|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Ok, so I've been really busy with work and just read through about 600 posts to catch up. (GF playing Dragon Age and saying "I'm a swarm of flies, bitches", so yeah, I'm bored.)
Comments on the last week or two of posting (mostly corrections of relgious misconceptions):
-Trump isn't a conservative, or much of anything else, ideologically.
-Scott Walker dropping out is probably a mistake unless Rubio or Bush or both promised him a really good deal.
-Papal infallibility was declared in 1869. Lots of Catholics dissented, and still do. It was a conservative moment and an overreaction.
-The Catholic Church is all the faithful. The fact that it's pretty loosely observed is part of its deal and, frankly, the part that makes the silly bits about condoms etc. more okay (though, I still think, wrong).
-Catholics are Christian. (Yes, there are atheist Catholics etc, but they are a tiny minority. Most Catholics call and think of themselves as Christian, and they follow the Nicene Creed).
-The whole "Jews must return to Holy Land" is not actually accepted by mainline Christianity. It's a stretched Biblical interpretation at best.
-The New Testament was written by committed pacifists. Any war-mongering is way after the completion of these texts.
-The New Testament assume the word "Jew" is religious, applying both to what we'd call Jews and what we'd call Christian converts from Judaism (anybody who followed Mosaic Law). The assumption is that Christian converts would continue to observe Jewish dietary and other rites in addition to the Christian ones. Gentile converts were debated, but eventually allowed in without following Mosaic law.
-Christians are hardly one ideological block in the US. Christian Right (Evangelicals, Mormons, and Conservative Catholics) are one block of sorts, though it disagrees strongly with itself on many issues, including poverty prevention, immigration, etc. Mainline Churches are even more all over the map, which leads to them having less of a coherent voice on anything. And when they do agree on something (Iraq war bad) they tend to be ignored or unreported. Black Christians tend to have their own set of views, frequently socially conservative but otherwise stridently liberal, but again highly varied in approach.
-Christians hardly vote the consciences of their pastors. Pastors are significantly more politically liberal than their flocks, in general.
-Deism was a Christian creed, though one lacking in intellectual rigor, such that it eventually split, with half absorbing back into mainline Christianity and half joining up with Agnosticism.
-American Catholics aren't a political bloc at all. They are basically identical to the US population at large, with a few demographic differences. There are liberals who focus on the church's economic and racial justice ideas, and conservatives who focus on the sex stuff.
|
On September 26 2015 05:34 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 05:30 zlefin wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious. I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways. The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic. Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing. A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election. That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision. Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this). Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd. Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage.
Let's be honest, this would never had happened if Obama is exact the same person but white. This is OK, and maybe necessary as growing pain, but damn it sucks in the short term.
|
On September 26 2015 08:38 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 05:34 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:30 zlefin wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. again, don't assume what I'm thinking instead of asking. It's very unhelpful. Making false assumptions then arguing against them is just obnoxious. I know y'all mean well, but it's frustrating that, instead of talking on the topic (or just ignoring it), people bring up points that I didn't argue in the first place, or bring up side details that are obvious things one would have considered anyways. The main issue is that you put forth nothing yourself. You provide nothing except that the government is broken, but don't provide the reasons why. And when people engage you, you tell them you don't want to talk about what they are talking about and accuse them of not addressing your topic. On September 26 2015 05:33 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:25 Plansix wrote:On September 26 2015 05:22 Gorsameth wrote:On September 26 2015 05:20 cLutZ wrote:On September 26 2015 05:11 zlefin wrote:
I'm well aware of those things already krik; I just want to have the discussion (or at least write down my thoughts). The whole point of discussing it is to try to figure out which ones will increase or decrease the failure chance, and to devise new options.
