The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

US Congress: John Boehner STILL Can't Count (But Nancy Pelosi Is A Boss)

1356746

Posts

  • TraceTrace GNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam We Registered User regular
    http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/11/politics/hoeven-senate-4-votes-short-on-keystone-veto-override/index.html
    The Senate is about four votes short of enough to override a veto by President Barack Obama on a measure that would authorize the Keystone XL pipeline, Sen. John Hoeven says.

    The North Dakota Republican who is sponsoring the bill that would take the decision on whether to allow the project to move forward out of the hands of the State Department made his comments during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday."

    Obama will veto Keystone bill

    The President has said he objects to the Keystone legislation because it takes the decision out of the hands of the executive branch.

    The chamber's 54 Republicans are all expected to support the bill, as well as nine Democrats. But that's not enough to achieve the two-thirds majority that looks necessary after Obama said last week that he'd veto the measure.

    "Right now we've got about 63 [votes]," Hoeven said. "But we're going to the floor with an open amendment process, trying to foster more bipartisanship ... so that we can pass this measure and other measures and either override the veto or attach the bill to other legislation that will get 67 votes."

    One Democrat said on the program that he doesn't expect that to happen.

    Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware said, "It's clear that there will not be a veto override."

    The House approved the legislation green-lighting construction of the 1,179-mile Canada-to-Texas pipeline, which must be approved by the State Department because it crosses international borders, last week.

    New Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has said it'll be the first issue the chamber tackles under his leadership -- immediately setting up a confrontation with Obama and testing the dynamics that will exist in the last two years of his presidency, with a fully GOP-controlled Congress in place.

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Whynthenfuck are the dems joining them

  • archivistkitsunearchivistkitsune Registered User regular
    Because they are fucking idiots and/or corrupt douchebags.

    Reminds me that I need to send Warner a letter, telling him that the Keystone Pipeline is a fucking stupid thing.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    it's the old axiom that you can never be hurt by voting for legislation that fails

    if their votes were actually going to be decisive they would be under much more pressure to oppose it

    hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
    that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Whynthenfuck are the dems joining them

    Because democratic politicians have never met a republican position they couldn't get behind in a desperate attempt to make idiots think they're bipartisan.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Magus`Magus` The fun has been DOUBLED! Registered User regular
    Is politics the only thing in where one side is constantly giving the other side an unneeded handicap and the other team is racist?

  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    it's the old axiom that you can never be hurt by voting for legislation that fails

    if their votes were actually going to be decisive they would be under much more pressure to oppose it

    Killing this bill dead would've set the stage for the rest of the session. Right now the dems are saying they'll roll over for anything

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    it's the old axiom that you can never be hurt by voting for legislation that fails

    if their votes were actually going to be decisive they would be under much more pressure to oppose it

    Killing this bill dead would've set the stage for the rest of the session. Right now the dems are saying they'll roll over for anything

    Nah, they're saying they'll try and stop the silliness while handing the GOP PR win after PR win.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    So the guy the GOP is running on Staten Island to replace Michael Grimm is the DA who successfully managed to not indict anyone in the Eric Garner case. Minority outreach!

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Because they are fucking idiots and/or corrupt douchebags.

    Also fairly conservative by this board's standards many times.

    There's alot of "centrist" (read - republican light) democrats.

  • archivistkitsunearchivistkitsune Registered User regular
    Nah, I suspect even @spool32 would agree that the Keystone XL pipeline is a fucking stupid idea and that support of it has nothing to do with conservatism. I mean, this is considering political philosophies, well at least not ones worth considering. It's pretty much about idiot politicians willing to give shitty oil companies the green light to run a pipeline, that carries highly toxic shit, over the major aquifer that keeps the US breadbasket going.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Nah, I suspect even @spool32 would agree that the Keystone XL pipeline is a fucking stupid idea and that support of it has nothing to do with conservatism. I mean, this is considering political philosophies, well at least not ones worth considering. It's pretty much about idiot politicians willing to give shitty oil companies the green light to run a pipeline, that carries highly toxic shit, over the major aquifer that keeps the US breadbasket going.

    There are Democrats to the right of spool.

