Welcome to Thunderdome

And if there's a danger of not getting put back into office, gerrymander and/or suggest to your poll workers ways to game the system. Millions of dollars are a lot of reasons to go the extra mile to keep your job.

But oh yeah I forgot, some peeps, even here, think politicians are honorable people. Sorry if I triggered y'all.

Trump sniffs glue, gives speech.

Donald Trump claimed he’ll "end government corruption" if he’s elected to the White House.

The crowd at the rally broke into chants of "Paul Ryan sucks!"

Wtf? Even if he wins, how the fuck can he begin to communicate with the members of what's supposed to be his own party?

No word when Mulder and Scully will be sent to investigate.

You don’t want him to talk about the other stuff, but he does — you know, there is a larger conspiracy, larger collusion.

“Also, you have the new Project Veritas video by James O'Keefe — the second one he released,” she said. “The first one was showing how some people connected to the DNC and the Clinton campaign are trying to get protesters to incite violence at Donald Trump rallies. The second one is about voter fraud. They use the words voter fraud.”

Which has brought about precisely as many legal ramifications as all of Lyndon LaRouche's allegations.

Trump “will remind people who the insider is and who the outsider is and what does it mean to be an insider in Washington, D.C., who’s been there literally for decades,” she said.

What in the everloving fuck does any of that mean? Were you just listening to "Inside" by Van Halen?

That's what's going down on the inside
Don't let this get around to the outside

Yeah, reality's a bitch.

Yeah, that was the joke.

I have to wonder if you've started hitting the hookah bar on your lunch breaks. Less corruption? Hah. Less bullshit? No chance.

If you were normal, I'd ask you why you're so negative, but you're you, so... Also, I didn't say "less bullshit".

But you've poo-pooed my idea, so what's your idea?

Will never happen.

What's your idea for a solution to riders?

Leisher wrote:Also, I didn't say "less bullshit".

...harder to pass bullshit, etc.

Harder to pass = less frequent passing of bullshit, ergo less bullshit.

What's your idea for a solution to riders?

Cattle prods up the ass.

I don't think there's a practical way to stop riders in their entirety. Sometimes things are attached to a bill that one person would consider to be a part of how the new law will operate that another person would consider to be a mere rider. There's not a clear line.

Harder to pass = less frequent passing of bullshit, ergo less bullshit.

You sure you're not a politician?

Cattle prods up the ass.

I guess reality isn't a bitch?

I don't think there's a practical way to stop riders in their entirety. Sometimes things are attached to a bill that one person would consider to be a part of how the new law will operate that another person would consider to be a mere rider. There's not a clear line.

You have a point, but we could at least stop riders like funding for some bullshit in Missouri on a bill meant to send relief to hurricane victims in Florida.

we could at least stop riders like funding for some bullshit in Missouri on a bill meant to send relief to hurricane victims in Florida.

You mean like flood relief and hurricane relief being covered in one bill? Yep, no way that'd make sense.

You sure you're not a politician?

How is my use of classical logic painting me as a professional liar?

Malcolm wrote:

we could at least stop riders like funding for some bullshit in Missouri on a bill meant to send relief to hurricane victims in Florida.

You mean like flood relief and hurricane relief being covered in one bill? Yep, no way that'd make sense.

You sure you're not a politician?

How is my use of classical logic painting me as a professional liar?

I actually drew state's names out of a hat, so you applying reasons for them that are a figment of your imagination.

And honestly, those items should be separate. Different disasters. Different states. What would really be the issue with having Bill 231a and Bill 232a? Another vote that'd take a minute?

You and "classical logic" go together like Michael Moore and a salad.

I actually drew state's names out of a hat, so you applying reasons for them that are a figment of your imagination.

I can find creative ways to link any ideas you might have, no matter how unrelated they may seem, and I'm not even a professional liar.

You and "classical logic" go together like Michael Moore and a salad.

