Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Trump Administration

16791112100

Posts

  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    I do not see why a federal cap on minimum wages would be unconstitutional. No one has ever done it, but the same logic that makes a federal minimum wage legal should hold for making a cap on it legal as well.

    The real key to making welfare popular is to focus on real personal stories of it helping people get back on their feet and back to work. Numbers and experts just do not seem to work on this issue.

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
    wandering
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud bear with us as we do some "rebranding" Registered User regular
    Can we stop and appreciate the sheer ridiculousness of an almost sitting President using Twitter as their fucking decree mechanism?

    And then complaining that "the media" misinterprets him, when he is talking directly to the people via Twitter, with no media middlemen at all.
    God what will the incoming Press Secretary even do?

    NobeardGiggles_Funsworth
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Can we stop and appreciate the sheer ridiculousness of an almost sitting President using Twitter as their fucking decree mechanism?

    And then complaining that "the media" misinterprets him, when he is talking directly to the people via Twitter, with no media middlemen at all.
    God what will the incoming Press Secretary even do?

    Lie.

    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
    Warren 2020
    CogTNTrooperPhoenix-DshrykeArdolCommander ZoomLovelyoverride367KetBraAistanQuidExtreaminatusTetraRayNobeardMegafrostIncenjucarGoodKingJayIIISleepZomroSurfpossumTheDrifterSpoitKwoaruGundiDoctorArchOghulkGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenBurnagePanda4YouVegemyteJazzMan in the MistsjdarksunMild ConfusionHacksawMegaMekVerminionMagellemp123Leon2309Squigie
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Step 1: Watch new legislation get written just for me
    Step 2: Legally change name
    Step 3: Watch them draft new legislation once again

    Repeat 2-3, then show how much time and money was spent by small government republicans trying to reduce your salary to 1$ instead of firing you.

    edit: Even better, change your name to GoP members writting the bill. I'd crowdfund that for every worker in the bill.

    DiannaoChong on
    steam_sig.png
    ShadowhopeGnome-InterruptusGiggles_Funsworthjdarksunemp123Squigie
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    Can we stop and appreciate the sheer ridiculousness of an almost sitting President using Twitter as their fucking decree mechanism?

    And then complaining that "the media" misinterprets him, when he is talking directly to the people via Twitter, with no media middlemen at all.
    God what will the incoming Press Secretary even do?

    Perhaps you're familiar with this woman's work?

    Ph5RQVjA_400x400.jpg


    They'll do that. That thing she did. That's what they'll do.

    LovelyscherbchenNobeardShadowhopeSleepSpoitGiggles_FunsworthPanda4YouVegemyteJazzHacksawemp123
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Can we stop and appreciate the sheer ridiculousness of an almost sitting President using Twitter as their fucking decree mechanism?

    And then complaining that "the media" misinterprets him, when he is talking directly to the people via Twitter, with no media middlemen at all.
    God what will the incoming Press Secretary even do?

    "Here are the stories you are to print. If you deviate from these, you will no longer be given anything, and your publication will be publicly denounced."

    wpyz0Y5.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    IncenjucarSleepGnome-InterruptusDedwrekkaGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenPanda4YouJazzMan in the Mistsjdarksunemp123Leon2309
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    Cantelope wrote: »
    I imagine one of two futures. One of which is that we allow states to have radically different freedoms available to their citizens, such that if you are liberal you are pretty much forced into a blue state to enjoy many freedoms you currently take for granted, and vis versa for Republicans.

    LTTP but I absolutely have to point something out here. One of the explicit motivators for modern conservatives* is that they want to impose their strict world view on others. They do not believe in allowing other people to be different. Conservatives* would never allow blue states to have their own rules because conservatives* are anti-freedom.

    *I don't think this term even applies to these kind of people anymore but I can't come up with anything better.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    DarkPrimusLovelySleepGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenJazzMan in the MistsjdarksunMegaMekEriosCalicaLeon2309Squigie
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    I do not see why a federal cap on minimum wages would be unconstitutional. No one has ever done it, but the same logic that makes a federal minimum wage legal should hold for making a cap on it legal as well.

