Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Co'tor Shas wrote: This stems from when Democratic lawmakers staged a sit-in, and Republicans shut off the C-span cameras and mics to try and silence them.
Why were they allowed to do that to begin with? Why weren't they punished for it afterwards?
Because (AFAIK) here was nothing in the rules against the sit-in. And what are you going to do, arrest senators for sitting on the floor? It wasn't any more disruptive than an of Ryan's stunts.
No.
I'm asking why the people who shut off the cameras weren't punished.
No rules against that either. The senate was officially in recess.
Maybe you don't actually have a right to be aware of the real-time developments of your government's decisions, and finding out about them later is just as good?
I also don't have the "right" to know what is in the food I eat, but it's generally a good idea. I believe that all public workings, such as senate debates, hearings, votes, ect, should be public. We need to be able to hold lawmakers acountable.
You still know about the sit-in, yes?
You still know who shut off the cameras, yes?
The Democrats who wanted to make their points clear still tweeted about it afterwards, yes?
Which isn't exactly the point. The reason it was so well known is because of the interactions and live-streaming while it happened. The whole point of why they turned off cameras and mics was to try and limit the Dem's outreach and voice. And that's the whole reason for these rule changes. If you can't stop them from speaking, limiting who they can talk to is the next best thing.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: No rules against that either. The senate was officially in recess.
There are no rules against it.
No one made rules against it after it happened.
Who considers this a problem at all then?
Which isn't exactly the point. The reason it was so well known is because of the interactions and live-streaming while it happened. The whole point of why they turned off cameras and mics was to try and limit the Dem's outreach and voice. And that's the whole reason for these rule changes. If you can't stop them from speaking, limiting who they can talk to is the next best thing.
Who are they reaching out and speaking to?
They are Congressmen in the Federal government. They have more power to actually make things happen themselves than anyone short of the President himself or herself.
thekingofkings wrote: calling it like I see it. I have never met a liberal who is not an America hater.
If by "an America hater" you mean "a person who does not love their country so blindly that they are unwilling to ever call out their government on things it does wrong," then yes, that might be true.
Also, in regards to the thing about silencing Democrats by limiting Twitter usage while in the building, uh, is there any part of the law that says it applies ONLY to Democrats, or are Republicans equally as silenced?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 01:24:19
'Calling you like you see it' is no reason to be rude. Cool it on the "X hate this country because they're X and that's all I need to know it" sort of chat.
As for the rest of the thread, try and ensure we remain on topic, the last few pages have been an absolute mess
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 01:29:01
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
Co'tor Shas wrote: No rules against that either. The senate was officially in recess.
There are no rules against it.
No one made rules against it after it happened.
Who considers this a problem at all then?
The republicans aren't about to make rules against themselves.
Which isn't exactly the point. The reason it was so well known is because of the interactions and live-streaming while it happened. The whole point of why they turned off cameras and mics was to try and limit the Dem's outreach and voice. And that's the whole reason for these rule changes. If you can't stop them from speaking, limiting who they can talk to is the next best thing.
Who are they reaching out and speaking to?
Voters, the general populous. "Us" for lack of a better phrase. The point of it was to raise awareness, and show support.
They are Congressmen in the Federal government. They have more power to actually make things happen themselves than anyone short of the President himself or herself.
Not as a minority party.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/28 01:58:44
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The republicans aren't about to make rules against themselves.
Which isn't exactly the point. The reason it was so well known is because of the interactions and live-streaming while it happened. The whole point of why they turned off cameras and mics was to try and limit the Dem's outreach and voice. And that's the whole reason for these rule changes. If you can't stop them from speaking, limiting who they can talk to is the next best thing.
Who are they reaching out and speaking to?
Voters, the general populous. "Us" for lack of a better phrase. The point of it was to raise awareness, and show support.
They are Congressmen in the Federal government. They have more power to actually make things happen themselves than anyone short of the President himself or herself.
Not as a minority party.
Does this rule stop being a rule when the Republicans eventually become the minority party?
If being a minority party means you have no power, why do members of Congress in the minority party ever bother to do anything at all?
In Canada, sometimes we end up with a majority government. Despite having 4 major political parties, not 2, sometimes we end up with a government where one party controls more than 50% of the seats. This is considered bad, because it means that the ruling party can generally pass whatever they like.
Uhh, from, I think it was 2005, to 2015, our Conservative Party had a majority government. Canada has no term limits, so as long as legislation that was considered "a vote of confidence" kept being passed, they could keep their jobs until they died or retired, because an election would simply never be called.
They, uh, weren't able to do that.
And because the USA is a two-party system, one side or the other usually controls each individual branch of the government.
So the way to view this is simply that the USA is about to have their equivalent of a "majority government" until their next election. Which is 2 years from now.
I lived 10 years of my life under a Conservative majority government. They weren't even able to get rid of gay marriage.
You'll be fine. You have a Constitution to stop the government from being able to do literally anything it wants.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The republicans aren't about to make rules against themselves.
Which isn't exactly the point. The reason it was so well known is because of the interactions and live-streaming while it happened. The whole point of why they turned off cameras and mics was to try and limit the Dem's outreach and voice. And that's the whole reason for these rule changes. If you can't stop them from speaking, limiting who they can talk to is the next best thing.
Who are they reaching out and speaking to?
Voters, the general populous. "Us" for lack of a better phrase. The point of it was to raise awareness, and show support.
They are Congressmen in the Federal government. They have more power to actually make things happen themselves than anyone short of the President himself or herself.
Not as a minority party.
Does this rule stop being a rule when the Republicans eventually become the minority party?
If being a minority party means you have no power, why do members of Congress in the minority party ever bother to do anything at all?
In Canada, sometimes we end up with a majority government. Despite having 4 major political parties, not 2, sometimes we end up with a government where one party controls more than 50% of the seats. This is considered bad, because it means that the ruling party can generally pass whatever they like.
