|
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. |
I mean, I still don't get what you have an issue with?
The Hastert (or "Majority of the Majority") Rule is not official or codified, but Gingrich followed it, Hastert stated it, Boehner took flack for not adhering to it, and Ryan thus far has never broken it.
If you want the rule, then it's the Hastert Rule. Paul Ryan is following it, regardless of how loose it is.
If you want to know what changed, apparently it's the Speakers realizing they had such power.
If you want to know what power it is, it's that the Speakers control what Bills reach the floor, and them alone (barring removal or sufficient votes?).
|
On February 15 2018 19:33 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I mean, I still don't get what you have an issue with?
The Hastert (or "Majority of the Majority") Rule is not official or codified, but Gingrich followed it, Hastert stated it, Boehner took flack for not adhering to it, and Ryan thus far has never broken it.
If you want the rule, then it's the Hastert Rule. Paul Ryan is following it, regardless of how loose it is.
If you want to know what changed, apparently it's the Speakers realizing they had such power.
If you want to know what power it is, it's that the Speakers control what Bills reach the floor, and them alone (barring removal or sufficient votes?).
Really?
The key thing you understand is since 2001, the speaker of the house must approve any bill that comes to the floor for a vote. Even if every member of the house supported it, the speaker must approve. Prior to this rule, a majority vote could bring a bill to the floor for debate.
You don't see the problem I have with the difference between what you just said and that? Fine. Don't see it. I'm done talking about it until p6 tells us if that's even what he meant.
|
|
|
On February 15 2018 14:33 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 13:01 Gahlo wrote:
Just to set something straight...
AR15s are semi automatic. This means that when you fire the rifle, another bullet is loaded. You need to pull the trigger again to fire the 2nd bullet unless it is illegally modified or has a bump stock(which should be illegal imo). They are not assault rifles because they can't be set to burst fire and/or fully automatic. I feel like we should take a step back and regulate based on speed to kill people. Something like "our tests shoe you can only reasonably kill 5 people in a minute with this". The rate at which people can be killed with an ar15 is the problem. Areas without guns have school violence, but someone manages to slash like 5 people and maybe 1 dies.
The rate of fire of an unmodified AR15 is no different than most pistols. The AR15 gets a lot of hype, usually, because it looks like a military weapon.
|
On February 15 2018 19:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 19:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 17:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one: On February 15 2018 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's how it was before the Hastert Rule and after This is clearly where the disconnect is. As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007. So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new. Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article. thank god... Did you have the right one? I changed the link. Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet. Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only. Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there? In review it was a combination of those articles talking about Gingrich starting the policy and the linked one stating the timeline of exclusionary policies. The Politifact article is a lot more clearcut. I see, another case of the mixups. What in either/both of those lead you to the assertions you made previously? Like some quotes, because you keep pointing to things and when I read them they don't say what you said but I have to read the whole thing several times to make sure. Politifact suggests the origin is 1995, well within our awareness: Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College. Before then, Republicans had not controlled the House since President Dwight Eisenhower was in office.
"Old-style Republicans had been in the minority so long, they worked with the majority on the theory that part of a loaf was better than nothing," Fowler said. "Gingrich and others like him were scornful of such accommodation." So basically working with the minority was a thing in the 40 years before (and possibly before), and then the Speaker position took on a different stance in 1995, and more notably with Hastert. Besides the fact that we've twisted the original statements beyond recognition, are operating under a unique interpretation of the meaning of "the Hastert Rule" and playing fast and loose with the history of the house, just to get somewhere close to this making sense we're still left with your speciously sourced claims about this not happening before and the fact that we don't even know if this is wtf he was talking about. I can't entertain any more on this until we can get agreement on what the hell the Hastert 'rule' was/is and if that was even what he was talking about.