    The real key to making welfare popular is to focus on real personal stories of it helping people get back on their feet and back to work. Numbers and experts just do not seem to work on this issue.

    No, what they need to do is make it clear to people what government assistance actually is so that they can't stand on a soapbox of bullshit.

    Make it abundantly clear that Cliven bundy is a thief because he didn't pay the absurdly cheap government fee to graze his cattle and that he would be about 10 times more in debt if the land had been private.

    When someone is stupid enough to do this:

    Someone immediately responds with "You stupid mother fucker people did assist you".

    And when those farmers in idaho or nebraska jerk off to how independant they are point out the subsidies that the government gives them to make non factory farming viable.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    SpoitGiggles_FunsworthPanda4YouHacksawemp123MagellSquigie
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Cantelope wrote: »
    I imagine one of two futures. One of which is that we allow states to have radically different freedoms available to their citizens, such that if you are liberal you are pretty much forced into a blue state to enjoy many freedoms you currently take for granted, and vis versa for Republicans.

    LTTP but I absolutely have to point something out here. One of the explicit motivators for modern conservatives* is that they want to impose their strict world view on others. They do not believe in allowing other people to be different. Conservatives* would never allow blue states to have their own rules because conservatives* are anti-freedom.

    *I don't think this term even applies to these kind of people anymore but I can't come up with anything better
    .

    They're called fascists.

    ArbitraryDescriptorDoodmannNobeardIncenjucarShadowhopeBigJoeMGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenMan in the MistsjdarksunJazzHacksawglithertemp123Calica14357Leon2309
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Trade War.

    Trade War never changes.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudSleepShadowhopeGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenJazz
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Javen wrote: »
    American companies are one thing, but is he really trying to coerce non-US based corporations to build in US "or else"? Like, literally "If you manufacture anywhere but the US, face massive tariffs?

    Using massive tariffs as a bludgeon was literally his central campaign promise.

    Like, you know that wall Mexico is going to pay for? Tariffs are how he plans to get them to pay for it. You know all those jobs in China? Tariffs are how he plans on making them so expensive they have to come here.

    Yup. Simplistic idiotic trade policy is a big winner with lots of voters all over the spectrum sadly.

    Gnome-InterruptusGiggles_Funsworthuser
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Cantelope wrote: »
    I imagine one of two futures. One of which is that we allow states to have radically different freedoms available to their citizens, such that if you are liberal you are pretty much forced into a blue state to enjoy many freedoms you currently take for granted, and vis versa for Republicans.

    LTTP but I absolutely have to point something out here. One of the explicit motivators for modern conservatives* is that they want to impose their strict world view on others. They do not believe in allowing other people to be different. Conservatives* would never allow blue states to have their own rules because conservatives* are anti-freedom.

    *I don't think this term even applies to these kind of people anymore but I can't come up with anything better.

    Going back to the Articles of Confederation might hold some appeal to the lesser informed citizens and elected officials...

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4641709/ryan-defunding-pp
    Ryan on Defunding PP

    Defunding Planned Parenthood will be in reconciliation bill.
    Trump is going to be able to uphold his promise to defund Planned Parenthood sooner than later.

    Or should I have taken that promise seriously but not literally?

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Cantelope wrote: »
    I imagine one of two futures. One of which is that we allow states to have radically different freedoms available to their citizens, such that if you are liberal you are pretty much forced into a blue state to enjoy many freedoms you currently take for granted, and vis versa for Republicans.

    LTTP but I absolutely have to point something out here. One of the explicit motivators for modern conservatives* is that they want to impose their strict world view on others. They do not believe in allowing other people to be different. Conservatives* would never allow blue states to have their own rules because conservatives* are anti-freedom.

    *I don't think this term even applies to these kind of people anymore but I can't come up with anything better
    .

    They're called fascists.

    Authoritarians is a little more objective. And should stick in craw of libertarians in a more obvious manner.

