|
ComradeCosmobot posted:No. Can't let things like the fact that the debt ceiling was moved up to Nov. 4 distract us from the real issues. This is actually good because it means Boehner can raise it before he leaves
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
happyhippy posted:Comments are loving hilarious. "Anderson Pooper"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:And it looks like Boehner is starting to get worried. Elections for Majority Leader and Whip might be geating called off until further notice. What might this mean for the debt ceiling?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:When Boehner announced his resignation, it was expected that the debt ceiling would come into play right around Christmas. As it turns out, the deadline will arrive November 5th, less than a week after Boehner leaves office. If there is no coherent leadership in the Majority by that time, it raises serious questions about the House's ability to function. It puts pressure on moderates to use extreme measures to resolve the leadership crisis if it continues. I knew about that, I just figured Boehner would force it through in October because he's leaving anyway and doesn't have to worry about backlash from the wingnuts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Wouldn't Boehner forcing through actual governance legislation come at a cost of enraging and stiffening the resolve of the Wing Nuts? Possibly make moderates vulnerable at primary season? When the alternative is a default that's probably a risk that should be taken.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 21:21
|
|
|
fknlo posted:Boehner pushing the funding CR and possibly pushing a debt ceiling raise through will be decent ammo for dems when it happens again in a few months. They'll have proof that if they put them on the floor to a vote that they'd pass. Not like it will make any real difference. Obama said he won't sign any short term spending bill and I heard that the moderates want to push it through to 2017 to dodge the election entirely.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I'm still surprised we're going through this same old song and dance with the debt ceiling again. Won't not raising it cause a loving global economic meltdown on a scale far greater than the 2008 crash? How is this not a loving scandal of the highest order? This is economic terrorism. Tea Party congressmen and the people who put them into power are stupid and don't understand what the national debt is. That's really the long and short.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
A debt default would also be a substantial coup for American strategic rivals such as Russia and China who have been seeking to establish an "alternative" financial order for a while, making it all the more baffling that people who consider themselves patriots are advocating a default.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
"A debt default would bring about full communism" is the opposite end of the spectrum as "A debt default would be a good thing because it will force the government to be more fiscally responsible"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
I find "US bombed a hospital for the hell of it" way harder to believe personally.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:The US bombed a wedding for the hell of it. Why not a hospital? Could be terrorists inside. You don't know! There are a lot of Afghans going in and out of that hospital, after all... Better bomb it to be sure! "Suspect there are terrorists" isn't "for the hell of it," paper thin a justification it may be.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Looks like NAFTA 2: Asia Boogaloo reached agreement Good I'm glad of it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
euphronius posted:No I'm saying intent and context is not really important in view of the monstrous reality. I sure hope that you apply this logic to everything and not just scenarios that make the US look bad.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Infinity posted:lol this is a funny post I'd like to take "intent and context is not really important" and apply it to all sorts of things.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also intent we know what the intent was that is trivial. Even the pentagon admits it meant to blow up the hospital. They story now is that those rascally Afghans are to Blame. No one is saying this is an accident. So intent is like . .. Obvious. Why is what the Pentagon "admits" acceptable evidence to you now when you've disregarded everything else that the Pentagon says up to this point?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Admissions against interest have high credibility. So things the Pentagon says go up in credibility proportionate to how bad it makes them look?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
euphronius posted:So was the attack plane just randomly firing rounds of something. So you think that the pilot or the gunner or whoever should've looked out the window and determined if the target was a hospital or not?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Even something as relatively simple as an airstrike is still sufficiently complex that proving negligence would be extremely difficult. It's not like a video game where someone lazes the hospital and then it blows up 2 seconds later.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
It sure is amazing how it seems like the entire internet is suddenly an expert on the TPP, an agreement nobody has read.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Your Boy Fancy posted:Pieces of it have been leaked, as Congresspersons can read a chapter at a time. No notes, no aides, etc. Plus there's, you know, twenty years of free trade deals to compare it to. The only leaks have come from Wikileaks and they're dubious, both due to the source and that the negotiations were ongoing at the time. Now that the deal has been finalized and parts of it are being officially revealed it actually looks more progressive than people claimed it would be.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:"Okay fine we'll enforce stuff that's actually illegal in all countries involved" doesn't sound like something that should be counted as a big step forward in negotiations. Am I reading that wrong? When you consider that opponents of the deal portrayed it as being literally apocalyptic before, it is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why the US would bomb this hospital knowing it had no strategic value and that there were no enemies inside of it that doesn't ultimately come down to "Well because they're evil and so they do evil things."
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Slickdrac posted:-Afghani's call it in That sounds more negligent than deliberate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Negligent acts are deliberate. What makes it negligent is not observing some duty of care. Is that what this is about? You want to be able to say "The US deliberately bombed a hospital" instead of "US negligence caused a hospital to be bombed" and have the former contain a kernel of truth (in that someone deliberately pulled a trigger to drop a bomb on something) so that it isn't a total lie, and you're accomplishing this by being pedantic about the word "deliberate." Why do you care?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:i mean what even is the military? Sometimes we give our men clubs and have them go take food and women from the tribe across the river.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
zoux posted:Er, why are we giving the US Military the benefit of the doubt at this point? Because contrary to goon opinion they aren't a bunch of literal murderdrones powered by hatred and racism.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
Oh sorry, Forums Poster Noam Chomsky pointed out my red text, so I retract my statement. The US military are literal murderdrones powered by hatred and racism after all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
In the case of idiots in the US military, like the case of so many things, the US military is terrible and also better than every other military. At least US personnel as far as I know were never drinking jet fuel as a substitute for alcohol like the Soviets were.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:Hillary opposes TPP: She waited until the deal was completed before saying so, which sounds to me like it's an attempt to curry favor from the left without actually hurting the deal.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Or she waited until the deal was finalized so that she could oppose the actual deal not a leaked draft? Maybe but considering that she was one of the founders of the idea of the agreement in the first place I think that she just waited until her opposition wouldn't be excessively damaging to it. Most Democrats were already going to oppose the bill anyway, it's Republicans that Obama needs to win over and he will probably succeed considering fast track.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:
Haha gently caress you Obam- wait what?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So is TPP passage a done deal due to fast track? Or is it doomed due to Obama! It's probably happening at this point, if not this year than in next year's lame duck session.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Never thought I'd see the day when people were begging Paul loving Ryan to take the job of majority speaker and I was hoping they succeeded.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:It's possible that he might, especially if the chaos in the GOP caucus is particularly bad. But doing that would make any chaos worse and badly breach the trust between establishment and Tortilla Coast members of the House. What reason does Boehner have to care about chaos in the GOP anymore? If he's the kind of person who can be inspired by the pope to quit being the speaker hopefully his conscience won't let him allow a default either.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Caros posted:Presumably because Boehner needs a functioning republican party for him to lobby when he goes into the private sector. Unless his reputation becomes "Speaker that could have stopped the great default catastrophe of 2015 but didn't"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:So did McCarthy just drop his campaign because he realized the Speakership is a bag of flaming dogshit that Boehner is trying to re-gift him? The Tea Party found out about his pegging fetish and blackmailed him with it.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 03:48
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Is this a joke or did this actually happen? It's a joke.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Did...did she just make a joke about her parents loving in a garage?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Third.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 19:11 |
|
|
So is the Freedom Caucus' position on the debt ceiling still "only if we also defund PP" or has it switched to "Debt? Debt! DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEBT!"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2015 05:27
|
|