Patterico's Pontifications

1/20/2018

Nuke the Filibuster to End the Schumer Shutdown?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:30 pm

The awful terrible no-good #SchumerShutdown is in full swing, and I think it might be time to nuke that filibuster. Let me explain.

I apparently have the masochist gene, because I sometimes listen to National Public Radio. As I drove home yesterday, I was literally yelling at the radio because this happened:

MARY LOUISE KELLY, HOST:

And we’re going to stay right here, right on this same topic for our Friday politics discussion. Here in the studio with me – columnist David Brooks of The New York Times and Matthew Yglesias, co-founder of Vox. [I almost turned off the radio at this point. — Ed.] Welcome to you both to – I guess we’ll call it the special shutdown edition of the week in politics.

Start with this. And David, I’m going to throw this one to you first. If the government shuts down at midnight – if – it will mark the first time ever that that has happened when one party controls the Senate, the House and the White House. So David Brooks, persuade me. If we see a shutdown, how is this not all Republicans’ fault?

DAVID BROOKS: Yeah. First, what I’m about to say I don’t actually agree with. They don’t pay me enough to be a Republican shill.

KELLY: (Laughter) Yeah, a useful preface, OK.

BROOKS: But I think that the strongest argument they’ll make to voters is that listen; we tried to prevent you – present you with a government that was functioning for American citizens, that had defense spending for American citizens, that had a new – this health care program for American citizens, and Democrats want to block it on behalf of illegal immigrants. And so who’s really in favor of Americans, us or them?

I have bolded the parts that made me want to stop the car, yank my radio out of the dashboard, throw it on the ground, and beat it with a Louisville Slugger, Office-Space style. (Damn it feels good to be a gangster!)

Because of course that’s not the strongest argument Republicans can make to voters. In fact, the strongest argument they can make to voters is that they don’t control the government! When it takes 60 votes in the Senate to get a funding bill passed, Republicans can’t fairly be said to “control” the Senate at all! And — get ready for a shock — this Best Argument Possible was actually made from the podium at the White House yesterday! Here’s Mick Mulvaney confronting showboat Little Jimmy Acosta, who tried to make the same stupid argument:

ACOSTA: You made a comment at the beginning of this. You said that this was the Schumer Shutdown. How can it be the Schumer Shutdown when Republicans control the White House, the House and the Senate?

MULVANEY: Come on, you know the answer to that as well as anybody. I laugh, I have to laugh when people say that, “Oh, we control the House, the Senate, the White House, why can’t you get this done?” You know as well as anybody that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass an appropriations bill. Right? You know that.

ACOSTA: I know that.

MULVANEY: OK, so, so, when you only have 51 votes in the Senate then you have to have Democrat support in order to keep the government, to fund the government. So that’s the answer to your question.

Boom! Mulvaney is right on target.

Or is he?

See, then I got to thinking further — and here’s the thought that probably saved my radio: Mulvaney is wrong. He’s right under current rules, of course — but those rules can be changed. Republicans do control the Senate. They can do anything they want to with 51 votes — as long as they have those 51 votes. In fact, if they want, they can change the rules so they can pass an appropriations bill with 51 votes.

It’s a little thing called The Nuclear Option.

There are reasons to be wary about this. Specifically, there are very good reasons to be concerned about losing a way to obstruct Democrats in the future. Just to take one reason that may not be that far off in the future: we’re likely looking at a wave election this year. Democrats could retake control of both houses of Congress. Republicans may well want to have the filibuster in their toolbox.

And it’s by no means certain that there would be 51 votes to put the final nail in the filibuster’s coffin. John McCain is a question mark, for example, both for health reasons and because if he participated in such a vote he might oppose the elimination of the filibuster.

But the more Democrats try to advance the bogus argument that Republicans, under current rules, control the Senate — and the longer the Democrats drag out this shutdown fight — the more Republicans will be motivated to say: you want to say we control the Senate? You know what? You’re right. We do. And we’re about to show that to you.

Whether this is wise is open to question. But the Democrats are pushing the GOP in that direction. And the longer this goes on, the stronger that push will be.

UPDATE: It’s worth noting that commenter Beldar had this idea before I expressed it today, and indeed scripted it out in detail. Take a look.

[Cross-posted at RedState and The Jury Talks Back.]

229 Responses to “Nuke the Filibuster to End the Schumer Shutdown?”

  1. Schumer shut it down.

    Get ’em lined up and nuke it. It’s the only way to be sure.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  2. she’s their intelligence reporter, and pens a gossipy roman a clef, but that was right on point

    narciso (d1f714)

  3. 61 senators (28 Republicans, 33 Democrats) signed a letter last April calling for preservation of the 60 vote requirement to end debate on legislation.

    I suppose in Washington everything is negotiable, but that suggests that McConnell is a pretty far from have 51 votes.

    Also, McConnell voted with the Democrats against cloture last night.

    I’m not sure if this was a parliamentary gimmick (sometimes a senator will change his/her vote to be on the side that prevailed, to allow a motion to reconsider in the future). But both senators from KY voted “for” the shutdown.

    Dave (445e97)

  4. as it turns out mcturtle did ask schumer, for a simple majority vote, so he said no,

    narciso (d1f714)

  5. Glad you finally came around. I’ve been urging this since at least January. Indeed, in the biggest of constitutional pictures — involving the dynamics between the branches of government and the political currents swirling around them — the most spectacular event of 2017 was the GOP senators’ instant, unanimous, and whole-hearted nuking of the last vestiges of the filibuster for presidential appointments when the Dems announced their intention to filibuster Gorsuch.

    Buck up, senators. Smell the coffee. This is the perfect teaching opportunity for the public, the perfect issue to justify bold and absolutely transformative action. Seize this opportunity to execute the Beldar Plan! I’ve scripted it for you!

    Beldar (fa637a)

  6. (January of last year, I meant.)

    Beldar (fa637a)

  7. Jeez. I thought you resigned from the Rumpublican Party. Not Hillary now has become not democrat.

    You’ve been chiding these dolts like they were syphilitic, that is until your nerves frayed. What wagon are you hitching to?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  8. If the GOP senators will nuke the filibuster, then Congress and Trump can actually begin to deliver on some of their many, many promises. It will instantly end the current legislative logjam in the Senate.

    That doesn’t mean that Trump or the party leadership in either chamber can necessarily get even a simple majority on everything. But with control of the leadership positions, the Senate will become roughly as governable as the House, and deals can be cut within the GOP to bring aboard the McCains or Collinses or Pauls.

    The only way to prevent a Dem wave election in 2018, IMHO, is to actually start passing the GOP agenda between now and then.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  9. The only way to prevent a Dem wave election in 2018, IMHO, is to actually start passing the GOP agenda between now and then.
    Beldar (fa637a) — 1/20/2018 @ 12:59 pm

    I don’t know it it is the only way, but I agree that it is a great way.

    felipe (023cc9)

  10. Another way would be to try and convict a bunch of Dems from the previous admin’s excesses. Each indictment could turn into a wave breaker.

    felipe (023cc9)

  11. It’s hard to argue with the feeling that the filibuster rule deserves to go and I wouldn’t lose any sleep if it did. I would point out, however, that the Senate can move the CR to a vote under the rules if the republican majority and its leader wasn’t too lazy to use the rules to bring the Schumer filibuster to an end. Neil Stevens explains once again today all McConnell has to do to end the filibuster but McConnell has demonstrated time and again that he really doesn’t want to beat the democrats. So don’t hold your breath waiting for him to either nuke the filibuster or break it. Sad.

    crazy (d99a88)

  12. From its earliest origins, the filibuster has been extra-Constitutional, purely a creature of comity within the Senate.

    The Constitution itself makes the Senate the less populist, less likely to engage in the tyrrany of the majority, and more institutionally conservative than the House by virtue of its giving only two Senators to each state regardless of population, and by giving them six-year terms, with only one-third of the chamber up for reelection in every two-year election cycle.

    Now comity is dead. Without it, the filibuster has become only a tool of hostage-taking, used by both sides when not in the majority. We can argue about who destroyed the historical comity (I say it’s clearly the Dems), and we can lament the permanent loss of the Senate’s historic comity to modern hyperpartisanship.

    But it’s time to jettison this extra-contractual roadblock even for legislation. It’s time to rely on the actual checks and balances built into the Constitution, rather than trying to pretend this extra-Constitutional set of rules about the length of Senate debate continue to paralyze the Congress. And it’s time to stop pretending that the Dems won’t nuke it the very first chance they get when they’re back in power, just as Harry Reid promised.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  13. Trying this sentence again:

    It’s time to rely on the actual checks and balances built into the Constitution, rather than continuing to rely upon self-restrait of the Senate minority in their use of the filibuster, or continuing to honor this extra-Constitutional set of rules about the length of Senate debate which is being used for hyperpartisan purposes to paralyze the Congress.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  14. Just to take one reason that may not be that far off in the future: we’re likely looking at a wave election this year. Democrats could retake control of both houses of Congress.

    Did you copy/paste this from a post from a year and a half ago? How did that turn out?

    random viking (6a54c2)

  15. I love how easily ignored the 4 Repub no votes were. The simple fact is that the Republican-controlled house (parse the word control however you like, but I’ll remind you of this when the Democrats throw these bums out later this year) cannot pass a bill that is acceptable to the republican-controled Senate to get a bill on Dolt-45’s desk, and even if they did, if Miller was the last one to talk to him, he might not sign it.

