US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1199

On August 01 2014 22:31 GreenHorizons wrote:



Well not really? Because if somehow the Republicans take the Senate, and Obama is supposed to 'stand up for his principles' like the right has been screeching for their reps to do, then Dems should expect him to veto practically everything Republicans propose and Repubs wont have enough to override a veto (without Dem support).

As of now, they can't even pass their own damn immigration bill. Pretty shameful if they called them back and then couldn't even vote on (let alone pass) something (considering it's not even a slight risk of having any real meaning).

I mean how ridiculous do all the people claiming 'Obama refuses to negotiate' look when the people they want him to negotiate with (over real laws), can't even come to an agreement among themselves (on theatrical laws)...?

This immigration bill fiasco is just more proof that even if the Republicans did completely write the ACA (as they did this immigration bill) they would of still voted against it.

In light of all the recent news, I think the perfect word to describe the Republican party currently is schizophrenic.

John Kerry is upset by heavy criticism from Israelis — left, right and center — of his recent cease-fire diplomacy. But that’s only half the story. More significant is the consternation of America’s Arab partners, starting with the president of the Palestinian Authority. Mahmoud Abbas was stunned that Kerry would fly off to Paris to negotiate with Hamas allies Qatar and Turkey in talks that excluded the PA and Egypt.

The talks also undermined Egypt’s cease-fire proposal, which Israel had accepted and Hamas rejected (and would have prevented the vast majority of the casualties on both sides). “Kerry tried through his latest plan to destroy the Egyptian bid,” charged a senior Palestinian official quoted in the Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat — a peace plan that the PA itself had supported.

It gets worse. Kerry did not just trample an Egyptian initiative. It was backed by the entire Arab League and specifically praised by Saudi Arabia. With the exception of Qatar — more a bank than a country — the Arabs are unanimous in wanting to see Hamas weakened, if not overthrown. The cease-fire-in-place they backed would have denied Hamas any reward for starting this war, while what Kerry brought back from Paris granted practically all of its demands.

Which is what provoked the severe criticism Kerry received at home. When as respected and scrupulously independent a national security expert as David Ignatius calls Kerry’s intervention a blunder, you know this is not partisan carping from the usual suspects. This is general amazement at Kerry’s cluelessness....

On August 01 2014 22:31 GreenHorizons wrote:



Well not really? Because if somehow the Republicans take the Senate, and Obama is supposed to 'stand up for his principles' like the right has been screeching for their reps to do, then Dems should expect him to veto practically everything Republicans propose and Repubs wont have enough to override a veto (without Dem support).

As of now, they can't even pass their own damn immigration bill. Pretty shameful if they called them back and then couldn't even vote on (let alone pass) something (considering it's not even a slight risk of having any real meaning).

I mean how ridiculous do all the people claiming 'Obama refuses to negotiate' look when the people they want him to negotiate with (over real laws), can't even come to an agreement among themselves (on theatrical laws)...?

This immigration bill fiasco is just more proof that even if the Republicans did completely write the ACA (as they did this immigration bill) they would of still voted against it.

In light of all the recent news, I think the perfect word to describe the Republican party currently is schizophrenic.

On August 02 2014 00:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
If the Republicans take the Senate they still wouldn't be able to pass anything as there are two Republican parties, just look at the House.

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) did not include his effort to block new coal rules in a bill reauthorizing funds for the United States Export-Import Bank introduced Wednesday night, heading off a fight among Democrats about the future of the country's export credit agency.

The Ex-Im Bank provides loans for projects in other countries that will purchase U.S.-manufactured goods or use U.S. services. The Hill reported late Wednesday that Manchin left out a measure that would stop the bank's new rules that limit the type of coal-fired power plants it can finance abroad. The bank had announced that new policy last December.

Manchin's coal measure was creating problems among Democrats at a time when the party has largely aligned behind reauthorization. Some Republicans, however, have argued against renewing funding. A number of Senate Democrats opposed Manchin's coal measure, and environmental groups said they would oppose reauthorization altogether if it were included.

Manchin instead plans to offer the coal measure as an amendment. "In order to stay competitive abroad and boost our economy at home, our business exporters need certainty that they can receive the financial loan guarantees to invest and sell internationally," Manchin said in a statement. "I also believe that if we are truly committed to protecting our global environment, the U.S. should lead the world in clean coal technology, which is why I am introducing an amendment that helps U.S. businesses export that technology to the rest of the world."

Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) joined Manchin in introducing the bill, which would extend funding for the Ex-Im Bank another five years.

Environmental groups praised the introduction of the reauthorization bill without the coal measure.

On August 01 2014 22:46 RCMDVA wrote:


Depends on if McConnell is Majority Leader or not if there is 51+ Republican Senate.

* If the Reps don't win the Senate, I want it to be a 50-50 tie so at least Biden can't leave the country for 2 years.

On August 02 2014 04:32 TommyP wrote:
Does anyone think the War on Drugs is the main cause of the border crisis?
Without drugs to push to US, Central American gangs lose their money and power and all over I'm hearing gangs are the main reason for children leaving countries like Guatemala. Instead of attacking the root of the problem (why are these kids coming here) and trying to fix that, reps & tea party & Dems are pushing for different bills that mask the problem.
Thoughts?

