|
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. |
On February 16 2018 00:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2018 22:05 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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.
who? If you were talking about the author
|
On February 16 2018 00:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 00:01 Plansix wrote:On February 15 2018 22:05 Acrofales wrote: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:
[quote]
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. 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. who? If you were talking about the author
In the story:
(as identified by the New York Times’ congressional votes wiz in my twitter feed)
I tried to look them up this morning, but my results were not conclusive.
|
The biggest and best thoughts and prayers, ya'll.
|
Used your post in the mass shooting thread. Dunno if you care.
|
|
|
.....rofl. I've totally lost track of all this. I thought the ban was finally at some kinda acceptable state or something.
|
On February 16 2018 02:07 Mohdoo wrote:.....rofl. I've totally lost track of all this. I thought the ban was finally at some kinda acceptable state or something.
Nah, people just got semi-tricked because of how the media reported on the SCOTUS ruling.
|
So tired of hearing about stormy daniels.
|
On February 16 2018 03:09 Mohdoo wrote:
So tired of hearing about stormy daniels.
I don't think anyone really cares, but it's major tabloid news that sells. And it throws mud in the face of the religious right who support a guy who had an affair on his third wife with a porn star. Keeping em on that moral low ground.
|
Last April, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, led the charge for his agency to approve rules allowing television broadcasters to greatly increase the number of stations they own. A few weeks later, Sinclair Broadcasting announced a blockbuster $3.9 billion deal to buy Tribune Media — a deal those new rules made possible. By the end of the year, in a previously undisclosed move, the top internal watchdog for the F.C.C. opened an investigation into whether Mr. Pai and his aides had improperly pushed for the rule changes and whether they had timed them to benefit Sinclair, according to Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey and two congressional aides. “For months I have been trying to get to the bottom of the allegations about Chairman Pai’s relationship with Sinclair Broadcasting,” Mr. Pallone, the top Democrat on the committee that oversees the F.C.C., said in the statement to The New York Times. “I am grateful to the F.C.C.’s inspector general that he has decided to take up this important investigation.” It was unclear the extent of the inspector general’s investigation or when it might conclude, but the inquiry puts a spotlight on Mr. Pai’s decisions and whether there had been coordination with the company. It may also force him to answer questions that he has so far avoided addressing in public. The inquiry could also add ammunition to arguments against the Sinclair-Tribune deal. Public interest groups and Democratic lawmakers, including Mr. Pallone, are strongly opposed to the deal, arguing that it would reduce the number of voices in media and diminish coverage of local news. Sinclair’s chief executive, Chris Ripley, has called Mr. Pai’s relaxation of media ownership rules a “landmark” development for his company and the industry. A union of Sinclair and Tribune would create the nation’s biggest television broadcaster, reaching seven out of 10 American homes. The F.C.C. and Justice Department are widely expected to approve the merger in the coming weeks. The office of F.C.C. inspector general, which is a nonpartisan role that reports to the agency and regularly updates Congress on some investigations, said it would “not comment on the existence or the nonexistence of an investigation.” Mr. Pai’s office and Sinclair declined to comment. When the legislators called for an investigation in November, a spokesman for the F.C.C., representing Mr. Pai, said the allegations of favoritism were “baseless.” “For many years, Chairman Pai has called on the F.C.C. to update its media ownership regulations,” the F.C.C. spokesman said. “The chairman is sticking to his long-held views, and given the strong case for modernizing these rules, it’s not surprising that those who disagree with him would prefer to do whatever they can to distract from the merits of his proposals.” A New York Times investigation published in August found that Mr. Pai and his staff members had met and corresponded with Sinclair executives several times. One meeting, with Sinclair’s executive chairman, took place days before Mr. Pai, who was appointed by President Trump, took over as F.C.C. chairman. Sinclair’s top lobbyist, a former F.C.C. official, also communicated frequently with former agency colleagues and pushed for the relaxation of media ownership rules. And language the lobbyist used about loosening rules has tracked closely to analysis and language used by Mr. Pai in speeches favoring such changes. + Show Spoiler +In November, several Democrats in Congress, including Mr. Pallone, called on the inspector general’s office to explore all communications — including personal emails, social media accounts, text messages and phone calls — between Sinclair and Mr. Pai and his staff.
The lawmakers also asked for communications between Mr. Pai’s office and the White House. They pointed to a report in March 2017 from The New York Post, in which Mr. Trump is said to have met with Sinclair’s executive chairman, David Smith, and discussed F.C.C. rules.
