Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
What madness! A black young female republican introduces something that pretty much anyone can only call "common sense". let's see how it gets destroyed.
This bill will probably pass, but only after the bill limitation portion has been removed, and extraneous, unrelated riders added in.
GasBandit
Staff member
Unfortunately it will probably just get pigeonholed. If it comes to a vote, though, it'll be worth noting who votes against it, so that that vote can then be used against them later.
Sadly, I bet it won't even come up for vote in committee. The pork-barrel-stuffers on both sides will gently ignore it under procedural rules of some such.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yep. That's pigeonholing.
It's problematic, and she must certainly know it will never get passed. This type of bill effectively gives the president line item veto, which transfers _significant_ power to the executive branch.
Right now congress knows that if they want to get something passed that the president doesn't like, they can pass it with something he does like. This is a built-in check and balance, and forces compromise.
Without this (or with the line item veto) the president essentially controls congress, except with a 2/3 majority, which is very difficult to get even when the parties are "working together".
Even if you don't buy into the whole checks and balances thing, or balance of power, or forced compromise, you'll find that congress simply isn't going to give more power to the president, not when they've already handed so much recently.
Right now congress knows that if they want to get something passed that the president doesn't like, they can pass it with something he does like. This is a built-in check and balance, and forces compromise.
Without this (or with the line item veto) the president essentially controls congress, except with a 2/3 majority, which is very difficult to get even when the parties are "working together".
Even if you don't buy into the whole checks and balances thing, or balance of power, or forced compromise, you'll find that congress simply isn't going to give more power to the president, not when they've already handed so much recently.
I would find it a lot easier to get behind this idea if it were more obvious to me that my duly elected representatives were doing a better job of representing me* up on that Hill.
--Patrick
*Not really "me," specifically. Mainly "the constituency" as a whole.
GasBandit
Staff member
Ehhh, I don't know that that's really the case. I mean, a true line item veto would allow the president, for example, to remove funding for things he doesn't like from a passed budget. Under this bill, he'd still have to veto the entire budget or enact the entire budget. I think we'd be getting rid of a lot more "bad" than "good" by limiting the scope of bills to disallow unrelated riders.
That isn't even going into how some districts simply cannot operate without pork because they don't have the tax base for it. You see companies getting monopolies on a government contract entirely because some county in a flyover state needs to jobs to keep people employed. Lima, Ohio couldn't have stayed as afloat as it has without the M1 Abrams plant. The city would have turned into Detroit without it.
GasBandit
Staff member
I think the healthcare act is exactly the sort of thing the bill's author had in mind to prevent.
There was a time I wanted there to be some sort of requirement that before a bill could be passed, it would have to be shown that it would benefit a majority of the people affected by the bill.
It sounds so simple, but yes I realize that the research etc required to verify whether the bill was meeting that requirement would probably exceed the benefit of the requirement. I can still dream.
--Patrick
It sounds so simple, but yes I realize that the research etc required to verify whether the bill was meeting that requirement would probably exceed the benefit of the requirement. I can still dream.
--Patrick
Well, it is a start. Let's see what the rest of the morons back at the base do.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-siege-arrests/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/us/oregon-wildlife-refuge-siege-arrests/index.html
Presumably they were coming and going pretty openly.
GasBandit
Staff member
Also not all that bright when you're in the act of occupying a federal building.
Basically. They've been snatching the most isolated guys when they go out for supplies (because who wants to deal with a group of them?) but it's not like they were trying to make a huge scene of it.
Actually, it seems that the leaders of the militia have been able to come and go as they please. A week ago, they went to a town meeting in Burns and returned to the refuge. (CBSnews) Prior to yesterday, the only militia member who had been arrested was actually driving a vehicle that had been reported stolen from the fish and wildlife service. By participating in the refuge take-over, he was also violating federal probation that was a result of his participation in an earlier protest. (Time)
According to NPR, they were on their way to another town hall meeting when they were stopped. I haven't found any details about why gunfire occurred, although one of the militia members claimed the one that was killed was shot after surrendering. I'm skeptical about that.
Not that I give these guys a whole lot of credit, but the irony of you guys going so "occupation is a huge horrible crime that they should be thrown the book at for" given that your nation was founded via rebellion, I find really funny.
Again, not that these guys in any way compare to your founders in efficacy (though a discussion on their "morality" would be interesting), but it's funny how open the "average person" in your country is (or isn't) to the idea of rebellion.
Again, not that these guys in any way compare to your founders in efficacy (though a discussion on their "morality" would be interesting), but it's funny how open the "average person" in your country is (or isn't) to the idea of rebellion.
GasBandit
Staff member
The heady days of "independence at any cost" are long past us. Most Americans couldn't give a rat's ass about freedom, and fear personal responsibility more than any pathogen.
I find it shocking that the man who said he would never surrender to authorities was shot while "surrendering."
And that Jon Ritzheimer guy (the one who threw a tantrum when Internet people mailed him a bag of dicks) avoided the whole firefight and surrendered in Arizona. I guess he wasn't too keen on martyring himself after all.
Self-described militia tend to be broke, unemployed, and mentally ill. At least two of that group lied about their military service. Some of the other guys did serve in Iraq and are clearly suffering from PTSD. The numbskull who committed suicide by cop probably figured that, if he didn't go out like Butch and Sundance, he would eventually eat his pistol or be killed in a bar fight during an argument over which Founding Father was the sexiest. By the way, we only have the militants' word that he was shot while surrendering. I find that doubtful.
Btw, this wasn't just trespassing. It was seditious conspiracy. EVERY one of those occupiers thought they could force their stance on others through the barrel of a gun. They intimidated an entire town and thought their "sovereign citizen" BS would protect them.
Self-described militia tend to be broke, unemployed, and mentally ill. At least two of that group lied about their military service. Some of the other guys did serve in Iraq and are clearly suffering from PTSD. The numbskull who committed suicide by cop probably figured that, if he didn't go out like Butch and Sundance, he would eventually eat his pistol or be killed in a bar fight during an argument over which Founding Father was the sexiest. By the way, we only have the militants' word that he was shot while surrendering. I find that doubtful.
Btw, this wasn't just trespassing. It was seditious conspiracy. EVERY one of those occupiers thought they could force their stance on others through the barrel of a gun. They intimidated an entire town and thought their "sovereign citizen" BS would protect them.
Last edited:
I am thrilled that Donald Trump, the man that has a chance to stare down Putin and AL-Bagdadi... Can not handle a Fox News Correspondent.
That's one way to look at it. On the other hand, what reason would he have to go anyhow? Not struggling in the polls, and failure to appear at the debate might even help him. It'd not like there's going to be some huge turnabout because Trump didn't appear. At worst, he gains a few detractors who don't think he can handle the heat and at best he removes himself from what he perceives as a hostile and unfair forum.
I am afraid that Cruz is going to have it easy by playing up that Trump is a complete coward. -and he would be right too.