US Politics Mega-thread - Page 84

On January 24 2013 12:15 sam!zdat wrote:


Now there's an idea. Jefferson would have approved

On January 24 2013 15:14 Mindcrime wrote:


only if we redrew them into rectangles

On January 24 2013 15:19 aksfjh wrote:

I've always had the idea that a district can't have more than 6 sides, with a side defined as a single directional road or river that doesn't deviate more than 30° from end to end, or a straight line.

On January 24 2013 16:46 Funnytoss wrote:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/07/how_ridiculous_gerrymanders_saved_the_house_republican_majority.html

I suppose this is one form of Article IV's, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"

= =;;

On January 24 2013 16:46 Funnytoss wrote:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/11/07/how_ridiculous_gerrymanders_saved_the_house_republican_majority.html

I suppose this is one form of Article IV's, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"

= =;;

On January 24 2013 19:22 Danglars wrote:

If only the Democrats didn't do it too, the practice might have ended long ago. From national to state governments, it remains the way to preserve incumbency and save yourself money campaigning.

In other news, Hillary came before Congress this week to explain how her department lost 4 diplomatic personnel including the American ambassador in Libya. She equivocated on the changing reasonings for the attack from the state department. My congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, called her to carpet on the absurd results of the mess. If this had still been the Bush administration, we would've heard no end to calls for resignation of his secretary of state and a distinct presidential apology (compare to furor in the media over Scooter Libby).

On January 25 2013 03:58 farvacola wrote:

To be frank I would consider the volume and vehemency with which the Republicans indict the actions of the White House in regards to Benghazi a telling sign that they are desperate for a venue in which they do not appear the losers; it's a tough time to be a Republican in DC, and they gotta take whatever they can get. State Republicans, on the other hand, at least they are spending their time doing something useful like redrawing districts........

On January 25 2013 04:47 Adila wrote:

It's actually pretty amazing how Romney would have won the Presidency if the Electoral College was based on our current gerrymandered Congressional districts.

On January 25 2013 06:26 NPF wrote:


Foreigner question : How does changing congressional districts change the outcome of presidency, don't you vote for yuor president, so the changes in congressional districts only affects members of the house and senate to be more twisted to help one party over the other, which is still horrible by the way.

Senate leaders agreed Thursday on a grand deal to reform filibusters that does little to end the practices that got the filibuster reform movement started in the first place: the ability of individual senators to block legislation or nominations and force the majority party to find 60 votes to get anything done.

...

A group of Democrats including Sens. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Tom Udall of New Mexico and Tom Harkin of Iowa were seeking to push through a wider-ranging proposal, including forcing senators to go to the floor and actually talk and hold the floor, like in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” rather than simply threaten a filibuster.

Instead, the deal reached by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) focuses on limiting the ability to stall action at the very beginning of debate and after a bill has passed the Senate and before negotiations begin with the House.

It would limit the GOP’s use of the filibuster but ensure the minority party has the right to offer amendments on the floor, according to sources and documents obtained by POLITICO.

How well the plan works could depend much on how Reid and McConnell get along.

The deal gives two ways to short-circuit filibusters to stop the Senate from even debating a bill.

One path for immediately beginning debate would occur if Reid allowed both Democrats and Republicans to offer two amendments each to legislation. If the amendments were not relevant to the bill, they would be subject to a 60-vote threshold. Reid could block further amendments after votes to either accept or kill those four measures.

On non-controversial bills, if Reid and McConnell reach agreement, votes to overcome filibusters would happen the day after Reid files a procedural motion — rather than the two-day rule that exists now. And after the filibuster is defeated in those consensus situations, the Senate could immediately begin debate, rather than wait out a full 30 hours required under current rules.

The two men would have to decide what bill or nomination is “non-controversial,” leaving plenty of room for partisan maneuvering.

...

The plan also aims to prevent opponents from blocking relatively non-controversial presidential nominations, limiting the time to debate subcabinet and district court nominations after a filibuster has been defeated. A top priority for Reid, the proposal would limit the number of filibusters from three to one that could be waged to prevent conferences from convening with the House.

Moreover, the two leaders have sought to modify how filibusters are actually carried out. If a senator objects, Senate leaders — or senators leading floor debate — can demand that those who are objecting come to the floor to make their concerns heard. If a senator does not agree to speed debate in certain situations, the Senate will force live quorum calls that would compel senators attendance on the floor. But it would not change the rules to do so.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/reid-mcconnell-reach-senate-filibuster-deal-86674_Page2.html

On January 25 2013 03:34 Adila wrote:


Too bad we didn't get resignations from Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, etc. over 9/11 or the war in Iraq ... Don't think a lot of Republicans were grandstanding for their heads (I know Democrats were though I would say the scale is vastly different. Hypocrisy in politics is a given).

What's done is done. Investigation was done. Recommendations given. Hillary is already retiring. What more is there to say about it that would make a difference?

On January 25 2013 08:50 Danglars wrote:

Of course, because Rice, Rumsfield, and the lot obtained Congressional approval for the wars in the Middle East. Or perhaps you refer to the truther claims that 9/11 was an inside job? It takes a Congressional vote to approve a war, it takes only incompetence from the Obama administration as a whole and his state department in particular to let Americans die. I compare this specifically to the hissy fit the media threw over what Libby and Cheney knew when. Politically connected democrats are spared punishment for the consequences of their actions. Hillary gets to leave protesting that her changing stories can be explained and making calls to jail citizen scapegoats is acceptable.

On January 25 2013 08:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Reid needs to be replaced he caves in more than Obama.