Uhh, from, I think it was 2005, to 2015, our Conservative Party had a majority government. Canada has no term limits, so as long as legislation that was considered "a vote of confidence" kept being passed, they could keep their jobs until they died or retired, because an election would simply never be called.
They, uh, weren't able to do that.
And because the USA is a two-party system, one side or the other usually controls each individual branch of the government.
So the way to view this is simply that the USA is about to have their equivalent of a "majority government" until their next election. Which is 2 years from now.
I lived 10 years of my life under a Conservative majority government. They weren't even able to get rid of gay marriage.
You'll be fine. You have a Constitution to stop the government from being able to do literally anything it wants.
All that is meaningless, it's still a bad rule. I'm not saying it;s the end of democracy or some gak, merely that it's a bad rule.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: If I've said stop the chat about something, it means stop the chat, motyak
Than at least edit his post...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 02:36:24
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The republicans aren't about to make rules against themselves.
Which isn't exactly the point. The reason it was so well known is because of the interactions and live-streaming while it happened. The whole point of why they turned off cameras and mics was to try and limit the Dem's outreach and voice. And that's the whole reason for these rule changes. If you can't stop them from speaking, limiting who they can talk to is the next best thing.
Who are they reaching out and speaking to?
Voters, the general populous. "Us" for lack of a better phrase. The point of it was to raise awareness, and show support.
They are Congressmen in the Federal government. They have more power to actually make things happen themselves than anyone short of the President himself or herself.
Not as a minority party.
Does this rule stop being a rule when the Republicans eventually become the minority party?
If being a minority party means you have no power, why do members of Congress in the minority party ever bother to do anything at all?
In Canada, sometimes we end up with a majority government. Despite having 4 major political parties, not 2, sometimes we end up with a government where one party controls more than 50% of the seats. This is considered bad, because it means that the ruling party can generally pass whatever they like.
Uhh, from, I think it was 2005, to 2015, our Conservative Party had a majority government. Canada has no term limits, so as long as legislation that was considered "a vote of confidence" kept being passed, they could keep their jobs until they died or retired, because an election would simply never be called.
They, uh, weren't able to do that.
And because the USA is a two-party system, one side or the other usually controls each individual branch of the government.
So the way to view this is simply that the USA is about to have their equivalent of a "majority government" until their next election. Which is 2 years from now.
I lived 10 years of my life under a Conservative majority government. They weren't even able to get rid of gay marriage.
You'll be fine. You have a Constitution to stop the government from being able to do literally anything it wants.
The problem is that our elected officials are not going to be able to inform us of events currently going on. This is an issue. We elect them to office and we have a right to know what is going on. We need to know what our government is doing. You don't get to silence the minority party just because you are in power.
Dreadwinter wrote: The problem is that our elected officials are not going to be able to inform us of events currently going on. This is an issue. We elect them to office and we have a right to know what is going on. We need to know what our government is doing. You don't get to silence the minority party just because you are in power.
I haven't actually read the article describing what the law does yet.
When I do though, what do you think the odds are that I'll discover this law only affects communication devices inside the particular room where Congress votes, and all someone has to do to tweet about something that just happened is step outside into the hallway, where the law does not apply whatsoever?
If that's what I find out, I'm gonna compare it to a teacher insisting that their students keep their smart phones turned off during class so they actually pay attention to what's going on, but not caring if they text someone outside the classroom.
If I find out it's incredibly general, I'm gonna ask how Trump is gonna react to not being legally allowed to tweet things anymore by a law his own party passed.
Do you imagine either of those possibilities going well for your side of the argument?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 02:59:12
As for Republicans looking to pass fines over stunts like the sit-in.
Here's the most neutral look at this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/can-they-do-these-rules-govern-protests-house-floor-n597161
Can They Do That? These Rules Govern Protests on House Floor
Play House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote 3:49
Democrats, led by civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, remained engaged early Thursday in a sit-in on the House floor in an effort to force a vote on gun control measures. Are they allowed to do that? Has this happened before?
Here's everything you need to know about the rules surrounding a protest like this.
What are the rules for this situation?
The House is currently in recess, and under the rules, the speaker is generally empowered "to preserve order and decorum." He has the ability to clear the lobby and galleries in the event of "disorderly conduct" and can direct the House's sergeant-at-arms to do so.
Related: House Democrats Hold Sit-In on Gun Control
Access to the House floor can be limited to "all persons except those privileged to remain," which usually means House members and authorized staff and selected authorized guests.
Bottom line: If members do not leave the floor and no compromise is reached, it is largely up to Speaker Paul Ryan to decide whether to use the authority of the House to seek to clear the floor and/or sanction members, or to keep the House in recess and wait out the issue.
Is there any precedent for this?
There was a stand-off in 2003, at a House Ways and Means hearing on retirement rules, where members broke decorum with insults, made apparent threats and walked out of the hearing.
The chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, said he called the sergeant-at-arms for order in the committee and asked Capitol police to remove the Democrats if needed. That controversial move was discussed on the floor, where Lewis likened the tactics to civil rights-era abuses of a "police state." Thomas later apologized — the issue was essentially resolved without police getting physically involved.
Are pictures allowed?
No. House members are violating rules by sharing pictures and video of the sit-in. House rules state that people on the floor may not "use a mobile electronic device that impairs decorum." The sergeant-at-arms is instructing members to refrain from doing so, according to Rep. John Yarmuth. This is a typical restriction on the House floor and not specific to the sit-in.
NBC News' Frank Thorp notes that as speaker, Boehner used to implore members not to use their phones for sharing pictures and video. Ryan has not emphasized that as much to date.
Has this rule been violated before?
Yes. Freshman Congressman Mike Bishop tweeted a picture while presiding over the House last year. He deleted it after Thorp pointed out the violation.
