d-usa wrote: I think this will hurt the GOP in the long run. He is good enough of a politician who managed to minimize some of the damage the hardcore members were willing to dish out, but with him gone the nation will see what it is like to have the "new" GOP govern and I don't think they will like it.
I don't know about that. The "new GOP" is what a growing chunk of people want. The same people that have zero idea what a functioning government is suppose to look like and the same people that refuse to pay attention to anything but extreme non-issues.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I really wonder if they will try for a shutdown. It's always really annoying for my family as my dad works for the park service.
The sad thing is, shutting down the government every October 1 seems to be the routine now. Even if we don't actually shut down, the threat of it is still there up to the last minute. And that doesn't include the expense of resources in preparing for it, as management still has to prepare plans for it, decide who is essential and who isn't, etc., even if it doesn't happen.
Shutting down the government should NEVER be the routine, it should never even be considered, much less accepted, as an option. It is the ultimate proof of Congress's failure to do their job. In my opinion, a shutdown should result in the immediate "firing" of everyone in the House and Senate.
There will be no shutdown. Boehner said in the closed meeting that he would be willing to step down if he could get a vote in return. Evidently his opposition agreed to do so in the meeting. Of course wether or not they stay to their word remains to be seen.
I'm amazed at how doom and gloom folks are about shut downs. The Federal Gov't largely 'shuts down' every weekend and from Thanksgiving to New Year annually, with only 'essential ' folks really working/providing services. And the world doesn't end.
As mentioned, we've 'shut down' due to the budget not being passed multiple times, and yet we're all still here and frankly not worse off in the grand scheme of things. Each time it is a possibility the side against it tries to scare the feth out of folks and when it does happen tries to make it as painful as possible (like increasing workers in order to visibly 'shut down' access to monuments/memorials) but the reality is all essential services continue, and once the congress critters and current POTUS unscrew themselves they even pay for folks who didn't work during the shutdown.
And lets be honest about it. If the congress critters pass a budget or continuing resolution defunding planned parenthood but paying for most of everything else the Pres wants, Obama COULD sign it. Instead, you expect the Rs to sell out their principles and will get shrill over it yet demand Obama sticks to his even at the cost of a shut down. In the end, it is Obama's choice to shut it down or not.
Fun fact: The speaker doesn't need to be current elected Representative.
Shall we begin with Speaker Trump?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: No, "in the end" it is Congress's duty, one of their primary fething job requirements, to pass. a. damned. budget.
Both parties are disinclined to do that Tanner... wanna know why?
The first Stimulus.
After that was passed, it was included in the baseline budget. One trillion smackaroos. In a sense, we've had a stimulus every year (just spent on different things).
Tannhauser42 wrote: No, "in the end" it is Congress's duty, one of their primary fething job requirements, to pass. a. damned. budget.
Yep, and POTUS shouldn't get to dictate what is in it. He does not hold the 'power of the purse strings'. If he is so offended that congress won't fund Planned Parenthood that he decides to veto and shut down the gov't over it, that is on him.
Tell the thousands of small business owners who rely on the fed govt. agencies being open to make money that it doesn't hurt them "in the grand scheme of things" coffee shops and restaurants across the street from federal buildings? No customers. Pvt. Businesses that rent out canoes or bait shops near federal land? Sorry, you don't get customers because a few representatives are throwing a hissy fit and not doing their job over something that would never pass a veto anyway. They do not get reimbursed when the govt. reopens.
The kicker is, when federal employees get fuloughed, once they return to work, they get paid for all the time off , so when the Republicans threaten to shutdown the government, they are giving massive loads of people a paid vacation
I'm mentioning this, because sometimes I don't think it is widely known by fans of this kind of political tactic.
Tannhauser42 wrote: No, "in the end" it is Congress's duty, one of their primary fething job requirements, to pass. a. damned. budget.
Yep, and POTUS shouldn't get to dictate what is in it. He does not hold the 'power of the purse strings'. If he is so offended that congress won't fund Planned Parenthood that he decides to veto and shut down the gov't over it, that is on him.
If Congress did their job like they're supposed to, and not just act like a bunch of partisan hacks, then the budget would pass with a veto-proof majority. That is the ideal, anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: The kicker is, when federal employees get fuloughed, once they return to work, they get paid for all the time off , so when the Republicans threaten to shutdown the government, they are giving massive loads of people a paid vacation
I'm mentioning this, because sometimes I don't think it is widely known by fans of this kind of political tactic.
That's never a guarantee, though. It has to be written in to whatever budget or CR is passed to end the shutdown. There isn't even a guarantee that those who did work will get paid. In fact, the only guarantee is that Congress still gets paid.
And, keep in mind, nobody is getting paid during the shutdown. It's like the workers having to still go to work, while the company is on strike instead of them.
Well....certain federal agencies are funded in separate vehicles, and are for all intents and purposes "already paid for", and are non-essential, but continue to work and get paid through shutdowns.
You're right about no garuntee for being paid for lost work, but I don't think they've ever not gotten paid in my lifetime.
It still hurts any federal employee living paycheck to paycheck
Automatically Appended Next Post: Well....certain federal agencies are funded in separate vehicles, and are for all intents and purposes "already paid for", and are non-essential, but continue to work and get paid through shutdowns.
You're right about no garuntee for being paid for lost work, but I don't think they've ever not gotten paid in my lifetime.
It still hurts any federal employee living paycheck to paycheck
True, every time so far we've all been paid, but with the partisanship getting worse every year, and one side or the other threatening a shutdown every year, who knows what will happen eventually? Maybe one side will get the idea they can hold our paychecks hostage in order to get something they want.
Tannhauser42 wrote: True, every time so far we've all been paid, but with the partisanship getting worse every year, and one side or the other threatening a shutdown every year, who knows what will happen eventually? Maybe one side will get the idea they can hold our paychecks hostage in order to get something they want.
You know thats the very definition of "power of the purse". Something that was deliberately given to Congress. You may not like a shutdown, I don't think anyone likes them, but the ability and power to cause them is 100% intentional.
No, what is intentional is that they pass a budget. Shutdowns happen because they FAIL to do their job. Unless you somehow think "not doing their job" is doing their job.
What is egregious to me about this federal shutdown tactic is that it is a direct assault on the life and livelihood of government workers. If the Republicans shut down the government, Planned Parenthood will not suffer, but the people who will suffer most is that segment of the federal workforce that lives paycheck to paycheck...and these are just regular people, middle to lower-middle class, not abortion doctors or family planning nurses.
It's all fun and games for some bumpkin out in Wichita whose pastor tells him weekly that abortion and the federal government are evil, but in the end, its just more little people who suffer for it.
What gets me is not the government workers aspect, it's everybody else that nobody seems to notice that gets affected (and I am a government worker). I live in Little ole South Dakota, you might know it for Mt. Rushmore. Near Rushmore is a small town called Keystone. 80% of the residents there are migratory (around 2000 people). In the summer they open up shops to sell trinkets and wares and in the winter they go south for warmer weather and presumably spend money there as well, if they have any. When the government shuts down, tourism shuts down: the lifeblood of this community and the economic engine of state is gone. Why? Because a few (small minority of the majority) pissants can't figure out that their special cause is no better than anybody else's special cause. Because a few people (who would not vote for somebody because of their religious views even allowing that their ultimate sacred document says don't do that) cannot get their heads out of their nether-yahas. At the same time they extoll the virtues of small businesses, evidently too clueless to realize what they are doing to small businesses (no, they do realize they just don't care for political expediency). Hypocrites. All of them.
jasper76 wrote: ... If the Republicans shut down the government...
Lemme stop you there.
Republicans controls BOTH the House and Senate.
If they DO get off their arses and actually pass a true budget, but obama doesn't like it and vetoes it...
Who shut down the government?
Umm... The legislative branch of government. Easy question there. Ever actually read the document? And the fact that you used the word "if" even though they control both houses should tell you everything you need to know right there. They had to force out their somewhat rational leader to actually get anything done.
Who is advocating for ridiculous bs in the budget that may or may not exist? If Congress sends a "budget" with outrageous stuff in it they know the President will veto, then they aren't acting in good faith and can shoulder most of the blame. If they send a reasonable budget without any wingnut bs and the President still refuses to sign it, then Obama is not acting in good faith and can shoulder most of the blame.
However, I have the feeling that no matter how much poutrage the Republicans throw and how unreasonable they behave, you'll still blame Obama because of course you will.
Who is advocating for ridiculous bs in the budget that may or may not exist? If Congress sends a "budget" with outrageous stuff in it they know the President will veto, then they aren't acting in good faith and can shoulder most of the blame. If they send a reasonable budget without any wingnut bs and the President still refuses to sign it, then Obama is not acting in good faith and can shoulder most of the blame.
However, I have the feeling that no matter how much poutrage the Republicans throw and how unreasonable they behave, you'll still blame Obama because of course you will.
The problem is they don't even realize that have any wingnut BS. Look at the primary. The wing nuts are the ones turning the screws.
Edit: excellent word "poutrage" thanks for expanding my vocab today, SPJ.
Considering that the Republicans ran on the message of "give us the Senate, and we will govern responsibly and there will be no more gridlocks and stuff will get done" and are insisting on not passing a budget that doesn't defund PP (a move that the majority of the country actually disagrees with), it will be pretty easy to see who will shoulder the blame.
d-usa wrote: Considering that the Republicans ran on the message of "give us the Senate, and we will govern responsibly and there will be no more gridlocks and stuff will get done" and are insisting on not passing a budget that doesn't defund PP (a move that the majority of the country actually disagrees with), it will be pretty easy to see who will shoulder the blame.
d-usa wrote: Considering that the Republicans ran on the message of "give us the Senate, and we will govern responsibly and there will be no more gridlocks and stuff will get done" and are insisting on not passing a budget that doesn't defund PP (a move that the majority of the country actually disagrees with), it will be pretty easy to see who will shoulder the blame.
Also.. the majority of people don't know what's "best" for them
(Isn't that what libertarians and uber right wingers say "liberals" do... tell folks they need more government because youre too stupid to live on your own?)
Grey Templar wrote: Withholding money is one of the checks and balances granted to congress. Its a perfectly valid use of their power.
If they couldn't elect to withhold money power of the purse wouldn't exist.
I could almost accept your point of view of it being a "valid use", except for one small point: Congress still gets paid during a shutdown while nobody else gets a fething dime.
d-usa wrote: Considering that the Republicans ran on the message of "give us the Senate, and we will govern responsibly and there will be no more gridlocks and stuff will get done" and are insisting on not passing a budget that doesn't defund PP (a move that the majority of the country actually disagrees with), it will be pretty easy to see who will shoulder the blame.
Obama, obviously.
See... here's the dealio... it's as if, because the GOP controls both houses, there's nothing "legitimate" in your eyes as it's the wrong team.
And, yes, I blame Obama because his office tells them that he'll veto any budgets that doesn't conform to ALL OF HIS WISHES. Because, in his mind... he won.
I blame the ideology that Obama/Democrats champions... and I also blame that back-stabbing bs in the GOP leadership now that they're in power.
Grey Templar wrote: Withholding money is one of the checks and balances granted to congress. Its a perfectly valid use of their power.
If they couldn't elect to withhold money power of the purse wouldn't exist.
I could almost accept your point of view of it being a "valid use", except for one small point: Congress still gets paid during a shutdown while nobody else gets a fething dime.
Yeah... that needs to change.
IF the government shuts down because they can't get this gak in order, they yeah, they shouldn't be paid either. Even more, they shouldn't fething get back pay... ever.
@whemby: It's actually not "in his mind" that he won. He won. Link to whatever you like, show me one where he didn't, and I will show you a delusional idiot. Period end.If they can't override his veto, that's on them. Get a better bill. Or let the entire house vote and see howmit pans out. (Hint: the few who opposed Boehner won't like it--and the idiot trump items wouldn't have any leg to stand on).
Edit: if he were politically smart, he would have been doing this all along. Let the Dems and the GOP die on their respective minorities, he would have had a legitimate reason to run as a third party--and based on Political fervor out ther right now, he would have had massive support.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @whemby: It's actually not "in his mind" that he won. He won. Link to whatever you like, show me one where he didn't, and I will show you a delusional idiot. Period end.If they can't override his veto, that's on them. Get a better bill. Or let the entire house vote and see howmit pans out. (Hint: the few who opposed Boehner won't like it).
I don't disagree with you.
However, in practice, Obama can play this shutdown theater and get EVERYTHING he wants because of favorable media types.
He ain't dumb.
Also...
For your daily HRC whembly update:
As Biden would say... this is a Big Fething Deal:
Officials: More work emails from Clinton's private account
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as secretary of state, officials told The Associated Press Friday, adding to the growing questions related to the Democratic presidential front-runner's unusual usage of a private email account and server while in government.
The messages were exchanged with retired Gen. David Petraeus when he headed the military's U.S. Central Command, responsible for running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the State Department. They largely pertained to personnel matters and don't appear to deal with highly classified material, officials said, but their existence challenges Clinton's claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account.
Republicans have raised questions about thousands of emails that she has deleted on grounds that they were private in nature, as well as other messages that have surfaced independently of Clinton and the State Department. Speaking of her emails on CBS' "Face the Nation" this week, Clinton said, "We provided all of them." But the FBI and several congressional committees are investigating.
The State Department's record of Clinton emails begins on March 18, 2009 — almost two months after she entered office. Before then, Clinton has said she used an old AT&T Blackberry email account, the contents of which she no longer can access.
The Petraeus emails, first discovered by the Defense Department and then passed to the State Department's inspector general, challenge that claim. They start on Jan. 10, 2009, with Clinton using the older email account. But by Jan. 28 — a week after her swearing in — she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1.
The officials weren't authorized to speak on the matter and demanded anonymity. But State Department spokesman John Kirby confirmed that the agency received the emails in the "last several days" and that they "were not previously in the possession of the department."
Kirby said they would be subject to a Freedom of Information Act review like the rest of Clinton's emails. She gave the department some 30,000 emails last year that she sent or received while in office, and officials plan to finish releasing all of them by the end of January, after sensitive or classified information is censored. A quarter has been made public so far.
Additionally, Kirby said the agency will incorporate the newly discovered emails into a review of record retention practices that Clinton's successor, Secretary of State John Kerry, initiated in March. "We have also informed Congress of this matter," he added.
These steps are unlikely to satisfy Clinton's Republican critics.
The House Benghazi Committee plans to hold a public hearing with Clinton next month to hear specifically about what the emails might say about the attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Libya that killed four Americans on Sept. 11, 2012. And the Senate Judiciary Committee's GOP chairman said he wants the Justice Department to tell him if a criminal investigation is underway into Clinton's use of private email amid reports this week that the FBI recovered deleted emails from her server. The Senate Homeland Security Committee also is looking into the matter.
Clinton has repeatedly denied wrongdoing. "When I did it, it was allowed, it was above board. And now I'm being as transparent as possible, more than anybody else ever has been," she said earlier this week.
In August, Clinton submitted a sworn statement to a U.S. District Court saying she had directed all her work emails to be provided to the State Department. "On information and belief, this has been done," she said in a declaration submitted as part of a lawsuit with Judicial Watch, a conservative advocacy group.
The Clinton campaign didn't respond immediately to a request from The Associated Press for comment, but on Twitter, Brian Fallon, the Clinton campaign's press secretary, wrote Friday: "We always said the emails given to State dated back only to March 09. That was when she started using http://clintonemail.com ."
Clinton has been dogged for months by questions about her email practices. She initially described her choice as a matter of convenience, but later took responsibility for making a wrong decision.
Separately Friday, State Department officials said they were providing the Benghazi-focused probe more email exchanges from senior officials pertaining to Libya. The committee broadened its scope after examining tens of thousands of documents more specifically focused on the Benghazi attack.
I can really respect Biden for that. Everybody needs a nit picker.
As to your first point, Obama can get away with it because he is better at (or his handlers are) understanding the rules of the game and how to game them best. If you think the big O has gotten any media favoritism in the last four or five years, you would be wrong. Except on Msnbc, but they don't really count for anything since nobody watches it.
If the AP is to be believed... this could get very problematic for HRC since she has already certified, on pain of perjury, that she had handed over copies of all of her work-related e-mails to StatesDept:
Spoiler:
Props on that photoshop, too. Did you make it, or did you find it somewhere?
Anyway, I'm still just waiting for the Hillary/Bill cybersex emails, that's when it will get interesting...
And, yes, I blame Obama because his office tells them that he'll veto any budgets that doesn't conform to ALL OF HIS WISHES. Because, in his mind... he won.
When the stimulus negotiations were going on the Democrats controlled the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. Claiming that Obama's negotiating tactics in that, very exceptional, environment are reflective of those he employed later on is being deliberately obtuse.
And, yes, I blame Obama because his office tells them that he'll veto any budgets that doesn't conform to ALL OF HIS WISHES. Because, in his mind... he won.
When the stimulus negotiations were going on the Democrats controlled the Presidency, the Senate, and the House. Claiming that Obama's negotiating tactics in that, very exceptional, environment are reflective of those he employed later on is being deliberately obtuse.
No... it's acknowledging that he had no desire to work with the Republicans... ignoring the past 7 years, is being deliberately obtuse.
whembly wrote: No... it's acknowledging that he had no desire to work with the Republicans... ignoring the past 7 years, is being deliberately obtuse.
According to you.
If my three year old daughter starts crying and throwing a temper tantrum because she wants an ice cream cone and cookies for breakfast, is my refusal to give in to her ridiculous demands mean I'm being obtuse?
No... it's acknowledging that he had no desire to work with the Republicans... ignoring the past 7 years, is being deliberately obtuse.
How am I "...ignoring the past 7 years..." by pointing out that negotiating tactics employed within the past 7 years, are unique to a period of time less than 7 years?
Whembly has it backwards. The Republicans had no desire to work with Obama. Heck, they had a meeting right after he was elected with the express purpose of opposing anything Obama wants simply because he wants it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Whembly has it backwards. The Republicans had no desire to work with Obama. Heck, they had a meeting right after he was elected with the express purpose of opposing anything Obama wants simply because he wants it.
skyth wrote: Whembly has it backwards. The Republicans had no desire to work with Obama. Heck, they had a meeting right after he was elected with the express purpose of opposing anything Obama wants simply because he wants it
Well,m that hardly matters, we're still going to keep repeating the original untrue argument over, and over, and over again anyway. It doesn't matter if it's true, it only matters that you can out-endure the people willing call call you out on it. That's how we establish the truth in the OT.
whembly wrote: Guys... does Obama bear any faults? Any at all?
Yeah, that's a thing people have argued; why not.
So, what is the point of this thread? Is it just to reiterate talking points, have them refuted, and then keep repeating them, while also cranking out 3 Hillary Clinton posts per page? Because this really doesn't feel like a valuable vehicle for discourse in any way. Are we really going to have the debate about the idea that Republican Party decided, for good or ill, that they would not agree to absolutely anything as a political strategy? I mean, we've done this before, more than once.
So what's the point? Why not set up an Angry Screed Man Twitter.... thing instead? It's not like this communication is bidirectional.
This thread exists because, if there was any evidence that a thread about politics in the lead up to an election (which it pretty much always is in one way or the other) would do anything other than what is happening here, then we wouldn't need to keep it contained as best as we could in one thread. It's a shame, but it is how it is with the OT.
Ouze wrote: So in a way, this thread is like the political landfill of the OT
Hey... I'm doing my part in keeping the OT sub-tread clean... pickup that trash and put it here.
To be fair, that question wasn't directed at *you* because we all know where you stand and has been vocal on things that you didn't like about Obama's tenure.
But, it got to the point that, in here and as a general discourse during the Obama tenure, that anything bad that Obama did was easily rationalize and it's the evil, weevle, rascally Republicans that is the source of all wrongs in the US. To be honest, many of it *is* the Republicans fault, but it's not like they share all the burdens.
As to my daily updates on HRC's ordeal... it's interesting... and new gak keeps coming out. I'm amazed that she's still in this race as any other candidate would be boned so hard, they'd become the new laughing stock in political lexicon.
Twelve months ago, could you fathom Trump doing this well? Seriously? Holy gak that's awesome and we can sit here deliberating why in the hell this is happening. I think we all know that Trump is a terrible candidate and would be an awful President (he has thinner skin that Obama for cripes sake!). So why... why is this happening.
All you have to do is look at any polling numbers on Congress for the last decade or so... it's epically bad.
So, Trump isn't leading the pack because he's such an awesome candidate and is reflective on what GOP voters want... he's leading because folks are more vocal now about how anti-establishment they are now... it seems to be the only way to get the established GOPers to fething listen to their constituents. Hence, there's many on the righty-blogersphere who subscribe to the "Let It Burn" tactic... by doing whatever necessary to vote for the "not GOP preferred candidate" to send a message. It might just happen.
If you forced me to predict who will be the candidates... I'd still have to say it'll be HRC (scandals is just another accessory in the clinton machines) versus Jeb! (he's got the SEC country pretty locked down). Which would then lead to a HRC Presidency.
I hope I'm wrong on all accounts, but there it is.
whembly wrote: To be fair, that question wasn't directed at *you* because we all know where you stand and has been vocal on things that you didn't like about Obama's tenure.
But, it got to the point that, in here and as a general discourse during the Obama tenure, that anything bad that Obama did was easily rationalize and it's the evil, weevle, rascally Republicans that is the source of all wrongs in the US. To be honest, many of it *is* the Republicans fault, but it's not like they share all the burdens.
Then who was it directed at, Whembly?
My biggest problem with Obama is that he isn't liberal enough. All and all, I think he's alright; not great but not terrible. I still maintain that the United States is a center-right nation and Obama is a reflection of that.
I still have my AR and handguns, I haven't been sent off to a FEMA camp, the death panels haven't decided to kill my parents, and Obama hasn't suspended elections and appointed himself dictator.
Seriously, I thought we had moved on from threatening to kill other leaders about 40 years ago or so? I mean, I get Iran hasn't caught up to us yet and is still about 40 years behind us in political rhetoric (we stopped chanting "better dead than red" and similar things long ago). Do we really need to be dragged back into that era? What's next, a return to McCarthyism where people are demonized because they might be a member of a different ideology? Oh, wait, we're alreadythere....
It was in an earlier version of that article, but in the same speech Cruz was also rather gleeful about Boehner's resignation. I guess nothing demonstrates the self-destruction of the GOP more than that several of its elected members are jubilant in the resignation of such a respected leader. And what's worse is they're too stupid to realize how much damage it's going to do to them in the long run.
Oh, quite a few. But, the real question is, does it really matter? Barack Obama and George W. Bush could walk on water, hand-in-hand, to heal a wounded swan with a touch, and the parties would still complain about the other side somehow. That's how bad the situation is. That's why so many are supporting Trump, Sanders, et al., because they represent something different (maybe real hope/change?). When one side says their primary goal is to stop the other side from accomplishing anything, in an ideal world that should have resulted in every one of them being voted out of office and replaced with someone who is willing to work together. And it doesn't matter if the other side "did it before", because that doesn't make it right. It's like revenge killing: it only stops when there's no one left.
Compromise is dead. It's like there's nobody left in Washington who understands that to get something, you have to give something, too. Now, each party just tosses the election coin every two years, hoping it lands on their side. What they don't get is that the coin never lands on a side, it always lands on its edge. Because even if one side gets the majority, the minority can still obstruct them unless they're all willing to work together. That's how our government was designed to work.
whembly wrote: To be fair, that question wasn't directed at *you* because we all know where you stand and has been vocal on things that you didn't like about Obama's tenure.
