(12-31-2019 02:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Let me say it differently...

What most in the middle see is people like Pelosi and Biden gaming the system for their own purposes while accusing Trump of gaming the system for his own purposes.

Interesting take. How do these people in the middle see Reps and Trump?

(12-31-2019 05:33 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-31-2019 02:48 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Let me say it differently...
What most in the middle see is people like Pelosi and Biden gaming the system for their own purposes while accusing Trump of gaming the system for his own purposes.

Interesting take. How do these people in the middle see Reps and Trump?

I think back to the 2010-2011 period, when the debt and deficit were big problems, leading to a government shutdown. I attended a State Bar tax seminar where one of the speakers was a Washington tax lobbyist who expressed his belief that 85% of the rank and file in congress could agree on a solution in about 15 minutes, if only they could keep Obama, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, and Pelosi out of the room.

I think we have a political system where things would work a lot better if the leaders were not more interested in sowing hate and discontent than in doing what is right for the country.

(12-31-2019 05:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think back to the 2010-2011 period, when the debt and deficit were big problems, leading to a government shutdown. I attended a State Bar tax seminar where one of the speakers was a Washington tax lobbyist who expressed his belief that 85% of the rank and file in congress could agree on a solution in about 15 minutes, if only they could keep Obama, Reid, McConnell, Boehner, and Pelosi out of the room.

I think we have a political system where things would work a lot better if the leaders were not more interested in sowing hate and discontent than in doing what is right for the country.

Out of the 5 names you mentioned, McConnell strikes me as a much bigger obstacle than anyone else. Once the Republicans took the House in the 2010 elections, Pelosi was a non-factor. Obama and Reid were pretty lock-step with each other. Boehner was willing to negotiate and work with Obama but needed to kowtow to the tea party members to keep his spot in leadership. But McConnell made it a goal to give Obama as few "wins" as possible, and he was frankly pretty successful in breaking Washington beyond what was already broken. There are a lot of charts showing the dramatic increase in filibusters during that time, feel free to google it if you are disinclined to agree. I mean, Ted Cruz famously spoke for 21 straight hours as part of his filibuster during the 2013 shutdown.

Yes, so different from the way the Democrat leadership has worked to give Trump as many "wins" as they can while not kowtowing to the extremists in their party. Schumer has been such a blessing for Trump.

(01-02-2020 01:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes, so different from the way the Democrat leadership has worked to give Trump as many "wins" as they can while not kowtowing to the extremists in their party. Schumer has been such a blessing for Trump.

You know that McConnell is the majority leader and Schumer is the minority leader, right? The biggest issue in the Senate with regards to passing legislation isn’t Schumer standing up to Trump, but McConnell not bringing bills to the floor.

There are something like 200+ bills that have passed the House but remain on McConnell’s desk.

(01-02-2020 06:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-02-2020 01:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes, so different from the way the Democrat leadership has worked to give Trump as many "wins" as they can while not kowtowing to the extremists in their party. Schumer has been such a blessing for Trump.

You know that McConnell is the majority leader and Schumer is the minority leader, right? The biggest issue in the Senate with regards to passing legislation isn’t Schumer standing up to Trump, but McConnell not bringing bills to the floor.
There are something like 200+ bills that have passed the House but remain on McConnell’s desk.

Why bring stuff to the floor if you know the Senate won't pass it? And you can be pretty sure that most stuff coming out of the House is so brazenly partisan that a majority of the Senate would vote it down.

What do you see as examples of good, nonpartisan or bipartisan bills that have come from the House that McConnell has held up?

(01-02-2020 07:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2020 06:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-02-2020 01:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes, so different from the way the Democrat leadership has worked to give Trump as many "wins" as they can while not kowtowing to the extremists in their party. Schumer has been such a blessing for Trump.

You know that McConnell is the majority leader and Schumer is the minority leader, right? The biggest issue in the Senate with regards to passing legislation isn’t Schumer standing up to Trump, but McConnell not bringing bills to the floor.
There are something like 200+ bills that have passed the House but remain on McConnell’s desk.

Why bring stuff to the floor if you know the Senate won't pass it? And you can be pretty sure that most stuff coming out of the House is so brazenly partisan that a majority of the Senate would vote it down.