Members also appear to make occasional knowing violations for special occasions. The main example is taking pictures at the State of the Union — which is a special case where the House is not debating or governing. Otherwise, the rule is generally followed.
Is there ever a time when pictures are allowed to be posted from the floor?
Yes. During the opening hour of each session of Congress, House rules have not been technically adopted and members have been known to post photos during that time.
What's the bottom line?
Democrats conducting the sit-in may not care much about violating the rules, since one can argue the entire sit-in is a challenge to how the House normally operates under the rules.
Frankly, the Democrats were being fething babies and the Speaker has every right to do this.
Democrats could've simply held their sit-ins at the step of Congress if they wanted attention.
whembly wrote: Frankly, the Democrats were being fething babies and the Speaker has every right to do this.
Democrats could've simply held their sit-ins at the step of Congress if they wanted attention.
Generally, I don't think anyone would really even watch the sit-in if they had broadcast it live on C-Span and kept shifts of camera crews going round-the-clock to cover every moment...
...Of a few hundred politicians sitting quietly on the floor, refusing to do anything.
Someone tunes in to the sit-in. They're a Democrat supporter. So they're like, "Oh yeah, look at them, stickin' it to the Republicans! Go get em!"
Five minutes later, they're like, "Is... is this it? Is this all they're gonna do?"
An hour in, they're like, "This is boring. I'm gonna watch football instead."
Most people refuse to watch C-span to begin with because it's too boring. Who's gonna watch C-span when it's way, WAY more boring than it already is because no one's doing anything?
Maybe the point that the Republicans were trying to make by turning off the cameras was to make it clear to the Democrats that no one was watching anyways. Anyone who was still watching who they might convince that the Democrats were correct was already so much in agreement with the Democrats that they don't need to make their point to them, because you don't need to preach to the choir.
Does anyone actually need to watch live footage of a sit-in to understand the point and how badly it needs to be considered? Does anyone who wasn't watching who later read about the sit-in on the news even care about how long it lasted enough to notice if the news article simply fails to mention how long it lasted at all? If you need to see it happening on the replays later, you're only seeing 10 minutes of footage at most, anything after that is simply not offering new information considering that it is footage of people sitting around refusing to do anything. There were no speeches being made to take sound bites from. There were no moments so uproarious they're worth mentioning, EXCEPT the moment when the Republicans turned the cameras off to make a point. I'm pretty sure the Democrats spin things just as hard as the Republicans do.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/28 04:49:36
whembly wrote: As for Republicans looking to pass fines over stunts like the sit-in.
Here's the most neutral look at this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/can-they-do-these-rules-govern-protests-house-floor-n597161
Can They Do That? These Rules Govern Protests on House Floor
Play House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote 3:49
Democrats, led by civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, remained engaged early Thursday in a sit-in on the House floor in an effort to force a vote on gun control measures. Are they allowed to do that? Has this happened before?
Here's everything you need to know about the rules surrounding a protest like this.
What are the rules for this situation?
The House is currently in recess, and under the rules, the speaker is generally empowered "to preserve order and decorum." He has the ability to clear the lobby and galleries in the event of "disorderly conduct" and can direct the House's sergeant-at-arms to do so.
Related: House Democrats Hold Sit-In on Gun Control
Access to the House floor can be limited to "all persons except those privileged to remain," which usually means House members and authorized staff and selected authorized guests.
Bottom line: If members do not leave the floor and no compromise is reached, it is largely up to Speaker Paul Ryan to decide whether to use the authority of the House to seek to clear the floor and/or sanction members, or to keep the House in recess and wait out the issue.
Is there any precedent for this?
There was a stand-off in 2003, at a House Ways and Means hearing on retirement rules, where members broke decorum with insults, made apparent threats and walked out of the hearing.
The chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, said he called the sergeant-at-arms for order in the committee and asked Capitol police to remove the Democrats if needed. That controversial move was discussed on the floor, where Lewis likened the tactics to civil rights-era abuses of a "police state." Thomas later apologized — the issue was essentially resolved without police getting physically involved.
Are pictures allowed?
No. House members are violating rules by sharing pictures and video of the sit-in. House rules state that people on the floor may not "use a mobile electronic device that impairs decorum." The sergeant-at-arms is instructing members to refrain from doing so, according to Rep. John Yarmuth. This is a typical restriction on the House floor and not specific to the sit-in.
NBC News' Frank Thorp notes that as speaker, Boehner used to implore members not to use their phones for sharing pictures and video. Ryan has not emphasized that as much to date.
Has this rule been violated before?
Yes. Freshman Congressman Mike Bishop tweeted a picture while presiding over the House last year. He deleted it after Thorp pointed out the violation.
Members also appear to make occasional knowing violations for special occasions. The main example is taking pictures at the State of the Union — which is a special case where the House is not debating or governing. Otherwise, the rule is generally followed.
Is there ever a time when pictures are allowed to be posted from the floor?
Yes. During the opening hour of each session of Congress, House rules have not been technically adopted and members have been known to post photos during that time.
What's the bottom line?
Democrats conducting the sit-in may not care much about violating the rules, since one can argue the entire sit-in is a challenge to how the House normally operates under the rules.
Frankly, the Democrats were being fething babies and the Speaker has every right to do this.
Democrats could've simply held their sit-ins at the step of Congress if they wanted attention.
If the Republicans wanted the sit-in to stop they just had to compromise, right?
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: If the Republicans wanted the sit-in to stop they just had to compromise, right?
Well, generally I view American political debates as being a lot of blustering and posturing with very little actual debate going on.
But, you've got my interest here. Republicans could've compromised to stop the Democrats from wanting to do the sit-in in the first place.
However, since a compromise is not simply either side capitulating to the other's list of demands, the Democrats also have to give some things up, otherwise it's not a compromise pretty much by definition, because the Dems would get everything they want, whereas the Republicans don't.