But, it got to the point that, in here and as a general discourse during the Obama tenure, that anything bad that Obama did was easily rationalize and it's the evil, weevle, rascally Republicans that is the source of all wrongs in the US. To be honest, many of it *is* the Republicans fault, but it's not like they share all the burdens.
Then who was it directed at, Whembly?
You're one of them
My biggest problem with Obama is that he isn't liberal enough. All and all, I think he's alright; not great but not terrible. I still maintain that the United States is a center-right nation and Obama is a reflection of that.
Obama isn't liberal enough?
*Loved that movie by the way.
I can't wait for a hypothetical GOP President unilaterally making laws with respect to Obamacare, Immigration policies or the whole shebang. But, go ahead a ignore the dangerous precedent that Obama laid down/re-enforced. If that happens, I won't be hearing any complaints from you... right?
I still have my AR and handguns, I haven't been sent off to a FEMA camp, the death panels haven't decided to kill my parents, and Obama hasn't suspended elections and appointed himself dictator.
You see... this is the part of the problem. It's as if any opposition to Obama (or Democrats in general) are thrown into the crazy bucket in attempt to delegitimize said opponent's discourse.
FWIW, you'd probably think I'm a raging right wringer that could be put in that stereotypical bucket... but, I'd love to have the Canadian Healthcare model here in the states. What does that make me?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: It's happening because people keep on saying that Trump is doing well, when in reality he isn't.
But the GOP is repeating the mistakes of 2012 and as a result we think that a candidate who pulls in less than 25% of Republicans is doing well.
Yup... that's a very good point. But, the problem here is the large field in the GOP primary. Folks are concerned, shall we say, that Trumps support is a little more than the anti-establishment tantrum.
Oh, quite a few. But, the real question is, does it really matter? Barack Obama and George W. Bush could walk on water, hand-in-hand, to heal a wounded swan with a touch, and the parties would still complain about the other side somehow. That's how bad the situation is. That's why so many are supporting Trump, Sanders, et al., because they represent something different (maybe real hope/change?). When one side says their primary goal is to stop the other side from accomplishing anything, in an ideal world that should have resulted in every one of them being voted out of office and replaced with someone who is willing to work together. And it doesn't matter if the other side "did it before", because that doesn't make it right. It's like revenge killing: it only stops when there's no one left.
Compromise is dead. It's like there's nobody left in Washington who understands that to get something, you have to give something, too. Now, each party just tosses the election coin every two years, hoping it lands on their side. What they don't get is that the coin never lands on a side, it always lands on its edge. Because even if one side gets the majority, the minority can still obstruct them unless they're all willing to work together. That's how our government was designed to work.
It isn't that Compromise is dead... it's literally the amount of effort our Congression critters want to maintain the status quo.
I'd make three major changes, somehow, to encourage to promote an environment of compromise:
1) If you want to filibuster, go back to the ol'stand in front of congress and talk until you can't go on, or another colleague picks up the bat. No more, voting to allow a bill to be voted on.
2) If Congress can't fund the government due to not passing a budget/CR... they don't get paid, and by statute lose that paycheck even if they do eventually pass a budget/CR.
3) No more mega bills... break it up by the depts that oversees those fundings.
Are you fething kidding me, dude? Please find where I have ever sat here and sung Obama's praises because I think you have me confused with someone else. Just because I don't get a raging hateboner for him like you and poutrage about how he's "destroying America" and is the "worst president ever" doesn't mean I think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Personally, I'm pissed that I voted for him because he sold himself as a progressive and didn't come close to delivering on that promise.
Remember, despite what you think the world is not black and white and:
Obama isn't liberal enough?
Yeah, really.
You're just another one of those people that confuses "things you don't like" with "liberal" because the media you consume tells you as much. Just like it said in the closing of the article I posted:
I don’t expect any conservatives to recognize the truth of Obama’s fundamental conservatism for at least a couple of decades—perhaps only after a real progressive presidency. In any case, today they are too invested in painting him as the devil incarnate in order to frighten grassroots Republicans into voting to keep Obama from confiscating all their guns, throwing them into FEMA re-education camps, and other nonsense that is believed by many Republicans. But just as they eventually came to appreciate Bill Clinton’s core conservatism, Republicans will someday see that Obama was no less conservative.
D-nominate has it's issues ( as dogma will no doubt jump in)... but this is till 2010. I'd bet good money that he'll surpass the other Democratic president as the most liberal when Obama is done.
1) If you want to filibuster, go back to the ol'stand in front of congress and talk until you can't go on, or another colleague picks up the bat. No more, voting to allow a bill to be voted on.
So you propose to create legislation which goes against the, Constitutionally established, ability of Congress to regulate itself?
2) If Congress can't fund the government due to not passing a budget/CR... they don't get paid, and by statute lose that paycheck even if they do eventually pass a budget/CR.
Powerful Senators and Congressmen don't care about their Congressional salaries, they have other ways of making money.
whembly wrote: Again... I'm gonna call BS that Obama is a Republican being right of center.
Of course not, you're much too entrenched in the Republican Party to ever admit it. You toe the party line harder than anyone I know and you can't look at any policy without extreme party bias.
It's a weird defense, as if it's a bad thing to be liberal.
It's not a "defense," it's a complaint. I want Obama to be the progressive he sold himself as, but it's too late in the game to actually expect it.
Seriously, I thought we had moved on from threatening to kill other leaders about 40 years ago or so? I mean, I get Iran hasn't caught up to us yet and is still about 40 years behind us in political rhetoric (we stopped chanting "better dead than red" and similar things long ago). Do we really need to be dragged back into that era? What's next, a return to McCarthyism where people are demonized because they might be a member of a different ideology? Oh, wait, we're alreadythere....
It was in an earlier version of that article, but in the same speech Cruz was also rather gleeful about Boehner's resignation. I guess nothing demonstrates the self-destruction of the GOP more than that several of its elected members are jubilant in the resignation of such a respected leader. And what's worse is they're too stupid to realize how much damage it's going to do to them in the long run.
Oh, quite a few. But, the real question is, does it really matter? Barack Obama and George W. Bush could walk on water, hand-in-hand, to heal a wounded swan with a touch, and the parties would still complain about the other side somehow. That's how bad the situation is. That's why so many are supporting Trump, Sanders, et al., because they represent something different (maybe real hope/change?). When one side says their primary goal is to stop the other side from accomplishing anything, in an ideal world that should have resulted in every one of them being voted out of office and replaced with someone who is willing to work together. And it doesn't matter if the other side "did it before", because that doesn't make it right. It's like revenge killing: it only stops when there's no one left.
Compromise is dead. It's like there's nobody left in Washington who understands that to get something, you have to give something, too. Now, each party just tosses the election coin every two years, hoping it lands on their side. What they don't get is that the coin never lands on a side, it always lands on its edge. Because even if one side gets the majority, the minority can still obstruct them unless they're all willing to work together. That's how our government was designed to work.
Looking at the childish antics of both parties refusing to work together and offer up sensible compromise on certain issues, leads me to only one conclusion: America needs a third political party.
Can't ever see it happening, though. Historically, third political parties tend to be protest issues like nativism or that no nothing group.
They tend not to last long, either.
The current two party system is dangerous for democracy (as the UK clearly demonstrates) as the other party can sit back in the knowledge that they will get their 'turn' eventually, and thus, don't actually have to come up with anything.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Tell the thousands of small business owners who rely on the fed govt. agencies being open to make money that it doesn't hurt them "in the grand scheme of things" coffee shops and restaurants across the street from federal buildings? No customers. Pvt. Businesses that rent out canoes or bait shops near federal land? Sorry, you don't get customers because a few representatives are throwing a hissy fit and not doing their job over something that would never pass a veto anyway. They do not get reimbursed when the govt. reopens.
Trying to figure out how that is bad.
The thought a sitting President would shut down the government over a minor spending program is outrageous. The fact the Congress hasn't put forth a budget in years is outrageous. The fact a portion of Congress wants to shut down the government over a minor spending program is outrageous.
The thought a sitting President would shut down the government over a minor spending program is outrageous. The fact the Congress hasn't put forth a budget in years is outrageous. The fact a portion of Congress wants to shut down the government over a minor spending program is outrageous.
This is why Sanders and Trump are even on the radar screen. There's no inclination in all of Washington to actually DO ANYTHING.
On the Republican side:
*Where’s the budget? Pass something both the House and Senate can agree on.
*Where are revisions to promote education and the economy? Where are the provisions reducing government waste and government entities? Where’s the compromise to get some of your things done and giving on some things Democrats want? WHAT DO YOU DO ALL DAY?
ON the Executive:
*Where are revisions to promote education and the economy? Where are the provisions reducing government waste and government entities? Where’s the compromise to get some of your things done and giving on some things Republicans want? WHAT DO YOU DO ALL DAY?
Gordon Shumway wrote: Tell the thousands of small business owners who rely on the fed govt. agencies being open to make money that it doesn't hurt them "in the grand scheme of things" coffee shops and restaurants across the street from federal buildings? No customers. Pvt. Businesses that rent out canoes or bait shops near federal land? Sorry, you don't get customers because a few representatives are throwing a hissy fit and not doing their job over something that would never pass a veto anyway. They do not get reimbursed when the govt. reopens.
Trying to figure out how that is bad.
The thought a sitting President would shut down the government over a minor spending program is outrageous. The fact the Congress hasn't put forth a budget in years is outrageous. The fact a portion of Congress wants to shut down the government over a minor spending program is outrageous.
Fire them all.
It's a mess of your own making, Frazz. With a Parliamentary system, you guys would have got your budget through, no problem.
But of course, you guys rebelled against that Parliamentary system
If you ever get tired of the bickering multi-party systems, the one party system doesn't have any problems passing a budget. We all agree or get arrested. Efficiency!
Since there has been much evasion and obfuscation about Hillary Rodham Clinton’s email use, it seems appropriate to step back and simply review what we know in light of the law. It’s also instructive to compare Clinton’s situation to arguably the most famous case of our time related to the improper handling of classified materials, namely, the case of Gen. David Petraeus.
Instead of turning his journals — so-called “black books” — over to the Defense Department or CIA when he left either of those organizations, Petraeus kept them at his home — an unsecure location — and provided them to his paramour/biographer, Paula Broadwell, at another private residence. (None of the classified information in the black books was used in his biography.)
On April 23, Petraeus pled guilty to a single misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials under 18 USC §1924. Many in the intelligence community were outraged at the perceived “slap on the wrist” he received, at a time when the Justice Department was seeking very strong penalties against lesser officials for leaks to the media.
According to the law, there are five elements that must be met for a violation of the statute, and they can all be found in section (a) of the statute: “(1) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, (2) by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, (3) knowingly removes such documents or materials (4) without authority and (5) with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location [shall be guilty of this offense].”
The Petraeus case meets those conditions. Does Clinton’s?
Clinton originally denied that any of her emails contained classified information, but soon abandoned that claim. So far, 150 emails containing classified information have been identified on her server, including two that included information determined to be Top Secret.
She then fell back on the claim that none of the emails in question was “marked classified” at the time she was dealing with them. The marking is not what makes the material classified; it’s the nature of the information itself. As secretary of state, Clinton knew this, and in fact she would have been re-briefed annually on this point as a condition of maintaining her clearance to access classified information.
Then there’s location. Clinton knowingly set up her email system to route 100 percent of her emails to and through her unsecured server (including keeping copies stored on the server).
She knowingly removed such documents and materials from authorized locations (her authorized devices and secure government networks) to an unauthorized location (her server).
Two examples demonstrate this point.
When Clinton would draft an email based on classified information, she was drafting that email on an authorized Blackberry, iPad or computer. But when she hit “send,” that email was knowingly routed to her unsecured server — an unauthorized location — for both storage and transfer.
Additionally, when Clinton moved the server to Platte River Networks (a private company) in June 2013, and then again when she transferred the contents of the server to her private lawyers in 2014, the classified materials were in each instance again removed to another unsecured location.
Next we have the lack of proper authority to move or hold classified information somewhere, i.e., the “unauthorized location.”
While it’s possible for a private residence to be an “authorized” location, and it’s also possible for non-government servers and networks to be “authorized” to house and transfer classified materials, there are specific and stringent requirements to achieve such status. Simply being secretary of state didn’t allow Clinton to authorize herself to deviate from the requirements of retaining and transmitting classified documents, materials and information.
There is no known evidence that her arrangement to use the private email server in her home was undertaken with proper authority.
Finally, there’s the intent to “retain” the classified documents or materials at an unauthorized location.
The very purpose of Clinton’s server was to intentionally retain documents and materials — all emails and attachments — on the server in her house, including classified materials.
The intent required is only to undertake the action, i.e., to retain the classified documents and materials in the unauthorized fashion addressed in this statute. That’s it.
It borders on inconceivable that Clinton didn’t know that the emails she received, and more obviously, the emails that she created, stored and sent with the server, would contain classified information.
Simply put, Mrs. Clinton is already in just as bad — or worse — of a legal situation than Petraeus faced.
Does this mean she’ll be charged? FBI Director James Comey has a long history of ignoring political pressure. So it’s likely that the FBI will recommend prosecution, and then it will be up to President Obama’s Justice Department to decide whether to proceed. Stay tuned.
If it were all kosher, then HRC should divulge who authorized her setup.
the Signless wrote: If you ever get tired of the bickering multi-party systems, the one party system doesn't have any problems passing a budget. We all agree or get arrested. Efficiency!
If you doubt whether or not a reporter can understand these complex issues and questions... how 'bout taking a read from a retired NSA spook, turned professor who states it's a problem?
Hillary’s Sources, Methods, and Lies I’ve been doing my best to explain the complex intelligence realities behind Hillary Clinton’s on-going #EmailGate scandal for months now, and we’re still far from the end of this messy saga.
Hillary’s take on what happened with her State Department “unclassified” email and her “private” server has see-sawed with the customary Clintonian lawyerly evasions, untruths, and now something approaching half-truths.
First it was: everything done was legal and acceptable.
Then came: mistakes were perhaps made, but not by me, and I’m not apologizing.
Followed by: the inevitable Clintonian sorry-not-sorry.
Now, having seen her polls dropping in rock-like fashion, we’re at: I’m kinda sorry but still nothing I emailed was “marked” classified.
The last is a particularly dishonest evasion, given that the Intelligence Community has twicedetermined that in fact TOPSECRET//SCI information was included in Hillary’s “private” email on at least two occasions. Given that’s from a sample of just forty emails, out of the 30,000 she has handed over to investigators (to say nothing of the 30,000 more that Hillary deleted), the mind boggles at how many actually classified (if unmarked) emails Hillary and her Foggy Bottom staff put on her personal server. As I’ve recently explained, this is a complex counterintelligence investigation that will last for months yet.
The core of this debate is what makes information classified in the U.S. Government. Much of what’s marked — and it’s always marked — classified relates to policy matters and is customarily classified at the CONFIDENTIAL or SECRET level. The vast majority of the information identified as actually classified in Hillary’s “unclassified” emails is in this group, with most being CONFIDENTIAL, the lowest level of classification.
Critics of secrecy (including some Hillary defenders) love to point out that the U.S. Government, the Pentagon especially, habitually overclassifies things. While this is a hoary Beltway cliché it contains more than a grain of truth, and anybody who’s spent time in our secret government and is honest will admit to having seen things that were marked classified, usually at low levels, that really didn’t need to be. Some of this is mere bureaucratic habit while some can be placed at the doorstep of those three most important letters in Washington, DC; C-Y-A.
That said, what Hillary and her staff seem to have compromised was mainly what the State Department terms Foreign Government Information and, when it involves high-level diplomatic conversations — say, discussions between a Secretary of State and a foreign counterpart — that sort of FGI is alwaysconsidered classified at Foggy Bottom. Secrecy lies at the heart of international diplomacy and always has, and if Hillary planned to change that she really needed to inform the countless allies and friends abroad who confided in her with the expectation that their conversation would remain out of view of the public andforeign intelligence agencies — and not on Hillary’s unencrypted private email and server.
The most serious allegations facing Team Clinton, however, focus on the compromised intelligence. Exposing TOPSECRET information is a much more serious matter, legally and practically, than compromising less classified things. If, as now appears certain, Hillary and/or her staff placed such highly sensitive information, reported to deal with North Korean WMDs, in private unclassified email, that is something the FBI will be unable to ignore.
How the Intelligence Community classifies its information is opaque to outsiders yet needs clarification as such knotty issues occupy an important part of the #EmailGate story. I’ve previously elaborated in detail how intelligence analysis from multiple classified sources winds up on the desks of senior policymakers inside the Beltway, creating a complex picture.
How that information gets classified in the first place needs explanation. Most, though by no means all, of the Intelligence Community’s output consists of information that’s been purloined one way or the other. As I like to explain to outsiders, the business of any spy agency is learning things that they are not supposed to know. Which is really a nice way of saying the core work of every intelligence service is breaking the laws of foreign countries.
How classified any information is derives from a process termed intelligence sources and methods. This is so critical that it’s called “the heart of all intelligence operations” in Washington, DC. All this really means is that how intelligence has been obtained determines its classification level, not the information itself.
Since our Intelligence Community is a seventeen-agency behemoth with a lot of people churning out a lot of information — remember, they’re not stovepipes, they’re “cylinders of excellence” — sometimes the same information gets reported through different channels at very different levels of classification. This provides an ideal example of showing how sources and methods actually work.
Let’s say that Zendia’s top general officer, Abu Jackson, is deathly ill and may not have long to live. High-ranking people in Washington, DC, care about this because General Jackson is considered a friend of the United States and he has been cooperative regarding hush-hush joint counterterrorism operations in his country.
If his illness is revealed in local press, that will likely be picked up by our Embassy there and probably also by the CIA’s Open Source Center, which translates foreign media. Since this is open press, it’s considered UNCLASSIFIED (though the Embassy may put a Sensitive But Unclassified — SBU, or what the Pentagon calls For Official Use Only or FOUO — stamp on it as a formality). Of course, Zendian press is sensationalist and it’s good not to put much credence in such reports without independent corroboration.
However, if our defense attaché hears whispers that General Jackson is seriously ill through his or her channels, which really amounts to hall gossip inside the Zendian Ministry of Defense, that will be reported by the Defense Intelligence Agency at the CONFIDENTIAL level, SECRET at most.
Meanwhile, if a Central Intelligence Agency case officer learns from a cultivated and validated human source about General Jackson’s illness and possible impending death, that report will flow through Langley with a SECRET//NOFORN stamp on it (unless the Zendian asset is unusually well placed, in which case a TOPSECRET//NOFORN marking and even special compartments could apply).
Let’s say, that same day, the National Security Agency intercepts a phone call between a top Zendian officer, a senior staffer to General Jackson, who tells a counterpart in Dirtbagistan, on what both believe to be a secure line, that his boss is dying of cancer and has three or four months to live. That will be reported by NSA at the TOPSECRET//SCI level since it relies on that Agency’s ability to decipher encrypted Dirtbagistani defense communications, and it will be given a high level of credibility by U.S. decision-makers since it’s “horse’s mouth” testimony.
The salient point is that the essential information — that General Jackson is a seriously unwell man — is identical. How this information was obtained by our intelligence services, the relevant sources and methods, alone determine classification levels.
The fact of General Jackson’s grave illness came from several different sources:
— Foreign press reporting, termed Open Source Intelligence or OSINT;
— Low-level Human Intelligence or HUMINT from DIA;
— High-level HUMINT from CIA;
— High-grade Signals Intelligence or SIGINT from NSA.
This complexity also goes some way to explaining why the Intelligence Community is prone to overclassifying things, for instance labeling press reports that appear in U.S. Government correspondence — as has happened with #EmailGate — as classified. This sounds crazy to outsiders but is commonplace since these are comments by senior officials who are reading classified intelligence in addition to press accounts (insiders term these “reflections”).
The next time a member of the media or a Hillary advocate, few of whom possess any real understanding of intelligence matters, presents these issues brought forth by #EmailGate as simple or straightforward — or, alternately, so complicated that no mere mortal could be expected to understand classification — remember that in fact they are complex yet comprehensible. As I have explained here.
So now we have a team Red and team Blue attorneys making their case...
Oh... remember Bill Clinton's own Secretary of State?
She was asked:
“If you were Secretary of State now and your Deputy Secretary of State said I want to do all of my email on a personal server on a private email account, would you approve that?”
Hey, the poster just wanted another source. Considering the one you listed based their rationale largely on the Patraeus case, I thought I would post what the overseeing prosecutor of the Pataeus case thought of it. Take it for what you will. Basically, I think it boils down to shades of grey and, hell, Bill could have written the book on the matter.
Edit: Oh, and you forgot to include that Albright said that in her defense of Clinton's actions overall. She also later clarified: "Your question was whether I would approve it now. After all of this controversy - of course not."
I know I am way out of the loop, but did Walker leave the race?
I honestly thought he was going to be the next Presidential Nominee based on his union busting alone. I guess he wasn't extreme enough for the National base.
More likely, no one outside of the Midwest had even heard of the guy.
Easy E wrote: I know I am way out of the loop, but did Walker leave the race?
I honestly thought he was going to be the next Presidential Nominee based on his union busting alone. I guess he wasn't extreme enough for the National base.
More likely, no one outside of the Midwest had even heard of the guy.
Yeah, you are way out of the loop. Gone about a week ago. Plenty extreme enough, just not intelligent enough. His Boy Scout experience didn't carry over so he was left at level one. See the debates. And I'm from SD. As Midwest non important as it gets. He wasn't good enough. And that's saying something in this field.
d-usa wrote: That, and "anti-Union" was basically the one-trick-pony he ran on.
How are you going to deal with the Middle East? The same way I dealt with the unions!
Speaking of the Middle East, it seems that Obama's UN speech is filled with the same old solutions to ISIS that have spectacularly failed to work these past 10 years, but Obama is pushing for them again...
I never thought I'd say this, but Putin's real-politick solution to Syria and ISIS, is the only sensible thing that's been said on the subject.
Speaking of the Middle East, it seems that Obama's UN speech is filled with the same old solutions to ISIS that have spectacularly failed to work these past 10 years, but Obama is pushing for them again... .
Gee...I didn't know ISIL has been around for 10 years...
It's not bad... (especially the non-stocks income).
What's hysterical is that it's awfully close to Jeb's and Rand's plan.
My biggest pet-peeve with these plans is that it's all about CUT TAXES and CHANGE THE TAX RATES!
Where's the plan to CUT SPENDING? Or, at the absolute minimum... where's the plan to enforce/encourage efficiencies/optimaizations to FREE UP MONEY already allocated to be used in other areas?
This is why the GOP and Democrat fails at any tax policies...
Speaking of the Middle East, it seems that Obama's UN speech is filled with the same old solutions to ISIS that have spectacularly failed to work these past 10 years, but Obama is pushing for them again... .
Gee...I didn't know ISIL has been around for 10 years...
I was referring to the fact that most Western politicians, Obama included, seem to think that the solution to every Middle Eastern problem is bombs from 30,000 feet...
It's MATHS <---------------------------- Note the letter S
Typical Americans. You write dates as Month/Day/Year, thus annoying me and every non American on dakka, when the rest of the world writes it as Day/Month/Year
It's not bad... (especially the non-stocks income).