    The simple fact is the Republicans couldn’t pass have passed this even if the filibuster were gone. But please, nuke it – the incoming dems will thank you.

    groggy (faad11)

  16. David Brooks as a conservative counterpoint to Matthew Yglesias, because I guess David Gergen wasn’t available.

    BTW, next time NPR has a pledge drive, just so you know where your money is going:

    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tim-graham/2013/07/23/high-npr-star-salaries-curb-appeal-small-dollar-donations

    random viking (6a54c2)

  17. Beldar, The problem is McConnell and the Senate R’s don’t really support the GOP agenda you’d like them to pass. McConnell could have rolled out the cots and ordered pizza and forced Schumer to hold the floor last night. Instead, they went home and slept in.

    crazy (d99a88)

  18. Look at me. I’m pretending to scroll by comments I eschew.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  19. Only way to prevent a wave or this or that… they’ll point to negative polls and that coupled with the steady drumbeat of the one-sided media… all in order to dispirit and cause discord within the ranks.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  20. While their lies, incompetence and anti-American actions are revealed one by one.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  21. The Left doesn’t like America, or Western Civilization, plain and simple.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  22. McConnell could have rolled out the cots and ordered pizza and forced Schumer to hold the floor last night.

    Which would have forced 1 Democrat and 50 Republicans to stay up all night.

    “Real” filibusters favor the filibustering side, because they can call for a quorum and adjourn if one cannot be produced at 3am.

    Dave (445e97)

  23. UPDATE: It’s worth noting that commenter Beldar had this idea before I expressed it today, and indeed scripted it out in detail. Take a look.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  24. Jeez. I thought you resigned from the Rumpublican Party. Not Hillary now has become not democrat.

    You’ve been chiding these dolts like they were syphilitic, that is until your nerves frayed. What wagon are you hitching to?

    I did resign. Did you think I had become a Democrat or something?

    The Democrats are the hypocrites here. It’s plain for all but partisans to see.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  25. That’s right, Dave. They’re a test of political will and of a finite duration. In the good old days they were few and far between when a senator had to hold the floor. Strom Thurmond’s 1957 24 hour filibuster still holds the record and Ted Cruz’s 2013 21 hour effort comes close in 4th place. Now they go on forever.

    crazy (d99a88)

  26. The Democrats are the hypocrites here

    This is not in dispute. My question is what distinction you are making between the Republican Party of today versus four years ago.

    What direction are you leaning?I

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  27. They’re a test of political will

    But an extremely uneven test, since the filibustering side needs one committed senator, and the non-filibustering side needs fifty.

    Ted Cruz’s 2013 21 hour effort

    Cruz’s filibuster was a publicity stunt, not a serious attempt to block legislation.

    Dave (445e97)

  28. Senate rules seem arcane;
    Filibuster will remain;
    Shutdown’s inhumane;
    But Trump is to blame.

    He said so himself:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZFNxnMie0

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  29. GOP 101: if you’re in the midst of a game and see you’re not winning, try and change the rules.

    It’s like playing Monopoly w/my kid brother.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  30. The Cruz publicity stunt was in opposition to the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014 to resolve the 2013 funding gap and government shutdown. Reid made him talk himself out until 60 senators decided it was time to limit debate and proceed to a vote. How long do you think Schumer would last?

    crazy (d99a88)

  31. Did you copy/paste this from a post from a year and a half ago? How did that turn out?

    No, I didn’t.

    Care to make a large cash bet on whether Democrats gain seats in the House and/or Senate?

    Patterico (115b1f)

  32. The best part of the Cruz fauxlibuster was it showing that he doesn’t understand the moral of Green Eggs and Ham.

    Davethulhu (99cc74)

  33. That’s the risk/reward part of a real talking filibuster. McConnell’s decision to allow these virtual filibusters to bring the Senate to an indefinite impasse is the root cause of the current mess. McConnell can break the filibuster if he wants to. He just doesn’t want to.

    casey (d99a88)

  34. @14. Just to take one reason that may not be that far off in the future: we’re likely looking at a wave election this year. Democrats could retake control of both houses of Congress.

    Patterico is telegraphing ice warnings while RV rearranges the deck chairs.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  35. I don’t bet but I betcha 40 seats is not too high.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  36. This is not in dispute. My question is what distinction you are making between the Republican Party of today versus four years ago.

    What direction are you leaning?

    They’re pathetic and have been for a long time. They are also marginally better than the Democrats on most issues.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  37. “Care to make a large cash bet on whether Democrats gain seats in the House and/or Senate?”

    I’m tempted, especially if the bet was whether the R’s will lose a majority in either chamber, but Ill pass, and let me tell you why.

    The election is the R’s to lose, that is, if they actually perform, especially with regard to immigration, they won’t lose. If they stay true to form, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory at every opportunity, they lose. And sorry, I’m not betting on Ryan and McConnell to grow a pair.

    The problem with congress is we have a wealth of McClellans and a dearth of Grants.

    TheBas (f00165)

  38. MULVANEY: Come on, you know the answer to that as well as anybody. I laugh, I have to laugh when people say that, “Oh, we control the House, the Senate, the White House, why can’t you get this done?” You know as well as anybody that it takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass an appropriations bill. Right? You know that.

    Mull over this, Mick: you do know your leader, head cheese of your party, the President of the United States, sold himself as a world class dealmaker and inked a book, The Art Of The Deal— so what’s the deal with The Donald not dealing? Seems your party can’t deal with being in control when your Captain is out of control.

    You know that… have to laugh…

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  39. I can take theBas one better.

    Saudi oil production and price-at-the-pump

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  40. If you want to understand the filibuster’s history before the turn of the century, the indispensible reference guide — and the single best book on American politics and politicians I’ve ever read — remains the third volume of Robert Caro’s masterful (but very, very long) biographical series, Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson (2002). It could as well have been titled “Master of the Filibuster,” and when you’ve finished reading it, you’ll realize that most politicians today, considered just in terms of political effectiveness and cunning, are dilettantes and naifs. Caro also demonstrates how the filibuster became the decades-long bulwark of Jim Crow laws, and the tool of racist Democratic senators (including LJB) to defeat any meaningful civil rights legislation.

    To get the rest of the way up to full speed, you’d also have to study the more recent history of the filibuster, mainly dating back to the Dems’ opposition to Dubya’s appointees to the federal district and circuit court benches. And then there’s another chapter about the GOP’s own efforts to block, slow-walk, or otherwise frustrate — albeit with less overall effectiveness — Obama’s judicial appointees, which ultimately led to Reid’s nuke of the filibuster for appointments.

    Every time you read Trump taking credit for a record number of judicial confirmations by this point in his presidency, and you hear Trumpkins applauding him for that, just remember that the only reason he has been able to do that is because he’s using the groundwork that Harry Reid laid for him by nuking the filibuster for all presidential appointees other than for, purportedly (and ridiculously), the SCOTUS. Likewise, without that groundwork, there’s no chance the Senate’s GOP senators would have gathered the gumption to finish the job for SCOTUS nominees in order to ram the Gorsuch confirmation through on a party-line vote. Other than going along with the recommendation to outsource his nominating and selection process for judges to competent think-tank sources, Trump himself had almost nothing to do with this accomplishment, which is only rivaled by the tax cut bill as a claimed triumph for his first year.

    Throughout its history, it’s been the threat of filibuster, rather than its actual exercise, that has shaped American politics. crazy, I read the post you linked in #11 above, and while I agree that neither side has very often actually put the filibustering senators to the test, I don’t agree that McConnell could solve this problem through that means now.

    The question wouldn’t be whether one Democratic senator could be out-waited. It would be whether every, or almost every, Democratic senator, seriatum, could be out-waited. One to a customer, yes, but tag-team until each of the 49 Dem senators has spoken to exhaustion. And the Senate does no other business in the interim. The Dems have magnificent party discipline, they’d duly queue and rotate in per Chuckie’s instructions — even the ones who indicated they’d vote in favor of this CR would nevertheless refuse to break party ranks on what would be billed as, and in fact be, a show-down between the entire GOP contingent versus the entire Dem contingent.

    (Stevens also doesn’t really track through all the relevant parts of the current cloture rule either. There’s also some interplay with prior Senate precedents as interpreted by the parliamentarian, who can be overruled by the majority but almost never is; IIRC that happened with the Gorsuch mini-nuke. And I seem to recall reading somewhere that there would be some additional complications in the “make-’em–talk-’til-they-drop” strategy beyond the one I just pointed out, but I haven’t gone back to research them and perhaps I’m mis-remembering.)

    As to filibusters of judicial nominees, I’ve been pro-nuke going back to 2004. At that time, though, I was still strongly against nuking the filibuster for legislation, believing that it still could be an effective conservative institutional check on the Dems, as indeed it was during the last six years of Obama’s presidency.

    But this episode — where the Dems are threatening a filibuster of a bill based on what’s not in it, using as their excuse a March deadline (which Trump can extend with the stroke of a pen) to accomplish a legislative goal on which there’s widespread general agreement, but hugely important details still to be negotiated — shows that there’s no fight too trivial for the Dems to filibuster on. Thinking the Dems will respect the legislative filibuster the next time they have 51 votes would be like pretending that we were still at peace with Japan on December 8, 1941.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  41. “The Art Of The Deal— so what’s the deal with The Donald not dealing?”

    Have you read the Art of the Deal?

    Part of the art is knowing when to walk away. And the opposition knowing that is a negotiating tool in the box.