  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Dammit, Shepard!Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Nah, I suspect even @spool32 would agree that the Keystone XL pipeline is a fucking stupid idea and that support of it has nothing to do with conservatism. I mean, this is considering political philosophies, well at least not ones worth considering. It's pretty much about idiot politicians willing to give shitty oil companies the green light to run a pipeline, that carries highly toxic shit, over the major aquifer that keeps the US breadbasket going.

    There are Democrats to the right of spool.

    I tend to think that the sort of Democrats who support the Keystone pipeline are the kind of Democrats who have no ideology whatsoever. If you can call them right-wing it's not a function of their actual beliefs (of which they have few) but instead due to right-wing causes being favorable to their donors.

  • MvrckMvrck Dwarven MountainhomeRegistered User regular
    Magus` wrote: »
    Is politics the only thing in where one side is constantly giving the other side an unneeded handicap and the other team is racist?

    The Browns and the Redskins played this year.

  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    Hachface wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Nah, I suspect even @spool32 would agree that the Keystone XL pipeline is a fucking stupid idea and that support of it has nothing to do with conservatism. I mean, this is considering political philosophies, well at least not ones worth considering. It's pretty much about idiot politicians willing to give shitty oil companies the green light to run a pipeline, that carries highly toxic shit, over the major aquifer that keeps the US breadbasket going.

    There are Democrats to the right of spool.

    I tend to think that the sort of Democrats who support the Keystone pipeline are the kind of Democrats who have no ideology whatsoever. If you can call them right-wing it's not a function of their actual beliefs (of which they have few) but instead due to right-wing causes being favorable to their donors.

    The fact that donors is the correct word and not constituents...

    Well, let's just say it's the start of the fall of Rome

  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Hachface wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Nah, I suspect even @spool32 would agree that the Keystone XL pipeline is a fucking stupid idea and that support of it has nothing to do with conservatism. I mean, this is considering political philosophies, well at least not ones worth considering. It's pretty much about idiot politicians willing to give shitty oil companies the green light to run a pipeline, that carries highly toxic shit, over the major aquifer that keeps the US breadbasket going.

    There are Democrats to the right of spool.

    I tend to think that the sort of Democrats who support the Keystone pipeline are the kind of Democrats who have no ideology whatsoever. If you can call them right-wing it's not a function of their actual beliefs (of which they have few) but instead due to right-wing causes being favorable to their donors.

    The important thing to realize is that Democrats are basically the party of Not-Republicans, and that Republicans are basically just one far-right ideology. It's hard to unite everything else, which is part of the reason I think Democrats have so much message trouble - the tent has become too big as the GOP moves to the right.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Nah, I suspect even @spool32 would agree that the Keystone XL pipeline is a fucking stupid idea and that support of it has nothing to do with conservatism. I mean, this is considering political philosophies, well at least not ones worth considering. It's pretty much about idiot politicians willing to give shitty oil companies the green light to run a pipeline, that carries highly toxic shit, over the major aquifer that keeps the US breadbasket going.

    There are Democrats to the right of spool.

    I tend to think that the sort of Democrats who support the Keystone pipeline are the kind of Democrats who have no ideology whatsoever. If you can call them right-wing it's not a function of their actual beliefs (of which they have few) but instead due to right-wing causes being favorable to their donors.

    The important thing to realize is that Democrats are basically the party of Not-Republicans, and that Republicans are basically just one far-right ideology. It's hard to unite everything else, which is part of the reason I think Democrats have so much message trouble - the tent has become too big as the GOP moves to the right.

    Yeah if you realize that

    then you're completely wrong and you should instead consider that the attitude from whence that statement arises is part of the reason you don't have more support for your leftwing positions.


    I mean, this whole sequence of comments has been:

    1: even Republicans who are pretty committed to conservatism can see through this keystone bullshit
    2: there are democrats who are farther to the right than spool
    3: Democrats who support keystone are in the pockets of donors rather than having a solid ideology


    4: all Republicans are a single far-right ideology


    wtf where did 4 come from? Good grief.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Nah, I suspect even @spool32 would agree that the Keystone XL pipeline is a fucking stupid idea and that support of it has nothing to do with conservatism. I mean, this is considering political philosophies, well at least not ones worth considering. It's pretty much about idiot politicians willing to give shitty oil companies the green light to run a pipeline, that carries highly toxic shit, over the major aquifer that keeps the US breadbasket going.

