The Republicans definitely should have been holding confirmation votes on Obama's court choices. They could have voted "no" to keep him from appointing anyone but they had a duty to hold the votes.
If you're referring to when the lower court filibuster was done away with by Reid, they didn't have enough votes at the time. They were in the same situation the Democrats are in now, not having control of either house or the presidency. Except they were in a worse position (at least until Scott Brown's election) because the Democrats also had 60 votes in the Senate.
It is when one party is in that position when counter-majoritarian rules are most needed. Unfortunately, history has shown that this is also the time when they are most likely to be done away with.
I agree with @Mathsorcerer about many of these rules being pointless (unfortunately). This is no more true than when it comes to the filibuster. If the other party is going to go nuclear whenever you need it most, then what work does the filibuster do in the first place when it comes to protecting the political minority?
I feel like we'd be in a more honest situation that the public could more readily understand if it was just no longer in place. Most people can't or don't want to follow these kind of procedures. It serves some purpose, but has been completely marginalized.
The Senate can always amend or suspend its own rules to reduce any proposed measure to a simple majority. Given this fact, one wonders why they bother having rules at all. If they are allowed to operate outside their own rules then they should just suspend them indefinitely and stop pretending to be bound by any restrictions.
They should codify the rules by adding them to law. Then they would actually have to be followed, much like the Byrd Rule. The only issue is that these rules occasionally have unintended negative consequences (as the current situation shows) so perhaps a bit more leeway is needed. Except that means relying on politicians who are more bound to procedure than outcome, which goes against their incentive to be reelected.
...so basically the situation sucks and there is no elegant solution .
How about "failure to adhere or comply with the rules as they are written will result in expulsion from the legislative body and disqualification from running for future public office"? Forget three strikes, one strike and you're out.
The Senate can always amend or suspend its own rules to reduce any proposed measure to a simple majority. Given this fact, one wonders why they bother having rules at all. If they are allowed to operate outside their own rules then they should just suspend them indefinitely and stop pretending to be bound by any restrictions.
They should codify the rules by adding them to law. Then they would actually have to be followed, much like the Byrd Rule. The only issue is that these rules occasionally have unintended negative consequences (as the current situation shows) so perhaps a bit more leeway is needed. Except that means relying on politicians who are more bound to procedure than outcome, which goes against their incentive to be reelected.
...so basically the situation sucks and there is no elegant solution .
If they can codify something into law can't they codify it out? Unless something is in the Constitution in essence there is no law, just temporary rules that can be changed whenever.
So things like the Byrd rule are just slightly more binding than unwritten rules.
The Senate can always amend or suspend its own rules to reduce any proposed measure to a simple majority. Given this fact, one wonders why they bother having rules at all. If they are allowed to operate outside their own rules then they should just suspend them indefinitely and stop pretending to be bound by any restrictions.
They should codify the rules by adding them to law. Then they would actually have to be followed, much like the Byrd Rule. The only issue is that these rules occasionally have unintended negative consequences (as the current situation shows) so perhaps a bit more leeway is needed. Except that means relying on politicians who are more bound to procedure than outcome, which goes against their incentive to be reelected.
...so basically the situation sucks and there is no elegant solution .
If they can codify something into law can't they codify it out? Unless something is in the Constitution in essence there is no law, just temporary rules that can be changed whenever.
So things like the Byrd rule are just slightly more binding than unwritten rules.
The process for repealing a law is much longer and more complicated than changing a parliamentary procedure from what I understand. For a change in the procedural rules you only need a quorum.
Trumps not going to release the democrats memo. Supposedly he has considered what the FBI and NSA and others said and reached this decision.
I call BS. Since when has Trump every considered anyones opinion but his own gut?
These same people told him not to release the Nunez memo but he did anyway. He had already made up his mind then - as evidenced by him getting caught on hot mike saying he would "100%" release the Nunez memo right after his state of the union speech. When it is the democrats memo he suddenly cares what his national security people say.
BS.
This guy is soooo dirty. If our government wasn't completely swamped and compromised by partisan Republicans determined to hold on to power no matter the cost they would do something about this corrupt conman.
Trumps not going to release the democrats memo. Supposedly he has considered what the FBI and NSA and others said and reached this decision.
I call BS.
These same people told him not to release the Nunez memo but he did anyway. He had already made up his mind then - as evidenced by him getting caught on hot mike saying he would "100%" release the Nunez memo right after his state of the union speech. Here he suddenly cares what his national security people say.