What's hysterical is that it's awfully close to Jeb's and Rand's plan.
My biggest pet-peeve with these plans is that it's all about CUT TAXES and CHANGE THE TAX RATES!
Where's the plan to CUT SPENDING? Or, at the absolute minimum... where's the plan to enforce/encourage efficiencies/optimaizations to FREE UP MONEY already allocated to be used in other areas?
This is why the GOP and Democrat fails at any tax policies...
The plan is gakiy because it raises taxes on the poor (notice the part about getting rid of exemptions, etc) and it continues the misinformation that the tax code is incredibly complex. For 90% of people, it's pretty simple. It's only complex if you are doing weird things or had your lobbyists get special stuff put in for you.
It's not bad... (especially the non-stocks income).
What's hysterical is that it's awfully close to Jeb's and Rand's plan.
My biggest pet-peeve with these plans is that it's all about CUT TAXES and CHANGE THE TAX RATES!
Where's the plan to CUT SPENDING? Or, at the absolute minimum... where's the plan to enforce/encourage efficiencies/optimaizations to FREE UP MONEY already allocated to be used in other areas?
This is why the GOP and Democrat fails at any tax policies...
The plan is gakiy because it raises taxes on the poor (notice the part about getting rid of exemptions, etc) and it continues the misinformation that the tax code is incredibly complex. For 90% of people, it's pretty simple. It's only complex if you are doing weird things or had your lobbyists get special stuff put in for you.
Sure... it's not complex as long as you're either paying TurboTax/TaxCut or Accountant to do your taxes, a multi-billion dollar compliance industry.
Sen. Cruz: The Real Story of What Is Happening in Washington
REMINDS LEADERSHIP TO KEEP THEIR PROMISES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today delivered a speech on the Senate floor highlighting the many examples of Republican leadership surrendering to President Obama’s demands, including funding Planned Parenthood and the catastrophic Iran nuclear deal. Sen. Cruz’s speech followed an attempt to permit a vote on his amendment to end taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood and the Iranian nuclear deal. His colleagues refused to allow him the courtesy of a roll-call vote on his motion, which would have allowed for consideration of his amendment.
The text of Sen. Cruz’s amendment can be found here.
Sen. Cruz’s floor speech in its entirety can be read below and video can be viewed here.
“Mr. President, there is a reason the American people are fed up with Washington. There is a reason the American people are frustrated. The frustration is not simply mild or passing or ephemeral. It is volcanic. Over and over again, the American people go to the ballot box, over and over again, the American people rise up and say the direction we're going doesn't make sense. We want change. Over and over again, the American people win elections. In 2010, a tidal wave election. In 2014, a tidal wave election. And yet, nothing changes in Washington.
“Mr. President, I'd like to share with you and the American people the real story of what is happening in Washington. Why is it that our leaders cannot stop bankrupting this country, cannot stop the assault on our constitutional rights, cannot stop America's retreat from leadership in the world? It's a very simple dynamic when you have two sides allegedly in a political battle. One side that is relentlessly, unshakably committed to its principles, and the other side that reflexively surrenders at the outset. The outcome is fore–ordained..
“I will give President Obama and the Senate Democrats credit. They believe in principles of big government. They believe in this relentless assault on our constitutional rights, and they are willing to crawl over broken glass with a knife between their teeth to fight for those principles. Unfortunately, leadership on my side of the aisle does not demonstrate the same commitment to principles. Now, how is it, you might wonder, that a preemptive surrender is put in place? Well, it all begins with the relatively innocuous statement ‘there shall be no shutdowns.’ That is a statement leadership in both houses, Republican leadership in both houses, has said: ‘We're not going to shut the government down.’ You could understand the folks in the private sector, folks at home – that sounds perfectly reasonable. Except here's the reality in Washington.
“In today's Washington, there are three kinds of votes. There are, number one, show votes.. Votes that are brought up largely to placate the voters where the outcome is fore –ordained,, where most Republicans will vote one way, Democrats will vote the other, Republicans will lose, and the conservatives who elected Republican majorities in both houses are supposed to be thrilled that they have been patted on the head and given their show vote that was destined to lose. We had a vote like that in recent weeks on Planned Parenthood. Leadership told us: ‘You should be thrilled. We voted on it. What else do you want?’ We voted on it in a context where it would never happen. And indeed it didn't. The second kind of vote are votes that simply grow government, that dramatically expand spending, expand corporate welfare, and those votes, Mr. President, those votes pass. Because you get a bipartisan coalition of Republican leadership and Democrats, both of whom are convinced that career politicians will get reelected if they keep growing and growing government, and in particular, handing out corporate welfare to giant corporations. Oh, boy, if you’ve got the lobbyists on K street pushing for something, you can get 60, 70, 80 votes in this chamber because Republican leadership loves it, and Democrats are always willing to grow government.
“And then there's a third kind of vote. Votes on must-pass legislation. In an era when one side, the Democratic Party, is adamantly committed to continuing down this path that is causing so many millions of Americans to hurt, must-pass votes are the only votes that have real consequence in this chamber. They typically fall into one of three categories – either continuing resolution, or an omnibus appropriation bill, or a debt ceiling increase. Each of those three are deemed must-pass votes, and if you actually want to change law, those are the only hopes of doing so. But I mentioned before you have got one side that has preemptively surrendered. Republican leadership has said: ‘We will never, ever, ever shut down the government.’ And suddenly, President Obama understands the easy key to winning every battle. He simply has to utter the word ‘shutdown,’ and Republican leadership runs to the hills.
“So President Obama demands of Congress ‘fund every bit of Obamacare, 100 percent of it, and do nothing, zero, for the millions of Americans who are hurting, millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, who have lost their health care, who have lost their doctors, who have been forced into part-time work, millions of young people who have seen their premiums skyrocket.’ President Obama says ‘you can do nothing for the people that are hurting.’ Senate Democrats say: ‘We don't care about the people who are hurting. We'll do nothing for them.’ And here's the kicker. President Obama promises ‘if you try to do anything on Obamacare, I, Barack Obama, will veto funding for the entire federal government and shut it down,’ and Republican leadership compliantly says, ‘Okay, fine, we'll fund Obamacare.’
“President Obama then – understanding he's got a pretty good trump card here he can pull out any time – next he says, ‘Okay, Republicans, fund my unconstitutional executive amnesty. It's contrary to law. It's flouting federal immigration law. But you, Republicans, fund it anyway, or else I, Barack Obama, will veto funding for the entire federal government and shut it down,’ and Republican leadership says at the outset, ‘Okay, we'll fund amnesty.’
“Or now you turn to Planned Parenthood. Barack Obama, this will surprise no one, says, ‘Fund 100 percent of Planned Parenthood with taxpayer money.’ Mind you, Planned Parenthood is a private organization. It's not even part of the government, but it happens to be politically favored by President Obama and the Democrats. Planned Parenthood is also the subject of multiple criminal investigations for being caught on tape apparently carrying out a pattern of ongoing felonies. In ordinary times, the proposition that we should not be sending your and my federal taxpayer money to fund a private organization under multiple criminal investigations, that ought to be a 100-0 vote. But I mentioned before Barack Obama is absolutely committed to his partisan objectives. He is like The Terminator. He never stops. He never gives up. He moves forward and forward and forward. So what does he say? ‘If you don't fund this one private organization that's not part of the government, that's under multiple criminal investigations, I, Barack Obama, will veto funding for the entire federal government and shut it down.’ And what does Republican leadership say? Well, it will surprise no one. Republican leadership says, ‘We surrender. We will fund Planned Parenthood.’
“You know, President Obama has negotiated a catastrophic nuclear deal with Iran. Republican leadership goes on television all the time and rightly says this is a catastrophic deal. The consequences are that it's the single greatest national security threat to America. Millions of Americans could die. Mr. President, I would suggest if we actually believed the words that are coming out of our mouths, then we would be willing to use any and all constitutional authorities given to Congress to stop a catastrophic deal that sends over $100 billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei. But yet, President Obama says he will veto the entire budget if we do, and to the surprise of nobody, Republican leadership surrenders.
“You know, I’lldraw an analogy, Mr. President. It's as if in a football game at the beginning of the football game the two team captains go out to flip the coin and one team's coach walks out and says we forfeit, and they do it game after game after game. Right at the coin flip, leadership says: ‘We forfeit, we surrender, we, Republicans, will fund every single big-government liberal priority of the Democrats.’ Now, if a team did that, if an NFL team did that over 16 games, we know what their record would be. It would be 0-16. And, you know, I’d bepretty sure that the fans, who bought tickets, who went to the game, would be pretty ticked off as they watched their coach forfeit over and over and over and over again.
“You want to understand the volcanic frustration with Washington? It's that the Republican leadership in both houses will not fight for a single priority that we promised the voters we would fight for when we were campaigning less than a year ago.
“You know, this past week was a big news week in Washington. The Speaker of the House, John Boehner announced he was going to resign. There was lots of speculation in the media as to why the speaker of the house resigned. Mr. President, I'm going to tell you why he resigned. It's actually a direct manifestation of this disconnect between the voters back home and Republican leadership. Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell had promised ‘there will be no shutdown,’ so, therefore, they will fund every single priority of Barack Obama's. We are right now voting on what's called a ‘clean CR.’ Now I will note it is clean only in the parlance of Washington, because what does it do? It funds 100 percent of Obamacare, 100 percent of executive amnesty. It funds all of Planned Parenthood. It funds the Iranian nuclear deal. It is essentially a blank check to Barack Obama. That’s not very clean to me. That actually sounds like a very dirty funding bill, funding priorities that are doing enormous damage.
“Now, in the Senate the votes were always there for a dirty CR, a CR that funded all of Barack Obama's priorities. The Democrats will all vote for it. Heck, of course they will. They've got the other side funding their priorities. Of course every Democrat will vote for that over and over and over again and twice on Sunday. And the simple reality on the Republican side is when leadership joins with the Democrats about half of the Republican caucus is happy to move over to that side of the aisle. So the votes were always preordained.
“The motion I made just a moment ago was a motion to table the tree. You remember filling the tree? It’s something we heard about a lot in the previous congress. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, did it all the time. Senators on this side of the aisle stood up over and over again and said it's an abuse of process. In fact, we even campaigned - our leadership - saying we're going to have an open amendment process. And yet, what's happened here is Majority Leader McConnell has taken a page out of Leader Reid's playbook and filled the tree. I moved to table the tree. And what you then saw was leadership denying a second. And what does denying a second mean? Denying a recorded vote. Why is that important? Mr. President, when you are breaking the commitments you've made to the men and women who elected you, the most painful thing in the world is accountability. When you are misleading the men and women who showed up to vote for you, you don't want sunshine making clear that you voted "No." A recorded vote means each senator's name is on it. Now, why did I move to table the tree? Simply to add the amendment that I had added, which would have, number one, said not one penny goes to Planned Parenthood. And, number two, not one penny goes to implementing this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal unless and until they comply with federal law, the Administration complies with federal law, and hands over the full deal including the side agreements with Iran. What you saw was Republican leadership desperately does not want a vote on that.
“Well, Mr. President, I intend tomorrow to make that motion again. And when I make that motion again, I would encourage those watching to see which senators are here to give a second or not and to vote yea or nay. I would note, by the way, when you deny a second, which is truly an unprecedented procedural trick. It used to be that was a courtesy that was afforded to all senators, indeed in the opposing party routinely over and over again, when someone asked for a second everyone raises their hand, but leadership has discovered we can do this in the dark of night. But I encourage those watching to see, number one, when this motion is offered again, who shows up to offer a second and who either doesn't raise his hand or just doesn't come to the floor. One of the ways you avoid accountability is you somehow are somewhere else doing something really, really important instead of actually showing up to the battle that is waging right here and now.
“But I would also encourage people to watch very carefully what happens after that. After that you have a voice vote. A voice vote is still a vote. Let's be clear, standing here on the floor, there were two senators -- Senator Lee and I -- who voted aye, who voted to table the tree and take up the amendment barring funding for Planned Parenthood and barring funding for this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal. The remaining senators on the Republican side -- you had Leader McConnell; you had Whip Cornyn; you had Senator Alexander; you had Senator Cochran -- those four senators voted loudly no. It’s still a vote, even though it’s not a recorded vote. It's a vote on the Senate floor.
“So why did Speaker Boehner resign? Well I mentioned to you that the votes were always cooked here. The Democrats plus Republican leadership and the votes that they bring with them ensure plenty of votes for a dirty CR, a CR that funds Obamacare, that funds amnesty, that funds Planned Parenthood, that funds this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal. But the House was always the bulwark.
“Mr. President, you'll remember in 2013 when we had a fight over Obamacare – you were serving in the House at that time. In that fight, we never had the votes in the Senate. Actually, the Senate was under control of the Democrats. They were going to do anything they could to fund Obamacare, regardless of the millions of people hurting, but the House was bulwark in that fight. And in particular, there was a core of 40 or 50 strong, principled conservatives who cared deeply about honoring the commitments they made to the men and women who elected them. That was always the strength we had in that fight.
“You know, it's been interesting reading some of the press coverage speculating that there would be some magic parliamentary trick that would somehow stop this corrupt deal. Well in the Senate there are no magic parliamentary tricks. When you have the Democrats plus Republican leadership and a chunk of the Republicans, those votes can roll over any parliamentary trick you might use. Even with the blood moon we just had, there are no mystical powers that allow you to roll over that.
“But in the House, we’ve still got that 30, 40, 50 strong conservatives, so how is it that Speaker Boehner and Leader McConnell could promise there will never, ever be a shutdown? Because, I believe, Speaker Boehner has decided to cut a deal with Leader Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats, that this dirty CR that's going to be passed out of the Senate is going to go to the House, and the speaker is going to take it up on the floor, pass it with all the Democrats, just like Leader McConnell just did, and a handful of Republicans who will go with Republican leadership. A very significant percentage of Republicans will vote "No." But here is the problem. Speaker Boehner's done that more than once, and in this instance there were too many Republicans who were tired of seeing their leadership lead the Democrats, rather than lead the Republican party. I believe if Speaker Boehner had done that - had passed a dirty CR funding Planned Parenthood, funding this Iranian nuclear deal -then he would have lost his speakership. A member of the House had introduced a motion to vacate the chair because House Republicans were fed up with their leader not leading, at least not leading their party, leading the Democratic Party. So, Speaker Boehner faced a conundrum. If he does what he and Leader McConnell promised, which is fund all of Barack Obama's priorities, he would have lost his job. So what did he do? He announced he's resigning as Speaker and resigning as a member of Congress. That is unsurprising, but it also telegraphs the deal he's just cut. It's a deal to surrender and join with the Democrats. Notice he said he's going to stay a month. He's going to stay a month in order to join with the Democrats and fund Barack Obama's priorities.
“Now let's talk about some of the substantive issues that we ought to be talking about. Let's start with Planned Parenthood. In the past couple of months a series of videos have come out about Planned Parenthood. Now, to some of the people watching this, you may never have seen the videos. Why is that? Because the mainstream media has engaged in a virtual media blackout on them. ABC, NBC, CBS, the last thing they want to do is show these videos. If you watch Fox News you can see the videos. But the mainstream media, in the great tradition of Pravda, wants to make sure the citizenry doesn't see what's in these videos. I would encourage every American, Republican or Democrat, regardless of where you fall on the right to life, even if, and in fact especially if you consider yourself pro-choice, just watch these videos. Go online and watch them, and ask yourself: ‘Are these my values? Is this what I believe?’ These videos show senior officials from Planned Parenthood laughing, sipping chardonnay and callously, heartlessly selling the body parts of unborn children over and over and over again. One senior official is caught on video laughing and saying she hopes she sells enough body parts of unborn children to buy herself a Lamborghini. Again, I would suggest just ask yourself: ‘Are these my values?’
“In another video, a lab tech describes a little baby boy, unborn, aborted, about two pounds, his heart still beating. She was instructed to insert scissors under his chin to cut open the face of this little boy and harvest his brain. Because the brain was valuable, Planned Parenthood could sell the brain. This is something out of Brave New World. This is human beings. That little boy had a heart that was still beating, had a brain that was being harvested, and he had a soul -given him by God Almighty, he was made in the image of God. And we are now a nation that harvests the body parts of little baby boys and girls. It is the very definition of inhumanity to treat children like agriculture, to be grown and killed for their body parts, to be sold for profit.
“Now there is a reason that the media and the Democrats don't want these videos shown. Because anyone watching these videos will be horrified. But they're not just horrific - they are also prima facie evidence of criminal activity. There are multiple federal statutes, criminal statutes, that Planned Parenthood appears to be violating, perhaps on a daily basis. The first and most direct is a prohibition on selling the body parts of unborn children for a profit. Federal criminal law makes that a felony with up to 10 years jail time. Now, these videos show them very clearly selling body parts. They also show them bartering over price. They'll argue it wasn't for a profit, but you watch these videos, you watch the undercover buyer saying how much will you give me for them? You see the Planned Parenthood official saying, ‘Well, how much can I get? I don't want to bargain against myself.’ On its face, that's evidence of bargaining for a profit. You want the highest price you can get. It's not tied to your cost. It's tied to whatever dollars, whatever revenue you can bring in.
“And Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in this country. As another one of these videos reflects, it is a volume business, Planned Parenthood, taking the lives of unborn children and then selling them, apparently for profit. It is also a federal criminal offense to alter the means of an abortion for the purpose of harvesting the organs of the unborn child. That's a separate criminal offense. On video after video you see Planned Parenthood officials say, ‘What parts would you like? We can perform a different abortion depending on what parts you want us to harvest.’ On the videos, they essentially admit to this crime. They are filmed in the act.
“There is the third criminal offense that provides that you cannot harvest the organs of an unborn child without informed consent from the mother. And yet again, these videos seem to indicate that Planned Parenthood treats informed consent as a technicality that is sometimes complied with and sometimes ignored.
“Now I will say, Mr. President, as an aside, ordinarily when a national organization is caught on film committing a pattern of felonies, the next steps are predictable. The Department of Justice opens an investigation. The FBI shows up and seizes their records. Everything on those videos suggests those felonies are still occurring today. What does it say about the Obama Justice Department that no one on the face of the planet believes there's any chance the Justice Department would even begin to investigate Planned Parenthood? What does it say about the most lawless, partisan Department of Justice that you've got this group, hey, it's a political ally of the president so that's apparently all that matters. If it's an ally of the president, it doesn't matter that they're videotaped committing felonies. The Department of Justice will not even look at it.
“You know, I'm an alumnus of the U.S. Department of Justice. I was an associate deputy attorney general. I spent much of my adult life working in law enforcement. The Department of Justice has a long, distinguished record of remaining outside of partisan politics, of staying above the partisan fray, of being blind to party or ideology and simply enforcing the law and the Constitution. I'm sorry to say under Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, the Department of Justice has completely besmirched that tradition. No one remotely believes that the Obama Justice Department will even begin to investigate this pattern of felonies. You don't see Democrats suggesting it. No one in the media suggests it. And, by the way, if this were a Republican Administration and the entity that admitted to a pattern of felonies was a private entity that supported Republicans, you would see on CBS, NBC, ABC an indictment clock every night. You would see the anchors saying, ‘When will this investigation open? When will they be indicted?’ Instead, the media pretends these videos don't exist.
“In the face of what appears to be a national criminal enterprise, we're faced here with a much simpler question: Will we continue to pay for it? Will we continue to pay for it? With your and my tax dollars, will we send $500 million a year to a private organization to use to fund this ongoing criminal organization? And what's the position of the Democrats? Hear no evil, see no evil. They do not care. What Democrat do you see calling for the enforcement of criminal laws against Planned Parenthood? What Democrat do you see saying, at a minimum, ‘Let's not send taxpayer money to fund this?’ Not one. Not a single Democrat stood up and said that.
“Let me ask you, Mr. President, what happens if Planned Parenthood gets indicted? Because even though the U.S. Department of Justice under President Obama has become little more than a partisan arm of the Democratic National Committee, there are state and local prosecutors that are investigating Planned Parenthood right now. If Planned Parenthood is indicted, do the Democrats maintain their wall of silence and say, ‘We're going to continue to fund them under indictment’? By all indications, yes. You haven't heard a single Democrat say, ‘well, if they're indicted, then we'll stop.’
“Now, the response, Mr. President, from our leadership is ‘we can't win this fight.’ That's their response. They say, well, we can't win the Planned Parenthood fight. Why? Because we don't have 60 votes. Because we don't have 67 votes. Mr. President, if that's the standard, then Republican leadership's standard is: We will only do whatever Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi approve of. That's what it means. You want to understand why the American people are frustrated? We were told, ‘If only we had a Republican House of Representatives, then things would be different.’ 2010, millions of us rose up in incredible numbers and won an historic tidal wave election. Mr. President, you were a youth pastor, called to ministry. And yet you stood up and said, my country's in crisis. I'm going to stand and serve. The 2010 election was historic. And yet very little changed.
“Then we were told, ‘Okay, we've got a House of Representatives, but the problem is the Senate. As long as Harry Reid is Majority Leader, we can't do anything.’ Over and over again, Washington gray beards would go on television and in gravelly tones, they would go on TV and say, ‘You cannot govern with one-half of one-third of government. The House of Representatives is not enough. But if we had the Senate, then things would be different. The problem is Harry Reid.’
“Mr. President, you'll recall during the fight over Obamacare, a number of members of this body, Republicans, said, ‘No, no, no, no, no, we can't fight on Obamacare. We have to wait until we have a Republican Senate to fight.’ So the American people obliged. In 2014, millions of us rose up – the second tidal wave election in a period of four years. We won nine Senate seats. We retired Harry Reid as majority leader. We won the largest majority in the House of Representatives since the 1920's. It's been now over nine months since we've had Republican majorities in both houses, and I ask you, Mr. President, what exactly have those Republican majorities accomplished?
“I'll tell you, Mr. President, I've asked that question all over the country in town halls. I've never been in a town hall where the response spontaneously was not ‘Absolutely nothing.’ That's true in every state I've visited. And, sadly, my response over and over again is, you know, it's worse than that. I wish the answer were ‘Absolutely nothing.’ It would have been better if the Republican majorities had done absolutely nothing. Because what, in fact, have they done? Well, the very first thing that happened right after that election in November is we came back to Washington and Republican leadership joined up with Harry Reid and the Democrats and passed a trillion-dollar cromnibus bill that was filled with pork and corporate welfare, grew government, grew the debt. Then, Republican leadership took the lead in funding Obamacare. Then, Republican leadership took the lead in funding executive amnesty. Then, Republican leadership took the lead in funding Planned Parenthood. And then, astonishingly, Republican leadership took the lead in confirming Loretta Lynch as attorney general. Now, I ask you, Mr. President, which one of those decisions is one iota different from what would have happened with Harry Reid and the Democrats in charge of this chamber? Those decisions are identical.
“And I would note, by the way, with Loretta Lynch, the Republican majority could have defeated that nomination. The Senate majority leader could have done so. And yet, she looked at the Senate Judiciary Committee, she looked at the Senate, when asked how she would differ from Eric Holder's Justice Department, the most lawless and partisan Justice Department we'd ever seen, she said, ‘No way whatsoever.’ When asked to point to a single instance in which she'd be willing to stand up to President Obama to stop his lawlessness, to stop his abuse of power, she could not identify any circumstance in which she would ever stand up to the president who appointed her. Attorneys general from both parties have done that for centuries. Now, with Eric Holder, the Senate could be forgiven because his lawlessness manifested primarily after he was confirmed. With Loretta Lynch, she told us beforehand. She looked us in the eyes and said, ‘Hey, I'm going to do exactly what my predecessor has done.’ And Republican leadership confirmed her anyway. Is it any wonder the American people are frustrated out of their minds? We keep winning elections and the people we put in office don't do what they said they would do.