    To the topic at hand!

    yeah I'm not really in favor of driving Keystone through the Congress. it's entirely theater at this point and I find it both frustrating and tiresome. Congressional GOP wants to do it as a sop to donors and an opportunity to go Im On Record Hating Teh Libruls And Greens. Obama can veto it with no consequences in order to give his leftwing base their twice-yearly pointless sad hand job.

    Everybody says how they hate everybody else, the fundraising letters go out, and DC is happy again. Fuck that.


    Conservation is a conservative position. Actual conservative ideology (not to mention Christian and especially evangelical ideology) demands that we conserve resources and care for the earth as good stewards. Shitting it up for corporate interests is not conservativism, it's corporatism.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    4: all Republicans are a single far-right ideology


    wtf where did 4 come from? Good grief.

    The GOP is traditionally more in lockstep than the Democratic Party. What's eroded this further is by running further right the moderate voices have less and less power. Republicans as a whole can be diverse*, the GOP itself and the politicians they elect not so much.

    * more in the past, due to the Tea Party takeover

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Nah, I suspect even @spool32 would agree that the Keystone XL pipeline is a fucking stupid idea and that support of it has nothing to do with conservatism. I mean, this is considering political philosophies, well at least not ones worth considering. It's pretty much about idiot politicians willing to give shitty oil companies the green light to run a pipeline, that carries highly toxic shit, over the major aquifer that keeps the US breadbasket going.

    There are Democrats to the right of spool.

    I tend to think that the sort of Democrats who support the Keystone pipeline are the kind of Democrats who have no ideology whatsoever. If you can call them right-wing it's not a function of their actual beliefs (of which they have few) but instead due to right-wing causes being favorable to their donors.

    The important thing to realize is that Democrats are basically the party of Not-Republicans, and that Republicans are basically just one far-right ideology. It's hard to unite everything else, which is part of the reason I think Democrats have so much message trouble - the tent has become too big as the GOP moves to the right.

    Yeah if you realize that

    then you're completely wrong and you should instead consider that the attitude from whence that statement arises is part of the reason you don't have more support for your leftwing positions.


    I mean, this whole sequence of comments has been:

    1: even Republicans who are pretty committed to conservatism can see through this keystone bullshit
    2: there are democrats who are farther to the right than spool
    3: Democrats who support keystone are in the pockets of donors rather than having a solid ideology


    4: all Republicans are a single far-right ideology


    wtf where did 4 come from? Good grief.

    The GOP's solid and remarkably consistent messaging discipline as well as the party discipline on difficult votes.

    Contrast with the start of the conversation where the D's absolutely do not have that.

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    4: all Republicans are a single far-right ideology


    wtf where did 4 come from? Good grief.

    The GOP is traditionally more in lockstep than the Democratic Party. What's eroded this further is by running further right the moderate voices have less and less power. Republicans as a whole can be diverse*, the GOP itself and the politicians they elect not so much.

    * more in the past, due to the Tea Party takeover

    I appreciate the quasi-moderation of his statement, but it's just frankly ridiculous to view Republicans and the Republican Party as a unified far-right ideology. It's not true in the Congress, it's not true in the nation, and it makes for great lefty partisan attack lines in the fundraising letters and GOTV pushes, which is why people who oppose them say it so often.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Hachface wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Nah, I suspect even @spool32 would agree that the Keystone XL pipeline is a fucking stupid idea and that support of it has nothing to do with conservatism. I mean, this is considering political philosophies, well at least not ones worth considering. It's pretty much about idiot politicians willing to give shitty oil companies the green light to run a pipeline, that carries highly toxic shit, over the major aquifer that keeps the US breadbasket going.

    There are Democrats to the right of spool.

    I tend to think that the sort of Democrats who support the Keystone pipeline are the kind of Democrats who have no ideology whatsoever. If you can call them right-wing it's not a function of their actual beliefs (of which they have few) but instead due to right-wing causes being favorable to their donors.

    The important thing to realize is that Democrats are basically the party of Not-Republicans, and that Republicans are basically just one far-right ideology. It's hard to unite everything else, which is part of the reason I think Democrats have so much message trouble - the tent has become too big as the GOP moves to the right.

