The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[SSF1991]

2 hours ago, Patticus said:

While I applaud the efforts of Congressional Democrats to get this shit fixed, it's not happening unless they retake the majority next year.

Actually, there's a lot of GOP Congressional support for this, too. A majority of the GOP House didn't even voice their support. A few have even spoken out against the repeal. Voters on both sides are heavily supportive of net neutrality.

Besides, Congress may not have to do anything. The courts have been the savior of net neutrality twice now. And that's where this whole thing seems to be going towards.

[Patticus]

23 minutes ago, SSF1991 said:

Actually, there's a lot of GOP Congressional support for this, too. A majority of the GOP House didn't even voice their support. A few have even spoken out against the repeal. Voters on both sides are heavily supportive of net neutrality.

Besides, Congress may not have to do anything. The courts have been the savior of net neutrality twice now. And that's where this whole thing seems to be going towards.

Then perhaps either the Congressional Review Act (that's a thing... I think???) or the courts will save it before the midterms, but I'm not going to get my hopes up. Why? The vast lobbying machines of AT&T, Verizon, Comcast et al are going to be revving up to turn as many corruptible politicians as they can to their cause, to defeat the possibility of the CRA reverting the situation, and the GOP has been packing the courts with sometimes wholly unqualified judges, not to mention thieving Merrick Garland's SCOTUS seat for Gorsuch.

This is going to be a stressful few weeks.

What a detestable sack of shit.

[SSF1991]

1 hour ago, Patticus said:

Then perhaps either the Congressional Review Act (that's a thing... I think???)

It will be a thing.

https://www.boston.com/news/politics/2017/12/14/ed-markey-fcc-net-neutrality-repeal-cra

[Tani Coyote]

The Congressional Review Act is not a panacea. The resolutions can be vetoed and will then require a two-thirds supermajority to overturn.

Those supermajorities might be tough to reach without bipartisan negotiation, and you can bet the GOP will try to squeeze something out of the Democrats for it.

While there's bipartisan interest in net neutrality, let's remember the partisan affiliation of the President who put us in this situation, and and the partisan affiliation of the Senators who approved Pai's appointment. The burden of being opposed to net neutrality falls on the GOP.

[SSF1991]

At least the repeal isn't meant to take place until next year. Not sure how late next year, but maybe late enough for the mid-terms?

Hopefully the courts come to the rescue again.

[Conando]

It'd be better off for it to be left for the courts, considering Trump has the power of the veto. 17 states already making a case means this is moving pretty fast.

[Cobalt_Bolt]

Four words that I did not think I would have to say to the ISP my old man works for:

See you in Court.

[KHCast]

1 hour ago, Conando Claus said:

It'd be better off for it to be left for the courts, considering Trump has the power of the veto. 17 states already making a case means this is moving pretty fast.

Would love to see trumps popularity take another nose dive after that move.

Also this is happening. Let’s not ignore this 

 

[Conando]

Are you shitting me, they're doing this again? On what legal basis can you stop a Senator from being seated in a timely manner?

[SSF1991]

He can't do the vote anyway. The election results have to be certified, and he won't be able to take the oath of office until the first week of January, at the very earliest.

I'm so concerned about this tax bill. I feel like this damn thing's going to pass.

[KHCast]

A bunch of political officials say he could vote, which is why Mitch is doing this. Makes no sense they wouldn’t swear him in if they weren’t worried about their tax bill. Plus republicans pulled this before and swore in someone last second for a vote 

[Patticus]

This toxic, unpopular tax bill might be literally the one and only major legislative achievement of the entire GOP-dominated political system (including the Trump administration) between 2016 and 2020. They're desperate to do something, and as a result, they're passing a bad bill that by rights should never see the light of day, let alone a vote on either house's floor.

It's sickening, especially knowing that all these awful bills they keep trying to pass don't need to be that way. They could craft genuinely decent legislation and pass it easily. I don't understand why they've chosen to be monolithic twats about it. Is it because they control both chambers, the White House and the SCOTUS, all at the same time? Do they think they can get away with hyper-partisan murder now? Because it must be becoming obvious that they can't. Hell, that should've been obvious this last summer when their healthcare efforts kept imploding.

