The 116th

Since the 116th Congress is an animal of a different color: the house being controlled by the Democrats, and the Senate being controlled by the Republicans, I would like to propose we talk about this Congress in its own thread.

It has more women in Congress than any other time in history, though it is still not on parity compared to the general population. Deal of it is, the growth has been among Democrats in the House. Thirty years ago, there were 13 Republican congresswomen. There are still only 13 Republican women in this House.

For the first time, there are two Muslim women in the House. There has already been one Muslim man. Likewise, there are two Native American women in the House for the first time, though there have been Native American men in previous Congresses.

Speaker Pelosi gave a powerful speech outlining the Democratic agenda for the House. One of the promises being to reach across the aisle. This was achieved in the first continuing resolutions that were past to fully fund the government.

I would expect the new chairs of various House committees to initiate investigations concerning Trump, and the Trump Administration, and Russian interference. I am crossing my fingers that eventually impeachment proceedings will eventually result.

A new committee is being formed on Climate Change. That is good.

What do you expect to see from this Congress?
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • Well, from this side of The Pond, it looks encouraging (given that my personal glass is usually half-full, and not about to fall off the table!).

    Best wishes, and fervent prayers, that this Congress helps bring the US of A back onto the right track....

    ....and anything that confounds or annoys The Orange Clown has got to be a Good Thing, IMHO.

    (BTW, is Nancy Pelosi really 78? She looks jolly good on it....).
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    What do you expect to see from this Congress?

    Far, far too much in general. Far, far too much ugliness. Fully understanding that media in Canada cannot help themselves reporting the sensationalistic bombastic profanity of America at the best of times, and that the current maniac being more maniacal than predecessors is irresistible to them.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Since the 116th Congress is an animal of a different color: the house being controlled by the Democrats, and the Senate being controlled by the Republicans, I would like to propose we talk about this Congress in its own thread.

    It is also notable that this is the first time the Democrats have controlled a House of Congress with a caucus that does not include a lot of fairly conservative southerners. That alone will probably change the dynamic from past Democratically controlled Houses.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    For the first time, there are two Muslim women in the House. There has already been one Muslim man.

    Two Muslim men: Keith Ellison (currently the Attorney General-elect of Minnesota) and André Carson.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Speaker Pelosi gave a powerful speech outlining the Democratic agenda for the House. One of the promises being to reach across the aisle. This was achieved in the first continuing resolutions that were past to fully fund the government.

    I'm not sure that counts as "reaching across the aisle" since I'm not sure Congressional Republicans are that eager to re-start the federal government.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I would expect the new chairs of various House committees to initiate investigations concerning Trump, and the Trump Administration, and Russian interference. I am crossing my fingers that eventually impeachment proceedings will eventually result.

    Newly installed Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (one of the newly sworn-in Muslim women mentioned above) got big applause when she said "we’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the motherfucker" in a public speech yesterday. This was not a simple throw-away ad libbed applause line since Tlaib is the co-author of a piece that ran in yesterday's Detroit Free Press outlining the argument in favor of impeaching Donald Trump.
    We already have overwhelming evidence that the president has committed impeachable offenses, including, just to name a few: obstructing justice; violating the emoluments clause; abusing the pardon power; directing or seeking to direct law enforcement to prosecute political adversaries for improper purposes; advocating illegal violence and undermining equal protection of the laws; ordering the cruel and unconstitutional imprisonment of children and their families at the southern border; and conspiring to illegally influence the 2016 election through a series of hush money payments.

    Whether the president was directly involved in a conspiracy with the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 election remains the subject of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. But we do not need to wait on the outcome of that criminal investigation before moving forward now with an inquiry in the U.S. House of Representatives on whether the president has committed impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors” against the state: abuse of power and abuse of the public trust.

    The Republican reaction has mostly been to call for the fainting couches and smelling salts over the idea that someone who isn't a white man would utter the word "motherfucker" in public. The way they were acting you'd think she'd grabbed them by the pussy.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited January 4
    Please note, the last quote Croese gave was not from me. Please do not put words in my mouth. Croese.

    As to bipartisan support on the continuing resolutions, seven Republicans voted for the resolution to fund the government to 30 September. I think five Republicans voted for the resolution to fund Homeland Security for a month.

    And at least two Republican Senators have announced they will vote for the continuing resolutions to fund the government should they come to the floor of the Senate.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Please note, the last quote Croese gave, was not from me. Please do not put words in my mouth. Croese.