    Yeah if you realize that

    then you're completely wrong and you should instead consider that the attitude from whence that statement arises is part of the reason you don't have more support for your leftwing positions.


    I mean, this whole sequence of comments has been:

    1: even Republicans who are pretty committed to conservatism can see through this keystone bullshit
    2: there are democrats who are farther to the right than spool
    3: Democrats who support keystone are in the pockets of donors rather than having a solid ideology


    4: all Republicans are a single far-right ideology


    wtf where did 4 come from? Good grief.

    The GOP's solid and remarkably consistent messaging discipline as well as the party discipline on difficult votes.

    Contrast with the start of the conversation where the D's absolutely do not have that.

    I think that "message discipline" is a hilarious thing to accuse the GOP of in the context of Cruz shitting on McConnell's olive branch to the President right after the midterms, in light of Christie and Abbot both being Republican governors, in light of the votes for speaker in the current Congress...

    Man, John Boehner gets a desperate boner every time he imagines having a party caucus like the one you think he does.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    What olive branch would that be, the statement about the economy improving because Republicans were about to take control of both houses?

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular

    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    4: all Republicans are a single far-right ideology


    wtf where did 4 come from? Good grief.

    The GOP is traditionally more in lockstep than the Democratic Party. What's eroded this further is by running further right the moderate voices have less and less power. Republicans as a whole can be diverse*, the GOP itself and the politicians they elect not so much.

    * more in the past, due to the Tea Party takeover

    I appreciate the quasi-moderation of his statement, but it's just frankly ridiculous to view Republicans and the Republican Party as a unified far-right ideology. It's not true in the Congress, it's not true in the nation, and it makes for great lefty partisan attack lines in the fundraising letters and GOTV pushes, which is why people who oppose them say it so often.

    No doubt it isn't a complete unified front. You're right that the GOP has fights with itself regularly. However, we do know the main factions who win tend to not be moderates, and they're losing their power to hold back the far right with every passing year. The GOP itself is far right, and has been for as long as I can recall. What happens is that they Overton Window for Moderate Right gets shunted to the right by far right factions (which the GOP have more than a single group coasting on that position to various degrees) every few years, which impacts the party itself and politics around it. For example Neocons were far fight when W. was in the White House, now they appear moderate since the current Far Right is the Tea Partiers - that doesn't mean the Neocons weren't Far Right then and now, merely the state in politics has let another crazier faction dictate how further the Far Right is. What's infuriating is that when the GOP does this it pulls the Democrats further right along with them.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    What olive branch would that be, the statement about the economy improving because Republicans were about to take control of both houses?

    No, the immediate "we want to compromise and work with the President" statement. Cruz's initial statement on victory night was more like "yes get rekt time to shove things down the President's throooooat woooooo"

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    The GOP itself is far right, and has been for as long as I can recall.

    I hate doing this, but how old are you?

    It hasn't been far right for as long as I've been voting, nevermind as long as I can recall. I mean, come on.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    What olive branch would that be, the statement about the economy improving because Republicans were about to take control of both houses?

    No, the immediate "we want to compromise and work with the President" statement. Cruz's initial statement on victory night was more like "yes get rekt time to shove things down the President's throooooat woooooo"

    Words, not actions. Everyone says that. Then the first day they ram through Keystone, attack Social Security, and introduce a nationwide abortion ban.

    If their first action had been even something as simple as confirming the President's pick for Attorney General, then maybe they could talk.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    What olive branch would that be, the statement about the economy improving because Republicans were about to take control of both houses?

    No, the immediate "we want to compromise and work with the President" statement. Cruz's initial statement on victory night was more like "yes get rekt time to shove things down the President's throooooat woooooo"

    Words, not actions. Everyone says that. Then the first day they ram through Keystone, attack Social Security, and introduce a nationwide abortion ban.

    If their first action had been even something as simple as confirming the President's pick for Attorney General, then maybe they could talk.

    It's a fair point

    However, the President's response to those words was an executive order on Immigration despite statements from the incoming majority that doing so would poison the well for compromise.

    So. Maybe he should've not done that.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    What olive branch would that be, the statement about the economy improving because Republicans were about to take control of both houses?

