They're out there

Boom

That's exactly what this election was about. And actually I would leave Trump and Harris out of it. I think this election was a decision of do we stay the United States of America or do we want to be a part of some global fascists regime.

If you wanted to keep the United States of America then you had no choice but to vote for Trump.
If you hate America and want to live under fascism (while at the same time call all your enemies fascists) then you voted for Harris.

B-B-But an insurrection is NOT an insurrection when leftist do it. I think that's been made into a law or something.

Bingo! Spot on.

THOSE representatives should be removed by the electorate come election time.

It is not about them working against the President so much as them working for the benefit of their party instead of working for the benefit of their constituents.

These people need to be reigned in and reeducated that they work for YOU, not their party, not their donors, not the UN, not the WEF, not the lobbyists, and not themselves.

"Country before Party" was Trump's message during his whole campaign and why he won

A good start.

Now clean up the house and senate.

😁👍🇺🇸

This is a regime change. They're cutting the gov in half with open window monitoring (doge). After everyone sees what the left has been upto for the last 4 years, the democratic party will be disbanded

Time to declare them insurrectionists and riot inciters and put them on trial.

:0)

That’s just what parties do when in opposition. I’m not from the USA, and that is an advantage in the Constitutional Monarchies based on the Westminster system. The Monarch’s representatives in these countries signs off on legislation that passes through the Houses of Parliament.
When the party that wins doesn’t hold an absolute majority,n they need to negotiate with minor parties to pass legislation. Usually the minor parties work to modify some of the legislation, rather than outright opposing it. Most people living Westminster-based democracies see this as being a major advantage over the US system of electing the Head of State.

Thanks glad it works for you. That’s not our system and we don’t want it. The example of recent UK and Australia free speech laws are anathema to an American. We will keep our system thanks.

Exactly, that's 2 degrees of separation. In the US we have one degree of separation and when an elected official doesn't do what their constituents want, they get directly voted out.

But it has led to problems when the opposition party just decides to oppose everything put forward by the government of the day. In your case, the government of the day could be see. To be the President, or the party controlling the 2 houses (Congress and Senate I think you call them). The role of the opposition should be to allow the will of the people. With mid term elections the will of the people can be shown to change when a sitting President’s party loses majority/ies in the houses, but the sitting President sill has 2 years to run. Is that a sign that the will of the people is for the sitting President to tone down their direction a bit? Perhaps the will of the people have cooled towards the sitting President?
Are mid-term elections a bit of an opportunity to lodge a protest vote? In Australia and New Zealand we have by-elections for the lower house when a sitting member resigns outside of an electoral timeframe. There is “always” a swing against the governing party. Sometimes we have people get elected representing a party, but they either resign from their party or are kicked out (very far, but there have been a few politicians expelled because of legal or ethical issues. There have been a few times in Australia where the governing party has had a member abstain from voting if someone they kicked out votes for the government proposed legislation. The idea being that the person was so abhorrent that the party that kicked them out didn’t want their voting support. That member of parliament is moot a lame duck than a “lame duck President” in their second term. It’s even more rare, but one r or twice this has led to someone feuding to resign from Parliament to create a by-election and just hanging around for the benefits with no intention of contesting the next election.
What is more common is someone being elected to represent a party, having a falling out with them and then standing for election as an independent candidate.
No system is perfect, but our system seems to have less stark division along party lines. Of course, people here still think they’re voting for a Prime Minister. That’s just wrong. They’re voting for a candidate who, if elected, gets a vote for Prime Minister. If more people realised that, we’d have more independents in Parliament.
Generally speaking, electorates that “always” vote in a candidate of a particular party get taken for granted, whether that party is in government or not.

Sounds like your system has more issues. Generally speaking we don't vote in congresspeople (house and senate) in response to our president usually it's their individual votes on issues and legislation that makes people vote them out.

I’d disagree with that one. We have limits on lobbying and fundraising etc. I’m sure you have “safe seats” as well, where the constituents almost alway vote for the same party whoever they nominate. Just as the USA has a few states that ultimately decide Presidential elections, we have a few seats (I’d say about 10-20) that decide Federal elections here. Basically in any democracy, the best places for government services are those that decide elections.
People just voting out of habit get taken for granted. All governments need to be tossed out very 2-3 elections, otherwise they just get complacent and take governing for granted.
Plus, I do know a bit about the historical origin of the term “gerrymander”. Pretty sure it was a Mass Governor, wasn’t it? Massachusets wasn’t it? (I was brave in my attempt at spelling but failed).

I agree that we need term limits here, but gerrymandering is done by whichever side is in power. So it's about even.

Term limits aren’t necessary if the constituents are wise enough to make changes when a governing party has become complacent and in taking them for granted.
Our most famous gerrymandered was from a smaller rural party in Queensland. His government was very corrupt as well, but he was the state leader for decades. BUT the opposition party at the time was first to gerrymander back in the 50s or 60s.
In New Zealand there was a very recent protest by Māoris in Parliament when the government introduced legislation to change the treaty of Waitangi (treaty between the British Colonial government and the native Māori tribes). The Māori representatives performed the Hakka in protest). I thought it was cool, and I’ll make a meme of it.