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.
Clinton was an awful candidate, who was always going to lose IMO. Yes, I admit that I predicted a Clinton victory months ago, but after Brexit, I knew the game was up for Clinton and adjusted my opinion accordingly.
America is ready for a female Commander in Chief, but it's any woman but Clinton is what my reading is of the situation.
That's a pretty weird conclusion after Clinton won the popular vote and lost a razor-close election.
Less than 100k votes out of 120 million going the other way (or simply staying home on election day) in a few key-states and HRC win the election. Hardly a candidate who was "always going to lose".
National popular vote is meaningless.
What was gobsmackingly crazy was that Clinton lost states that she thought were safely in her corner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's meaningless insofar as the it doesn't gain you any electoral seats. I only brought it up because I believe it further illustrates the closeness of the election and that it's weird to claim Clinton was doomed from the get-go. There were obviously enough people willing to vote for her. Some of them were just living in the wrong states.
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all flipped compared to the last election and were presumably believed pretty safe by the Clinton team. Margin of victory in those three states were less than 10k, 23k, 45k voters respectively. If a combined 80k republican voters in these states abstain from voting for president of votes for a third party candidate (i.e they don't even need to flip to Clinton) that's 46 electoral votes swung, taking Trump down to 260 electors and Clinton up to 278.
A victory that's completely turned around by a reduction of 80k votes in three key states, out of 120 million is hardly something that was a sure thing or something that could be confidently predicted.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But she lost to Trump. How bad do you have to be to lose to Trump, regardless of what system was used?
You're moving the goalposts here. What I took exception to were you claiming Clinton was always going to lose this election. While she did lose it against Trump of all people (and thus indeed were a bad candidate), the margin were so thin it could have very well have gone the other way.
It's like if the football world cup final goes into overtime despite loads of scoring opportunities and shots in the frame of the goal to either side and is eventually decided on penalties. You can hardly claim that it was obvious that the losers of the penalty shootout was always going to lose the match. Had they simply been slightly more effective on one of their chances during the play they'd have won. Claiming otherwise is rewriting the narrative in hindsight to fit a constructed narrative.
As I said above. 80k republicans in a certain three states decides to not vote for trump and Clinton takes the election. It was that close.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/04 19:01:42
I thought I posted some articles about how Cozybear and the other group were known to work with but not necessarily for RIS. They have ties to GRU for example, but no one has published any proof they conducted this operation on behalf of RIS (any of the organizations making up RIS). Actors linked to RIS seems pretty certain. It also seems certain RNC was targeted in the same way but did not fall prey at nearly the same level.
I just wish the gov't had gotten as upset at the OPM hack that stole millions of records, to include the security clearance records of both my wife and I. It would seem a hack of an actual gov't agency by China would merit at least the same level of sanctions the hacking of a private agency like the DNC got. The info gleaned from that hack allows a lot of damage via decent link analysis; gives military assignments/units/schooling for all troops with a clearance for example. That allows a lot of puzzle pieces to connect for a variety reasons. Not to mention SSNs of family members and so on given away... fething gak storm.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/04 19:23:26
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Our governments computer and security protocols and software are in long need of an update. Major corporations have better defense than most of our government organizations. And Congress doesn't do gak about it, nothing ever came from that massive leak of personal data of government workers (which my father got a single email telling him his information may have been compromised, and than nothing else). And I seriously doubt Trump, who doesn't use computers and refuses to communicate with e-mail, will do anything about. But this is what happens when the median age of those in power is 70, and they refuse to learn.
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: Our governments computer and security protocols and software are in long need of an update. Major corporations have better defense than most of our government organizations. And Congress doesn't do gak about it, nothing ever came from that massive leak of personal data of government workers (which my father got a single email telling him his information may have been compromised, and than nothing else). And I seriously doubt Trump, who doesn't use computers and refuses to communicate with e-mail, will do anything about. But this is what happens when the median age of those in power is 70, and they refuse to learn.
Not only the protocols, the hardware too. You have military computer systems which control nuclear weapon systems which are still using eight inch floppy disks, for goodness sake
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/04 19:37:16
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.
The DNC could have avoided the hacking problem by, you know... Not being two-faced donkey-caves. If they operated on some basic level of decency and transparency there wouldn't be any dirty laundry to reveal. I know that's unrealistic but we should remember that there's a decent chunk to blame to spread elsewhere.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The DNC could have avoided the hacking problem by, you know... Not being two-faced donkey-caves. If they operated on some basic level of decency and transparency there wouldn't be any dirty laundry to reveal. I know that's unrealistic but we should remember that there's a decent chunk to blame to spread elsewhere.
