The lower chamber of the United States Congress is the House of Representatives. The Senate is the upper chamber.
The lower chamber of the United States Congress is the House of Representatives. The Senate is the upper chamber.
“But this isn’t the end. I promise you, this is not the end, and we have to regroup and we have to continue to fight and continue to work day in and day out to create the better society for our children, for this world, for this country, that we know is possible.” ~~Jon Stewart
yes, it is. which is the thing i was talking about in the first place when i said "congress in the US doesn't do shit" because i thought it was pretty common parlance to refer to the house as just "congress" and conversely the senate as the senate.
(like seriously, tomorrow just ask someone you know apropos of nothing "hey what's the other government body that isn't the senate" and i think most people will say "congress" and not "the house of representatives")
maybe that's a regional thing, or maybe i'm personally insane in some fashion. either way i'm finding this entire digression with multiple of you people seeming like you don't understand what i'm talking about to be utterly baffling and i legit can't tell if you're being obtuse intentionally.
Last edited by Malkiah; 2024-12-23 at 09:36 AM.
Don't get your knickers in a twist. I find it odd to refer to the House of Representatives as "the lower chamber". I acknowledge that, at least historically, it's been framed that way, as an analogue to a House of Commons, but "lower chambers" have mostly outgrown their implied status, largely because they're more representative of the population than the so-called "upper chambers".
More so, the idea that the House of Representatives should be disbanded in favor of the Senate is just fucking wild. Far more people on this forum have argued for the opposite, for abandoning the Senate completely, since its apportionment is representative of States and not the people.
Personally, I think both should remain, as both forms of representation serve a purpose, but I do feel like some of the power of the Senate should be moved to the House instead, so as to be more controlled by popular demand. And I think the government should increase the size of the House, to dilute the growing power of any one particular Representative (and to help stymie some of the blatant gerrymandering woes).
The last thing we need is to isolate power into the hands of 100 Senators who grow more out of touch with their constituency with every generation.
- - - Updated - - -
Congress is both. House and Senate are singular.
Edit: Your confusion may come from the fact that members of the Senate are commonly referred to as "Senator" while members of the House of Representatives are commonly referred to as "Congressman"/"Congresswoman"/"Congressperson".
Last edited by PhaelixWW; 2024-12-23 at 09:39 AM.
R.I.P. Democracy
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
huh, who ever suggested that?
when edge originally said that congress having to pass everything by line-item would stop them from being able to do anything else, i'll confess my brain automatically interpreted that as "the house of representatives" because of what i hope to christ is now an established difference in regional slang but edge hasn't chimed in so who knows what he even meant... but when edge said that, i just asked if they've done anything worth while in the last 60 years and opined that if the body were relegated to just passing everything by line-item, the american populace really wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
you got anything for that?
or are you also stuck on continuing this now half-a-page little saunter around either bitching about semantics or inventing straw men positions to pontificate about?
in a certain way though i think at least in recent decades senators may seem more out of touch with their constituency directly but i'm not entirely certain that's a bad thing and may actually be a good thing, and the evidence for that is the way in which people in the house seem to be more in touch with their constituency and look how well THAT is going.The last thing we need is to isolate power into the hands of 100 Senators who grow more out of touch with their constituency with every generation.
ever heard of john bennet or john hickenlooper? if you're not a complete politics nerd, probably not... two senators just being out of touch with the people who voted for lauren boebert.
how are you responding to me with this and it's not some kind of intentional trolling?Congress is both. House and Senate are singular.
i literally just said... fuck it, why am i typing this. there's no possible explanation for you saying this in response to the text you quoted other than you griefing me, so it's stupid of me to play into it.
my "confusion" is that every human being i've ever spoken to in my life up until literally tonight has used the terms "congress" and "house of representatives" interchangeably, including on this forum where i've been haggling over politics for nigh on 15 years.Edit: Your confusion may come from the fact that members of the Senate are commonly referred to as "Senator" while members of the House of Representatives are commonly referred to as "Congressman"/"Congresswoman"/"Congressperson".
i'm not above conceding that maybe in the last 3 hours i had a stroke and still don't realize it and my memory of my entire life up until this point is a fabrication of my dying neurons, but i swear to god that is a common colloquialism and you're just fucking with me at this point.
but yes, to you and shadowferal and whoever else decides to make a thing out of this... my apparently bumpkin ass used the wrong symbol for a thought, sorry for my sins.
consider me properly chastened and shamed for my ignoble stupidity in having spent 45 years hearing the word 'congress' used to describe the house of representatives and thinking that was commonly accepted slang.