    TheBas (f00165)

  42. IIRC the filibustering party can also let its own members wander off to catch 40 winks, subject only to an interruption of the then-filibustering senator for a quorum call; lacking a quorum (because of the slip-aways), the majority has to send the senate sergeant at arms and his deputies out to round up and compel their re-attendance; and so forth. You may recall that the Dems used this tactic in the Texas Legislature to frustrate GOP efforts at passing redistricting legislation in the early 2000s, with the Texas House Dems fleeing to Oklahoma and then the Senate Dems, IIRC, fleeing to the much more entertaining and congenial New Mexico. When the Senate rules were changed to go from two-thirds to sixty, they were also changed from “percentage” to “absolute integer numbers,” which I think actually makes the quorum-call strategy more effective rather than less.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  43. The senate is as sackless as a tranny bar.

    mg (8cbc69)

  44. As a state legislator, Abraham Lincoln and his Whig co-partisans once jumped out of a second-story window at the State Capitol in Springfield, IL, to destroy a quorum and perpetuate a legislative impasse.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  45. @43. Part of the art is knowing when to walk away.

    Pfffft. You can’t walk away in the end if you don’t show up to begin with.

    “Nobody know the system better than me. Which is why I, alone, can fix it.”– Donald J. Trump

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  46. @ TheBas: You know that Trump didn’t actually write that book, right?

    It’s true that you do have to be willing to walk away from the table to be an effective negotiator. And if you never bluff, you’re leaving money on the table.

    But that’s not what happened here. Recall that on Tuesday, Trump himself blurted out — and had to be corrected by GOP congressional leaders in the room with him — that he’d sign anything.

    Inconsistency, bordering on incoherence, is never an effective negotiating tactic. I say as someone who’s entire professional career is built upon switching from gladiator to negotiator at the drop of a hat, someone who’s resolved thousands of lawsuits through negotiation.

    Schumer describes negotiating with Trump as being like “negotiating with Jello.” That’s exactly the phrased used about Trump throughout his entire business career. You can rely on nothing he says, not even anything he signs — ever. His word is meaningless. Every supposed commitment is subject to being broken and renegotiated, always, whenever he perceives any benefit to the Trump Brand.

    This is one of the reasons his casino empire had to go through bankruptcy so many times. It’s not a brilliant negotiating strategy. It’s insanity that causes one’s reputation to crater among serious business people. It’s the difference between being a reality-show billionaire with an inherited fortune and a genuinely successful self-made billionaire.

    But yeah, we were warned. That’s why I think it’s amazing that Schumer is bothering to pretend to be surprised.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  47. “Other than going along with the recommendation to outsource his nominating and selection process for judges to competent think-tank sources…”

    Well Jeez, that ain’t nothing!You almost make it sound like he neglected his duty by passing off his responsibility to others, when he did exactly as he should have. Most nevertrumpers were predicting he was going to be nominating his sister, and/or other connected leftist buddies. Now that it turns out he’s no W (cough Harriet Miers cough)and acted like a responsible chief executive, he barely gets a smidgen of grudging credit.

    Goalposts on wheels for the guy!

    TheBas (f00165)

  48. Jon Meacham made an astute observation last evening noting the Senatorial histrionics was about as close as we could get to witnessing a parliamentary system in work. What was lacking was any semblance of direction with presidential leadership. The ham is a sham; Trump can’t deal dealing w/Congress.

    Don’t bug him with working an issue, just bring him the sheepskin and a broad-nibbed pen to sign it before the cameras; he’s got a gala to jet to!! Basically, Trump is the fella who likes to show up at your party but never brings any pretzels, dip, beer or champagne, then eats, drinks to much, leaves and lets every one else clean up his mess.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  49. Anyone know the new count of bills the house has passed that are sitting on mitch’s desk?

    mg (8cbc69)

  50. You almost make it sound like he neglected his duty by passing off his responsibility to others, when he did exactly as he should have.

    No. It’s painfully obvious Trump’s bluff is bluffing he knows ‘the art of the deal;’ – he doesn’t know how to do a deal by compromising w/Congress.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  51. Don’t bug him with working an issue, just bring him the sheepskin and a broad-nibbed pen to sign it before the cameras; he’s got a gala to jet to!

    Nurses in surgery guffawed when I likened the Surgeon to Producers storming the stage for a Broadway bow.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  52. But that’s not what happened here. Recall that on Tuesday, Trump himself blurted out — and had to be corrected by GOP congressional leaders in the room with him — that he’d sign anything.

    Inconsistency, bordering on incoherence, is never an effective negotiating tactic.

    Bingo.

    Hand him a pen, call in the cameras; and as Bugs Bunny would sing, ‘on with the show this is it!’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  53. Yeah Beldar, I know you will not give Trump credit for anything ever, and treat Schumer’s word as golden if it confirms your opinion if the man.

    Me, I’ll continue revelling in his achievements, and this negotiation isn’t over yet.

    I bet Trump ends up with a better immigration deal than any Republican has in in my lifetime, and that includes Reagan’s 3 million man amnesty.

    Sorry you’re so bitter…

    TheBas (f00165)

  54. Care to make a large cash bet on whether Democrats gain seats in the House and/or Senate?

    No, but that wasn’t the scenario you presented, which was a “wave election”. I’ll let you define what you meant by that.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  55. @55.Yeah Beldar, I know you will not give Trump credit for anything ever…

    Trump’s a broken clock, right twice a day but find myself in rare agreement w/Beldar.

    Hell, TheBas, even U.S. banking institutions wont extend him “credit” — so he taps DeutscheBank. The taste of Ruskie rubles is sweet.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  56. Finding a compromise on anything that can win fifty-one GOP senators’ votes — plus at least nine Dem votes — in order to get to the currently required sixty-vote threshold for ending cloture is, as we’ve seen, almost impossible in the modern world.

    But going to straight majority rule shifts the Overton Window very dramatically. Compromises within the majority party are not just a little bit easier, but vastly easier.

    Straight majority rule also discourages and considerably limits kabuki-shows and game-playing with token votes. Five GOP senators voted against the continuing resolution last night. McConnell did so only for technical, procedural reasons having to do with preserving his options to reopen this CR for a re-vote later depending on further developments. But Flake, Graham, Lee, and Paul voted against. I despise that kind of posturing; I’m not even willing to accept an argument that Lee, the most principled by far of this group, was not just show-boating and posturing and taking advantage of an already meaningless vote (by virtue of its certain defeat for lack of Dem senators anyway).

    Majority rule ends BS arguments like David Brooks’ above. It ends the ability of slimey legislators like Schumer to take advantage of public ignorance about (and for many, indifference to) the whole filibuster issue. It promotes accountability and responsibility by making a more clear, harder-to-manipulate record for voters to use in considering their choices at the next election.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  57. @1.Schumer shut it down.

    =Haiku= Gesundheit!

    Trump blew it up; our Captain was supposed to tow the target, not sink it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  58. @ TheBas, who wrote:

    Yeah Beldar, I know you will not give Trump credit for anything ever ….

    You know nothing of the sort. Would you care to make a wager, say $100? I can’t ask our host to be the stakeholder because assistant DAs shouldn’t be promoting internet wagering, but we can surely find a suitable neutral. And then we can answer that issue with comments I’ve left on this blog, regularly in fact.

    Please stop misrepresenting me, which is to say, please stop lying about me, and get your facts straight.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  59. Maybe the solution is blocking everything untoward

    Always worked previously.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  60. Sure DCSCA, his picture should be in the dictionary under “failure”.

    If only he had your fame, fortune, and power.

    TheBas (f00165)

  61. I’m also not relying on Chuck Schumer’s credibility. He’s not credible, but he’s right about Trump negotiating like Jello. We all know that because Trump put his Tuesday meeting — the “I’ll sign anything” meeting that our host had a whole post up on earlier this week — on national television. And then we all saw, again on national television, the adult daycare minders WH staff come out the next day and walk back everything he’d said. Are you seriously contending that Trump has been anything remotely close to consistent and resolute?

    I don’t think you are. I don’t think anyone can argue that. But you’re annoyed with me, and so you’ve gone not only ad hominem but fictional in describing me. I’m not the issue. Trump is.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  62. 58.Finding a compromise on anything that can win fifty-one GOP senators’ votes — plus at least nine Dem votes — in order to get to the currently required sixty-vote threshold for ending cloture is, as we’ve seen, almost impossible in the modern world.

    It may seem that way but it reveals a weakness in leadership where the extremist tails end up wagging the dog. Neither Schumer nor McConnell are a LBJ who, as you’ve read and likely recall, could literally manhandle the passage of legislation. As Meacham noted last even, JFK quipped there’s a reason ‘Profiles In Courage’ was only one volume- and thin.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  63. The urge to purge responsibility to the other party for the deficit of credibility lacks…credibility.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  64. Man! Don’t get greedy, just tell me when you’ve ever given Trump credit for anything.

    I mean, usually the ONLY thing nevertrumpers give him credit for is judges, and you even made that sound like he was derelict in his duty.

    TheBas (f00165)

  65. @62. If only he had your fame, fortune, and power.

    You misinterpret.

    His sloth and lifestyle is one many American men secretly envy. Money, power, wealth, planes, buildings, TV shows, attentive family, two attractive ex-wives, hot daughters and a hotter wife; w/porn stars and bunnies on the side; rubbing elbows with the world’s jet set. And now POTUS. What’s a Kentucky coal miner, a truck driver in Erie or a cracker in Alabama not to like? Americans don’t want to be governed, they wish to be entertained. And he’s given the country a helluva show for Season One.

    Think long game. Voted for him once. And will again if he survives KFC, Big Macs and runs again. And only for one strategic reason; to effectively neuter the modern conservative movement. We’ve accomplished part one. Part two, The Wave, is on the horizon. Watch for it.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  66. The question wouldn’t be whether one Democratic senator could be out-waited. It would be whether every, or almost every, Democratic senator, seriatum, could be out-waited. One to a customer, yes, but tag-team until each of the 49 Dem senators has spoken to exhaustion.