WASHINGTON -- The House is expected to vote later Friday on a reworked and even more conservative package to address the ongoing border crisis, with measures that would speed up deportations and a separate vote to end a policy that protects from deportation undocumented young people with long-standing ties to the U.S.

Then they'll leave Washington, having successfully gone after one of President Barack Obama's key policies but approving funding legislation that couldn't get through the Senate -- which isn't here to pass it anyway.

Congress, in other words, is set to skip town until September without sending a bill to the president's desk to deal with an influx of more than 57,500 unaccompanied minors who have been apprehended at the border since the beginning of October -- even though nearly all members in both chambers have deemed the situation a crisis.

House Republicans brought more GOP members on board Friday for a funding bill that would now offer $694 million to address the border crisis. They said after a meeting Friday morning that they're optimistic the bill can pass after the changes.

"Those new ideas were rolled out today and it was the best rendition of 'Kumbayah' I've ever heard in my life," Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), a member of the working group that helped draft the bill's policies, told reporters.

Leadership was forced to scrap a vote at the last minute on Thursday when it appeared it couldn't get the 218 votes needed for passage. Nearly all Democrats opposed that legislation, along with some Republicans.

Along with the original bill's $659 million in funding -- a fraction of President Barack Obama's $3.7 billion request and the Senate's failed $2.7 billion package -- it included measures to send National Guard troops to the border, add immigration lawyers and change a 2008 law so unaccompanied minors from countries other than Mexico and Canada could be deported more quickly.

It still wasn't considered strong enough for some Republicans, so leadership promised an additional vote on Thursday, if the first bill were to pass, on legislation that would end the president's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy on undocumented young people and prevent him from taking additional executive action in the future.

That wasn't enough to win over hard-line GOP members, either. But the revised package presented to members on Friday received more support, Republicans said after a meeting.

It will include the general framework of the original package, but will sub in language from Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) to change the 2008 law so minors can be removed more quickly.

The five conservative justices recently ruled in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. that closely held for-profit companies may refuse to cover women's contraceptives for religious reasons. Ginsburg was joined by the two other women on the court as well as liberal Justice Stephen Breyer in a dissenting opinion, which held that leaving it to companies to decide what sorts of health coverage a woman may use amounted to a form of discrimination.

Asked about the decision by the AP on Thursday, Ginsburg suggested the five male justices simply didn't know better. "I have no doubt that if the court had been composed of nine women the result would have been different in Hobby Lobby," she said. But, she added, she hasn't entirely lost hope for the men in the court's majority opinion: "As long as one lives, one can learn."

The 81-year-old justice, who's faced speculation about whether she'll retire, appears to be suggesting she may have a thing or two on her younger counterparts. Asked Thursday by Yahoo News whether she might retire in time for President Obama to appoint a like-minded successor, she responded that she's not going anywhere. "My answer is, I will do this job as long as I can do it full steam."

She also took on the age critics again in her interview with the AP: "So who do you think could be nominated now that would get through the Senate that you would rather see on the court than me?" Ginsburg was first nominated by President Bill Clinton and has served on the court since 1993. "Right now," she added, "I don't see any sign that I'm less able to do the job."

Ginsburg went on to discuss the court's ruling on gay marriage, adding the court won't "duck" a decision there again.

Ginsburg has been wary in the past about being too far ahead of the country on major social issues. But Americans' opinions on gay marriage have changed dramatically in recent years. Same-sex marriage is now legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia.

"I think the court will not do what they did in the old days when they continually ducked the issue of miscegenation," Ginsburg said in reference to bans on interracial marriage, which were not struck down by the Supreme Court until 1967. "If a case is properly before the court, they will take it."

Ginsburg was in the majority opinion that struck down part of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act in June of 2013. She also ruled in the majority that declined to rule on California's Prop 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. (Since then, same-sex unions have resumed in California.)

After appeals courts in Denver and Richmond, Virginia, upheld lower court rulings striking down state constitutional bans on gay marriage, the issue may be headed back to the Supreme Court in the coming months.

Wherever her colleagues stand on the issue, Ginsburg intends to be a vigorous voice in that debate. "All I can say is that I am still here," she told Yahoo News, "and likely to remain for a while."

On August 02 2014 08:32 Introvert wrote:
So does that make Clarence Thomas the only one without a "blind spot" on issues affecting the African-American community? Maybe she should side with him more, perhaps she has a blind spot!

I don't recall seeing Justices make those types of comments about their colleagues that often.

On August 02 2014 08:32 Introvert wrote:
So does that make Clarence Thomas the only one without a "blind spot" on issues affecting the African-American community? Maybe she should side with him more, perhaps she has a blind spot!

More important, in any capitalist society most people are bound to be part of the middle and working classes; public policy should focus on raising their standard of living, instead of raising their chances of getting rich. What made the U.S. economy so remarkable for most of the twentieth century was the fact that, even if working people never moved into a different class, over time they saw their standard of living rise sharply. Between the late nineteen-forties and the early nineteen-seventies, median household income in the U.S. doubled. That’s what has really changed in the past forty years. The economy is growing more slowly than it did in the postwar era, and average workers’ share of the pie has been shrinking. It’s no surprise that people in Washington prefer to talk about mobility rather than about this basic reality. Raising living standards for ordinary workers is hard: you need to either get wages growing or talk about things that scare politicians, like “redistribution” and “taxes.” But making it easier for some Americans to move up the economic ladder is no great triumph if most can barely hold on.