wouldn't make any big bets on it.

 

Yet another deflection about a claim I never made so you can run from addressing my post
I didn't read anything but the first sentence.

 

Reading books and going to classes do not even come close to what the government does and does not do. It's like watching all the YouTube channel videos where the youtubers are in foreign countries and think you have been there. Does not quite work that way.

Although the government is large as a whole, it is each department and agency that focuses on its main goal should be treated as a separate company with its goal, mission statement, employee culture, etc. And if you do that, it is much more manageable. That being said, taking responsibility is a two-way street. For starters, the voting public elects their representatives and those representatives muck things up for short-term political gain. We have, historically, a 92% reelection rate here. The founding fathers never envisioned that. To top that off, the legislatures spend very little time in their office or on the floor of the senate or house. Much of their time is spent with lobbyists, private groups, etc with the goal of campaign contributions or getting the lobbyists who donated to their campaign some extra incentive. To top it off, the legislatures think that is actual work. No it is not, just a perk of the actual job they are supposed to do. Not a bad job, huh. Furthermore, it is those very same politicians who are the ones who muck things up by controlling the purse strings. Want more audits, especially in-person audits? Then the IRS needs to have more money and personnel in order to do its job. But you won't do that and then, in the same breath, complain that the IRS can't audit groups or people who are violating the law. Thus, the idealogues have come up with a "solution." Have the IRS or any other agency, go after groups they don't like and keep their groups protected or safe from harm. Under Trump, that went to a whole different level than in the past. In the past, it was more strategic, but it still happened. And no, I am not talking about the 2013 IRS TIGTA report that indicated that groups were targeted based on certain words in the BOLO. Somehow, the conservatives viewed it as conservative targeting. In the TIGTA report, it basically said all, but that conservatives were more numerous than liberal groups. The point of the TIGTA report was NOT political groups, but the use of certain words or phrases for the auditors to select which 501c4 applications should be flagged. It also indicated that the number of 501c4 applications jumped from just a couple of thousand each year to more than 20,000 in 2010 alone while the IRS agents declined. So, the first responsibility and accountability is to the politicians who created this mess to begin with. The second responsibility and accountability was the "geniuses" who created the use of the words in the BOLO. And that is it. Other than that, it is political posturing for short term political gain.

So, what is the most successful for government, to think long term. That is our biggest strength and biggest weakness. Afghanistan is a perfect example of that. Both the Bush and Obama administrations had the same goal in mind, to defeat the Taliban, aka long-term goal. However, both the Bush and Obama administrations were succumb to the military-industrial complex. We basically ruined the local economy there with KBR, a Haliburton subsidiary that basically controlled all mass transportation in the country, and local businesses, especially in Kabul, relied heavily on our military-industrial complex to "be generous" on who they serve and when did they serve it. Yes, security issues were the concern; however, did we have to control everything from the little shop to the big business in Afghanistan? In addition, both administrations, despite having the same goal, differed vastly on their approach to securing and helping Afghanistan. We were too uptight on who was the Afghan president and how is image was to the American public than his capabilities as a leader of his people to deal with the Taliban and with the loss of combat soldiers performing their duties. In Afghanistan, most of the men, if not all, were, at some point, mujahedeen: first with the Soviets and then with us. And that was our greatest weakness in that although we do think long term for this, in the short term, we constantly change our objectives, our strategies, etc based on politics and public imagery AND not what was actually happening on the ground.

So, what does this have to do with successful businesses? Most successful businesses think long term, not short term. They are willing to lose money in the short term in a year or so with the expectation of making money in the long term. They have the patience, government does not, either Democrat or Republican.

Finally, for solutions, a political body discusses and agrees to compromises on the big issues such as abortion, illegal immigration, climate change, renewable energy, etc. However, given the political dynamics of today, compromise is a four-letter word and both parties do not want to give in the period. In 2019, Trump and the Democrats agree to a $2 trillion infrastructure bill. That dwindled to $1.1 trillion dollars. It was actually a good bill with a major compromise in place that both parties agreed to. Care to guess who yanked their support? Trump did and the Republicans did not have the cajones to pass the bill anyway. And Trump not only did this once to his own bill, he did this 6 times.

Note: Most companies are not going to tell you all of their secrets to their success. They will tell you only what you need or want to know, just enough to satisfy you. Having read the board of directors' notes and meeting minutes, I can tell you that company boards do not air their dirty laundry if at all possible. There are a few exceptions from former employees, managers, etc, but generally speaking, they do not do that. That is what they call proprietary information, the corporate world version of top-secret information. In addition, the meetings can and does get heated and discussed. What amazes me is the amount of detail they use for overall strategic planning. They are not concerned with individual grievances or employee bad behavior unless it is materially significant to the bottom line.

 

And yet, you were arguing that, weren't you? Just do not have the cajones to admit that though.