    Once all 49 have spoken (actually they are each permitted to speak twice on a given matter in a single legislative day), it is usually in order (on legislative matters) to make debatable motions and offer amendments. Then each senator may speak twice (in a given day) on each such motion or amendment. Basically, on legislation the filibustering side will never run out of opportunities to speak.

    If the legislative day ever ends (by adjournment) the “two speeches per day” counter resets, and all 49 senators get another two speeches on every question.

    Also, at any time the filibustering side can suggest the absence of a quorum, bringing proceedings to a halt until 51 senators respond.

    This whitepaper from the Congressional Research Service is a really interesting and informative source of information about the rules and history of the filibuster and related methods of blocking legislation. As it explains:

    The point about longer, later sessions is important because late-night or all-night sessions put as much or more of a burden on the proponents of the question being debated than on its opponents. The Senators participating in the filibuster need only ensure that at least one of their number always is present on the floor to speak. The proponents of the question, however, need to ensure that a majority of the Senate is present or at least available to respond to a quorum call or roll call vote. If, late in the evening or in the middle of the night, a Senator suggests the absence of a quorum and a quorum does not appear, the Senate must adjourn or at least suspend its proceedings until a quorum is established. This works to the advantage of the filibustering Senators, so the burden rests on their opponents to ensure that the constitutional quorum requirement always can be met.

    Dave (445e97)

  67. #12
    From its earliest origins, the filibuster has been extra-Constitutional, purely a creature of comity within the Senate.

    I’m not sure what is meant by “extra-Constitutional”. The Senate constitutionally has the power to make its own rules. The filibuster happens to be one of them.

    Article I, Section 5

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

    dlm (a4eb00)

  68. TheBas, I gave Trump credit for outsourcing his judicial appointments in the very language you quoted above! I know they were on your screen because you quoted the “Other than” words.

    You then insisted that I never give Trump credit for anything in your very next sentence. Duh.

    You wrote: “You almost make it sound like he neglected his duty by passing off his responsibility to others, when he did exactly as he should have.” No, those are your words. Since he’s incompetent to make the choices himself, I absolutely agreed that he should completely outsource the responsibility. I can go back and find you quotes from me going back to the summer of — when Cruz forced Trump into committing to his written “List of Twenty[-one]” as a condition for Cruz’ endorsement — when I celebrated the fact that yes, on judges, Trump had done exactly the right thing.

    In other words, you’re arguing with the fantasy Beldar in your head, imputing to him things that are the exact opposite of what I’ve actually written here.

    Well, if you want to bet $100 against the real Beldar, put your money where your mouth is, and I’ll go to the trouble of finding, say, ten quotes from me on this blog in the past two years in which I express unequivocal agreement with something Trump’s done.

    Put up or (please) shut up.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  69. Sorry, that should have read “summer of 2016.”

    Beldar (fa637a)

  70. What the hey does “negotiating like jello” even mean? Is negotiating like pudding more effective? Sorry, you dont get to speak for “everybody.

    Seems obvious to me his “sign anything” remark was putting faith in the republican majority to do right, knowing he had made it clear to them what he had to have.

    You still don’t get that Trump trolls his enemies on one hand while getting what he wants on the other?

    The proof is in the pudding…er, jello.

    TheBas (f00165)

  71. So that’s a no about putting your money where your mouth is?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  72. It means he’s a disgusting fatbody with a tub of guts instead of intestinal fortitude ..

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  73. Ok, if you can say with a straight face he outsourced the job because he is incompetent and pretend that is giving him credit I guess you got me.

    Congrats.

    And I would never bet against anyone with a poker face like that.

    TheBas (f00165)

  74. Anyway … thanks, Patterico, for the update and additional link to my earlier comment. I should have mentioned that earlier, and it was churlish of me not to. From your webpages to Kellianne Conway’s eyes and Mitch McConnell’s backbone.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  75. if you can say with a straight face he outsourced the job because he is incompetent and pretend that is giving him credit I guess you got me

    That’s a fair summation.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  76. TheBas, he showed exactly how competent he is to pick judges when asked, during the primaries, who he’d pick, and he said, “Someone like my sister.” Throughout his life and his presidency, he’s shown through his public comments about various judges (including the judge presiding over the Trump U class action case) that he has the temperament of a thin-skinned three-year-old. He doesn’t care about judges in general, unless he’s a litigant before them, in which case he’s his usual absolute narcisist who can’t see a millimeter beyond his own self-interest or control his big mouth.

    So yes, I practically turned cartwheels when Cruz got him publicly committed to his List of Twenty[-One,] and that was one of the rare occasions when my views departed very substantially from our host’s, who was very disappointed in Cruz for keeping his pre-primaries promise to endorse the eventual GOP nominee. I thought that Cruz had managed to get through a distasteful obligation, while shrewdly getting the best possible “get” in return that was available in getting his public commitment to the list.

    I likewise give him credit for letting the generals win the war against ISIS. I gave him high marks for his Saudi Arabia trip. I gave him excellent marks for withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. I praised him for firing Comey but said he’d stepped on his own d!ck very badly by bungling the timing and manner. I praised him for running that scum Bannon out of the WH. I praised him for replacing Priebus with Gen. Kelly as his chief of staff. I can find quite a few other examples in which I’ve praised him for doing the right thing. None of them affect or dilute my opinion that he’s unfit to be POTUS, but that’s not the same thing as saying every decision he makes is wrong.

    I’m not even criticizing him here for forcing the shutdown! The Dems have overplayed their hand, and a strong and well-coordinated strategy in full and constant communication and cooperation with the House and Senate GOP leadership could turn this into a net plus.

    But I’m not in his personality cult, and I have no illusions about his overall unfitness, and I’d rather have any of the other sixteen GOP nominees in the WH instead of him.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  77. Something has to arise from the Republican carcass. The shape and direction could capture the voters imagination or it could dash them on the rocks…again.

    Start thinking about it soon.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  78. Somewhere around 400 conservative house bills are sitting on dingy harry’s, I mean chamber of commerce rump swab majority mitch’s desk. NOTICE: The word “Leader” was left out on purpose.

    mg (8cbc69)

  79. An honest way of giving credit: as chief executive, Trump delegated the task of finding the kind of constitutionally loyal intentionalist judges he wanted to an outstanding think tank.

    You make it sound like a CEO outsources the job of assembly line worker (to his credit) because he is incompetent at turning a wrench.

    TheBas (f00165)

  80. It is remarkable how Trump’s worshipers feel compelled to lie and impute false beliefs and positions to conservatives who disagree with them.

    There are at least half a dozen of them who have called me a communist. Beldar has been getting some of the same. And Patterico occasionally bans/”vacations” people for doing it to him.

    While I criticize and mock one guy, they demonize practically the entire Republican party EXCEPT Trump (who is a life-long Democrat, endorser and friend of Hillary Clinton, bankroller of Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Rangel, etc).

    And yet somehow, in their minds, THEY are the ideologically pure ones, and I am a “communist” apostate.

    Dave (445e97)

  81. @79. Something has to arise from the Republican carcass. The shape and direction could capture the voters imagination or it could dash them on the rocks…again.

    Gee, Ben, they could try that ‘family values’ thingy again– but oops, flavor of the month’s gone sour.

    They could pitch Cruz again; but warmed up Canadian bacon on a stale muffin is tough to swallow. Besides, if Winfrey runs, she’ll win; people like her.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  82. “It is remarkable how Trump’s worshipers feel compelled to lie and impute false beliefs and positions to conservatives who disagree with them.”

    What is remarkable is how little self awareness nevertrumpers have.

    TheBas (f00165)

  83. Re this:

    Seems obvious to me his “sign anything” remark was putting faith in the republican majority to do right, knowing he had made it clear to them what he had to have.

    Actually, as McCarthy’s literally interrupting him to shut him up made clear, they made clear to him what the GOP majority has to have. But Schumer and all the Dems in the room — and the entire world, via TV — heard Trump blurt out his own real views.

    You ever buy a car, TheBas?

    Suppose you’re in the salesman’s office doing the final dickering. You’ve demanded a price that $2000 lower than the salesman’s last figure, and he shakes his head and tells you that if you order the undercoating for an additional $800, he might can sneak this deal at that price past his manager, who’s distracted today.

    While you’re thinking about this, the manager stumbles into the office. “Hey, I’ll sign anything!” he tells you. “That undercoating, that costs us maybe $80 materials and labor to apply, so pay no attention to that part of what my salesman just told you, that’s all just marketing BS. You know, my profit margins are really, really big on this model, and the factory has given me a $1000/vehicle dealer incentive to move them, and I sold two yesterday for $3000 less than you’re already offering. But y’all bring me a deal, please — go on, I’ll get out of the way here — and I’ll sign it.”

    How long does that manager keep his job? What’s the dealer thinking, when he contemplates his commisison?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  84. *salesman (not dealer), sorry.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  85. @84. You seem unable to deal with accepting people who believe Trump’s a total scumbag yet be utterly delighted he won.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  86. ” go on, I’ll get out of the way here — and I’ll sign it.”

    Uh huh, then you go in to get it signed, and he explains he couldn’t get the salesman to agree to a commission cut like that, but he can get you the undercoating for five hundred, and drop the transport fee so you’ll basically be getting it free.

    See, it’s all part of the negotiations, and it ain’t been signed yet.

    But leave it to a conservative to declare defeat at halftime.

    TheBas (f00165)

  87. What is remarkable is how little self awareness nevertrumpers have.

    Nope. Trump worship is something that people DO. Something that YOU do, in fact.