    Squigie
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Cantelope wrote: »
    I imagine one of two futures. One of which is that we allow states to have radically different freedoms available to their citizens, such that if you are liberal you are pretty much forced into a blue state to enjoy many freedoms you currently take for granted, and vis versa for Republicans.

    LTTP but I absolutely have to point something out here. One of the explicit motivators for modern conservatives* is that they want to impose their strict world view on others. They do not believe in allowing other people to be different. Conservatives* would never allow blue states to have their own rules because conservatives* are anti-freedom.

    They howl about states rights when they want to do something like discriminate against black people, but when the blue states want to do something like improve healthcare, suddenly they come over all Stalinesque.

    LovelyOrcaSpoitGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenVegemyteMan in the MistsjdarksunJazzemp123Leon2309
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Cantelope wrote: »
    I imagine one of two futures. One of which is that we allow states to have radically different freedoms available to their citizens, such that if you are liberal you are pretty much forced into a blue state to enjoy many freedoms you currently take for granted, and vis versa for Republicans.

    LTTP but I absolutely have to point something out here. One of the explicit motivators for modern conservatives* is that they want to impose their strict world view on others. They do not believe in allowing other people to be different. Conservatives* would never allow blue states to have their own rules because conservatives* are anti-freedom.

    *I don't think this term even applies to these kind of people anymore but I can't come up with anything better
    .

    They're called fascists.

    Authoritarians is a little more objective. And should stick in craw of libertarians in a more obvious manner.

    Too many syllables to make it into a good pejorative.

    Panda4YouMegaMek
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Last time federal workers went on strike, it didn't end well for them.

    But maybe it's time for them to get their dignity back after 30 years.

    Dignity is a myth. Spite is the real deal.

    Panda4You
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    I'm listening to the senate committee hearings now with Clapper et al right now. I'm not sure I can handle hearing our representatives talk about the dangers of "cyber" for the next four years.

    I 100% believe that at least one of them thinks "cyber" is something like the assimilation computer in Superman III.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    GoodKingJayIII
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Step 1: Watch new legislation get written just for me
    Step 2: Legally change name
    Step 3: Watch them draft new legislation once again

    Repeat 2-3, then show how much time and money was spent by small government republicans trying to reduce your salary to 1$ instead of firing you.

    edit: Even better, change your name to GoP members writting the bill. I'd crowdfund that for every worker in the bill.

    We Dungeons & Dragons, now.

    Panda4You
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    This is the way they keep the fillibuster, and are thus prevented by the scurrilous Democrats from implementing the rest of the incredibly terrible ideas they sold the base on, while getting the Obamacare repeal to show they actually did something.

    I still think they're going to use the SCOTUS nomination to get their 'excuse' to kill the fillibuster.

    You can only kill the fillibuster in the rules vote on the first day of class. After that, it's in place for two years.

    So if they still haven't gotten a nominee seated by 2018 and we can't get our shit together before then, maybe.

    This is not true. The legislature sets the rules and they can change them whenever they want.
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.

    Oh I didn't know there was a way to avoid filibusters using rules.

    This seems dumb. Why not declare everything revenue neutral forever then.

    They don't directly control how it gets analyzed. Bill get submitted to the Congressional Budget Office which is a nonpartisan office which takes the data from the bill and rates it's budget impacts.

    Except it's a toothless non-partisan office that operates independently only because we agree that's what it is. But the other side doesn't agree with that anymore, and they're going to tell it to just get fucked.

    The Reconciliation process and in particular the Byrd rule(which includes the sunset provisions and revenue neutral stuff) is outlined in law.

    Law that has no power.

    Congress cannot bind congress and implicit repeal is a thing.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    This is the way they keep the fillibuster, and are thus prevented by the scurrilous Democrats from implementing the rest of the incredibly terrible ideas they sold the base on, while getting the Obamacare repeal to show they actually did something.

    I still think they're going to use the SCOTUS nomination to get their 'excuse' to kill the fillibuster.

    You can only kill the fillibuster in the rules vote on the first day of class. After that, it's in place for two years.

    So if they still haven't gotten a nominee seated by 2018 and we can't get our shit together before then, maybe.

