When you come back in 2019, please give some examples of this with evidence of the outcomes.
When border patrol is forced to release those coming across the border, they should ship them to neighborhoods with high concentrations of politicians.
High concentrations of democrats who advocate for open borders.
Maybe some Rs too who need a fire under their ass to get them to take action.
No doubt there at all. The R’s have had the House and senate for the last 2 years and did squat to repair the broken immigration mess. Thy did nothing to secure the border. They did nothing but sound more and get less. Very popular with democrats.
Republicans have a history of frittering away majorities because once they’ve got one certain things start happening.
First, the two majorities they’ve frittered away they’ve gained when a Democrat is in the White House. Under such circumstances so-called “moderates” have shown that for purely partisan reasons that they can restrain their spendthrift urges to go along with conservatives. But as far as advancing conservative ideals they moderates are only friends up to a certain point, they don’t want to risk being unliked or unpopular over things they’re not really on board with anyway … so the second thing these new Republican majorities have done is to act as if they can do nothing without a stronger majority … and that becomes their MO in fundraising.
So with Republican majorities in Congress under a Democrat POTUS they slow the growth of government but do little to stop or reverse it (the “moderates” wouldn’t cooperate doing that).
The upshot is that twice they’ve given the economy time to catch up to government, which has helped to save the reputations of both Clinton and Obama on the budget.
Ah, but then a Republican gets in the White House and suddenly the “moderates” no longer have a partisan reason to restrain themselves and so they redouble their reaching across the aisles – which they never really stopped doing – and the Republican majority is suddenly a bipartisan majority intent on spending and advancing big government.
This happened in a big way under W when moderate Jumping Jim Jeffords even bolted the party to spite the conservatives and W. But even without him the moderates had quickly learned and would have learned that they were the go-to people if W wanted any of his agenda to go forward. As a consequence of rolling him over we had 6 years without a single veto.
Because spending wasn’t restrained or progressivism rolled back the Democrats were able to manipulate things to their advantage.
They knew Republicans would pay a price for breaking promises even as they would never pay a price for being spendthrift. In fact the more spendthrift the government the better for Democrats.
“Moderates” are ideologically unable to understand that it seems. They think their job is to get along, to reach across the isle, to be bipartisan and statesmanlike … for them going along with conservatives is a political expediency to gain power and not an obligation to keep their promises in order that they deserve to retain it.
The only problem the people they want to compromise with have 1 position, my way or the highway.
But that may be easier to understand when you consider that those who are more sold out for something, especially bad ideas it sometimes seems, will likely seem dominant to quislings who aren’t, who are only half hearted. Thus Democrat Socialist (the weaker disease) often seem to think communists (the more virulent strain) are stronger or should be stronger than they are and all too easily become Useful Idiots or the tall grass in which the other hides and grows.
The left always bands together to get 1 of the 5 things they want whereas the right would never support for 1 out of 5.
The problem with the left is failing to reach agreement within the party resulting in dissension and a broken party.
That is why I believe that amendments and attachments that are not related to the core bill should not be allowed.
However, this practice can be beneficial to both parties and will never be abolished.
If you pay attention to the reading of the bill summaries prior to a vote in the House or the Senate, the bill description more often than not goes like this:
HR 2345; A bill to (specific description) …and for other purposes.
I think that another reason it is unlikely to go away is that “not related” is only a subjective concept. I can see politicians using something like “six degrees of separation” to show how their favorite rider is related to the main bill.
If common sense could ever prevail, then maybe we would not have to put up with that nonsense. But as-is, too many people are afraid of being accused of having a closed mind if they err on the side of common sense. They would get into debates on what common sense is and how many incels can dance on the head of a peon.