|
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 |
On August 13 2020 04:00 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2020 03:43 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2020 02:09 Nevuk wrote:
Filibuster isn't a jim crow relic. I have no idea why Obama said that. Maybe the historical one?
The current filibuster has nothing to do with the historical filibuster. As recently as the 50s, when we wanted a filibuster, people stood up and talked for them and got overriden when they had to sleep (see Strom Thurmand).
Now they just signal intent and kill the bill, per 1975 revisions.
I don’t quite understand your point here. You’re saying the change from literally speaking nonstop to signaling intent makes the current one “nothing to do with the historical philibuster?” It just sounds like they removed the endurance/team endurance part of a filibuster that functioned exactly the same, then and now. Well, that's a huge part of it. It's not even remotely physically possible to actually filibuster as many things as senators have signaled their intent to since 1975. Once you remove the only weakness of a tactic, it will be the dominant one. Before 1975, it very rarely prevented a bill from actually passing. It signaled that the senator felt very strongly about it and wanted a longer period of debate (or to just grandstand for PR). It moved it from a strategy for individuals or small blocs to delay a vote to one an entire party can use to prevent votes. The 1975 rules change made that inevitable. If you look at the first usage, in 1841, it had to do with a very controversial topic (not slavery - the US bank). It worked because it convinced people to side with him, not because it kept the vote from happening. It's a large part of why congress started bundling bills into larger and larger groups and taking fewer and fewer votes. I don't really think abolishing the filibuster is notably better for one party or the other: I think it's better for the american people that congress be able to actually pass laws. FWIW, even Madison and Hamilton both agreed that it's an awful idea to require a super majority to pass bills (which is what the current filibuster is): Hamilton: Show nested quote +To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy.
I see what you mean. You favor some of the weaknesses of the pre-1975 norms. I favor the norms of the last 45 years. And I must confess that I favor more ancient norms in things like the selection of senators and restraints on executive power and legislative power delegation.
|
Because appointing someone heavily invested in USPS competitors (already some nice amount of bullshit), while also a republican donor and Trump fundraiser, and having him slow down mail sorting a few monthes before the election when the president is saying that mail-in voting will lead to issues, is definitely NOT done on purpose of course...
Some sorting centers see their sorting machines removed, slowing down... mail sorting, curiously. It will make it a lot easier to complain about mail-in voting after the election.
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/08/12/conspiracy-steal-election-folks-alarms-sound-after-postal-worker-reports-removal
|
Biden's formal VP announcement speech is good so far, an old man speech, bu a good one nonetheless.
|
Northern Ireland26096 Posts
On August 13 2020 04:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2020 04:00 Nevuk wrote:On August 13 2020 03:43 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2020 02:09 Nevuk wrote:
Filibuster isn't a jim crow relic. I have no idea why Obama said that. Maybe the historical one?
The current filibuster has nothing to do with the historical filibuster. As recently as the 50s, when we wanted a filibuster, people stood up and talked for them and got overriden when they had to sleep (see Strom Thurmand).
Now they just signal intent and kill the bill, per 1975 revisions.
I don’t quite understand your point here. You’re saying the change from literally speaking nonstop to signaling intent makes the current one “nothing to do with the historical philibuster?” It just sounds like they removed the endurance/team endurance part of a filibuster that functioned exactly the same, then and now. Well, that's a huge part of it. It's not even remotely physically possible to actually filibuster as many things as senators have signaled their intent to since 1975. Once you remove the only weakness of a tactic, it will be the dominant one. Before 1975, it very rarely prevented a bill from actually passing. It signaled that the senator felt very strongly about it and wanted a longer period of debate (or to just grandstand for PR). It moved it from a strategy for individuals or small blocs to delay a vote to one an entire party can use to prevent votes. The 1975 rules change made that inevitable. If you look at the first usage, in 1841, it had to do with a very controversial topic (not slavery - the US bank). It worked because it convinced people to side with him, not because it kept the vote from happening. It's a large part of why congress started bundling bills into larger and larger groups and taking fewer and fewer votes. I don't really think abolishing the filibuster is notably better for one party or the other: I think it's better for the american people that congress be able to actually pass laws. FWIW, even Madison and Hamilton both agreed that it's an awful idea to require a super majority to pass bills (which is what the current filibuster is): Hamilton: To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy. I see what you mean. You favor some of the weaknesses of the pre-1975 norms. I favor the norms of the last 45 years. And I must confess that I favor more ancient norms in things like the selection of senators and restraints on executive power and legislative power delegation.