    Which is why that quote does not have a header attributing it to you but is preceded by a description of the op-ed it's from and a hyperlink to the same.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Lifted from another thread. None of the quotes are from @Gramps49.
    Climacus wrote: »
    Dancing, bad; pussy-grabbing good?

    The mind boggles at these people criticising.

    This seems similar to the Republican geniuses who thought the public would turn against Beto O'Rourke when they found out he was in a rock band in high school. Apparently there's a significant faction of the GOP (or at least its political strategist class) who are generally offended by "fun" and "youth" and assume everyone else shares their hangups.

    Because fun is contagious here's AOC Dances to Every Song, a Twitter feed that features the AOC dance video re-dubbed to various popular (and not so popular) music.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Lifted from another thread. None of the quotes are from @Gramps49.
    Climacus wrote: »
    Dancing, bad; pussy-grabbing good?

    The mind boggles at these people criticising.

    This seems similar to the Republican geniuses who thought the public would turn against Beto O'Rourke when they found out he was in a rock band in high school. Apparently there's a significant faction of the GOP (or at least its political strategist class) who are generally offended by "fun" and "youth" and assume everyone else shares their hangups.

    Because fun is contagious here's AOC Dances to Every Song, a Twitter feed that features the AOC dance video re-dubbed to various popular (and not so popular) music.

    I would be utterly unsurprised to find that a significant fraction of the GOP (almost certainly including Mike Pence) are of the "don't approve of sex because it might lead to dancing" and "rock music is satanic because of Elvis' pelvis" schools of thought. And yet still approve of Trump.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Apparently there's a significant faction of the GOP (or at least its political strategist class) who are generally offended by "fun" and "youth" and assume everyone else shares their hangups.

    Unless of course what you find "fun" is binge drinking and attempted rape. Then it's fine.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Apparently there's a significant faction of the GOP (or at least its political strategist class) who are generally offended by "fun" and "youth" and assume everyone else shares their hangups.

    Unless of course what you find "fun" is binge drinking and attempted rape. Then it's fine.

    According to the GOP political strategist class that never happened, but if it did the perpetrator was a doppelgänger. No Yale man would ever behave in such a manner!
  • Of course, of course.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 11
    Can someone tell me why congresspersons and senators are still getting paid? Doesn't the government budget include their salaries?

    Okay, first a bit of pedantry, then an explanation. In American political parlance a "budget" is an aspirational document specifying how a group (Senate Democrats, House Republicans, the President, etc.) wants government money to be spent. When the spending of money is actually authorized that's referred to as an "appropriation". Now that I've dispensed with the quibbling semantic pedantry, on to the explanation.

    The current Trump shut-down of the federal government is only a partial shutdown. The federal government is a large and complicated institution and Congress will typically appropriate money in several different bills. Congress has already appropriated money to fund the running of the Departments of Defense, Labor, Education, Energy, and Veteran's Affairs, plus most of the Department of Health & Human Services and part of the Department of the Interior. So the folks working for those Departments are still getting paid. These appropriations bills included the funds to run the Legislative Branch as well, which is why Congress is still getting paid, as are Congressional staffers.

    The tricky bit is that the bills appropriating money for the rest of the federal government (the Departments I specified previously plus the federal judiciary) have actually passed both Houses of Congress. Normally that would send them to the president* for his signature (or veto) but they were passed by the 115th Senate in December and the 116th House in January. Bills from one Congress don't carry over to the next, they have to be re-introduced. Given that the House passed the appropriations bills that the Senate had passed by voice acclamation (a procedure for bills with no significant opposition) very recently in mostly unaltered form you'd think having the 116th Senate pass the same bills the 115th Senate (most of whom are in the 116th Senate) had approved would be an easy move, but in the intervening couple of weeks the Senate Republicans apparently changed their minds. Mitch McConnell has stated that he won't bring any appropriations to the floor if they're just going to be vetoed by the president*.

    Comment originally from the Trump thread.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Since the President is the head of the Executive Branch and responsible for its smooth performance of the functions of government, I can't see any escape from the conclusion that he is guilty of a dereliction of duty that goes to the very core of his functions, the purposes for which any president is elected. It is very close to being tantamount to his abdicating by conduct the office to which he was elected.

    It puzzles me that as far as I can see - though admittedly I'm several thousand miles away - nobody seems to be arguing this.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Interesting thought. The most powerful person in the US constitutional government is the Speaker of the House. The President is only a glorified administrator. Feel free to discuss.
  • Enoch, Trump is at his core derelict. Can you believe that millions of people voted for him? I still can't, and I think I have a handle on why they did.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Interesting thought. The most powerful person in the US constitutional government is the Speaker of the House. The President is only a glorified administrator. Feel free to discuss.

