|
Fulchrum posted:So this is basically their one and done essentially, right? Everything else horrific they want to try, Democrats can stop them? So yeah, in theory the Democrats could filibuster any other bill in 2017 if they so chose.
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
Of course they can wait and pack as much as they want into that one bill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:04
|
|
|
How long does the period you can put forward this bill last? Or is the window for it basically the entirety of the year?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:18
|
|
|
And let's not forget, there's always next year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How long does the period you can put forward this bill last? Or is the window for it basically the entirety of the year? It's the latter; it only works for the yearly budget resolution, but that can happen at any time (because I'm pretty sure it's for the upcoming year anyway). But yes, there's only one freebie a year, short of procedural fuckery. E: oh yes that reminds me! Look forward in the 115th Congress to actual budgets again. Granted they will consist entirely of six pages of military spending and fifty two pages of insane cackling, but hey, baby steps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 05:27
|
|
|
Apparently Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment to force term limits on the Senate and House. I love how stupid people are about the subject, with something like 75% of people surveyed being for them. People just don't realize that all term limits are going to do is fill Congress with people who don't know how to govern and will be even more reliant on lobbyists and think-tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:Apparently Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment to force term limits on the Senate and House. Of course it would be Cruz. Mother fucker has burned every bridge he has, so at this point this is just him screaming "IF I'M GOING DOWN I'M TAKING ALL YOU FUCKERS WITH ME!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 10:47
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:Apparently Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment to force term limits on the Senate and House. But it would get rid of Ted Cruz so... and lol at the idea that congress is currently full of people who know how to govern and aren't reliant on lobbyists. Status quo politics is Donald Trump being President. Don't be "Status quo politics is awesome!" guy. We are already living in the land of the worst case scenarios. FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 13:27 on Jan 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:Apparently Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment to force term limits on the Senate and House. And I also think the age of the experienced elder statesmen is just about over, especially for the Republicans. The lobbyists and think tanks already write all of the policies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:That's right, Donald Trump is holding his own party accountable on matters of ethics lmao. For now. He is giving the impression that this isn't the 'right time' to deal with it. So that probably means they'll back-door it on a busy news day so no one will notice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 15:24
|
|
|
The week after pictures of joe Scarborough yucking it up with trump, he correctly predicts what will happen like three hours later when trump goes on Twitter to not denounce, but question the timing of the most odious and blatantly corrupt thing the republican congress could do. Something so stupid and brazen it defies believability that any legislative body would lead with it. Then the congress immediately kowtows and trump gets a good news cycle. Yeah I believe this okay.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
A thing that can't be forgotten is the mass "Don't Do This" calling campaign that a lot of groups organized. We need to keep that up. Sure, we can easily get ignored, but forcing them to know a lot of people are watching can stymie some of their evil plans.FizFashizzle posted:The week after pictures of joe Scarborough yucking it up with trump, he correctly predicts what will happen like three hours later when trump goes on Twitter to not denounce, but question the timing of the most odious and blatantly corrupt thing the republican congress could do. Something so stupid and brazen it defies believability that any legislative body would lead with it. Yeah, the more I think about it, the more it sounds less crazy that this was a giant staged operation by Trump to win points with voters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Senator Ted Cruz does something... good? Though I eagerly await a D&D explanation on why this in fact bad and wrong by nature of having been proposed by the Zodiac Killer."news posted:AUSTIN (KXAN) — With the 115th Congress back in session for one day, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, is proposing an amendment to limit the number of terms a member of Congress can serve. As much as I hope this gains traction, I would bet all my chips on this getting voted down very hard and very fast. Congress is too self serving to ever limit their own power.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Actually it's bad and dumb for entirely different reasons that have been discussed on this very page of this very thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
935 posted:Senator Ted Cruz does something... good? Though I eagerly await a D&D explanation on why this in fact bad and wrong by nature of having been proposed by the Zodiac Killer. I mean, for the past six years the Republican Party in Congress has been comprised of very bad long-time congressmen and super double extra bad Tea Party freshmen like David Brat. If you want Congress to be composed entirely of freshmen for the rest of forever, be my guest (actually don't, please). Term limits are generally dumb because they ensure that legislators are 100% unable to develop any experience, devolving power in practice to established, unelected staffers and lobbyists. If you must establish them, long term limits like ~30 years or whatever aren't as bad, but that doesn't make them good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