    Just yesterday, you pointed out a minor fluctuation in the 2017Q3 spending, and ended your post “Go Trump!”

    Get back to me when you can find a post of mine chanting “All power to the soviets!”

    Dave (445e97)

  88. I can’t understand why people delighted he won feel such a deep need to spout the opinion he’s a scumbag every chance they get, and fabricating the chance if it isn’t even there.

    TheBas (f00165)

  89. I see, cheering on the improvement of the economy is “worshipping”.

    No wonder people call you a commie when you treat language like that.

    Well, it’s been fun, but I got a bird in need of a BBQing. Later..

    TheBas (f00165)

  90. You thought he would cave, you were mistaken, as you were when you thought trump would give up the campaign, two years ago. As it was with any initial thought that Dr. Jackson was dissembling in some ways.

    narciso (d1f714)

  91. When would have been the right time to get rid of comedy, the problem was sally Yates, Bruce ohrs superior, had tricked sessions into refusing and his a stubborn man who want reconsider publically, also we didn’t know rosenstein was the joker in the deck, because the details of uranium one were hidden from view,

    narciso (d1f714)

  92. It’s his first anniversary and Stormy’s not in Washington; so who did he screw today?– The suckers who paid $100,000/plate to see him in Florida.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  93. Beldar @ 42. The only disagreement we may have is if they’re determined to maintain the filibuster they ought to at least get away from the painless virtual filibuster and bring back the old talkathons that puts the minority on the spot to justify their obstruction as it puts the majority in cots to maintain a quorum. The pressure to do so is likely why they’ve never lasted as long as they theoretically could. I know you think it’s an exercise in futility but I think they’re too lazy to do more than complain.

    Your ’04 BeldarBlog in favor of “going nuclear” was as good an argument in favor of returning to majority rule then as it is today.

    crazy (d99a88)

  94. I can’t ask our host to be the stakeholder because assistant DAs shouldn’t be promoting internet wagering

    Probably just need to avoid games of chance, which this would not be.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  95. Yes make it so they have to do a real filibuster, the history suggests its an off again, on again tool.

    narciso (d1f714)

  96. This might make for awkward footage, as well:
    https://www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-history-of-the-filibuster/

    narciso (d1f714)

  97. I know why GOP Central Committee is not never nuke legislative filibuster. I tell you now.

    Is because when people ask why is no potato GOP Central Committee can say is filibuster and Politburo is deadlocked. Very sad.

    nk (dbc370)

  98. Well the whigs did hold off Andrew Jackson, they are the rough counterpart back then and about 80 years later the league of nations treaty.

    narciso (d1f714)

  99. there’s no such thing as a government shutdown

    would it were

    but it’s just fake news made up by the CNN Jake Tapper fake news propaganda sluts

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  100. has anyone else noticed how in drudge’s last three pics of capitol building he’s using for his shutdown headlines, the building tilts to the right

    that’s so weird

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  101. TheBas, do you also think Trump is Superman?
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/369930-white-house-spokesman-calls-trump-a-real-life-superman

    The Freudian slip amuses me.

    “He stood up to the American people last night. He did not bend. He did not break,” Gidley said of Trump’s refusal to have a stopgap government funding bill include protections for those under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

    Kishnevi (bec396)

  102. Yes wrong artucke, we saw how bush sr broke his tax pledge, and game over with w he held out for the surge but that was in the final act.

    narciso (d1f714)

  103. “……so who did he screw today?– The suckers who paid $100,000/plate to see him in Florida.”

    That’s nothing, imagine being one of the groups who shoveled millions into the Clinton Foundation and then watching the election results after everyone from Hillary to Rachel Maddow guaranteed FL, OH, PA, NC, GA & WI were in the bag.

    harkin (8d01aa)

  104. Is we need better class of hooker who no kiss and tell. And not wear army boots either.

    nk (dbc370)

  105. Yes the last time so many rich and notorious people lost money, le chiffres girlfriend had her hand cut off, the kind of people the foundation was dealing with are nit accustomed to losing.

    narciso (d1f714)

  106. missed this somehow

    A Kentucky man accused of tackling and injuring Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., faces federal assault charges, the Department of Justice announced Friday.

    The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Indiana charged Rene Boucher, 58, with assaulting a member of Congress resulting in personal injury.

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  107. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Indiana charged Rene Boucher, 58, with assaulting a member of Congress resulting in personal injury.

    it seems more than a little obscene to prosecute this as “assaulting a member of Congress” instead of just assaulting a person

    but this is the DOJ

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  108. I think it was a little more serious then that:

    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/venezuelan-bishops-accused-of-hate-crimes-22036

    I guess a decade or two of corruption was reason enough for wile and Tommy boy

    narciso (d1f714)

  109. did you see how the perv-pope finally found a pair of balls and sleazy scumsuck Cardinal O’Malley pimp-slapped him into next week?

    that sadly depraved little church is a hot mess i tell you what

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  110. He’s been quite dissapointing, I’ll admit,

    narciso (d1f714)

  111. So in other words, the Pope wanted something more substatial than the Romney level of (not really) proof?

    urbanleftbehind (e029d3)

  112. Well he was initially named by John Paul, so that might complicate things,
    Of course we remember the charges against cardinal Bernardin.

    narciso (d1f714)

  113. yup

    and good for him

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  114. Now he has not been so understanding with other figures,

    narciso (d1f714)

  115. Nah, Trump isn’t Superman, he’s a patriot trying to save the Republic from the globalist elite attempting to wrest it from the founders posterity.

    I’m just a guy that hopes for his success, and helping as much as I can. And wishing other patriots would do the same.

    TheBas (f00165)

  116. Gimbal Lock and Apollo 13.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmCzZ-D8Wdk

    The constitution answered the question of gimbal lock by assigning appropriations bills (spending) to the House of Representatives. The Senate adding 60 vote stipulations in order to preserve the Democrat compulsion to discrimination against which ever demographic is temporarily out of their favor is the criminal extra constitutional add on in the monopoly game of government.

    Any rules of procedure are necessarily going to be “changing the rules in mid game” [per the anonymous shmuck who keeps quoting ‘the Caine Mutiny’] even the original imposition of the rules way back when.

    What’s needed to avoid gimbal lock is a fourth gimbal to set rules of procedure for the Senate and House. The electoral college perhaps.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  117. interesting out of the box thinking there Mr. tiger

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  118. The filibuster was a check on the executive, the 60 vote minimum. A check on the legislative.

    narciso (d1f714)

  119. “no free parking”

    papertiger (c8116c)

  120. Is we know if media thinks people blame Democrats not Trump if no sad stories that government workers have no potato like last shutdown.

    nk (dbc370)

  121. You’re on a roll tonight, nk, totally cracking me up.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  122. Its a poser, remember gulliver,(sic), the writer of house of cards first worked for schemer, he depicted a pitiful Irish filly version of wiener, but he probably couldn’t fully capture his boss in all his gelatinous nature, underwood was probably his take on Clinton.

    narciso (d1f714)

  123. It must be the weather, Beldar. Also buy one get one free sale on mashed potato at Jewel.

    nk (dbc370)

  124. Still having the chicken and ice cream or back to normal fare.

    narciso (d1f714)

  125. Still having the chicken but on a normal schedule.

    nk (dbc370)

  126. Keep that chicken away from Dave…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  127. #Release the memo! Indict the treasonous conspirators. Arrest Obama, Holder, Lynch, Bill and Hillary, Clapper, Brenner, Rice, Powers, Comey, Mueller, Rhodes, Ohr, et al.

    Pack them off to GITMO, where there’s lots of room for folks like Lois Lerner and her ilk.

    ropelight (e680e3)

  128. Senate Democrats Block Bill to Keep Government Open Past Midnight; Shutdown Looms.

    by New York Times Jan. 19th 2018

    Right now: Senate Democrats blocked passage of a stopgap spending bill to keep government open. Lawmakers have less than 2 hours before a shutdown. See how the senators voted >>

    THE QUESTION is how does this impinge upon nk receiving unscheduled (undeserved?) ice cream rations?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  129. Here’s another one. This is even better.

    From http://thehill.com/homenews/house/369945-gutierrez-ready-to-give-in-on-wall

    Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) said Saturday that he’s ready to give President Trump his signature border wall if the Republicans will agree to new legal protections for “Dreamers.”

    Furthermore, he said he’d help with the construction.

    “I’ll take a bucket, take bricks, and start building it myself,” Gutiérrez told reporters in the Capitol.

    “We will dirty our hands in order for the Dreamers to have a clean future in America.”

    It’s a sign. No soup for you.

    What’s funny is he insists that the wall will be a useless, shovel ready, government project, with absolutely no effect, yea or nay, upon the disposition of the country.

    If you truly believe that Louis, then why are you against it?

    papertiger (c8116c)

  130. If you truly believe that Louis, then why are you against it?

    Maybe because he thinks $18B is a lot to money for a useless government project with absolutely no effect, yea or nay, upon the disposition of the country?

    Also, according to Trump, Mexico was supposed to pay for it. All of it.

    Dave (445e97)

  131. California high speed rail new business plan reduces the cost of the system from $67.6 billion to $64.2 billion (in year-of-expenditure dollars) for Phase 1; this includes a savings of $5.5 billion based on actual experience, improved plans, and other feedback, but also an additional $2.1 billion cost for improvements to the Los Angeles to Anaheim corridor.
    The public had 60 days (from February 19, 2016) to submit comments on the Draft 2016 Business Plan.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail

    That’s just one state, twisting arms, Democrat leadership dragging us kicking and screaming back to the 18th century.