    This is not true. The legislature sets the rules and they can change them whenever they want.
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.

    Oh I didn't know there was a way to avoid filibusters using rules.

    This seems dumb. Why not declare everything revenue neutral forever then.

    They don't directly control how it gets analyzed. Bill get submitted to the Congressional Budget Office which is a nonpartisan office which takes the data from the bill and rates it's budget impacts.

    Except it's a toothless non-partisan office that operates independently only because we agree that's what it is. But the other side doesn't agree with that anymore, and they're going to tell it to just get fucked.

    The Reconciliation process and in particular the Byrd rule(which includes the sunset provisions and revenue neutral stuff) is outlined in law.

    Law that has no power.

    Congress cannot bind congress and implicit repeal is a thing.

    Changing the rules to remove the filibuster requires more votes than just ending the filibuster. Without democrat votes, they can no longer remove it for this Congress.

    Congress cannot bind a future congress, but they can bind the current. That's why any of the rules mean anything. And implicit repeal requires a law to have been passed. If the rules say it wasn't passed, it can't implicitly repeal the rules.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    SpoitOptimusZedGiggles_Funsworth
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    This is the way they keep the fillibuster, and are thus prevented by the scurrilous Democrats from implementing the rest of the incredibly terrible ideas they sold the base on, while getting the Obamacare repeal to show they actually did something.

    I still think they're going to use the SCOTUS nomination to get their 'excuse' to kill the fillibuster.

    You can only kill the fillibuster in the rules vote on the first day of class. After that, it's in place for two years.

    So if they still haven't gotten a nominee seated by 2018 and we can't get our shit together before then, maybe.

    This is not true. The legislature sets the rules and they can change them whenever they want.
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.

    Oh I didn't know there was a way to avoid filibusters using rules.

    This seems dumb. Why not declare everything revenue neutral forever then.

    They don't directly control how it gets analyzed. Bill get submitted to the Congressional Budget Office which is a nonpartisan office which takes the data from the bill and rates it's budget impacts.

    Except it's a toothless non-partisan office that operates independently only because we agree that's what it is. But the other side doesn't agree with that anymore, and they're going to tell it to just get fucked.

    The Reconciliation process and in particular the Byrd rule(which includes the sunset provisions and revenue neutral stuff) is outlined in law.

    Law that has no power.

    Congress cannot bind congress and implicit repeal is a thing.

    Changing the rules to remove the filibuster requires more votes than just ending the filibuster. Without democrat votes, they can no longer remove it for this Congress.

    Congress cannot bind a future congress, but they can bind the current. That's why any of the rules mean anything. And implicit repeal requires a law to have been passed. If the rules say it wasn't passed, it can't implicitly repeal the rules.

    No it does not require more votes than ending the filibuster. It requires 50%+1. As it always has.

    Congress also cannot bind the current. For the same reasons they cannot bind latter. New law supersedes old law and congress can always write new law.

    The only reason that the rules work as they do is because the majority continues to agree they do. It is convention and nothing more.

    And convention means nothing these days.

    wbBv3fj.png
    Gnome-InterruptusOptimusZedGiggles_FunsworthDarkewolfeDracomicron
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Congress is bound by the law . The budget act is the law. Current congress can't bind future ones with rules but laws stand unless they're changed

    OptimusZed
  • JavenJaven Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Javen wrote: »
    American companies are one thing, but is he really trying to coerce non-US based corporations to build in US "or else"? Like, literally "If you manufacture anywhere but the US, face massive tariffs?

    Using massive tariffs as a bludgeon was literally his central campaign promise.

    Like, you know that wall Mexico is going to pay for? Tariffs are how he plans to get them to pay for it. You know all those jobs in China? Tariffs are how he plans on making them so expensive they have to come here.

    The problem with this is that he's wielding American consumer demand like Republicans want to wield our military, and we're nowhere near as strong in one as we are in the other.

    Javen on
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Gaddez wrote: »
    I do not see why a federal cap on minimum wages would be unconstitutional. No one has ever done it, but the same logic that makes a federal minimum wage legal should hold for making a cap on it legal as well.

