|
On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed.
This isn’t about the budget. It is about applying rules dumb rules to restrict democrats that Republicans give zero shits about. The budget and deficit spending has been the hallmark of the GOP since as far as I can remember, so who cares about the budget? How many working class problems does a balanced budget fix? Zero.
|
On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed.
It's going to get blown up by the next Republican administration anyway. It's stupid (or intentional) for Democrats to waste their opportunities to pass progressive legislation by supporting austerity just so Republicans can blow up the deficit with Tax cuts for the wealthy when they take office again.
On January 04 2019 02:49 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. This isn’t about the budget. It is about applying rules dumb rules to restrict democrats that Republicans give zero shits about. The budget and deficit spending has been the hallmark of the GOP since as far as I can remember, so who cares about the budget? How many working class problems does a balanced budget fix? Zero.
So why do you think Democrats including leadership are imposing a stupid rule to handicap themselves and basically turn themselves into conservatives (remember when I said Democrats were dragging the country to the right?)?
|
Paygo isn't an obstacle to Democrat policy. Trump and the GOP Senate majority are. Paygo is smart politics by Pelosi.
|
On January 04 2019 02:53 xDaunt wrote:
Paygo isn't an obstacle to Democrat policy. Trump and the GOP Senate majority are. Paygo is smart politics by Pelosi.
That's the point, instead of making them the obstacle (Trump and the GOP are stopping us from XYZ) Pelosi's dumbass made the Democratic party the main opposition to their own alleged goals.
It's great politics for Republicans, not so much for people who want to do something about climate change, healthcare, and so on.
|
On January 04 2019 02:53 xDaunt wrote:
Paygo isn't an obstacle to Democrat policy. Trump and the GOP Senate majority are. Paygo is smart politics by Pelosi.
Of course it is, rofl. It's designed for people to have the capacity to go "We really love this progressive policy, unfortunately, due to the Paygo rule, we can't support it". There's a reason why Trump had to pretend Mexico was going to pay for the wall when he was on the campaign path.
|
On January 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. It's going to get blown up by the next Republican administration anyway. It's stupid (or intentional) for Democrats to waste their opportunities to pass progressive legislation by supporting austerity just so Republicans can blow up the deficit with Tax cuts for the wealthy when they take office again. Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 02:49 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. This isn’t about the budget. It is about applying rules dumb rules to restrict democrats that Republicans give zero shits about. The budget and deficit spending has been the hallmark of the GOP since as far as I can remember, so who cares about the budget? How many working class problems does a balanced budget fix? Zero. So why do you think Democrats including leadership are imposing a stupid rule to handicap themselves and basically turn themselves into conservatives (remember when I said Democrats were dragging the country to the right?)?
Because it is a house rule that can be easily changed and the last one only lasted a year before it was waived. It’s PR. It is basically a pledge to raise taxes.
|
On January 04 2019 02:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. It's going to get blown up by the next Republican administration anyway. It's stupid (or intentional) for Democrats to waste their opportunities to pass progressive legislation by supporting austerity just so Republicans can blow up the deficit with Tax cuts for the wealthy when they take office again. On January 04 2019 02:49 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. This isn’t about the budget. It is about applying rules dumb rules to restrict democrats that Republicans give zero shits about. The budget and deficit spending has been the hallmark of the GOP since as far as I can remember, so who cares about the budget? How many working class problems does a balanced budget fix? Zero. So why do you think Democrats including leadership are imposing a stupid rule to handicap themselves and basically turn themselves into conservatives (remember when I said Democrats were dragging the country to the right?)? Because it is a house rule that can be easily changed and the last one only lasted a year before it was waived. It’s PR.
You're really that gullible?
You already have dems like Wulfey defending it and thinking it's good.
|
On January 04 2019 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 02:58 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. It's going to get blown up by the next Republican administration anyway. It's stupid (or intentional) for Democrats to waste their opportunities to pass progressive legislation by supporting austerity just so Republicans can blow up the deficit with Tax cuts for the wealthy when they take office again. On January 04 2019 02:49 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. This isn’t about the budget. It is about applying rules dumb rules to restrict democrats that Republicans give zero shits about. The budget and deficit spending has been the hallmark of the GOP since as far as I can remember, so who cares about the budget? How many working class problems does a balanced budget fix? Zero. So why do you think Democrats including leadership are imposing a stupid rule to handicap themselves and basically turn themselves into conservatives (remember when I said Democrats were dragging the country to the right?)? Because it is a house rule that can be easily changed and the last one only lasted a year before it was waived. It’s PR. You're really that gullible?