    No, the immediate "we want to compromise and work with the President" statement. Cruz's initial statement on victory night was more like "yes get rekt time to shove things down the President's throooooat woooooo"

    Words, not actions. Everyone says that. Then the first day they ram through Keystone, attack Social Security, and introduce a nationwide abortion ban.

    If their first action had been even something as simple as confirming the President's pick for Attorney General, then maybe they could talk.

    It's a fair point

    However, the President's response to those words was an executive order on Immigration despite statements from the incoming majority that doing so would poison the well for compromise.

    So. Maybe he should've not done that.

    Yes, if there's one thing the GOP is known for it's compromising.

  • jmcdonaldjmcdonald I voted, did you? DC(ish)Registered User regular
    edited January 2015
    spool32 wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    What olive branch would that be, the statement about the economy improving because Republicans were about to take control of both houses?

    No, the immediate "we want to compromise and work with the President" statement. Cruz's initial statement on victory night was more like "yes get rekt time to shove things down the President's throooooat woooooo"

    Words, not actions. Everyone says that. Then the first day they ram through Keystone, attack Social Security, and introduce a nationwide abortion ban.

    If their first action had been even something as simple as confirming the President's pick for Attorney General, then maybe they could talk.

    It's a fair point

    However, the President's response to those words was an executive order on Immigration despite statements from the incoming majority that doing so would poison the well for compromise.

    So. Maybe he should've not done that.

    So what was the bipartisan senate bill that languished in the house for two years?

    Edit

    Further, a bill that by all known whip counts would have passed the house if it had been brought to a vote?

    jmcdonald on
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    That they can still pass to rescind the executive orders.

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    Let's hope they do!

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    Anyhow, whether or not you believed what McConnell said, it's still a good example of the lack of message discipline. The GOP right now is not a unified party with a single message., and it's certainly not a rightwing monolith.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Anyhow, whether or not you believed what McConnell said, it's still a good example of the lack of message discipline. The GOP right now is not a unified party with a single message., and it's certainly not a rightwing monolith.

    Ranging from far right to "hoo boy, that is some crazy bullshit" is not technically a monolith, yes...

    The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Ehh. The three big things that got passed with Democratic support last Congress were the debt ceiling, the budget, and reauthorizing VAWA, right? One of those has to happen or the world economy implodes, another has to happen or the government stops doing anything, and the third was just continuing the program. Reforming the immigration system doesn't have any of those going for it.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Anyhow, whether or not you believed what McConnell said, it's still a good example of the lack of message discipline. The GOP right now is not a unified party with a single message., and it's certainly not a rightwing monolith.

    Ranging from far right to "hoo boy, that is some crazy bullshit" is not technically a monolith, yes...

    Yea, none of the dissent in the Republican party could be mistaken as being more towards the D side of things. The same is not the least bit true of the reverse.

    But if you wanted to make declarative statements on issues, like "All Republicans support limits on Abortion" it's much easier for the R side than the D unless you get into things like "All Democrats like Money."

    Nod. Get treat. PSN: Quippish
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Anyhow, whether or not you believed what McConnell said, it's still a good example of the lack of message discipline. The GOP right now is not a unified party with a single message., and it's certainly not a rightwing monolith.

    Ranging from far right to "hoo boy, that is some crazy bullshit" is not technically a monolith, yes...

    Yea, none of the dissent in the Republican party could be mistaken as being more towards the D side of things. The same is not the least bit true of the reverse.

    http://news.yahoo.com/chris-christie-gay-marriage-move-stirs-gop-072124880--election.html

    http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Jeb_Bush_Immigration.htm

    http://www.logcabin.org/

    I dunno, this looks exactly like the thing you say doesn't exist.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    The Log Cabin Republicans have never been anything but a laughingstock.

  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User, Transition Team regular
    edited January 2015
    The Log Cabin Republicans have never been anything but a laughingstock.

    I feel like this is really insulting, for a bunch of reasons.

    edit: really insulting. Dogmatic. Exclusionary.

    If you are laughing at those people, it says something about you, not them.

    spool32 on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    The Log Cabin Republicans have never been anything but a laughingstock.

    I feel like this is really insulting, for a bunch of reasons.

    edit: really insulting. Dogmatic. Exclusionary.

    If you are laughing at those people, it says something about you, not them.

    He means they have no power to get what they want. How often do you see them effecting anything in the news?

This discussion has been closed.