Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 24, 2017, 08:24:54 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
102324 Posts in 2379 Topics by 1089 Members
Latest Member: Sarge
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The US Congress; Congressional races
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] Print
Author Topic: The US Congress; Congressional races  (Read 96476 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39995


« Reply #350 on: February 21, 2017, 11:59:22 PM »

THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS CONGRESS
February 15, 2017



Let's compare what President Trump has accomplished since the inauguration (with that enormous crowd!) with what congressional Republicans have done.

In the past three weeks, Trump has: staffed the White House, sent a dozen Cabinet nominees to the Senate, browbeat Boeing into cutting its price on a government contract, harangued American CEOs into keeping their plants in the United States, imposed a terrorist travel ban, met with foreign leaders and nominated a Supreme Court justice, among many other things.

(And still our hero finds time to torment the media with his tweets!)

What have congressional Republicans been doing? Scrapbooking?

More than 90 percent of congressional Republicans kept their jobs after the 2016 election, so you can cross "staffing an entire branch of government" off the list. Only the Senate confirms nominees, which they've been doing at a snail's pace, so they've got loads of free time -- and the House has no excuse at all.

Where's the Obamacare repeal? Where are the hearings featuring middle-class Americans with no health insurance because it was made illegal by Obamacare?

The House passed six Obamacare repeals when Obama was president and there was no chance of them being signed into law. Back then, Republicans were full of vim and vigor! But the moment Trump became president, the repeals came to a screeching halt.

After the inauguration (gigantic!), House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put out a plan for repealing Obamacare ... in 200 days. They actually gave their legislative agenda this inspiring title: "The Two Hundred Day Plan.”

TWO HUNDRED DAYS!

What was in the last six Obamacare repeals? If we looked, would we find "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" carefully typed out 1 million times? Seriously, what does Paul Ryan's day look like?

This is the Silence of the Lambs Congress. They're utterly silent, emerging from the House gym or their three-hour lunches only to scream to the press about Trump.




To the delight of the media, these frightened little lambs are appalled by nearly everything Trump does. They've been especially throaty about Trump's temporary travel ban from seven terrorist nations -- as designated by the Obama administration (and by everybody else who hasn't been in a deep freeze in a Finnish crevasse for the past decade).

Just like the six Obamacare repeals, a refugee ban was already written and passed by one house of Congress. Then suddenly: the Silence of the Lambs. McConnell and Ryan are hiding under their desks, as Trump is being attacked from every side.

Way, way back, 15 long months ago, congressional Republicans didn't have a problem with a total ban on Syrian and Iraqi refugees. Not for a mere three months like Trump's order -- but permanently, unless the director of the FBI, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and the director of national intelligence personally certified that a particular refugee posed no danger to the U.S.

That bill passed the House with an overwhelming, veto-proof majority, including 47 Democrats. Then it went to the Senate to die.

But when President Trump imposed a comparatively mild three-month ban on immigrants from Syria, Iraq and five other terrorist nations, the same Republicans who had voted for a limitless ban on refugees whiled away their days calling reporters to denounce Trump.

A little more than a year ago, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, bragged in a press release that he had introduced the House's refugee ban, calling it a bill that would "protect Americans from ISIS.”

But when it came to Trump's three-month pause, McCaul told the Post that Trump's order "went too far.”

I guess that ISIS problem just sort of faded away. (Or maybe we should check with Mrs. McCaul, inasmuch as it's her family money that makes Rep. McCaul one of the richest members of Congress.)

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., who voted for the House's permanent refugee ban, demanded that Trump immediately rescind his travel ban, babbling on about the "many, many nuances of immigration policy" -- which he must have learned about on one of his congressional jaunts to a Las Vegas casino.

Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., said that Trump's order "overreaches and undermines our constitutional system." Evidently, he was suddenly struck by the realization that it's "not lawful to ban immigrants on the basis of nationality," despite having voted to ban refugees on the basis of nationality just 15 months earlier. (I'm OK with this, provided the Syrians, Somalis and Yemenis are sent to live on Justin's street after being told about his support for gay marriage.)

