I see they are praising Patty Murray (D-WA) for casting her 10k vote (only Female Senator to reach that number)....
All it points out to me, people stay in politics way too long.....

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Saturday, April 22, 2023 - 11:07 am: Edit

I say:
3 terms as CONGRESSMAN
2 terms as a Senator
2 terms as President.

AND you may not run for one office whilst holding another Federal elected office. Mandatory breaks in service... You could run for re-election to the same office though.

And I'd reduce the number of political APPOINTEES by 50%. They tend to get into mischief.

Finally, I'd have a constitutional amendment to change how the Supreme Court is appointed & led. In April of every odd numbered year a new justice would be appointed by the President. The Senate must vote on confirmation within 90 days; a failure to vote is considered approval. The Chief Justice is elected from among the justices at the beginning of each term. The number of justices can vary; if there are more than 10 at any given time, the Senior most justice must retire. Retiring justices may assume Senior status if they wish.

Note that this would get rid of court packing, threats to enlarge the court, give each President 2 appointees in his term, and get some turn over (slow) in the court... As far as I can tell the Presidency tends to be GOP about half the time, and Dem the other half.

In my life time: Kennedy, Johnson, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Clinton, Bush II, Bush II, Obama, Obama, Trump, and Biden. So that should prevent one side from being too controlling of the court.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Saturday, April 22, 2023 - 11:36 am: Edit

What if the current President likes the senior justice?

Could he reappoint a senior judge back to fill his own position?

A couple of scenarios to consider:
1. Control of the Senate is held by opposition political party. (Unlikely to get a new appointee confirmed, see what happened to Garland at the end of the Obama administration.)

2. The Presidents own party might not want to retire a popular jurist. (An example of the might be Scalia.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, April 22, 2023 - 09:13 pm: Edit

Ahem...

Before I say "no more of that" I would comment that a certain political pundit wrote a book a decade ago with a dozen proposed constitutional amendments, one of which was that the 9 justices (no larger number allowed) would serve 18 year terms. That way, ever president gets two per term. I don't recall how he would replace those who die, retire, or are impeached but I suspect it would be something about filling the unexpired term to keep the every-second-year cadence. No one could be appointed twice. I think that would be a better system than what we have how and corrects a technical fault in my esteemed colleague's proposal. As for an unfriendly senate, you'd have to appoint someone who would be acceptable to both sides, which isn't a bad thing. That said (as a technical clarification only) ...

NO MORE OF THAT.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, September 15, 2023 - 04:39 pm: Edit

JEFFREY EPSTEIN UPDATE
I am going to put this down here as (however fascinating it is) any discussion would wander into politics in eleven seconds.

We all know the story. Jeffrey Epstein had serious money, and had an island stocked with women of various ages, and invited the high and mighty (and the assorted mobster, syndicatist, oligarch, and so forth) to drop by for an interlude of fun and ... "bonding".

Turns out, that isn't even 10% of it.

Several intelligence agencies had connections to Jeffrey, sending undercover operatives to his island to gather dirt on spies, criminals, high, mighty, and whoever else. They provided Jeffrey with some protection in exchange for access to the wealth of information gained. That does explain to some extent just why he got away with as much as he did. Fortunately, he didn't think game designers were worth inviting to the island.

That's just a start. Jeffrey ran a gigantic money laundering operation, arranged for arms shipments, drug shipments, transfers of various types, and no end of other things. If you really wanted dirt on your rival in whatever field you are in, you could pay Jeffrey to manufacture it for you.

Many of those "charitable foundations set up by the high and mighty" (on all sides of every aisle) were in fact set up by Jeffrey (something of an expert) and were used by him and others to launder no end of dirty money.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, May 26, 2025 - 11:26 am: Edit

THE BIDEN SCANDAL
I am going to put this down here because we are NOT allowing discussion of this explosive topic.
Everyone needs to pay attention to this. Go do some reading from all sides and decide for yourself if the "prevailing wisdom" below is true or not.

The gist is that President Biden was not mentally competent to be president, so the actual decisions were made by a group of five top aides, all of whom were Obama people inserted into the Biden Administration. You could fairly say that the Biden Administration was Obama Term 3. (Note for record: After Woodrow Wilson had a stroke, he was not president. His wife ran the country by pretending to take questions to him for decisions and documents to him for signature. Nobody was fooled, but what else was there to do?)

Just when Biden became incapable is debated. No one thinks he was competent during 2024. Some think he was not competent during the G7 meeting in June 2021. The fact that he was not competent was well known, but anyone who said so was villified, as proven by the subsequent books by the people who were part of the cover up. From the campaign in 2020, his staff kept Biden away from the press.

