U.S. Congress Part 116

[DogofWar1]

49 minutes ago, tshile said:

 Reid had no problem killing it when it got in the way of his desired legislation.

Wasn't for legislation, was for non-Scotus executive appointments only.

[Going Commando]

2 hours ago, skinsfan_1215 said:

 

This is true.  And the Republicans are chiefly responsible for the state of dysfunction of the Federal government.  The reason they broke the government is because the party's political machinery and locus of power were destroyed by the disastrous George W Bush Presidency, and a demographic tide turned against them in 2008.

It's also true that, of all people, Donald Trump has the ability to keep the Democrats from copying the Republicans and using full bore opposition to their advantage.  He is completely independent of the GoP's political machinery.  He won them elections, not the other way around, and he did it without their money or help.  He can defy them and work with Democrats whenever he wants to and if he keeps them in the loop for influencing policy they won't begin wholesale obstruction.  The core of the Democratic conference are mostly pragmatic centrists that can easily be distracted by wins on social issues.  And they have numbers on their side and hope for regaining all three branches of government in 2020.

We'll see what Sanders and Warren do though.  They're the two most powerful Democrats in Washington now.  They can take the party where ever they want to go.  But if Donald wants to work with Bernie to achieve parts of their mutually populist agenda, you're going to get a really weird dynamic where there will be bipartisan defections on both sides of the aisle.

[tshile]

31 minutes ago, DogofWar1 said:

Wasn't for legislation, was for non-Scotus executive appointments only.

I'm aware.

He did it for that because that was what was in the way at the time, and he said he'd do it for the others when/if it got in the way then.

 

[Burgold]

2 minutes ago, tshile said:

I'm aware.

He did it for that because that was what was in the way at the time, and he said he'd do it for the others when/if it got in the way then.

 

I half agree w you. What was done was shortsighted and destructive. The chance that the Republicans won't happily take a toboggan down that slippery slope and shout "Wheeeee!!!" is slight. 

What should be done is create a mechanism by watch Congressmen can be impeached  We need a way ( other than the vote) to get rid of members who absolutely refuse to do their duty  The bar should be very high, like refusing direct Constitutional commands like providing advice and consent on a SCOTUS nominee. 

When Congress absolutely refuses to do the work of the nation there ought to be some recourse  

 

[DogofWar1]

35 minutes ago, tshile said:

I'm aware.

He did it for that because that was what was in the way at the time, and he said he'd do it for the others when/if it got in the way then.

 

He couldn't though, by the time he said he'd CONSIDER doing it for others if it got in the way, he had already announced he was not seeking re-election.  Schumer is the guy we'd need a quote from.

[thebluefood]

Quote

House Republicans on Thursday settled on a plan to fund the government through March 31 and avoid a final budget deal with President Obama.

Lawmakers decided during a closed-door meeting to back a path toward a short-term spending bill instead of a broad, year-end package. Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) personally made the case for the short-term bill, pitching it as the preference of President-elect Donald Trump, according to multiple lawmakers.

GOP leadership had been eying a continuing resolution, rather than a massive omnibus funding the government for a year, since Trump's election.

 

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/306529-gop-opts-for-short-term-spending-bill

[visionary]

 

 

[thebluefood]

8 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

Hmm...we'll have to keep an eye on this. I know Ryan's a "Rustbelt" Representative but I'm not that familiar with his ideological bent. Taking a break right now so I'll have to look into this.

Some more goodies from the Hill:

Quote

Consensus is growing that emergency funding for Flint, Mich., may end up in a year-end spending bill as doubts about the prospects of a waterways measure continue to grow.
 

Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said water-relief funding for Flint is “guaranteed,” but he predicted that a $170 million amendment adopted by the House earlier this year will be tacked on to a short-term spending bill due up before the end of the year.

“Flint’s going to get done, that’s the bottom line,” Upton said. “It will either be in the [continuing resolution] or the omnibus.”

The Senate’s aid package for Flint is larger — a $220 million deal worked out between Republicans and Democrats in the fall — but it’s procedurally more difficult to move through Congress with time running short this year.

Funding in a final Flint package, Upton said Thursday, is “probably at the House level, but it will be there. It’s guaranteed.”

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/306606-gop-chairman-flint-aid-likely-to-land-in-spending-bill

Edited November 17, 2016 by thebluefood

[nonniey]

4 hours ago, DogofWar1 said:

Wasn't for legislation, was for non-Scotus executive appointments only.

