Thank you lord for bringing Donald Trump to the intersection of Clinton and Corruption and for giving him the willingness to step up and knock that lying, thieving witch down. We look forward to many more blessings ahead of us as the President navigates the waters of the political cesspool. Amen.

I hate the Republican Party. They were one of Trump's enemies throughout his election, and they remain his enemy.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
I hate the Republican Party. They were one of Trump's enemies throughout his election, and they remain his enemy.

Yeah, no shit. There is a reason that we call the Republican Party "The Party of the Stupid".

But hating the Republican Party is like hating your nose. Are you going to cut it off?

We have got to work (that means showing up for meetings, making phone calls, writing letters, visiting your congressman and senators) to make these bloviating congresscritters accountable. Just bitching about it gets us nowhere.

I suppose one of the very few political advantages to living in western Washington is that I don't have to apologize for any back-stabbing, pussified Republican.

Maybe I'll get one someday.

That's Goddamned right

Screw all the bitching and moaning. Trump got the two things he wanted most, a LOT of money for defense spending and funding for the wall. The fact that the Dim's are celebrating their "win", just shows you how good he is at the Art of the Deal. He got exactly what he wanted while making them think they got over on him. Just wait until the 1st year is over.

I expect there will be a budget going forward instead of these idiotic continuing resolutions.

When you decide what to bitch and moan about and make all sorts of demeaning and insulting remarks about these office holders, just remember one thing: 60 votes. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to allow a vote on a bill.

The God Damned Commies have only two ways to influence how things are done, federal courts which are salted with left leaning judges and enough Senators to block the measures they really, really seriously oppose.

Republicans differ on how to proceed, not as much on end results. Repeal of Obamacare passed the House several times, with no hope whatsoever of becoming law. There are purists who insist on provisions which have no hope of being enacted now, because of the 60 vote limit, while others want to cobble together a procedure that can be approved by Congress, but with limitations unacceptable to the purists. The purists prevent passage of the doable bill, the God Damned Commies prevent voting on a clean repeal.

If you don't, or won't, understand these procedural realities, you will think you have been abandoned, that the Republcans are inept conmen, but that isn't the case.

Jallen... The 60 vote rule can be changed. If the republicans don't go nuclear now, the dems will as soon as they have a majority. The precedent has been set with judges, cabinet positions, etc. Lowering the bar for legislation is going to happen at some point. I have no doubts about it.

Is anybody watching the roast of Comey? It's great to see him finally reaping what he sowed. In our corrupt political system, you better pick a side because playing both will only get you burned.

quote:

just remember one thing: 60 votes. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to allow a vote on a bill.

Also remember: It's just a rule... and the Senate makes it's own rules.
It's not some grand tradition. It's not part of the Constitution. It's an anachronism. I agree with The "Boz" : it can and will be changed.

The framers designated five circumstances requiring a supermajority: convicting an impeached president or other high officer, amending the Constitution, ratifying a treaty, overturning a presidential veto or expelling a member of Congress. That's the list. Passing laws and confirming justices aren't on it.

quote:

Originally posted by bozman:
Jallen... The 60 vote rule can be changed. If the republicans don't go nuclear now, the dems will as soon as they have a majority. The precedent has been set with judges, cabinet positions, etc. Lowering the bar for legislation is going to happen at some point. I have no doubts about it.

We ought not do that. And God help us if it does come to that.

And JALLEN is 100% correct.

quote:

Originally posted by SIG4EVA:
Screw all the bitching and moaning. Trump got the two things he wanted most, a LOT of money for defense spending and funding for the wall. The fact that the Dim's are celebrating their "win", just shows you how good he is at the Art of the Deal. He got exactly what he wanted while making them think they got over on him. Just wait until the 1st year is over.

Agreed, but you listed #2 and #3. The #1 thing was a constitutionalist on SCOTUS (i.e. Gorsuch) which God willing will have a 20 to 30 year impact.

Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House. Yet Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer boasts that he can block Trump's legislative agenda, including repealing the Affordable Care Act.

"Obamacare, he won't be able to do it," Schumer says. "Forget about repealing or modifying Dodd-Frank."

What allows Schumer to thwart the majority's will and paralyze the Senate? Not the U.S. Constitution, as the framers designed it.

The answer is a centuries-old Senate practice called the filibuster. Senators in the minority could take the floor and talk endlessly, never agreeing to formally end debate so the majority could vote. They'd talk the legislation to death or "filibuster" it, in the process shutting down all other Senate business. The House never permitted it, always allowing a simple majority to shut down debate.

In the Senate, the idea was to make sure the minority was heard. But over the years, the rule was exploited to stop legislation altogether.

Southern Democrats used it to block anti-lynching legislation in the 1930s and civil rights laws in the 1960s. Not until June 10, 1964 were anti-segregationists able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a major civil rights bill -- after 60 days of debate.

Then, in 1975, the Senate modified the filibuster, adopting a 60-vote rule. Senators could close debate and bring legislation to a vote -- if they had 60 votes to do it. Since then, Senators don't have to monopolize the floor and debate endlessly, shutting down all business. Threatening to do so is enough to hold up a bill. Call it a fake filibuster. Right now, Republicans have 52 Senate seats, not enough to stop Democrats from filibustering legislation and Supreme Court nominees.