It’s was the Haster rule. I forgot it origioned with Newt because I don’t remember everything. Since the Republicans controls the House, the majority, and by extension the speaker, control the floor completely. And making the house “winner take all” for the majority has lead to some real dysfunction in congress over time.
|
On February 15 2018 21:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 19:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 19:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 17:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one: On February 15 2018 17:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
That's how it was before the Hastert Rule and after This is clearly where the disconnect is. As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007. So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new. Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article. thank god... Did you have the right one? I changed the link. Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet. Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only. Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there? In review it was a combination of those articles talking about Gingrich starting the policy and the linked one stating the timeline of exclusionary policies. The Politifact article is a lot more clearcut. I see, another case of the mixups. What in either/both of those lead you to the assertions you made previously? Like some quotes, because you keep pointing to things and when I read them they don't say what you said but I have to read the whole thing several times to make sure. Politifact suggests the origin is 1995, well within our awareness: Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College. Before then, Republicans had not controlled the House since President Dwight Eisenhower was in office.
"Old-style Republicans had been in the minority so long, they worked with the majority on the theory that part of a loaf was better than nothing," Fowler said. "Gingrich and others like him were scornful of such accommodation." So basically working with the minority was a thing in the 40 years before (and possibly before), and then the Speaker position took on a different stance in 1995, and more notably with Hastert. Besides the fact that we've twisted the original statements beyond recognition, are operating under a unique interpretation of the meaning of "the Hastert Rule" and playing fast and loose with the history of the house, just to get somewhere close to this making sense we're still left with your speciously sourced claims about this not happening before and the fact that we don't even know if this is wtf he was talking about. I can't entertain any more on this until we can get agreement on what the hell the Hastert 'rule' was/is and if that was even what he was talking about. It’s was the Haster rule. I forgot it origioned with Newt because I don’t remember everything. Since the Republicans controls the House, the majority, and by extension the speaker, control the floor completely. And making the house “winner take all” for the majority has lead to some real dysfunction in congress over time.
So there is no new rule (2001 or otherwise) requiring that the speaker approve all bills (just the one that's always been there) and he can't stop a bill coming to the floor if every member in the house supported it then?
|
On February 15 2018 21:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 21:17 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 19:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 19:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 17:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one: [quote] This is clearly where the disconnect is. As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007. So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new. Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article. thank god... Did you have the right one? I changed the link. Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet. Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only. Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there? In review it was a combination of those articles talking about Gingrich starting the policy and the linked one stating the timeline of exclusionary policies. The Politifact article is a lot more clearcut. I see, another case of the mixups. What in either/both of those lead you to the assertions you made previously? Like some quotes, because you keep pointing to things and when I read them they don't say what you said but I have to read the whole thing several times to make sure. Politifact suggests the origin is 1995, well within our awareness: Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College. Before then, Republicans had not controlled the House since President Dwight Eisenhower was in office.
"Old-style Republicans had been in the minority so long, they worked with the majority on the theory that part of a loaf was better than nothing," Fowler said. "Gingrich and others like him were scornful of such accommodation." So basically working with the minority was a thing in the 40 years before (and possibly before), and then the Speaker position took on a different stance in 1995, and more notably with Hastert. Besides the fact that we've twisted the original statements beyond recognition, are operating under a unique interpretation of the meaning of "the Hastert Rule" and playing fast and loose with the history of the house, just to get somewhere close to this making sense we're still left with your speciously sourced claims about this not happening before and the fact that we don't even know if this is wtf he was talking about. I can't entertain any more on this until we can get agreement on what the hell the Hastert 'rule' was/is and if that was even what he was talking about. It’s was the Haster rule. I forgot it origioned with Newt because I don’t remember everything. Since the Republicans controls the House, the majority, and by extension the speaker, control the floor completely. And making the house “winner take all” for the majority has lead to some real dysfunction in congress over time. So there is no new rule (2001 or otherwise) requiring that the speaker approve all bills (just the one that's always been there) and he can't stop a bill coming to the floor if every member in the house supported it then?
The majority of the majority rule effectively does that. Our political parties almost never vote against their own party leaders on mass. So unless a majority of the majority decide to break ranks, the bill doesn’t come to the floor without the speaker appoving it. As far as I know, the majority has never forced a bill to the floor over the speakers disapproval. And I got the date wrong, since Newt started it. But it got its name from Hastert.
And the rule has not always been there. Before 1995, it just took a majority of the House, minority or majority.
|
On February 15 2018 21:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 21:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 21:17 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 19:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 19:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
thank god...
