US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3797

WASHINGTON — In the modern era of Congress, it’s a rare day when lawmakers vote on legislation actually intended to go to the president’s desk. It’s an even rarer occasion when that legislation is meant to help individuals battling opioid addiction — as is the case with the bills the House passed on Wednesday and the raft of legislation it’s expected to pass in the next few days.

As with most things in Congress, though, this is not an entirely cheery story.

Lawmakers will pat themselves on the back and issue self-congratulatory press releases this week. And there is, in fact, some reason to celebrate. Republicans and Democrats have managed to find some consensus on an important issue. But there’s concern from lawmakers, the White House and recovery advocates that the measures are just scratching the surface on addiction treatment.

The House bills come in response to the Senate’s Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which passed the upper chamber by a 94-1 vote two months ago. CARA co-author Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) has been haranguing his House GOP colleagues ever since, insisting that they take up the Senate legislation, which was the result of three years of bipartisan, bicameral work. The House instead took up a smattering of its own bills, and largely dropped the focus on treatment and recovery, instead emphasizing prevention and law enforcement aspects.

“I think that’s a fair criticism,” said Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), whose three bills addressing the epidemic are expected to become part of the final package. “I’m hopeful that if we can pass this package of bills... that we’ll be able to combine that with the Senate version that has more of a focus on treatment.”

But recovery groups warn that by making the process more complicated — a conference committee must now be convened, which takes precious time to create; it must then meet and negotiate the differences between the Senate and House legislation; then each chamber must take up and pass the new packages — Congress could easily run out of time. Meanwhile, more than 100 people are dying every day of overdoses.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said that the process could move “pretty quick” now that the House has nearly finished its work. “I imagine most of it will be pre-conferenced before they meet,” he said. “[McConnell] has made clear that he wants this done quickly.”

Portman expressed a similar sentiment Wednesday. “I’m confident that at the end of the day we’ll be able to get together and have one comprehensive package go to the president for his signature and begin to help in our communities around the country,” he said on MSNBC.

he House is taking up 18 bills this week that try, in various ways, to address the country’s epidemic of opioid addiction, from legislation that would help pregnant mothers battling heroin dependency to bills that would crack down on excessive opioid prescriptions. Perhaps most importantly, some of the legislation is aimed at improving what is a thoroughly broken treatment system, with many addicts stuffed into programs that rely on faith-based or 12-step programs, eschewing evidence-based approaches such as medication-assisted treatment.

On May 12 2016 10:58 xDaunt wrote:

Haha, I watched it while my five-year-old daughter was around, and she said "Donald Trump is being awesome! He's a man!"

On May 12 2016 14:08 LegalLord wrote:
It is sort of laughable that someone here thinks that if there weren't an alternative to Hillary, that everyone would just vote for Hillary.

If Hillary were a highly favorable choice for millennials, then they wouldn't even look for an alternative to her. Without her rather numerous shortcomings, Sanders would be a non-issue.

On May 12 2016 14:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Shortcomings?

At the start of the primaries they tried talking about issues, that lead to 3million more votes and an overwhelming delegate lead. If it wasn't for low voter turn out states and vitriolic attacks Sanders would have no chance at all.

On May 12 2016 15:04 xDaunt wrote:

The Democrat voter turnout has not been good at all during this primary. It's down like 20% from 2008. And do you expect the new voters in the primary process to be more likely to be Sanders voters or Hillary voters?

On May 12 2016 09:55 xDaunt wrote:


Even assuming that you're right in declaring that Hillary has a platform that should appeal to younger voters, your reliance upon the strength of the platform as a reason for the young to vote for her is badly misplaced. The problem isn't the message. It's the messenger. Not only does Hillary lack the skillset to emotionally motivate young voters to vote for her, but she has a shitton of political baggage that younger voters do not appreciate, including previous inconsistent political positions. Young voters were never going to be motivated to support Hillary in this election.

On May 12 2016 15:31 Introvert wrote:


The media dumped Hillary for Obama. I wonder if the ratings Trump brings in, plus less of a passion for Hillary, among media will make any difference among younger voters.

I just can't see them selling her as hard as they sold Obama.

I mean if the media and her campaign (but I repeat myself) try to sell her as the boring, competent bureaucrat, they will make zero inroads with young voters.

On May 12 2016 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:


I think network execs are drooling over the idea of a President Trump, they might not be able to resist the urge to boost their bottom line. They may even be making the argument in their head that it would be criminal towards their shareholders by not trying to get him elected.

On May 12 2016 17:38 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I wonder if Cruz's big push in picking delegates is actually an attempt to rewrite the GOP rules at the convention so that pledged delegates from all states are allocated proportionally, rather than by byzantine delegate rules. I'm pretty sure that would still deny Trump a first-ballot win at this point.

On May 12 2016 16:35 Introvert wrote:
That theory has been floated before. I have no idea how true it is. I don't see the the focus coming off of Trump, the only question I have is how negative they go. I'm really curious.

On May 12 2016 15:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:


With the big states going to Hilary and the small states going to Bernie it tells me that they are going to Hilary.

