EPTThe quotes are gold :
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1247
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
The quotes are gold : | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On March 26 2019 04:31 Plansix wrote: The amount of effort a practicing attorney needs to go through to get charged with extortion is staggering. He might be the only one in the country capable to clearing that very high bar with such ease. Apparently, Mark Geragos is also implicated as a co-conspirator (CNN analyst and Jussie Smollett's lawyer. He represented Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson, and Winona Ryder). He hasn't been charged yet though, so he might dodge the worst of the charges. I don't have a WSJ subscription so I really don't know any more details than what is on the tweet. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18845 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On March 26 2019 01:27 Stratos_speAr wrote: A lack of charges against Hillary didn't keep you or Republicans from the exact same thing. It blows my mind how much cognitive dissonance you and other conservatives live with. Do you really believe that there aren't parallels between what conservatives are criticizing progressives for now and how they acted when Hillary wasn't charged and the God-only-knows how many Benghazi investigations came up with nothing? Or do you just willfully choose to ignore it because your team is on the other side now? XDaunt has stated clearly that he doesn't believe Hilary has ever been properly investigated when confronted with this little factoid in the past. | ||
|
Slydie
1929 Posts
On March 26 2019 05:42 iamthedave wrote: XDaunt has stated clearly that he doesn't believe Hilary has ever been properly investigated when confronted with this little factoid in the past. Can we keep the focus on the present, please? XDaunt took this as an invitation to change the subject to previous Hillary investigation, and I don't think that is where any of us really wants to go. Hypocricy should not be big news in US politics... | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
And so we begin the next part of this where the Republicans claim the evidence shows Trump is exonerated while refusing to show any of the evidence. It's Trump's tax returns all over again. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45210 Posts
On March 26 2019 06:37 Ben... wrote: Oh weird, Mitch McConnell has blocked a vote on a non-binding resolution Schumer put forth to say that the Mueller report should be released. And so we begin the next part of this where the Republicans claim the evidence shows Trump is exonerated while refusing to show any of the evidence. It's Trump's tax returns all over again. Resolution for the Mueller report to be released publicly... Trump says he wants it. Almost all Republicans want it. All Democrats want it. The American people want it. McConnell blocks it anyway. Why would this happen? Is Trump lying about wanting the report to go public, and telling McConnell to block it for Trump while Trump pretends to be okay with the transparency? https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/435703-mcconnell-blocks-resolution-calling-for-mueller-report-to-be-released?fbclid=IwAR1T_glLHk1AgRZudMd0cek1Y5266HezPe0Bn_TEjZOO6qmgHa8ob9Eli5E | ||
|
brian
United States9636 Posts
| ||
|
Lmui
Canada6219 Posts
On March 26 2019 06:57 brian wrote: it wouldn’t be the first time mcconnell refused to allow a vote to cover for trump. that would be crazy. i assume this won’t actually impact whether or not it gets made public. hopefully. Given that democrats control house intel committee, I find it pretty unlikely that something like that would block the release of the report. Democrats have a ton of ways at this time to get the report released, it's just that doing things by the book, even if the Republicans refuse to acknowledge the book exists sets the stage for a return to normalcy. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10832 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
But Barr decided that he would do his own take on the report before congress was afforded that opportunity. So at bare minimum, we need to change that special counsel statute. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 26 2019 06:30 Slydie wrote: Can we keep the focus on the present, please? XDaunt took this as an invitation to change the subject to previous Hillary investigation, and I don't think that is where any of us really wants to go. Hypocricy should not be big news in US politics... Look again. Wasn’t me. I can easily distinguish between the investigations, which others can’t do, which is why people think they can get me with their whataboutism. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22037 Posts
On March 26 2019 08:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Because the Senate makes its own rules so the majority can just decide that the majority holds all the power.Why does the senate majority leader position come with so much power? It seems insane to me that he can block something like this. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 26 2019 08:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Why does the senate majority leader position come with so much power? It seems insane to me that he can block something like this. Schumer wanted a unanimous consent vote to release before the judiciary committee has even read the darn thing. You're falling for a propaganda play. Barr and DoJ have a statutory duty to obey 6(e) procedures. The results of this may be disputed by Congress (more redactions, less, addenda, explanations). Let the process work and don't fall prey to the stupidest of political ploys. I should add that the Starr Report was seen by Congress before holding a vote on whether to make the report public as presented to them. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On March 26 2019 08:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Why does the senate majority leader position come with so much power? It seems insane to me that he can block something like this. The senate majority leader can be replaced at any time. Every Republican is complicit in his actions. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On March 26 2019 07:36 Velr wrote: So... It can't be that in your great democracy one guy can decide if this happens or not? Right? American democracy is very old compared to other forms of it that are practiced and has experienced no significant structural reform since 1929 (and some would argue even further back. The Apportionment Act of 1929 only set a cap on the number of house seats. The last time we changed the way someone was elected was when we made the Senate a directly elected office). This is ignoring the civil rights act, but that was putting in protections for rights that already existed. Basically, it's absurdly hard to change anything about the US political system, and that was by design. Even in places where America has helped set up Governments they've never used the American system, instead opting for parliamentary systems (in Germany, Iraq). Our system allows two party systems to flourish and has some pointless vestiges (the Vice President, for instance, has always been a very weird, mostly pointless role). On March 26 2019 08:25 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Why does the senate majority leader position come with so much power? It seems insane to me that he can block something like this. He can't. It was a non-binding (ie literally meaningless) resolution. Most of the power McConnell has is traditional - any member of the Senate can bring forward a bill legally, but traditionally they don't. If I'm remembering correctly, he was run around for the recent criminal justice reform bill as an example. If it doesn't have sizable bipartisan support it's not going to happen though. Some things like the filibuster are traditions that were enshrined as rules - but which aren't laws. The filibuster can be nuked at the start of any Senate session, and for the vast, vast majority of US history we only had the speaking filibuster. The most powerful person in the legislative branch is the Speaker. They have the right to block these sort of resolutions, not just tradition, but the right. That's why so many people bashed Ryan as feckless from both sides - he was the second most powerful person in the country and insisted on playing second fiddle to everyone. edit: Basically, when you see "Mitch Mcconnell does x" you should read it as "At least 50 Senate Republicans". Non-binding resolutions are a total waste of everyone's time though, and I hope they go out of fashion soon. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On March 26 2019 08:36 Danglars wrote: Schumer wanted a unanimous consent vote to release before the judiciary committee has even read the darn thing. You're falling for a propaganda play. Barr and DoJ have a statutory duty to obey 6(e) procedures. The results of this may be disputed by Congress (more redactions, less, addenda, explanations). Let the process work and don't fall prey to the stupidest of political ploys. I should add that the Starr Report was seen by Congress before holding a vote on whether to make the report public as presented to them. I understand the duties of DoJ in this but the senate is not part of DoJ. Why can they not come to a vote on this in the senate? When something has this much house support and you ignore it, isn't that just a middle finger to process? Also it says to release unless prohibited by law so that would not bring problems for DoJ as I read it. calls for the public release of any report Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney General, except to the extent the public disclosure of any portion thereof is expressly prohibited by law; and calls for the full release to Congress of any report Special Counsel Mueller provides to the Attorney General. | ||
| ||