And I don't even know what the sit-in was about. I assumed it was something fairly pointless, given my view on American politics. But I've been wrong before, so maybe this was a very serious issue.
So, what did the Republicans want, and what did the Democrats want? And I want each side's list of demands in their own words, because it's too easy to misrepresent something, especially when you have a motive to convince people to feel one way or the other about it.
And why were they unable to reach a compromise on it, if it would be so easy to do so?
And if the Democrats can actually be silenced purely because the majority party passes a law that does that, doesn't that break some sort of Constitutional law about... I dunno, something that ensures the government can't lie to its people without a damned good enough reason to do so, good enough that you don't have to lie, you can simply say, "I'm sorry, that's classified information," if anyone ever asks you about it? I mean, you guys don't actually HAVE an "Official Secrets Act" like some countries do, but you don't actually TELL everyone about everything when there's a good reason to keep that information out of the hands of the public. And humanity's knowledge is good enough we have some really friggin good reasons to do that nowadays. Like, the US government actually censors the Internet to prevent instruction manuals on building your own nuclear weapons in your backyard from being published online, and no one has an issue with that, for god damned OBVIOUS reasons.
The reason for silencing a political party, however, is much less obvious. You consider these people trustworthy enough they are involved, to some degree, in writing legislation for your country. If your country ever feels the need to go to war with anyone, these are the exact people who will decide whether that happens or not. So they're pretty much all above-board, so there's no real reason to silence them. So why would your constitution ever tolerate the concept of silencing them, since there's no LEGITIMATE reason to do so?
That was me being incredibly sarcastic and a reference to how whembly consistently argues that the Democrats are to blame for not compromising in the face of Republican obstructionism.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: That was me being incredibly sarcastic and a reference to how whembly consistently argues that the Democrats are to blame for not compromising in the face of Republican obstructionism.
It posed a legitimate question though.
What IF this isn't just bluster? What if he actually has a point this time, just by random chance and the old adage of "a broken clock still tells the right time twice a day" that will obviously become confusing to English-speakers once everyone's been using digital clocks long enough to have no idea what the hell that actually refers to?
Edit: Side note: Damn, I really love tangents, sometimes I don't even wait to finish the sentence first.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, uh, to explain why I asked why nukes are still a thing...
I know what the purpose of nukes originally was. Taking out all the war production facilities in an entire city. Because we invented them during WW2 instead of the modern era, we went, "Hey, our bombers can't even hit a city block, let's just blow up the entire city instead!" You were already dropping enough FIRE bombs on Japan's WOODEN cities that you ran out of bombs. So you wanted a way to take out the entire city with one bomb, because strategic bombing was already a thing before nukes were invented.
If we invented the nuclear bomb today to solve the original problem, the answer would be, "Sure, we COULD do that... or we could just, like, blow up the factories with cruise missiles, and just NOT blow up the city too. That's an option, you know."
I mean, really, the only reason to use a nuke at all nowadays is because you want to kill a lot of innocent civilians along with the stuff you ACTUALLY care about destroying.
Do you, like, really NEED a weapon whose only possible use in a war is making innocent civilians die?
Do you even know why carpet bombing isn't a thing the American military even considers doing anymore?
Do you even know why World War 3 didn't ever happen during the COLD WAR, and why the Soviet Union LOST the Cold War without needing to be nuked into submission?
MAD is the equivalent of a Mexican Standoff. Three people together. Each holds a gun in each hand pointed at one of the other two. No one wants to die, no one wants to kill anyone so badly they're willing to die to do it. First person who starts shooting kills all three because everyone starts shooting both pistols the instant they hear a gun go off, and doesn't stop pulling the triggers even after they run out of ammo. If all three put their guns down, no one has to die. If no one had a gun, and could only fight with fists, they'd probably just have a fistfight until someone gives up. They'd get hurt, probably even badly, but so long as someone gives up and the other people are willing to let them, no one becomes a murderer, or even an attempted murderer. In MAD, it's a lot like that, instead of only three people, it's three COUNTRIES with populations in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.
You ever see how Mexican Standoffs end in movies when someone decides to start shooting? The only people who walk away alive are the people who weren't part of the shooting and decided to hide somewhere that the bullets were not flying. Everyone who started shooting, on all sides, is dead, and probably so are the people who were merely nearby who happened to be close enough that they got killed by stray bullets.
Automatically Appended Next Post: So I guess the question with MAD is, would you rather lose a fistfight, or get shot to death but also shoot the person who killed you to death too?
Because people who choose the latter option exist. I've read about them. In the friggin Darwin Awards.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/12/28 12:21:11
whembly wrote: As for Republicans looking to pass fines over stunts like the sit-in.
Here's the most neutral look at this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/can-they-do-these-rules-govern-protests-house-floor-n597161
Can They Do That? These Rules Govern Protests on House Floor
Play House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote 3:49
Democrats, led by civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, remained engaged early Thursday in a sit-in on the House floor in an effort to force a vote on gun control measures. Are they allowed to do that? Has this happened before?
Here's everything you need to know about the rules surrounding a protest like this.
What are the rules for this situation?
The House is currently in recess, and under the rules, the speaker is generally empowered "to preserve order and decorum." He has the ability to clear the lobby and galleries in the event of "disorderly conduct" and can direct the House's sergeant-at-arms to do so.
Related: House Democrats Hold Sit-In on Gun Control
Access to the House floor can be limited to "all persons except those privileged to remain," which usually means House members and authorized staff and selected authorized guests.
Bottom line: If members do not leave the floor and no compromise is reached, it is largely up to Speaker Paul Ryan to decide whether to use the authority of the House to seek to clear the floor and/or sanction members, or to keep the House in recess and wait out the issue.
Is there any precedent for this?
There was a stand-off in 2003, at a House Ways and Means hearing on retirement rules, where members broke decorum with insults, made apparent threats and walked out of the hearing.
The chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, said he called the sergeant-at-arms for order in the committee and asked Capitol police to remove the Democrats if needed. That controversial move was discussed on the floor, where Lewis likened the tactics to civil rights-era abuses of a "police state." Thomas later apologized — the issue was essentially resolved without police getting physically involved.
Are pictures allowed?
No. House members are violating rules by sharing pictures and video of the sit-in. House rules state that people on the floor may not "use a mobile electronic device that impairs decorum." The sergeant-at-arms is instructing members to refrain from doing so, according to Rep. John Yarmuth. This is a typical restriction on the House floor and not specific to the sit-in.
NBC News' Frank Thorp notes that as speaker, Boehner used to implore members not to use their phones for sharing pictures and video. Ryan has not emphasized that as much to date.
Has this rule been violated before?
Yes. Freshman Congressman Mike Bishop tweeted a picture while presiding over the House last year. He deleted it after Thorp pointed out the violation.
Members also appear to make occasional knowing violations for special occasions. The main example is taking pictures at the State of the Union — which is a special case where the House is not debating or governing. Otherwise, the rule is generally followed.
Is there ever a time when pictures are allowed to be posted from the floor?
Yes. During the opening hour of each session of Congress, House rules have not been technically adopted and members have been known to post photos during that time.
What's the bottom line?
Democrats conducting the sit-in may not care much about violating the rules, since one can argue the entire sit-in is a challenge to how the House normally operates under the rules.
Frankly, the Democrats were being fething babies and the Speaker has every right to do this.
Democrats could've simply held their sit-ins at the step of Congress if they wanted attention.
If the Republicans wanted the sit-in to stop they just had to compromise, right?
Compromise WHAT exactly?
The House floor had adjourned, and decorum is a thing.
This was a petulant crybaby reaction when the House refused to vote on new gun control measures after the Pulse shooting... which, these measures WOULD.NOT.HAVE.STOPPED.THAT.SHOOTING.IN.THE.FIRST.PLACE.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 15:49:16
Pouncey wrote: Do you, like, really NEED a weapon whose only possible use in a war is making innocent civilians die?
Well we can't get rid of them - mutually assured destruction is the only thing stopping their use. If various countries started disarming, they will effectively end up being held at ransom by the countries who kept theirs.
A necessary evil that is here to stay, unfortunately.
whembly wrote: As for Republicans looking to pass fines over stunts like the sit-in.
Here's the most neutral look at this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/can-they-do-these-rules-govern-protests-house-floor-n597161
Can They Do That? These Rules Govern Protests on House Floor
Play House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote 3:49
Democrats, led by civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, remained engaged early Thursday in a sit-in on the House floor in an effort to force a vote on gun control measures. Are they allowed to do that? Has this happened before?
Here's everything you need to know about the rules surrounding a protest like this.
What are the rules for this situation?
The House is currently in recess, and under the rules, the speaker is generally empowered "to preserve order and decorum." He has the ability to clear the lobby and galleries in the event of "disorderly conduct" and can direct the House's sergeant-at-arms to do so.
Related: House Democrats Hold Sit-In on Gun Control
Access to the House floor can be limited to "all persons except those privileged to remain," which usually means House members and authorized staff and selected authorized guests.
Bottom line: If members do not leave the floor and no compromise is reached, it is largely up to Speaker Paul Ryan to decide whether to use the authority of the House to seek to clear the floor and/or sanction members, or to keep the House in recess and wait out the issue.
Is there any precedent for this?
There was a stand-off in 2003, at a House Ways and Means hearing on retirement rules, where members broke decorum with insults, made apparent threats and walked out of the hearing.
The chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, said he called the sergeant-at-arms for order in the committee and asked Capitol police to remove the Democrats if needed. That controversial move was discussed on the floor, where Lewis likened the tactics to civil rights-era abuses of a "police state." Thomas later apologized — the issue was essentially resolved without police getting physically involved.
Are pictures allowed?
No. House members are violating rules by sharing pictures and video of the sit-in. House rules state that people on the floor may not "use a mobile electronic device that impairs decorum." The sergeant-at-arms is instructing members to refrain from doing so, according to Rep. John Yarmuth. This is a typical restriction on the House floor and not specific to the sit-in.
NBC News' Frank Thorp notes that as speaker, Boehner used to implore members not to use their phones for sharing pictures and video. Ryan has not emphasized that as much to date.
Has this rule been violated before?
Yes. Freshman Congressman Mike Bishop tweeted a picture while presiding over the House last year. He deleted it after Thorp pointed out the violation.
Members also appear to make occasional knowing violations for special occasions. The main example is taking pictures at the State of the Union — which is a special case where the House is not debating or governing. Otherwise, the rule is generally followed.
Is there ever a time when pictures are allowed to be posted from the floor?
Yes. During the opening hour of each session of Congress, House rules have not been technically adopted and members have been known to post photos during that time.
What's the bottom line?
Democrats conducting the sit-in may not care much about violating the rules, since one can argue the entire sit-in is a challenge to how the House normally operates under the rules.
Frankly, the Democrats were being fething babies and the Speaker has every right to do this.
Democrats could've simply held their sit-ins at the step of Congress if they wanted attention.
If the Republicans wanted the sit-in to stop they just had to compromise, right?
Compromise WHAT exactly?
The House floor had adjourned, and decorum is a thing.
This was a petulant crybaby reaction when the House refused to vote on new gun control measures after the Pulse shooting... which, these measures WOULD.NOT.HAVE.STOPPED.THAT.SHOOTING.IN.THE.FIRST.PLACE.
I'm going to bookmark this response for future use. Thank you.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Pouncey wrote: Do you, like, really NEED a weapon whose only possible use in a war is making innocent civilians die?