I think your definition of failure is very different from the founders if, as it seems, you define gridlock as a failing. It is the duty of Government to govern. If it cannot do so then it is failing. A gridlock in itself is fine. The problem is that America lacks a means to overcome a gridlock except by waiting for the next election. That is how every government works. Sometimes the job of government is to not change because the people cannot decide how they want to change. And the gridlock prompts them to make that decision. Its not actually. Plenty of countries have systems in place to cause early elections in case of a gridlock with the aim that new elections would break said gridlock (ofc being a multi party system helps this). Failing to pass a budget is not 'deciding there needs to be no change'. Its failing to do your job. Govern Congress seems to have forgotten that. Its to busy scoring points with the home crowd. Agreed. In the case of this government, the gridlock has gone on for far to long. A year or 2 of gridlock on specific issues is fine. But it has reached levels new levels where the entire government is straight up broken because the Tea Party is just looking for ways to hold the government hostage. Let's be honest, this would never had happened if Obama is exact the same person but white. This is OK, and maybe necessary as growing pain, but damn it sucks in the short term.
Well it would have still happened, just with less venom and maybe slightly more compromise given he right has gone two steps farther off the spectrum.
Its more an issue of values that have gone into red alert self preservation mode that far transcends (even though it includes) a racial component.
|
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise will run for majority leader if the current occupant of that post - Kevin McCarthy - moves up to become speaker of the House.
Scalise's decision was expected following Friday's stunning retirement announcement by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), but it is only what is likely to be the opening move in a potential free-for-all for majority leader. At least five members, including Scalise, are considering running for the job.
Scalise (R-La.) held a conference call with members of his leadership whip team on Friday night, according to a source with knowledge of the call. If McCarthy moves up - as seems almost certain at this point - Scalise will make his bid for the No. 2 job in the GOP leadership.
The source said Scalise "emphasized his record as whip of having an open-door policy, taking the time to meet with members individually and as groups, delegations and caucuses."
The source added that Scalise said that as majority leader, "he would continue in that spirit, working with everyone from the rank-and-file to committee chairmen to advance conservative legislation. He talked about how, as leader, he would ensure the House took the legislative steps to develop consensus within the caucus, and how he would schedule a legislative agenda that shows a strong, defined House position, while working with the Senate to put bills on the president’s desk."
Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) is eyeing a run for majority leader, as are Reps. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), Peter Roskam (R-Ill.), and Tom Price (R-Ga.). None of them has officially announced yet.
Source
|
On September 26 2015 05:27 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 05:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:House Speaker John Boehner's sudden resignation Friday "signals that the crazies have taken over the party," New York Republican Peter King said Friday.
“I think it signals the crazies have taken over the party, taken over to the party that you can remove a speaker of the House who’s second in line to be president, a constitutional officer in the middle of his term with no allegations of impropriety, a person who’s honest and doing his job. This has never happened before in our country," King said in an interview with CNN's Dana Bash on Friday afternoon. "He could have stayed on.”
Boehner has done "an outstanding job," King said, adding that he was "extremely disappointed" upon hearing the news of his resignation.
“There was actually, I thought, like a hush in the room for a few seconds where no one — people like looked at each other — they couldn’t believe it. And then he read the prayer of St. Francis, which was very moving," King said of the moment when Boehner told fellow lawmakers that he was leaving office. Source *third in line
No the speaker of the house is second in line to the throne I mean presidency.
The president himself can't be in line to his office when he is already in office that means that the vice president is first in line and the speaker would be second in line. third in line would be president pro tempore aka leader of the senate. After that its cabinet posts I belive.
|
Ah nice one of our local politicians. He's the KKK speech guy btw.
|
I note how he said "get bills on the presidents desk" as though that somehow is the end of there job. He could have said "get bills made into law" but instead he choose the first way and I do not think that was by accident considering how carefully worded the rest of it is.
|
Well, getting bills on the President's desk is something at least, unless they're obvious trash bills which will never be signed of course.
If I were congressman, the best I could hope for is to submit bills, I doubt any (well, any significant ones, like reforming the tax code) would become law.
|
I wonder if random congresspeople ever submit just random common sense bills that should get support from both sides and what happens to them.
|
That happens. They name post offices and the like all the time.
|
They should just give Trump the speakers job to get him out of the race
|
United States42016 Posts
On September 26 2015 12:13 whatisthisasheep wrote:
They should just give Trump the speakers job to get him out of the race
See, posts like this are the issue with you. While Trump may be pretending to be a politician he is not, in fact, a member of the United States congress. That puts the position as Speaker of the House a little beyond him. You might as well have said "they should just enter him into the Kentucky Derby to keep him busy". It's a fine idea but Trump unfortunately is not a horse.
|
On September 26 2015 12:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 12:13 whatisthisasheep wrote:
They should just give Trump the speakers job to get him out of the race See, posts like this are the issue with you. While Trump may be pretending to be a politician he is not, in fact, a member of the United States congress. That puts the position as Speaker of the House a little beyond him. You might as well have said "they should just enter him into the Kentucky Derby to keep him busy". It's a fine idea but Trump unfortunately is not a horse.