Sens. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Ben Sasse, R-Neb., both rushed to The Washington Post with this refreshingly original point: NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS! Why, thank you, senators! Where would the GOP be without you?

The Post also quoted spokesmen -- spokesmen! -- for Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Rob Portman of Ohio and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina complaining about not having been briefed on Trump's order. The senators themselves were far too busy to talk to the press because they were -- wait, what were they doing again? Words With Friends? Decoupage?

Since the election, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., has been mostly occupied polishing his anti-Trump quotations to get a pat on the head from an admiring media. He complained about Trump's order, saying it was "poorly implemented" and that he had to find out about it from reporters. (I wonder why.)

This is the moment we've been waiting for our entire lives, but Republicans in Congress refuse to do the people's will. Their sole, driving obsession is to see Trump fail.

I am not presently calling for these useless, narcissistic, Trump-bashing Republicans to be defeated in their re-election bids, but they're on my Watch List. To be cleared, they can start by getting off the phone with The Washington Post and passing one of those six Obamacare repeal bills.

COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
Logged
DDF
Power User
***
Posts: 760


« Reply #351 on: February 22, 2017, 08:36:02 AM »

THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS CONGRESS
February 15, 2017

[...]



Where's the Obamacare repeal? Where are the hearings featuring middle-class Americans with no health insurance because it was made illegal by Obamacare?


[...]


To be fair... the IRS is now processing tax returns where the filer hasn't indicated whether they hold the required insurance, but even that was Trump's doing through an executive order.
Logged

Do not fear going anywhere, nor doing anything. You will die where you are supposed to.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39995


« Reply #352 on: February 25, 2017, 04:09:22 PM »

Haven't watched this one yet.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/02/22/watch-how-one-congressman-handles-a-rowdy-town-hall-meeting/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Top5&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTmpBd1l6RmhOV1V5TURoayIsInQiOiJhT2FpNE44ajRjSHUwV3dxSEIzMEhTeFliMTVvbVNRVGtxS3J5RUF5WVVFUXptN0hZNnM0RGQ4SUpnakpJb2JZREw4c3phNXVkRTh2alAwa09nRW1IWWk0eW56ZkViN1gxcU9icUZSTFpSaDUyQ1UzMEprOUlaOEowMnlUNWR5eSJ9
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39995


« Reply #353 on: February 28, 2017, 10:51:01 AM »

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/321477-speaker-ryan-faces-crucial-stretch
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7004


« Reply #354 on: March 12, 2017, 07:40:15 AM »

Look at the Democrat majorities in the Houses during the 1930's.  up to 75 Democrat Senators and well over 300 Congressional seats.  No wonder Roosevelt got what ever he wanted.  After 1933 he had huge majorities on his side:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774721.html
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8766


« Reply #355 on: March 31, 2017, 08:27:24 AM »

The only way this ends well for Democrats is if they admit but it is good for America to confirm a Justice who promises to do his best to uphold the rule of law and the Constitution.

If they get 100% of Republicans, plus these two plus Pence, that makes 55 with more coming.

George Will says let them filibuster - talk endlessly until they are ready to vote.

These two of course are red-state Democrats up for re-election.  Their Democratic colleagues understand what they need to do.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/neil-gorsuch-joe-manchin-heidi-heitkamp-democrats-scotus-236718
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39995


« Reply #356 on: March 31, 2017, 01:08:29 PM »

House Republicans immolated themselves over health care last week, and now Democrats are hoping the Senate GOP will perform its own kamikaze turn over Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. If Republicans blink and tolerate Democratic filibusters of High Court nominees, they should hand over their majority to the Democrats now.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s strategy is transparent: Stage-manage an unprecedented filibuster against Judge Gorsuch, and then portray Republicans as radicals if they change Senate rules to break it. The gambit is to coax at least three of the 52 GOP Senators to cut a deal with Democrats that hands the minority political leverage over President Trump’s judicial nominees.

