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.
whembly wrote: No. The Constituion gave the Senate leeway in how they should conduct their business.
Only if you argue literal RAW vs. RAI. The unwritten rules and intent of the system was that "checks and balances" (a term not explicitly used in the constitution for the concept) meant that each branch would act as a failsafe against the excesses of the others. The filibuster (another concept not explicitly mentioned in the constitution) was a last-resort option to stop the worst of the majority party's plans. And that's how it was used for a long time. Particularly controversial or objectionable bills were occasionally filibustered, but it wasn't a routine act. Most of the senate's business was handled by simple majority votes. The republican "filibuster everything" policy changed this unwritten rule and made the 60-vote majority a requirement for everything. Whether or not their actions were legal RAW it was clearly breaking the system RAI.
I'd argue that the system wasn't 'broken'. Sure, gak didn't get done to the level of what the majority party wanted, but the intent of the 60 votes needed to allow bills/nominations on the floor was to protect the minority party AND force the group to be more 'deliberative'.
You can argue it, but you would be wrong. Positions in government have to be filled, we're not supposed to have courts with empty seats that are not going to be filled on the foreseeable future. If one party is going to expand "obstruct the most objectionable choices" into "obstruct everything that isn't giving the republican party 100% of what they want" then the system is not functioning as it is supposed to. At some point you just have to accept that the president is going to appoint people that agree with his policy positions and the best you can do as the minority party is encourage centrist members of the president's party rather than extremists.
Can you at least acknowledge that Reid's invoking the nuclear option weakened the minority party?
Yes, but only because the republican party thoroughly demonstrated that it couldn't be trusted with that power and removing it was necessary to keep the government functioning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: To be honest, under Clinton, I think we had more possibility of military engagements than under Trump, if her past voting record and actions are any guide.
I suppose this is another case of "ignore what Trump says he wants to do and assume that he'll magically become the president we want him to be", given Trump's comments about wanting to fight wars and use nuclear weapons?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/31 23:37:03
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
whembly wrote: D) if there were some smoking gun, and the intelligence/Obama admin withheld it, that's a god damned disaster imo. The people has the right to know this, and our government ought to spill the beans. If it does exist... the only reason I can think of why Obama admin would suppress it, is because it's casus belli for fething war.
Another reason for not releasing the "smoking gun" could be how that proof was acquired. Could be a mole/spy within the Russian government itself. Could be some secret government system or monitoring program. There's also something to be said for keeping the proof secret, so that Russia can't be certain about what we really know. Could be the proof was gained because we hacked Russia, and we don't want them to know we hacked them because we're just that good.
There is a smoking gun, several of them in fact. The flipside of the DNC being a "private" organisation is that they hired cyber security firms to investigate the hacking. The reports from these firms are not subject to the same rules of secrecy as the CIA/FBI reports. The security firms' reports point at Russian agencies close to the Russian government. Etc. I won't bother to type it all out because this information is easily available from the BBC, as reliable and non-partisan source of info on the US political scene as you are likely to find in the ENglish language.
whembly wrote: 'cuz, you'd have to admit his actions so far has been surprising.
No, I really don't. The exact names he picked to fill his swamp might have been hard to predict, but he's been doing exactly what we expected from him. If you're surprised by his actions it's only because you believed his lies and wanted everything to be ok.
Nah... I was worried that he wouldn't pick competent people.
I'm relieved that he's listening to his peeps (VP, Conway, et. el.) rather going rogue.
Look at it from Compel's viewpoint... in a westminster system, do go against your party is big news. Unlike here, US congressional critters aren't as beholden to their party.
Maybe in a relative sense, but party loyalty is strong enough in the US, especially on major issues, that the difference doesn't really mean much.
I disagree. It's nothing like the Westminster system where official sanctions are a thing if you don't toe the line.
You can sure as gak know that the establishment GOP didn't want him in the early primary.
They might not have wanted him, but they sure didn't hesitate to fall in line behind him once he proved that he could be a winner. If the party leadership had wanted Trump gone they could have easily said "Trump is removed from our party's primaries, Cruz is now our presidential candidate" at any time. But instead the republican party accepted that Trump is the new leadership.
And incur the wrath of many Trump voters? Yeah... the GOP isn't the DNC to have 'superdelegates' to guide the primary.
I'm in Calvin Ball mode here... I really couldn't give a gak what Trump does.
So, you're just here to play partisan politics and tell everyone how awful The Other Team is without caring at all about the stuff you're arguing about? I mean, we kind of knew this already, but it's nice to hear you confirm it.
:roll eyes:
No... I just don't give a gak about Trump (and by extension Clinton had she won). I already went through my stages of grief back when it was obvious it was going to be both Trump v. Clinton.