“Now, some people across the country ask me, is Republican leadership just not very capable? Are they not that competent or are they unwilling to fight? And, Mr. President, it's neither. They're actually quite competent, and they're willing to fight. The question is what they're fighting for. There's a disconnect right now. If you or I go to our home states, we go to any gathering of citizens, we put up a whiteboard and we ask the citizens in the room, give me the top priorities you think Republican majorities in Congress should be focusing on – we wrote 20 priorities that came from the citizens of Oklahoma or the citizens of Texas or, for that matter, the citizens of any of the 50 states – those top 20 priorities, at least 18 of them would appear nowhere on leadership's priority list. On the other hand, if you drive just down the street in Washington to K Street – K
Street is the street in Washington where the lobbyists primarily reside, where their offices are – if you get a gathering of corporate lobbyists that represent giant corporations and you ask them their top priorities, the list that comes out will not just bear passing similarity, it will be identical to the priorities of Republican leadership. That's the disconnect. You know why we're not here fighting on this? Because not giving taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood is not among the priorities of the lobbyists on K Street, so leadership is not interested in doing it. That's the disconnect.
“Leadership does know how to fight. Just a couple of months ago dealing with the Export-Import Bank, we saw leadership in both chambers go to extraordinary lengths, Herculean procedural steps to try to reauthorize a classic example of corporate welfare, hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer-guaranteed loans to giant corporations. Now, for that leadership is incentivized because those corporations hire lobbyists, and those lobbyists distribute checks typically by the wheelbarrow. And there is no incentive greater in this body than getting reelected. And the view of leadership is: You get reelected by raking in the cash. How do you think we've gotten an $18 trillion national debt? Because the way you reach bipartisan compromise in this body today, in the broken world of Washington, is you grow and grow and grow government. You sit around in a room, you say, ‘I'll spend for your priority, your priority, your priority, your priority, another trillion dollars and we're done.’
“The only people that lose are your children and mine. The only people that lose are the next generations who find themselves mired deeper and deeper and deeper in debt. I think of my little girls, Caroline and Catherine. They're seven and four. If we don't stop what we're doing, your children and my children will face a debt so crushing they won't be able to spend in the future, for the priorities of the future, for their needs, for their wants, for whatever crises come up that the next generation confronts. They'll spend their whole lives simply working to pay off the debts racked up by their deadbeat parents and grandparents. No generation in history has ever done this to their children or grandchildren. Our parents didn't do it to us. Their parents didn't do it to them. The reason is the corruption of this town. And it boils down to a simple proposition: The Democrats are willing to do anything to push their priorities. And the Republicans, the leadership, is not listening to the men and women who elected us.
“But it's actually an even deeper problem than that. On the Democratic side, the major donors that fund the Democratic Party, they don't despise their base. The billionaires who write the giant checks that fund President Obama and Hillary Clinton and the Democrats on that side of the aisle, they don't despise the radical gay rights movement or the radical environmentalist movement or all of the people that knock on doors and get Democrats elected. The simple reality is a very large percentage of the Republican donors actively despise our base, actively despise the men and women who showed up and voted you and me into office. I can tell you when you sit down and talk with a New York billionaire Republican donor -- and I have talked with quite a few New York billionaire Republican donors, California Republican donors, their questions start out as follows. First of all, you've got to come out for gay marriage, you need to be pro-choice, and you need to support amnesty. That's where the Republican donors are. You wonder why Republicans won't fight on any of these issues? Because the people writing the checks agree with the Democrats.
“Now, mind you, the people who show up at the polls, who elected you and me, and who elected this Republican majority, far too many of the Republican donors look down on those voters as a bunch of ignorant hicks and rubes. That's why leadership likes show votes. It wasn't too long ago when the Washington Cartel was able to mask it all with a show vote or two, and they'd tell the rubes back home, ‘See, we voted on it, we just don't have the votes.’
“You know, when I was first elected to this body, many times I heard more senior senators saying some variation of the following: ‘Now, Ted, that's what you tell folks back home. You don't actually do it.’ Here's what's changed. The voters have gotten more informed. They now understand the difference between show votes and a real vote. They understand the vote we had a week ago on Planned Parenthood was designed to lose, to placate those silly folks that think we shouldn't be sending taxpayer funds to a criminal organization that is selling the body parts of unborn children. But on the actual vote that could change policy, leadership has no interest in fighting whatsoever. You know, in the past couple of weeks, one of my colleagues sent me a letter that really embodied the leadership message. This letter said, ‘Explain to me how you get 67 votes to defund Planned Parenthood. If you can't produce 67 votes, I won't support it.’ Mr. President, if that is our standard, then we should all be honest with the men and women who elected us. We do not have 67 Republican votes in this chamber, and there is no realistic prospect of our getting 67 votes any time in the foreseeable future. If the standard is unless you get 67 votes, Republican leadership will support no policy issue, then each of us when we run should tell the voters, ‘If you vote for me, I will support whatever policy agenda Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi decide because that's my standard if I don't have 67 votes.’ Do you ever recall Harry Reid and the Democrats saying how could we get Republican votes? No. Their side is absolutely committed to their principles. You don't see them holding back at all. If the standard is how do we get 67 votes, name one thing that leadership will fight for. Well, the answer, I mentioned there are three types of votes. They will fight for big government. They will fight to grow government. They will fight to expand corporate welfare. Well, that can indeed get 67 votes. But I have never been to a town hall once where citizens said to me: ‘The problem is we don't have enough corporate welfare. I need more subsidies for big business.’ If 100 percent of the agenda of Republican leadership is more subsidies for big business, what the heck are you and I doing in the Senate in the first place? That certainly wasn't why I ran, and I know it wasn't why you ran either. You don't have to win every fight. You don't have to fight every fight. But you do have to stand for something.
“And let's look beyond Planned Parenthood for a minute. Let's look to Iran. Of all of the decisions that the Obama Administration has made, there may be none more damaging than this catastrophic Iranian nuclear deal. If this deal goes through, there will be three consequences. Number one, the Obama Administration will become quite literally the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism. Now, when I said that a couple of months ago, President Obama got very, very upset. He said it was ridiculous that I would say such a thing. But despite attacking me directly, President Obama didn't actually endeavor to refute the substance of what I'd said. So let's review the facts. Fact number one, Iran is today the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. That fact is undisputed, even by this Administration. Fact number two, if this deal goes through, over $100 billion will go directly to Iran, to the Ayatollah Khamenei. And fact number three, if that happens, billions of those dollars will go to Hamas, to Hezbollah, to the Houthis, to radical Islamic terrorists across the globe who will use those billions to murder Americans, to murder Israelis and to murder Europeans.
“You know, Mr. President, it's worth remembering 14 years ago this month the horrific terrorist attack that was carried out on September 11th. Osama bin Laden hated America, but he never had billions of dollars. He never had $100 billion. The Ayatollah Khamenei hates America every bit as much as Osama bin Laden did, and this Administration is giving him control of over $100 billion. Imagine what bin Laden could have done. Look at the damage he did with 19 terrorists carrying box cutters. Now, imagine that same zealotry with billions of dollars behind it. The consequences of this deal could easily be another terrorist attack that dwarfs September 11th in scale, that kills far more than the roughly 3,000 lives that were snuffed out. Who in their right mind would send over $100 billion to a theocratic zealot who chants ‘Death to America’?
“A second consequence of this catastrophic deal is that we're abandoning four hostages, four American hostages in Iranian jails. Pastor Saeed Abedini is an American citizen. His wife, Naghmeh, lives in Idaho. I’ve visited with Naghmeh many times. Pastor Saeed has two little kids who desperately want their daddy to come home. Pastor Saeed was sentenced to eight years in prison for the crime of preaching the gospel. Just last week was the three-year anniversary of Pastor Saeed's imprisonment. Reports are that he is being horribly mistreated, that his health is failing. And yet, President Obama cannot bring himself to utter the words ‘Pastor Saeed Abedini.’ A hundred billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei, and Pastor Saeed Abedini remains in prison. Also in prison is Amir Hekmati, an American marine the president has abandoned. Also in prison is Jason Rezaian, a Washington Post reporter,I note to the reporters in the gallery, a colleague of yours, abandoned by President Obama in an Iranian prison, thrown in jail for doing his job reporting on the news. And Robert Levinson, whose whereabouts remain unknown. Why does the president refuse even to utter their names?
“The third consequence of this deal is this deal will only accelerate Iran's acquiring nuclear weapons. Now, the Administration claims that the deal will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Why? Because they promise not to do it. We have learned from Iran they break their promises over and over and over again. And what we do know is that they will have an extra $100 billion to develop nuclear weapons with now -- I will say the Administration has laughingly suggested -well, they will use that on infrastructure to rebuild their roads, to rebuild their energy industry. Right now, they're sending vast sums to Hamas and Hezbollah, funding terrorism across the world, and they have those same infrastructure needs. With another $100 billion, you don't think they're going to funnel an awful lot of it to developing nuclear weapons. And I would point out it is not by accident that the Ayatollah Khamenei refers to Israel as the ‘Little Satan’ and America as the ‘Great Satan.’ This is the one threat on the face of the Earth that poses a real possibility of millions of Americans being murdered in the flash of an eye.
“Now, everything I'm saying, Republican leadership has said over and over again. And yet, Republican leadership refuses to enforce the terms of the Iran review legislation – federal law that the Administration is defying by not handing the entire deal over. I have laid out a clear path, a detailed path that leadership can follow to stop this deal. Leadership refuses to do so. Instead, we had a show vote that was designed to lose, and it did exactly what we expected. The Democrats by and large put party loyalty above the national security of this country, above standing with Israel, above protecting the lives of millions of Americans. If we really believed what so many of us have said, that this poses the risk of murdering millions of Americans, is there any higher priority? The most powerful constitutional tool Congress has is the power of the purse. If we had the ability to stop this deal and we don’t and millions of Americans die, how do we explain that to the men and women who elected us? Look, I'm not advocating that we fight willy-nilly. I'm advocating that we fight on things that matter.
“Don't give $500 million to Planned Parenthood, a corrupt organization that is taking the lives of vast numbers of unborn children and selling their body parts in a criminal conspiracy directly contrary to federal law, and don't give $100 billion to the Ayatollah Khamenei, who seeks to murder millions. In both instances, those are defending life. And yet, Republican leadership is not willing to lift a finger. If only all the people who might be murdered by a nuclear weapon could create a PAC in Washington and hire some lobbyists, maybe leadership would listen to them then. But the truck driver at home, the waitress at home, the school teacher at home, the pastor, the police officer, the working men and women, the Washington cartel doesn't listen to them.
“And I'll note where this deal is headed. In December, when this dirty continuing resolution expires, leadership is already foreshadowing they plan to bust the budget caps. Why? We talked about it at the beginning. Barack Obama has discovered, he says the word ‘shutdown,’ and Republican leadership screams, surrenders and runs to the hills. So Obama, understanding that quite well, says, ‘If you don't bust the budget caps, I'll shut the government down.’ And Republicans, in this bizarre process, Republican leadership will blame whatever Obama does on other Republicans. You noticed how much energy Leader McConnell devotes to attacking conservatives? You notice how much energy Speaker Boehner devotes to attacking conservatives?
“Just yesterday the Speaker of the House went on national television, and on national television, he directed an obscene epithet at me personally. He's welcome to insult whomever he likes. I don't intend to reciprocate. But when has leadership ever showed that level of venom, that level of animosity, to President Obama and the Democrats who are bankrupting this country, who are destroying the Constitution, who are endangering the future of our children and grandchildren, who are retreating from leadership in the world and have created an environment that has led to the rise of radical Islamic terrorism?
“You know, one of the dynamics, Mr. President, we've seen in fight after fight is Harry Reid and the Democrats sit back and laugh. Why? Because it's Republican leadership that leads the onslaught, attacking conservatives saying, ‘No, you can’t and we won't do anything to stop Obamacare. No, you can't and we won't do anything to stop Planned Parenthood. No, you can't and we won't do anything to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.’ If Republican leadership really believes we can accomplish nothing, then why does it matter if you have a Republican House or Senate? Every two years come October, November, we tell the voters it matters intensely. To paraphrase the immortal words of Hillary Clinton, ‘what difference does it make?’ if the standard for Republican leadership is anything that gets 67 votes, we'll support. That means Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi remain the de facto leaders of the Senate and the House.
“And I would note, by the way, if in December leadership goes through with their promise, or –not promise—but suggestion to bust the budget caps, they will have done something astonishing. Historically, the three legs of the conservative stool have been fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, national security conservatives. Between Planned Parenthood, Iran, and the budget caps, leadership will have managed to abandon all three. No wonder the American people are frustrated. No wonder the American people do not understand why leadership isn't listening to them.
“I ask unanimous consent that my time be extended…The Democrats are objecting to my speaking further, and both the Democrats and Republican leadership are objecting to the American people speaking further. I yield the floor.”
So is the race to 2016 just to see who can out crazy each other? They have to know that being this far off in right field might win them the nomination, but would give them no chance in hell in the general election right?
I wonder if we like to ridicule Congress because it allows us to pass the blame away from our own actions?
Congress is made up of elected representatives that we chose. To stay in office they have to properly represent their voting base and its desires. We elect these people on the faith that they are more knowledgeable and able to lead us. Yet, we then completely ignore that contract and instead demand absolutely intractable desires for the representative to inact or else. This causes the representative to have to take positions that do not allow compromise if they wish to keep their job.
So now we get stuck with officials bickering instead of making compromises because in order to satisfy their constituents they have ram home their ill informed ideas.
Then there is the idiots that get elected because they can butter up and massage peoples egos or confirm deep held biases.
Honestly, I think Congress functions so poorly because people want it their way and only their way .
BrotherGecko wrote: I wonder if we like to ridicule Congress because it allows us to pass the blame away from our own actions?
Congress is made up of elected representatives that we chose. To stay in office they have to properly represent their voting base and its desires. We elect these people on the faith that they are more knowledgeable and able to lead us. Yet, we then completely ignore that contract and instead demand absolutely intractable desires for the representative to inact or else. This causes the representative to have to take positions that do not allow compromise if they wish to keep their job.
So now we get stuck with officials bickering instead of making compromises because in order to satisfy their constituents they have ram home their ill informed ideas.
Then there is the idiots that get elected because they can butter up and massage peoples egos or confirm deep held biases.
Honestly, I think Congress functions so poorly because people want it their way and only their way .
It doesn't help that the biggest thing moderate voters do in America every election is stay home. Most of America does in fact. Which also helps explain why the average person hates politics so much, since they are probably part of the majority that stays home.
BrotherGecko wrote: I wonder if we like to ridicule Congress because it allows us to pass the blame away from our own actions?
Congress is made up of elected representatives that we chose. To stay in office they have to properly represent their voting base and its desires. We elect these people on the faith that they are more knowledgeable and able to lead us. Yet, we then completely ignore that contract and instead demand absolutely intractable desires for the representative to inact or else. This causes the representative to have to take positions that do not allow compromise if they wish to keep their job.
So now we get stuck with officials bickering instead of making compromises because in order to satisfy their constituents they have ram home their ill informed ideas.
Then there is the idiots that get elected because they can butter up and massage peoples egos or confirm deep held biases.
Honestly, I think Congress functions so poorly because people want it their way and only their way .
It doesn't help that the biggest thing moderate voters do in America every election is stay home. Most of America does in fact. Which also helps explain why the average person hates politics so much, since they are probably part of the majority that stays home.
I think there's also something to be said for the money that is flooding into elections, especially since Citizens' United. People who do get out to vote are probably more likely to vote for the "face" they've seen most often, in the most positive light.
/snip A whole bunch of the pot calling the kettle black, along with just enough truth mixed in with half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies in order to stir the pot to stroke his ego.
I couldn't even make it 25% of the way through that transcript before I could feel my blood pressure rising and had to stop, because I fething loath and despise Ted Cruz more than anyone else in Washington right now.
BrotherGecko wrote: I wonder if we like to ridicule Congress because it allows us to pass the blame away from our own actions?
Congress is made up of elected representatives that we chose. To stay in office they have to properly represent their voting base and its desires. We elect these people on the faith that they are more knowledgeable and able to lead us. Yet, we then completely ignore that contract and instead demand absolutely intractable desires for the representative to inact or else. This causes the representative to have to take positions that do not allow compromise if they wish to keep their job.
So now we get stuck with officials bickering instead of making compromises because in order to satisfy their constituents they have ram home their ill informed ideas.
Then there is the idiots that get elected because they can butter up and massage peoples egos or confirm deep held biases.
Honestly, I think Congress functions so poorly because people want it their way and only their way .
It doesn't help that the biggest thing moderate voters do in America every election is stay home. Most of America does in fact. Which also helps explain why the average person hates politics so much, since they are probably part of the majority that stays home.
George Carlin would disagree with you about blaming the non-voters: (NSFW for language, because George Carlin, duh)
Spoiler:
If anything, the real problem isn't the people who don't vote, or even, in general, the people who do vote. The problem is the uninformed people who vote. The people who blindly tick off all the R or D boxes without even looking at the names first. The people who live only in the R or D echo chambers, who take for gospel truth everything they see on Fox News or MSNBC (that's the opposite of Fox News, right?). The people who don't care about what may actually be truth, but only care about what already confirms their own beliefs or agitates their fears.
And the problem is that the uninformed far outnumber the informed.
But the political parties have no interest in creating informed voters, because that does not benefit the political machine. Uninformed voters are the cogs that keep that Rube Goldberg contraption going.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think there's also something to be said for the money that is flooding into elections, especially since Citizens' United. People who do get out to vote are probably more likely to vote for the "face" they've seen most often, in the most positive light.
Many times, it's not the face they see most often, but the face they think looks better. I had seen a report some years ago where people were shown the official campaign photos of various politicians (local level people from other states so the people surveyed wouldn't recognize them) and asked which one they thought looked better. Most of the time, the one people said looked better was the one that had won their election.
/snip A whole bunch of the pot calling the kettle black, along with just enough truth mixed in with half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies in order to stir the pot to stroke his ego.
Could not agree more.
the catastrophic Iran nuclear deal
was a good one, considering nothing catastrophic has happened as a result of it. Also,
His colleagues refused to allow him the courtesy of a roll-call vote on his motion
you're saying he isn't being allowed to make the senate vote whenever he wants on whatever he wants? The horror! How will he survive in this undemocratic pit of vipers?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Particular when this Pope's approval rating is at least 3-4 times that of Congress's.
The irony is that people love the Pope for saying lots and doing nothing. But hate congress for doing the exact same
To be fair, that's mainly the Pope's job, he's not really there to craft and pass legislation of a large nation (what he is responsible for is a few small acres). He's there to be a an inspirational figure & spokesman for a religion.
Last time Pope's went out and "did things" we got Papal armies and Inquisitions. Congress however is *supposed* to do things
CptJake wrote: And lets be honest about it. If the congress critters pass a budget or continuing resolution defunding planned parenthood but paying for most of everything else the Pres wants, Obama COULD sign it. Instead, you expect the Rs to sell out their principles and will get shrill over it yet demand Obama sticks to his even at the cost of a shut down. In the end, it is Obama's choice to shut it down or not.
Oh look, this again. And here's the reply, again.
If I take a hostage and say I'll shoot them unless you give me a million dollars, I am the one taking the hostage. Just me. Other people can call my bluff or give in, but at the end of the day I'm the one with the hostage.
And on an issue as stupidly minor as Planned Parenthood, it isn't even like the Republican party is asking for a million dollars. It's more like a meth-addict asking for $50 and some McNuggets.
Fun fact: The speaker doesn't need to be current elected Representative.
Shall we begin with Speaker Trump?
Yeah, I read that too. It's my new favourite fact
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Yep, and POTUS shouldn't get to dictate what is in it. He does not hold the 'power of the purse strings'.
Uh, no. The power of the purse can't override veto. That makes no fething sense.
The clue is in the name, purse strings. String allows you to pull back, to restrain. So Congress can deny funding to contain presidential action. But string is very useless for pushing, and the purse strings can't be used to push anything on the president.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: You know thats the very definition of "power of the purse". Something that was deliberately given to Congress. You may not like a shutdown, I don't think anyone likes them, but the ability and power to cause them is 100% intentional.
Actually, no. Not really even very close.
The power of the purse is for specific actions. Don't like the president's overseas military adventure, then you don't fund it. But threatening to shut down all of government over one single thing was never the intention.
Because people used to understand government stability was actually a good thing. This new era of Republicans, though, they aren't just incapable of steady government, they actively reject the idea.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Guys... does Obama bear any faults? Any at all?
Obama has done plenty wrong. But we hardly ever get to talk about that because there's a bunch of complete and total fething lunatics over on the side calling themselves the Republican party.
It's like if I'd just taken way too much prescription medicine and passed out in my own vomit, that's pretty bad. But when there's a guy over on the other side of the room who's in the midst of an incredible acid trip, and he's flinging his poo at people and trying to eat his own flesh, well then my own prescription medicine binge just doesn't really rate a mention.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Twelve months ago, could you fathom Trump doing this well? Seriously? Holy gak that's awesome and we can sit here deliberating why in the hell this is happening. I think we all know that Trump is a terrible candidate and would be an awful President (he has thinner skin that Obama for cripes sake!). So why... why is this happening.
All you have to do is look at any polling numbers on Congress for the last decade or so... it's epically bad.
So, Trump isn't leading the pack because he's such an awesome candidate and is reflective on what GOP voters want... he's leading because folks are more vocal now about how anti-establishment they are now... it seems to be the only way to get the established GOPers to fething listen to their constituents. Hence, there's many on the righty-blogersphere who subscribe to the "Let It Burn" tactic... by doing whatever necessary to vote for the "not GOP preferred candidate" to send a message. It might just happen.
There's a pretty old observation that whenever the other side has a problem, that's their problem, but when your own side has a problem, that reflects on all politicians.
I think I've just seen that logic stretched to justify a terrible candidate in one side's primary campaign.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Again... I'm gonna call BS that Obama is a Republican being right of center.
It's a weird defense, as if it's a bad thing to be liberal.
No, it's just a counter to the argument that he's some kind of crazy socialist. It's independent of whether someone might want a more liberal or a less liberal candidate, it's a statement of fething fact.
Anyhow, look at your own link. He's left liberal than Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Kennedy, or Truman. You counter this by saying that you believe that once his term is ended that will change. That's about the most perfect example of wishful thinking I've seen.
It's not bad... (especially the non-stocks income).
What's hysterical is that it's awfully close to Jeb's and Rand's plan.
Yeah, it's sort of showing the Trump method, take the standard Republican plan, and make it extreme and very Trumpy.
As for the actual budget, it's pretty much the same as every Republican budget (well, except for the truly, deeply crazy budgets, ie flat tax). There's some good stuff in there, especially raising the zero tax bracket, and removing a lot of the deductions. But then it squanders that good stuff by pushing in to crazyland, cutting overall taxes way too much and then saying it will all be okay because we will grow fast enough to afford this. The result is the effect is certain to be many trillions added to the debt.
