U.S. Politics: The Jeff Sessions: The Killing of a Keebler Elf

[Fez]

8 minutes ago, Shryke said:

The second actually doesn't matter to them. See: the Bush Tax Cuts.

They just want to slash taxes and regulation. Some take it as a matter of faith that this will totally work out eventually, many (including some of the that group too) just view it as a way to kill the federal government, etc, etc.

Their problem with passing tax reform is not so much that they want to balance the budget as that they kinda have to because of the rules of reconciliation and they can't figure out a way to pay for it. The Border Adjustment Tax is the only major possibility I've seen floated and most of the Right hates that shit. The Kochs are waging all out war on it last I heard.

Remember though, Congress can only trigger reconciliation if they have a budget resolution for that fiscal year. There currently is not an FY2018 budget resolution in place because of disagreements between House leadership and the Freedom caucus over funding levels; and the Senate hasn't even considered a resolution yet. If Congress skips over creating a budget resolution and just implements an omnibus appropriations bill in September/October to avoid/end a government shutdown, they lose the ability to create a reconciliation bill next year.

Republicans may be able to find a loophole and create a budget resolution after the appropriations are done, but I actually think there isn't a loophole there. And even if there is one, for the resolution to pass it would still require Republicans on a party-line vote to approve already-implemented appropriations funding levels that were almost certainly negotiated with Senate Democrats. Republicans only managed this back in January because the Freedom caucus was promised the real fight would come this Fall. In other words, its not likely.

Meaning, there probably won't be any reconciliation bill next year.

[Fez]

13 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

He could pocket it, sure.  Why bother challenging it when all you gotta do is send the same thing back to him after Labor Day?  Which is why, if he listens to any rationality, he won't bother.  I mean, I suppose it'd be an interesting move if he then spent August campaigning against the bill and offering reasons why, but we all know that's not happening.

He can only pocket if Congress is not in session though, and the Senate is in session.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fez said:

He can only pocket if Congress is not in session though, and the Senate is in session.

My point was he could try and pocket the bill, and Congress' recourse would be challenging such an action in court.  While that would be an interesting Constitutional exercise, it's academic because there's no reason to go through it.  They can just pass and send him the same bill with a different number once both chambers are back in session.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

My point was he could try and pocket the bill, and Congress' recourse would be challenging such an action in court.  While that would be an interesting Constitutional exercise, it's academic because there's no reason to go through it.  They can just pass and send him the same bill with a different number once both chambers are back in session.

It's doubtful that happens though. It makes zero political sense for Trump to not sign the bill. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Except she said she'd never not been opposed. (ie - double negative) You two are supplying two separate different misreadings of her statement.

 

He works for a propaganda network. He has no credibility. Fuck him. But anyway, she ain't the best at the whole PR game but it's silly to read what she's doing there as anything but a clear attempt to pivot away from a question about her leadership and back to the new slogan/campaign the Democrats are stumping.

 I think what Pelosi was saying is that this pushback is nothing new to her. That she has clearly been opposed in the past and this isn't the first time she's faced these complaints.

 

 Wallace's network is indeed foul, but you have to admit that he does not engage in the same sort of propaganda as many of his coworkers. He doesn't have to, as he is a respected newsman. Or alternatively, he won't because he's a respected newsman. If you can't make that distinction, you're being dishonest at best.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Trump still has not signed the Russia sanctions bill (which the WH says he will sign). The WH claims it's because it hasn't been officially received from Congress yet; however, that's a lie. The bill was officially transmitted on July 28.

The deadline for Trump to sign or veto the bill is either Aug. 8 or 9 (its 10 days from when the bill is received, not counting Sundays, but I'm not sure if the day it arrives counts as day one). I'm not sure if he can pocket veto the bill; the House is not in session but the Senate is in session (and not just pro forma session, it's actively working through Aug. 11 due to McConnell delaying the start of August recess).

Trump has also said nothing in response to Russia announcing plans to expel 755 US embassy staff, more than half of the total staff. He responds to every other slight, no matter how minor.

What happens if he does nothing and just lets it sit there?

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Remember though, Congress can only trigger reconciliation if they have a budget resolution for that fiscal year. There currently is not an FY2018 budget resolution in place because of disagreements between House leadership and the Freedom caucus over funding levels; and the Senate hasn't even considered a resolution yet. If Congress skips over creating a budget resolution and just implements an omnibus appropriations bill in September/October to avoid/end a government shutdown, they lose the ability to create a reconciliation bill next year.

I read an article earlier about the stupid thing from Reddit making McCain a hero (it's false) and one of the things pointed out is that we just don't know what the actual correct thing is on reconciliation, and it could go multiple ways. 

Quote

 

The reconciliation process is tied to budget resolutions, and currently Congress is operating on the fiscal year 2017 budget they passed in January. The reconciliation instructions are clearly usable right now. But everything else is a matter of controversy:

• Some think that reconciliation expires on September 30, 2017, the last day of FY 2017. After that, according to this theory, the House and Senate will have to pass a new resolution to pass reconciliation legislation.
• Others argue that reconciliation doesn’t expire until a new resolution is passed. Under that theory, Republicans can keep working on health care under the 2017 budget as long as they like, so long as they don’t pass a FY 2018 budget resolution with separate reconciliation instructions in the meantime.
• Still others have contended that Congress could pass a FY 2018 budget resolution and still work on its FY 2017 reconciliation bill. This would enable them to work on two reconciliation bills simultaneously; say, health care and tax reform.

 

Of these, the second one is considered to be the most likely possibility, but expect a lot of arguments.