[Dizcrybe]

RE: Net Neutrality: if you're in America you can use this link to tell Congress to overturn the FCC vote.

[Tani Coyote]

9 hours ago, Conando Claus said:

Are you shitting me, they're doing this again? On what legal basis can you stop a Senator from being seated in a timely manner?

None.

But currently, McConnell is doing nothing illegal. The ball is not in his court until Alabama certifies the vote and says "yeah, Jones is our new Senator, swear him in."

At this point, it's more comparable to McConnell ignoring Obama's Supreme Court choices when they're being discussed, rather than ignoring Garland after he's formally nominated.

Given the partisan tilt of Alabama's government, however, I expect them to take their sweet time. On the other hand, Governor Kay Ivey is an interesting figure: she refused to postpone the election even when it appeared Moore was in trouble, and she re-enfranchised many ex-felons who may have tilted the election in favor of Jones.

She may be more of a Republican of principle than a Republican of powergaming. Understandably. Any Republican woman who saw how no women were included on the healthcare panel knows the party status quo is not in their favor.

6 hours ago, KHCast said:

A bunch of political officials say he could vote, which is why Mitch is doing this.

That makes no sense.

He is not legally elected yet, as the votes aren't certified and he won't be sworn in until after they are. He is Senator-elect (actually, less than that, he's still legally just a candidate for Senate), not Senator. He cannot vote anymore than Trump could sign bills prior to noon of January 20, 2017.

Quote

Makes no sense they wouldn’t swear him in if they weren’t worried about their tax bill. Plus republicans pulled this before and swore in someone last second for a vote 

Oh it's no secret the GOP cheats and lies its way into power. It's the only way they keep relevance in an America that is increasingly female, non-white, non-binary, and non-Christian.

If Democrats have the motivation Alabama Democrats had to overcome voter suppression in future elections, the GOP is toast. Southern states have massive black populations that are almost entirely Democrat. Even with felon voting laws, there's still more than enough to make waves if they turn out. This is the big reason for Jones' victory: thousands of black voters going through the hoops of voter suppression with determination you rarely see (voter suppression generally relies on each voter deeming it too inconvenient to proceed). Moore was just that terrible.

But yes, Democrats have a habit of being the bigger people, though. For both moral and practical reasons.

[KHCast]

Again though, that doesn’t explain why republicans/MConnell are hell bent on not swearing in Jones and why they threatened to not swear him in immediately if he won.:/ they wouldn’t not do it if they weren’t worried about that fucking them over somehow. If Moore or Jones wouldn’t be able to do diddly shit regarding the tax bill, then why the fuck was that such a big player in discussion regarding both scenarios?

4 hours ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

At this point, it's more comparable to McConnell ignoring Obama's Supreme Court choices when they're being discussed, rather than ignoring Garland after he's formally nominated.

You mean when they ignored Obama’s Supreme Court choices in order to illegally get their own shit in instead? Yeah everyone’s made that comparison to this. 

[Balding Spider]

Has you're Congress rep sold you out? Click here to find out now!

Spoiler

14. Greg Walden, Oregon, $1,605,986 I do hope selling out our freedoms was worth it you. Fucking Republican piece of shit.

And here's something else. Durring the vote there were about 2 million identities stolen for promoting the killing of netnuetrality. Click this link and type in your name. If for some reason it shows up then press the blue box beneath the search box. Thankfully mine didn't pop up.

[Tani Coyote]

1 hour ago, KHCast said:

Again though, that doesn’t explain why republicans/MConnell are hell bent on not swearing in Jones and why they threatened to not swear him in immediately if he won.:/

Because a lot of Democratic activists are interested in seating Jones immediately, even though that's contrary to what the law requires?

Presidents have to wait to take their seat, and so does Jones.

Democrats are just going to have to accept that.

So far, there is no foul play on the GOP's part here.