As I've pointed out repeatedly that was only because it was the only filibuster that was relevant (Reid himself admitted such).  You know - I thought on a political board most would know what De Facto and De Jure means you guys really proved me wrong about that. When Reid did that the filibuster was in de facto dead.

(De Facto - adj - denoting someone or something that is such in fact).

Edited November 17, 2016 by nonniey

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, nonniey said:

As I've pointed out repeatedly that was only because it was the only filibuster that was relevant (Reid himself admitted such).  You know - I thought on a political board most would know what De Facto and De Jure means you guys really proved me wrong about that. When Reid did that the filibuster was in de facto dead.

 

If that were true, there would be no need to change the rules, again. 

But keep working at it. I'm certain that you will eventually come up with a way to justify your team doing something that you know is wrong. At least to yourself. 

[nonniey]

3 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

If that were true, there would be no need to change the rules, again. 

But keep working at it. I'm certain that you will eventually come up with a way to justify your team doing something that you know is wrong. At least to yourself. 

Larry I take it you never took a political science class in college. I thought you were just playing games but this response screams out that you actually in fact don't know the meaning of de-facto and de-jure.

Edited November 17, 2016 by nonniey

[tshile]

"We need to make America 2.0"

I thought the democrats were perturbed at the Trump slogan Make America Great Again

[Going Commando]

45 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Larry I take it you never took a political science class in college. I thought you were just playing games but this response screams out that you actually in fact don't know the meaning of de-facto and de-jure.

Christ, of course he knows what they mean.  His issue is with your claim that it's de jure ended.  It's not, that is just a way to spin it so Republicans can worm out of responsibility for ending it for legislation and SC appointments.  There is nothing preventing McConnell from leaving it in place, and killing the filibuster for legislation in particular constitutes a significant escalation from what Reid did.

If you want to attribute BS de jure causality for the end of the filibuster, then trace it back to what actually started this mess: Republicans abusing it and committing unprecedented obstructionism.

[nonniey]

21 hours ago, Larry said:

20 hours ago, Larry said:

 

 

1 hour ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Christ, of course he knows what they mean.  His issue is with your claim that it's de jure ended.  It's not, that is just a way to spin it so Republicans can worm out of responsibility for ending it for legislation and SC appointments.  There is nothing preventing McConnell from leaving it in place, and killing the filibuster for legislation in particular constitutes a significant escalation from what Reid did.

If you want to attribute BS de jure causality for the end of the filibuster, then trace it back to what actually started this mess: Republicans abusing it and committing unprecedented obstructionism.

What?? I never claimed it was de jure dead - I claimed it was dead and that the Dems killed it. Larry, you and others obviously could not grasp or it seems in Larry's case understand what I was saying.  

[skinsmarydu]

2 hours ago, nonniey said:

Larry I take it you never took a political science class in college. I thought you were just playing games but this response screams out that you actually in fact don't know the meaning of de-facto and de-jure.

Of course, we all do.  We're all French.  I know it from debate in my sophomore year of HS, and I'd bet that Larry knows too, he's just tossed you aside.

Just stop.  You've been crushed a thousand times over. 

"But read this one article"...just stop.

 

[nonniey]

26 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

Of course, we all do.  We're all French.  I know it from debate in my sophomore year of HS, and I'd bet that Larry knows too, he's just tossed you aside.

Just stop.  You've been crushed a thousand times over. 

"But read this one article"...just stop.

 

Then why are you all acting like the filibuster is not dead? It certainly seems like none of you know what de facto death means? Frankly for those who understand this you all look clueless.

[No Excuses]

In a ****posting/dank memes kind of mood.

Lol.

[Burgold]

3 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

In a ****posting/dank memes kind of mood.

 

Lol.

NRA threatens the Democratic Boogeyman while GOP is the Boogeyman.

[Going Commando]

1 hour ago, nonniey said:

What?? I never claimed it was de jure dead - I claimed it was dead and that the Dems killed it. Larry, you and others obviously could not grasp or it seems in Larry's case understand what I was saying.  

Sorry, I made a mistake in that post and just now realized it.  I meant that Larry was disagreeing with your claim that it was de facto dead.

[nonniey]

42 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

Sorry, I made a mistake in that post and just now realized it.  I meant that Larry was disagreeing with your claim that it was de facto dead.

Disagree his follow on posts seem to indicate he has no idea what de facto or de jure mean.