Mr. Schumer and other Democrats are trying to lure those Republicans into a deal by preaching a false institutionalism that claims to be acting for the good of the Senate. They want to scare the GOP into believing that breaking a filibuster would somehow break the Senate as a deliberative body that requires 60 votes and bipartisan consensus to act.

But the real radical act is a Supreme Court filibuster. Mr. Schumer wants to use the filibuster to defeat Judge Gorsuch outright, or negotiate a deal that gives the judge a confirmation pass of 60 votes in return for a guarantee that GOP Senators won’t break a filibuster on future nominees during the Trump Presidency.

Either result would do great harm to the Senate’s advice and consent role under the Constitution, tilt the Supreme Court to the left, reward the most partisan voices in the Senate on the left and right, further inflame grassroots conservative outrage against political elites, and deal a grievous wound to the Republican Party. Other than that, a great day at the office.

Start with the fact that there has never been a partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. The elevation of Justice Abe Fortas to become Chief Justice in 1968 failed amid bipartisan opposition due to his policy collaboration with the White House while he was a Justice.

The one cloture vote to end debate on that nomination failed 45-43, well short of the 67 votes required at the time. Nineteen Democrats and 24 Republicans voted against cloture in what was the last year of Lyndon Johnson’s Presidency, and Fortas asked LBJ to withdraw his nomination.

Filibusters were mooted against William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito but never materialized. A cloture vote against Rehnquist failed in 1971, 52-42, but he was later confirmed 68-26. Justice Alito easily won a cloture vote and was confirmed 58-42. Republicans never even attempted to filibuster the four Bill Clinton or Barack Obama nominees who were confirmed. (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opposed consideration of any nominee to replace Antonin Scalia before the 2016 election before Mr. Obama nominated Merrick Garland. )

The real break from this tradition began in 2001-2002 when Democrats decided to filibuster George W. Bush’s appellate-court nominees, and this example is politically instructive. After the GOP retook the Senate, a rump group of Republicans and Democrats struck the Gang of 14 deal that agreed to confirm nominees except in “exceptional circumstances.”

But Democrats ended that deal when they regained power. In 2013 they unilaterally rewrote Senate rules to break the filibuster for appellate nominees so Mr. Obama could pack the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Democrats would surely do the same for the Supreme Court the next time they control the White House and Senate, as Senator Tim Kaine explicitly promised to do if Hillary Clinton won the election.

A deal now with Democrats would create a double standard in which GOP nominees are subject to a 60-vote standard but future Democratic nominees aren’t. It would also deny other Senators their constitutional right to offer advice and consent by casting a vote on nominees. A filibuster essentially blocks a vote to confirm, though a nominee like Judge Gorsuch would receive more than 50 votes. He could be denied a seat on the Court on purely procedural grounds, something that has never happened.

If Judge Gorsuch is confirmed, the next opening could come as early as the end of the current Supreme Court term in June and could determine its direction for years. If Democrats know they can block any nominee with a filibuster, they can dictate that no one on Donald Trump’s campaign list of 21 potential nominees can be confirmed.

Democrats could guarantee that no one to the right of Justice Stephen Breyer can be confirmed. This would reward the furthest left Senators for their total resistance, which would in turn empower the most recalcitrant voices in the GOP caucus. Far from empowering moderates, a filibuster deal would reward the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Rand Paul.

This would betray the voters who elected Donald Trump and a GOP Senate in 2016. The Supreme Court wasn’t some political afterthought last year. It was central to the campaign and crucial in motivating millions of Americans to go to the polls. If you think GOP voters are angry now, imagine what they’ll be like if Republicans let Democrats block conservative judges. This would be Senate Republican suicide.