Quote

 

they wouldn’t not do it if they weren’t worried about that fucking them over somehow. If Moore or Jones wouldn’t be able to do diddly shit regarding the tax bill, then why the fuck was that such a big player in discussion regarding both scenarios?

Because it was always possible tax talks could get hamstrung long enough for Jones to take the seat.

The deadline for certification is December 22nd. Due to the holidays and delays, however, votes are unlikely to be certified until December 26nd.

At that point, Congress is out of session, and the Senate will not be back until January 3rd. If McConnell goes against swearing Jones in on that day, that is when we get to start crying foul, as by that point there is no excuse for it.

Quote

You mean when they ignored Obama’s Supreme Court choices in order to illegally get their own shit in instead? Yeah everyone’s made that comparison to this. 

But it's not comparable.

Jones has not been certified. There is nothing to illegally ignore.

It would be illegal to let a candidate who isn't certified by the state government cast a vote.

[KHCast]

35 minutes ago, Lord Basil (Ogilvie) said:

So far, there is no foul play on the GOP's part here.

So again, why would Mitch threatenly days before the the vote say he wouldn’t seat jones if he was voted? Just to be a shady dick? Like I feel you’re ignoring that bit for some reason.

I will say though what is a dick move is not pausing the vote until the new rep is instated. Especially telling given republicans demanded that a few years back iirc with their own candidate. Even if not illegal it’s morally corrupt and hypocritical to do imo

[Tani Coyote]

36 minutes ago, KHCast said:

So again, why would Mitch threatenly days before the the vote say he wouldn’t seat jones if he was voted? Just to be a shady dick? Like I feel you’re ignoring that bit for some reason.

Where did he say this?

All I've seen from him is that he will not seat Jones in the current session, which as already clarified, is what the law and timing of the election require.

36 minutes ago, KHCast said:

I will say though what is a dick move is not pausing the vote until the new rep is instated. Especially telling given republicans demanded that a few years back iirc with their own candidate. Even if not illegal it’s morally corrupt and hypocritical to do imo

Why yes, it is a dick move.

Unfortunately, this is just a consequence of being the bigger person.

[SSF1991]

Bob Corker will support the tax bill.

https://twitter.com/SenBobCorker/status/941765655497445376

Marco Rubio's voting yes a damn day after saying he'd vote no.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/12/15/marco-rubio-reverses-course-and-gives-the-gop-a-jolt-of-momentum-on-their-massive-tax-bill/23308936/

Because of course.

You can't trust a single damn thing Republicans say, they'll flip-flop on it not even a week later.

[Dizcrybe]

Rubio only said no because he wanted something else in the bill or whatever. He's voting yes now because he got it.

[SSF1991]

27 minutes ago, Dizcrybe said:

Rubio only said no because he wanted something else in the bill or whatever. He's voting yes now because he got it.

I don't think you know Rubio.

He does this all the time.

He was going to vote yes anyway.

[Chili Dawg]

Retiring Corker goes out with a bang, voting with his principles. Primarily the one that states fat wads of money are nice.

I want there to still be a path toward failure for this thing... But doesn't seem likely.

 

[KHCast]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/cdc-gets-list-of-forbidden-words-fetus-transgender-diversity/2017/12/15/f503837a-e1cf-11e7-89e8-edec16379010_story.html?utm_term=.f0342c74f7d0

 

umm...what. Is trump just at his end now?

[Patticus]

First they ban a few words they are uncomfortable with, in certain contexts, in certain agencies. Then the ban begins to spread across the entire government. Next, as we see in Russia with the LGBTQ community, they begin work to ensure that the general public doesn't even believe they (or the ideas and realities they represent) exist to begin with.

It is an exercise in tyranny, and an attempt to force society itself to revert to a past state - the one that old white men like Trump and Pence remember so fondly through their rose-tinted specs. The past state that so many people gave so much blood, sweat and tears to move society beyond.

We are still only in the first phase, and we may only stay here for all I know, but with people like Pruitt in positions of authority, I do not expect it to be limited for long.