And so, like all Republican budgets since 2000, it makes it pretty obvious that the Republican concern about deficits was all pretend, but then anyone that cared knew that was pretty obvious already.
My biggest pet-peeve with these plans is that it's all about CUT TAXES and CHANGE THE TAX RATES!
Where's the plan to CUT SPENDING?
It's tax policy. It just talks about tax changes. Spending changes are dealt with in their own policies, or in consolidated budget policies.
No, there's no love or hate. Cruz is ridiculous, has no interest in being anything but ridiculous. We need to just shake our heads and move on. But that can't happen because people keep pretending there's something to the guy that makes any kind of sense.
I mean, fething hell, how transparently ridiculous is this?
"Over and over again, the American people win elections. In 2010, a tidal wave election. In 2014, a tidal wave election. And yet, nothing changes in Washington."
Let's just put that in slightly different language;
"The people have spoken and they demand that Republican policies are met. It's clear if you look at the 2014 and 2010 elections. Admittedly you have to ignore 2012, 2008 and 2006, in which the people spoke and demanded a completely opposite set of policies. But still, I'm going to ignore those elections. Because I don't give a gak about reality, and nor does my voting base."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: The plan is gakiy because it raises taxes on the poor (notice the part about getting rid of exemptions, etc) and it continues the misinformation that the tax code is incredibly complex. For 90% of people, it's pretty simple. It's only complex if you are doing weird things or had your lobbyists get special stuff put in for you.
Sort of. Taxes can be very simple, and it certainly isn't the number of tax brackets that makes it tricky.
But the US tax code is pretty incredibly obtuse, especially if you're in business. There's a mess of special exemptions and allowances with almost no consistency between. I see if I can find it, but there's a tax body that publishes a review of tax codes around the world, and ranks them for good they are for business. The US ranks terribly each year, not because of the rate of tax, but because the cost of compliance is so high.
As a comparison, here in Australia there's a very simple basic concept. Any income you earned from any source, that gets added up. Then any expense you had that was incurred in order to earn income, that gets taken off. That final figure is your taxable income. There's a bunch of special rules for other circumstances, but they operate on the same basic principle. The end result is that even if you don't know exactly how something works, you can normally guess pretty accurately.
That doesn't exist in the US. Not even close. A consolidation of the whole system has been due for a few decades now, but decent reform is probably less likely than it's ever been. Republicans can't understand taxes in any context but tax cuts, and Democrats are not the party you turn to if you want consolidation and streamlining.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vaktathi wrote: To be fair, that's mainly the Pope's job, he's not really there to craft and pass legislation of a large nation (what he is responsible for is a few small acres). He's there to be a an inspirational figure & spokesman for a religion.
Last time Pope's went out and "did things" we got Papal armies and Inquisitions. Congress however is *supposed* to do things
Of course, I'm not blaming the Pope for doing nothing. Just saying that really, the relative popularity is more a product of what job the Pope is in relative to congress, than any inherent qualities in either the Pope or the people in congress.
CptJake wrote: Yep, and POTUS shouldn't get to dictate what is in it. He does not hold the 'power of the purse strings'.
Uh, no. The power of the purse can't override veto. That makes no fething sense.
The clue is in the name, purse strings. String allows you to pull back, to restrain. So Congress can deny funding to contain presidential action. But string is very useless for pushing, and the purse strings can't be used to push anything on the president.
Where did I say the power of the purse overrides a POTUS veto? What I (correctly said) is that POTUS doesn't get to dictate what is in the budget.
This shouldn't be hard for you. Presidents doesn't write the budgets. The congress critters in the House do. If they decide not to include funding for something, POTUS can throw a hissy fit all he wants. If POTUS decides to veto a whole budget because the congress critters left out something he wanted, it is on him.
If anything, the real problem isn't the people who don't vote, or even, in general, the people who do vote. The problem is the uninformed people who vote. The people who blindly tick off all the R or D boxes without even looking at the names first. The people who live only in the R or D echo chambers, who take for gospel truth everything they see on Fox News or MSNBC (that's the opposite of Fox News, right?). The people who don't care about what may actually be truth, but only care about what already confirms their own beliefs or agitates their fears.
And the problem is that the uninformed far outnumber the informed.
But the political parties have no interest in creating informed voters, because that does not benefit the political machine. Uninformed voters are the cogs that keep that Rube Goldberg contraption going.
Sorry to shatter your narrative there but it is not like every uninformed voter out there is a partisan and all the informed ones are moderate. There are plenty of moderate and non voters in America that are complete morons when it comes to politics. There are also some well informed partisan voters out there that probably understand politics better than you or I do. These people understand both major parties and picked to support the party that agrees with them, and has the values that they have. They also probably understand that politics is a team sport.
Don't just assume that people vote R or D down the line because they are uninformed.
Edit: Also I will see your George Carlin and raise you a Bill Maher (NSFW)
CptJake wrote: If POTUS decides to veto a whole budget because the congress critters left out something he wanted, it is on him.
If all Congress does is refuse to include a particular item in the budget, then it is deliberately avoiding the issue while attempting to push blame to the President.
Could anybody answer this quick question: I've been reading a lot about the history of the 2nd amendment (fascinating subject) and I was wondering if SCOTUS' ruling on the Heller case could be overturned by SCOTUS in the future?
It's possible. Not any time soon, but possible. Perception on the 2nd has changed greatly through the years, and it may eventually get to the point where the supreme court does rule that way.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It's possible. Not any time soon, but possible. Perception on the 2nd has changed greatly through the years, and it may eventually get to the point where the supreme court does rule that way.
I've always loved my American history (never a dull minute) but even I didn't realise how fascinatingly complex the whole history/politics of the 2nd is.
CptJake wrote: If POTUS decides to veto a whole budget because the congress critters left out something he wanted, it is on him.
If all Congress does is refuse to include a particular item in the budget, then it is deliberately avoiding the issue while attempting to push blame to the President.
It is specifically Congress' job to decide what is in the budget, what gets funded and what doesn't get funded. That's what a budget is, after all. If Congress does their job and creates and passes a budget, then they've done their job. If the President chooses to veto that budget, that's on the President. If the President chooses to veto the budget that got passed by Congress then it behooves the President to have the ability to convince Congress to pass a budget he won't veto because the lack of a budget is due to the Presidential veto. If the President uses hisveto power to try to force Congress to pass a budget that the duly elected Congress doesn't want to pass or the govt will shut down due to the lack of a budget then it is the President that is taking the hostage.
Congress' budget is the product of hundreds of people elected by their constituents across the country reaching a consensus, the President cherry picking programs that have to be funded or he'll veto the budget causing a govt shut down is political hostage taking. Once the budget is passed by Congress it has been approved by a majority of the representatives of the people. In this instance it is the President stating that all those representatives and by extension their constituents are wrong and the budget has to be what he personally wants or nothing.
If a majority of the electorate doesn't want Planned Parenthood to be defunded then it should be very difficult or impossible for Congress to pass a budget that defunds Planned Parenthood because doing so would cause many of the representatives who voted for it to lose their re-election bids. The power of the purse was given to the legislative branch with this intent, to allow the will of the people to hold govt accountable and keep unpopular actions and programs in check. The voters are supposed to hold their representatives accountable for their votes therefore preventing unpopular legislation from being passed and making sure that constiuents interests are protected. If the President was supposed to have final say on the budget then the constitution wouldn't have given Congress the power to write the budget and the power to overcome a Presidential veto.
What's also interesting, is that more people would be blaming the R's for a shutdown, and less blaming Obama, than last time (where they actually had a much better case that it was all their fault).
Co'tor Shas wrote: It's possible. Not any time soon, but possible. Perception on the 2nd has changed greatly through the years, and it may eventually get to the point where the supreme court does rule that way.
I've always loved my American history (never a dull minute) but even I didn't realise how fascinatingly complex the whole history/politics of the 2nd is.
Sometime in the future you might see another challenge to the Heller case but it would have to be brought by the municipal govt of DC and it would have to be appealed up to SCOTUS and chosen to be heard by SCOTUS. The Heller case essentially struck down the ability of the District of Columbia to enact a de facto ban on private firearm ownership that was in obvious conflict with the 2nd amendment. The District of Columbia was basically told that it's system for allowing residents to obtain a handgun permit had to actually work and allow qualifying citizens to own handguns if they chose to own one. So even if the Heller case was reversed it would have a limited impact on the 2nd because DC is a unique entity. Multiple states already have firearm ownership rights written in their state constitutions and state laws. For instance Florida is a shall issue state for concealed carry permits. There's really no way for somebody to create a case that would get appealed to SCOTUS to somehow rule that Florida's firearm ownership laws are somehow unconstitutional regardless of how the future SCOTUS viewed the meaning of the 2nd. You would really need to have the 2nd repealed and a new amendment with a diametrically opposed meaning to give grounds for challenging permissive state firearm laws as being unconstitutionally permissive. That particular scenario is probably too remote of a possibility to consider seriously.
/snip A whole bunch of the pot calling the kettle black, along with just enough truth mixed in with half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies in order to stir the pot to stroke his ego.
I couldn't even make it 25% of the way through that transcript before I could feel my blood pressure rising and had to stop, because I fething loath and despise Ted Cruz more than anyone else in Washington right now.
Then you missed the "red meat".
Sure, he's bitching and moaning about the Obama/Democrat's policies... that's his standard shtick. Had you read more, he's eviscerated the Republican Leadership on the Senate Floor.
And you know what? He's right that the Republican Leadership has capitulated to Obama and Democrat's demands...
*THATS* part of the reason why Trump/Carson/Fiorina is doing so well at this stage imo. When those candidates eventually drops out, Cruz is trying to position himself towards those supporters.
What's also interesting, is that more people would be blaming the R's for a shutdown, and less blaming Obama, than last time (where they actually had a much better case that it was all their fault).
Yeah, this whole Planned Parenthood funding debate is putting the cart before the horse. We need to wait and see what budget actually gets passed by Congress before we can even make an educated guess as to whether or not Obama will veto it and if Congress had the votes to over ride the veto. Congress exists to manifest the will of the people and the budget, like all the other legislation they pass, should be a reflection of that will.
Of course, I recognize that unfortunately in our current state of politics that the representatives in Congress don't always care about the will of the people (especially since SCOTUS ruled its ok for special interests to buy their votes, thanks Roberts!) and that the people tend to do a poor job of holding their representatives accountable (everyone disaproves of Congress but incumbents keep getting re-elected). The system doesn't always work the way it was intended to work but it's still the system we have.
Prestor Jon wrote: Congress don't always care about the will of the people (especially since SCOTUS ruled its ok for special interests to buy their votes, thanks Roberts!)
Prestor Jon wrote: Congress don't always care about the will of the people (especially since SCOTUS ruled its ok for special interests to buy their votes, thanks Roberts!)
Prestor Jon wrote: Congress don't always care about the will of the people (especially since SCOTUS ruled its ok for special interests to buy their votes, thanks Roberts!)
Buy votes... what?
Citizens' United.
Uh...
That wasn't a special interest group buying their votes.
That was about a moviecritical of Hillary Clinton.
Fun fact about that case: The Government Attorney actually argued that the Government *could* legally burn books.
Prestor Jon wrote: Congress don't always care about the will of the people (especially since SCOTUS ruled its ok for special interests to buy their votes, thanks Roberts!)
Buy votes... what?
In McCutcheaon vs FEC SCOTUS ruled that it's illegal for the govt to limit political speech by limiting how much money a person can donate to a politican because even if a donor gives massive amounts of money and gains "incluence over or access to" public officals it doesn't qualify as a specific quid pro quo instance of corruption.
CptJake wrote: If POTUS decides to veto a whole budget because the congress critters left out something he wanted, it is on him.
If all Congress does is refuse to include a particular item in the budget, then it is deliberately avoiding the issue while attempting to push blame to the President.
Explain how they would be 'avoiding the issue'.
It seems to me by deliberately leaving out something they don't want funded they have addressed the issue straight on.
The point is, after Citizens' United, it's basically a race to get the richest "donors" to amass the greatest "campaign fund"
The Koch brothers, Super PACs and the like are pretty much the very definition of special interest, especially since they can now pump basically unlimited money into a campaign. I'd call that buying a vote.
It seems to me by deliberately leaving out something they don't want funded they have addressed the issue straight on.
Addressing the issue would involve working on legislation which eliminates the relevant portion of government. Defunding the portion, but leaving in place the legislation which establishes it avoids the issue.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The point is, after Citizens' United, it's basically a race to get the richest "donors" to amass the greatest "campaign fund"
The Koch brothers, Super PACs and the like are pretty much the very definition of special interest, especially since they can now pump basically unlimited money into a campaign. I'd call that buying a vote.
If you mean buying the votes of the electorate then yeah, Citizens United pretty much instituted unlimited spending on political ads but in terms of buying the vote of the representative in Congress, the case you want to cite is McCutcheon.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The point is, after Citizens' United, it's basically a race to get the richest "donors" to amass the greatest "campaign fund"
The Koch brothers, Super PACs and the like are pretty much the very definition of special interest, especially since they can now pump basically unlimited money into a campaign. I'd call that buying a vote.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The point is, after Citizens' United, it's basically a race to get the richest "donors" to amass the greatest "campaign fund"
The Koch brothers, Super PACs and the like are pretty much the very definition of special interest, especially since they can now pump basically unlimited money into a campaign. I'd call that buying a vote.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: The point is, after Citizens' United, it's basically a race to get the richest "donors" to amass the greatest "campaign fund"
The Koch brothers, Super PACs and the like are pretty much the very definition of special interest, especially since they can now pump basically unlimited money into a campaign. I'd call that buying a vote.
If you mean buying the votes of the electorate then yeah, Citizens United pretty much instituted unlimited spending on political ads but in terms of buying the vote of the representative in Congress, the case you want to cite is McCutcheon.
Yeah... I saw your post too late... The two definitely go hand in hand with each other
It is specifically Congress' job to decide what is in the budget, what gets funded and what doesn't get funded. That's what a budget is, after all. If Congress does their job and creates and passes a budget, then they've done their job. If the President chooses to veto that budget, that's on the President.
As has already been stated: What if Congress passes a budget it knows the President will veto? Is it really trying to pass a budget, or is it trying to avoid taking responsibility?
If a majority of the electorate doesn't want Planned Parenthood to be defunded then it should be very difficult or impossible for Congress to pass a budget that defunds Planned Parenthood because doing so would cause many of the representatives who voted for it to lose their re-election bids.
A minor issue like Planned Parenthood funding isn't going to cost anyone an election. In a few months the only people who remember that there was any sort of controversy will be pro-life activists, and they certainly won't going to vote for anyone who might defend Planned Parenthood.
Of course, I recognize that unfortunately in our current state of politics that the representatives in Congress don't always care about the will of the people (especially since SCOTUS ruled its ok for special interests to buy their votes, thanks Roberts!) and that the people tend to do a poor job of holding their representatives accountable (everyone disaproves of Congress but incumbents keep getting re-elected).
Of course everyone disapproves of Congress, the vast majority of legislators aren't there to represent you; they're there to represent their constituents.
CptJake wrote: So if funding Planned Parenthood is such a minor issue, POTUS would indeed be petty to veto a whole budget because of it.
Glad you folks can recognize that.
Just as petty as Congressional conservatives, and their supporters, for desperately trying to make it an issue.
d-usa wrote: So why is the POTUS even required to submit a budget since he suddenly has zero say on the matter?
He isn't. The president can veto the budget or sign it into law. If POTUS vetos the budget Congress can override the veto if there are enough votes. If POTUS vetos the budget and Congress doesn't have enough votes to override the veto then Congress and POTUS need to compromise on what the final budget will be. How that particular game of political chicken works out depends on the parties involved, the media spin and the will of the electorate.
POTUS can't submit a budget or any legislation, that has to be initiated by the legislative branch. POTUS can publicize a budget to try to establish an agenda or certain parameters for the budget or POTUS can get an ally in Congress to submit the budget as a proxy.
CptJake wrote: Except, again, it IS the congress critter's job to do the budget. Majority party is gonna fund/not fund accordingly.
While it may be part of their job to do the budget, another part of their job is to fulfill the wishes of the people.... And if surveys are anything to go by, only 30% of Americans want Planned Parenthood axed.
It is specifically Congress' job to decide what is in the budget, what gets funded and what doesn't get funded. That's what a budget is, after all. If Congress does their job and creates and passes a budget, then they've done their job. If the President chooses to veto that budget, that's on the President.
As has already been stated: What if Congress passes a budget it knows the President will veto? Is it really trying to pass a budget, or is it trying to avoid taking responsibility?
If a majority of the electorate doesn't want Planned Parenthood to be defunded then it should be very difficult or impossible for Congress to pass a budget that defunds Planned Parenthood because doing so would cause many of the representatives who voted for it to lose their re-election bids.
A minor issue like Planned Parenthood funding isn't going to cost anyone an election. In a few months the only people who remember that there was any sort of controversy will be pro-life activists, and they certainly won't going to vote for anyone who might defend Planned Parenthood.
Congress is required to create a budget that can get passed in the House and Senate and get to the President's desk. Whether or not the President will veto the budget is entirely dependent on the President and the desires of the President only impact the passage of the budget through Congress to the extent that they influence the votes of representatives. Getting hundreds of representatives to agree on the budget is difficult enough without adding in misplaced priority on the hypothetical potential of a Presidential veto. There are budget items far more important to given states and constituencies than Planned Parenthood that have to be ironed out and compromised on to get through Congress. There's a lot of horse trading that goes on and items that get passed by slim majorities and representatives in Congress may not be willing to jeopardize those items for the sake of defunding Planned Parenthood of the margin for defunding PP is slim.
d-usa wrote: So why is the POTUS even required to submit a budget since he suddenly has zero say on the matter?
Who requires him to do so? It surely is not designated in Article II of the Constitution.
So in 1974 the congress critters decided to make POTUS submit a proposal, which is the starting point for the congressional budget process. They are under no obligation to fund what POTUS asks for. As I said earlier, POTUS does not get to decide what is and is not funded. And that is the way it is supposed to be.
CptJake wrote: Except, again, it IS the congress critter's job to do the budget. Majority party is gonna fund/not fund accordingly.
While it may be part of their job to do the budget, another part of their job is to fulfill the wishes of the people.... And if surveys are anything to go by, only 30% of Americans want Planned Parenthood axed.
Since when does the congressional critters dictate their actions by the polls?
CptJake wrote: Except, again, it IS the congress critter's job to do the budget. Majority party is gonna fund/not fund accordingly.
While it may be part of their job to do the budget, another part of their job is to fulfill the wishes of the people.... And if surveys are anything to go by, only 30% of Americans want Planned Parenthood axed.
But the wishes of the people get screwed up when their elected representatives hold an office that they have no problem getting reelected in due to gerrymandering districts. All of a sudden that 30% becomes more like 80% in a particular district, thus the representative is doing the will of his/her district (the district itself is screwed up).
ACA is certainly unpopular. There was a ton of pressure to create "national healthcare" at the time though. In a roundabout way, congress DID do what the polls (and in reality of the extension here: the people) wanted; it just didn't look or perform anything like what the people wanted.
ACA is certainly unpopular. There was a ton of pressure to create "national healthcare" at the time though. In a roundabout way, congress DID do what the polls (and in reality of the extension here: the people) wanted; it just didn't look or perform anything like what the people wanted.
Then they really didn't did they? Politicians may have told people what they wanted to hear but the ACA doesn't actually do most of what was claimed it would do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thw ACA was unpopular because it was a compromise between two extremes. Plus all the lies told about it.
In other news, the Republicans are finally starting to admit the real reason for all the Bengazi panels...http://www.vox.com/2015/9/30/9423339/kevin-mccarthy-benghazi
CptJake wrote: Except, again, it IS the congress critter's job to do the budget. Majority party is gonna fund/not fund accordingly.
While it may be part of their job to do the budget, another part of their job is to fulfill the wishes of the people.... And if surveys are anything to go by, only 30% of Americans want Planned Parenthood axed.
Since when does the congressional critters dictate their actions by the polls?
The Iran #whateverobamacallsit Deal is vastly unpopular...
Yet, it's going'n to happen...
In many ways, it's the politicians that dictate the results of the polls, you know that. Things are popular or unpopular, not because people studied the facts and made a rational decision, but because they believe what their talking box tells them to believe.
Prestor Jon wrote: Getting hundreds of representatives to agree on the budget is difficult enough without adding in misplaced priority on the hypothetical potential of a Presidential veto.
How is it a "misplaced priority" to acknowledge that a budget won't be signed into law by the President, and subsequently act in accordance with that fact?
I think it would be good if they acted period. Let Obama veto it, then work out the bill from there. Try to override or negotiate. Yeah, they perhaps are cutting out a step by knowing Obama might veto it, so they don't vote on it, but at least they would all be on record with their positions (which is probably why they don't do it) and it would at least look like they are doing something.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Could anybody answer this quick question: I've been reading a lot about the history of the 2nd amendment (fascinating subject) and I was wondering if SCOTUS' ruling on the Heller case could be overturned by SCOTUS in the future?
Or is that set in stone?
Thanks.
Nothing is set in stone. Death is just the beginning.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Could anybody answer this quick question: I've been reading a lot about the history of the 2nd amendment (fascinating subject) and I was wondering if SCOTUS' ruling on the Heller case could be overturned by SCOTUS in the future?
Or is that set in stone?
Thanks.
Nothing is set in stone. Death is just the beginning.
That's the beautiful thing about both the Constitution and science--always evolving, never perfect.
CptJake wrote: So if funding Planned Parenthood is such a minor issue, POTUS would indeed be petty to veto a whole budget because of it.
Glad you folks can recognize that.
A pox on both their houses. The President is petty and trying to drop the Repugs into a trap, and is willing to harm the nation to do it.
The Repugs are feeding to a base of nattering nabobs, and is willing to harm the nation to do it. until they pass a budget everyone in Washington should have their paychecks frozen. The period of time those paychekcs are frozen that money should go to paying down the debt, no retroactive repays.
CptJake wrote: So if funding Planned Parenthood is such a minor issue, POTUS would indeed be petty to veto a whole budget because of it.
Glad you folks can recognize that.
A pox on both their houses. The President is petty and trying to drop the Repugs into a trap, and is willing to harm the nation to do it.
The Repugs are feeding to a base of nattering nabobs, and is willing to harm the nation to do it. until they pass a budget everyone in Washington should have their paychecks frozen. The period of time those paychekcs are frozen that money should go to paying down the debt, no retroactive repays.
I agree, including the representatives, the president and the military. When the public starts hearing about serving troops not getting paid, black eyes will be dealt. Rightfully so.
CptJake wrote: So if funding Planned Parenthood is such a minor issue, POTUS would indeed be petty to veto a whole budget because of it.
Glad you folks can recognize that.
A pox on both their houses. The President is petty and trying to drop the Repugs into a trap, and is willing to harm the nation to do it.
The Repugs are feeding to a base of nattering nabobs, and is willing to harm the nation to do it. until they pass a budget everyone in Washington should have their paychecks frozen. The period of time those paychekcs are frozen that money should go to paying down the debt, no retroactive repays.
I agree, including the representatives, the president and the military. When the public starts hearing about serving troops not getting paid, black eyes will be dealt. Rightfully so.
Won't happen. The congress critters always cover down on that. Some DoD civilians will get furloughed but the troops won't have to worry about getting paid.