No, I was alive and a voter in 2007 when the last paygo rule existed. It also has a billion exemptions and can be waived by a majority of the House. So if a bill has support to pass, the rule will be waived.
Edit; I didn’t say it was good. It’s kinda dumb, style over substance. I just know it won’t matter that much in the long run.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 04 2019 02:23 xDaunt wrote:
Trump is in mid-campaign form already:
Well done.
As clueless and doomed as the Jeb! campaign was, it did consistently spend the most money in the early phases, showing clear significant funding support. And it draws excellent parallels to the Clinton campaign, which as bad as it was did manage to squeeze out internal opposition and push a highly disliked, but party-popular, candidate into the win for the nomination. So just a bad bet with an unluckier result.
|
On January 04 2019 03:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 02:58 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. It's going to get blown up by the next Republican administration anyway. It's stupid (or intentional) for Democrats to waste their opportunities to pass progressive legislation by supporting austerity just so Republicans can blow up the deficit with Tax cuts for the wealthy when they take office again. On January 04 2019 02:49 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. This isn’t about the budget. It is about applying rules dumb rules to restrict democrats that Republicans give zero shits about. The budget and deficit spending has been the hallmark of the GOP since as far as I can remember, so who cares about the budget? How many working class problems does a balanced budget fix? Zero. So why do you think Democrats including leadership are imposing a stupid rule to handicap themselves and basically turn themselves into conservatives (remember when I said Democrats were dragging the country to the right?)? Because it is a house rule that can be easily changed and the last one only lasted a year before it was waived. It’s PR. You're really that gullible? No, I was alive and a voter in 2007 when the last paygo rule existed. It also has a billion exemptions and can be waived by a majority of the House. So if a bill has support to pass, the rule will be waived.
That's the whole point. jfc. They don't have to expose themselves as not supporting shit because it never gets to a vote, it never gets to a vote because of the paygo rule.
So Democrats can effectively oppose any progressive legislation they want without ever having to go on record as against it. Instead they can talk about how much they'd love to pass it, but that pesky paygo rule.
I honestly don't know if you're feigning ignorance or genuinely don't understand why it's the first thing they're doing?
You're right though that it wont stop Democrats from blowing up the deficit for their big money donors, lucky for us we have plenty of time to deal with climate change and healthcare, it's not like we're already behind where we need to be.
|
On January 04 2019 03:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 03:03 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 02:58 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. It's going to get blown up by the next Republican administration anyway. It's stupid (or intentional) for Democrats to waste their opportunities to pass progressive legislation by supporting austerity just so Republicans can blow up the deficit with Tax cuts for the wealthy when they take office again. On January 04 2019 02:49 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. This isn’t about the budget. It is about applying rules dumb rules to restrict democrats that Republicans give zero shits about. The budget and deficit spending has been the hallmark of the GOP since as far as I can remember, so who cares about the budget? How many working class problems does a balanced budget fix? Zero. So why do you think Democrats including leadership are imposing a stupid rule to handicap themselves and basically turn themselves into conservatives (remember when I said Democrats were dragging the country to the right?)? Because it is a house rule that can be easily changed and the last one only lasted a year before it was waived. It’s PR. You're really that gullible? No, I was alive and a voter in 2007 when the last paygo rule existed. It also has a billion exemptions and can be waived by a majority of the House. So if a bill has support to pass, the rule will be waived. That's the whole point. jfc. They don't have to expose themselves as not supporting shit because it never gets to a vote, it never gets to a vote because of the paygo rule. So Democrats can effectively oppose any progressive legislation they want without ever having to go on record as against it. Instead they can talk about how much they'd love to pass it, but that pesky paygo rule. I honestly don't know if you're feigning ignorance or genuinely don't understand why it's the first thing they're doing?
