US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7275

On April 06 2017 07:02 ShoCkeyy wrote:


It happened in the past, and that last time was in 1881... and that person who Congress took "No action" on accepted him on the next time he was introduced the same year. It's already been way over a century, and congress decided to not even give him a chance at least? Garbage resolution.

On April 06 2017 07:15 Doodsmack wrote:


Why don't you tell us about that awesome 1888 precedent that justifies the Garland situation.

On April 06 2017 07:06 zlefin wrote:

you denied ANY possibility to cite garland; and you claim the motive is revenge. which is 100% proof that you're being pure partisan hack
you can't even conceive of the notion that people would feel unconstitutional behavior by the republicans should be opposed.

do you admit that what the republicans did to garland was a horrible violation of norms?

On April 06 2017 07:22 Plansix wrote:

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/04/522598965/going-nuclear-how-we-got-here

Taking this event on its own does not account for the slow build we have had to this point. Garland was the final straw in an unsustainable stand off. Both parties are to blame for the endless escalation. But claiming this is sustainable or the fault of the Democrats for taking it to far just means you are not appreciating how long this has been a problem.

On April 06 2017 08:41 Sermokala wrote:
Hitting it probably doesn't require as much computer power as one might think but the actual intercept vehicle being nimble enough and large enough to do anything is a silly hard engineering problem I gotta think.

Lazers are probably a simpler and more reliable system once you can actual make a lazer that powerful.

On April 06 2017 08:42 Introvert wrote:




This conversation had so much potential! The point, as I have stated and sourced before, is that what the Republicans did, in effect, is not unusual. I care less for the mechanism, I threw that out there as an aside. Taking the conversation this direction is hilarious because we know that even if the GOP had given him a hearing and refused to confirm him people would still be bitching. The complaint about "not even a hearing" is a smokescreen.



You have yet to provide any reason why the denial of the Garland vote is comparable, beyond Plansix's continued posting about escalation. Another fun fact, the Senate hearing as we know it didn't come about until the mid 1900s. Denying a hearing or a vote, while scummy (I'll concede that for the sake of argument), is not a violation of the Constitution. Nor, as I have said now multiple times, is the denial of a presidential appointment in a president's final year. So while this situation is rare, it is not that far removed from previous actions.

Now of course we are treading some new ground, in that these filibusters are being removed at all (both in 2013 and now).

And I still don't see what your solution is. Either party in this situation would nuke this thing.

you've yet to provide any sound reasons that what the dems are doing is worse than what the reps. the arguments have been done in the thread so many times, and in so many places elsewhere.
you misread the actual articles which discussed last year appointments, and took from them conclusions that they did not say, because those conclusions favored your side.
you are a textbook case of rationalizing to support the conclusion you want.

your claim that the dems would do the same in the same situation is unfounded; it might be true, but it might well not be, given that it's the republicans who have been engaging in extreme obstructionism for quit ea long time now, including in ways which are substantially destructive to sound governance.

and I do consider it to be a violation of the constitution. the refusal to even hold hearings does not seem consistent with advise and consent to me. that's just closing your eyes and ignoring the issues entirely, that does not constitute advice and consent.
I agree there is some precedent, but that does not justify it, it merely means others acted badly in the past. it is fundamentally unsound from a governmental standpoint, as has been amply demonstrated in this thread.
And I personally would find it a considerable difference and would mind far less if they had a) actually held hearings for the candidate and b) voted him down. especially if they provided a reasonable, or at least passable basis for so doing, which could be done, thogu hlikely would not be. (example such argument at appendix A)
The republicans also stated they would categorically refuse ANY nominee, which is fundamentally ridiculous and destructive to government. the choice to burn down the governmente and destroy the ability of the government to function rather than accept a compromise candidate or at leas tbe open to discussion, is a sign of willful evil.

it is far removed from previous actions, only a very few, very rare exceptions exist, and many of the cases you might number were noted as to not actually be so on point.

my solution: ALL nominees are put up for a vote within 90 days. If you vote against a nominee, you must state a passable reason for doing so, and state another person who you would consider acceptable.