CptJake wrote: So if funding Planned Parenthood is such a minor issue, POTUS would indeed be petty to veto a whole budget because of it.
Glad you folks can recognize that.
A pox on both their houses. The President is petty and trying to drop the Repugs into a trap, and is willing to harm the nation to do it.
The Repugs are feeding to a base of nattering nabobs, and is willing to harm the nation to do it. until they pass a budget everyone in Washington should have their paychecks frozen. The period of time those paychekcs are frozen that money should go to paying down the debt, no retroactive repays.
I agree, including the representatives, the president and the military. When the public starts hearing about serving troops not getting paid, black eyes will be dealt. Rightfully so.
Everyone who gets a paycheck from the government. Welfare, employees, contractors, everyone.
CptJake wrote: So if funding Planned Parenthood is such a minor issue, POTUS would indeed be petty to veto a whole budget because of it.
Glad you folks can recognize that.
A pox on both their houses. The President is petty and trying to drop the Repugs into a trap, and is willing to harm the nation to do it.
The Repugs are feeding to a base of nattering nabobs, and is willing to harm the nation to do it. until they pass a budget everyone in Washington should have their paychecks frozen. The period of time those paychekcs are frozen that money should go to paying down the debt, no retroactive repays.
I agree, including the representatives, the president and the military. When the public starts hearing about serving troops not getting paid, black eyes will be dealt. Rightfully so.
Won't happen. The congress critters always cover down on that. Some DoD civilians will get furloughed but the troops won't have to worry about getting paid.
And thats the problem. They've covered it off (yet STILL look stupid).
Have these jokers even passed a budget this decade?
That's my point. If you are going to be willing to shut it down. SHUT. IT. DOWN. No CIA, no FBI, no computer use of govt. employees on govt. servers, no federal dams in operation, no federal roads, no Nasa contact or support with people on the space station, no anything. When that happens, maybe the American people will get the picture. Of 1). Your tax dollars pay for lots of gak you like (and need) 2) don't play politics with taxpayers money. People in Washington will grow up pretty quickly, I would guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Sorry, but I can't agree wth taking food from people because the Republicans want to throw a temper tantrum again.
Let them throw the tantrum, or whoever you want to place the blame on, within two hours you will have a bill that the pres will sign. The next time-there won't be a next time.
Right now, Cruz and his ilk have no repercussions. If that were to actually happen, no more Ted Cruzes.
Gordon Shumway wrote: That's my point. If you are going to be willing to shut it down. SHUT. IT. DOWN. No CIA, no FBI, no computer use of govt. employees on govt. servers, no federal dams in operation, no federal roads, no Nasa contact or support with people on the space station, no anything. When that happens, maybe the American people will get the picture. Of 1). Your tax dollars pay for lots of gak you like (and need) 2) don't play politics with taxpayers money. People in Washington will grow up pretty quickly, I would guess.
And that has been my point before. Shut downs will NEVER be as scary/evil as the fear mongers make out. Let 'em shut it down the way they do. Let the tax payers realize that when the 'not critical' folks take an extra week or two off, no-one really suffers, the nation's business still continues. The Fed Gov't shuts down every weekend and from roughly Thanksgiving through New Years every damned year, and the world continues. It is only when you get a really petty person like Obama who actually increases personnel in some areas in order to 'visibly shut down' tourist attractions like parks and monuments that some people realize there is a shut down, and that is done just to be a gak bag.
Frankly it is a sign of how bloated and out of control it is.
Gordon Shumway wrote: That's my point. If you are going to be willing to shut it down. SHUT. IT. DOWN. No CIA, no FBI, no computer use of govt. employees on govt. servers, no federal dams in operation, no federal roads, no Nasa contact or support with people on the space station, no anything. When that happens, maybe the American people will get the picture. Of 1). Your tax dollars pay for lots of gak you like (and need) 2) don't play politics with taxpayers money. People in Washington will grow up pretty quickly, I would guess.
And that has been my point before. Shut downs will NEVER be as scary/evil as the fear mongers make out. Let 'em shut it down the way they do. Let the tax payers realize that when the 'not critical' folks take an extra week or two off, no-one really suffers, the nation's business still continues. The Fed Gov't shuts down every weekend and from roughly Thanksgiving through New Years every damned year, and the world continues. It is only when you get a really petty person like Obama who actually increases personnel in some areas in order to 'visibly shut down' tourist attractions like parks and monuments that some people realize there is a shut down, and that is done just to be a gak bag.
Frankly it is a sign of how bloated and out of control it is.
See, I take away a whole different lesson--just how important the government actually is. We don't really shut down the govt. on weekends and holidays. We couldn't. The lawmakers leave town. Do you think they aren't working? Do you think troops really care if it's a Saturday or Sunday on duty? It's just another workday. Dams still work, the interstate is still open. Your logic befuddles me.
And that takes into no account the non govt. workers who rely on govt. workers to get a paycheck. The entire town of Keystone, SD gets its lifeblood from Mt. Rushmore tourist traffic. The residents are mostly migratory, moving to the south in the winter, moving back during the tourist season to open shop. No tourists, no paycheck, no town. And here I thought the GOP was the champion of the small business.
<--has always been partials to govenors for Presidents...
2016: Romney v. Biden
That could actually be a race I look forward to. Both are serious. Both are humans. Both care about humans. Alas, Romney got ran out of town, and Biden is laughed at when you aren't sympathizing with his crappy luck.
Prestor Jon wrote: Getting hundreds of representatives to agree on the budget is difficult enough without adding in misplaced priority on the hypothetical potential of a Presidential veto.
How is it a "misplaced priority" to acknowledge that a budget won't be signed into law by the President, and subsequently act in accordance with that fact?
Yes, he is. The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 requires the President to submit a budget request to Congress for each fiscal year.
It's a funding request. It's not actual legislation to get voted on. POTUS can't submit legislation. The budget request is just used to set the agenda and put a ballpark figure on the budget. Congress doesn't vote on the president's budget they vote on their own budget.
I tend to think that the people in Congress are primarily concerned with their own fiefdoms and pet programs more so than whether or no the president is going to cherry pick some budget items as an excuse to veto the budget. The majority of Congress is going to be focused on making sure the federal money flows into their respective states, districts, special interests etc. It's not as if passing the budget has historically routinely resulted in a game of chicken over a govt shutdown. What gets through Congress is usually close enough to what the POTUS wants to get signed into law.
Gordon Shumway wrote: That's my point. If you are going to be willing to shut it down. SHUT. IT. DOWN. No CIA, no FBI, no computer use of govt. employees on govt. servers, no federal dams in operation, no federal roads, no Nasa contact or support with people on the space station, no anything. When that happens, maybe the American people will get the picture. Of 1). Your tax dollars pay for lots of gak you like (and need) 2) don't play politics with taxpayers money. People in Washington will grow up pretty quickly, I would guess.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skyth wrote: Sorry, but I can't agree wth taking food from people because the Republicans want to throw a temper tantrum again.
Let them throw the tantrum, or whoever you want to place the blame on, within two hours you will have a bill that the pres will sign. The next time-there won't be a next time.
Right now, Cruz and his ilk have no repercussions. If that were to actually happen, no more Ted Cruzes.
96% with Bernie (shocker, I know).
Then it's Hillary (84%), Biden(78%), O'Malley,(73%) and Bush (54%).
Apparently I'm centrist left wing. Makes sense, I'm nowhere knowledgeable enough on economics to come up with any sort of opinion, but tend to lean liberal on most things on the social side, with a strong belief in personal freedom and privacy.
So let the town of Keystone (or the county it is in) take over plowing the roads so tourists have access in the winter. Not like Mt Rushmore needs a lot of upkeep to exist. Let the county take it all over, maybe with state assistance.
Being the 'champion of small business' should not mean 'being the champion of gov't subsidies to small business'.
My logic is solid: Gov't shut downs are NOT actual shut downs. The things that are shut down probably don't need to be Federal responsibilities to begin with. Keeping them 'shut down' is a good start. Then I'm sure we can whittle away at even more Fed agencies and programs that are overlarge and wasteful. Let states and counties keep the tax dollars there and handle the functions as they see fit.
CptJake wrote: So let the town of Keystone (or the county it is in) take over plowing the roads so tourists have access in the winter. Not like Mt Rushmore needs a lot of upkeep to exist. Let the county take it all over, maybe with state assistance.
Being the 'champion of small business' should not mean 'being the champion of gov't subsidies to small business'.
My logic is solid: Gov't shut downs are NOT actual shut downs. The things that are shut down probably don't need to be Federal responsibilities to begin with. Keeping them 'shut down' is a good start. Then I'm sure we can whittle away at even more Fed agencies and programs that are overlarge and wasteful. Let states and counties keep the tax dollars there and handle the functions as they see fit.
Never been to Rushmore, have you? Or keystone? Plowing has nothing to do with it. Nobody goes there in the winter.You can't even see Rushmore if you aren't on federal land (unless you know where to look and even then it's a sideways picture, though really cool of the side of Washington's face). You want the states to be responsible for taking care of the military? The national guard is good and all but I like marines guarding me. Of the interstate system (good luck SC and WV)? Dams, I will give you, they should be state, but most dams are on borders. Sd, you get half of the dam's power, NE, you get the other half though all of the dam is on the SD border. Clusterfeth. The reason govt, shut downs don't feel so bad is because they aren't real shutdowns. Make them so. Let's see how unimportant the govt. really is. I would guess you would change your tune about govt. when that actually happens.
CptJake wrote: So let the town of Keystone (or the county it is in) take over plowing the roads so tourists have access in the winter. Not like Mt Rushmore needs a lot of upkeep to exist. Let the county take it all over, maybe with state assistance.
Being the 'champion of small business' should not mean 'being the champion of gov't subsidies to small business'.
My logic is solid: Gov't shut downs are NOT actual shut downs. The things that are shut down probably don't need to be Federal responsibilities to begin with. Keeping them 'shut down' is a good start. Then I'm sure we can whittle away at even more Fed agencies and programs that are overlarge and wasteful. Let states and counties keep the tax dollars there and handle the functions as they see fit.
Never been to Rushmore, have you? Or keystone? Plowing has nothing to do with it. Nobody goes there in the winter.You can't even see Rushmore if you aren't on federal land (unless you know where to look and even then it's a sideways picture, though really cool of the side of Washington's face). You want the states to be responsible for taking care of the military? The national guard is good and all but I like marines guarding me. Of the interstate system (good luck SC and WV)? Dams, I will give you, they should be state, but most dams are on borders. Sd, you get half of the dam's power, NE, you get the other half though all of the dam is on the SD border. Clusterfeth. The reason govt, shut downs don't feel so bad is because they aren't real shutdowns. Make them so. Let's see how unimportant the govt. really is. I would guess you would change your tune about govt. when that actually happens.
I think your exaggerating what a govt shutdown actually does. It's happened multiple times its not catastrophic by any means. Non essential federal employees are furloughed and then they go back to work and are given back pay as soon as the shutdown is over which is usually a couple weeks at most. There is a significant amount of govt spending that is unaffected by the shutdown, its not destroying anybody's life or wrecking the country.
It's a funding request. It's not actual legislation to get voted on. POTUS can't submit legislation. The budget request is just used to set the agenda and put a ballpark figure on the budget. Congress doesn't vote on the president's budget they vote on their own budget.
I'm aware, but you stated that the President doesn't have to submit a budget. This is patently false as he is legally obligated to do so and, as you just noted, this has a significant impact on the budget which Congress debates.
I tend to think that the people in Congress are primarily concerned with their own fiefdoms and pet programs more so than whether or no the president is going to cherry pick some budget items as an excuse to veto the budget. The majority of Congress is going to be focused on making sure the federal money flows into their respective states, districts, special interests etc.
Part of doing that is making sure the budget is acceptable to the President. After all, if he vetoes the thing the money doesn't flow...at least so long as it isn't mandatory spending.
It's not as if passing the budget has historically routinely resulted in a game of chicken over a govt shutdown. What gets through Congress is usually close enough to what the POTUS wants to get signed into law.
Well, yeah, the threat of a veto is usually enough to convince Congress to reconsider the content of a piece of legislation.
CptJake wrote: So let the town of Keystone (or the county it is in) take over plowing the roads so tourists have access in the winter. Not like Mt Rushmore needs a lot of upkeep to exist. Let the county take it all over, maybe with state assistance.
Being the 'champion of small business' should not mean 'being the champion of gov't subsidies to small business'.
My logic is solid: Gov't shut downs are NOT actual shut downs. The things that are shut down probably don't need to be Federal responsibilities to begin with. Keeping them 'shut down' is a good start. Then I'm sure we can whittle away at even more Fed agencies and programs that are overlarge and wasteful. Let states and counties keep the tax dollars there and handle the functions as they see fit.
Never been to Rushmore, have you? Or keystone? Plowing has nothing to do with it. Nobody goes there in the winter.You can't even see Rushmore if you aren't on federal land (unless you know where to look and even then it's a sideways picture, though really cool of the side of Washington's face). You want the states to be responsible for taking care of the military? The national guard is good and all but I like marines guarding me. Of the interstate system (good luck SC and WV)? Dams, I will give you, they should be state, but most dams are on borders. Sd, you get half of the dam's power, NE, you get the other half though all of the dam is on the SD border. Clusterfeth. The reason govt, shut downs don't feel so bad is because they aren't real shutdowns. Make them so. Let's see how unimportant the govt. really is. I would guess you would change your tune about govt. when that actually happens.
You're damned fine at building straw men. I've never come close to stating the States ought to pick up responsibility for national defense, you see, it is one of the things the Constitution gives the feds responsibility for. The interstate system as an example? Seriously? Who does the work now? Hint: The states do. Yes, they receive federal funding, but the states let the contracts and so on. Hence when I drive from GA to NC through SC on I-95 the road is maintained differently along the trip.
I do like how you re-iterated my point in orange in an attempt to discredit my point.
Quite right, the world doesn't end during a government shutdown. But what it does do is make our government look pathetic, corrupt, and disunited. When was the last time Russia or China had a shutdown?
I think that actually happens sort of regularly in some countries, doesn't it? Like, the government gets wiped out and re-formed? I'm pretty sure that happened in some first world country I can't remember right now, but fairly recently... right?
edit: isn't this relatively similar? Note I know very little about France's government so I could definitely be mistaken.
Well, I just took the www.isidewith.com test again (I like to take it regularly to see how things change). First, I want to share with you the question I submitted at the end as a possible addition to the survey:
"Should all politicians be required to wear a "NASCAR" style sponsor suit, with patches and logos showing all the significant donors to that politicians campaign, with the size of the patch proportionate to the donation?"
Anyway, HRC and Bernie tied at the top (82% each), with Biden at 81%. Kind of surprised about Rand Paul with 71%, but maybe I shouldn't be? Jeb Bush came in next at 43%.
I think what can skew the results a bit is not just the answers, but the "how important is this to you" meter you can set for each question. That may be why I get different results some times.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Well, I just took the www.isidewith.com test again (I like to take it regularly to see how things change). First, I want to share with you the question I submitted at the end as a possible addition to the survey:
"Should all politicians be required to wear a "NASCAR" style sponsor suit, with patches and logos showing all the significant donors to that politicians campaign, with the size of the patch proportionate to the donation?"
Anyway, HRC and Bernie tied at the top (82% each), with Biden at 81%. Kind of surprised about Rand Paul with 71%, but maybe I shouldn't be? Jeb Bush came in next at 43%.
I think what can skew the results a bit is not just the answers, but the "how important is this to you" meter you can set for each question. That may be why I get different results some times.
I just took the isidewith quiz and it said Rand Paul and are in 91% agreement which is believable because I do vote Libertarian in most local elections. However it says I agree with Jeb Bush 83% which can't be right because there has to be more than an 8% difference between Rand and Jeb.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Well, I just took the www.isidewith.com test again (I like to take it regularly to see how things change). First, I want to share with you the question I submitted at the end as a possible addition to the survey:
"Should all politicians be required to wear a "NASCAR" style sponsor suit, with patches and logos showing all the significant donors to that politicians campaign, with the size of the patch proportionate to the donation?"
Anyway, HRC and Bernie tied at the top (82% each), with Biden at 81%. Kind of surprised about Rand Paul with 71%, but maybe I shouldn't be? Jeb Bush came in next at 43%.
I think what can skew the results a bit is not just the answers, but the "how important is this to you" meter you can set for each question. That may be why I get different results some times.
I just took the isidewith quiz and it said Rand Paul and are in 91% agreement which is believable because I do vote Libertarian in most local elections. However it says I agree with Jeb Bush 83% which can't be right because there has to be more than an 8% difference between Rand and Jeb.
Old boss? Meet the new boss...
Because the more things change... the more thing stays the same.
CptJake wrote: So let the town of Keystone (or the county it is in) take over plowing the roads so tourists have access in the winter. Not like Mt Rushmore needs a lot of upkeep to exist. Let the county take it all over, maybe with state assistance.
Being the 'champion of small business' should not mean 'being the champion of gov't subsidies to small business'.
My logic is solid: Gov't shut downs are NOT actual shut downs. The things that are shut down probably don't need to be Federal responsibilities to begin with. Keeping them 'shut down' is a good start. Then I'm sure we can whittle away at even more Fed agencies and programs that are overlarge and wasteful. Let states and counties keep the tax dollars there and handle the functions as they see fit.
Never been to Rushmore, have you? Or keystone? Plowing has nothing to do with it. Nobody goes there in the winter.You can't even see Rushmore if you aren't on federal land (unless you know where to look and even then it's a sideways picture, though really cool of the side of Washington's face). You want the states to be responsible for taking care of the military? The national guard is good and all but I like marines guarding me. Of the interstate system (good luck SC and WV)? Dams, I will give you, they should be state, but most dams are on borders. Sd, you get half of the dam's power, NE, you get the other half though all of the dam is on the SD border. Clusterfeth. The reason govt, shut downs don't feel so bad is because they aren't real shutdowns. Make them so. Let's see how unimportant the govt. really is. I would guess you would change your tune about govt. when that actually happens.
You're damned fine at building straw men. I've never come close to stating the States ought to pick up responsibility for national defense, you see, it is one of the things the Constitution gives the feds responsibility for. The interstate system as an example? Seriously? Who does the work now? Hint: The states do. Yes, they receive federal funding, but the states let the contracts and so on. Hence when I drive from GA to NC through SC on I-95 the road is maintained differently along the trip.
I do like how you re-iterated my point in orange in an attempt to discredit my point.
No, I made the point in showing that govt. shutdowns are not in fact shut downs of anything whatsoever. You were making the point that they don't hurt. I agree, to an extent to the people who work in govt. and that we call them shutdowns. 1). They aren't actual shutdowns of much of anything because that would be political suicide. 2) it would be political suicide because the govt. does a hell of a lot more than you want to admit. Don't like the govt. and think it doesn't do much? Actually shut it down. I don't see why that's so hard to understand. Good job of ignoring the whole point of the argument and looking at one detail. That's exactly what the public hates politicians for.
I'm pretty sure we are attempting to make the same point from separate sides of the issue at this point. Congrats. We agree.
CptJake wrote: Where did I say the power of the purse overrides a POTUS veto? What I (correctly said) is that POTUS doesn't get to dictate what is in the budget.
You’re complaining about the president’s use of veto. To complain about this, you’re talking about congress’s power of the purse. This argument requires an assumption that the president’s veto is, or should be, the weaker power than the power of the purse.
I’m just about used to people showing they don’t understand my argument, but when they fail to understand their own it is still just a little bit amazing.
And it would take an act of complete and total political lunacy to claim that the unions don’t have a very strong say in the actions and policies of the Democratic party.
And so hopefully from there you should realise how bad it is that any person or group willing to stump up a few million might have direct input in to actions and policies of political parties that are supposed to be swayed by the voting public alone.
And it would take an act of complete and total political lunacy to claim that the unions don’t have a very strong say in the actions and policies of the Democratic party.
And so hopefully from there you should realise how bad it is that any person or group willing to stump up a few million might have direct input in to actions and policies of political parties that are supposed to be swayed by the voting public alone.
I'm just highlight how disproportionate, lately, folks decry the $$$ in politics.
Just look at all the anti-Koch arguments these last few years.
CptJake wrote: Except, again, it IS the congress critter's job to do the budget. Majority party is gonna fund/not fund accordingly.
I really love how Americans will talk endlessly about checks and balances, until it comes to something done in a chamber of government over which they hold control right now. Then the idea that another chamber might block that motion is unthinkable.
I’m also looking forward to when Democrats hold the house, but not the senate or presidency, to see everyone swap sides on this procedural issue.
Mine is, as a start, go back to the old system, or something like it. Limit the amount of money that can be given to to individual candidates, so things like corporations and unions don't have more influence because of money. That sort of thing. Or even scrap the whole thing and go the publicly funded root (although with quite a bit less than the current amounts that are used. Really look at lobbying laws, and what counts as bribery. I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really expand further than that, but that general idea.
CptJake wrote: Except, again, it IS the congress critter's job to do the budget. Majority party is gonna fund/not fund accordingly.
I really love how Americans will talk endlessly about checks and balances, until it comes to something done in a chamber of government over which they hold control right now. Then the idea that another chamber might block that motion is unthinkable.
I’m also looking forward to when Democrats hold the house, but not the senate or presidency, to see everyone swap sides on this procedural issue.
I remember people arguing on this very forum for year after year that it's the president's job to propose the budget and take a lead on developing it and that he is a horrible president for not meeting the deadline on submitting the budget and that without his budget congress can never know how they should spend the money and that this is the reason why nothing was passed. But now the budget is solely the responsibility of congress and POTUS has nothing to say on the matter and needs to just shut up and sign it. Yet somehow I'm sure that the deficit is his fault and not the GOP that controls both chambers.
CptJake wrote: Except, again, it IS the congress critter's job to do the budget. Majority party is gonna fund/not fund accordingly.
I really love how Americans will talk endlessly about checks and balances, until it comes to something done in a chamber of government over which they hold control right now. Then the idea that another chamber might block that motion is unthinkable.
I’m also looking forward to when Democrats hold the house, but not the senate or presidency, to see everyone swap sides on this procedural issue.
It will be the same sides and the same arguments, but the end result (or end perception) will be opposite, just like always. The king is dead, long live the king!
96% with Bernie (shocker, I know).
Then it's Hillary (84%), Biden(78%), O'Malley,(73%) and Bush (54%).
Apparently I'm centrist left wing. Makes sense, I'm nowhere knowledgeable enough on economics to come up with any sort of opinion, but tend to lean liberal on most things on the social side, with a strong belief in personal freedom and privacy.
Rand Paul, 83%. Right in the middle of the X axis, but right at the top of the Y axis
I also wound up with Bernie, so I look forward to buddying up with you and not voting for him together.
Also, much lols at the presumable incoming speaker admitting the Beeeeeeeeeeenghaaaaaazi!!! investigations were just a political bludgeon to hammer Hillary Clinton with. I know people claim they wish politicians would be honest but I suspect that might have been a bit too much truth.
CptJake wrote: And that has been my point before. Shut downs will NEVER be as scary/evil as the fear mongers make out. Let 'em shut it down the way they do. Let the tax payers realize that when the 'not critical' folks take an extra week or two off, no-one really suffers, the nation's business still continues. The Fed Gov't shuts down every weekend and from roughly Thanksgiving through New Years every damned year, and the world continues. It is only when you get a really petty person like Obama who actually increases personnel in some areas in order to 'visibly shut down' tourist attractions like parks and monuments that some people realize there is a shut down, and that is done just to be a gak bag.