Mostly just a amused at people freaking out over a house rule that can be suspended by the same number of voters that it would take to pass legislation. If a bill like Medicare for all is popular enough, it will get a vote.
|
On January 04 2019 03:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 03:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 03:03 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 02:58 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. It's going to get blown up by the next Republican administration anyway. It's stupid (or intentional) for Democrats to waste their opportunities to pass progressive legislation by supporting austerity just so Republicans can blow up the deficit with Tax cuts for the wealthy when they take office again. On January 04 2019 02:49 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. This isn’t about the budget. It is about applying rules dumb rules to restrict democrats that Republicans give zero shits about. The budget and deficit spending has been the hallmark of the GOP since as far as I can remember, so who cares about the budget? How many working class problems does a balanced budget fix? Zero. So why do you think Democrats including leadership are imposing a stupid rule to handicap themselves and basically turn themselves into conservatives (remember when I said Democrats were dragging the country to the right?)? Because it is a house rule that can be easily changed and the last one only lasted a year before it was waived. It’s PR. You're really that gullible? No, I was alive and a voter in 2007 when the last paygo rule existed. It also has a billion exemptions and can be waived by a majority of the House. So if a bill has support to pass, the rule will be waived. That's the whole point. jfc. They don't have to expose themselves as not supporting shit because it never gets to a vote, it never gets to a vote because of the paygo rule. So Democrats can effectively oppose any progressive legislation they want without ever having to go on record as against it. Instead they can talk about how much they'd love to pass it, but that pesky paygo rule. I honestly don't know if you're feigning ignorance or genuinely don't understand why it's the first thing they're doing? Mostly just a amused at people freaking out over a house rule that can be suspended by the same number of voters that it would take to pass legislation. If a bill like Medicare for all is popular enough, it will get a vote.
Okay you're doing it on purpose lol.
You know it's like the Hastert rule in that it's intention is to give politicians an excuse for not taking a vote on something that would make them look bad or contradict their rhetoric and are just covering for Democrats.
|
BTW, thanks to John Solomon, now we know why Mueller requested zero jail time for Flynn:
Sometimes public silence can be deafening or, for that matter, misleading.
For nearly two years now, the intelligence community has kept secret evidence in the Russia collusion case that directly undercuts the portrayal of retired Army general and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn as a Russian stooge.
That silence was maintained even when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates publicly claimed Flynn was possibly “compromised” by Moscow.
And when a Democratic senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, suggested the former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief posed a “danger to this republic.”
And even when some media outlets opined about whether Flynn’s contacts with Russia were treasonous.
Yes, the Pentagon did give a classified briefing to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in May 2017, but then it declined the senator’s impassioned plea three months later to make some of that briefing information public.
“It appears the public release of this information would not pose any ongoing risk to national security. Moreover, the declassification would be in the public interest, and is in the interest of fairness to Lt. Gen. Flynn,” Grassley wrote in August 2017.
Were the information Grassley requested made public, America would have learned this, according to my sources:
+Before Flynn made his infamous December 2015 trip to Moscow — as a retired general and then-adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign — he alerted his former employer, the DIA.
+He then attended a “defensive” or “protective” briefing before he ever sat alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia Today (RT) dinner, or before he talked with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
+The briefing educated and sensitized Flynn to possible efforts by his Russian host to compromise the former high-ranking defense official and prepared him for conversations in which he could potentially extract intelligence for U.S. agencies such as the DIA.
+When Flynn returned from Moscow, he spent time briefing intelligence officials on what he learned during the Moscow contacts. Between two and nine intelligence officials attended the various meetings with Flynn about the RT event, and the information was moderately useful, about what one would expect from a public event, according to my sources.
DIA spokesman James Kudla on Wednesday declined comment about Flynn.
Rather than a diplomatic embarrassment bordering on treason, Flynn’s conduct at the RT event provided some modest benefit to the U.S. intelligence community, something that many former military and intelligence officers continue to offer their country after retirement when they keep security clearances.
It’s important to wind back many months to where the Russia collusion narrative started and the media frenzy–driven suggestion that Flynn may have been on a mission to compromise America’s security and endanger this great republic when he visited Moscow.
Would the central character in a Russian election hijack plot actually self-disclose his trip in advance? And then sit through a briefing on how to avoid being compromised by his foreign hosts? And then come back to America and be debriefed by U.S. intelligence officers about who and what he saw?
And would a prosecutor recommend little or no prison time for a former general if that former military leader truly had compromised national security?
Highly unlikely.
The gap between the original portrayal of Flynn’s activities and the actual facts likely is one of the reasons a prosecutor working for special counsel Robert Mueller pointedly rejected a judge’s suggestion at Flynn’s aborted sentencing last month that the general might have engaged in treason.