Appendix A
1) the court is politicized, we cut out the bs about claiming tofocus on qualified jurists looking at the law and admit the motives are otherwise.
2) the court has a lot of major issues decided on a 5-4 basis, and changes to justices are therefore very sensitive and can greatly affect numerous major issues.
3) scalia was a much liked heavily conservative person, replacing him with someone, even a moderate, would tilt the court balance too much and cause social unrest and too much movement on issues where there is much disagreement.

On April 06 2017 09:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So Bannon was behind the Susan Rice leak in attempt to downplay the dumpster fire that is the Russian White House leaks which has backfired every single step and the adults in the NSC had enough and threatened to resign if it he wasn't removed.

WASHINGTON ― The Trump administration still has no idea what the president’s promised “impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful southern border wall” will look like. But it’s unlikely to be an actual wall “from sea to shining sea,” Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly said Wednesday.

Speaking before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Kelly said his department would do whatever makes the most sense to secure the border, even if that means adding fencing and technology rather than constructing a wall.

“The president has told me, ‘Kelly, go do it.’ We need to protect the southwest border in any way that that makes sense,” Kelly said. “I have a lot of elbow room.”

He added: “The president knows that I’m looking at every variation on the theme and I have no doubt when I go back to him and say, ‘You know boss, wall makes sense here, fencing ― high-tech fencing ― makes sense over here, technology makes sense over here,’ I have no doubt that he will go tell me to do it.”

Building a “real wall” was a central promise of President Donald Trump’s campaign ― and one that almost certainly won’t happen in the way he said it would. The president and his surrogates have been laying the groundwork for this retreat for months, saying the “wall” wouldn’t need to span the entire border, could be technological, and could supplement existing fencing, even though the president has criticized that fencing and publicly claimed a new wall was necessary. If the muddle is successful, it would mean Trump could add some border fencing and technology, and then claim victory for creating his wall without actually building the new structure he promised.

Kelly said before his confirmation as homeland security secretary that he did not think a wall itself would resolve border security issues, and has said since that in some areas, physical barriers would be unnecessary or impractical.

On Wednesday, he again said he doesn’t expect to build a 2,000-mile wall, based on recommendations from Customs and Border Protection agents about what they think would help prevent illegal entries.

“It’s unlikely that we will build a wall or physical barrier from sea to shining sea, but it is very likely ― I’m committed to putting it where the men and women say we should put it,” Kelly said.

He said he wasn’t sure what such a project would cost, or what it would look like. The department is still in an early phase of the process ― contractor submissions for border wall prototype proposals ended at the end of Tuesday.

“What it’ll look like, how tall it will be, how thick it will be, what color it will be, is yet to be determined,” Kelly said. “All we know is that physical barriers do work if they’re put in the right places.”

On April 06 2017 09:37 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
“What it’ll look like, how tall it will be, how thick it will be, what color it will be, is yet to be determined,” Kelly said. “All we know is that physical barriers do work if they’re put in the right places.”
Source

LOS ANGELES — Saying “this is not how you make America great,’’ former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday challenged President Donald Trump’s proposed $1.2 billion in cuts to after-school programs, arguing that the president is attempting to “balance the budget on the backs” of America’s vulnerable low-income children.

“President Trump promised us that he wants to make America great again,’’ said Schwarzenegger, who convened a National Afterschool Summit on Tuesday before an audience of several hundred educators and activists at the University of Southern California institute that bears his name.

"Taking $1.2 billion away from the children and robbing them blind. ... Why would you do that?’’ Schwarzenegger asked. “Everyone that is smart knows ... that for every dollar you spend in an after-school program, you save $3-$6 down the line."