Well we can't get rid of them - mutually assured destruction is the only thing stopping their use. If various countries started disarming, they will effectively end up being held at ransom by the countries who kept theirs.
A necessary evil that is here to stay, unfortunately.
Really?
You think the USA can be held at RANSOM, with NUKES?
Let's just assume, for whatever reason, the USA is the first to disarm completely, and thus has no nuclear capabilities. This happens, let's say, an hour from now, because the reality in this hypothetical example is that they deactivated all their nukes a decade ago and simply acted like they didn't. They have missiles in silos, but they couldn't ever cause a nuclear explosion, and they didn't see any reason to tell anyone until an hour from now.
Well, for one thing, it proves that merely the THREAT is good enough. So long as a person BELIEVES you have a functional weapon, they're going to act the same way. Most competent people who rob banks with an actual gun couldn't shoot anyone if they tried, because people simply don't know for sure if it's loaded or not, so they're gonna act like it is, and enough people actually do bring loaded guns that the threat is still credible. As a result, because they don't see ANYTHING good coming out of a situation where they ACTUALLY kill someone in a bank robbery instead of only THREATENING to kill someone with no ability or intent to actually do it, to the point they don't even bring bullets with them because they'll just go to jail for a way, WAY lesser crime than go to jail for way, WAY longer if they ever kill someone.
There was a situation recently where an Internet troll phoned in a false bomb threat to a gaming company executive's plane. He never actually planted a bomb or even tried to find out how to build one or buy one, he just picked up the phone and called the airport to tell them about a bomb on the plane. Because he was a 15-year-old, and no one could ever possibly have gotten hurt by what he did, only inconvenienced and annoyed, the judge didn't throw the book at him. He got probation instead.
However, for whatever reason, they decided to actually tell us, instead of merely only pretending until we invent body armor that means that nukes are kinda useless because infantry can survive nukes. That'll start to happen around the same time we actually are capable of invading another star system IRL, hence why nukes are useless against space aliens that invade us. By then, we'll have weapons more destructive than nukes, and we shouldn't rule out the possibility of wiping out a species by either designing a torpedo that does enough damage to a planet to kill everything on it, or if we run out of those or never think of building them, just, like, ramming one of our interstellar spaceships into a planet at full speed to do the same thing. That is how good our technology will be at that point. I could describe further, but just, like, imagine how the recent war with ISIS would go if the US military had access to body armor that could take a nuke. Like, you've seen Iron Man in the movies? Imagine body armor and weapons that just one-shots Iron Man if it ever feels the need to simply stop letting Tony Stark shoot him until he gets bored with the idea. Tony Stark is afraid of nukes. These guys aren't, and their weapons will take themselves out too. For an example of how a nuke isn't good enough but an anti-personnel weapon does the job just fine, just remember why people sometimes lie down on a bed of nails and let people place concrete cinderblocks on a wooden board on their abdomens then SMASH THE CINDERBLOCK TO BITS with a sledgehammer. What is their explanation for how that works when they just get up and walk away, totally unharmed? "The most impenetrable armor of all is physics."
Anyways, setting aside the highly unlikely possibility of being invaded by space aliens being a situation we might ever have to worry about, or could do anything about for the foreseeable future, let's get back to the point - disarming nukes entirely.
The USA and Russia have actually been disarming nukes already. Tens of thousands fewer of them exist now than did a few decades ago, because we started cannibalizing them for fuel for nuclear reactors on things like power plants. Like, on nuclear powered ships.
Basically, your own military considers the uranium in your nuclear missiles useless enough for the purpose of fighting a war nowadays they'd rather take nukes apart and use the radioactive stuff that makes it go BOOM! as fuel for things like aircraft carriers and submarines. I don't care how well I explain anything, I cannot make a better argument than THAT.
whembly wrote: As for Republicans looking to pass fines over stunts like the sit-in.
Here's the most neutral look at this:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/can-they-do-these-rules-govern-protests-house-floor-n597161
Can They Do That? These Rules Govern Protests on House Floor
Play House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
House Sings 'We Shall Overcome' During Vote 3:49
Democrats, led by civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, remained engaged early Thursday in a sit-in on the House floor in an effort to force a vote on gun control measures. Are they allowed to do that? Has this happened before?
Here's everything you need to know about the rules surrounding a protest like this.
What are the rules for this situation?
The House is currently in recess, and under the rules, the speaker is generally empowered "to preserve order and decorum." He has the ability to clear the lobby and galleries in the event of "disorderly conduct" and can direct the House's sergeant-at-arms to do so.
Related: House Democrats Hold Sit-In on Gun Control
Access to the House floor can be limited to "all persons except those privileged to remain," which usually means House members and authorized staff and selected authorized guests.
Bottom line: If members do not leave the floor and no compromise is reached, it is largely up to Speaker Paul Ryan to decide whether to use the authority of the House to seek to clear the floor and/or sanction members, or to keep the House in recess and wait out the issue.
Is there any precedent for this?
There was a stand-off in 2003, at a House Ways and Means hearing on retirement rules, where members broke decorum with insults, made apparent threats and walked out of the hearing.
The chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, said he called the sergeant-at-arms for order in the committee and asked Capitol police to remove the Democrats if needed. That controversial move was discussed on the floor, where Lewis likened the tactics to civil rights-era abuses of a "police state." Thomas later apologized — the issue was essentially resolved without police getting physically involved.
Are pictures allowed?
No. House members are violating rules by sharing pictures and video of the sit-in. House rules state that people on the floor may not "use a mobile electronic device that impairs decorum." The sergeant-at-arms is instructing members to refrain from doing so, according to Rep. John Yarmuth. This is a typical restriction on the House floor and not specific to the sit-in.
NBC News' Frank Thorp notes that as speaker, Boehner used to implore members not to use their phones for sharing pictures and video. Ryan has not emphasized that as much to date.
Has this rule been violated before?