My apparent loyalty towards the rest of the GOP is really more of a reflection of my abject opposition to most things modern Democrats had done/advocated for...
No, it's very clearly based on My Team vs. The Other Team, not any practical policy issues. This is demonstrated over and over again each time you embrace every single low-credibility source that makes The Other Team look bad, ignore the mountains of evidence presented that you're wrong and come right back with the same old arguments, etc. Perhaps the straw man democrats in your own version of the world are truly as awful as you believe, but in the real world your opposition is unconvincing at best.
That's load of horse manure.
Democrats deserves whatever scorn and ire. Apparently the rest of America though so as Democrats got spanked in every government level since 2008. That's going to be Obama's true legacy... and he'll own that decimation for quite sometime. They're only saving grace is Trump feths up royally, that the Democrats will experience a 'Tea Party-like' uprising.
What's SoS getting out of it?
He's making a feth-ton of money as CEO *now*... so, he's taking a serious paycut.
Do you honestly not see how being secretary of state has a lot of potential to get income (both for yourself and for your allies) other than just the official salary? I mean, the whole "pay to play" thing about Clinton certainly wasn't about the vast riches she was getting from her official salary. So why are you suddenly forgetting how this works when it comes to Trump's version of the swamp?
Is this you admitting the Clintons did a bad thing?
Are you implying that he paid Trump for the SoS pick? If so, I'd be interesting in some investigation on that.
Nobody is implying anything, they're stating it explicitly. Trump's SoS pick is a major donor to Trump's foundation. This is at least as compelling as any of the evidence of donors to Clinton's foundation getting special privileges in return, but instead of the outrage you had over everything related to Clinton you're just calmly expressing interest in an investigation. Have you already forgotten your outrage over Clinton's "scandal", or is Trump's version less objectionable because it's Your Team doing it?
That politics dejour... in every administration political positions are filled with donors.
I'm just waiting for proof that the SoS is monetizing SoS access like the Clinton Foundation.
whembly wrote: D) if there were some smoking gun, and the intelligence/Obama admin withheld it, that's a god damned disaster imo. The people has the right to know this, and our government ought to spill the beans. If it does exist... the only reason I can think of why Obama admin would suppress it, is because it's casus belli for fething war.
Another reason for not releasing the "smoking gun" could be how that proof was acquired. Could be a mole/spy within the Russian government itself. Could be some secret government system or monitoring program. There's also something to be said for keeping the proof secret, so that Russia can't be certain about what we really know. Could be the proof was gained because we hacked Russia, and we don't want them to know we hacked them because we're just that good.
That's... a good point.
However, I'd argue that it worth burning those systems in favor of publically displaying the smoking gun prior to the elections.
Compel wrote: I suppose one thing to say, Whembly is, I guess why some of the frustration is that ultimately, people more on the left really would like you to speak out more on the things on the right you're less happy with. Because, basically, when it comes to those on the centre-right or the right, on the forums at least, your word does carry more weight with them. And that's why people further left get really frustrated with you.
I'm a conservative. Polices and what our government does will dictate my reaction.
Cheeto Jesus hasn't done jack gak because HE'S NOT POTUS yet.
So, for all the cries of 'why aren't you bitching at Trump for the same thing that Clinton has done!!!!!!'...
It's a bit silly to harangue me over this...
Ultimately, former presidential candidates are now irrelevant if they no longer hold office.
Ultimately, yes that's true.
In 20 days time, the current administration is also going to become, effectively irrelevant.
I'll be one fething happy camper in that regard.
Noone has actually really answered my questions a few days ago about how, in 20 days time, the Democratic party are going to be, effectively, irrelevant.
Not really. US political critters do NOT vote like the way your UK Westminster system does.
It's not a given that the party votes in 'lock-step' with their colleagues.
In the Senate, most things will still need 60 votes to allow a bill to be vote for laws (with some few exceptions), so the Democrats still has some sway.
I'm oft reminded of the common argument made after incidents of, "why don't the X community leaders speak out against subfaction Y if they supposedly oppose it. Nah I think that X community leaders secretly approve of it." And that's because the words of community leaders X hold more weight towards the greater members of X. Ultimately, whether you wanted to be or not, (probably by the fact you post more often), you are one of the Republican community leaders on Dakka and I really would ask you to call out any BS you see from the Right, because to be honest, if it comes from anyone judged to be one iota left of even 'center right', it's just going to be ignored as... I think the phrase someone used a few days ago was "libetard ramblings." - Something like that anyway.
And this is me saying it, not only as an outsider and not an American but also as someone on the UK politics thread finds myself sitting on the right side of the fence on most of the discussions there.