Did you have the right one? I changed the link. Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet. Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only. Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there? In review it was a combination of those articles talking about Gingrich starting the policy and the linked one stating the timeline of exclusionary policies. The Politifact article is a lot more clearcut. I see, another case of the mixups. What in either/both of those lead you to the assertions you made previously? Like some quotes, because you keep pointing to things and when I read them they don't say what you said but I have to read the whole thing several times to make sure. Politifact suggests the origin is 1995, well within our awareness: Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College. Before then, Republicans had not controlled the House since President Dwight Eisenhower was in office.
"Old-style Republicans had been in the minority so long, they worked with the majority on the theory that part of a loaf was better than nothing," Fowler said. "Gingrich and others like him were scornful of such accommodation." So basically working with the minority was a thing in the 40 years before (and possibly before), and then the Speaker position took on a different stance in 1995, and more notably with Hastert. Besides the fact that we've twisted the original statements beyond recognition, are operating under a unique interpretation of the meaning of "the Hastert Rule" and playing fast and loose with the history of the house, just to get somewhere close to this making sense we're still left with your speciously sourced claims about this not happening before and the fact that we don't even know if this is wtf he was talking about. I can't entertain any more on this until we can get agreement on what the hell the Hastert 'rule' was/is and if that was even what he was talking about. It’s was the Haster rule. I forgot it origioned with Newt because I don’t remember everything. Since the Republicans controls the House, the majority, and by extension the speaker, control the floor completely. And making the house “winner take all” for the majority has lead to some real dysfunction in congress over time. So there is no new rule (2001 or otherwise) requiring that the speaker approve all bills (just the one that's always been there) and he can't stop a bill coming to the floor if every member in the house supported it then? The majority of the majority rule effectively does that. Our political parties almost never vote against their own party leaders on mass. So unless a majority of the majority decide to break ranks, the bill doesn’t come to the floor without the speaker appoving it. As far as I know, the majority has never forced a bill to the floor over the speakers disapproval. And I got the date wrong, since Newt started it. But it got its name from Hastert. And the rule has not always been there. Before 1995, it just took a majority of the House, minority or majority.
Because I want to give you the benefit of the doubt, can you point to some examples before this strategy was named where the majority of the majority opposed something their speaker brought to the floor, and tell me if you think that it wasn't a common strategy to mostly only bring bills to the floor that had the support of the majority of your majority and/or do their best not to count on the opposing party for votes, else it fail?
|
On February 15 2018 21:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 21:17 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 19:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 19:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 17:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Quoting this part because it's really the only relevant one: [quote] This is clearly where the disconnect is. As I said earlier, apparently all Speakers pre-Gingrich had the power to deny Bill votes, but never did so, probably because they actually respected the role. Apparently Gingrich did it first (according to this cited article), but I don't know why it was less notable for him. Maybe nothing important happened while he was Speaker. Either way, the rule is named after Hastert for his role from 1999-2007. So, Speaker of the Houses blocking Bills from the House floor is new. Edit: Sorry, linked the wrong article. thank god... Did you have the right one? I changed the link. Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet. Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only. Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there? In review it was a combination of those articles talking about Gingrich starting the policy and the linked one stating the timeline of exclusionary policies. The Politifact article is a lot more clearcut. I see, another case of the mixups. What in either/both of those lead you to the assertions you made previously? Like some quotes, because you keep pointing to things and when I read them they don't say what you said but I have to read the whole thing several times to make sure. Politifact suggests the origin is 1995, well within our awareness: Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College. Before then, Republicans had not controlled the House since President Dwight Eisenhower was in office.
"Old-style Republicans had been in the minority so long, they worked with the majority on the theory that part of a loaf was better than nothing," Fowler said. "Gingrich and others like him were scornful of such accommodation." So basically working with the minority was a thing in the 40 years before (and possibly before), and then the Speaker position took on a different stance in 1995, and more notably with Hastert. Besides the fact that we've twisted the original statements beyond recognition, are operating under a unique interpretation of the meaning of "the Hastert Rule" and playing fast and loose with the history of the house, just to get somewhere close to this making sense we're still left with your speciously sourced claims about this not happening before and the fact that we don't even know if this is wtf he was talking about. I can't entertain any more on this until we can get agreement on what the hell the Hastert 'rule' was/is and if that was even what he was talking about. It’s was the Haster rule. I forgot it origioned with Newt because I don’t remember everything. Since the Republicans controls the House, the majority, and by extension the speaker, control the floor completely. And making the house “winner take all” for the majority has lead to some real dysfunction in congress over time. So there is no new rule (2001 or otherwise) requiring that the speaker approve all bills (just the one that's always been there) and he can't stop a bill coming to the floor if every member in the house supported it then?