Frankly it is a sign of how bloated and out of control it is.
There’s an old business adage that says a company can survive longer without a CEO than it can without a janitor. Obviously the CEO is more important, but his importance in setting strategic direction is often felt long term, whereas the wastebins fill up overnight if the position is vacant.
This isn’t to say that government is the CEO and that business is the janitor, but just to point out the general principle that some kinds of work have immediate repercussions when they’re not done while other kinds of work are often only felt in the long term. So if government were to shut down and stop maintaining the roads you wouldn’t get potholes tomorrow, but that doesn’t mean the potholes won’t come.
whembly wrote: I'm just highlight how disproportionate, lately, folks decry the $$$ in politics.
A lot of the complaints about money come from the left, and often don’t understand that the Democrats have a hell of a lot of big ticket donors of their own, that’s true. Plenty do understand and rightly complain anyway, of course.
Just look at all the anti-Koch arguments these last few years.
One can recognise that both sides are corrupted by money, while still recognising that the Koch brothers harbour a uniquely odious place in US politics.
Even then... what's your solution?
Ban all political donations, and have a federally funded system whereby candidates are given funding based on their results in previous elections.
Or do you want a solution that will actually get up in the US? That’s a tougher question Probably I’d just restrict donations to individuals only, and cap it at about $3,000.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I remember people arguing on this very forum for year after year that it's the president's job to propose the budget and take a lead on developing it and that he is a horrible president for not meeting the deadline on submitting the budget and that without his budget congress can never know how they should spend the money and that this is the reason why nothing was passed. But now the budget is solely the responsibility of congress and POTUS has nothing to say on the matter and needs to just shut up and sign it. Yet somehow I'm sure that the deficit is his fault and not the GOP that controls both chambers.
Gordon Shumway wrote: It will be the same sides and the same arguments, but the end result (or end perception) will be opposite, just like always. The king is dead, long live the king!
Yep. Lots of people love to claim they’re really concerned about procedure, but it’s funny how they always seem to end up arguing only for the procedure that will end up producing their desired outcome.
And whether people are outraged about activist judges, or believe the SC is a key check on government seems remarkably correlated to whether their guy is in the Whitehouse or not.
I was in the "it's Congress's job to drive a budget" camp, to be honest. The budget process is not at all my strong point and to be honest I'm a little surprised the President is responsible for introducing one. I understand how it gets passed and signed but was pretty fuzzy on how the whole thing starts. Sometimes you do learn useful stuff in this thread - time to brush up.
Only if liberals also realize they're the other exact half of the problem
That wouldn't be a terribly difficult position to manufacture. American liberalism isn't built on seeming tough on X so getting supportive voters to admit that they erred is feasible.
Just been watching John Kerry and Ashton Carter give interviews/briefings over Russia's involvement in Syria, and quite frankly, they talk as though they have no idea what they're doing.
I think they're making it up as they go along, and hoping for the best
Russia, in contrast, seem to know exactly what they're doing and why they're there.
I always think that one of America's great weaknesses is the presidential campaign. Everybody is so focused on who the next president is going to be, they forget they already have a president, and as they only have a few months left, the Obama administration is looking like a lame duck.
Carter and Kerry's lethargy is a symptom of this problem.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I still find it hilarious that Frazz is most like Bernie.
Thats why I get called libtard on other boards. But I think they are the rightwing militia version of 4Chan or something.
For instance: saying VW committed fraud against its clients means I am a tree hugging libtard, because its not VW's fault, its the EPA's.
I cringe everytime I see libtard farted out of somebodies mouth as a way to end discussion. I have a buddy that is slowly devolving into that crowd. He decided he was far right wing and now he loves Putin and thinks a dictatorship (not the Obama one lol) is what America needs.
Ouze wrote: I was in the "it's Congress's job to drive a budget" camp, to be honest. The budget process is not at all my strong point and to be honest I'm a little surprised the President is responsible for introducing one. I understand how it gets passed and signed but was pretty fuzzy on how the whole thing starts. Sometimes you do learn useful stuff in this thread - time to brush up.
In recent years the POTUS has been required to put out a budget. The POTUS budget isn't voted on by Congress, it's just a guideline of what the POTUS expects the final budget to resemble and it's publication is a useful negotiating tool so that Congress knows ahead of time what the POTUS expects. The budgets that Congress votes on have to be introduced to Congress by a member of Congress. Congress has always had the first and last word on the budget. Even if the POTUS vetos the budget Congress can over ride that veto if there's enough votes. If there's enough support in Congress for the budget they produce the POTUS can not have an impact on it at all.
Clinton’s email woes deepen as classified messages pile up
The number of emails now marked classified doubled with the latest release.
The controversy over Hillary Clinton's use of personal email while she was secretary of state is showing no signs of easing, as the number of messages now deemed classified doubled with the State Department's latest release and as more details emerged about the potential vulnerability of her account.
The number of emails now considered classified total more than 400, with three of the 215 newly classified documents marked as SECRET — the middle tier of the national security classification system. While Clinton has maintained that she never received or forwarded messages that were marked classified at the time, critics have argued that the use of a private email account and server put her in a precarious position when dealing with sensitive materials.
In another blow to the Clinton campaign's "nothing to see here" narrative, the latest release shows that hackers targeted her personal email at least five times in August 2011, as part of a widespread speeding ticket hoax. It's not clear if Clinton ever clicked on what appeared to be virus-laden attachments that security experts say seem to have originated in Russia. Clinton and her surrogates have argued there is no evidence her "home brew" email system was ever compromised.
Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill maintained that stance Wednesday. “We have no evidence to suggest she replied to this email nor that she clicked on the attachment,” Merrill said. “As we have said before, there is no evidence that the system was ever breached. All these emails show is that, like millions of other Americans, she received spam."
The latest release of roughly 6,300 more pages of emails is just the latest installment of a prolonged disclosure process that has proved to be painful for Clinton's presidential campaign. The roiling controversy has opened up the Democratic front-runner to accusations that she was trying to dodge public records rules and that she put sensitive material at risk — allegations Clinton denies.
Wednesday's release marks the first time the State Department itself has deemed messages in Clinton's account to warrant protection at the SECRET level — the middle tier of the national security classification system. State earlier classified one Benghazi-related message SECRET, but did so at the request of the FBI.
Two of the just-released SECRET emails pertain to talks about the Iranian nuclear program, conducted by a group of nations referred to as the P5+1. The messages are from January 21 and 22, 2011 and were forwarded to Clinton's private account by Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, who now serves as policy director on Clinton's presidential campaign.
The substance of the two emails was redacted from the public release, but the subject lines identify the messages as summaries of the nuclear talks underway in Istanbul, Turkey. A State Department spokesman said that message, and the others deemed classified, were not marked as such when they were sent to Sullivan by other State officials.
Republicans and some security experts have said the forwarding of such sensitive messages to Clinton's private account risked national security and made them vulnerable to interception and hacking. Aides to Clinton's presidential campaign have argued that classified messages are not supposed to be on unclassified systems, either in or out of government, so the former secretary's reliance on a private account is irrelevant to that issue.
The other message deemed "SECRET" in Wednesday's release is only classified in a technical sense. The document, forwarded to Clinton by Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin, is a transcript of a June 15, 2008 Mideast peace negotiating session between the U.S., Israel and Palestinian officials. The transcript was obtained from anonymous sources by Al Jazeera in 2011 and published on the news outlet's website.
It appears Abedin, now the vice chairwoman of Clinton's campaign, got the transcript from State officials who downloaded it off the Internet and were debating how to respond to the leak. The decision to later classify the document may reflect the fact that the U.S. government has never formally acknowledged the accuracy of the slew of Mideast peace process-related documents Al Jazeera posted.
“I’m not going to comment on alleged leaked documents,” a State official said Wednesday. “These are not U.S. documents and I will not comment on their veracity. As we have produced this document using the FOIA standards, it is our responsibility to protect potentially sensitive information.”
The newest set of emails, bringing the total number of pages released to more than 19,500, largely cover the period between early 2010 and October 2011, days before the death of Libyan dictator Muammar Gadhafi. State is keeping to its prior practice of releasing emails from Clinton's account in rough chronological order, exceeding its September goal of producing 37 percent of the entire trove.
Among the topics covered in the new batch: the response to the earthquake disaster in Haiti, the Arab Spring democracy movement, the build-up and the NATO intervention in Libya and the disclosure of tens of thousands of classified diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks.
"DOD still in denial over their lapses, and their tendency to lowball damage in public is really unhelpful," deputy Secretary William Burns wrote in an email to Sullivan about the WikiLeaks fiasco, which he forwarded on to Clinton in early December 2010.
When Tunisia overthrew longtime President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in early January 2011, the first domino to fall in the Arab Spring, Clinton and her aides corresponded over intelligence and media coverage.
"Did you see the front page Post story on Tunisia today? The reference to you - your trip and your statement - was exactly what we were going for," Sullivan wrote on Jan. 15, 2011.
As unrest grew in Egypt later that month, Clinton wrote Sullivan and Abedin early one Sunday morning, asking if they had any overnight reports. "Just got one at 7:40 and sent [to] you," Abedin responded.
That October in Libya, as rebels closed in on Gadhafi, Abedin kept Clinton informed of developments. In the most recent email released Wednesday, Abedin shared a Reuters article from Oct. 6, 2011, which reported that interim government forces had raised Libya's new flag over a Gadhafi stronghold, four days before the dictator was killed.
Another message foreshadowed the risks of American personnel in hostile territories.
In 2011, Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills forwarded Clinton an email from Robert Ford, the U.S. ambassador to Syria, recounting an incident where American personnel were at "real risk of serious bodily harm."
Other messages revealed moments of confusion about email addresses and contact information, including talk from Mills about attempts to hack her email and chatter about how often top State Deparment officials used home email accounts.
In one email chain from June 2011, adviser Anne-Marie Slaughter suggested that Clinton or someone at State send a message to Congress about the agency's outdated technology by publicly raising the fact that high-level officials were regularly using personal email accounts to do business because the official systems were so dysfunctional.
"I think this makes good sense," Clinton wrote.
However, Mills shot down the suggestion, writing, "I am not sure we want to telegraph how much folks do or don't do off state mail b/c it may encourage others who are out there." She also said she was writing the email "as someone who attempted to be hacked (yes I was one)."
Slaughter responded, saying that a better approach might be to do it more quietly with lawmakers through Clinton.
In another July 2011 email chain from Clinton to Nora Toiv, Mills' assistant, the secretary appeared confused about whether she had Toiv's State or Gmail address.
"You've always emailed me on my State email which is toivnf@state.gov," Toiv wrote.
"Even weirder--I just checked and I do have your state but not your gmail--so how did that happen. Must be the Chinese!" Clinton responded.
However, these new messages did not appear to shed light on other aspects of the email mess that have been politically problematic, such as Clinton's decision to delete about 30,000 emails when she returned roughly 32,000 others to State last December. Clinton has said she did that after her lawyers determined the messages to be erased were entirely personal in nature.
Republican lawmakers have questioned how those decisions were made. The FBI, which is investigating whether the use of the private account resulted in a breach of classified information or hacking by a foreign government, has reportedly been successful at recovering some of the deleted emails. Conservative groups suing for Clinton's records under the Freedom of Information Act have asked that the FBI be forced to turn over any emails it does recover to the State Department.
Clinton's aides have insisted her campaign is still on track, but she conceded in an interview this week that the email controversy is a headache that she hasn't been able to shake.
"It is like a drip, drip, drip," Clinton said Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press." "There's only so much that I can control....The Justice Department has the emails, they have the server, they're conducting a security inquiry. They will take whatever necessary steps are required to get this matter resolved."
Clinton also stood by her claim she used the private account for convenience and flatly rejected suggestions it was set up to make her communications harder for Republicans or FOIA requesters to lay their hands on.
"It's totally ridiculous. That never crossed my mind," she said.
Despite the release Wednesday, State's effort to make public the trove of Clinton emails—a project carried out month-by-month in response to a federal judge's order in a FOIA case—is only a little more than one-third complete. More releases are scheduled monthly from October through January, when the first caucusing and voting for the Democratic presidential nomination gets underway.
Last week, State sent the House Benghazi Committee more than 900 emails relating to Libya that were not included in a batch of about 300 emails provided to the panel in February. However, while the nearly 300 Benghazi-related emails were the first ones State made public in May, the newly-delivered batch is not being prioritized for public release. So those messages will be scattered through the remaining batches to be posted on State's website, a State official said.
The vast majority of the more than 400 messages deemed classified in the public releases thus far have been designated as "CONFIDENTIAL," the lowest tier of protection for classified information and one applied to foreign government information or diplomatic communications.
Intelligence agencies have said several other messsages in Clinton's account contained more highly classified information, including at least two messages classified "TOP SECRET" or higher. State has disputed that assertion, arguing that the information was developed from sources the intelligence community may be unaware of.
When the controversy over Clinton's private email account erupted in March, she said she'd turned over about 55,000 pages of messages to State in December. State now says the count was just over 54,000 pages. After a review by Clinton's former agency and the National Archives, about 1,500 pages have been deemed wholly personal and therefore not agency records subject to the Freedom of Information Act. That leaves about 52,500 pages processed for release or awaiting release.
Clinton's attorney has asked that the roughly 1,500 pages deemed personal be returned but there's no indication that has happened.
While legal jockeying continues over Clinton's emails, the sprawling litigation has now spread to thousands of messages turned over to State by her top aides in recent months in response to similar requests State made for work-related messages in their custody. State has said it has no plans to release the full collection of the staffers' messages, but is searching them in response to FOIA requests and lawsuits.
Woah... State's Dept is now trying to figure out what kind of landing to provide HRC when they eventually throw her under the bus...
Will it be pillow-down soft? Or will they toss her on top of broken shards of glass on asphalt?
This is the first time that the State's Dept was forced to classify material above CONFIDENTIAL... (these were born classified, not retro'ed).
whembly wrote: This is the first time that the State's Dept was forced to classify material above CONFIDENTIAL... (these were born classified, not retro'ed).
That is not what the article says - unless I am mistaken as to what you mean, which is possible.
Wednesday's release marks the first time the State Department itself has deemed messages in Clinton's account to warrant protection at the SECRET level — the middle tier of the national security classification system. State earlier classified one Benghazi-related message SECRET, but did so at the request of the FBI.
Two of the just-released SECRET emails pertain to talks about the Iranian nuclear program, conducted by a group of nations referred to as the P5+1. The messages are from January 21 and 22, 2011 and were forwarded to Clinton's private account by Deputy Chief of Staff Jake Sullivan, who now serves as policy director on Clinton's presidential campaign.
The substance of the two emails was redacted from the public release, but the subject lines identify the messages as summaries of the nuclear talks underway in Istanbul, Turkey. A State Department spokesman said that message, and the others deemed classified, were not marked as such when they were sent to Sullivan by other State officials.
That is not what the article says - unless I am mistaken as to what you mean, which is possible.
What I meant was that other HRC's emails in the past have been classified above that level by the demands from other IC agencies and FBI, but States Depths pushed back rather loudly to give HRC some cover (ie, over-classifying arguments).
Here, the States Dept is actively classifying these emails on their own.
Hence... you'll start seeing this dept try to "gracefully" distance themselves from HRC.
whembly wrote: "markings" to determine whether or not it's classified is a red herring. The markings themselves don't "make things" classified.
These people are trained to recognize this and act appropriately.
Are you going to sit there and argue that information relating to that secret nuclear talks should not be classified and transmitted securely?
Markings and lack thereof are really not a red herring, as that actually is symptomatic of the larger problem with the general mishandling of classified material. Failure by those to recognise classified material that they should be responsible for recognizing is a problem. Failure by the creators of the material to properly mark it is a problem. Failure by those who extracted it from other documents and failed to carry over the markings and citations for the source material is a problem. There should be lots of people getting into trouble all around.
And that should be the real issue. Not that HRC had her own little private email, but that so many people at such high levels were mishandling classified material to begin with.
whembly wrote: "markings" to determine whether or not it's classified is a red herring. The markings themselves don't "make things" classified.
These people are trained to recognize this and act appropriately.
Are you going to sit there and argue that information relating to that secret nuclear talks should not be classified and transmitted securely?
Markings and lack thereof are really not a red herring, as that actually is symptomatic of the larger problem with the general mishandling of classified material. Failure by those to recognise classified material that they should be responsible for recognizing is a problem. Failure by the creators of the material to properly mark it is a problem. Failure by those who extracted it from other documents and failed to carry over the markings and citations for the source material is a problem. There should be lots of people getting into trouble all around.
And that should be the real issue. Not that HRC had her own little private email, but that so many people at such high levels were mishandling classified material to begin with.
Agreed. HRC should have used her official govt email for official govt business, especially when classified material was concerned. However, the bigger problem is that apparently everyone else who emailed her didn't see the problem of sending her classified material via an unsecured private email address. HRC not following the rules is bad, everyone else going along with it is worse because that condoned the wrong and exacerbated the damage and security risk.
whembly wrote: "markings" to determine whether or not it's classified is a red herring. The markings themselves don't "make things" classified.
These people are trained to recognize this and act appropriately.
Are you going to sit there and argue that information relating to that secret nuclear talks should not be classified and transmitted securely?
Markings and lack thereof are really not a red herring, as that actually is symptomatic of the larger problem with the general mishandling of classified material. Failure by those to recognise classified material that they should be responsible for recognizing is a problem. Failure by the creators of the material to properly mark it is a problem. Failure by those who extracted it from other documents and failed to carry over the markings and citations for the source material is a problem. There should be lots of people getting into trouble all around.
And that should be the real issue. Not that HRC had her own little private email, but that so many people at such high levels were mishandling classified material to begin with.
No... the issue is "all of the above".
This is why the IC are going apegak over this was it smacks of:
Rules are for Little People™
I would also mandate that any contribution over "x" dollars is publically identified. (Sunshine laws)
Why stop at "X"? Why not publicly identify everyone who makes any sort of monetary, political contribution?
It's a balancing act... sure.
If you want to encourage everyone to participate w/o reprisal, then make it anonymous under "x" amount. But, if the concerns are the big boppers, publicize that individual/group.
Indeed, but American conservatives have been electing lots of intractable people in recent years...and subsequently blaming them without any attempt at looking inwards. This is a problem, a problem only the relevant voters can fix.
If you want to encourage everyone to participate w/o reprisal, then make it anonymous under "x" amount. But, if the concerns are the big boppers, publicize that individual/group.
The numerous 501(c)(4)s that were founded in 2012 got rather upset when the IRS investigated them over a similar matter.
Indeed, but American conservatives have been electing lots of intractable people in recent years...and subsequently blaming them without any attempt at looking inwards. This is a problem, a problem only the relevant voters can fix.
Still not tracking you.... this is more than just a "conservative" complaint. This complaint is directed towards the Beltway crowd.
If you want to encourage everyone to participate w/o reprisal, then make it anonymous under "x" amount. But, if the concerns are the big boppers, publicize that individual/group.
The numerous 501(c)(4)s that were founded in 2012 got rather upset when the IRS investigated them over a similar matter.
Indeed, because the current laws we're written in mind to protect their anonymity from government abuse.
Tea Partiers say you don’t understand them because you don’t understand American history. That’s probably true, but not in the way they want you to think.
Still not tracking you.... this is more than just a "conservative" complaint. This complaint is directed towards the Beltway crowd.
You are correct, but American conservatives are presently the best example of the phenomenon that I'm describing; passing blame. You, a stereotypical American conservative, are doing it right now: "It isn't my fault, it is the fault of the Beltway crowd!"
Still not tracking you.... this is more than just a "conservative" complaint. This complaint is directed towards the Beltway crowd.
You are correct, but American conservatives are presently the best example of the phenomenon that I'm describing; passing blame. You, a stereotypical American conservative, are doing it right now: "It isn't my fault, it is the fault of the Beltway crowd!"
Um... the only thing anyone can do is vote.
Are you suggesting that there are ways to hold our elected officials accountable beyond the elections?
Still not tracking you.... this is more than just a "conservative" complaint. This complaint is directed towards the Beltway crowd.
You are correct, but American conservatives are presently the best example of the phenomenon that I'm describing; passing blame. You, a stereotypical American conservative, are doing it right now: "It isn't my fault, it is the fault of the Beltway crowd!"
Um... the only thing anyone can do is vote.
Are you suggesting that there are ways to hold our elected officials accountable beyond the elections?
Too bad we don't have a recall system.
Another idea I've had is to implant all politicians with a small device. When their individual and/or collective approval ratings go down, the device gives them an electric shock. When the ratings go up, the device gives them a, shall we say, "pleasurable" feeling. Make that rating system widely available online and make it realtime. CSPAN's ratings will skyrocket as people all over the world will be tuning in to watch the politicians reduced to a state of incoherent gibberish from all the zaps, or to see the ones that are just sitting there with a goofy look on their faces from the orgasms. And then, if we make CSPAN pay-per-view, we just might pay off the national debt in a few years.
As an added bonus, that device can also double as a pacemaker for all those old guys with bad hearts.
whembly wrote: To do we Sebster recommend wouldn't work.
I'd institute a cap of individual AND groups.
That doesn’t work. If you cap company contributions at say $3000, for instance, and I really want to give a candidate $500,000, I’d just go to my tax accountant and pick up 167 shelf companies he’s got ready to go. I then put $3,000 in to each of these, and hey presto, my work is done.
Any cap on companies will be sidestepped by just spamming lots of little companies.
The only way to avoid this is to place the cap on something you can’t divide in to smaller and smaller pieces – a person.
dogma wrote: Indeed, but American conservatives have been electing lots of intractable people in recent years...and subsequently blaming them without any attempt at looking inwards. This is a problem, a problem only the relevant voters can fix.
Conservatives often seem to be frustrated that nothing gets done, and see any suggestion of dealing with Democrats as ‘giving in’.
sebster wrote: The only way to avoid this is to place the cap on something you can’t divide in to smaller and smaller pieces – a person.
Well, you can if you have an axe...
The defendant proclaimed his innocence, stating that he personally had only given $3,000 to the election fund. His dismembered foot had given another $3,000, with the final $3,000 paid by his left ear, which had subsequently been re-attached.
Do you thing the 501(c)(3) Organizations are part of the problem?
501(c)(3)s are not allowed to engage in political activity. The extent to which they are a problem is a matter of the IRS not enforcing the law.
Unfortunately the IRS tried to enforce the law regarding 501(c)(4)s, and many people got upset. So it seems a lot of people don't want the IRS to enforce the law.
Unfortunately the IRS tried to enforce the law regarding 501(c)(4)s, and many people got upset. So it seems a lot of people don't want the IRS to enforce the law.
You mean, when Loris Lerner's IRS dept was only "enforcing" the laws on Conservative/Tea Party 501(c)(4)s...
The issue wasn't the fact the IRS was enforcing the laws, the issue was that the IRS only targeted one political group.
But, you knew that and by omission I can assume you're okay with it.
The issue wasn't the fact the IRS was enforcing the laws, the issue was that the IRS only targeted one political group.
No, that is what a select group of people decided was the issue. That group of people was wrong. It was shown to be wrong by many people, and yet it refused to admit to being wrong.
The issue wasn't the fact the IRS was enforcing the laws, the issue was that the IRS only targeted one political group.