BS. This guy is soooo dirty. If our government wasn't completely swamped and compromised by partisan Republicans determined to hold on to power no matter the cost they would do something about this corrupt conman.
Anyone who can't see through this particular charade is beyond reach.
So there are two memos on the issue, one written by Democrats and one written by Republicans, and we the people are only allowed to read the one written by Republicans.
It's definitely unfair, but this is probably the better outcome for the Democrats. Anyone who was ever going to read Schiff's memo already knows that Nunes was full of it, and the media would have ended up treating the two memos as roughly equivalent, regardless of content. Having the memo stifled will buy the Democrats more favorable coverage than ten pages of factual analysis ever could.
This is the same reason that the "Democrats are desperate to suppress the Nunes memo!" narrative was silly. Democrats wanted everyone to understand how irresponsible and inappropriate it was for Trump to release the Nunes memo, but they also wanted him to release it.
So there are two memos on the issue, one written by Democrats and one written by Republicans, and we the people are only allowed to read the one written by Republicans.
No, that's not fair.
Even if you BELIEVE the Nunes memo is a legitimate document (and plenty of people do), how can you possibly justify not even allowing the other side the chance to respond or offer a rebuttal??
Beyond that, the Justice Department official directly below Rod Rosenstein is now also leaving her position out of the blue. There is now nothing standing between Trump and Mueller besides Rosenstein. This is not a drill.
So there are two memos on the issue, one written by Democrats and one written by Republicans, and we the people are only allowed to read the one written by Republicans.
No, that's not fair.
Even if you BELIEVE the Nunes memo is a legitimate document (and plenty of people do), how can you possibly justify not even allowing the other side the chance to respond or offer a rebuttal??
Beyond that, the Justice Department official directly below Rod Rosenstein is now also leaving her position out of the blue. There is now nothing standing between Trump and Mueller besides Rosenstein. This is not a drill.
Yeah read about that supposedly she got a you can't refuse offer to work at Wal-Mart. Srsly leaving justice department for Walmart. I guess it's a highly paid position from the Walton family business. Waltons just so happen to be some of the richest Americans and huge donors to the Republican party.
I call BS. Since when has Trump every considered anyones opinion but his own gut?
Perhaps that is true on a couple issues (trade in particular) but on a lot of other things I think Trump just listens to the last person who had his ear.
I call BS. Since when has Trump every considered anyones opinion but his own gut?
Perhaps that is true on a couple issues (trade in particular) but on a lot of other things I think Trump just listens to the last person who had his ear.
That's true. Either he follows his gut to do the worst thing possible or if he doesn't really care he'll go with the last person to speak to him. Reading or thoughtfully forming an opinion after consulting with an expert is not an option.
The last year shows that neither Adam Schiff nor Devin Nunes have any credibility. If they shared one they should share both and let the people make what they want out of it.
So there are two memos on the issue, one written by Democrats and one written by Republicans, and we the people are only allowed to read the one written by Republicans.
No, that's not fair.
Even if you BELIEVE the Nunes memo is a legitimate document (and plenty of people do), how can you possibly justify not even allowing the other side the chance to respond or offer a rebuttal??
Beyond that, the Justice Department official directly below Rod Rosenstein is now also leaving her position out of the blue. There is now nothing standing between Trump and Mueller besides Rosenstein. This is not a drill.
Yeah read about that supposedly she got a you can't refuse offer to work at Wal-Mart. Srsly leaving justice department for Walmart. I guess it's a highly paid position from the Walton family business. Waltons just so happen to be some of the richest Americans and huge donors to the Republican party.
She is *smart* to leave Justice now before she gets put into a really bad position. If Rosenstein got fired (somehow) or resigned, then the Mueller investigation lands on her desk. *I* wouldn't want that job, either.
So there are two memos on the issue, one written by Democrats and one written by Republicans, and we the people are only allowed to read the one written by Republicans.
No, that's not fair.
Even if you BELIEVE the Nunes memo is a legitimate document (and plenty of people do), how can you possibly justify not even allowing the other side the chance to respond or offer a rebuttal??
Beyond that, the Justice Department official directly below Rod Rosenstein is now also leaving her position out of the blue. There is now nothing standing between Trump and Mueller besides Rosenstein. This is not a drill.