Edited November 18, 2016 by nonniey

[Larry]

48 minutes ago, nonniey said:

Disagree his follow on posts seem to indicate he has no idea what de facto or de jure mean.

 

He has indicated nothing of the sort.  He knows exactly what they mean.  He knows that they aren't what you originally said, but that you think that if you throw around some words you heard, mixed in with some personal attacks, then people will buy the spin your trying to push.  (That your side is in no way responsible for the actions which you assume your side are going to perform.)  

He also knows that about a third of this thread has been taken up by you making untrue claims, him pointing out that they're untrue, followed by you trying to spin your way into making them true.  

He's stated his position.  Multiple times.  And you've stated yours.  

There's no point in stating them again, another 20 times each.  

Which is why he did not respond when you launched your latest personal attack.  

Until you decided that you had to do it twice.  

(That's a hint.)  

 

[nonniey]

21 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

He has indicated nothing of the sort.  He knows exactly what they mean.  He knows that they aren't what you originally said, but that you think that if you throw around some words you heard, mixed in with some personal attacks, then people will buy the spin your trying to push.  (That your side is in no way responsible for the actions which you assume your side are going to perform.)  

He also knows that about a third of this thread has been taken up by you making untrue claims, him pointing out that they're untrue, followed by you trying to spin your way into making them true.  

He's stated his position.  Multiple times.  And you've stated yours.  

There's no point in stating them again, another 20 times each.  

Which is why he did not respond when you launched your latest personal attack.  

Until you decided that you had to do it twice.  

(That's a hint.)  

 

That is not a personal attack. Larry just because I pointed out that you don't seem to understand what De Jure and De Facto mean doesn't make it an insult. It just explains why you could not grasp what I was saying (Just a classic miscommunication problem). I don't know everything either and I'd wager less than 50% population know what those terms mean. 

Edited November 18, 2016 by nonniey

[bearrock]

Let's just cut to the chase Nonniey.  Given the fact that we just went through 6 years where Republican senators used every parliamentary procedures known to mankind to grind the administration to a halt, do you think the filibuster should be preserved?  If so, is it acceptable for the minority to use it in the manner that the republicans did during the Obama administration?

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, nonniey said:

That is not a personal attack. Larry just because I pointed out that you don't seem to understand what De Jure and De Facto mean doesn't make it an insult. It just explains why you could not grasp what I was saying (Just a classic miscommunication problem). I don't know everything either and I'd wager less than 50% population know what those terms mean. 

 

Yes, I do know what it means.  

So do you.  (You've even quoted it.)  

It means you're still knowingly lying about your position.  

The filibuster is not dead.  Not de facto dead.  Not de jure dead.  Not gluteus maximus dead.  Not mostly dead.  

If it were, then

1)  There would be no need to kill it.  (It would already be dead.)  And 

2)  You wouldn't be trying to build a false narrative to try to shift the blame away from the people who (supposedly) intend to kill it.

[Larry]

9 minutes ago, bearrock said:

Let's just cut to the chase Nonniey.  Given the fact that we just went through 6 years where Republican senators used every parliamentary procedures known to mankind to grind the administration to a halt, do you think the filibuster should be preserved?  If so, is it acceptable for the minority to use it in the manner that the republicans did during the Obama administration?

 

I'll answer the reverse of your question, if you'd like.  

If the Dems, come January, begin using the filibuster the way the Republicans began using it, the day Obama took office?  

1)  They're just as to blame as the Republicans are.  The fact that "somebody else did it first" isn't a justification.  

2)  And yes, it would certainly indicate that the filibuster needs some kind of reform, to try to balance the need for it to occasionally be there, with the need to prevent it's casual, wholesale, abuse.  

I don't think the desired reform should consist of completely eliminating it.  I really want that option to be on the table.  Although only for Big Things.  But I'd support some limitations.  Ideas I've suggested in the past have included:  

Limiting the number of times a Senator can use the filibuster.  Just like throwing the red flag in the NFL, maybe limiting the number of times it can be used would cut back on people employing it for trivial purposes.  

Maybe getting rid of the silent, anonymous, filibuster.  Allow the filibuster to remain, but only in the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" form.  Again, my goal is to see it used only for things that are really important.  

Make filibusters public record.  Maybe not at the time, but after some kind of cooling off period.  Two years?  Five?  Make them public (eventually), so that at least the public can be informed about who often they're done, by whom, and of what things.