    Not true. One big reason is that the House of Representatives can't do anything on its own. It needs to act in conjunction with the Senate in order to exercise any power. The Senate, on the other hand, can do certain things without the cooperation of the House of Representatives, like ratify treaties or veto executive and judicial appointments.

    Speaking of which, it should be noted that Mitch McConnell likely has the power to end the Trump shut-down whenever he feels like it. That seems like a fact that should be getting wider press attention.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, 8th Day Host
    Crœsos wrote: »
    ...Speaking of which, it should be noted that Mitch McConnell likely has the power to end the Trump shut-down whenever he feels like it. That seems like a fact that should be getting wider press attention.
    It's starting to get some of that attention.

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Can someone tell me why congresspersons and senators are still getting paid? Doesn't the government budget include their salaries?

    Okay, first a bit of pedantry, then an explanation. In American political parlance a "budget" is an aspirational document specifying how a group (Senate Democrats, House Republicans, the President, etc.) wants government money to be spent. When the spending of money is actually authorized that's referred to as an "appropriation". Now that I've dispensed with the quibbling semantic pedantry, on to the explanation.

    Can someone explain the difference between the "budget" you describe above - I don't think one has been passed by Congress in years and years - and the "budget" that must be passed in many parliamentary democracies or else the government is likely to fall (and a snap election may be called)? Are the many omnibus bills, continuing resolutions, farm bills, etc., that Congress passes separately (without passing a "budget") equivalent to the budget or supply bills in a parliamentary democracy? Is a full or partial government shutdown possible in a parliamentary democracy? If so, what would be the repercussions?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Interesting thought. The most powerful person in the US constitutional government is the Speaker of the House. The President is only a glorified administrator. Feel free to discuss.

    Not true. One big reason is that the House of Representatives can't do anything on its own. It needs to act in conjunction with the Senate in order to exercise any power. The Senate, on the other hand, can do certain things without the cooperation of the House of Representatives, like ratify treaties or veto executive and judicial appointments.

    Speaking of which, it should be noted that Mitch McConnell likely has the power to end the Trump shut-down whenever he feels like it. That seems like a fact that should be getting wider press attention.

    When Ryan was the Speaker of the House, he was more or less a rubber stamp for Trump. The current Speaker is far from that. But, if you look back through history, Reagan knew he would not get his tax cut if he did compromise with Tip O'Neil. Johnson would not get his Civil Rights bills through Congress if he did not have the support of John McCormick. Likewise, Clinton had to work with Newt Gingrich to get his agenda approved, even though Newt worked to impeach Clinton. Obama's program was effectively stopped when John Boehner took over.

    The Speaker through the Ways and Means Committee controls what bills will be considered. The Speaker in line in the line of succession. When Kennedy was killed and before Johnson took the oath of office the Speaker at the time was the effective head of state even though the transfer of power was within just a few hours.

    But, I agree, at this point, the person that is the bump in the road is Mitch McConnell.

    Now, a discharge petition signed by a majority of the House can bring a bill to the floor without the Speaker's approval. Likewise, a Motion to Discharge or a non germaine amendment to a must-pass bill can get a bill around the control of the Senate majority leader.

    It would be much better if all three leaders can work together to accomplish what needs to be done. The deal of it is, our leaders have lost the art of compromise.

  • Is the politics of the situation working for Trump? I just don't know. Anyone willing to venture an opinion?

  • GwaiGwai Purgatory Host
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is the politics of the situation working for Trump? I just don't know. Anyone willing to venture an opinion?

    538 are my gurus and they have been looking at polls and concluding that popular opinion is blaming Trump though the people who are still Republicans are mostly still in favor of anything Trump does.
  • edited January 14
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Can someone tell me why congresspersons and senators are still getting paid? Doesn't the government budget include their salaries?

    Okay, first a bit of pedantry, then an explanation. In American political parlance a "budget" is an aspirational document specifying how a group (Senate Democrats, House Republicans, the President, etc.) wants government money to be spent. When the spending of money is actually authorized that's referred to as an "appropriation". Now that I've dispensed with the quibbling semantic pedantry, on to the explanation.

