Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 238: Parliament-Flunkadelic

(+) Yeah! (+)

On the subject of quorums, do most legislatures have rules regarding where votes are held? Is there any particular reason one party with a majority couldn't just hold a surprise vote at a party meeting to pass whatever they want or even just throw all members of the other party out of office?
---

All the Republicans sneak into the Chamber in the middle of the night to pass whatever they want

---

Something like this is disgusting and abhorrent no matter which party does it.
---

Mega Mana posted...

When were the elections scheduled for 9/10 anyway? Is that a usual thing?

NC State Board of Elections ordered the dates back in March. As for usual? Dunno. NC-09's situation was obviously anything but normal, but NC-03 was a special held to fill a vacancy caused by the death of its office holder.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I dont trust that Dems wouldnt do that at all

On 9/11? Hell no they wouldn't. And I don't believe they would in general.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I dont trust that Dems wouldnt do that at all

Why? What have the Democrats done to convince you they would be even REMOTELY this underhanded?
---

Espeon posted...

Why? What have the Democrats done to convince you they would be even REMOTELY this underhanded?

They chose to become politicians

---

very nuanced!
---

pyresword posted...

Something like this is disgusting and abhorrent no matter which party does it.

The ends justify the means

Doing it to veto a budget? Laughably petty.

Doing it to do something like free migrants from detention camps? Awesome

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Espeon posted...

Why? What have the Democrats done to convince you they would be even REMOTELY this underhanded?

They chose to become politicians

I said THIS underhanded, not underhanded in general. There is nothing in the Democrats actions in the past decade that indicates they are anywhere NEAR as unethical as the GOP.
---

that logic is how you get literal civil warfare
---

Your periodic reminder that they used the lie that "Obama rammed the aca through" as an attack, despite Obama outright making full on concessions in order to get them on board.

The audio of this stunt should be in every single ad that the dems run in NC until every R who participated is out of office.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

The audio of this stunt should be in every single ad that the dems run in NC until every R who participated is out of office.

Well, with the NC Supreme Court striking down their gerrymander... a good deal of them might!

As for that issue... the NC GOP's attempt to redraw the maps themselves before the court's deadline where they'll appoint a special master to do it is... going as you would expect so far.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Your periodic reminder that they used the lie that "Obama rammed the aca through" as an attack, despite Obama outright making full on concessions in order to get them on board.

The audio of this stunt should be in every single ad that the dems run in NC until every R who participated is out of office.

Yeah. The ACA was a year and a half of debate, and the Republicans were given plenty of opportunities to add amendments (before uniformly voting against the bill).
---

My gut feeling is that the non-voters and independents Democrats are trying to convince simply won't vote at all if they used tactics as underhanded as the GOP, and so they don't even if they wanted to (and they probably do).

A lot of them are terrified of any political spectacle, even if it isn't underhanded!
---

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/1171759882900529152?s=21

And of course, eighteen years ago...
https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1171740493534978050?s=21
---

A lot of independent voters would support the Democrats if they started using GOP-style tactics. Moderates hate that stuff, but independents like it. That said, Harry Reid did it, and it's proved to be a bonanza for the GOP. Mitch didn't have to change the rules when the Republicans took over, because the Democrats had already done it.
---

Another classic Donald Trump 9/11 condolence:
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/377947866641485824
---

Whoa, apparently in the case of a disagreement between House and Senate regarding dates of adjournment, the President can adjourn both to a date of his choosing. I am reading that no US president has exercised this power but it is in the Constitution.

So suppose the House tries to impeach Trump. The Senate proposes both houses be adjourned. The House refuses. Then Trump prorogues both until Jan 3, the next time Congress is required to meet. This seems prone to abuse.
---

Another one: https://twitter.com/funder/status/1171657811627053056
---

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1171844518808870913?s=21

Poor Barron
---

red sox 777 posted...

Whoa, apparently in the case of a disagreement between House and Senate regarding dates of adjournment, the President can adjourn both to a date of his choosing. I am reading that no US president has exercised this power but it is in the Constitution.

So suppose the House tries to impeach Trump. The Senate proposes both houses be adjourned. The House refuses. Then Trump prorogues both until Jan 3, the next time Congress is required to meet. This seems prone to abuse.

The Constitution is WRONG!?

Say it ain't so!
---

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/11/politics/supreme-court-asylum-rule/index.html

Good ruling. Now just to make it final.

---

Horrible ruling. Trumps actions here were clearly illegal. Hopefully they dont fuck up again when they rule on the merits.
---

This was a 7-2 ruling.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Horrible ruling. Trumps actions here were clearly illegal. Hopefully they dont fuck up again when they rule on the merits.

This will somehow be an even worse look if the policy is eventually struck down. If I understand this right, it means the government is allowed to enact illegal policies but still enforce them during the period they are being legally challenged.

I sort of get the government's general reasoning on lone obstructionist judges slowing down policies, but also, that's kind of the major function of the judicial branch.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

Horrible ruling. Trumps actions here were clearly illegal. Hopefully they dont fuck up again when they rule on the merits.

This will somehow be an even worse look if the policy is eventually struck down. If I understand this right, it means the government is allowed to enact illegal policies but still enforce them during the period they are being legally challenged.

I sort of get the government's general reasoning on lone obstructionist judges slowing down policies, but also, that's kind of the major function of the judicial branch.

I very much doubt SCOTUS would have allowed the policy to go forward if they weren't going to uphold it on the merits.
---

red sox 777 posted...