Why do you favour those particular norms in application?
And what more ancient norms do you also prefer and why?
As per the filibuster it seems it’s intended role to prevent a tyranny of a base majority or for individual senators to exercise vehement resistance seems to have been warped hugely in relatively recent times into a pure obstructionist mechanism.
|
|
|
On August 13 2020 06:06 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2020 04:20 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2020 04:00 Nevuk wrote:On August 13 2020 03:43 Danglars wrote:On August 13 2020 02:09 Nevuk wrote:
Filibuster isn't a jim crow relic. I have no idea why Obama said that. Maybe the historical one?
The current filibuster has nothing to do with the historical filibuster. As recently as the 50s, when we wanted a filibuster, people stood up and talked for them and got overriden when they had to sleep (see Strom Thurmand).
Now they just signal intent and kill the bill, per 1975 revisions.
I don’t quite understand your point here. You’re saying the change from literally speaking nonstop to signaling intent makes the current one “nothing to do with the historical philibuster?” It just sounds like they removed the endurance/team endurance part of a filibuster that functioned exactly the same, then and now. Well, that's a huge part of it. It's not even remotely physically possible to actually filibuster as many things as senators have signaled their intent to since 1975. Once you remove the only weakness of a tactic, it will be the dominant one. Before 1975, it very rarely prevented a bill from actually passing. It signaled that the senator felt very strongly about it and wanted a longer period of debate (or to just grandstand for PR). It moved it from a strategy for individuals or small blocs to delay a vote to one an entire party can use to prevent votes. The 1975 rules change made that inevitable. If you look at the first usage, in 1841, it had to do with a very controversial topic (not slavery - the US bank). It worked because it convinced people to side with him, not because it kept the vote from happening. It's a large part of why congress started bundling bills into larger and larger groups and taking fewer and fewer votes. I don't really think abolishing the filibuster is notably better for one party or the other: I think it's better for the american people that congress be able to actually pass laws. FWIW, even Madison and Hamilton both agreed that it's an awful idea to require a super majority to pass bills (which is what the current filibuster is): Hamilton: To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser. ... The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto, to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. In those emergencies of a nation, in which the goodness or badness, the weakness or strength of its government, is of the greatest importance, there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good. And yet, in such a system, it is even happy when such compromises can take place: for upon some occasions things will not admit of accommodation; and then the measures of government must be injuriously suspended, or fatally defeated. It is often, by the impracticability of obtaining the concurrence of the necessary number of votes, kept in a state of inaction. Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border upon anarchy. I see what you mean. You favor some of the weaknesses of the pre-1975 norms. I favor the norms of the last 45 years. And I must confess that I favor more ancient norms in things like the selection of senators and restraints on executive power and legislative power delegation. Why do you favour those particular norms in application? And what more ancient norms do you also prefer and why? As per the filibuster it seems it’s intended role to prevent a tyranny of a base majority or for individual senators to exercise vehement resistance seems to have been warped hugely in relatively recent times into a pure obstructionist mechanism.
I don’t think the physical strain is the important qualifier of a filibuster. The 60 votes is the important part. The performance of a filibuster is not a sufficient check on overuse and wouldn’t correct many of the problems with the party-line vote and lack of compromise and accountability.