Yeah read about that supposedly she got a you can't refuse offer to work at Wal-Mart. Srsly leaving justice department for Walmart. I guess it's a highly paid position from the Walton family business. Waltons just so happen to be some of the richest Americans and huge donors to the Republican party.
She is *smart* to leave Justice now before she gets put into a really bad position. If Rosenstein got fired (somehow) or resigned, then the Mueller investigation lands on her desk. *I* wouldn't want that job, either.
But you know who does? Whatever stooge gets appointed by Trump to fire Mueller.
I would not be surprised if Trey Gowdy ends up with a post somewhere after hearing his letter to South Carolina when not running again, either FBI or the DOJ. He at least gave SC the notice so ppl could get ready to run in his place, time to prepare anyway. I get alot of SC news being right on the border with SC here in NC. He definitely wants to be in a more straight law type position. I can't blame him for that with the way DC has been lately. I've got mixed feelings about him but he seems to be a fairly straight forward lawful type of guy. I doubt too much dirt could be dug up on him as well. But I would not be surprised of anything these days.
I would not be surprised if Trey Gowdy ends up with a post somewhere after hearing his letter to South Carolina when not running again, either FBI or the DOJ. He at least gave SC the notice so ppl could get ready to run in his place, time to prepare anyway. I get alot of SC news being right on the border with SC here in NC. He definitely wants to be in a more straight law type position. I can't blame him for that with the way DC has been lately. I've got mixed feelings about him but he seems to be a fairly straight forward lawful type of guy. I doubt too much dirt could be dug up on him as well. But I would not be surprised of anything these days.
He seems like he'd be happier and more effective there anyway.
I would not be surprised if Trey Gowdy ends up with a post somewhere after hearing his letter to South Carolina when not running again, either FBI or the DOJ. He at least gave SC the notice so ppl could get ready to run in his place, time to prepare anyway. I get alot of SC news being right on the border with SC here in NC. He definitely wants to be in a more straight law type position. I can't blame him for that with the way DC has been lately. I've got mixed feelings about him but he seems to be a fairly straight forward lawful type of guy. I doubt too much dirt could be dug up on him as well. But I would not be surprised of anything these days.
When I saw him on TV and stuff complaining about Obama I knew I'd seen him before somewhere.
My wife and I watch a lot of forensic files. Which is an old TV show where "clues" and even this new fangled thing called "DNA" is sometimes used to catch criminals. That stuff was brand new at the time and they had to explain it. In a few of the episodes they have Trey Gowdy talking about criminals and the specific science used to catch them.
Trump released his budget which of course is not meaning much since Congress controls the power of the purse.
“The Trump budget proposal makes clear his desire to enact massive cuts to health care, anti-poverty programs, and investments in economic growth to blunt the deficit-exploding impact of his tax cuts for millionaires and corporations,” said Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
The plan also calls for major cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and other social programs, reductions that conservatives have long sought.
But even with these reductions, which add up to more than $3 trillion in cuts over 10 years, the proposal would not bring the budget into balance because of the lost tax revenue and higher spending on other programs.
The White House projects a large gap between government spending and tax revenue over the next decade, adding at least $7 trillion to the debt over that time. In 2019 and 2020 alone, the government would add a combined $2 trillion in debt under Trump’s plan.
The Trump budget is kinda meaningless (like most president's budgets) but the numbers are silly.
It assumes 3.1% growth for the next three years. Not quite as absurd as the ridiculous predictions from the Bernie Sanders budget during the campaign, but still unrealistic.
He also only added $200 billion for infrastructure, when just last week he wanted $1.5 trillion.
The Trump budget is kinda meaningless (like most president's budgets) but the numbers are silly.
It assumes 3.1% growth for the next three years. Not quite as absurd as the ridiculous predictions from the Bernie Sanders budget during the campaign, but still unrealistic.
He also only added $200 billion for infrastructure, when just last week he wanted $1.5 trillion.
It's another scam from Don the Con Artist. Only pennies on the dollar are allocated. The plan is for $1.5 trillion in infrastructure upgrades - but only $200BN comes from the federal gov't. Only $200 billion is actually funded.
The rest is supposed to be from private companies which will want to get return on investments like more toll roads or increases in state and local taxes. Which people won't be able to deduct because of the recently passed republican tax scam limits deductions for State and local taxes.
Say $1.5 trillion why does that number sound familiar. Isn't that the hole Republicans just added to the deficits by cutting the corporate tax and taxes for the rich? If they just didn't do that, they'd have the money they needed to fund these infrastructure plans.