In recent years, Republicans have benefitted from the 60-vote rule. During President Obama's first two years in office, the Republican Senate minority used it to kill pro-union card-check legislation, the Dream Act, gun control and a federal minimum wage hike.

Now Democrats want payback. Minutes after President Trump announced his Supreme Court nominee, Schumer proclaimed that "on a subject as important as a Supreme court nomination," there have to be 60 votes to move the nomination along.

That's politics. But D.C. insiders talk about the 60-vote rule as if it were sacrosanct, the holy grail of democracy. "It's the way our Founding Fathers set it up," says Senator Bill Cassidy, R-La.

Sorry, senator. That's not the case.

The framers designated five circumstances requiring a supermajority: convicting an impeached president or other high officer, amending the Constitution, ratifying a treaty, overturning a presidential veto or expelling a member of Congress. That's the list. Passing laws and confirming justices aren't on it.

At the Constitutional Convention, the framers considered requiring a supermajority in the Senate to pass laws, but repeatedly rejected the idea.

James Madison explained in Federalist No. 58 that it would give the minority control over the majority. The "principle of free government would be reversed." Requiring laws to pass two houses of Congress and giving the president a veto were better ways to promote wise lawmaking.

Alexander Hamilton warned a supermajority requirement would cause "tedious delays" as it had under the failed Articles of Confederation. This is just what we're facing now.

Meanwhile, McConnell, a Senate lifer first elected in 1984, defends the 60-vote rule, telling colleagues not to "act as if we're going to be in the majority forever."

NYU law professor Burt Neuborne deplores these "rules that scratch my back today and yours tomorrow." They protect career politicians but not the public.

The filibuster dashes voters' hopes that an election can produce real change.

Some call dropping the filibuster "going nuclear." Actually, it would be a return to what the framers envisioned -- "going original."

http://www.realclearpolitics.c...ibuster__133022.html

As I understand it, this budget was still under the Obama rules. Which meant something like for every dollar in defense spending a dollar had to go to domestic spending.

That being said as Trumps rally exit song goes "You can't always get what you want".

T
R
UMP

TRUMP BEAT HILLARY!!!

quote:

Originally posted by SIG4EVA:
Screw all the bitching and moaning. Trump got the two things he wanted most, a LOT of money for defense spending and funding for the wall.

He got funding for the wall? When?

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

just remember one thing: 60 votes. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to allow a vote on a bill.

Also remember: It's just a rule... and the Senate makes it's own rules.
It's not some grand tradition. It's not part of the Constitution. It's an anachronism. I agree with The "Boz" : it can and will be changed.

The framers designated five circumstances requiring a supermajority: convicting an impeached president or other high officer, amending the Constitution, ratifying a treaty, overturning a presidential veto or expelling a member of Congress. That's the list. Passing laws and confirming justices aren't on it.

All that is true except "the grand tradition." Both parties have honored it, waxed eloquent about the many virtues and advantages and importance of this grand tradition, and employed it as circumstances arose. I suspect that, like the relaxation of the requirement for confirmations, we celebrate now but some day in the future will be uncomfortable in its application.

The genius of the Constitution is in the delicate arrangements to require a broad consensus to act. They wanted to avoid the tyranny of royal whim. Separation of powers, division of responsibilities in the Congress, limitations on jurisdiction of federal courts, limitations on federal powers, now significantly eroded, and more besides. As far as possible without paralysis, it takes several powers to agree on some policy or law. In the cases you mention, it takes even more.

The pressures of the moment may result in a change. Let's hope it is for the better.

quote:

Originally posted by showpro:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SIG4EVA:

He got funding for the wall? When?

It's on page 740 or so, around there ... funding to repair or replace sections of The Wall, $340 million or so? I'll see if I can't find this again.

This funding will go towards replacing some chain link fencing along the Wall.

quote:

The pressures of the moment may result in a change. Let's hope it is for the better.

I'm not saying the filibuster should be ended all together.... but:

quote:

In the Senate, the idea was to make sure the minority was heard. But over the years, the rule was exploited to stop legislation altogether.

Southern Democrats used it to block anti-lynching legislation in the 1930s and civil rights laws in the 1960s. Not until June 10, 1964 were anti-segregationists able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a major civil rights bill -- after 60 days of debate.

Then, in 1975, the Senate modified the filibuster, adopting a 60-vote rule.

Let them speak. Let them speak as long as they want.... just like before 1975.
When they finish speaking... call the vote.

There's no good reason for 40 Senators to stop the country dead in its' tracks.

quote:

funding to repair or replace sections of The Wall, $340 million or so? I'll see if I can't find this again.

This funding will go towards replacing some chain link fencing along the Wall.

$340,000,000 for chain link fence?

Let's see if my math is correct.

https://fence-material.com/gal...in-link-fence-syste/

12 foot commercial chain link fence, including posts (every 10 feet), hardware, and top rail. $25 per linear foot.

$340,000,000 / $25 = 13,600,000 linear feet.

13,600,000 linear feet / 5,280 feet in a mile = 2,575 miles.

Mexican - US Border = Just under 2,000 miles.