Yes. Freshman Congressman Mike Bishop tweeted a picture while presiding over the House last year. He deleted it after Thorp pointed out the violation.
Members also appear to make occasional knowing violations for special occasions. The main example is taking pictures at the State of the Union — which is a special case where the House is not debating or governing. Otherwise, the rule is generally followed.
Is there ever a time when pictures are allowed to be posted from the floor?
Yes. During the opening hour of each session of Congress, House rules have not been technically adopted and members have been known to post photos during that time.
What's the bottom line?
Democrats conducting the sit-in may not care much about violating the rules, since one can argue the entire sit-in is a challenge to how the House normally operates under the rules.
Frankly, the Democrats were being fething babies and the Speaker has every right to do this.
Democrats could've simply held their sit-ins at the step of Congress if they wanted attention.
If the Republicans wanted the sit-in to stop they just had to compromise, right?
Compromise WHAT exactly?
The House floor had adjourned, and decorum is a thing.
This was a petulant crybaby reaction when the House refused to vote on new gun control measures after the Pulse shooting... which, these measures WOULD.NOT.HAVE.STOPPED.THAT.SHOOTING.IN.THE.FIRST.PLACE.
I'm going to bookmark this response for future use. Thank you.
Bookmark away, as it'll be shown how silly you are in this instance.
I know what the purpose of nukes originally was. Taking out all the war production facilities in an entire city. Because we invented them during WW2 instead of the modern era, we went, "Hey, our bombers can't even hit a city block, let's just blow up the entire city instead!" You were already dropping enough FIRE bombs on Japan's WOODEN cities that you ran out of bombs. So you wanted a way to take out the entire city with one bomb, because strategic bombing was already a thing before nukes were invented.
If we invented the nuclear bomb today to solve the original problem, the answer would be, "Sure, we COULD do that... or we could just, like, blow up the factories with cruise missiles, and just NOT blow up the city too. That's an option, you know."
I mean, really, the only reason to use a nuke at all nowadays is because you want to kill a lot of innocent civilians along with the stuff you ACTUALLY care about destroying.
Do you, like, really NEED a weapon whose only possible use in a war is making innocent civilians die?
There are lots of practical uses for nukes (in a military sense) beyond just killing civilians. This is mostly negated by everyones threat of immediate escalation threats everyone has in place due to the emotions and perceptions around nukes such that its unlikely to see them used in such roles, but they do exist. Its a lot easier to take out a carrier battle group with a sub launched nuclear torpedo for instance than by conventional means. A small tactical nuke makes a wonderful tool to obliterate a tank brigade or enemy airfield.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
I know this thread is a politics thread, but not a religion thread, but this is one case where the two subjects blur the line.
Let's just, assume, that for whatever reason, the USA is basing their laws on what Christianity teaches. In reality this is currently happening because enough people fail to understand the separation that elections are affected by religion, and the people voting are casting their ballots based on their personal beliefs, so the "why" doesn't really matter when the same thing is happening.
Does that mean that the USA, as a country that is being ruled under the presumption that it must enforce Christian values, still cannot have gay marriage, even if it assumed that being gay was as immoral as having sex with a dog?
Because, I mean, no one's trying to get the USA to legalize the latter, not even people in favor of gay marriage.
I mean, let's just stop trying to convince people their beliefs are wrong, and treat them as the truth.
And the truth, as Christianity sees it, is that lots of things are sins. You could probably classify gay marriage as lust if you wanted to. That's one of the seven deadly sins.
But, the USA hasn't managed to make pornography illegal. It has ads on TV trying to convince people not to use it. Christians teach entire generations of American teenagers that sex is immoral and you should only have sex while married, but adultery isn't a crime anymore. It's just as immoral, as is infidelity (most people agree on cheating being immoral), but they're not crimes.
I mean, if a gay person wanted to be a devout Catholic, if they had a husband, they could avoid going to Hell for being gay entirely by simply adding their romantic encounters with their husband (they're a devout Catholic living in a country where gay marriage is legal, they're not sleeping around and thinking it's okay just because they're gay) to the list of things they say to their priest after the words, "Forgive me father, for I have sinned."
I mean, you're CHRISTIANS. You don't believe that even the sin of committing murder is actually unforgivable enough that no murderer could ever go to heaven.
Is being gay really worse than murder, as far as sins go? You don't stop people with criminal records from getting married, do you? You don't stop thieves from getting married.
For all the silly sins that Christians hundreds of years ago used to believe that they don't anymore, there are still plenty of things that Christianity teaches that pretty much everyone agrees are good things to believe. If you're a Christian, those things are probably why YOU believe it.
Your religion is based on peace, love and forgiveness. Not hatred and intolerance. Anyone who kills in the name of God or Jesus is, frankly, completely misunderstanding what messages Jesus tried to teach people. Consider how he died, why he was executed by his own government, and what his last words were before his execution (I think it was "Forgive them father, they know not what they do.), and imagine what he might say about followers of his words who cannot simply forgive someone who has sinned, based on what he said and did in the Bible. Just forgive the sin of gay marriage the same way you forgive any other sin that might lend you yourself in Hell that is not actually a crime.
C) People not acting like their religion is no big shocker. Christianity is a big religion, with a lot of sub-religions with varying ideas and beliefs. The Bible is wildly open to interpretation and with that comes various opinions on what is/isn't acceptable behavior.
Compel wrote: Yeah, sticking with the Mexican standoff analogy. Let's say everyone agrees to put down their guns and back away from the table.
How many people's have an extra pistol in their back pocket?
Let's say, one of them draws that pistol. They're now in control.
That happens too in movies. Generally no one ends up getting shot, because the people who now don't have guns can convince the only person in the room with a gun that their life is no longer in danger, so just put down the gun, and let's talk about this.