I'd say it's that they are politicians, but it's even worse they are political operatives. I know people go on about "don't trust politicians" or "politicians are all lairs", but groups like the DNC and RNC really exemplify it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, Trump promised us a "big reveal" about hacking "Tuesday or Wednesday". Who wants to take bets on what nonsense it will be?
"Under an amendment the two GOP lawmakers filed on Tuesday, House members would be allowed to serve three two-year terms and senators would be able to serve two six-year terms. "
Somehow I don't think the house it going to OK that, and all the senators and reps that are already over the line are definitely going to vote it down. But I'm pretty sure Cruz knows this, and is just trying to keep his name in the public psyke for an eventual presidential run.
I'm not wholey opposed to term limits, but these ones are far too short, especially for the house. We don't want it to turn into the Michigan legislature, which would happen under these rules.
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.
I'm mystified by people believe that politics should be done by amateurs. Politicking is a skill set like any other. I want the people that make up my government to be really good at it, especially at an international level.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Even then, they're on the gravy train with jobs as lobbyists, commentators, think tank members, etc.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
WASHINGTON — Bills to block or roll back federal regulations, initially conceived by Republicans as a check on President Obama’s power, are high on the agenda when the House returns to Washington this week and the changes could become reality shortly after the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.
The 115th Congress begins Tuesday with a Republican majority in the House and Senate preparing for the arrival of a Republican president for the first time in eight years.
The House is expected to take up two bills — the Midnight Rules Act and the REINS Act (which stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) — that passed on largely party-line votes in the 114th, 113th and 112th congressional sessions, but died in the Senate. The REINS Act would require that before any new major regulation could take effect, the House and Senate would have to pass a resolution of approval. The Midnight Rules Act would let Congress invalidate rules in bulk that passed in the final year of a presidential term.
The House is also expected to consider a nonbinding resolution disapproving the Dec. 23 United Nations Security Council vote that called on Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank. The United States abstained in that vote, allowing the measure to pass.
Regulations are adopted by the executive branch to implement laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. Congress already has the power to repeal laws by passing a new bill and getting the president to sign it. And under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress can pass a resolution of disapproval to block a rule if it acts within 60 days of notification from an agency.
The new legislation would further expand congressional power by preventing an administration from implementing rules without another vote. Under the REINS act, a proposed regulation would be deemed rejected if Congress was in session for 70 days and took no action. The bill allows for a major rule to take effect for a single 90-day period if the president determined it was necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.
“Our federal agencies are out of control, and Congress is partly to blame for that,” the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, said in a release last week. “We’ve ceded our legislative responsibility to agencies that were never intended to make laws, and the result has been redundant, counterproductive rules that have massive impacts on our economy.”
When the House considered the Midnight Rules Act in November, the White House said it would recommend that Obama veto it. Trump, however, has taken a page from the conservative playbook and blamed government regulations for holding down economic growth and job creation. He has pledged to eliminate two regulations for every new one adopted during his presidency.
The REINS Act and Midnight Rules Act are aimed at major rules. An April 2015 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office said are those that meet one of these conditions: an economic impact of more than $100 million; cause significant price increases for consumers, industries, geographic regions or state or local governments; or have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity or foreign competition.
The CBO said that over the past five years, 82 major rules have been adopted each year, on average. Blocking such regulations in the future would have “a significant effect on direct spending,” but CBO could not predict whether the effect would be positive or negative because it could not say whether Congress would block regulations to increase or decrease spending.
Before the House voted on the final REINS Act in 2015, Democrats unsuccessfully tried to include amendments that would exempt rules that affected veterans health care, nuclear reactor safety, transportation of hazardous materials, and the safety of products used or consumed by children under the age of 2. Each attempt was rejected in a largely party-line vote.
Critics say the changes would endanger the public and worsen gridlock in government.
“Regulations are public protections that are intended to safeguard regular citizens from dealing with unclean air and water, financial crises and unsafe products,” said Lisa Gilbert, director of the CongressWatch program at Public Citizen. “They are intended to protect us, and to do away with them wholesale is an extremely problematic approach.”
Gilbert said that while no one would argue every regulation is perfect, the changes Congress seeks to make would effectively stymie future rulemaking and allow Congress to erase actions the Obama administration took since the summer. She said she hoped there would be enough votes in the Senate to sustain a filibuster on the Midnight Rules bill, but on the REINS Act, “it’s possible there could be a path” for it to pass.
No idea if Trump'll will sign the bill... as it'll potentially reduces his impact...
I'll have some crow to eat if he does sign either one of those...
Nor, it's a given that the Senate Democrats would be on board (the need for 60th vote)... dude... do you wanna rein in the Cheeto Jesus? This is one way, especially if you retake Congress.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/04 23:19:18
If the GOP were to impeach Trump in two years, or if he resigns in two years, then Pence would take over for the final two years of his term. He would then be eligible to run for two terms of his own? So we could have 2 years of Trump followed by 10 years of Pence, in theory at least?