    But I like the fantasy world you live in Dave, where Luis Gutierrez’s decision making process is ever encumbered by the notion that he will run out of other people’s money.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  132. But I like the fantasy world you live in Dave, where Luis Gutierrez’s decision making process is ever encumbered by the notion that he will run out of other people’s money.

    I never said anything of the sort. I imagine he wants to spend the money on something else, probably something that – unlike the wall – will directly or indirectly buy him votes.

    Let’s review:

    You asked a really dumb question: “This guy thinks the project is completely useless, so why doesn’t he want to spend $18B on it?”

    And then you accuse me of living in a fantasy world…

    Dave (445e97)

  133. 19 days to release a memo? GFY Nunez. Release it now you California hack.

    mg (8cbc69)

  134. The republicans are so overmatched by the democrat lawyers and the media, I feel like puking. Man the” F##CK UP” rinos.

    mg (8cbc69)

  135. But thanks for pointing out that grandiose government construction projects usually run 2 or 3 times over budget if they get completed at all.

    How many tens of billions of dollars, in addition to the obviously low-balled starting price of $18B, will the tax-payers, and their children and grand-children, have to pony up to bail out this monument to Donald Trump’s dishonesty, that he falsely promised Mexico would pay for every cent of?

    Dave (445e97)

  136. What happened to the money that was set aside for the wall by all your republican cronies, Dave? You people love to hate on President Trump, but we were promised by your rino brethren the money for the wall and that it would be built. That was during the failed boosh years of killing Americans Soldiers. You people in your mahogany paneled library full of fake books make me want to puke. Just once I want to see the ingrated morons of academia get dumped on. You need coupons for a roll of Charman?

    mg (8cbc69)

  137. I call for the firing of every congrescritter, and hire Judicial Watch.

    mg (8cbc69)

  138. Lady Lindsey sounds like a 1965 Ted the killer Kennedy, and all you rinos love it.
    You are some sick “bastiges”.
    From Johnny Dangerously.

    mg (8cbc69)

  139. I have a message for Cadet Bone Spurs: If you cared about our military, you’d stop baiting Kim Jong Un into a war that could put 85,000 American troops … in danger.”

    Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Iraq vet.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  140. Whoa, go Tammy; the Chicago delegation is dripping with potempkin bravado this morning. But maybe all this Chicago Flag Merch Marketing (The only city I see whose flag is on mugs and winter caps) was secession prep. We’ll have to fight for DuPage and Kane like the California kerfuffle will basically be all about who keeps Orange and San Diego.

    urbanleftbehind (e029d3)

  141. Yes he probably shared that sentiment with the Illinois veterans cscewred by their veterans department or the Alexandria shooter.

    narciso (d1f714)

  142. Chickenhawks like Trump don’t seem shameable. They don’t hide their hoary wart clusters, they hang ornaments and neon. Pride in pusillanimous perfidy.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  143. That albright deal with the Kim dynasty worked out great didn’t it?

    narciso (d1f714)

  144. @ dlm, who wrote (#69) in response to my assertion that “[f]rom its earliest origins, the filibuster has been extra-Constitutional, purely a creature of comity within the Senate”:

    I’m not sure what is meant by “extra-Constitutional”. The Senate constitutionally has the power to make its own rules. The filibuster happens to be one of them.

    Article I, Section 5

    Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

    Yes, you’re absolutely correct that the cloture rule is among the set of self-governing rules that the Constitution empowers each chamber of the legislative branch to make. If not, the filibuster would be “unconstitutional,” right?

    I didn’t say that. Rather, the Constitution neither compels, nor forbids, unlimited debate in the Senate; it neither compels, nor forbids, the Senate’s mechanisms for limiting debate if it so chooses; the Constitution simply doesn’t speak one way or another to this hugely important historical feature of American government. “Extra-Constitutional” simply means “outside the Constitution.”

    Again, I refer you or others to the Caro book, which traces the birth and subsequent evolution of the Senate’s tradition of unlimited debate and, subsequently, the use of that debate as a deliberate tool to block passage of legislation that otherwise would pass. Basically, the very patrician senators of the early Congresses styled themselves after the senators of ancient Rome. The filibuster rule grew in part from such romanticism, in part from rivalry between the Senate and the House and their respective memberships, the filibuster’s natural tendency to enhance the relative power and prestige of each individual senator, and from a variety of other factors. But the resulting institution turned out to be very, very durable, and grew in political importance over the decades.

    And because the tradition of unlimited debate and the use of the filibuster and the rules restricting it (via cloture) are consistent with, and implemented pursuant to, only the Senate’s constitutional power to set its own rules, any past Senate could have changed or even abolished the filibuster based on a simple majority vote on the Senate’s rules at the beginning of each new Congress, without having to pass any legislation and without having to secure the permission or concurrence of the House or the POTUS — but for decades and decades, they didn’t. There have always been frank and obvious political incentives for so doing, but they didn’t, because it would have rung a bell of pure partisanship, inconsistent with the idea of gentlemanly deliberation, which could never be unrung. Neither side, for decades, was willing to ring that bell.

    Well, Harry Reid banged the hell out of it. The echoes still are bouncing around the Senate Chamber. And yes, the GOP gave it another good smack when they rammed through Gorsuch.

    What Reid — and what no Senate majority party — could ever do is change the Constitutional features of the Senate that have been the rest of the basis and mechanism of the Senate’s historical conservatism as compared to the House: two Senators per state regardless of population; six-year terms; and staggered elections with only one-third of the seats up in each two-year election cycle. Those institutional features of the Senate (and I definitely view them as features, not bugs!) remain, and will remain profoundly important even after the rest of the filibuster is finally abolished.

    And it’s a dead-solid certainty that it will be. The only question is whether it will happen now, with the GOP senators being exactly as pragmatic as they were in confirming Gorsuch; or whether the GOP senators will consider to self-handcuff, lose control of the Senate (probably in 2018 but if not, then in 2020), and let the Dems finish the execution that Reid et al. started.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  145. Dave, thanks for linking that congressional research office paper. I’ve seen it before, and indeed, I think I’ve linked it myself here or elsewhere, but I’d forgotten about it and these comments have all been top-of-the-head.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  146. I’m hearing what I want to hear, or perhaps imagining what I want to hear, but:

    In remarks on the Senate floor just after noon central today, McConnell gave the least enthusiastic defense of the filibuster I’ve ever heard from him. He said he still supports it, but “they question is when you use it.” And of course, the rest of his speech was criticizing Schumer for using it now.

    That’s what you’d say today if you plan to roll out the Beldar Plan tomorrow.

    And the WH is clearly on board:

    Great to see how hard Republicans are fighting for our Military and Safety at the Border. The Dems just want illegal immigrants to pour into our nation unchecked. If stalemate continues, Republicans should go to 51% (Nuclear Option) and vote on real, long term budget, no C.R.’s!

    The erratic capitalization tells me that Trump actually typed this particular tweet, but its coherence suggests me that Kellianne was reading and approving over his shoulder. And the consistency with which Trump has called for the nuclear option in the past few months tells me that Kellianne is on board.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  147. In refuting TheBas’ assertion that I never give Trump credit for anything, I left out of my list my support for his pro-Nuke-the-Filibuster tweets going back to the early spring of last year. (Also I forgot to mention the Israeli embassy move, although that’s still just a promise unfulfilled.)

    So here I am, supposed (but never self-described) “NeverTrumper” Beldar, supporting Donald Trump on something that will forever after revolutionalize the entire process of American government and American politics — me and the Donald out to the right of every single Republican senator.

    Obviously, I’m a communist! A leftie! Obviously, I must be a Hillary-lover! Cuck! Or so say commenters here who, before the age of Trump, I genuinely liked and respected.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  148. Many comrades all they care is they have good potato crop and secret police go to somebody else house.

    nk (dbc370)

  149. Not only get rid of the Filibuster, but give the majority the power to close debate and call the vote.

    Currently, the Democrats are INSISTING on their full 30 hours of debate on EVERY SINGLE THING, so that even a filibuster isn’t necessary to halt Senate action.

    Kevin M (752a26)

  150. Those Framers were Bastards, weren’t they?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  151. How McConnell could end the 60 vote requirement without changing the rules.

    The 60 vote requirement is required for cloture or closing debate and is used as a soft filibuster. The Senate has Rule XIX 1(a). which states: No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer, and no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.
    All McConnell has to do is state the days session of the Senate will remain open until the debate is finished and the vote taken. That ends the fillibuster and removes the 60 vote cloture requirement and bills could pass based upon majority vote unless there is a Constitutionally required other majority.

    Why does McConnell not implement this procedure? There are several reasons:
    1. The Senators must remain in the vicinity of the floor because a quorum call or a motion to call the question can occur during the debate.
    2. A failed quorum would end the debate and the legislative day. This would require starting over again.
    3. A motion to move the question takes parliamentary precedence and is not debatable. This could be used by either side to seek the desired result if their side has a majority and believes the other side could not reassemble their members in time.
    4. Many Senators are old and frail, especially the ones McConnell likes to support over younger less easily controlled younger conservatives. The old senile McConnell allies, like Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker, are unreliable in a 48 hour debate with constant quorum calls.
    5. They put cots up in the Cloak room and aids have to be constantly aware of where the Senators are located.
    6. In short, filibusters are hard work and it looks like neither side wants a filibuster so we have phony filibusters involving cloture.
    7. Write your senators and demand dumping the Cloture and implementing honest filibusters and breaking the grid lock.

    I am old enough to remember the real filibusters when southern Democrats would filibuster Republican civil rights bills when Ike was president. They were actually kind of fun to watch. OK I was a political junkie even back then.