Source.
Long story short, the Russian collusion story was always bogus, the FBI/DOJ knew it was always bogus, yet they set Flynn up anyway.
|
On January 04 2019 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 03:13 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 03:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 03:03 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 02:58 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. It's going to get blown up by the next Republican administration anyway. It's stupid (or intentional) for Democrats to waste their opportunities to pass progressive legislation by supporting austerity just so Republicans can blow up the deficit with Tax cuts for the wealthy when they take office again. On January 04 2019 02:49 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. This isn’t about the budget. It is about applying rules dumb rules to restrict democrats that Republicans give zero shits about. The budget and deficit spending has been the hallmark of the GOP since as far as I can remember, so who cares about the budget? How many working class problems does a balanced budget fix? Zero. So why do you think Democrats including leadership are imposing a stupid rule to handicap themselves and basically turn themselves into conservatives (remember when I said Democrats were dragging the country to the right?)? Because it is a house rule that can be easily changed and the last one only lasted a year before it was waived. It’s PR. You're really that gullible? No, I was alive and a voter in 2007 when the last paygo rule existed. It also has a billion exemptions and can be waived by a majority of the House. So if a bill has support to pass, the rule will be waived. That's the whole point. jfc. They don't have to expose themselves as not supporting shit because it never gets to a vote, it never gets to a vote because of the paygo rule. So Democrats can effectively oppose any progressive legislation they want without ever having to go on record as against it. Instead they can talk about how much they'd love to pass it, but that pesky paygo rule. I honestly don't know if you're feigning ignorance or genuinely don't understand why it's the first thing they're doing? Mostly just a amused at people freaking out over a house rule that can be suspended by the same number of voters that it would take to pass legislation. If a bill like Medicare for all is popular enough, it will get a vote. Okay you're doing it on purpose lol. You know it's like the Hastert rule in that it's intention is to give politicians an excuse for not taking a vote on something that would make them look bad or contradict their rhetoric and are just covering for Democrats.
The Hastert rule limited the minority from bringing anything to the floor. A paygo rule just says a spending bill can’t be taken up unless it offsets it’s spending. The progressive can bring unlimited non binding resolutions in support of Medicare for all to the floor. Or bringing spending bills with questionable ways to increase revenue to the floor.
I’m just saying the rule isn’t as limiting as folks might think.
|
On January 04 2019 03:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 03:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 03:13 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 03:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 03:03 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 02:58 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. It's going to get blown up by the next Republican administration anyway. It's stupid (or intentional) for Democrats to waste their opportunities to pass progressive legislation by supporting austerity just so Republicans can blow up the deficit with Tax cuts for the wealthy when they take office again. On January 04 2019 02:49 Plansix wrote:On January 04 2019 02:41 xDaunt wrote:
Why exactly do we think that it is a good idea to blow up the budget? It's not a problem that's easily dealt with. In the current environment of rising interest rates, it's fiscally disastrous. Going back to a ZIRP regime isn't good progressive policy, either, as the inflation has a huge regressive impact. The people who don't own anything (ie the lower classes) are the ones who get screwed. This isn’t about the budget. It is about applying rules dumb rules to restrict democrats that Republicans give zero shits about. The budget and deficit spending has been the hallmark of the GOP since as far as I can remember, so who cares about the budget? How many working class problems does a balanced budget fix? Zero. So why do you think Democrats including leadership are imposing a stupid rule to handicap themselves and basically turn themselves into conservatives (remember when I said Democrats were dragging the country to the right?)? Because it is a house rule that can be easily changed and the last one only lasted a year before it was waived. It’s PR. You're really that gullible? No, I was alive and a voter in 2007 when the last paygo rule existed. It also has a billion exemptions and can be waived by a majority of the House. So if a bill has support to pass, the rule will be waived. That's the whole point. jfc. They don't have to expose themselves as not supporting shit because it never gets to a vote, it never gets to a vote because of the paygo rule. So Democrats can effectively oppose any progressive legislation they want without ever having to go on record as against it. Instead they can talk about how much they'd love to pass it, but that pesky paygo rule. I honestly don't know if you're feigning ignorance or genuinely don't understand why it's the first thing they're doing? Mostly just a amused at people freaking out over a house rule that can be suspended by the same number of voters that it would take to pass legislation. If a bill like Medicare for all is popular enough, it will get a vote. Okay you're doing it on purpose lol. You know it's like the Hastert rule in that it's intention is to give politicians an excuse for not taking a vote on something that would make them look bad or contradict their rhetoric and are just covering for Democrats. The Hastert rule limited the minority from bringing anything to the floor. A paygo rule just says a spending bill can’t be taken up unless it offsets it’s spending. The progressive can bring unlimited non binding resolutions in support of Medicare for all to the floor. Or bringing spending bills with questionable ways to increase revenue to the floor. I’m just saying the rule isn’t as limiting as folks might think.
lordt.
