each and every day I have less and less words to say about politics, it sucks lol

Indeed it does. The politicians who actually look out for the regular person are becoming fewer and far between, but there are still some.

yeah, most of the ones we see day to day, tend to be the 5% of the human race without a brain it seems

American politics have always been so polarised, Sadly that kind hyper polarisation infected the UK labour party and took them from the party of the common man to the party of elite to the point where they even surpass the conservatives .

but nuzzles are nice

Democrazy does not work in a country where 40% of people believe in Creationism.

No it's not. Plus most that have been talking about politics have ZERO clue on how even Congress works. Even the guy in the video doesn't understand that for the Senate to vote on a stimulus package, it has to pass the House first. Last vote on anything was Oct 2. H.Res.1154 - Condemning QAnon and rejecting the conspiracy theories it promotes.

So I do my due diligence and keep active track on two important websites. https://www.house.gov/ https://www.senate.gov/

I can assure you this guy knows his stuff. The point that he was really trying to make in the video was that the Senate could have, and should have been working on plans for relief for workers and small businesses instead of shoving through the Supreme Court nominee (and like he said, one that can't even name the 1st Amendment rights of the document she's supposed to interpret). That, apparently, was their priority because it's the power trip they're on. A last ditch effort to influence the results of the election at worst. The Senate has voted on legal packages without approval from the House previously as well. Remember TARP? It failed in the House. Bush then pushed it to Senate, then it passed and went back to the House for revisions. Also, maybe you could address the fact that the House has literally passed hundreds of bills and sent them to the Senate for vote. Moscow Mitch has refused to even take them up -- power trip again. Clearly, their only concern is what suits them politically. So the fellow in the video is absolutely correct.

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7

In otherwords, ALL bills that involve money MUST start in the House. The Senate can amend it, but not be the originator. CARES Act is a current and prime example. Started in House, Senate amended it, House approved, President signed .

TARP first version HR 3997 was rejected when it was amended, so the Senate then used HR 1424, which did pass both Senate and the House. Do note that both started in the House and was amended by the Senate. Public Law 110-343. "Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008" this created TARP cause it's focus was on "troubled assets"

Which bills has the House passed since oct 2, cause there's nothing on their own website indicating any such bills. in fact most in the last 3 months have been nothing but committee hearings.

When I say hundreds, I mean there have been hundreds of bills passed since the Dems took majority in the House. McConnell has blocked or outright ignored a vast majority of them because his priority was confirming right wing judges while still in power. Again, the point that "Beau" is making is that the Republicans in the Senate have been concerned with shoving through the unqualified judge rather than focusing on other things. Since they were busy rigging that confirmation and shoving it through, other more pressing needs of the citizens fell by the wayside. Not sure how that isn't clear.

And I'm telling you that's a bold face lie. Why do you think that I listed the official House and Senate websites. Every resolution is a matter of public record. The house has introduced NOTHING in months, it has all been committees. Judge Barrett has a fantastic record and is more than qualified for the position. She's a Constitutional judge. Was also considered as Scalia's protégé. she even served as a judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals for the last 3 years. She went though no faster than any other judges, including Ginsburg (42 days from nomination to confirmation)

And I'm telling you that I'm not arguing about the narrow period of time that is this month. Since the Democrats took majority in the House nearly 2 years ago, they have passed hundreds of bills that have been sent to the Senate for consideration and vote. McConnell has refused to take a huge number of those bills for vote because he's abusing his power. How many judges have they managed to confirm? Hundreds of lower court judges. That's what their priority was. You're not going to find that information on those websites. If you want busy work, go ahead and correlate how many bills the House has passed since 2018 and how many of those have been seen by the Senate.
When she was in the lower courts, her job was applying the law as written. Applying criminal code laws is child's play compared to what will be expected in the Supreme Court. Now her job is to interpret the Constitution. It's a vague, complicated and dated document. The fact that she wasn't even able to name all the rights protected in the very first amendment should automatically disqualify her for consideration. She didn't know or include the right to protest. Seems like a rather auspicious omission. The fact that she claims that climate change is a debatable and contentious topic is also something that should cause concern. It's only contentious because of political reasons, and justices aren't supposed to be political pawns. I wouldn't trust her to interpret microwave popcorn instructions. Those facts aside, her confirmation is also something that should never have been a priority. McConnell blocked Merrick Garland's confirmation/nomination out of nothing but political spite. That appointment was almost a full year before the election. Now suddenly that standard is denied when it's an appointee from his own party only weeks away from an election. Perhaps your party blinders are just too narrow to be unbiased in this situation. She is a horrible choice, and this shouldn't have even been brought up. McConnell is nothing but an obstructionist, and a pathetic excuse for a human being.

Now, unless you can stop being so obtuse, and actually consider what I'm trying to focus on, perhaps you should go waste your time somewhere else.

I am not sure, what kind of democracy this is in the US. Living in Europe, here politicians have to discuss their positions with each other and sometimes have to make a compromise. Not in the US. You have to choose party A or party B. They don't talk with each other and every single topic you can think of has no overlap between the two parties. What is this? Surely a very bad solution for a democratic party system.

That's the problem with having a basic two-party system. It's devolved to its logical conclusion. One party represents one side of an issue. The other party is left to represent the other side of an issue. Whoever controls the various branches of government can either choose to work with the other side and arrive at a common solution, or they can abuse their power and shove through their own agenda. Republicans have no problem using their power. Democrats tend to take the rational approach and want to work together for bipartisan agreement. That often helps the other side just argue that they are weak and ineffective. It's pathetic, and won't change until there is a legitimate third party contender.