    The real key to making welfare popular is to focus on real personal stories of it helping people get back on their feet and back to work. Numbers and experts just do not seem to work on this issue.

    No, what they need to do is make it clear to people what government assistance actually is so that they can't stand on a soapbox of bullshit.

    Make it abundantly clear that Cliven bundy is a thief because he didn't pay the absurdly cheap government fee to graze his cattle and that he would be about 10 times more in debt if the land had been private.

    When someone is stupid enough to do this:
    Someone immediately responds with "You stupid mother fucker people did assist you".

    And when those farmers in idaho or nebraska jerk off to how independant they are point out the subsidies that the government gives them to make non factory farming viable.

    Pointing out reality will never work. It is more important for them to be "right" than to be accurate.

    EDIT:That's not quite right. It's more important that they feel right. That's how Trump won and that's how he will... govern isn't the right word. Spew shit? Twitter? Shwitter? Whatever. Point is that when Grandma dies in her recliner at age 58 because the 'Pubs dismantled the program that paid for her meds, her tombstone will say "But what about her emails?"

    Nobeard on
    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    Gnome-InterruptusTNTrooperkimeGiggles_FunsworthJazzMegaMekSquigie
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Viskod wrote: »
    Destroy the ethics committee.

    Prevent the congressional budget office from reporting on the financial fallout of ACA repeal legislation.

    Make it difficult for states to raise their own minimum wage.

    Hold mass confirmation hearings so the public is less informed about them.

    And now, enable the cutting of pay for specific people.

    All while the incoming President continues to make threats against private businesses for perfectly legal decisions.

    Maybe someone should email Hillary about all this so it's actually perceived as corruption.

    Yo can I steal this?

  • GoodKingJayIIIGoodKingJayIII Registered User regular

    We haven't seen this level of cronyism in almost a decade. I guess Trump and the GOP feel like they have a lot of catching up to do.

    Battletag: Threeve#1501
    PSN: Threeve703
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited January 2017
    Congress is bound by the law . The budget act is the law. Current congress can't bind future ones with rules but laws stand unless they're changed

    Congress cannot be bound by law. They write new law. The new law supersedes the old law. The old law is implicitly repealed.

    Edit: To clarify: Congressional acts cannot be bound by any law but the constitution and international treaties. New legislation supersedes old legislation. The old legislation literally doesn't even need to be specifically repealed.

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
    Hacksaw
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    This is the way they keep the fillibuster, and are thus prevented by the scurrilous Democrats from implementing the rest of the incredibly terrible ideas they sold the base on, while getting the Obamacare repeal to show they actually did something.

    I still think they're going to use the SCOTUS nomination to get their 'excuse' to kill the fillibuster.

    You can only kill the fillibuster in the rules vote on the first day of class. After that, it's in place for two years.

    So if they still haven't gotten a nominee seated by 2018 and we can't get our shit together before then, maybe.

    This is not true. The legislature sets the rules and they can change them whenever they want.
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.

    Oh I didn't know there was a way to avoid filibusters using rules.

    This seems dumb. Why not declare everything revenue neutral forever then.

    They don't directly control how it gets analyzed. Bill get submitted to the Congressional Budget Office which is a nonpartisan office which takes the data from the bill and rates it's budget impacts.

    Except it's a toothless non-partisan office that operates independently only because we agree that's what it is. But the other side doesn't agree with that anymore, and they're going to tell it to just get fucked.

    The Reconciliation process and in particular the Byrd rule(which includes the sunset provisions and revenue neutral stuff) is outlined in law.

    Law that has no power.

    Congress cannot bind congress and implicit repeal is a thing.

    Changing the rules to remove the filibuster requires more votes than just ending the filibuster. Without democrat votes, they can no longer remove it for this Congress.

    Congress cannot bind a future congress, but they can bind the current. That's why any of the rules mean anything. And implicit repeal requires a law to have been passed. If the rules say it wasn't passed, it can't implicitly repeal the rules.