Technically I believe there is no requirement that the speaker of the house be a member of congress. They always have been a member of congress but there is no requirement that they actually be one.
|
You don't have to be a member of the House to be speaker.
|
Technically, you need not be a member of Congress to be the speaker. A few years ago someone (Paul Ryan? or some other Wisconsin Rep) proposed Scott Walker could be named speaker back when the first set of Boehner might resign rumblings happened. Now, pols are too jealous to ever do this, but it would be interesting to have someone like Romney take the position now that he seems to be "out" of normal politics.
|
United States42016 Posts
On September 26 2015 12:59 Introvert wrote:
You don't have to be a member of the House to be speaker.
Long standing tradition has power in English style systems. Less in the US than in the UK itself, due to your constitution, but it still matters. It crops up a lot in legal circles but it's not limited to it. Not every rule is written down and nor do they need to be. There has never been a speaker who wasn't a member of the House, and for very good reason.
You do have to be a member of the House to be a speaker. You can cry "but technically there's no rule against it" but this isn't Air Bud, basketball dog rules are not in force.
There's no rule to say that the British Prime Minister has to be an elected MP, or lead the winning party, or even be in the winning party, that's just the way it is because everyone understands that's how it has to be. Same principle from the same roots. Convention is law. Of course convention can be overturned by a greater power but so can laws.
|
On September 26 2015 13:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 12:59 Introvert wrote:
You don't have to be a member of the House to be speaker. Long standing tradition has power in English style systems. Less in the US than in the UK itself, due to your constitution, but it still matters. It crops up a lot in legal circles but it's not limited to it. Not every rule is written down and nor do they need to be. There has never been a speaker who wasn't a member of the House, and for very good reason. You do have to be a member of the House to be a speaker. You can cry "but technically there's no rule against it" but this isn't Air Bud, basketball dog rules are not in force. There's no rule to say that the British Prime Minister has to be an elected MP, or lead the winning party, or even be in the winning party, that's just the way it is because everyone understands that's how it has to be. Same principle from the same roots. Convention is law. Of course convention can be overturned by a greater power but so can laws.
Oh for sure. I was just saying, Hubert Humphrey was almost elected to the speakership after Kennedy was assassinated because there was no VP (Humphrey not yet confirmed) and there were health concerns for Johnson and the next two successors to office.
|
On September 26 2015 13:07 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 12:59 Introvert wrote:
You don't have to be a member of the House to be speaker. Long standing tradition has power in English style systems. Less in the US than in the UK itself, due to your constitution, but it still matters. It crops up a lot in legal circles but it's not limited to it. Not every rule is written down and nor do they need to be. There has never been a speaker who wasn't a member of the House, and for very good reason. You do have to be a member of the House to be a speaker. You can cry "but technically there's no rule against it" but this isn't Air Bud, basketball dog rules are not in force. There's no rule to say that the British Prime Minister has to be an elected MP, or lead the winning party, or even be in the winning party, that's just the way it is because everyone understands that's how it has to be. Same principle from the same roots. Convention is law. Of course convention can be overturned by a greater power but so can laws.
So Trump is a horse, just not one trained for Derby.
|
the real question is, can you participate in the kentucky derby without actually being a horse?
|
On September 26 2015 12:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2015 12:13 whatisthisasheep wrote:
They should just give Trump the speakers job to get him out of the race See, posts like this are the issue with you. While Trump may be pretending to be a politician he is not, in fact, a member of the United States congress. That puts the position as Speaker of the House a little beyond him. You might as well have said "they should just enter him into the Kentucky Derby to keep him busy". It's a fine idea but Trump unfortunately is not a horse.
He might make a better horse than politician though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