Last edited by Malkiah; 2024-12-23 at 10:18 AM.
Anyway, apparently today (or yesterday, I forget) Elon was meeting with Mike Johnson over congressional stuff going forward, even saying that he (Elon) would like to entertain the idea of becoming speaker of the house. Trump was signing MAGA hats.
People doubted me and it's already begun, lmao.
Why is Elon, an immigrant civilian who has no security clearance, meeting with the people in the highest rungs of government, ambassadors, etc, planning out the next several months of what he wants to happen, trying to intimidate congress members into falling in line or he'll primary them etc. while Trump signs hats and does photo ops and token speeches. Sure seems to me like people are starting to wake up to who's really running the show now.
“Terrible things are happening outside. Poor helpless people are being dragged out of their homes. Families are torn apart. Men, women, and children are separated. Children come home from school to find that their parents have disappeared.”
Diary of Anne Frank
January 13, 1943
It's been mentioned often enough to make me wonder about the consistency of your "15-year political haggling" history.
The majority of bills are proposed in the House as opposed to the Senate, in party simply due to the larger number of lawmakers in that chamber. Representatives are more in touch with the needs of their constituents than Senators, though neither do nearly well enough of a job at that.
Bruh. I made one post, plus a one-line question. But sure, blame me for other people pointing out your apparent confusion.
There's a reason why I said both are necessary viewpoints.
But you're pretending like direct representation of the population is a bad thing. I confess, that's almost refreshingly backwards compared to most of the opinions from people on this forum.
It's a simple statement of fact. I wasn't harping on it, just pointing it out unambiguously.
You're hardly the only person to get it wrong. So there's that.
I'm not. Again, it's not a completely uncommon mistake, but it's still wrong, and the subsequent confusion by people on this forum should indicate why that's important to clarify.
- - - Updated - - -
Can we start reporting this shit as a conspiracy theory yet?
R.I.P. Democracy
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
What an interesting point from a surely honest and genuine poster. Odd that he hasn't given any evidence of this, despite being asked by other honest and genuine posters.
You know who else is an honest and genuine poster? @Flarelaine who I'm sure would regard this topic of conversation positively in this fast-moving thread. Surely he has something to say about the illegal efforts by Democrats to sabotage a business due to politics, which for some reason haven't been cited despite asking three days ago.
i have a theory about this actually.
it all comes down to monarchism, IMO.
while human civilization doesn't do the divine right of kinds anymore as a matter of course, there's still a terminally malignant cultural tumor of monarchism within all of western society - a repressed and often times unacknowledged belief that one true scion of god is the anointed leader and that kingdoms bowing to their sovereignty is the correct and natural order of things.
this is why i think fascism is on the rise, because this unprocessed cultural trauma doesn't have any kind of realistic expression in the modern world since the age of monarchies is long past, however there is a repressed but constantly perpetuated need simmering below the surface of much of western culture to make the populace subservient to a single ruler.
issues of constitutions or laws or traditions, these are minor fabrications of a modern world that have no relevance to the deeply rooted psychosis these people have lurking inside them.
they don't understand the how or why of what they feel, they only feel literal centuries of resentful cultural teachings pressuring them yearn for a system of governance that no longer exists.
so when you get shitheads like trump or musk (or any right-wing dickwad in the world right now) rolling up and acting like they're an unchecked king of old they develop a cult of fanatical followers who i'd wager could never articulate why they are slavishly devoted to these nimrods but who will nevertheless empower these purile dorks into positions of great consequence.
I don't see how this is conspiracy theory or unfair portrayal of the situation, Musk was on calls with heads of state like Zelensky and he is in meetings that you would in fact need a background check and clearance to be in. He has threatened members of congress with primary challenges if they don't fall in line. You can technically say that Trump is indeed in charge but it's not conspiratorial to think that his level of involvement and influence is disturbing.
- - - Updated - - -
Frankly I see it as a failure for Trump much more than Elon since he chimed in and put his thumb on the scale. The final bill that passed was missing a lot of Trump's must pass so seeing republicans "standing up" to Trump in this way is puzzling.