What about adding a reduction in corn farming subsidies to that Florida disaster relief bill? One person might say that's an unrelated rider, while another might claim that it was added in order to reduce the financial impact of the bill and it won't work without it. Who's right?

I don't like that rider crap, either, but I don't think there's a way to write a rule that will exclude them properly. That's why line-item vetos were created.

That's why line-item vetos were created.

That's the part that gets me. The best response I can think of is an executive branch balance along those lines, and it's patently unconstitutional on the fed level. You'd at least have to kick the bill back to Congress with all the markups. The legislature is the group of twats we have whose job is to make the fucking laws, so it's a pain in the ass to restrict their ability to do so. I'd say certain types of bills should be prohibited from having any riders attached. By the by, the House's rules on riders are much stricter than the Senate, where most of the bullshit occurs. Perhaps applying those to the douchebags on the higher hill would do some good.

I can find creative ways to link any ideas you might have, no matter how unrelated they may seem, and I'm not even a professional liar.

Well, see, you say that, but...

The donut salad was a good pull.

What about adding a reduction in corn farming subsidies to that Florida disaster relief bill? One person might say that's an unrelated rider, while another might claim that it was added in order to reduce the financial impact of the bill and it won't work without it. Who's right?

I don't like that rider crap, either, but I don't think there's a way to write a rule that will exclude them properly. That's why line-item vetos were created.

That's fine, but like we pretend that "men don't talk like that" and "only white people can be racist", we're pretending that, let's say, 50% of riders are easily sniffed out as bullshit.

How about a law that says riders must relate to the bill? Will it catch all bullshit? No. Will lawmakers invent ways around it? Yes. However, it's a start.

Sometimes, it's ok to baby step your way to a real solution. It's certain better than never doing anything except explaining why every solution won't work.

Maybe a bipartisan committee selected by random draw from all 50 states assembled every 6 months that reviews bills to ensure there's no pork?

Better yet, let's just give the job to Malcolm. He never approves anything.

Better yet, let's just give the job to Malcolm.

My era of corruption will bring down the cost of buying a Senator to a price everyone can afford.

How about a law that says riders must relate to the bill?

That'll get ridered to death.

Trump just promised me 4 more years of Obama in his closing statement. Sounds like I need to vote for Hillary to make it happen though.

My era of corruption will bring down the cost of buying a Senator to a price everyone can afford.

At least then everything would be equal.Corruption wouldn't be an issue if everyone could afford to bribe a senator.

I predict the price of hitmen, private investigators, and freelance data thieves will skyrocket, though.

Corruption wouldn't be an issue if everyone could afford to bribe a senator.

Sounds like politic in Mexico. It's not really better.

How about a law that says riders must relate to the bill? Will it catch all bullshit? No. Will lawmakers invent ways around it? Yes. However, it's a start.

Baby steps are good, but I don't think that would qualify. We don't need more laws that accomplish nothing. We have too many of those already.

I'm sure there's a good solution to be had, I just don't think that's it. If one occurs to me I'll be sure to post it.

TPRJones wrote:

Corruption wouldn't be an issue if everyone could afford to bribe a senator.

Sounds like politic in Mexico. It's not really better.

While your average American can comfortably afford a Mexican bribe, most Mexicans can't.

Goddamn, that debate looked and sounded hideous. I pity anyone who listened.

Example.

Questioned directly as to whether he would accept the outcome should Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton prevail on Nov. 8, Trump demurred. “I will keep you in suspense,” the Republican nominee said.

Of all the things you could quote, I think you found the lamest one.

I have no issue with that answer at all, and any logical thinking person shouldn't either. It's in no way a denial. It reads to me like he's just having a little fun with a press that hasn't been fair to him.

And not for nothing, but this is a guy forced to sign a pledge by a group of people who didn't honor that pledge once he beat them. So don't blame him if he's snake bitten.

CNN anchor thinks Congress already has term limits. I always find it cute when folks who are supposed to be reporting the news are instead spouting opinion, and aren't even educated on the subject. Her smugness while making her statement makes it doubly fun.