Just wondering, because I wouldn't but it past the GOP to go that route if they think it's a possibility.
d-usa wrote: Quick question regarding the 22nd Amendment:
If the GOP were to impeach Trump in two years, or if he resigns in two years, then Pence would take over for the final two years of his term. He would then be eligible to run for two terms of his own? So we could have 2 years of Trump followed by 10 years of Pence, in theory at least?
Just wondering, because I wouldn't but it past the GOP to go that route if they think it's a possibility.
He'd have to be in office for LESS than two years. (ie, no more than 1 year and 364 days).
But, otherwise, you're correct.
Really confused on why you think the 'GOP' would want to do that tho...
d-usa wrote: Quick question regarding the 22nd Amendment:
If the GOP were to impeach Trump in two years, or if he resigns in two years, then Pence would take over for the final two years of his term. He would then be eligible to run for two terms of his own? So we could have 2 years of Trump followed by 10 years of Pence, in theory at least?
Just wondering, because I wouldn't but it past the GOP to go that route if they think it's a possibility.
He'd have to be in office for LESS than two years. (ie, no more than 1 year and 364 days).
But, otherwise, you're correct.
Really confused on why you think the 'GOP' would want to do that tho...
Because Trump's gonna Trump and can't be controlled by them, and Pence is a poster child for everything the GOP wants in Government and regulations. If they could get rid of Trump to get Pence, while opening the door of a 2.5 term Pence administration, they might be tempted. Especially if Trump keeps up his current actions, which may taint the GOP by association.
d-usa wrote: Quick question regarding the 22nd Amendment:
If the GOP were to impeach Trump in two years, or if he resigns in two years, then Pence would take over for the final two years of his term. He would then be eligible to run for two terms of his own? So we could have 2 years of Trump followed by 10 years of Pence, in theory at least?
Just wondering, because I wouldn't but it past the GOP to go that route if they think it's a possibility.
He'd have to be in office for LESS than two years. (ie, no more than 1 year and 364 days).
But, otherwise, you're correct.
Really confused on why you think the 'GOP' would want to do that tho...
Because Trump's gonna Trump and can't be controlled by them, and Pence is a poster child for everything the GOP wants in Government and regulations. If they could get rid of Trump to get Pence, while opening the door of a 2.5 term Pence administration, they might be tempted. Especially if Trump keeps up his current actions, which may taint the GOP by association.
Cool story.
I think Trump is going to hang in 'cuz he hates losing and he's a big prick.
But, I've been so wrong in this election season, who knows what could happen...
feeder wrote: I'm mystified by people believe that politics should be done by amateurs. Politicking is a skill set like any other. I want the people that make up my government to be really good at it, especially at an international level.
Cincinnattus was usually used as the example of of someone who took power only when he had to and laid it down immediately after the crisis was over.
WASHINGTON — Bills to block or roll back federal regulations, initially conceived by Republicans as a check on President Obama’s power, are high on the agenda when the House returns to Washington this week and the changes could become reality shortly after the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.
The 115th Congress begins Tuesday with a Republican majority in the House and Senate preparing for the arrival of a Republican president for the first time in eight years.
The House is expected to take up two bills — the Midnight Rules Act and the REINS Act (which stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) — that passed on largely party-line votes in the 114th, 113th and 112th congressional sessions, but died in the Senate. The REINS Act would require that before any new major regulation could take effect, the House and Senate would have to pass a resolution of approval. The Midnight Rules Act would let Congress invalidate rules in bulk that passed in the final year of a presidential term.
The House is also expected to consider a nonbinding resolution disapproving the Dec. 23 United Nations Security Council vote that called on Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank. The United States abstained in that vote, allowing the measure to pass.
Regulations are adopted by the executive branch to implement laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. Congress already has the power to repeal laws by passing a new bill and getting the president to sign it. And under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress can pass a resolution of disapproval to block a rule if it acts within 60 days of notification from an agency.
The new legislation would further expand congressional power by preventing an administration from implementing rules without another vote. Under the REINS act, a proposed regulation would be deemed rejected if Congress was in session for 70 days and took no action. The bill allows for a major rule to take effect for a single 90-day period if the president determined it was necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.
“Our federal agencies are out of control, and Congress is partly to blame for that,” the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, said in a release last week. “We’ve ceded our legislative responsibility to agencies that were never intended to make laws, and the result has been redundant, counterproductive rules that have massive impacts on our economy.”
When the House considered the Midnight Rules Act in November, the White House said it would recommend that Obama veto it. Trump, however, has taken a page from the conservative playbook and blamed government regulations for holding down economic growth and job creation. He has pledged to eliminate two regulations for every new one adopted during his presidency.