Pretty sure that's exactly the point being made. The speaker decides what gets voted on, unless enough Republican members of the house feel strongly enough about it to make an enemy out of Ryan by signing a discharge petition.
Of course, your proposed situation will never come to pass, in that case a discharge petition wouldn't be needed. Republicans would simply pressure Ryan to bring it to a floor vote, and his refusal would be political suicide.
But no, nothing changed in 2001. Between 1995 and now, it's simply that the Hastert rule has become increasingly more ingrained in congressional custom. P6 noted 2001 as the tipping point. That doesn't really seem accurate. However it's clear that before then this was barely a custom at all (or at least, not noteworthy enough of a phenomenon to analyse or name), and from Gingrich until now it has become more and more customary as a filter for bringing bills to the floor, and sometime in Hastert's time as Speaker, he gave a nice concise quote that described this and made it a "rule".
|
On February 15 2018 21:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 21:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 21:17 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 19:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 19:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:04 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
thank god...
Did you have the right one? I changed the link. Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet. Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only. Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there? In review it was a combination of those articles talking about Gingrich starting the policy and the linked one stating the timeline of exclusionary policies. The Politifact article is a lot more clearcut. I see, another case of the mixups. What in either/both of those lead you to the assertions you made previously? Like some quotes, because you keep pointing to things and when I read them they don't say what you said but I have to read the whole thing several times to make sure. Politifact suggests the origin is 1995, well within our awareness: Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College. Before then, Republicans had not controlled the House since President Dwight Eisenhower was in office.
"Old-style Republicans had been in the minority so long, they worked with the majority on the theory that part of a loaf was better than nothing," Fowler said. "Gingrich and others like him were scornful of such accommodation." So basically working with the minority was a thing in the 40 years before (and possibly before), and then the Speaker position took on a different stance in 1995, and more notably with Hastert. Besides the fact that we've twisted the original statements beyond recognition, are operating under a unique interpretation of the meaning of "the Hastert Rule" and playing fast and loose with the history of the house, just to get somewhere close to this making sense we're still left with your speciously sourced claims about this not happening before and the fact that we don't even know if this is wtf he was talking about. I can't entertain any more on this until we can get agreement on what the hell the Hastert 'rule' was/is and if that was even what he was talking about. It’s was the Haster rule. I forgot it origioned with Newt because I don’t remember everything. Since the Republicans controls the House, the majority, and by extension the speaker, control the floor completely. And making the house “winner take all” for the majority has lead to some real dysfunction in congress over time. So there is no new rule (2001 or otherwise) requiring that the speaker approve all bills (just the one that's always been there) and he can't stop a bill coming to the floor if every member in the house supported it then? The majority of the majority rule effectively does that. Our political parties almost never vote against their own party leaders on mass. So unless a majority of the majority decide to break ranks, the bill doesn’t come to the floor without the speaker appoving it. As far as I know, the majority has never forced a bill to the floor over the speakers disapproval. And I got the date wrong, since Newt started it. But it got its name from Hastert. And the rule has not always been there. Before 1995, it just took a majority of the House, minority or majority.
The rules didn't change in 1995 (well, they did, but the rules are changing all the time). What simply changed is that the Speaker decided to make use of the rules in a different way. That said, a bit of digging shows that this happened already in the 80s!
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2013/01/17/oh-113th-congress-hastert-rule-we-hardly-knew-ye/
Judging from the number of Hastert Rule violations charted below (as identified by the New York Times’ congressional votes wiz in my twitter feed), it was extremely rare (even before Hastert became speaker in 1999) for the majority party to be rolled on a final passage vote.