    Bob in LA (d74cbd)

  152. This episode of Trumpland: Trumpist In A Teapot

    First, the name calling;
    Second, complaining about the rules of the game;
    Third, public posturing;
    Fourth, serious backroom talks;
    Fifth, compromise and vote;
    Sixth, signing ceremony;
    Seventh, the day of rest.

    Should be over within a week.

    Next week’s episode of Trumpland: The Fate of Disunion

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  153. when southern Democrats would filibuster Republican civil rights bills

    when consrvatives would filibuster any civil rights bills.

    There. Fixed that for ‘ya.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  154. DC..

    Fifth out of place..first after negotiations and verbal agreement, call and cancel within two hours..

    Then vote.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  155. @159– allow for Jello commercials 😉

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  156. “when consrvatives would filibuster any civil rights bills.
    There. Fixed that for ‘ya.“

    Yeah, there’s probably a version of Spielberg’s Lincoln movie where all references to Democrat are swapped out for “conservative” and Republican swapped out for “progressive”.

    Such is how Democrats run from their history.

    random viking (6a54c2)

  157. “Obviously, I’m a communist! A leftie! Obviously, I must be a Hillary-lover! Cuck! Or so say commenters here who, before the age of Trump, I genuinely liked and respected”

    I hope this wasn’t directed at me (as was the first of the comment), I’ve never called anyone here names.

    As for the rest, if you have been giving Trump credit all along for the accomplishments you have listed (by the way, I think you missed his great work in cutting regulations) since my comment that riled you up, I apologise. I must say though, I find it incredible how you can list such a worthy set of accomplishments in just the first year of his presidency, then proclaim is is unfit to be president. Especially from someone that respects the constitution that outlines the conditions Trump clearly meets to be president (that is, he meets the qualifications, unlike the foreign born Cruz).

    TheBas (f00165)

  158. I have a message for Cadet Bone Spurs: If you cared about our military, you’d stop baiting Kim Jong Un into a war that could put 85,000 American troops … in danger.”

    Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Iraq vet.

    Here’s a message for the senator… if Clinton and Obama didn’t do their damnedest to ensure nuke arms in NoKo and Iran respectively, America would be in a more peaceful era.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  159. “it was twenty years ago today
    Slick Willie taught the intern to play!”

    —- Mark Steyn

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  160. @ TheBas: Nope, you haven’t called me names. The people whose comments I’ve blocked and no longer bother to read, have.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  161. Why does McConnell not implement this procedure? There are several reasons:

    You left out an important one. Until cloture is invoked, amendments are always in order on legislation, and each amendment is a separate matter that each senator is allowed to speak twice more on.

    So even if McConnell could keep a single legislative day going until all 49 democrats had spoken twice on the passage of a particular bill, they could then propose an amendment, and all 49 of them would be allowed to speak twice on *that*. Then they can propose another amendment. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    There are also parliamentary motions that can be initiated, allowing debate on those.

    In short, on legislation, the “two speeches per matter per senator per legislative day” rule presents no obstacle to an indefinite filibuster, no matter how committed the proponents of a particular bill are.

    Dave (445e97)

  162. @ TheBas, who also wrote:

    I find it incredible how you can list such a worthy set of accomplishments in just the first year of his presidency, then proclaim is is unfit to be president. Especially from someone that respects the constitution that outlines the conditions Trump clearly meets to be president (that is, he meets the qualifications, unlike the foreign born Cruz).

    (1) Yes, so stipulated re rolling back regulations.

    (2) As for worthy accomplishments versus fitness: Let’s take the one you just mentioned. Trump, playing the reality-Presidency part of a conservative, took the advice of a great many establishment Republicans in selecting cabinet secretaries and some other high advisors and administrators who have conservative viewpoints. They have so far done, and continue to do, a good job of implementing the regulation-cutting agenda that Trump ran on. They are fit stewards, then, and he’s given them a correct and appropriate instructions.

    But is he fit? Look at the other people he’s either kept, or put into, positions of high power who’ve proved to be disastrous choices. Steve Bannon. The Mouche. Gen. Flynn. Paul Manafort. Trump said while campaigning that he would look to the likes of Karl Icahn — a guy who’s whole career has been spent just a hop-skip-and-jump ahead of indictment for securities fraud — for his advice. These are the personnel selections he’s made when he hasn’t been pretending to be a conservative reality-TV president and has instead indulged his whim. And they’re wildly incompetent.

    Am I glad he outsourced his judicial selections to people who are fit, and who’ve done a good job? Yes! Am I glad he’s letting the generals, who are fit, run the war against ISIS? Sure! But do I think Trump himself is fit? Absolutely, positively not.

    And his unfitness daily undercuts everything that the fit people around him are trying to do.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  163. Oh: (3) Re Cruz’ citizenship. Dude, really? Well, that at least lets us know where you are on the spectrum. I’ll give you credit for lots better punctuation and spelling than ropelight.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  164. by the way, I think you missed his great work in cutting regulations

    Pure propaganda. The list of regulations he has actually cut is a joke.

    As of late December, Trump has actually eliminated a total of 67 regulations. The 67 regulations include items like:

    Importation of Fresh Pitahaya Fruit from Ecuador into the Continental U.S. RIN: 0579-AE12

    and

    Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removal of the Scarlet-Chested Parakeet and Turquoise Parakeet From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife RIN: 1018-BB29

    Those #$@% Scarlet-Chested Parakeets will no longer stand in the way of American greatness! MAGA!

    It may well be that it is good policy to remove some or all of these regulations. But pretending something dramatic or even marginally significant has been achieved is just grasping at straws, and flies in the face of the utterly banal nature of the regulations in question.

    Dave (445e97)

  165. He replaced manafort, after his job was dine, wrongly delegates which ironically be when the surveillance was put in place, interestingly the people who did the lobbying were nit charged they were able to file new paperwork

    narciso (d1f714)

  166. OT: J.J. Watt is a finalist for the Walter Peyton “Man of the Year” award.

    felipe (023cc9)

  167. 171… keep sexually abusing dat poultry, ConDave.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  168. @170-yeah really. I’m not going to argue about to anymore (unless Cruz runs again :/), but I believe “natural born” as understood by the authors of the constitution didn’t include foreign born. That’s what the 14 year dealio was about, at the time none were natural born citizens but rather British subjects.

    Anyway, if it makes you feel better, I don’t consider myself qualified for the office either. I was born in California, but my father was not. The idea that the CIC of the USA be completely free of any foreign sympathies is eminently wise.

    TheBas (f00165)

  169. it was twenty years ago today
    Slick Willie taught the intern to play!”

    You’re a beat off kernel.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  170. Timing and otherwise, that is.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  171. You could edit to:Willie taught the intern to play or Slick Willie taught her to play

    Or?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  172. keep sexually abusing dat poultry, ConDave.

    You cultists are the ones getting de-regulation hard-ons about Scarlet-Chested Parakeets…

    Dave (445e97)

  173. Many other reg accomplishments. ConDave – currently residing at Foster Farms – is highly selective, both re: hens and examples.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  174. Juche Dave is light John candy’s overeager peace corps volunteer brainwashed was just as annoying.

    narciso (d1f714)

  175. https://goo.gl/images/2gMEfN

    Chinese chicken salad

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  176. And a tear runs down Bortles face… heckuva QB!

    My kind of mutt… https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/907381/Dog-travelled-train-alone-Birmingham-New-Street-changed-Huddersfield-missing-appeal

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  177. Poultry porn…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  178. What a great game!!!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  179. Those 67 are the only rules/regs eliminated by Trump (as of late December), Col. Sanders.

    Dave (445e97)

  180. princess lindsey better get busy teaching them dream dreams how to suck it then

    cause without a deal that’s what them babies gonna do

    happyfeet (28a91b)

  181. The idea that the CIC of the USA be completely free of any foreign sympathies is eminently wise.

    So you agree with the proposition that someone who has business connections in foreign countries such as Dubai, the UK, and the former Soviet states should not be POTUS?

    FYI, the usage of the phrase “natural born citizen” at the time of the writing of the Constitution means Obama, Cruz, McCain and you all qualify.

    Kishnevi (f0a3aa)

  182. @ TheBas: Also for purposes of locating you on the relevant axes of belief and politics:

    How do you feel about whether fire can ever burn steel?

    Beldar (fa637a)

  183. OT: Fine interception and TD by Patrick Robinson. What poise and brilliant use of his blockers! I’m rooting for Vikes, but props to Philly!

    felipe (023cc9)

  184. 186… not content to abuse poultry, ConDave is now flying on 11 different herbs and spices…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  185. Holy Haiti and other s***hole African countries Batman!

    The Patriots made a comeback.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  186. caged chicken PSA [YouTube] for Dave

    “Stop the bad egg” initiative.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  187. Lindsey Graham in his orange hat and no foundation is looking exceptionally fruity today on the TeeVee.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  188. For ConDave, in between his finger-lickin’ good abusing…

    “Trump has overseen the dismantling of several of Obamacare’s most controversial aspects. The tax cuts package Trump signed last month included a provision repealing Obamacare’s individual mandate. Trump also rolled back the Obama administration’s contraception mandate, which forced religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor to provide birth control for all employees, regardless of conscientious objections.

    Trump’s Department of Education rolled back several measures that conservatives had decried as federal overreach. The Trump administration repealed the Obama-era mandate that required all public schools to implement transgender bathroom policies and speech codes. The Trump administration also revoked a legally dubious Title IX guidance that regulated sexual assault proceedings on college campuses.