Musk build his own political apparatus to elect Trump so it wouldn't be listed on federal donations and that figure is higher than anyone on the list. It is fair to say that we don't know what these people donate in dark money since that's obstructed but the same can be said about Musk. Either way he has taken Trump's victory as his own and republicans are rather confused as to which daddy to follow.OpenSecrets keeps receipts.
Of course, that only includes campaign donations, so it won't include other donations/payments by anyone. But there are people on those lists who have donated large amounts in multiple cycles, too, which Elon hasn't.
I don't think it's even that specific to Western society.
I think most people, in general, by dint of being humans and thus social animals, want a leader. Someone who gives direction to the society. More rarely, they want to be that leader.
Monarchism is just a pretty clear and simple expression of that desire when it comes to societies that are too large for there to be a personal relationship between all members and the monarch, combined with the acknowledgement that the monarch will tend to want the best for their own offspring, thus inheriting the position.
That's it. We're not that different in this than our cousins in the Great Apes. We just build bigger groups which need leaders with broader reach.
Even representative systems are more like "let's make a council out of kings we choose so they don't get TOO distant from the local needs". It's not that different, really. Especially since it often still leads to political lineages.
That desire for leadership is also why cults happen, it's why organized religion is such a mess, etc. People, mostly, want someone else to both tell them what to do and to keep order on their behalf.
But that's not the claim that's being made. If the claim was "Musk has undue influence on our government", then I'd say it's valid. But the claim is that he's "really running the show now", which is just conspiracy theory garbage.
Let's be clear here: Musk didn't "build" anything. He just took the guard rails off and invited in the deplorables. Political "influencers" existed on Twitter (and other platforms) long before Musk bought Twitter, he just boosted the signal a bit.
But you can make the same claim about Rupert Murdoch and others who use their own slew of media channels/websites to spread their particular slant of bias.
This position I won't argue with at all. Either statement. Musk is a dweeb narcissist LARPing as a glorious leader and MAGA cultists are lemmings just looking for someone to point the way to the nearest cliff.
- - - Updated - - -
Most of human sociology boils down to humanity's innate desire to belong, and to believe that the group to which we belong is ascendant. People will go to extraordinary lengths and justify a litany of sins in order to accomplish those two things.
Reading on the formation of gangs, in particular, is a fascinating glimpse into this process.
R.I.P. Democracy
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
The hard reality is that very few clean bills could have passed on their own merits. The US is composed of states and territories. Each one consists of counties and cities with their own individual interests. The typical clean bills would only benefit a few of these entities. Very few benefit all of them at the same time.
The best example would be the Francis Scott Key bridge in Baltimore.
Another one would be Presidio Park. It is owned and operated by the Federal Government. However, any funding for park improvements would only benefit the City of San Francisco. Many representatives will not vote for that.
That's why it is easier to combine a bunch of them into a single bill. Ultimately, your typical funding bills are compromised bills. You give a little and get a little.
Reps like McConnel and Pelosi brought so much funding to their respective states and, in Pelosi's case, City/County, they will never get voted out.
Last edited by Rasulis; 2024-12-23 at 05:58 PM.
Meh It's a bit of fun mixed with some seriousness frankly the narrative seems to really get under the skin of MAGA.
The figure doesn't include the value of turning twitter into a Trump propaganda machine, he created a company they had door knockers, registering voters, mailing list and he had that stunt where he gave away money to voters in swing states. There were investigations on the legality of that stunt not sure if that's going anywhere now that Trump has won.Let's be clear here: Musk didn't "build" anything. He just took the guard rails off and invited in the deplorables. Political "influencers" existed on Twitter (and other platforms) long before Musk bought Twitter, he just boosted the signal a bit.
Imagine for a minute that when Obama got elected in 2008 and George Soros got on phone calls with world leaders, threatening members of congress with primaries and all the things Elon has been doing publicly. You guys made Soros into a nightmare boogeyman and he barely appears publicly but are celebrating Elon for obvious corrupt behavior.
This is an underrated comment. Congress ought to be more independent from the Executive, and fund or defund departments as part of both their oversight and their independent check on the Executive.
Lower house is used more frequently, but lower chamber is also fine and unambiguous.
Also very common usage, but a little ambiguous, since Congress can also mean both. Congress, congressmen, congressional representative, congressional districts. (Not that you need to be told this. "Congress is deadlocked" is so frequently used to refer to the House being deadlocked Ex.)
"I wish it need not have happened in my time." "So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."