    No it does not require more votes than ending the filibuster. It requires 50%+1. As it always has.

    Congress also cannot bind the current. For the same reasons they cannot bind latter. New law supersedes old law and congress can always write new law.

    The only reason that the rules work as they do is because the majority continues to agree they do. It is convention and nothing more.

    And convention means nothing these days.

    Uh, the rules take 66% to change because they just legally bound themselves to that requirement, persuant to the constitution, in making that a rule.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • SleepSleep Registered User regular

    Jesus fuck. Literally the AG he outright bribed to drop a corruption case against him is getting a post in his fucking cabinet!? I don't understand how anyone can't call this corruption.

    ShadowhopekimeGiggles_FunsworthjdarksunJazzLovelyTransporterMan in the MistsMagellemp123
  • CogCog Registered User regular

    Maybe the tactic is to make us all so exhausted of being outraged at absurd shit all the time before he's even sworn in so we're too jaded and demoralized to give any more shits?

  • DedwrekkaDedwrekka What Would Nyarlathotep Do? Registered User regular
    Mr Khan wrote: »
    Mayabird wrote: »
    What are the voting rates for elderly folks when divided by income and/or who do they vote for? It might be in the GOP's interest to kill off poor old people and save Medicare just for richer elders (the ones who never really needed it in the first place) who will continue to vote R.

    Even rich old people need government healthcare, if by rich you mean "well off." The 1% don't, but they are literally the 1% and so not a big voting bloc. For everyone else, no insurance company is going to insure the elderly because they are not cost effective. You *will* get something serious and die when you are old. It is literally unavoidable, unless you are killed in a freak and instantaneous accident (not common.) If old folk are not supported by the government for health care in their old age they will need to pay out of pocket, because insuring anyone above the age of 70 is like insuring a house teetering on the edge of a cliff.

    Which does beg the question of how medicare can be voucherized unless the premiums are prohibitively exorbitant to the point where your vouchers are functionally worthless.

    You can't voucherize government controlled healthcare because the biggest impact of socialized medicine has nothing to do with premiums or deductibles.

    Vouchers don't let you negotiate with healthcare providers and medical tech companies to reduce costs on associated medicine, implants and machinery.

    Vouchers are so fundamentally different that it shouldn't even be a comparison.

    People can't negotiate for care in the medical field. You have a heart attack or a stroke, you're main choices are often "nearest hospital" or "die". The average consumer does not have the knowledge or ability to choose one prescription medicine over the other. Insurance doesn't negotiate, and they often choose what you can get based on what costs them the least rather than what costs you the least.
    Socialized medicine is one of the very few ways that the average consumer can interact with the medical field in any way that gets close to a capitalist approach.

    Giggles_FunsworthDarkewolfePLAPanda4YouOrcaMegaMekLovelyemp123Leon2309
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »

    Jesus fuck. Literally the AG he outright bribed to drop a corruption case against him is getting a post in his fucking cabinet!? I don't understand how anyone can't call this corruption.

    Simple. Only Democrats can be corrupt.

    NobeardSleepAistanGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenIncenjucarCommander ZoomHacksawPanda4YouMan in the MistsSquigie
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited January 2017

    Remember when Republicans were all about maintaining the status quo to preserve stability for business investment and growth? Yeah. The good old days.

    hippofant on
    GaddezGiggles_Funsworth
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    daveNYC wrote: »
    OptimusZed wrote: »
    This is the way they keep the fillibuster, and are thus prevented by the scurrilous Democrats from implementing the rest of the incredibly terrible ideas they sold the base on, while getting the Obamacare repeal to show they actually did something.

    I still think they're going to use the SCOTUS nomination to get their 'excuse' to kill the fillibuster.

    You can only kill the fillibuster in the rules vote on the first day of class. After that, it's in place for two years.

    So if they still haven't gotten a nominee seated by 2018 and we can't get our shit together before then, maybe.

    This is not true. The legislature sets the rules and they can change them whenever they want.
    Darkewolfe wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    Honk wrote: »
    So if I get this right they know it will cost billions to repeal ACA.