We know, it's just political cover for Democrats to fight progressive legislation. It's not PAYGO that will actually be stopping progressive policy, it will just be used as cover for Democrats opposition to the underlying policy.
What makes it especially stupid is that Democrats could appease the progressive wing and send radical shit up to die in the Senate anyway, but they don't even want the optics of the house passing Climate legislation that could actually address the urgency of the issue even knowing it'll never pass. Instead they want to make sure it's already conservative legislation before they even begin negotiations.
Don't let your distaste for the fallout of 2016 blind you to what's clearly oppositional to things you think are important.
Turns out this PAYGO rule has Republican support too lol.
|
On January 04 2019 03:20 xDaunt wrote:BTW, thanks to John Solomon, now we know why Mueller requested zero jail time for Flynn: Show nested quote +Sometimes public silence can be deafening or, for that matter, misleading.
For nearly two years now, the intelligence community has kept secret evidence in the Russia collusion case that directly undercuts the portrayal of retired Army general and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn as a Russian stooge.
That silence was maintained even when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates publicly claimed Flynn was possibly “compromised” by Moscow.
And when a Democratic senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, suggested the former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief posed a “danger to this republic.”
And even when some media outlets opined about whether Flynn’s contacts with Russia were treasonous.
Yes, the Pentagon did give a classified briefing to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in May 2017, but then it declined the senator’s impassioned plea three months later to make some of that briefing information public.
“It appears the public release of this information would not pose any ongoing risk to national security. Moreover, the declassification would be in the public interest, and is in the interest of fairness to Lt. Gen. Flynn,” Grassley wrote in August 2017.
Were the information Grassley requested made public, America would have learned this, according to my sources:
+Before Flynn made his infamous December 2015 trip to Moscow — as a retired general and then-adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign — he alerted his former employer, the DIA.
+He then attended a “defensive” or “protective” briefing before he ever sat alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia Today (RT) dinner, or before he talked with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
+The briefing educated and sensitized Flynn to possible efforts by his Russian host to compromise the former high-ranking defense official and prepared him for conversations in which he could potentially extract intelligence for U.S. agencies such as the DIA.
+When Flynn returned from Moscow, he spent time briefing intelligence officials on what he learned during the Moscow contacts. Between two and nine intelligence officials attended the various meetings with Flynn about the RT event, and the information was moderately useful, about what one would expect from a public event, according to my sources.
DIA spokesman James Kudla on Wednesday declined comment about Flynn.
Rather than a diplomatic embarrassment bordering on treason, Flynn’s conduct at the RT event provided some modest benefit to the U.S. intelligence community, something that many former military and intelligence officers continue to offer their country after retirement when they keep security clearances.
It’s important to wind back many months to where the Russia collusion narrative started and the media frenzy–driven suggestion that Flynn may have been on a mission to compromise America’s security and endanger this great republic when he visited Moscow.
Would the central character in a Russian election hijack plot actually self-disclose his trip in advance? And then sit through a briefing on how to avoid being compromised by his foreign hosts? And then come back to America and be debriefed by U.S. intelligence officers about who and what he saw?
And would a prosecutor recommend little or no prison time for a former general if that former military leader truly had compromised national security?
Highly unlikely.
The gap between the original portrayal of Flynn’s activities and the actual facts likely is one of the reasons a prosecutor working for special counsel Robert Mueller pointedly rejected a judge’s suggestion at Flynn’s aborted sentencing last month that the general might have engaged in treason. Source. Long story short, the Russian collusion story was always bogus, the FBI/DOJ knew it was always bogus, yet they set Flynn up anyway.
