US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6429

On December 16 2016 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Blah, apologies.

EU and European are still synonymous in my head.

Not "The EU", what I meant was that Russia annexed European lands. Germany has not lost land to Russia yet. Well, not this century at least

On December 16 2016 03:03 zlefin wrote:

iirc that topic is verboten here; or maybe it isn't; different sites have different rules on it.
suffice to say, it's hardly the world's most impressive invasion.
If Russia were to invade a NATO ally, or an EU member; for sure I'd support military action; if they attack someone who's not an ally, that's quite another story.
Russia is only picking off small fry that are nearby.
It's like in Europa Universalis, they're just picking off nearby opms with no allies.

And all they did to the US here was some moderate-severe espionage.
it's also of course part of the larger strategy; if the goal is to insult Russia, downplaying the effects of what they did is part of that

On December 16 2016 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Both the annex and the hack are super small fry. But that's how most escalations always start. Do something, see what the response is, push harder.

On December 16 2016 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Both the annex and the hack are super small fry. But that's how most escalations always start. Do something, see what the response is, push harder.

On December 16 2016 03:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Both the annex and the hack are super small fry. But that's how most escalations always start. Do something, see what the response is, push harder.

On December 16 2016 03:31 LegalLord wrote:
Yesterday's news, but apparently Congress asked for a briefing on the Russian hacking issue and got denied. Word in the alt mediaverse says they're doing media leaks instead of briefings because political struggle.

In a surprise extra special session on Wednesday called with just hours notice, the Republican-led North Carolina state legislature introduced measures that would reduce the power of the incoming Democratic governor.

Legislators had convened to address disaster relief, but when the session called by lame duck Gov. Pat McCrory ended on Wednesday, the General Assembly quickly called a new special session to pass additional initially unspecified legislation.

Republican lawmakers' last-minute attempt to limit the state governor's powers comes after McCrory conceded in a tight re-election race to his Democratic challenger, state Attorney General Roy Cooper. McCrory dragged the race out for nearly a month beyond Election Day, using a flurry of ballot complaints to decry widespread voter fraud. But after complaints filed by Republicans were largely dismissed, McCrory finally conceded.

Republicans already have a supermajority in both houses of the General Assembly, empowering them to override vetos. But if the legislation introduced on Wednesday becomes law, Cooper will have even less power as governor.

Legislation introduced in the state House on Wednesday would mandate that the governor's cabinet appointees be approved by the state Senate and would cut the number of political appointees that serve under the governor from 1,500 to 300. This comes after the legislature drastically expanded the number of "exempt positions," which are often political in nature, under McCrory in 2013.

The bill would also eliminate the governor's ability to appoint members to the board of trustees for the University of North Carolina System and to the state education board.

Republican legislators are also pushing for changes to the state elections board. Legislation in the state Senate would merge the State Board of Elections with the ethics commission, giving the new board subpoena power. It would also expand the board from five to eight members, with four members from each party.

This will eliminate Democrats' control over the state election board. Currently, the state board is made up of five members, three from the governor's party and two from the minority. So the new legislation would prevent Democrats from taking control over the state elections board when Cooper takes office. Legislation would also change the make-up of county boards, eliminating power from the governor's party and making the boards completely bipartisan.

The new state elections board would be chaired by Republicans in even years — when most elections take place — and by Democrats in odd years, as Rick Hasen, an election law expert at UC-Irvine School of Law, noted on his blog.

The legislation would also make state Supreme Court elections partisan and shift some power from the state Supreme Court to the state court of appeals. In the November election, the state Supreme Court flipped to Democratic control, but there is still a Republican majority on the court of appeals.

On December 16 2016 03:38 LegalLord wrote:

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/310495-intel-head-ic-agencies-refused-to-brief-committee-on-russian-hacking

Citing investigation in progress.

On December 16 2016 03:37 LegalLord wrote:
On the previously mentioned topic of "measures of corruption" I can link this list: http://www.transparency.org.uk/corruption/measuring-corruption/

The most common is the Corruption Perception Index but I am quite skeptical of that measure since perceived corruption and real corruption are different. For example, when everyone is poor, they will perceive less corruption than if a lot of people wish to rise to the middle class but start seeing the roadblocks they didn't care about when it wasn't an issue yet. I like the Ease of Doing Business Index as a more indirect measure of the kinds of things that are generally hindrances caused by corruption.

In the weeks following the presidential election, there's been some debate about whether Republicans would actually go through with repealing Obamacare as opposed to getting cold feet. But after a number of conversations with senior GOP leadership aides in both chambers of Congress, this is the message I've received: Republicans are moving full-speed ahead on Obamacare, and could have a bill repealing much of the law on President Trump's desk within weeks of him being sworn into office.

In my conversations with GOP Hill staffers in both chambers, I was actually a bit surprised at their certainty. The basic approach to repeal wasn't portrayed as something that they're still debating, but it was spoken about as something that is definitely going to happen, and as quickly as possible. "The commitment to repealing this thing is ironclad," one House leadership aide said.

As is always the case, there is the risk of roadblocks and delays arising when the House, Senate and administration all have to agree on something. But here's how congressional leadership expects the process to play out, if everything goes according to plan.

The new Congress will be sworn in on Jan. 3 and will immediately get to work on a mid-year budget resolution. The budget resolution would require just a simple majority, and because it's only a resolution, it doesn't require President Obama's signature. All that's necessary is for the House and Senate to pass the same resolution. As a result, this part of the process could take place when Obama is still in office — and Republicans expect to have it finished by the end of their second week back, or around mid-January.

As an actual budget document, it won't have much meaning, as the federal government will already be in the midst of the 2017 fiscal year and spending levels have already been set through the appropriations process — so it's unlikely to be very contentious. Even though it won't have an effect on spending itself, it will be significant procedurally, because the document will be the vehicle for Republicans to include reconciliation language. That language will be necessary for Republicans to pass a repeal bill through the Senate with just a simple majority, thus avoiding any attempt by Democrats to block the bill.

However, because Obama will still have veto power until Jan. 20, Republicans cannot actually pass a repeal bill before Trump is sworn in.

The plan, then, is to move quickly post-inauguration to pass legislation similar to the one they passed this past January, which was vetoed by Obama. That legislation repealed the law's major spending provisions — ending the Medicaid expansion and getting rid of the subsidies for individuals to purchase insurance on government-run exchanges. In addition, the repeal bill scrapped the individual and employer mandate penalties, eliminated the law's taxes and defunded Planned Parenthood. If all goes smoothly, such a bill could reach Trump's desk in short order, as early as February — or weeks after Inauguration Day. Though it's possible that this could slip as certain details get ironed out, there is a determination, among leadership in both chambers, to move with speed.

Setting aside any modifications to the strategy that may be pushed by the Trump administration — always a possibility — the main areas of contention among congressional Republicans are likely to concern how broadly the law is repealed, and when the repeal actually goes into effect.