After the health-care fiasco, Republicans need to show Americans they can follow through on their governing promises. If the GOP doesn’t want to squander its Senate majority, it will stay united and confirm Neil Gorsuch, even if it means breaking an unprecedented Senate filibuster.

Appeared in the Mar. 31, 2017, print edition.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8766


« Reply #357 on: April 06, 2017, 10:39:05 AM »

Advise and consent.  That's not nuclear, it's constitutional.  And it makes the next confirmation easier.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 8766


« Reply #358 on: April 09, 2017, 10:01:57 AM »

No one really likes Mitch McConnell (or any other congressional leader) but as mentioned earlier, he deserves extraordinary credit for this turn of events that followed Scalia's sudden, election year death.

He took and used his opponents' words against them, the Biden rule, and Reid and Schumer, and held firm in a situation where elected Republicans normally fold.

Accused of Republicans stealing back this seat, in truth he boldly put the appointment and confirmation directly in the hands of the American people exactly as envisioned by the Founders.

Republicans stuck together and Democrats did not. Red-state Democrats up for reelection fled  their party's leadership like rats from a sinking ship.  Televised hearings exposed the fiction that this man is outside of any reasonable mainstream of judicial thought .  Regarding the ill-advised filibuster, Democrats, for the moment, earned the label of 'the stupid party'.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 14642


« Reply #359 on: April 09, 2017, 10:56:56 AM »

No one really likes Mitch McConnell (or any other congressional leader) but as mentioned earlier, he deserves extraordinary credit for this turn of events that followed Scalia's sudden, election year death.

He took and used his opponents' words against them, the Biden rule, and Reid and Schumer, and held firm in a situation where elected Republicans normally fold.

Accused of Republicans stealing back this seat, in truth he boldly put the appointment and confirmation directly in the hands of the American people exactly as envisioned by the Founders.

Republicans stuck together and Democrats did not. Red-state Democrats up for reelection fled  their party's leadership like rats from a sinking ship.  Televised hearings exposed the fiction that this man is outside of any reasonable mainstream of judicial thought .  Regarding the ill-advised filibuster, Democrats, for the moment, earned the label of 'the stupid party'.

I was very happy to see the turtle demonstrate he had a spine inside his shell.



Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7004


« Reply #360 on: April 10, 2017, 02:19:16 PM »


For their health care:
http://www.newsmax.com/JohnGizzi/Rep-DeSantis-Healthcare-Subsidies-Obamacare/2017/04/10/id/783521/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 39995


« Reply #361 on: April 25, 2017, 11:28:47 AM »

https://www.defendnunes.com/chipin/now/a?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=dark&utm_campaign=chip&utm_term=lead&utm_content=standten
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7004


« Reply #362 on: April 28, 2017, 07:30:29 AM »

I don't understand with such a significant majority in Congress why they cave to Democrats AGAIN:

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/deal-avert-government-shutdown-apos-192342391.html
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 7004


« Reply #363 on: May 20, 2017, 09:24:56 AM »

This is 2 yrs old and rather endless but worth a glancing over.  Every time I see her on cable I ask myself why in heavens name is this woman so powerful.  She sounds like a blabbering fool with nothing but leftist brainwashed propaganda.  She has like Trump a demon like energy level apparently. What she lacks in articulateness and sophistication she appears to make up with wild like enthusiasm to push the liberal agenda no matter what the facts or situations are.  Apparently enough in her party find that of enough value to keep her as their "leader".   Her book sold about one copy.  Whenever she speaks on any show no one , not even the libs , seem to give her credit for saying anything cerebral.  Whenever she speaks it is followed with other muted silence or someone moving on to something else.  Nothing she ever says seems worth discussing further.  So how does a woman who seems like a mindless troll spewing liberal dogma be leader of her party in the House of Representatives ?  Maybe this helps:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-staying-power-of-nancy-pelosi/440022/
« Last Edit: May 20, 2017, 09:30:44 AM by ccp » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!