The [Current Year] General Political/Salma Hayek discussion thread, part 4!!!

[nonobaddog]

It's a theory.

Kind of like the Geocentric Universe theory - it was never true in spite of much support.

 

[T.Lex]

So, withdrawing from the Reagan-era Intermediate Nuke Treaty hasn't been getting much MSM coverage, because it is complicated. And complicated is hard to lead with.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45939544

But, it is interesting. Both sides have issues with the treaty, and have been burning the edges of it for a long time. It probably is worth re-negotiating, but it will be tricky to figure out what a new deal would look like. The world is not the same as it was in 1987.

 

[jbombelli]

I don't think there's much direct buying of politicians in dc unless you are mega rich. Beltway law/lobby firms do the legwork for a fee and provide a useful cutout.

With the old way those lobby firms would have had to go to each state legislature and buy up lots of state legislators at each one. They couldn't just go to the Senate and buy senators. That was the point.

 

[mmpsteve]

With the old way those lobby firms would have had to go to each state legislature and buy up lots of state legislators at each one. They couldn't just go to the Senate and buy senators. That was the point.

That part makes sense.

 

[jamil]

Anyway, about the line item veto, it sounds good when Reagan said it, but it’s probably a bad idea. Be careful of the power you want your president to wield because the next guy will use it to poison a bill that you want. The president should not jave the right to legislate, which line-item-veto kinda is. And there would be a process for making it stick, but that means there is a process which allows the president to alter legislation. That’s not his job. Should be yep or nope.

 

[nonobaddog]

Anyway, about the line item veto, it sounds good when Reagan said it, but it’s probably a bad idea. Be careful of the power you want your president to wield because the next guy will use it to poison a bill that you want. The president should not jave the right to legislate, which line-item-veto kinda is. And there would be a process for making it stick, but that means there is a process which allows the president to alter legislation. That’s not his job. Should be yep or nope.

Then legislation should stick to one subject. None of this stuff of mixing in the Federal budget and immigration and saving the mini-whales and funding to fix Canada all in one pile of crap.

 

[Hawkeye]

Anyway, about the line item veto, it sounds good when Reagan said it, but it’s probably a bad idea. Be careful of the power you want your president to wield because the next guy will use it to poison a bill that you want. The president should not jave the right to legislate, which line-item-veto kinda is. And there would be a process for making it stick, but that means there is a process which allows the president to alter legislation. That’s not his job. Should be yep or nope.

Yeah. I’ve always been kind of concerned how that could be used to completely alter the text of a bill into something that wasn’t voted on!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[KLB]

Then legislation should stick to one subject. None of this stuff of mixing in the Federal budget and immigration and saving the mini-whales and funding to fix Canada all in one pile of crap.

So Congress deals and puts stuff into a bill to get the votes to get it passed. The President decides he doesn't like on little piece, so he cuts that out destroying all of the negotiation that went into it.

The President needs less power, not more.

 

[nonobaddog]

So Congress deals and puts stuff into a bill to get the votes to get it passed. The President decides he doesn't like on little piece, so he cuts that out destroying all of the negotiation that went into it.

The President needs less power, not more.

No. Congress should not make bills that are such a conglomerate of mismatched topics. Congress should address a subject, a single subject - work out their compromises - and produce a bill that has so much merit that any President would not dare veto it. That would be congressional power.

 

[Spear Dane]

Then legislation should stick to one subject. None of this stuff of mixing in the Federal budget and immigration and saving the mini-whales and funding to fix Canada all in one pile of crap.

This times 1000%. Bundling laws should be illegal. That whole Omnibus thing was beyond retarded. "We have to pass it to know what's in it." Whaaaaaat? So give me line item veto's or give me one law at a time.

 

[KLB]

This times 1000%. Bundling laws should be illegal. That whole Omnibus thing was beyond retarded. "We have to pass it to know what's in it." Whaaaaaat? So give me line item veto's or give me one law at a time.

People really should stop with that supposed quote of Pelosi's.

She said,

But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.

I'm no fan of hers or of that bill. The way they passed it was a joke. It's easy enough to beat her up on stuff she actually said though, instead of twisting her words.

 

[mmpsteve]

The basis for quoting her the way we do is that there REALLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TIME TO KNOW WHAT IT ACTUALLY SAID, the way they pushed it through. I don't see a substantive difference in the quotes you show. In this particular instance, they're both accurate. ACA has cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars, literally, and I'm only one guy, and not a rich guy. And we still have millions doing without health care. But Planned Parenthood is alive and well; YIPPIE.

People really should stop with that supposed quote of Pelosi's.

She said,

I'm no fan of hers or of that bill. The way they passed it was a joke. It's easy enough to beat her up on stuff she actually said though, instead of twisting her words.

 

[EMDX6043]

Yup.

 

[Birds Away]

Would it be considered offensive to refer to Pelosi supporters as Nancy boys? Asking for a friend.

 

[nonobaddog]

 

[nonobaddog]

 

[Alpo]

Would it be considered offensive to refer to Pelosi supporters as Nancy boys? Asking for a friend.

Did you get a testosterone shot this week? You know those wear off?

 

[T.Lex]

Did you get a testosterone shot this week? You know those wear off?

Something something I have a salve for that something something.

 

[Birds Away]

Something something I have a salve for that something something.

He does seem to be very sensitive.

 

[Alpo]

Maybe I just expect more courteous behavior from someone older than a millennial. You can't have gotten to this age with that attitude in public. I would think that approach has a very short half life.