I mean, if you're the only person with a gun, and no one in the room even has or wants a gun, what happens next? People try to meet your demands if they can afford to do so, but if they're unreasonable, they try to reason with you.
Do you really want to be the one person waving a loaded gun around in a roomful of scared people, insisting that because you have a gun, they should do whatever you want them to?
That happens in real life. Does it ever work? Do the police with guns even use them to resolve the situation?
I mean, if you need me, personally, to do something, and you threaten to kill me, and I say no, you might be confused. You might think I didn't understand you correctly. I understood you just fine, I simply understood that you didn't just shoot me and do what you wanted because you need me alive to do something, and if I'm dead, I can't exactly do that for you.
How many countries in the world would suffer MASSIVELY if the USA got nuked to the point they were no longer a valuable trading partner? Just economically? You can no longer buy or sell goods to or from the USA, because the USA is the one country on Earth that got nuked.
You ever think maybe the USA's existence affects OTHER countries too?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jreilly89 wrote: Okay, going to try to break down your rambling:
C) People not acting like their religion is no big shocker. Christianity is a big religion, with a lot of sub-religions with varying ideas and beliefs. The Bible is wildly open to interpretation and with that comes various opinions on what is/isn't acceptable behavior.
A) Ah, sorry, I thought the opposition was more widespread. My mistake.
B) Unfortunately, it is not an uncommon comparison for some of the people who oppose it to make.
C) Yeah, I know. I mean, I could've summed up most of my post by quoting Gandhi, who said something about the difference between Christians and Christ.
D) It was a dumb post. I'll go edit it out of existence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 16:25:35
You think the USA can be held at RANSOM, with NUKES?
Anyone who doesn't have nuclear weapons are essentially at the beck and call of countries that do have them; the reason they haven't been blown to smithereens is because they are allied with countries that do have nuclear weapons, or they're doing nothing to threaten the countries with nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter who you are - unless America really has managed to make anti nuke space lasers like they "developed" in the 80's, you have nothing to assure your safety from people who have them.
Spoiler:
Let's just assume, for whatever reason, the USA is the first to disarm completely, and thus has no nuclear capabilities. This happens, let's say, an hour from now, because the reality in this hypothetical example is that they deactivated all their nukes a decade ago and simply acted like they didn't. They have missiles in silos, but they couldn't ever cause a nuclear explosion, and they didn't see any reason to tell anyone until an hour from now.
Well, for one thing, it proves that merely the THREAT is good enough. So long as a person BELIEVES you have a functional weapon, they're going to act the same way. Most competent people who rob banks with an actual gun couldn't shoot anyone if they tried, because people simply don't know for sure if it's loaded or not, so they're gonna act like it is, and enough people actually do bring loaded guns that the threat is still credible. As a result, because they don't see ANYTHING good coming out of a situation where they ACTUALLY kill someone in a bank robbery instead of only THREATENING to kill someone with no ability or intent to actually do it, to the point they don't even bring bullets with them because they'll just go to jail for a way, WAY lesser crime than go to jail for way, WAY longer if they ever kill someone.
There was a situation recently where an Internet troll phoned in a false bomb threat to a gaming company executive's plane. He never actually planted a bomb or even tried to find out how to build one or buy one, he just picked up the phone and called the airport to tell them about a bomb on the plane. Because he was a 15-year-old, and no one could ever possibly have gotten hurt by what he did, only inconvenienced and annoyed, the judge didn't throw the book at him. He got probation instead.
However, for whatever reason, they decided to actually tell us, instead of merely only pretending until we invent body armor that means that nukes are kinda useless because infantry can survive nukes. That'll start to happen around the same time we actually are capable of invading another star system IRL, hence why nukes are useless against space aliens that invade us. By then, we'll have weapons more destructive than nukes, and we shouldn't rule out the possibility of wiping out a species by either designing a torpedo that does enough damage to a planet to kill everything on it, or if we run out of those or never think of building them, just, like, ramming one of our interstellar spaceships into a planet at full speed to do the same thing. That is how good our technology will be at that point. I could describe further, but just, like, imagine how the recent war with ISIS would go if the US military had access to body armor that could take a nuke. Like, you've seen Iron Man in the movies? Imagine body armor and weapons that just one-shots Iron Man if it ever feels the need to simply stop letting Tony Stark shoot him until he gets bored with the idea. Tony Stark is afraid of nukes. These guys aren't, and their weapons will take themselves out too. For an example of how a nuke isn't good enough but an anti-personnel weapon does the job just fine, just remember why people sometimes lie down on a bed of nails and let people place concrete cinderblocks on a wooden board on their abdomens then SMASH THE CINDERBLOCK TO BITS with a sledgehammer. What is their explanation for how that works when they just get up and walk away, totally unharmed? "The most impenetrable armor of all is physics."
Anyways, setting aside the highly unlikely possibility of being invaded by space aliens being a situation we might ever have to worry about, or could do anything about for the foreseeable future, let's get back to the point - disarming nukes entirely.
It works until people realise that you don't have nuclear weapons. What happens after that?
Best to keep them so such an event never comes to fruition - it's not worth it for the potential of a spy uncovering the truth and subsequently ending up in a nuclear war that won't end in mutually assured destruction.
The USA and Russia have actually been disarming nukes already. Tens of thousands fewer of them exist now than did a few decades ago, because we started cannibalizing them for fuel for nuclear reactors on things like power plants. Like, on nuclear powered ships.
Basically, your own military considers the uranium in your nuclear missiles useless enough for the purpose of fighting a war nowadays they'd rather take nukes apart and use the radioactive stuff that makes it go BOOM! as fuel for things like aircraft carriers and submarines. I don't care how well I explain anything, I cannot make a better argument than THAT.
They still have tens of thousands - still enough to blow up the earth hundreds of times over; disarming them has ultimately made no difference in terms of the power of those nations - it's mostly for the materials you mentioned as well as good international PR.
~1.5k