The graph only has numbers going back to 1991, and apparently it was reforms to actual House Rules that structured how bills were passed, in the 80s and early 90s, that made the Hastert rule a thing at all. It just wasn't explicitly recognized as a "thing" until Hastert named it in 2003. But it's not some reform that happened in 2001. It's just a gradually recognized custom that was happening before then too, but was never questioned.
E: also, while rare, discharge petitions have been used to circumvent the Speaker's control and force a bill to the floor.
|
a good three pages of nailing down that this didn’t happen in 2001. good to know it wasn’t in 2001. again, just for the sake of clarity, please know, the hastert rule was not dreamt up in 2001.
again, though Hastert quipped about it in 2001, 2001 was not the year. it was indeed, confirmed, not 2001.
that WAS awkward. wasn’t even a slow news day.
|
I apologize for getting the year wrong. I though Hastert became speaker in 2001.
|
|
|
On February 15 2018 22:05 brian wrote:
a good three pages of nailing down that this didn’t happen in 2001. good to know it wasn’t in 2001. again, just for the sake of clarity, please know, the hastert rule was not dreamt up in 2001.
again, though Hastert quipped about it in 2001, 2001 was not the year. it was indeed, confirmed, not 2001.
that WAS awkward. wasn’t even a slow news day.
Maybe now we can find out what it had to do with the points I was raising before it was brought up?
|
On February 15 2018 22:13 Plansix wrote:
I apologize for getting the year wrong. I though Hastert became speaker in 2001.
no hard feelings. shit happens.
On February 15 2018 22:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 22:05 brian wrote:
a good three pages of nailing down that this didn’t happen in 2001. good to know it wasn’t in 2001. again, just for the sake of clarity, please know, the hastert rule was not dreamt up in 2001.
again, though Hastert quipped about it in 2001, 2001 was not the year. it was indeed, confirmed, not 2001.
that WAS awkward. wasn’t even a slow news day. Maybe now we can find out what it had to do with the points I was raising before it was brought up?
ever the optimist. but i have my doubts.
while i’m as anti-gun as the next tree hugging hippy, this kid did display all the warning signs. regardless of ones feelings on the gun debate, it never hurts to repeat ‘if you see something, say something’ in times where it might actually make a difference. of course, he could also do more. i dream of a day when guns are illegal in the hands of civilians.
why did it come coupled with the DACA tweet? (i don’t know how twitter works well enough to know.) did he reply to his daca tweet wth this? very odd.
|
I don't know how it is in the US, but when you report someone sometimes it gets ignored. So, there's that risk as well. I guess it depends on authorities.
|
On February 15 2018 21:10 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 14:33 Mohdoo wrote:On February 15 2018 13:01 Gahlo wrote:
Just to set something straight...
AR15s are semi automatic. This means that when you fire the rifle, another bullet is loaded. You need to pull the trigger again to fire the 2nd bullet unless it is illegally modified or has a bump stock(which should be illegal imo). They are not assault rifles because they can't be set to burst fire and/or fully automatic. I feel like we should take a step back and regulate based on speed to kill people. Something like "our tests shoe you can only reasonably kill 5 people in a minute with this". The rate at which people can be killed with an ar15 is the problem. Areas without guns have school violence, but someone manages to slash like 5 people and maybe 1 dies. The rate of fire of an unmodified AR15 is no different than most pistols. The AR15 gets a lot of hype, usually, because it looks like a military weapon.
It's also designed to be much more powerful and capable than a pistol.
|
On February 15 2018 22:40 sc-darkness wrote:
I don't know how it is in the US, but when you report someone sometimes it gets ignored. So, there's that risk as well. I guess it depends on authorities.
Even if reported, authorities don't even have the resources (I'm not saying they should) to pay close attention to every single person on risk of terrorism lists. Let alone every kid with 'erratic behaviour', there's too many people that fit description, the huge majority of which I reckon don't end up killing anyone.
|
On February 15 2018 22:40 sc-darkness wrote:
I don't know how it is in the US, but when you report someone sometimes it gets ignored. So, there's that risk as well. I guess it depends on authorities.
he was reported to the FBI due to a comment on youtube where he said he was going to be a professional school shooter, he was also be treated for mental health problems. Yet he still was able to legally buy a military grade weapon, ammo etc. with no background check, and no license.
|
On February 15 2018 22:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 21:46 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 21:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 21:17 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 19:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 19:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:On February 15 2018 18:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On February 15 2018 18:32 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
I changed the link.