I very much doubt SCOTUS would have allowed the policy to go forward if they weren't going to uphold it on the merits.

And? Even in that scenario, the government is acting on things lower courts may find illegal in the interim.

Besides, the SCOTUS literally has not seen all the evidence yet. The original court reviewed additional evidence 3 days ago that caused them to ask for the nationwide hold be reinstated. Sotomayor notes this in her dissent.
---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

I very much doubt SCOTUS would have allowed the policy to go forward if they weren't going to uphold it on the merits.

And? Even in that scenario, the government is acting on things lower courts may find illegal in the interim.

Besides, the SCOTUS literally has not seen all the evidence yet. The original court reviewed additional evidence 3 days ago that caused them to ask for the nationwide hold be reinstated. Sotomayor notes this in her dissent.

It's not necessarily really a question that turns on the evidence. It can be a pure legal question - assume the facts are most unfavorable to the government (everything the plaintiffs allege is true) - is the policy legal?

I mean the actual standard is not as hard as that for the government because the lower court isn't supposed to issue an injunction in the first place based on assuming everything the plaintiffs say is true. But SCOTUS could easily uphold this policy even using that standard.
---

Asked if she believes open borders is a fair descriptor of the positions embraced by her Democratic primary opponents, Gabbard told YouTube host Dave Rubin that it was an accurate label and dismissed the oft-repeated Democratic rejoinder that conservatives use the phrase to tar their political adversaries.

I dont support open borders. Without secure borders, we dont really have a country, she said. And while some of the other Democratic candidates will say well, open borders thats a conservative argument and thats not really whats being advocated for if you look at the practical implications of some of the things theyre advocating for, it is essentially open borders.

More out of that Rubin Report appearance.

It's kinda fascinating how she's gone from pretending to be closer to the far left to just outright parroting conservative talking points.
---

That is completely true though. How are most of the Democrats not advocating for open borders? What would be the practical difference between their proposals and open borders?
---

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/us/politics/trump-impeachment-hearing.html

House Judiciary voted to approve rules for an "investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with regard to President Donald J. Trump."

House Judiciary also announced that impeachment investigation hearings will begin next week.
---

xp1337 posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/us/politics/trump-impeachment-hearing.html

House Judiciary voted to approve rules for an "investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with regard to President Donald J. Trump."

House Judiciary also announced that impeachment investigation hearings will begin next week.

Good. Let's get this to trial and complete and total exoneration.
---

Republicans - the Democrats probably don't want to actually impeach Trump but just "investigate" him until the election. This kind of gamesmanship should not be allowed to succeed. The GOP should vote for impeachment immediately so the case can go to the Senate and the President can cleared of all charges well in advance of the election.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Republicans - the Democrats probably don't want to actually impeach Trump but just "investigate" him until the election. This kind of gamesmanship should not be allowed to succeed. The GOP should vote for impeachment immediately so the case can go to the Senate and the President can cleared of all charges well in advance of the election.

You do realize it looks even worse if his own party votes to impeach him, right? That turns the criminal allegations into a bipartisan issue.
---

Espeon posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Republicans - the Democrats probably don't want to actually impeach Trump but just "investigate" him until the election. This kind of gamesmanship should not be allowed to succeed. The GOP should vote for impeachment immediately so the case can go to the Senate and the President can cleared of all charges well in advance of the election.

You do realize it looks even worse if his own party votes to impeach him, right? That turns the criminal allegations into a bipartisan issue.

Until the Senate hears the case and exonerates him.
---

Gabbard is awful for so many reasons. I hope someone primaries her.
---

https://twitter.com/noahshachtman/status/1171919360895717378?s=21

Pretty analogous to a deal brexit (i.e. probably better than no deal, but strictly worse than having stayed in the EU/Iran deal in the first place)
---

I saw that and I cannot even imagine the spin that would occur if that happened.
---

I assume Trump would blame Bolton. "He told me Iran would fold. Who knew they wouldn't?" Maybe send the troops in to liberate Venezuela.
---

xp1337 posted...

I saw that and I cannot even imagine the spin that would occur if that happened.

"It's just a LOAN! Means they'll pay it back. Obama GAVE it to them. At least Trump is willing to deal with Iran, just like he was willing to deal with North Korea. I THOUGHT YOU LIKED THE IRAN DEAL? OR IS IT ONLY GOOD WHEN OBAMA DOES IT?!"
---

that was too real
---

That was really good, Ashethan. Much better than mine.
---

xp1337 posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/us/politics/trump-impeachment-hearing.html

House Judiciary voted to approve rules for an "investigation to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with regard to President Donald J. Trump."

House Judiciary also announced that impeachment investigation hearings will begin next week.

Frustrating that the leadership continies to send mixed messages on this but small progress is still progress. As long as they follow through with an investigation.
---

Made a HUGE DEAL today. After we pressured Iran, they need help so I agreed to loan them some money. BIG WIN. Iran will do what we say and pay us back with INTEREST! Thank you President Rouhani, very nice man!
---

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1172198767627526151?s=21

Basically, No I actually want to go to war with Cuba and Iran EVEN MORE than Bolton!

Yikes.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1172198767627526151?s=21

Basically, No I actually want to go to war with Cuba and Iran EVEN MORE than Bolton!

Yikes.

He said Cuba and Venezuela, not Iran. And Little Marco supports it.
---

Whoops, yeah obviously
---

Ugh. I want to believe trump is just trying hard to grandstand using Nixon's "convince everybody I'm a crazy jackal" strategy and won't actually follow through

But I don't want to have to
---

debate time
---