The REINS Act and Midnight Rules Act are aimed at major rules. An April 2015 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office said are those that meet one of these conditions: an economic impact of more than $100 million; cause significant price increases for consumers, industries, geographic regions or state or local governments; or have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity or foreign competition.
The CBO said that over the past five years, 82 major rules have been adopted each year, on average. Blocking such regulations in the future would have “a significant effect on direct spending,” but CBO could not predict whether the effect would be positive or negative because it could not say whether Congress would block regulations to increase or decrease spending.
Before the House voted on the final REINS Act in 2015, Democrats unsuccessfully tried to include amendments that would exempt rules that affected veterans health care, nuclear reactor safety, transportation of hazardous materials, and the safety of products used or consumed by children under the age of 2. Each attempt was rejected in a largely party-line vote.
Critics say the changes would endanger the public and worsen gridlock in government.
“Regulations are public protections that are intended to safeguard regular citizens from dealing with unclean air and water, financial crises and unsafe products,” said Lisa Gilbert, director of the CongressWatch program at Public Citizen. “They are intended to protect us, and to do away with them wholesale is an extremely problematic approach.”
Gilbert said that while no one would argue every regulation is perfect, the changes Congress seeks to make would effectively stymie future rulemaking and allow Congress to erase actions the Obama administration took since the summer. She said she hoped there would be enough votes in the Senate to sustain a filibuster on the Midnight Rules bill, but on the REINS Act, “it’s possible there could be a path” for it to pass.
No idea if Trump'll will sign the bill... as it'll potentially reduces his impact...
I'll have some crow to eat if he does sign either one of those...
Nor, it's a given that the Senate Democrats would be on board (the need for 60th vote)... dude... do you wanna rein in the Cheeto Jesus? This is one way, especially if you retake Congress.
It's just classic republican "regulation is bad because reaons" gak. This isn't exactly anything knew. Same gak, different label.
I'm wondering when they'll feth over the country again by putting in loopholes for the oil and gas industry in the clean water act. Again.
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.
Oh good, more "it's ok to break the system as long as My Team does it".
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.
So what is the argument in support of a presidents final term being any different to any of their others which requires it to need different rules when it comes to overruling things passed by the president within that year?
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.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So what is the argument in support of a presidents final term being any different to any of their others which requires it to need different rules when it comes to overruling things passed by the president within that year?
"Obama did bad things and we want to repeal it all". It's the same reasoning for why the president is not allowed to nominate supreme court justices in an election year (unless he's Saint Reagan), presidents serve three-year terms and the fourth year is subject to being approved by the upcoming election.
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.
"Under an amendment the two GOP lawmakers filed on Tuesday, House members would be allowed to serve three two-year terms and senators would be able to serve two six-year terms. "
Somehow I don't think the house it going to OK that, and all the senators and reps that are already over the line are definitely going to vote it down. But I'm pretty sure Cruz knows this, and is just trying to keep his name in the public psyke for an eventual presidential run.
I'm not wholey opposed to term limits, but these ones are far too short, especially for the house. We don't want it to turn into the Michigan legislature, which would happen under these rules.
If anything, showing the names of all the legislators who voted it down would work wonders for making sure those kinds of people don't get reelected. It'd also be the same if one of the legislators voted to reduce congressional pay. THAT would be a fast way to "drain the swamp" right there: submit a bill that lowers congressional pay or forces them to choose either their congressional pay or their private sector interests ie. lawfirms and such. Vote out anybody who votes "no" to that.
"Under an amendment the two GOP lawmakers filed on Tuesday, House members would be allowed to serve three two-year terms and senators would be able to serve two six-year terms. "
Somehow I don't think the house it going to OK that, and all the senators and reps that are already over the line are definitely going to vote it down. But I'm pretty sure Cruz knows this, and is just trying to keep his name in the public psyke for an eventual presidential run.
I'm not wholey opposed to term limits, but these ones are far too short, especially for the house. We don't want it to turn into the Michigan legislature, which would happen under these rules.
If anything, showing the names of all the legislators who voted it down would work wonders for making sure those kinds of people don't get reelected. It'd also be the same if one of the legislators voted to reduce congressional pay. THAT would be a fast way to "drain the swamp" right there: submit a bill that lowers congressional pay or forces them to choose either their congressional pay or their private sector interests ie. lawfirms and such. Vote out anybody who votes "no" to that.
It wouldn't work. Over here we had our MPsget a 10% pay rise from a review by an independent body and they then voted to increase their pay by 1.3% on top of that 10% increase only 9 months later. Meanwhile all other public sector workers (nurses, police, firefighters, doctors, civil servants, teachers etc.) had their pay capped at a 1% increase per year. They did not get voted out.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/05 02:40:52
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.