    In July, Trump announced the United States would be pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords, which Trump blasted as a threat to American sovereignty. Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rolled back the Obama administration’s Clean Water Rule, which drastically increased federal regulations of streams, and repealed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, which increased environmental regulations on coal-fired plants. Trump approved both the Keystone XL and Dakota pipelines that Obama had rejected.

    Last month, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rolled back the Obama-era Net Neutrality policy that increased federal regulation of the Internet.

    Trump’s foreign policy has made for a similar contrast with Obama’s…

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/20/donald-trump-undoing-barack-obama-legacy/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  189. Comment 195 coming from someone who I once might have referred to as “Its Fun to Stay at the D.C. – S -C – A”

    urbanleftbehind (e029d3)

  190. 185 -Col.
    It was “Dola” time.

    mg (8cbc69)

  191. Col. Harlan, the list of completed regulatory actions comes straight from the OMB, which is an office of the Trump White House.

    Exactly 67 (utterly trivial) deregulation actions were completed in 2017 – according to the Trump White House.

    <insert standard indignant rant that you would dare question any information originating from the Trump White House, and baseless accusation that you are a communist poultry fetishist>

    Dave (445e97)

  192. @197. If Lindsey’s been going strawberry blonde of late, little wonder he’s all up in partnering w/our Captain on the links.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  193. @190-yeah, having spent time with a cutting torch in hand, I can assure you fire can melt steel.

    As far as 9/11 being a black flag operation, your real question I assume, I tend to think not. I will admit to questioning some aspects of the story though, especially regarding the Pentagon.

    Basically, I don’t buy into the conspiracy theories, but there does seem to be plenty of legitimate fodder for the conspiracy theorists.

    And before you ask, I feel pretty much the same way about Obama’s birth circumstances. No strong opinion either way, but there is plenty to be suspicious about.

    TheBas (f00165)

  194. “They know they’ve failed when New York Times, Bloomberg, AP blame them instead of GOP for closing government’s doors.”

    https://www.lifezette.com/polizette/dems-are-losing-war-of-schumers-shutdown-in-the-media/

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  195. Great quote from Mulvaney. It’s a sound byte that was necessary.

    As for nuking the filibuster, I agree it’s very risky in terms of precedent. But if we don’t get immigration under control and deregulation of business, do we have a future to worry about? Do we want to start all over again?

    I think there is a good chance that the establishment will win this war against Trump, the war against change. So we have to effect as much reform as possible while we can. Not even Pence could finish out this agenda if Trump for whatever reason doesn’t complete his term.

    I agree with Beldar, do it. Now.

    Patricia (c255c4)

  196. That seems doubtful, now the 28 pages released nearly two years ago, reveals a much larger support network, in Tampa Paterson NJ, as well as Los Angeles and San Diego, one wonders if any of these were the investigations mentioned in both pdbs

    narciso (d1f714)

  197. Norway needs another miracle. And more than one. They need a handful of miracles.


    Lo, there do I see my Father…
    Lo, there do I see my Mother…
    And my Sisters and my Brothers…
    Lo, there do I see the line
    Of my people back to the beginning…
    Thay do bid me to take my place among them…
    In the Halls of Valhalla,
    Where the Brave may live forever.

    Can’t make things worse

    papertiger (c8116c)

  198. Maybe because he thinks $18B is a lot to money for a useless government project with absolutely no effect, yea or nay, upon the disposition of the country?

    Dave (445e97) — 1/21/2018 @ 2:49 am

    Good luck convincing people a democrat thinks a government project is useless. And 2/3 of big government republicans for that matter.

    This is you doing a character, right? Like Tony Clifton?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  199. You asked a really dumb question: “This guy thinks the project is completely useless, so why doesn’t he want to spend $18B on it?”

    Dave (445e97) — 1/21/2018 @ 3:45 am

    Fair enough. He’d like a border wall between IL and Canada. How big of a freezer do you need to hold $18 billion?

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  200. The earmark ban must be leaving a mark.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  201. Just have the Pet Project Hunger

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  202. What did we get for a trillion dollars in stimulus, juche Dave?

    narciso (d1f714)

  203. You could edit to:Willie taught the intern to play or Slick Willie taught her to play

    Or?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab) — 1/21/2018 @ 2:41 pm

    You should stick to your Comment Karaoke.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  204. Many other reg accomplishments. ConDave – currently residing at Foster Farms – is highly selective, both re: hens and examples.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 1/21/2018 @ 2:53 pm

    I’m not convinced he read that whole article.

    Pinandpuller (16b0b5)

  205. Luis Vicente Gutiérrez (born December 10, 1953) is the U.S. Representative for Illinois’s 4th congressional district, in office since 1993.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois%27s_4th_congressional_district IS one of the most strangely drawn and gerrymandered congressional districts in the country[3] and has been nicknamed “earmuffs” due to its shape.[4] It was created to pack two majority Hispanic parts of Chicago into one district, thereby creating a majority Hispanic district.

    So it’s fair to call Luis Gutierrez (D – Rep. Mexico) .
    Since he offers to vote for and build the wall himself, one could say truthfully that Mexico is building the wall.

    papertiger (c8116c)

  206. Actually hes Puerto Rican, and they don’t any particular issue with amnesty, but hes quite to the left of the mainstream.

    narciso (d1f714)

  207. What did we get for a trillion dollars in stimulus, juche Dave?

    How should I know? I opposed Obama, and every piece of legislation he backed.

    Obama didn’t promise hundreds of times that a foreign country would pay for the stimulus though, did he?

    Dave (445e97)

  208. 216,good Jerb on that one. That’s actually sad for my subgroup (the South side earmuff cover) that we never produced a better competitor for that seat. I’ve known both D and R guys that ran against LG.

    urbanleftbehind (e029d3)

  209. You should stick to your Comment Karaoke.

    At least I’m not tone deaf.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  210. will win this war against Trump, the war against change.

    Mixing metaphors.

    Have any spare change?

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  211. Many critics pointed out that Obama’s stimulus package did not succeed because the economy contracted 2.8 percent in 2009. The Congressional Budget Office projected ARRA would stimulate GDP growth by 1.4 percent to 3.8 percent that year. That meant growth in gross domestic product would be 1.4 percent to 3.8 percent better than if Congress did nothing.

    In fact, the CBO projected the economy would contract 3 percent for 2009. That’s because it had already contracted 5.4 percent the first quarter, and 0.5 percent in the second. The Dow had fallen to 6,594.44 on March 5, 2009. By Q4 2009, GDP was up 3.9 percent, and the Dow had risen to 10,428. By 2010, the economy expanded 2.5 percent.

    The economic stimulus bill was supposed to save 900,000-2.3 million jobs. As of October 30, 2009, it saved 640,329 jobs. (This is the most recent report. The Recovery Board stopped estimating job creation after that.)

    Not all of that success was thanks to the Stimulus Package. Expansive monetary policy and active emerging markets boosted global growth. But by March 2009, monetary policy had done all it could. It was evident more fiscal policy was needed. No doubt, the economic stimulus package inspired the confidence needed to turn the economy around.

    Once in office, Obama realized he needed to increase the fiscal stimulus from the $190 billion plan he proposed in his campaign. Some components of his campaign plan, such as enacting a foreclosure moratorium, had already been implemented by Fannie Mae. Others, such as eliminating taxes on seniors making up to $50,000, were still part of Obama’s economic agenda elsewhere.

    Obama’s biggest challenge was to create enough of a stimulus to soften the recession, but not big enough to raise further doubts about the ballooning U.S. debt. Unfortunately, the plan was blamed for doing both — failing to reduce unemployment below 9 percent, and adding to the debt. Even so, the stimulus plan was not condemned as much as health care reform, Medicare, and Medicaid for the debt.
    https://www.thebalance.com/what-was-obama-s-stimulus-package-3305625

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  212. Stimulus: Foundation for Trump economic positives..

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  213. He salvaged the Economy to the extent of Reagan urban legends.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  214. Actual, factual fiscal success in the wake of Bush travesty.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  215. Never thought I’d be defending Obama but you guys are too freaking ignorant even for conservatives.

    Ben burn (b3d5ab)

  216. 48 etc.

    Transcript of Trump’s public immigration meeting with members of Congress: (now correct and complete)

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-meeting-bipartisan-members-congress-immigration/

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  217. 156. Bob in LA (d74cbd) — 1/21/2018 @ 11:43 am

    3. A motion to move the question takes parliamentary precedence and is not debatable. This could be used by either side to seek the desired result if their side has a majority and believes the other side could not reassemble their members in time.

    I think if you abolished or modified the filibuster, youd’d have to change that rule (about the previous question) and only have votes at scheduled times.

    Maybe have online votes (that close at 3 am) on whether or not to vote, with a minimum of two thirds of the senators particpating – but that brings back the filibuster. So maybe 45 Senators to force a vote. Except that voets on amendments could also be foorced at the same time. But this might mnake it too easy to pass motions in the opinion of most Senators

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)

  218. 48. Beldar (fa637a) — 1/20/2018 @ 3:10 pm

    Recall that on Tuesday, Trump himself blurted out — and had to be corrected by GOP congressional leaders in the room with him — that he’d sign anything.

    I listdned to that Sunday with half an ear (I bought what were supposed to be new headphones from someone on eBay but when I opened it, the headphones fell on the sidewalk and immediately cracked open one of the earphones. One earphone was loose. I tried it out and it worked. But later a wire tore. So I had on;y one and did not have ot completely on my ear)

    trump did not say that. Trumop said taht if they passed comprehemsive immigration reform he’d sign that. But he didn’t expect that.

    Sammy Finkelman (02a146)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6498 secs.