Some members of Congress have asked Mr. Pai for such communications, but he has not responded.
The F.C.C. inspector general, David L. Hunt, and other officials in his office met with aides in the House and Senate, including those for Mr. Pallone, in December. The F.C.C. officials told the aides that they would open an investigation, according to four people with knowledge of the meetings.
In later conversations, F.C.C. officials said that an investigation was underway, according to two other aides.
The aides, all of whom work for Democratic lawmakers, would speak only on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private.
The investigation could put the F.C.C. inspector general’s office in a high-profile situation.
Mr. Hunt was promoted to lead the office in 2011 by Julius Genachowski, a Democrat and the F.C.C.’s then-chairman, after working in the agency for about five years. The office investigates potential violations of civil and criminal laws by agency staff members and companies that receive money from the agency. On Wednesday, the inspector general for veterans affairs, a similar position, released a scathing report about travel spending by the department’s secretary, David J. Shulkin.
The F.C.C.’s inspector general does not make public all of its investigations. But details of some investigations have been disclosed through Freedom of Information Act requests and through the office’s reports to Congress.
In 2015, the inspector general’s office looked into possible coordination between the Obama administration and the F.C.C. chairman at the time, Tom Wheeler, on the creation of so-called net neutrality rules. The rules prevented broadband providers from blocking or slowing traffic to consumers. The inspector general said its investigation could not find clear improper conduct.
Antitrust experts said this new investigation may complicate the reviews of the Sinclair-Tribune deal by the F.C.C. and the Justice Department. Even if the deal were approved, they said, any conclusions of improper conduct by Mr. Pai could give fuel to critics to challenge the review in courts.
“An investigation could cast a cloud over the whole process,” said Andrew Schwartzman, a senior fellow at Georgetown Law Center’s Institute for Public Representation. “For the review, knowledge of an investigation could generate caution and even delay completion of the deal.”
Source
Although net neutrality is important, we shouldn't forget the regulations Trump's admin has undone to favor Conservative media companies(really just one company). To be frank, this far more worrying that anything coming out of the tech industry. This is one political motivated company trying to control all local news outlets, including local papers and publications.
|
On February 16 2018 03:09 Mohdoo wrote:
So tired of hearing about stormy daniels.
Add it to a long list of things no one would like more news cycles about that we'll nevertheless continue to hear about for months on end.
|
|
|
That travel and refugee ban is working wonders and keeping the least dangerous demographic out of our country. Glad the media has taken so much time to talk about radical Islam to assure we did with that relatively minor threat to the population. Hopefully they can move on to a new threat of equal importance, like deaths caused by people training animal to commit murder or people who get really good with swords killing other people.
|
On February 16 2018 03:14 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 03:09 Mohdoo wrote:
So tired of hearing about stormy daniels. I don't think anyone really cares, but it's major tabloid news that sells. And it throws mud in the face of the religious right who support a guy who had an affair on his third wife with a porn star. Keeping em on that moral low ground.
If you think that religious people who claim to be moral superior actually exercise superior morality or genuinely care about that stuff at all I've got bad news for you
|
On February 16 2018 03:30 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2018 03:14 Tachion wrote:On February 16 2018 03:09 Mohdoo wrote:
So tired of hearing about stormy daniels. I don't think anyone really cares, but it's major tabloid news that sells. And it throws mud in the face of the religious right who support a guy who had an affair on his third wife with a porn star. Keeping em on that moral low ground. If you think that religious people who claim to be moral superior actually exercise superior morality or genuinely care about that stuff at all I've got bad news for you
Na, I don't believe that at all, especially since I don't think the Republican party actually represents Christian values. It's more of a game to see how far you can make them bend to try and justify their views.
|
And this group is not being raided and shut down why?
|
Because there are White Supremacists in power now.
|
Due process and such. But have no doubt, nothing will happen. These are law abiding militia people that didn’t help this child in any way and in no way influenced him in a manner that would be considered conspiracy.
|
On February 16 2018 03:39 Plansix wrote:Due process and such. But have no doubt, nothing will happen. These are law abiding militia people that didn’t help this child in any way and in no way influenced him in a manner that would be considered conspiracy.
Except give him the gun, and trained him.
|
This fuckhead's MAGA hat profile picture from instagram is just going to provoke things further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