I have a ton of preferences for more ancient traditions, which would probably bore most, since conservative orthodoxy is rarely interesting. I would prefer senators appointed by state legislatures as another tie from the representatives back to the political structure of their state, check their desire for more federal intrusion on states, and make the senate race less of a statewide popularity contest/name recognition.
I think too much is made of the obstructionist charge and label, and not enough attention is given to a divided country reflected in a divided legislature. I’m not sufficiently enamored of the GOP to declare a Republican majority in legislature/executive better than divided presidency and congress. Legislation also shouldn’t not be passed simply because passed bills look like productive work is being done or something.
|
On August 13 2020 01:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2020 00:17 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 13 2020 00:00 Biff The Understudy wrote:On August 12 2020 10:25 Zambrah wrote:
She probably appeals to boomers because she's a status quo candidate and boy howdy if they aren't enjoying their status quo. Status quo is Trump, at the moment. And the boomers elected him. Despite being the incumbent, I don’t think 4 years is quite enough time to status quo-ify Trump. I mean his main shtick and appeal was as a fuck you to the status quo and various norms. Rhetoric around him sticking it to the coastal elites or whatever hasn’t appreciably changed. The appeal of a Biden or a Harris is a return to the status quo and the politics of normality and theoretical civility, hence you see Obama invoked a fair amount as some halcyon days one needs to get back to. The progressives/the actual left aren’t in any particular enthusiastic rush to return to the status quo either, didn’t exactly do us many favours A return to the status quo and the politics of normality while running as fast as they can from their records on past status quos and politics of normality eg. Biden's efforts to pass the "Superpredators" Clinton-era crime bill that sent so many minorities to jail for minor offenses, and Kamala's efforts as DA to send minorities with drug offenses and truant kids to prison. I think Obama set the stage for what will really happen to the status quo if elected. He said the filibuster was a Jim Crow relic and wanted it scrapped if it stops Democratic legislation. Let me predict: the status quo, only in so much as it relates to messages or the talk part of the presidency, but major deviations from the status quo mostly in the direction progressives want.
This is a sample of how Republicans can synthesize the counter propaganda to the announcement of Harris as VP no matter how disjointed and cognitively dissonant
|
Another day, another free campaign rally.
Jesus, what a little man.
|
|
|
Right. She called Biden and friend and ally of of racist segregationists, helped them by opposing integration and busing, and implied Biden would’ve harmed her as a young black girl (“that little girl was me”). She did stop short of actually calling Biden a racist. I hope reporters ask her about this and her comments on the Tara Reade allegations.
|
Opposing integration and busing is just a dumb talking point anyway. I would echo Bernie on this that you shouldn't need to bus kids an hour to another community to go to school. There should be adequate integration and resources at every school with federal funding instead of relying on segregated schools based on property taxes that don't have equal opportunity.
Opposition to busing doesn't make you pro segregation. It means you understand the root cause of the problem and that busing doesn't address it.
|
|
|
So I hadn't gotten around to watching the full body cam footage of George Floyd's death until now.
The paramedics that responded to the scene should be fired, at a minimum. I say this as a current paramedic. I was a student that trained with that very ambulance service that responded to the call. That was an astounding level of medical incompetence.
|
It's pretty much only Cavuto and the fired Shep Smith.
|
|
|
In yet another low the twitter account of Herman Cain is retweeting Trump attack ads.
And yes, he died 2 weeks ago.
Not even the dead are safe from politics.
|
There is nothing wrong with using the twitter of a person you killed to advance you views. /s
|
On August 13 2020 18:25 Erasme wrote:
There is nothing wrong with using the twitter of a person you killed to advance you views. /s
This is a great day for Herman Cain. /s
|
That is fantastic on so many levels :D I cannot be racist, i know a black guy that is retweeting my attack on Joe Biden for being racist, showing a debate between Biden and a black woman accusing him of being close to racists, who is now his runnin mate. Oh, and the black guy i dead.
|
What the actual fuck.
While being far from the most evil thing Benito Mangolini and his band of craven twits have done, this feels like a line I didn't even know existed being crossed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