Like everything with Trump, this is fake. It is something that he will complain about later "I totally wanted a $1.5 trillion dollar infrastructure plan but those Dems didn't!" And some people will believe him.
---------------------------
Trump says it's 'OK with me' if the proposal founders due to lack of support.
"If you want it badly, you're going to get it," Trump told state and local officials during a meeting at the White House. "And if you don't want it, that's OK with me too."
Trump suggested that his proposal — aimed at spurring $1.5 trillion in spending over a decade — was not as important to him as other recent administration efforts to cut taxes and boost military spending.
"If for any reason, they don't want to support to it, hey, that's going to be up to them," Trump said of the Republican-controlled Congress. "What was very important to me was the military, what was very important to me was the tax cuts, and what was very important to me was regulation."
There's an interesting article about the possibilities for future misinformation as technology gets more developed. People have managed to edit videos of public figures speaking by adding fake audio that makes it look like the person is saying something completely different. Theoretically, one could create a program that could read audio recordings of a world leader and then craft a fake audio recording, creating the impression that somebody said something that never even happened.
That sort of content would spread very fast on social media.
There's an interesting article about the possibilities for future misinformation as technology gets more developed. People have managed to edit videos of public figures speaking by adding fake audio that makes it look like the person is saying something completely different. Theoretically, one could create a program that could read audio recordings of a world leader and then craft a fake audio recording, creating the impression that somebody said something that never even happened.
That sort of content would spread very fast on social media.
Since it was already reported a few months ago that Trump was telling aides that it wasn't actually him on the Access Hollywood tape, this isn't a good development. There is already about 33% of the voting population that would believe Trump if he claimed something like this. If this ever becomes the common public perception, there won't be any way to even hold public figures to even audio or video recording of their words. Come to think of it, we basically already live in this time. The last thing we need during Donald Trump's total assault on the very IDEA of objective reality is something like this.
There's an interesting article about the possibilities for future misinformation as technology gets more developed. People have managed to edit videos of public figures speaking by adding fake audio that makes it look like the person is saying something completely different. Theoretically, one could create a program that could read audio recordings of a world leader and then craft a fake audio recording, creating the impression that somebody said something that never even happened.
That sort of content would spread very fast on social media.
I heard about that on a security podcast called Smashing Security. They were discussing how quickly we can move from redditors mapping their faces onto porn to nuclear false alarms. The possibilities for bullying and harassment alone are endless, getting video footage and the personal data of someone now is the equivalent of getting their toeclippings and truename in a voodoo magic system...
There's an interesting article about the possibilities for future misinformation as technology gets more developed. People have managed to edit videos of public figures speaking by adding fake audio that makes it look like the person is saying something completely different. Theoretically, one could create a program that could read audio recordings of a world leader and then craft a fake audio recording, creating the impression that somebody said something that never even happened.
That sort of content would spread very fast on social media.
Come to think of it, we basically already live in this time.
Exactly. The ability to do this, and do it well, already exists. Combine it with a polished production and you can make a broadcast appear as if it were from an actual news source. If all you are interested in is getting a fake story out, though, you can use lower-quality footage and make it appear as if the video were captured on a cell phone (think people running around shouting "worldstar! worldstar!").
Soon, most of us will be gaslit (is that grammatically correct? the past tense of "to gaslight") most of the time.
There's an interesting article about the possibilities for future misinformation as technology gets more developed. People have managed to edit videos of public figures speaking by adding fake audio that makes it look like the person is saying something completely different. Theoretically, one could create a program that could read audio recordings of a world leader and then craft a fake audio recording, creating the impression that somebody said something that never even happened.
That sort of content would spread very fast on social media.
Come to think of it, we basically already live in this time.
Exactly. The ability to do this, and do it well, already exists. Combine it with a polished production and you can make a broadcast appear as if it were from an actual news source. If all you are interested in is getting a fake story out, though, you can use lower-quality footage and make it appear as if the video were captured on a cell phone (think people running around shouting "worldstar! worldstar!").
Soon, most of us will be gaslit (is that grammatically correct? the past tense of "to gaslight") most of the time.