    Can someone explain the difference between the "budget" you describe above - I don't think one has been passed by Congress in years and years - and the "budget" that must be passed in many parliamentary democracies or else the government is likely to fall (and a snap election may be called)? Are the many omnibus bills, continuing resolutions, farm bills, etc., that Congress passes separately (without passing a "budget") equivalent to the budget or supply bills in a parliamentary democracy? Is a full or partial government shutdown possible in a parliamentary democracy? If so, what would be the repercussions?

    **Pedantry alert** Generally in parliamentary democracies, budgets fall under the classification of "supply," and if a government can't get supply from the House (theoretically, the people's representatives), they can't continue in office. In Canada, ministers lay estimates before the House, and submit Ways and Means motions to get authority to spend. If any of this fails, this means that ministers have lost the confidence of the House. Either a new government is formed from the existing House (I think this last happened in 1872), but it generally means that there is an election. In Canada (I don't think anywhere else), Governor General Warrants secure funds for operations during the interim if the House is dissolved, so things do not shut down-- it's a mechanism which departs from pure parliamentary procedures, and found its origins when the House would often not sit for 3-8 months and there were gaps in the timetable of supply.

    In the unlikely event of the Senate not agreeing, the PM has an option of seeking HM's direct approval for the appointment of extra senators to secure a majority in the Senate. If this doesn't work, then an election would be in order to give the incoming government clear authority.

    In short, should there be no confidence in a government's ability to secure funding, then there is no confidence in the government, and this has to be resolved by the people in an election if MPs can't figure it out quickly themselves.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Interesting thought. The most powerful person in the US constitutional government is the Speaker of the House. The President is only a glorified administrator. Feel free to discuss.

    Not true. One big reason is that the House of Representatives can't do anything on its own. It needs to act in conjunction with the Senate in order to exercise any power. The Senate, on the other hand, can do certain things without the cooperation of the House of Representatives, like ratify treaties or veto executive and judicial appointments.

    When Ryan was the Speaker of the House, he was more or less a rubber stamp for Trump. The current Speaker is far from that. But, if you look back through history, Reagan knew he would not get his tax cut if he did compromise with Tip O'Neil. Johnson would not get his Civil Rights bills through Congress if he did not have the support of John McCormick. Likewise, Clinton had to work with Newt Gingrich to get his agenda approved, even though Newt worked to impeach Clinton. Obama's program was effectively stopped when John Boehner took over.

    All that indicates is that the Speaker of the House controls some very important levers of power, something no one denies, not that they're the most powerful person in the U.S. government. The American government contains a surprisingly large number of "veto points", where government action can be stalled by one person or group. Where the critical choke point is located depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    That is by design, and with good reason - it means no one person or persons is/are the most powerful in any/all situations. Government action, if it is to occur at all, has to at least get the tacit approval of multiple people and institutions.

    This makes for an awfully slow-moving monster of a government sometimes, but it usually keeps things from going *too* far off the rails. (That said - this is as far off the rails as it's been in my lifetime, and I never hope to see it again, thanks.)
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 14
    jbohn wrote: »
    This makes for an awfully slow-moving monster of a government sometimes, but it usually keeps things from going *too* far off the rails. (That said - this is as far off the rails as it's been in my lifetime, and I never hope to see it again, thanks.)

    I have heard the United States referred to as "the Frozen Republic" for that reason. Long stretches of status quo governance with brief periods of very rapid change (e.g. the Civil War, the New Deal). Punctuated equilibrium applied to government.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Somebody help me grasp what the people of Kentucky see in their senior Senator.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Somebody help me grasp what the people of Kentucky see in their senior Senator.

    *waves* Kentucky resident here. All people see in him is that he's not a Democrat, it's not that anybody likes him personally.

    The awful thing is that the people elected from here since 2010 are even worse. Our other senator and my congressman are both Tea Party government-haters who voted against the Obamacare repeal bills because they didn't hurt poor people enough.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Wow. My sympathies. Apparently your state has not recovered from its stance during the Civil War: not defending the South, but not a member of the Union, either.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    Wow. My sympathies. Apparently your state has not recovered from its stance during the Civil War: not defending the South, but not a member of the Union, either.

    Kentucky was very much a member of the Union, contributing many military units to the fight against Treason in Defense of Slavery despite being a slave state itself. Unfortunately not all of Kentucky's sons were loyal. (Link to contemporary opinion of Breckinridge can be found here.) Some wag once claimed that Kentucky joined the Confederacy in 1866.