935 posted:Senator Ted Cruz does something... good? Though I eagerly await a D&D explanation on why this in fact bad and wrong by nature of having been proposed by the Zodiac Killer. Basically, the problem with term limits on congress is it ensures a lot of inexperienced people who will act without fear during their last term are in power. It can work if it's a decent length and may foster the grooming of young blood, but there are logistic problems with it more so than with the President. There are like 400 people in the house and 100 in the senate. Having to switch that out every couple of years can be troublesome if they don't put a good amount of time on the term limit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Rand Paul is so adorable."WaPo posted:Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) will oppose the Republican budget resolution designed to begin the process of unwinding the Affordable Care Act, making him possibly the only member of the majority to break ranks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:Rand Paul is so adorable. Behold, as the Republican Party immediately attempts to balance the cognitive dissonance of their anti-government rhetoric while simultaneously governing in a way consistent with their policy positions. They will, of course, succeed, thanks to their stranglehold on the media narrative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever seen an argument in favor of term limits on elected positions. Like I've seen people like Ted Cruz say "Cronyism is bad, therefore term limits are good", but never an explanation for how term limits would have any hope of reducing cronyism. "If we limit the amount of time people have in office, that definitely won't cause them to raid the cookie jar as hard as possible while they still can, so they can build resources and connections for their next job" is just weird to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
Short term limits would only encourage people to see being an elected official as a stepping stone to something better, rather than a career. I want the person I elect, ideally, to want to be there a long time, because otherwise some of their time will be spent figuring out where they want to go next. gently caress Term Limits, and gently caress Ted Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:Rand Paul is so adorable. That's not "adorable", that's "ambitious". The Republicans only have 52 Senate seats, so anyone who's willing to flip needs to be paid careful attention. By going out of his way to vote "no", he's sending a signal to the leadership of both parties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
935 posted:Senator Ted Cruz does something... good? Though I eagerly await a D&D explanation on why this in fact bad and wrong by nature of having been proposed by the Zodiac Killer. Those are far too short term limits. Some sort of term-limit is an idea worth exploring, but 6 years? Experience is not a guarantee of wisdom, but there is still something to be said for people who know what the gently caress they are doing in the corridors of power. It's not as if there will be term-limits for lobbyists, so you'll just end up with a whole bunch of inexperienced knuckleheads relying even more heavily on lobbyists than they currently do. Not sure the medicine in this case is better than the problem it's meant to cure. You'd need to extend the term for Representatives at the very least. Which should probably be done anyway because it'd be nice if they could go even one year without desperately panicking about fundraising for the next campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:Those are far too short term limits. Some sort of term-limit is an idea worth exploring, but 6 years? Experience is not a guarantee of wisdom, but there is still something to be said for people who know what the gently caress they are doing in the corridors of power. It's not as if there will be term-limits for lobbyists, so you'll just end up with a whole bunch of inexperienced knuckleheads relying even more heavily on lobbyists than they currently do. Not sure the medicine in this case is better than the problem it's meant to cure. You'd need to extend the term for Representatives at the very least. Which should probably be done anyway because it'd be nice if they could go even one year without desperately panicking about fundraising for the next campaign. A better solution here would be to expand the number of Reps so less money needed to go into each campaign, but it'd need to be coupled with campaign finance restrictions so nobody could just moneybomb out of state races, and neither is likely to happen ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Less term limits, more mandatory retirement ages
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
Since everyone is suddenly deciding term limits were bad all along now that republicans want them should presidents also not have term limits?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Since everyone is suddenly deciding term limits were bad all along now that republicans want them should presidents also not have term limits? They are bad because there was a bunch of studies that were done about the effects of term limits in state houses. The short version is that it made lobbyists and special interest groups the only ones with institutional knowledge and they used it to gently caress things up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Since everyone is suddenly deciding term limits were bad all along now that republicans want them should presidents also not have term limits? edit: People lying about Roosevelt's health was bad, but that seems like more of an issue of campaigns lying about things and not term limits. twodot fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Jan 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
