US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7907

On June 21 2017 15:57 Dromar wrote:


I don't think that's it. There's just something off-putting about a person soliciting praise, especially when he (and even those involved with him) had nothing to do with it.

A bill that slaps new sanctions on Russia, and passed the Senate almost unanimously, has hit a major stumbling block in the House.

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) said the legislation has been flagged by the House parliamentarian as a "blue slip" violation, referring to the constitutional requirement that revenue bills originate in the House.

"The House obviously will act to preserve the Constitution. Or the Senate can take the bill back, make the updates to it, and bring it back and move forward from that direction," Brady told reporters on Tuesday.

The development marks a major setback after the Senate overwhelmingly passed the legislation, which also includes new sanctions against Iran, last week in a 98-2 vote.
Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, pushed back against suggestions that House GOP leadership is trying to delay the bill, stressing that he thought the Senate legislation was "sound policy."

"I am confident working with the Senate and Chairman [Ed] Royce that we can move this legislation forward. So at the end of the day, this isn’t a policy issue, it’s not a partisan issue, it is a Constitutional issue that we will address," he told reporters.

A spokesperson for Royce didn't immediately respond to request for comment.

AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said, "The Senate bill cannot be considered in the House its current form."

"The chair of the Ways and Means Committee, in consultation with the House Parliamentarian, has determined that the Senate sanctions bill as passed is in violation of the origination clause of the Constitution, commonly referred to as a 'blue slip' problem," she said.

She added that Ryan strongly supports sanctions and "we will determine the next course of action after speaking with our Senate colleagues."

An aide for Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who was deeply involved in negotiating the Senate deal, said that the House has raised "concerns with one of the final provisions" of the bill.

"Now that we fully understand the issue raised today, we are working closely with them to further resolve the matter. We are confident we can find a path forward," the staffer said.

The aide for Corker didn't immediately respond to a question about what the "final provisions" included. Asked specifically what provision of the House bill got flagged as a "blue slip" violation, a spokeswoman for Brady referred back to his comments to reporters.

"The House has always, in a bipartisan way, followed protocol to avoid Origination Clause violations. It's the Constitution. It's pretty straightforward," a senior GOP aide added.

But the decision is sounding alarm bells among Democrats, who are warning that Republicans could be trying to delay the bill amid pushback from the Trump administration.

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) lambasted the move, arguing they're using the procedural roadblock to cover for Trump, "who has been far too soft on Russia."

"Responding to Russia’s assault on our democracy should be a bipartisan issue that unites both Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate. The House Republicans need to pass this bill as quickly as possible," he said.

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, added that Republicans could easily work around the violation by introducing an indention House bill.

“[But] I predict this isn't the last excuse we'll hear for trying to slow this bill's momentum, but make no mistake, anything short of an up-or-down vote on this tough sanctions package is an attempt to let Russia off the hook," he said.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) stressed that he didn't think the Senate bill actually had a "blue slip" issue, but echoed Engel noting they it could be "easily corrected" by using a House bill.

"What the House many times believes [is] that if there's any fine in the legislation ... that's a revenue measure, and therefore that comes under the blue slip," he said. "I don't believe that's a part of this bill, but I know the House has raised this in the past."

He added, "If you take that logic, the Senate could never initiate any sanctions legislation."

The Senate passed the legislation last week, marking its most significant check on the Trump administration’s foreign policy, which has flirted with lifting sanctions in a bid to entice Moscow into an agreement.

The legislation would impose a range of new sanctions, including on any individuals tied to "malicious cyber activity," supplying weapons to Syrian President Bashar Assad's government or any that are tied to Russia's intelligence and defense sectors.

It would also give Congress 30 days — or 60 days around the August recess — to review and potentially block Trump from lifting or relaxing Russia sanctions, codify the sanctions on Russia imposed by executive order by the Obama administration and allow the Trump administration to impose new sanctions on sectors of the Russian economy.

It also includes new sanctions targeting Iran’s ballistic missile development, support for terrorism, transfer of weapons and human rights violations.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appeared to use a House Foreign Affairs hearing this week to telegraph concerns about the bill, warning lawmakers against undercutting “constructive dialogue” with Russia.

"I would urge Congress to ensure any legislation allows the president to have the flexibility to adjust sanctions," he told lawmakers.

On June 21 2017 21:16 Slydie wrote:


Not that I like Trump, but what is Panama famous for, except from the canal? Bringing up some good historical memories between countries is a perfectly normal thing to do. It is like praising France for the statue of liberty, or thanking the US for their efforts in Europe during WW2 imo.

On June 21 2017 18:00 GreenHorizons wrote:


And there you see what this race was really all about. Dumping money to the "consultants" and "service providers".

This is why the Democratic party is becoming increasingly useless.

On June 21 2017 22:25 KwarK wrote:

I definitely recall you attacking the Democratic Party for not dumping money into races due to tactical considerations a month or two ago.

On June 21 2017 22:31 sharkie wrote:
What a sad race we humans are when money can win you elections

On June 21 2017 22:35 Artisreal wrote:

Money = reach = influence
pretty straightforward correlation if you ask me

On June 21 2017 22:54 chocorush wrote:
I don't get why people believe there is a causative relationship between money spent on elections and winning elections. We even had two recent large elections where the larger spender lost (sanders-clinton, clinton-trump) for those that are inclined to take anecdotal experience as proof.