No, that is what a select group of people decided was the issue. That group of people was wrong. It was shown to be wrong by many people, and yet it refused to admit to being wrong.
Why is that?
O.o
Proven wrong? Seriously?
If Lerner wasn't wrong, why is she still pleading the 5th?
Okay... then we're free to infer that she did do something that warrants all this.
Your're free to infer whatever you want, but Pleading the Fifth is not tantamount to admitting to wrongdoing; indeed that is much of the point of it's existence.
Okay... then we're free to infer that she did do something that warrants all this.
Your're free to infer whatever you want, but Pleading the Fifth is not tantamount to admitting to wrongdoing; indeed that is much of the point of it's existence.
The court may draw an adverse inference whenever a defendant invokes the 5th... especially during Civil Cases as well.
Then the jury is not being instructed very well by the judge, and if the judge was any good and thought the jury was influenced by pleading the fifth, s/he would dismiss the case.
Just testing out my new powers of quote editing, Whembly.
Edit: looks like I did it somewhat right. Too many spaces, but pretty close. Thanks again.
Lerner explicitly denied that she violated any law or regulation, and was correct in doing so, this fact caused Darrel Issa and Trey Gowdy to claim that she waived her 5th Amendment rights.
While it certainly "makes sense" to extend the debt ceiling to 2017, you know what makes even more sense? Directly tying the debt ceiling increase into the annual budget legislation. The debt ceiling is an artificial crisis every year that shouldn't happen to begin with. You pass a budget, you commit the government to spending X amount of money, and then bicker and argue when the bill comes due about how you're going to pay for what you've already committed to spending? Certainly, there needs to be cuts to government spending, but you do that in the spending bill(s). You don't do that after you've already made the commitment, otherwise it's like going to a restaurant, eating a big meal, and then telling the cashier on the way out "oops, I know the bill is $30, but I've only got $20 left on my credit card, and I'm not going to call my bank to increase the limit, sorry."
I was going to keep ripping on Hillary, but that thread got locked, so....
So the thing about Hillary is that the only reason I'd vote for her is if I supported a war hawk corporate lapdog. Except if those were things I support, I'd just vote for Jeb instead, because I'd also be the kind of person who would want to keep women out of office when possible and he's isn't leaking email to god-knows-where as a side job.
#feelthebern (or flee the country)
I forgot to mention that she has also the personal appeal of someone spliced with a combination of the worst parts of Margaret Thatcher and Mary Whitehouse.
Hillary was also a component in the Tipper Sticker monstrosity of the 1990s, IIRC.
Urban Dictionary wrote:
Tipper Sticker: Warning labels placed on CDs that are deemed to be offensive by a group of white Christian grandmothers.
The woman is a menace in almost all ways, and a social conservative in the blue sports teams colors.
OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.
You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And religion has been the basis of some of the most horrible sexism ever, I guess beliving in a religon makes you "lack ethics and morality", huh?
Religion has also been the basis of some of the worst genocides in human history as well.
But usually the argument I see from religious folks is that because I lack religion, my "ethics and morality" are based on nothing.
Co'tor Shas wrote: OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.
You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.
In the past, people's willful misinterpretation and/or inability to actually read the scriptures has led to that yes. Does the Bible actually have that in it, no.
Co'tor Shas wrote: OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.
You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.
In the past, people's willful misinterpretation and/or inability to actually read the scriptures has led to that yes. Does the Bible actually have that in it, no.
But we are off-topic now.
And "Social Darwinism" is willful misinterpretation of what evolution is. The point is that is the same thing. Ya get me?
Co'tor Shas wrote: OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.
You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.
In the past, people's willful misinterpretation and/or inability to actually read the scriptures has led to that yes. Does the Bible actually have that in it, no.
But we are off-topic now.
And "Social Darwinism" is willful misinterpretation of what evolution is. The point is that is the same thing. Ya get me?
Not really. Its the logical conclusion of the idea that certain creatures in the same species evolve better traits over others, which leads to them being the superior individuals. Its then logical to speed the process up to where only the superior individuals are reproducing till they replace all the inferior individuals.
That's not Evolution, that is Natural Selection. And it a perverse reading of it, since interfering with the process like that makes the process not do what it was going to do naturally.
It's starting from the assumption that you are the superior species, just like religious versions of the same thing start from the assumption that they are following the only right religion.
Regardless, Evolution has nothing to do with morals or ethics. It simply is what it is. It is rather scary that the people who say that they need religion to have morals or ethics are basically saying that the only reason they don't go out and hurt people (well, excluding people that they disagree with) is because they are afraid of the punishment for doing that.
But that's how you are if you don't believe in an absolute morality. You only care about following x if you are worried about the punishment/reward for doing so. Someone who doesn't believe in that still only follows a code because of what they gain or don't. Nobody follows a code just to follow the code.
Well, sometimes what is gained is a bit different. I help people, simply for the feeling of helping others, not for any reward after death. One does not need a god or other deity to have a moral system, the system is just dictated by society, instead of a religion.
And even if what you say is true, many people believe both in a god and evolution. They simply believe that it was that god that allowed evolution to take place, that they work through that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.
You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.
You know the primary teachings of Christianity are in the New Testament, right?
Co'tor Shas wrote: OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.
You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.
You know the primary teachings of Christianity are in the New Testament, right?
Yes, but the old testament is still very much used.
Edit: besides the NT isn't free of it either, 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15 are examples.
Co'tor Shas wrote: OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.
You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.
You know the primary teachings of Christianity are in the New Testament, right?
Yes, but the old testament is still very much used.
It's still read, yes. But the New Testament supersedes everything that conflicts with it in the Old Testament.
The New Testament also features strong female leaders among Jesus' followers. In addition, there were female priestesses in Christianity prior to the creation of the Catholic church. I understand what those verses you posted say, but there are literal examples in the Bible of women in leadership roles even among men.
If we want another idiotic religion vs science thread I think there are better places. It has been done to death here and isn't what this thread is for anyway.
Ahtman wrote: If we want another idiotic religion vs science thread I think there are better places. It has been done to death here and isn't what this thread is for anyway.
I wasn't offering any comment on science, and certainly not science vs religion.
But we can talk about that Hillary Clinton article instead if you want.
Ahtman wrote: If we want another idiotic religion vs science thread I think there are better places. It has been done to death here and isn't what this thread is for anyway.
Well, it's not really religion vs science, I'm just using religion as an allegory to explain why just because these things have been used to justify bad things doesn't mean that the ideas themselves, or the people who believe in them, are bad.
Hordini wrote: I wasn't offering any comment on science, and certainly not science vs religion.
Yeah I know, the other kid started it, you just took the ball and ran with it. Since there was no quote and no name I'm not sure why you think I singled you out. Guilty conscience maybe?
Hordini wrote: But we can talk about that Hillary Clinton article instead if you want.
People don't have to stop talking about religion, science, or religion v science if they don't want to, but the mods will end it if we don't, as that isn't what this thread is supposed to devolve into.
Co'tor Shas wrote: OK, Christianity, especially looking at the old testament.
You're Christian (IIRC) does that make you morally bankrupt because your religion has been used to justify sexism? No. The point being that it's a stupid argument.
You know the primary teachings of Christianity are in the New Testament, right?
Yes, but the old testament is still very much used.
It's still read, yes. But the New Testament supersedes everything that conflicts with it in the Old Testament.
That's much more of a modern reading. Through at least the 17th century, Psalms was used to justify the massacre of civilians in war (notably Psalm 137), and numerous Old Testament laws were used to justify all sorts of awful things throughout history.
Hordini wrote: I wasn't offering any comment on science, and certainly not science vs religion.
Yeah I know, the other kid started it, you just took the ball and ran with it. Since there was no quote and no name I'm not sure why you think I singled you out. Guilty conscience maybe?
Hordini wrote: But we can talk about that Hillary Clinton article instead if you want.
People don't have to stop talking about religion, science, or religion v science if they don't want to, but the mods will end it if we don't, as that isn't what this thread is supposed to devolve into.
I wasn't necessarily thinking you singled me out, I was just trying to clarify that I wasn't taking a position in regards to religion vs. science.
But yes, on with the politics. That article about Hillary Clinton, well, I don't find it particularly surprising. If the content of the article is true, I wonder on one hand whether or not being a jerk to people necessarily means that one would make a good or bad President. On the other hand, I do wonder about the leadership of someone who would be needlessly rude to subordinates.
Hillary is still the top dawg... I think only Biden can bump her out.
I will have to disagree with you there... Sanders is eclipsing fund raising records set by Obama, in a fraction of the time O did them.
IF that is any kind of metric of future success, then I think anyone ignoring Sanders, does so at their own peril.
Sanders is playing really well in blue state locations.
But, that's not going to be enough for the General Election... mortgaging your kids's kids future of free gak now isn't a good General Election strategy.
I don't see Sanders as a real viable candidate to win. Maybe as a VP... yes, but not at the top of the ticket.
That he equates the acceptance of evolution with a lack of ethics and morality.”
I truthfully underestimated how willing Dr. Carson was to say the ridiculous, insipid things his base now expects out of it's candidates. It's few men who are willing to let their ambition gak so publicly on their intelligence - well done! Perhaps he has the legs to win this thing yet*.
*By which I mean win the nomination, and then be trounced in the general; which is now the best any of the GOP candidates can hope to accomplish.
Grey Templar wrote: Evolution has been the basis for some of the most terrible racism ever. Its how you can justify your opponents being subhuman.
Holy fething Some things aren't covered by the swear filter, motyak read a book. Tribes of humans were claiming others tribes were subhuman for thousands of years before anyone thought of anything like evolution.
What evolution and genetic study has shown us is that the notion of tribes, of distinct genetic seperation, is nonsense.
Guys, focus on the purely political implications of this. Same rules as the whole PP video thing. Leave the genocidal aspects and the debates on if religion really does provide morals to another thread
Ouze wrote: I truthfully underestimated how willing Dr. Carson was to say the ridiculous, insipid things his base now expects out of it's candidates. It's few men who are willing to let their ambition gak so publicly on their intelligence - well done! Perhaps he has the legs to win this thing yet*.
*By which I mean win the nomination, and then be trounced in the general; which is now the best any of the GOP candidates can hope to accomplish.
It seems that the crazy stuff that Republicans have to say in order secure the base gets more ridiculous with each election. Or possibly that candidates are willing to go further to pander to that base. Either way, the Republicans seem to be a very long way from a party capable of stable governance at this point.
Ouze wrote: I truthfully underestimated how willing Dr. Carson was to say the ridiculous, insipid things his base now expects out of it's candidates. It's few men who are willing to let their ambition gak so publicly on their intelligence - well done! Perhaps he has the legs to win this thing yet*.
*By which I mean win the nomination, and then be trounced in the general; which is now the best any of the GOP candidates can hope to accomplish.
It seems that the crazy stuff that Republicans have to say in order secure the base gets more ridiculous with each election. Or possibly that candidates are willing to go further to pander to that base. Either way, the Republicans seem to be a very long way from a party capable of stable governance at this point.
I don't understand why the Republican party leadership is so stupid. This "rallying the base" crap during the primaries has lost them the last two elections in a row, and they are probably on track to lose a third if they don't fix their gak. The farther right they push, the more moderate voters they lose, and they need the moderates to win the election. They are doing the exact same thing expecting different results. It is, quite literally, the actions of an insane person.
Now before anyone gets upset, I'm not talking about Republican voters or Republicans in general, I'm talking about the high level Republican party officials who are encouraging candidates to push farther and farther to the right, into the realm of the un-electable. It's embarrassing.
I don't understand why the Republican party leadership is so stupid. This "rallying the base" crap during the primaries has lost them the last two elections in a row, and they are probably on track to lose a third if they don't fix their gak. The farther right they push, the more moderate voters they lose, and they need the moderates to win the election. They are doing the exact same thing expecting different results. It is, quite literally, the actions of an insane person.
Now before anyone gets upset, I'm not talking about Republican voters or Republicans in general, I'm talking about the high level Republican party officials who are encouraging candidates to push farther and farther to the right, into the realm of the un-electable. It's embarrassing.
The Tea Party. Obviously not every supporter is wrong, but the voter base is adorably funny a lot of the time.
Hordini wrote: I don't understand why the Republican party leadership is so stupid. This "rallying the base" crap during the primaries has lost them the last two elections in a row, and they are probably on track to lose a third if they don't fix their gak. The farther right they push, the more moderate voters they lose, and they need the moderates to win the election. They are doing the exact same thing expecting different results. It is, quite literally, the actions of an insane person.
Now before anyone gets upset, I'm not talking about Republican voters or Republicans in general, I'm talking about the high level Republican party officials who are encouraging candidates to push farther and farther to the right, into the realm of the un-electable. It's embarrassing.
No-one in the leadership is encouraging candidates to move further right. Candidates are choosing to go further and further right, because that's where the votes are in the primary. It's possible to play a more moderate game*, but that relies on all the more extreme candidates falling over, but that is probably near impossible in this election cycle, with such a strong anti-establishment mood. A guy like Ted Cruz has got to where he's got by making sure he's more hard right than any competitor, and it's worked very well for him given the Republican base lately. But even he's been outflanked by people who've taken up equally hard right politics, and added some populist insanity in to the mix, like Trump and Carson.
The real question is why the Republican electorate has moved so hard right itself. Is it just a product of FOX news? Internet echo chambers? Or is the hard right nature of the electorate a product of the Republican party leading their voters that way? With more hard right candidates winning office (thanks to redistricting producing so many safe seats that the only fight for election is the primary, and a generational effect of kids brought up under the 'big lie' coming in to politics actually believing that stuff), do the statements of those new leaders direct the beliefs of the greater electorare?
I have no idea. And the bigger question is when is it going to stop. Is it going to stop, or is just going to drive the Republican party more and more fringe until they implode?
*Relatively speaking, even moderate GOP politics are pretty extreme these days.
whembly wrote: The opposite can be said of the Democrats and how it's being tugged to the left.
I mean... look at popular Bernie Sanders is now. He's a full on socialist and it's getting to the point in this country that it's not a dirty word.
The things that Bernie Sanders are saying aren't actually pants on head crazy, and if just throwing out the phrase "socialist" isn't the most deathly insult imaginable anymore, then as a whole we're in a better place.
When you have at one hand a guy who is a doctor literally saying he thinks evolution is a fairy tale, and on the other hand, a guy who wants to increase the minimum wage, it's really hard to paint them both with the same extremist nonsense brush, much as you're clearly trying.
whembly wrote: The opposite can be said of the Democrats and how it's being tugged to the left.
I mean... look at popular Bernie Sanders is now. He's a full on socialist and it's getting to the point in this country that it's not a dirty word.
It can be said, but the point is that it isn't true. As Ouze points out, you and a lot of others have gotten a lot of mileage out of Sanders being a socialist, and while his politics are almost certainly too far left for the US mainstream, his arguments aren't based on falsehood or insanity. When someone running for the Democratic nomination proposes building a wall and getting Mexico to pay for it, or claims the Big Bang is wrong because thermodynamics, or talks about anything as basically idiotic as a flat income tax rate or gold standard, then there'll be some kind of parity.
End of the day, there's really no point spending post after post trying to convince you of any of this. The insanity that regularly comes up in Republican politics now is plainly obvious to anyone who isn't actively trying to deny it. Really, it comes down to an issue of you and every other moderate Republican supporter being honest enough to recognise this and refusing to accept it anymore. In party politics it's a reality that you have to accept party factions that you don't agree with all that much, and even some who are pretty odious and even crazy, but when you reach a point where the odious and crazy parts are totally dominating the party you have to call it as it is, and stop putting up with it.
See it or don't. It's your country and your political party.
Hordini wrote: I don't understand why the Republican party leadership is so stupid. This "rallying the base" crap during the primaries has lost them the last two elections in a row, and they are probably on track to lose a third if they don't fix their gak. The farther right they push, the more moderate voters they lose, and they need the moderates to win the election. They are doing the exact same thing expecting different results. It is, quite literally, the actions of an insane person.
Now before anyone gets upset, I'm not talking about Republican voters or Republicans in general, I'm talking about the high level Republican party officials who are encouraging candidates to push farther and farther to the right, into the realm of the un-electable. It's embarrassing.
No-one in the leadership is encouraging candidates to move further right. Candidates are choosing to go further and further right, because that's where the votes are in the primary. It's possible to play a more moderate game*, but that relies on all the more extreme candidates falling over, but that is probably near impossible in this election cycle, with such a strong anti-establishment mood. A guy like Ted Cruz has got to where he's got by making sure he's more hard right than any competitor, and it's worked very well for him given the Republican base lately. But even he's been outflanked by people who've taken up equally hard right politics, and added some populist insanity in to the mix, like Trump and Carson.
The real question is why the Republican electorate has moved so hard right itself. Is it just a product of FOX news? Internet echo chambers? Or is the hard right nature of the electorate a product of the Republican party leading their voters that way? With more hard right candidates winning office (thanks to redistricting producing so many safe seats that the only fight for election is the primary, and a generational effect of kids brought up under the 'big lie' coming in to politics actually believing that stuff), do the statements of those new leaders direct the beliefs of the greater electorare?
I have no idea. And the bigger question is when is it going to stop. Is it going to stop, or is just going to drive the Republican party more and more fringe until they implode?
*Relatively speaking, even moderate GOP politics are pretty extreme these days.
In retrospect, you're probably correct in that it might not be anyone specific in the party leadership that is spurring the shift farther to the right. It is difficult to determine exactly why the shift has occurred, but in any case, it is deeply, deeply concerning.
Hordini wrote: On retrospect, you're probably correct in that it might not be anyone specific in the party leadership that is spurring the shift farther to the right. It is difficult to determine exactly why the shift has occurred, but in any case, it is deeply, deeply concerning.
Yeah, definitely. And it gets scarier when you realise its still getting worse with no sign of reaching the end of the trend. Next election cycle could be even crazier.
Hordini wrote: On retrospect, you're probably correct in that it might not be anyone specific in the party leadership that is spurring the shift farther to the right. It is difficult to determine exactly why the shift has occurred, but in any case, it is deeply, deeply concerning.
Yeah, definitely. And it gets scarier when you realise its still getting worse with no sign of reaching the end of the trend. Next election cycle could be even crazier.
Ditto, I'd love to see his actual words and phrasing. Because honestly, I just don't want to believe you. I wouldn't be shocked if he did, but I just...I just want it to not be.
I'm not a scientist either (I mean, I'm a fething construction worker by trade and I never went to college), but I under how science works. The gak he trots out in that speech is just flabbergasting... we're talking basic physics here, the same gak I learned in 10th grade. And then on top of that, when called out on it, he tries to drag "faith" into it. You don't need faith for scientific facts to be true or not.
He is just a perfect example of a stupid smart person.
Though I did like that article calling out Dr. Oz... because feth that guy.
Most of us aren't scientists, but we are adults with a basic respect for scientific institutions. Unless you happen to be courting votes in a party with an anti-science bent that's getting way out of control. Then you starting claiming all sorts of crazy gak.
I knew about him questioning the big bang because thermodynamics, but I didn't know about the evolution thing. fething hell.
It really is up to reasonable Republicans to call an end to this nonsense.
whembly wrote: The opposite can be said of the Democrats and how it's being tugged to the left.
I mean... look at popular Bernie Sanders is now. He's a full on socialist and it's getting to the point in this country that it's not a dirty word.
The things that Bernie Sanders are saying aren't actually pants on head crazy, and if just throwing out the phrase "socialist" isn't the most deathly insult imaginable anymore, then as a whole we're in a better place.
When you have at one hand a guy who is a doctor literally saying he thinks evolution is a fairy tale, and on the other hand, a guy who wants to increase the minimum wage, it's really hard to paint them both with the same extremist nonsense brush, much as you're clearly trying.
While Democrats have been shifting left, it hasn't been anywhere close to the shift to the right we have seen.
I'm not a scientist either (I mean, I'm a fething construction worker by trade and I never went to college), but I under how science works. The gak he trots out in that speech is just flabbergasting... we're talking basic physics here, the same gak I learned in 10th grade. And then on top of that, when called out on it, he tries to drag "faith" into it. You don't need faith for scientific facts to be true or not.
He is just a perfect example of a stupid smart person.
I'm not excusing the guy... jeeze man.
I find it interesting that many believe his beliefs should automatically disqualify him from the office, but when he opined that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim... all hell breaks loose.
My head hurts man...
Though I did like that article calling out Dr. Oz... because feth that guy.
Indeed.
I work in the Healthcare industry... that writer is absolutely correct. Physicians as a general rule are NOT scientist. Not even fething close.
We have some of the most brilliant minds on the planet regarding healthcare, but there are some I sure as hell wouldn't want them working on my car, or do my taxes.
I'm not a scientist either (I mean, I'm a fething construction worker by trade and I never went to college), but I under how science works. The gak he trots out in that speech is just flabbergasting... we're talking basic physics here, the same gak I learned in 10th grade. And then on top of that, when called out on it, he tries to drag "faith" into it. You don't need faith for scientific facts to be true or not.
He is just a perfect example of a stupid smart person.
I'm not excusing the guy... jeeze man.
I find it interesting that many believe his beliefs should automatically disqualify him from the office, but when he opined that he wouldn't vote for a Muslim... all hell breaks loose.
My head hurts man...
It shouldn't because this is really an apples and oranges comparison.
In both cases, it shows that Carson's ideas and decisions are not rooted in any reality other than one he is making up in his own head. Both beliefs are related in so much that they are rooted in the belief that 'If you're not like me, you're a bad person'. He can't see outside his own beliefs and look at the world in the shades of grey that it is. That is something that is dangerous for someone with power.
The objection isn't to Carson's faith per se...But rather that he's a whackjob and he uses his faith to try to justify that (Kind of like the Phelps clan).
He expouses the same things that stereotypes the 7th-Day Aventist denomination... one of the largest evangelicals in the US.
But comparing him to Phelps...? Okay... go with that.
:shrugs:
Even with his beliefs... he has repeated this in several public speeches:
"Everybody's free to do whatever they want. To try to impose one's religious beliefs on someone else is absolutely what we should not be doing. That goes in both directions. Someone who is an atheist doesn't have a right to tell someone who isn't an atheist what they can or cannot do or what they can or cannot say. We have to be fair but it has to be fair in both directions"
As anyone running for public office... that is something we'd want all of our elected officials to preach... right?
Having said that, I really believe Carson (like Trump) won't have the legs to make it to the RNC nomination.
I really think it'll be between Rubio and Firorina. (my hope would be Rubio).
Rubio is probably the only chance the R's has to win, as he's a great contrast to whomever comes out of the DNC nomination process.
whembly wrote: But comparing him to Phelps...? Okay... go with that.
He does kind of have a point... I think we all agree that Phelps and by extension, WBC live in a bit of a "dream world" where what they think, and what reality is are two very different things.
The same can be said of Carson, but with one huge difference: Carson isn't verbally proclaiming a message of overt hate, picketing funerals and "thanking god" that gays, soldiers and other "undesirables" are being killed.
It's almost worse since he's using messages of covert hate. When you start saying things like accepting scientific fact (ie evolution) means you have no morals or saying that all Muslims are extremists, that gets troubling...
I'm always nervous when someone like him is saying thing along the line of Atheists shouldn't be able to tell me what to do. That's really a dog whistle for 'I should be able to keep my special privileges as a Christian and you're a bad person for calling me on that'.
With a Parliamentary system, you guys would have got your budget through, no problem.