    But presumably they want to remove it to reduce federal spending?

    So then the solution is to ignore the cost spending tens of billions of federal money. That way the excel sheet will say that spending was reduced?

    This sounds like how the Greek government viewed numbers until recently.

    It sounds like they can't avoid a filibuster unless it's revenue neutral, so they're trying to order the CBO to declare it revenue neutral.

    But then the people demanding it be revenue neutral will know that it isn't actually revenue neutral?

    Since I now know it's not revenue neutral they will of course know this as well.

    Its a quirk of the US filibuster system. you can avoid the filibuster of needing 60 votes by using reconciliation but it only works if your bill is revenue neutral. So it's more than just public perception. they literally can't pass it otherwise.

    Oh I didn't know there was a way to avoid filibusters using rules.

    This seems dumb. Why not declare everything revenue neutral forever then.

    They don't directly control how it gets analyzed. Bill get submitted to the Congressional Budget Office which is a nonpartisan office which takes the data from the bill and rates it's budget impacts.

    Except it's a toothless non-partisan office that operates independently only because we agree that's what it is. But the other side doesn't agree with that anymore, and they're going to tell it to just get fucked.

    The Reconciliation process and in particular the Byrd rule(which includes the sunset provisions and revenue neutral stuff) is outlined in law.

    Law that has no power.

    Congress cannot bind congress and implicit repeal is a thing.

    Changing the rules to remove the filibuster requires more votes than just ending the filibuster. Without democrat votes, they can no longer remove it for this Congress.

    Congress cannot bind a future congress, but they can bind the current. That's why any of the rules mean anything. And implicit repeal requires a law to have been passed. If the rules say it wasn't passed, it can't implicitly repeal the rules.

    No it does not require more votes than ending the filibuster. It requires 50%+1. As it always has.

    Congress also cannot bind the current. For the same reasons they cannot bind latter. New law supersedes old law and congress can always write new law.

    The only reason that the rules work as they do is because the majority continues to agree they do. It is convention and nothing more.

    And convention means nothing these days.

    Uh, the rules take 66% to change because they just legally bound themselves to that requirement, persuant to the constitution, in making that a rule.

    They've shown themselves willing to ignore the rules when it suits them. Any remember the sit-in on gun control.

    Chair: "Any objections?"
    Like ten people: "I OBJECT!!"
    Chair: "Let the record show there were no objections."

    NobeardShadowhopeOatsGnome-InterruptusGiggles_FunsworthDarkewolfeGennenalyse RuebenPLAQuidCommander ZoomHacksawLovelyMild ConfusionMan in the MistsLeon2309
  • NobeardNobeard North Carolina: Failed StateRegistered User regular
    Serious question. Can Trump unilaterally make and use concentration camps? If so I think there is a 30% chance we will see them in the next 4 years.

    I'm not saying we are going to have an autocratic dystopia, but things keep happening that look like they come from an autocratic dystopia.
    mRahmaniGiggles_FunsworthMild ConfusionSmrtnik
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    Sleep wrote: »

    Jesus fuck. Literally the AG he outright bribed to drop a corruption case against him is getting a post in his fucking cabinet!? I don't understand how anyone can't call this corruption.

    They have to be willing to accept the premise that he bribed her to drop the corruption case. If they willfully reject that premise, there is no cronyism or political back-scratching. Simple!

    shryke
  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Serious question. Can Trump unilaterally make and use concentration camps? If so I think there is a 30% chance we will see them in the next 4 years.

    No, not unilaterally. With congress and a slight majority in SCOTUS? Yes.

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
    Panda4You
  • Mr KhanMr Khan Not Everyone WAHHHRegistered User regular
    Nobeard wrote: »
    Serious question. Can Trump unilaterally make and use concentration camps? If so I think there is a 30% chance we will see them in the next 4 years.

    When the FEMA concentration camps come and the Oathkeeper crowd cheers them on...

    SleepGiggles_FunsworthGennenalyse RuebenshrykeHacksawMegaMekLovelyMagellemp123Squigie
This discussion has been closed.