On May 12 2016 18:02 SK.Testie wrote:


Can they go more hyperbolic and negative than they already have? He's already "literally" Hitler. A man who already tried to die as a martyr to kill him was interviewed by CNN. The violent protests were blamed on him despite that being 100% not his fault. They've already labelled him a racist (not true) a sexist (not true) and other claims purely to demonize and vilify. They've labelled him so successfully that going out as a Trump supporter gets you labelled as all of these things as well and people feel that it is their obligation to be violent and rude towards you when all you're doing is wearing one snazzy hat. They've already talked about his dead dad in a suspect way. Apparently he's a sociopath despite his friends and family loving the man deeply. Take Larry King for instance.. "Great guy... big ego.. but he's got a good heart. A great guy". Multiple hit pieces of interviews attempting to find people close to Donald that have terrible things to say about him and then they turn out saying great things, and the interview needs to be cut short? Do we go with the Michelle Fields completely bogus story that was defended by people in this very thread because of severe bias despite clear video evidence that later got the charges dropped? The fact that many billionaires and senators flew to a private estate and talked about specifically how to stop him? That every hypocritical celebrity can open their mouths on the subject and vilify him as well? How long do we let that circus go on?

There's pages worth of dirty tactics and attacks I could list. It's very, very clear that the establishment doesn't want him to throw a wrench in their plans. So where do they go from here on the dirty attacks on Hitler? Do they call him more like Stalininstead? Do they attack his family? Talk about his tax returns as of right now where they just had 4 headlines on cnn.com about Trump?

How negative will they go? They're already at the slimiest levels the media has ever stooped to. They're just overly blatant and full throttle because they don't care anymore. He keeps getting more and more popular, and it terrifies them. All he's doing is using 'the art of the deal' on them and it's working over and over. Set up new headline -> destroy false narrative that media has just created on you -> gain trust and support. I'd need some creative examples to see how much worse they can get at this rate.
+ Show Spoiler +

On May 12 2016 16:35 Introvert wrote:


That theory has been floated before. I have no idea how true it is. I don't see the the focus coming off of Trump, the only question I have is how negative they go. I'm really curious.

There are other things to consider as well. Ever since Fox became obnoxiously pro-Trump, people I know turned away to CNN (and trust me, that breaks some of their hearts, lol). There might a a line to walk. Or maybe that's more isolated that it seems.

Not really having a dog in the fight is going to make this so much more enjoyable from a spectator perspective!

Les Moonves, executive chairman and CEO of CBS...

“I’ve never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us,” he said at the event. “Sorry. It’s a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going.”

The outlet notes Moonves said ad sales this season have been particularly strong, partly due to an election cycle rapt with attacks and “bomb throwing” that keeps Americans interested.

“It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS,” he said.

Moonves called the campaign for president a "circus" full of "bomb throwing," and he hopes it continues.

"Most of the ads are not about issues. They're sort of like the debates," he said.

"Man, who would have expected the ride we're all having right now? ... The money's rolling in and this is fun," he said.

"I've never seen anything like this, and this going to be a very good year for us. Sorry. It's a terrible thing to say. But, bring it on, Donald. Keep going," said Moonves.

"Donald's place in this election is a good thing," he said Monday at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference in San Francisco.

"There's a lot of money in the marketplace," the exec said of political advertising so far this presidential season.

A former Republican member of the 9/11 commission, breaking dramatically with the commission’s leaders, said Wednesday he believes there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for the 9/11 hijackers and that the Obama administration should move quickly to declassify a long-secret congressional report on Saudi ties to the 2001 terrorist attack.

The comments by John H Lehman, an investment banker in New York who was Navy secretary in the Reagan administration, signal the first serious public split among the 10 commissioners since they issued a 2004 final report that was largely read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia, which was home to 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11.

“There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government,” Lehman said in an interview, suggesting that the commission may have made a mistake by not stating that explicitly in its final report. “Our report should never have been read as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia.”

He was critical of a statement released late last month by the former chairman and vice chairman of the commission, who urged the Obama administration to be cautious about releasing the full congressional report on the Saudis and 9/11 – “the 28 pages”, as they are widely known in Washington – because they contained “raw, unvetted” material that might smear innocent people.

The 9/11 commission chairman, former Republican governor Tom Kean of New Jersey, and vice-chairman, former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton of Indiana, praised Saudi Arabia as, overall, “an ally of the United States in combatting terrorism” and said the commission’s investigation, which came after the congressional report was written, had identified only one Saudi government official – a former diplomat in the Saudi consulate in Los Angeles – as being “implicated in the 9/11 plot investigation”.

The diplomat, Fahad al-Thumairy, who was deported from the US but was never charged with a crime, was suspected of involvement in a support network for two Saudi hijackers who had lived in San Diego the year before the attacks.

George Zimmerman shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012. Zimmerman was charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter, then acquitted by a Florida jury on July 13, 2013. The case sparked a nationwide debate and protests over “stand your ground” laws and race relations in the United States.

Now, Zimmerman is auctioning off the 9-millimeter pistol he used to kill Martin on a website called GunBroker.com.

“I am honored and humbled to announce the sale of an American Firearm Icon,” he wrote in the description of the gun used to kill the unarmed, black teenager. “The firearm for sale is the firearm that was used to defend my life and end the brutal attack from Trayvon Martin on 2/26/2012.”