Now, granted, looking deeper I don't know if it's a "never done before", or more that apparently Democrats held the House from 1957-1995 with a decent majority and generally played nice, and anything prior about blocking Bills wasn't notable enough to be brought onto the internet. Wait, what link did you have before? That's the only one I saw and was wondering where in there you saw anything about Newt Gingrich, let alone that he was the first and only. Is there a quote you could pull out you are referencing in there? In review it was a combination of those articles talking about Gingrich starting the policy and the linked one stating the timeline of exclusionary policies. The Politifact article is a lot more clearcut. I see, another case of the mixups. What in either/both of those lead you to the assertions you made previously? Like some quotes, because you keep pointing to things and when I read them they don't say what you said but I have to read the whole thing several times to make sure. Politifact suggests the origin is 1995, well within our awareness: Its origins likely stem from the GOP takeover of the House in 1995, said Linda Fowler, professor of government at Dartmouth College. Before then, Republicans had not controlled the House since President Dwight Eisenhower was in office.
"Old-style Republicans had been in the minority so long, they worked with the majority on the theory that part of a loaf was better than nothing," Fowler said. "Gingrich and others like him were scornful of such accommodation." So basically working with the minority was a thing in the 40 years before (and possibly before), and then the Speaker position took on a different stance in 1995, and more notably with Hastert. Besides the fact that we've twisted the original statements beyond recognition, are operating under a unique interpretation of the meaning of "the Hastert Rule" and playing fast and loose with the history of the house, just to get somewhere close to this making sense we're still left with your speciously sourced claims about this not happening before and the fact that we don't even know if this is wtf he was talking about. I can't entertain any more on this until we can get agreement on what the hell the Hastert 'rule' was/is and if that was even what he was talking about. It’s was the Haster rule. I forgot it origioned with Newt because I don’t remember everything. Since the Republicans controls the House, the majority, and by extension the speaker, control the floor completely. And making the house “winner take all” for the majority has lead to some real dysfunction in congress over time. So there is no new rule (2001 or otherwise) requiring that the speaker approve all bills (just the one that's always been there) and he can't stop a bill coming to the floor if every member in the house supported it then? The majority of the majority rule effectively does that. Our political parties almost never vote against their own party leaders on mass. So unless a majority of the majority decide to break ranks, the bill doesn’t come to the floor without the speaker appoving it. As far as I know, the majority has never forced a bill to the floor over the speakers disapproval. And I got the date wrong, since Newt started it. But it got its name from Hastert. And the rule has not always been there. Before 1995, it just took a majority of the House, minority or majority. The rules didn't change in 1995 (well, they did, but the rules are changing all the time). What simply changed is that the Speaker decided to make use of the rules in a different way. That said, a bit of digging shows that this happened already in the 80s! https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2013/01/17/oh-113th-congress-hastert-rule-we-hardly-knew-ye/Show nested quote +
Judging from the number of Hastert Rule violations charted below (as identified by the New York Times’ congressional votes wiz in my twitter feed), it was extremely rare (even before Hastert became speaker in 1999) for the majority party to be rolled on a final passage vote.
The graph only has numbers going back to 1991, and apparently it was reforms to actual House Rules that structured how bills were passed, in the 80s and early 90s, that made the Hastert rule a thing at all. It just wasn't explicitly recognized as a "thing" until Hastert named it in 2003. But it's not some reform that happened in 2001. It's just a gradually recognized custom that was happening before then too, but was never questioned. E: also, while rare, discharge petitions have been used to circumvent the Speaker's control and force a bill to the floor.
That is an interesting article. I wasn’t aware that more restrictive rules started back in the 1980. Most folks I talked to cited Newt’s attempt to transform the Speaker of the House to a more powerful position equal to challenging the president tipping point. But I guess it makes sense that he drew inspiration from the Democrats efforts to repress bills that would divide the majority through the 80s and 90s.
I kinda want to know who these people are he is following on twitter. The civics nerd in me wants more info on the nitty gritty of house/senate rules over time. Not really a popular subject with a lot of good reading out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