    For what it's worth, here's a pic of Senatortoise McConnell posing in front of the treason flag that his state rejected back when it was a real issue.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I note that 11 Republican Senators have broken ranks with McConnell to maintain the sanctions against certain Russian Oligarchs. That means McConnell may not have a lock on his share of the Senate. My guess is those same Senators may eventually break with McConnell to get the government funded.
  • hope so. I imagine Trump is relying on Republicans continuing to hold on to him during his suicide jump.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    Wow. My sympathies. Apparently your state has not recovered from its stance during the Civil War: not defending the South, but not a member of the Union, either.

    Kentucky was very much a member of the Union,

    Not initially, according to Wikipedia: "Kentucky officially declared its neutrality at the beginning of the war, but after a failed attempt by Confederate General Leonidas Polk to take the state of Kentucky for the Confederacy, the legislature petitioned the Union Army for assistance. After early 1862 Kentucky came largely under Union control" -- which doesn't sound like overwhelming support for the cause.

    As for the Senatortoise (nice turn of phrase, btw), I wonder if that's the treason flag du jour, which might look more like this:

    http://flags.fmcdn.net/data/flags/h80/ru.png

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I note that 11 Republican Senators have broken ranks with McConnell to maintain the sanctions against certain Russian Oligarchs. That means McConnell may not have a lock on his share of the Senate. My guess is those same Senators may eventually break with McConnell to get the government funded.

    McConnell knows that there are enough votes in the Senate to pass the House bills ending the Trump shut-down. They are, after all, virtually identical to bills that already passed the Senate in December. That's why he won't allow a floor vote on those bills. What's debatable is whether there are enough votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto. As the Senate is currently constituted that would require twenty Republicans along with all the Democrats.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    Wow. My sympathies. Apparently your state has not recovered from its stance during the Civil War: not defending the South, but not a member of the Union, either.

    Kentucky was very much a member of the Union,

    Not initially, according to Wikipedia: "Kentucky officially declared its neutrality at the beginning of the war, but after a failed attempt by Confederate General Leonidas Polk to take the state of Kentucky for the Confederacy, the legislature petitioned the Union Army for assistance. After early 1862 Kentucky came largely under Union control" -- which doesn't sound like overwhelming support for the cause.

    As for the Senatortoise (nice turn of phrase, btw), I wonder if that's the treason flag du jour, which might look more like this:

    http://flags.fmcdn.net/data/flags/h80/ru.png

    *tangent alert* Did Wikipedia note that General Leonidas Polk was also the Bishop of Louisiana?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 16
    *tangent alert* Did Wikipedia note that General Leonidas Polk was also the Bishop of Louisiana?

    The page on Kentucky in the American Civil War @Ohher was quoting earlier doesn't, but if you click through to Polk's own entry it's one of the first things mentioned about him.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited January 16
    It looks like Speaker Pelosi has hit on a strategy to motivate Trump to end his shut-down of the federal government.
    Sadly, given the security concerns and unless government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to the Congress on January 29th.

    Can Donald Trump stand to give up a high profile television appearance? The bit at the end about submitting his report on the State of the Union in written form seems like just twisting the knife.

    It should also be noted that, despite several headlines to the contrary and the obfuscatory language involved, Pelosi isn't asking Trump for anything. The President* needs to be invited by the Speaker of the House to address Congress in person.

    Cross-posted with the Trump thread.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    Wow. My sympathies. Apparently your state has not recovered from its stance during the Civil War: not defending the South, but not a member of the Union, either.

    Kentucky was very much a member of the Union,

    Not initially, according to Wikipedia: "Kentucky officially declared its neutrality at the beginning of the war, but after a failed attempt by Confederate General Leonidas Polk to take the state of Kentucky for the Confederacy, the legislature petitioned the Union Army for assistance. After early 1862 Kentucky came largely under Union control" -- which doesn't sound like overwhelming support for the cause.

    As for the Senatortoise (nice turn of phrase, btw), I wonder if that's the treason flag du jour, which might look more like this:

    http://flags.fmcdn.net/data/flags/h80/ru.png

    *tangent alert* Did Wikipedia note that General Leonidas Polk was also the Bishop of Louisiana?

    There was also The Baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells.
  • I haven't noticed people standing up and saying something like: Why don't we get together an inquiry chaired by people not elected to a political office and get them to take submissions and hear evidence from experts and interested groups into immigration policy along the southern border. They report to the President and Congressional leaders in six months with a set of recommendations. Meanwhile, we open the Government.