The summit follows the March release of Trump’s 2018 budget, which proposes slashing $9 billion from federal education spending — a cut of 13.5 percent. The president’s plan calls for eliminating $1.2 billion in grants for the 21st Century Community Learning Centers, a program that supports after-school programs and summer programs serving millions of low-income kids.

On April 06 2017 09:29 LegalLord wrote:

I talked about it before and linked it earlier, but we should also probably just talk about the North Korean case. So forget all the fancy stuff that the Russians might be able to do, just consider what North Korea might be able to do - within their means, but they aren't going to do something stupid just cuz.

First of all, lasers suck at any appreciable range. They dissipate too quickly. By the time you'd be able to target with any laser of use, the incoming nuke would be in the terminal phase and would have already started to detonate, which means it's pretty much too late. As it stands, rockets are still our most reliable tool and we should use them. If you can disable the propulsion on the rocket, it will explode and rain fissile material onto the earth below - a manageable, if problematic, situation. Nukes don't detonate on their own without a trigger.

Terminal phase is kind of a no-go as mentioned. It's too late; the rocket will be too fast and the nuke is already ready to detonate. That's not what you should focus on. Kind of a no-go.

Boost phase, it's going to be pretty slow on launch. This is doable - if you can get to it early. North Korean isn't gigantic so this is possible. You can target it down when it hasn't had a chance to reach cruising speed and that would work. This is tough to do for various reasons, though, and while there is the THAAD system, let's just say that a well-planned launch can probably avoid boost-phase destruction. If there are multiple launches this is obviously even harder. I suppose this could be doable if you know in advance what fixed location North Korea would launch nukes from.

Midcourse phase is where most attempts to intercept are focused because you get the most time. The rocket is pretty fast but if you detonate another missile in the right location that it will be in at the time of intercept, you can kill it. The accuracy of this sort of interception already leaves much to be desired - as per the spotty results of the tests of the US Missile Defense Agency, year after year - but if you have the exact trajectory of the rocket in advance this is possible to do. Though you don't have that, so you also have to track the rocket and guess its destination and trajectory. Tools for tracking a tiny missile all across the world with extreme (within a few meters) precision is... spotty, to put it lightly. Throw in multiple such targets and it isn't actually doable.

The only feasible way I have seen around this is actually just to hit it with a weapon strong enough to destroy all of the incoming missiles, with enough explosive power that you don't really care about range. So in other words you intercept with a nuke. That could work, and it's in development in Russia at some point within the next decade. Of course, you still detonate a nuke in the process and you can't really repeat that multiple times, if they launch multiple well-spaced waves of ICBMs.

Long story short, all it takes for North Korea to be able to lob an ICBM with a very high chance of success is to be able to hide the launch site and have multiple decoys. Nothing fancy is necessary to stop state-of-the-art magic unicorn missile defense as is available in the US arsenal.

On April 06 2017 08:42 Introvert wrote:




This conversation had so much potential! The point, as I have stated and sourced before, is that what the Republicans did, in effect, is not unusual. I care less for the mechanism, I threw that out there as an aside. Taking the conversation this direction is hilarious because we know that even if the GOP had given him a hearing and refused to confirm him people would still be bitching. The complaint about "not even a hearing" is a smokescreen.



You have yet to provide any reason why the denial of the Garland vote is comparable, beyond Plansix's continued posting about escalation. Another fun fact, the Senate hearing as we know it didn't come about until the mid 1900s. Denying a hearing or a vote, while scummy (I'll concede that for the sake of argument), is not a violation of the Constitution. Nor, as I have said now multiple times, is the denial of a presidential appointment in a president's final year. So while this situation is rare, it is not that far removed from previous actions.

Now of course we are treading some new ground, in that these filibusters are being removed at all (both in 2013 and now).

And I still don't see what your solution is. Either party in this situation would nuke this thing.

On April 06 2017 09:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So Bannon was behind the Susan Rice leak in attempt to downplay the dumpster fire that is the Russian White House leaks which has backfired every single step and the adults in the NSC had enough and threatened to resign if it he wasn't removed.