Kamela Harris was (generally felt) picked as VP because she was not likely to become president, and that would mean that the single Biden term was just a breathing spell to get a new generation to win the 2024 primary. When Jill Biden wanted to stay First Lady and pushed Joe to run, she used the threat that you couldn't force Joe out as Kamela could not be elected.

The first debate was set very early as a means of getting rid of Biden early enough to pick a replacement.

A word about the "autopen" (a machine capable of producing a copy of a signature). This was invented for routine correspondence and those "happy birthday" letters the White House sends a thousand times a week. It was never supposed to be used for legal matters requiring an actual signature (executive orders, legislation, pardons, appointments). It was used (legally) for minor official documents (like 10,000 military commissions every year). Biden used it (legally) because his Parkinson's made his hand shake and as long as he was the guy ordering it used there was no problem. Debate rages how many pardons were signed without his knowledge and are thus technically illegal. (He did sign Hunter's pardon with his own hand).

Biden's cancer diagnosis was revealed to cover up the recent book revelation and was used as "you have to drop this because Biden is sick". Nobody believes this was not known about years earlier, meaning it was another cover up. Biden would not have survived a second term, putting the easily controlled Harris in office. Many doctors have suggested that the various treatments for cancer and Parkinsons reduced Biden's mental alertness, and that the cabal running the show increased or decreased his medication based on what they needed Biden to do in public. One note, Biden never had any kind of stutter and attacking critics as unfairly making fun of this non-existent stutter was just a smear defense.

The Democrat defense is the "Trump mental decline" hoax which has no evidence to support it, just like the Russia Hoax and the Fine People Hoax. (Note for record, such hoaxes are not new. Sarah Palin never said "I can see Russia from my house.")

Go, read, study, be an informed voter. Decide if this is a problem to be solved and what solutions should be considered.

In the end, we all know, the Congressional Hearings will have no real results. Nothing will happen, no one will go to jail, nothing will change.

More is the pity.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, July 18, 2025 - 01:35 pm: Edit

EPSTEIN: Thank you all for not trying to discuss this sordid mess. I should summarize what you all are thinking without allowing any discussion.

1. It was not a good look for the Attny Gen to say she had a client list and then say she did not. That smacks of a cover up, or at the least shooting her mouth off (the first time) without knowing the facts.

2. This wouldn't matter except for extensive reports that Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, Price Andrew, and a lot of others visited Epstein Island and presumably had sex with prostitutes, some of them under the legal age. Trump denies that he went there and notes that if there was any proof he did that Biden would certainly have released it.

3. Epstein Island (and his mysterious murder/suicide) are bigger stories than you think; every intelligence agency on the planet had spies on the island gathering dirt on the rich and mighty.

4. The Wall Street Journal published a story saying that a sexy birthday letter from Trump to Epstein existed, but later admitted that they didn't have it or a copy of it. Trump says the letter is a fake, similar to the "Steel Dossier" which was totally fake. Trump has sued the Wall Street Journal and is expected to win that one and cost the WSJ millions.

5. Trump ordered AG Bondi to release relevant data warning that some totally fake data was in the file and now that it's proven fake would never be released. Bondi said she had released all she was going to. Then the WSJ thing hit and Trump told Bondi to release the grand jury transcripts, and Bondi said she would ask a judge to do so but noted that grand jury stuff is very hard to get any judge to release.

Check the story for yourself but consult multiple sources as the legacy media is not reporting the half of the story that shows Trump wasn't there.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 07, 2025 - 01:58 am: Edit

GERRYMANDERING is bad and I am embarrassed that my state is doing it in such a blatant manner. I am sure all of you heard this on the news. Members of the legislature hiding in other states to prevent a quorum and vote is a Texas tradition going back 100 years or more. We consider it an annoying waste of time, and both parties have done it.

What you might not have seen if you don’t watch a variety of news (who has time?) is that other states have done as bad or worse, even recently.

In Illinois, 43% voted for Trump but weirdly shaped districts give Republicans 17% of house seats.

In Massachusetts, 36%voted for Trump but oddly shaped districts give Republicans zero house seats.

In New York, 43% voted for Trump but strangely drawn districts give Republicans 24% of House seats.

In California, 38% voted for Trump but bizarre district lines give Republicans about 16% of House seats.

There are other examples on both sides, and of course if a state only has one seat there is no way to apportion it.

The fact that both sides do it doesn’t make it better. The fact that both sides claim they only did it because the other side did it first is pathetic.

I propose using a system used in countries like Germany and Israel. The state is one big district, and each party gets its share. New York would see 11 Republicans and 15 Democrats, compared to 7 and 19 now.