    In part of course the answer is that it is just too good an issue for firing up the respective bases. But it doesn't seem to have been mentioned as an option even by commentators in the media. Why not?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I haven't noticed people standing up and saying something like: Why don't we get together an inquiry chaired by people not elected to a political office and get them to take submissions and hear evidence from experts and interested groups into immigration policy along the southern border. They report to the President and Congressional leaders in six months with a set of recommendations. Meanwhile, we open the Government.

    In part of course the answer is that it is just too good an issue for firing up the respective bases. But it doesn't seem to have been mentioned as an option even by commentators in the media. Why not?

    Because this is a power grab, not a disagreement over a specific issue. This whole process is designed to enact President* Trump's immigration agenda without having to go through the normal legislative process like committee hearings, expert testimony, legislative debate, or any of the other normal procedures of government. The last thing Republicans want is a close examination of their proposed policies. They want to ram this through with as little examination as possible because their policies do not bear close examination. As for why media commentators don't mention this, I'd guess it's because their compulsive need to "bothsides" any issue is a barrier.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    An article about Pelosi's power.
  • Nice article Gramps. Thanks for posting.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    In the SOTU Trump claims he should not be investigated because it would impact the economy.

    True to form, The House has just opened up several investigations on Trump. Which one are you following.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    The Democrats apparently are quite divided over how to handle the comments of Representative Ilhan Jamar, a Muslim woman recently elected to Congress. Ms Jamar was reported to have said the pro Israel lobby in Congress has an allegiance with Israel. This has tied the caucus up in knots and the Republicans are milking it for all it is worth. Story here.

    Personally, I think she is right and the strong reaction she has been getting from, ahem, the pro Israel lobby proves it IMHO.

    But this still pales to the blind allegiance the Republicans seem to have with Mr. Rump. What I do not understand is that when everyone took the oath of office they all swore to defend the constitution. To me, with all the allegations against Rump, I would think everyone would want to get to the bottom of them to see what is true, and what is not.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The Democrats apparently are quite divided over how to handle the comments of Representative Ilhan Jamar, a Muslim woman recently elected to Congress.

    I'm trying to control my nitpicking habits, but since you've repeated the mistake on another thread can you please do Congresswoman Omar the courtesy of spelling her name correctly?
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Don't know why I got her name wrong. I apologize.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited March 6
    I reckon that whole issue amounts to the growing pains of a broadening political party that is beginning to reflect in its candidates and officeholders the nation it seeks to represent. She was perhaps a little crude in her characterisation of the Israel lobby, but she is surely entitled to reflect what I assume are the views of her constituents. If more of her constituents disagree with her than I think, they will have the opportunity to remonstrate with her at the ballot box in due course. This aint Australia, where pollies must think carefully before deviating from the party line.
  • romanlionromanlion Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I reckon that whole issue amounts to the growing pains of a broadening political party that is beginning to reflect in its candidates and officeholders the nation it seeks to represent. She was perhaps a little crude in her characterisation of the Israel lobby, but she is surely entitled to reflect what I assume are the views of her constituents. If more of her constituents disagree with her than I think, they will have the opportunity to remonstrate with her at the ballot box in due course. This aint Australia, where pollies must think carefully before deviating from the party line.

    More power to her, and AOC, and Gov. Northam. The lot of em.

    2020 is coming quick, and the dims are working on resolutions to condemn antisemitism.

    Brilliant.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I agree with you that the only thing that will save Trump now is if he can scare the pants off lily-livered white arses so badly that they will vote for a kleptocrat again.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    It boggles my mind that Progressives who are so finely attuned to dog-whistles about race with regards to African-Americans, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, etc., are either oblivious to or consciously willing to employ Anti-Semitic dog whistles.

    Yes, AIPAC is a powerful lobby that makes it difficult for politicians to oppose the immoral policies of the Israeli government in the Occupied Territories. It's perfectly fine to point that out. But talking about politicians having "allegiance" and "subservience" to a foreign power, when that foreign power is Israel, is touching on multiple Anti-Semitic tropes (the Jewish person who cannot ever be a fully loyal citizen and the Jewish cabal that pulls the strings of gentile politicians) and Progressives really should know better. It doesn't matter if the politicians they are criticizing for their alignment with the issues pushed by AIPAC are not Jewish themselves (although many are). Language like that has bred hate and violence in the past and continues to do so today.
  • romanlionromanlion Shipmate
    Blackface, antisemitism, and dead babies are all good if you're a dim.

    Good luck with that.
Sign In or Register to comment.