The man credited with honing Donald Trump’s populist message and guiding him into the White House has grown frustrated amid continued infighting in the West Wing, so much so that in recent weeks a top donor had to convince him to stay in his position.

Five people, including a senior administration official and several sources close to the president, tell POLITICO that Bannon, one of Trump’s closest advisers, has clashed with the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who’s taken on an increasingly prominent portfolio in the West Wing. Bannon has complained that Kushner and his allies are trying to undermine his populist approach, the sources said.

Republican mega-donor Rebekah Mercer, a longtime Bannon confidante who became a prominent Trump supporter during the campaign, urged Bannon not to resign. “Rebekah Mercer prevailed upon him to stay,” said one person familiar with the situation.

Another person familiar with the situation, a GOP operative who talks to Mercer, said: “Bekah tried to convince him that this is a long-term play.”

Bannon has worked closely with Mercer not only at the right-wing website Breitbart News, where her family is a major investor and where he served as executive chairman until joining the Trump campaign in August, but also at Cambridge Analytica, the data-analytics firm owned largely by the Mercers. Bannon is a part owner of the firm, though he’s trying to sell his stake, and until recently he served as vice president of the company’s board.

The White House said that Bannon had not taken any steps to leave, and Bannon told POLITICO that any suggestion he threatened to resign was “total nonsense.”

At Breitbart, Bannon, 67, was among the earliest Trump supporters and is credited with building the ideological foundation of the Trump movement. A former investment banker of considerable means, he is somebody the president views as an equal – and whose departure would scramble the pecking order of a White House that seems to have chaos in its DNA.

“It hasn’t all been fun, and I know he’s been frustrated,” said a Republican who has spoken with Bannon in recent weeks. His position in the West Wing took a blow on Wednesday, when the White House issued a national security directive removing him from the National Security Council, where he had been installed as a member in the first weeks of the administration.

Bannon opposed the change, even saying he’d quit if the president signed off on it, according to one person familiar with the situation.

His allies inside the White House downplayed the significance of the reassignment, casting his initial elevation to the NSC as a temporary position that had come to a natural conclusion.

But Bannon's removal from the NSC is symbolic of a broader realignment in the West Wing that has Bannon increasingly marginalized and at odds both with the president and Kushner.

Bannon has generated a thrum of controversy since he joined the Trump campaign as chief executive in August, and the consistent drumbeat of negative press coverage that has surrounding him has strained his relationship with Trump, who monitors media reports closely, according to a source familiar with the situation.

Bannon has also butted heads with Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser, who considers him an ideologue whose advice to Trump is making it harder for the president to win popular support for his agenda, according to people familiar with the dynamic.

The tension between the two is indicative of a larger power struggle in the White House as Kushner’s prominence and responsibility have ballooned. He has helped to expand the authority of two senior West Wing officials who, like him, are less ideological in nature: former Goldman Sachs executives Gary Cohn, who is now chairman of the National Economic Council, and Dina Powell, the deputy national security adviser for strategy. The national security directive removing Bannon from the NSC explicitly authorized Powell to attend the National Security Council's Principals' and Deputies' Committee meetings.

The “big fight is between nationalists and the West Wing Democrats,” said a person familiar with Bannon’s thinking.

“You have these New York interlocutors who are just not political and who want to think that they’re above the way Washington thinks, but if anybody is allied on delivering on things that Trump ran on, it’s Bannon and Reince and the vice president,” said the Republican who has spoken to Bannon recently.

Kushner has also told people that he thinks Mercer as well as her father, the hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer – who poured $13 million into a super PAC that supported Ted Cruz’s campaign in the Republican primary, and came around to Trump after he won the nomination – have taken too much credit for their role in his victory, and has expressed misgivings about their go-it-alone approach to outside spending boosting Trump’s agenda.

“If Bannon leaves the White House, Bekah’s access and influence shrinks dramatically,” said the GOP operative who talks to Mercer.