twodot posted:Being President is a bad enough job that arguably people shouldn't do it for 12 years just for health/family reasons, but if a majority people like a President, and the President wants to serve another term, I really don't understand the argument in forbidding that. I feel like the burden of proof is on people who think term limits do anything and why those things are good. I think the best argument for Presidential term limits is preventing long-term consolidation of power in the hands of a single individual (observe that when revision of a constitution to remove term limits on the most powerful elective office occurs in other countries, it seems to coincide with the country becoming a de facto dictatorship). This doesn't really apply to members of a legislature with 100 or more members.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:15
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I think the best argument for Presidential term limits is preventing long-term consolidation of power in the hands of a single individual (observe that when revision of a constitution to remove term limits on the most powerful elective office occurs in other countries, it seems to coincide with the country becoming a de facto dictatorship). This doesn't really apply to members of a legislature with 100 or more members.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:I think the best argument for Presidential term limits is preventing long-term consolidation of power in the hands of a single individual (observe that when revision of a constitution to remove term limits on the most powerful elective office occurs in other countries, it seems to coincide with the country becoming a de facto dictatorship). This doesn't really apply to members of a legislature with 100 or more members. Observe that a lot of countries without term limits are not dictatorships. Merkel is headed for her fourth term in Germany, democratically elected and everything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Since everyone is suddenly deciding term limits were bad all along now that republicans want them should presidents also not have term limits? You generally don't get to become President without some political experience as either a Governor's Mansion or a Senator, either in national politics or as chief executive on a state level. It's a different job with different requirements. It is not hypocrisy to favour term limits for President but not for Senators & Representatives. I'm not even saying "no term limits for Senators & Representatives", I just think that Cruz's suggestion is stupid because it'll purge every long-term, experienced legislator on a national level and that's a stupid idea. There's a reason that traditionally freshmen politicians don't do much, they are comparatively idiots. Experience in creating legislation, on navigating the various vested interests while not actually just giving into them completely, these are valuable things for a legislator. A 20 year term limit would be more reasonable than 6 years, to just pick a number out of the air.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
Imagine if there were no term limits in 2000.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:28
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:You generally don't get to become President without some political experience as either a Governor's Mansion or a Senator, No joke I would literally vote for a large house to be president over trump.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
So assuming the gop has the votes they need for this budget resolution thing, how soon could the aca be repealed?
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
Coatlicue posted:So assuming the gop has the votes they need for this budget resolution thing, how soon could the aca be repealed? Things could start going out the window immediately. Enforcement of the tax penalty could be immediately halted, thus ending the individual mandate, for instance. Other things would take time to go into effect, like cessation of subsidies for Medicaid expansion. But the repeal itself could happen the moment Trump was in office to sign it. It seems likely, however, that they will instead set things to phase out over time, thus distancing the effects from the cause and framing the next, potentially Democratic, president for the problems.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Gringostar posted:Imagine if there were no term limits in 2000. Imagine if there were no term limits in '88.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Cross posting from the Trump presidency thread: House Republicans reinstated a rule that allows them to cut the funding for specific government programs and even individual federal employees. But don't worry, it'll only last one year (unless they vote to keep it, which they obviously will). Say goodbye to the civil service as we know it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Imagine if there were no term limits in '88. They'd have figured out how to make Reagan immortal, but not before his brain went to mush, and we'd have a God Emperor by now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Looks like Republicans are planning to defund Planned Parenthood via reconciliation as well  quote:WASHINGTON — House Speaker Paul Ryan said Thursday that the House will vote to defund Planned Parenthood this year in the same reconciliation bill they’ll use to repeal Obamacare. That means Republicans will need just a simple majority of members to pass both measures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:Looks like Republicans are planning to defund Planned Parenthood via reconciliation as well
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2017 23:53
|
|