If I see some shenanigans by the GOP party, I'll speak up.
Lord knows that they'll be ample opportunites to feth up.
Whatever a presidential candidate has said becomes internationally politically significant as soon as he is elected.
Cheeto Jesus has already upset the China policy, pissed on the UK government's chips, stuck his tongue a long way up Russia's arse, interfered in the Middle East, and annoyed the Mexicans, Canadians, South Korea and Japan.
So? He really can't do gak yet.
A) I'm glad he talked to Taiwan... that's a good tactic to keep China on their toes.
B) 'pissed on UK government's chips'... huh? Is that the windmill thing by his golf course?
C) Trump dry humping Russia is concerning. I can only hope it's simply an 'Alpha Male' club acknowledgement... in that, 'hey, I'm top dog here... you are top dog there... let's be cool'.
D) Interfered with Middle East? You mean announcing his oppostion to the last UN resolution? Good for Trump. feth the UN.
E) Annoyed the Mexican, Canadians, South Korea and Japan - Tough gak. He's going to be President. Deal. Or, don't deal. :shrugs:
He can and is doing [MOD EDIT - Language! - Alpharius], a lot of it stuff that upsets the current international balance, whether for good or ill is a matter for debate.
The point is that you said nothing Trump does means anything until Jan 21 and this is obviously nonsense.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/01 01:54:01
Sure we do. And this is exactly what we're talking about: Clinton hasn't been president, but you have no problem using her past actions (whether or not there is even proof of them) to predict what she would do as president. But when it comes to the guy on Your Team suddenly we have to forget his entire history, because he hasn't actually been president yet and maybe everything will change after inauguration day. This is a blatant double standard.
It's not a blatant double standards...
Hillary Clinton has been in politics for over 20 years.
Trump has been in politics... what.... you tell me.
I have zero clue on what he's going to do, other than it'll most likely be disasterous since he's the newbie on the scene.
The one thing I know is that conventional wisdom is fething shot... so who the feth know what he's going to do...
He's had over seven decades on the planet to show what kind of person he is and how he operates. It's perfectly valid to use that to predict what he'll do and how he'll act.
Is this the part where we pretend that other countries don't pay attention to what the soon-to-be president does and says? Trump's Twitter account matters, and that's terrifying.
Spinner wrote: He's had over seven decades on the planet to show what kind of person he is and how he operates. It's perfectly valid to use that to predict what he'll do and how he'll act.
I'm not disagreeing with you in this respect. He's a man-baby who's dangerous if he doesn't get his way...
I'm merely arguing that idea that Trump et. el are doing the EXACT SAME thing as the Clintons and that I should be yammering away at Trump.
Is this the part where we pretend that other countries don't pay attention to what the soon-to-be president does and says? Trump's Twitter account matters, and that's terrifying.
whembly wrote: I have zero clue on what he's going to do, other than it'll most likely be disasterous since he's the newbie on the scene.
Then you aren't paying attention. The fact that he hasn't been in politics doesn't mean it's impossible to predict what he's going to do. For example, his cabinet picks so far have been entirely in line with what I was expecting: some generic "recognizable name" republicans, lots of industry connections and campaign donations, and not much concern for their competence at running their departments.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Spinner wrote: He's had over seven decades on the planet to show what kind of person he is and how he operates. It's perfectly valid to use that to predict what he'll do and how he'll act.
I'm not disagreeing with you in this respect. He's a man-baby who's dangerous if he doesn't get his way...
I'm merely arguing that idea that Trump et. el are doing the EXACT SAME thing as the Clintons and that I should be yammering away at Trump.
Well, if Clinton gave control of federal departments to the people donating to her foundation, yeah.
But she didn't and Trump did.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Hillary Clinton has been in politics for over 20 years.
Trump has been in politics... what.... you tell me.
How long has Trump been in business and been cheating people and going bankrupt? How long have we known about his business practices and dealings? Cherry picking is fun!
Mitochondria wrote: Trump is going to rewrite the paradigm of the presidency.
Yeah he will show that a racist, sexual assault committing, scamming possible rapist can get to become president and that 60 + million idiots will vote for him
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/01 04:59:43
To be clear, if you feel another user isn't 'worth' responding to, then don't respond to them. I don't want to see any more posts which have the sole purpose of pointing out what other users do. Please ensure you are adding to the on topic discussion with your posts. Thanks
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
The articles directly say these are allegations and assessments. That means that while suspicions are fair, proof is needed before anything is done. They aren't even about the same incidents.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/01 10:30:35
New year, time for a new thread as/when/if people so desire.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