That said, until McCain returns it's likely a moot point, and given the gearing up of lobbyists for tax reform and the stock  market's response to the rumor of tax reform, chances are good they go to something that might be a bit less horrifying and mobilizing.

[Fez]

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

What happens if he does nothing and just lets it sit there?

If Congress is in session, the bill becomes law without his signature after the 10 days. Section 7 of the Constitution: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Quote

. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

 

[all swedes are racist]

10 hours ago, Shryke said:

Uh what?

That's always been true. The Democrats have backed candidates that aren't necessarily pro-life since always because there's only so much control you can have over the primary process and a Democrat is always better then a Republican at the end of the day. Certainly for, you know, the Democratic party.

You wanna challenge every seat, as is the growing opinion on the left on how to take back state and local governments, you need to run candidates like that some places. Or as it's put in the article:

That's Sanders arguing the same thing there at the end, btw.

I mean shit, you can even see this at the federal level. Joe Manchin's politics are, frankly, kinda shitty. But he's outta West Virginia. And at the end of the day, he's a Democrat and some abomination of a piece of healthcare legislation would be law right now if not for him cause he held the line when it counted. You wanna win, you need to be able to have people like Manchin in the party.

Manchin by the way? Identified as pro-life.

You wanna win in America and this is some of the shit you gotta do in some places.

hmm, so what you are saying is... to help win more seats, the dems gotta move to the right. got it.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, dmc515 said:

You're right, I was responding to her intent while he just seemed to be laughing at her stupidity.  What, exactly, is the correct reading of that statement?

The way I already said. She is confident in her position because she's never not been challenged for it and yet she keeps winning.

Quote

Ok - it was an incredibly poor effort at pivoting.  Does that meet your arbitrary limits on how we're able to criticize her statements?

Understanding what she's saying is not setting an arbitrary limit on anything.

Frankly, both the above statements are silly exactly because they are people criticizing her and the party based on not really even understanding what she was saying. "Pelosi pivoted from a stupid question about her leadership to repeating her talking point. DOOOOOM!!!!" is just silly.

 

Quote

In terms of recruitment and support from the party and DCCC?  Yes, it totally has been a litmus test in the past, and that's why it's important to ensure it doesn't become one in the future.

It hasn't though. I mean, in some districts, yes, but not as a hard rule and the DCCC is talking about all races here and that's why jumping on them for saying so is so goddamn silly.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 This new Dem Talking Point has to be renamed at the very least. "The Better Deal"? Ugh. Cringe-worthy. Stop. Just stop. Just to clarify, I don't mind the message, but that name is horrific. Someone in PR should be shot.

[Shryke]

11 minutes ago, r'hllor's red lobster said:

hmm, so what you are saying is... to help win more seats, the dems gotta move to the right. got it.

To win more seats, the Democrats have to be capable of running candidates who can win in red states and the like. Just look at the Senate. Or look at the electoral college and who controls the state governments that can deny people the ability to vote. This is a matter of basic math. You gotta be competitive in those areas.

The american system is tilted in tons of ways against urbanites and blue states and populace states. You gotta take that into account. That's what a 50 State Strategy involves. That doesn't mean you have to move the platform to the right, it just means you have to be flexible on who you are getting elected.

Joe Manchin has said he is pro-life quite a bit, but he's held the line when it counted. Tens of millions of people will have healthcare next year because of Democrats like him.

[Shryke]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 This new Dem Talking Point has to be renamed at the very least. "The Better Deal"? Ugh. Cringe-worthy. Stop. Just stop. Just to clarify, I don't mind the message, but that name is horrific. Someone in PR should be shot.

The guys on Pod Save America were mostly tearing it apart. Though they liked the shit about busting monopolies. Talk about fucking over Comcast and you'll win lots of support I think.

But yeah, it definitely needs work. Thankfully at worst it'll only last for 2018. By 2020 a presidential candidate will come along and set the agenda themselves.

[all swedes are racist]

3 minutes ago, Shryke said:

To win more seats, the Democrats have to be capable of running candidates who can win in red states and the like. Just look at the Senate. Or look at the electoral college and who controls the state governments that can deny people the ability to vote. This is a matter of basic math. You gotta be competitive in those areas.

The american system is tilted in tons of ways against urbanites and blue states and populace states. You gotta take that into account. That's what a 50 State Strategy involves.

Joe Manchin has said he is pro-life quite a bit, but he's held the line when it counted. Tens of millions of people will have healthcare next year because of Democrats like him.

yeah, him and three republican senators.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

30 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 This new Dem Talking Point has to be renamed at the very least. "The Better Deal"? Ugh. Cringe-worthy. Stop. Just stop. Just to clarify, I don't mind the message, but that name is horrific. Someone in PR should be shot.

Republicans have always been better at messaging. Just take the 2016 campaign. Hillary's two main slogans were "Love Trumps Hate" and "Stronger Together." The first one actually primes Trump and love and the second is significantly inferior to "Make America Great Again."

"The Better Deal" is meant to be a play on Trump's deal making prowess, but like you said, it really falls flat. What they need to do is create a slogan and offers a strong vision for the future. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Republicans have always been better at messaging. Just take the 2016 campaign. Hillary's two main slogans were "Love Trumps Hate" and "Stronger Together." The first one actually primes Trump and love and the second is significantly inferior to "Make America Great Again."

"The Better Deal" is meant to be a play on Trump's deal making prowess, but like you said, it really falls flat. What they need to do is create a slogan and offers a strong vision for the future. 

Kind of feel like it's also meant to conjure up remembrance of "The New Deal" as well. I don't know, it's just bad in any case.