Gaslighting, as a term, has become more popular for obvious reasons over the last two years. It refers to a 1944 movie in which a wife is manipulated by her husband into believing she is insane. He does this by insisting to her that things she knows to be true are, in fact, false (or vice versa). The most extreme example of this would be a husband caught by his wife in bed with another women, where the husband insists that there actually is no woman in the bed with him. Basically, it is attempting to insist with a straight face that things that a provably true or false are the exact opposite. Less extreme versions of it are a staple of psychological abusers. Anyway, many people view the way this Administration in particular changes their stories on a daily or sometimes hourly basis, while pretending they never held their previous position, as a prime example of this behavior. It's not so much the changing story as the refusal to acknowledge there was a previous position to begin with, even in the face of direct quotes, often backed up with audio or video. The best upcoming example of this will be when we are all told that Trump never actually said Mexico was going to pay for the wall, and everyone will insist it was always some sort of metaphor or meant to be taken figuratively. Actually, this particular example has been taking place for months upon months.
Comments
...so basically the situation sucks and there is no elegant solution
That's probably too harsh, though.
So things like the Byrd rule are just slightly more binding than unwritten rules.
I call BS. Since when has Trump every considered anyones opinion but his own gut?
These same people told him not to release the Nunez memo but he did anyway. He had already made up his mind then - as evidenced by him getting caught on hot mike saying he would "100%" release the Nunez memo right after his state of the union speech. When it is the democrats memo he suddenly cares what his national security people say.
BS.
This guy is soooo dirty. If our government wasn't completely swamped and compromised by partisan Republicans determined to hold on to power no matter the cost they would do something about this corrupt conman.
No, that's not fair.
This is the same reason that the "Democrats are desperate to suppress the Nunes memo!" narrative was silly. Democrats wanted everyone to understand how irresponsible and inappropriate it was for Trump to release the Nunes memo, but they also wanted him to release it.
Beyond that, the Justice Department official directly below Rod Rosenstein is now also leaving her position out of the blue. There is now nothing standing between Trump and Mueller besides Rosenstein. This is not a drill.
My wife and I watch a lot of forensic files. Which is an old TV show where "clues" and even this new fangled thing called "DNA" is sometimes used to catch criminals. That stuff was brand new at the time and they had to explain it. In a few of the episodes they have Trey Gowdy talking about criminals and the specific science used to catch them.
“The Trump budget proposal makes clear his desire to enact massive cuts to health care, anti-poverty programs, and investments in economic growth to blunt the deficit-exploding impact of his tax cuts for millionaires and corporations,” said Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee.
The plan also calls for major cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps and other social programs, reductions that conservatives have long sought.
But even with these reductions, which add up to more than $3 trillion in cuts over 10 years, the proposal would not bring the budget into balance because of the lost tax revenue and higher spending on other programs.
The White House projects a large gap between government spending and tax revenue over the next decade, adding at least $7 trillion to the debt over that time. In 2019 and 2020 alone, the government would add a combined $2 trillion in debt under Trump’s plan.
It assumes 3.1% growth for the next three years. Not quite as absurd as the ridiculous predictions from the Bernie Sanders budget during the campaign, but still unrealistic.
He also only added $200 billion for infrastructure, when just last week he wanted $1.5 trillion.
The rest is supposed to be from private companies which will want to get return on investments like more toll roads or increases in state and local taxes. Which people won't be able to deduct because of the recently passed republican tax scam limits deductions for State and local taxes.
Say $1.5 trillion why does that number sound familiar. Isn't that the hole Republicans just added to the deficits by cutting the corporate tax and taxes for the rich? If they just didn't do that, they'd have the money they needed to fund these infrastructure plans.
Like everything with Trump, this is fake. It is something that he will complain about later "I totally wanted a $1.5 trillion dollar infrastructure plan but those Dems didn't!" And some people will believe him.
---------------------------
Trump says it's 'OK with me' if the proposal founders due to lack of support.
"If you want it badly, you're going to get it," Trump told state and local officials during a meeting at the White House. "And if you don't want it, that's OK with me too."
Trump suggested that his proposal — aimed at spurring $1.5 trillion in spending over a decade — was not as important to him as other recent administration efforts to cut taxes and boost military spending.
"If for any reason, they don't want to support to it, hey, that's going to be up to them," Trump said of the Republican-controlled Congress. "What was very important to me was the military, what was very important to me was the tax cuts, and what was very important to me was regulation."
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2018-02-12/trump-to-unveil-15-trillion-infrastructure-plan
That sort of content would spread very fast on social media.
Soon, most of us will be gaslit (is that grammatically correct? the past tense of "to gaslight") most of the time.