An opinion piece from John Solomon? You're going to have to do better than that... Solomon is all over the place with his points here, on top of it, why did Flynn plead guilty then? And why does Mueller have over 40 hours of testimony from Flynn?
|
On January 04 2019 04:16 ShoCkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2019 03:20 xDaunt wrote:BTW, thanks to John Solomon, now we know why Mueller requested zero jail time for Flynn: Sometimes public silence can be deafening or, for that matter, misleading.
For nearly two years now, the intelligence community has kept secret evidence in the Russia collusion case that directly undercuts the portrayal of retired Army general and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn as a Russian stooge.
That silence was maintained even when former acting Attorney General Sally Yates publicly claimed Flynn was possibly “compromised” by Moscow.
And when a Democratic senator, Al Franken of Minnesota, suggested the former Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) chief posed a “danger to this republic.”
And even when some media outlets opined about whether Flynn’s contacts with Russia were treasonous.
Yes, the Pentagon did give a classified briefing to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) in May 2017, but then it declined the senator’s impassioned plea three months later to make some of that briefing information public.
“It appears the public release of this information would not pose any ongoing risk to national security. Moreover, the declassification would be in the public interest, and is in the interest of fairness to Lt. Gen. Flynn,” Grassley wrote in August 2017.
Were the information Grassley requested made public, America would have learned this, according to my sources:
+Before Flynn made his infamous December 2015 trip to Moscow — as a retired general and then-adviser to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign — he alerted his former employer, the DIA.
+He then attended a “defensive” or “protective” briefing before he ever sat alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Russia Today (RT) dinner, or before he talked with then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
+The briefing educated and sensitized Flynn to possible efforts by his Russian host to compromise the former high-ranking defense official and prepared him for conversations in which he could potentially extract intelligence for U.S. agencies such as the DIA.
+When Flynn returned from Moscow, he spent time briefing intelligence officials on what he learned during the Moscow contacts. Between two and nine intelligence officials attended the various meetings with Flynn about the RT event, and the information was moderately useful, about what one would expect from a public event, according to my sources.
DIA spokesman James Kudla on Wednesday declined comment about Flynn.
Rather than a diplomatic embarrassment bordering on treason, Flynn’s conduct at the RT event provided some modest benefit to the U.S. intelligence community, something that many former military and intelligence officers continue to offer their country after retirement when they keep security clearances.
It’s important to wind back many months to where the Russia collusion narrative started and the media frenzy–driven suggestion that Flynn may have been on a mission to compromise America’s security and endanger this great republic when he visited Moscow.
Would the central character in a Russian election hijack plot actually self-disclose his trip in advance? And then sit through a briefing on how to avoid being compromised by his foreign hosts? And then come back to America and be debriefed by U.S. intelligence officers about who and what he saw?
And would a prosecutor recommend little or no prison time for a former general if that former military leader truly had compromised national security?
Highly unlikely.
The gap between the original portrayal of Flynn’s activities and the actual facts likely is one of the reasons a prosecutor working for special counsel Robert Mueller pointedly rejected a judge’s suggestion at Flynn’s aborted sentencing last month that the general might have engaged in treason. Source. Long story short, the Russian collusion story was always bogus, the FBI/DOJ knew it was always bogus, yet they set Flynn up anyway. An opinion piece from John Solomon? You're going to have to do better than that... Solomon is all over the place with his points here, on top of it, why did Flynn plead guilty then? And why does Mueller have over 40 hours of testimony from Flynn?
Don't be fooled by the label. All of Solomon's reports for The Hill on this stuff have been classified as "Opinions," but they have been actual investigative reporting. I've been following his stuff closely for the better part of a year, and he obviously has sources fairly high up in the federal government feeding him stuff. We'll see what it all eventually amounts to, but Solomon has been well-sourced so far.
Flynn's testimony could relate to a lot of things. There were three investigations listed on the Mueller sentencing memo. Two of those were redacted. The unredacted one concerned investigating the Trump campaign for Russian collusion. One of the other redacted ones almost certainly related to Turkish lobbying.
|
|
|
The Chinese were forced to admit the existence of the camps in Xinjiang, though they called them "vocational training" camps. Do you take them at their word?
|
On January 04 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:
The Chinese were forced to admit the existence of the camps in Xinjiang, though they called them "vocational training" camps. Do you take them at their word?
Honestly my question isn't about whether they are torturing people (I don't believe they are, and I think their approach is exponentially better than Indian boarding schools in the US) but about what amounts to widely sharing fake evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