What do you see as examples of good, nonpartisan or bipartisan bills that have come from the House that McConnell has held up?

Three things.

1) I was pointing out to OO that McConnell controls what bills are heard in the Senate, not Schumer. And that McConnell is currently holding up a number of bills that have passed the House.

2) It doesn't matter how partisan the bills are, the Senate can decide to vote on them and vote them down or pass a modified version of the legislation. And that is why the accusation that Dems are the problem with the "do nothingness" in Congress is silly.

3) Pulled from some articles and a little bit of digging on GovTrack: HR 840 passed the House 400-9 on Feb 8, 2019 and has not yet had a vote in the Senate. HR 676 passed 357-22 on Jan 22, 2019.

(01-02-2020 07:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2020 06:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-02-2020 01:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes, so different from the way the Democrat leadership has worked to give Trump as many "wins" as they can while not kowtowing to the extremists in their party. Schumer has been such a blessing for Trump.

You know that McConnell is the majority leader and Schumer is the minority leader, right? The biggest issue in the Senate with regards to passing legislation isn’t Schumer standing up to Trump, but McConnell not bringing bills to the floor.
There are something like 200+ bills that have passed the House but remain on McConnell’s desk.

Why bring stuff to the floor if you know the Senate won't pass it? And you can be pretty sure that most stuff coming out of the House is so brazenly partisan that a majority of the Senate would vote it down.

What do you see as examples of good, nonpartisan or bipartisan bills that have come from the House that McConnell has held up?

I guess you are right. Schumer is Trump's biggest ally in the Senate, just as Pelosi is in the House, and they are both working as hard as they can to give Trump some "wins" so that he won't be just a one term president.

(01-02-2020 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-02-2020 07:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2020 06:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-02-2020 01:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes, so different from the way the Democrat leadership has worked to give Trump as many "wins" as they can while not kowtowing to the extremists in their party. Schumer has been such a blessing for Trump.

You know that McConnell is the majority leader and Schumer is the minority leader, right? The biggest issue in the Senate with regards to passing legislation isn’t Schumer standing up to Trump, but McConnell not bringing bills to the floor.
There are something like 200+ bills that have passed the House but remain on McConnell’s desk.

Why bring stuff to the floor if you know the Senate won't pass it? And you can be pretty sure that most stuff coming out of the House is so brazenly partisan that a majority of the Senate would vote it down.

What do you see as examples of good, nonpartisan or bipartisan bills that have come from the House that McConnell has held up?

I guess you are right. Schumer is Trump's biggest ally in the Senate, just as Pelosi is in the House, and they are both working as hard as they can to give Trump some "wins" so that he won't be just a one term president.

Certainly not suggesting that Schumer is an ally. But McConnell holds all the strings by being able to decide what does, or doesn't, reach the Senate floor. Schumer's ability to roadblock any of Trump's agenda is severely limited. Pelosi is a much better example of someone on the left who can acutely cause frustration for Trump.

(01-02-2020 11:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-02-2020 10:06 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-02-2020 07:57 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-02-2020 06:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-02-2020 01:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes, so different from the way the Democrat leadership has worked to give Trump as many "wins" as they can while not kowtowing to the extremists in their party. Schumer has been such a blessing for Trump.

You know that McConnell is the majority leader and Schumer is the minority leader, right? The biggest issue in the Senate with regards to passing legislation isn’t Schumer standing up to Trump, but McConnell not bringing bills to the floor.
There are something like 200+ bills that have passed the House but remain on McConnell’s desk.

Why bring stuff to the floor if you know the Senate won't pass it? And you can be pretty sure that most stuff coming out of the House is so brazenly partisan that a majority of the Senate would vote it down.

What do you see as examples of good, nonpartisan or bipartisan bills that have come from the House that McConnell has held up?

I guess you are right. Schumer is Trump's biggest ally in the Senate, just as Pelosi is in the House, and they are both working as hard as they can to give Trump some "wins" so that he won't be just a one term president.

Certainly not suggesting that Schumer is an ally. But McConnell holds all the strings by being able to decide what does, or doesn't, reach the Senate floor. Schumer's ability to roadblock any of Trump's agenda is severely limited. Pelosi is a much better example of someone on the left who can acutely cause frustration for Trump.

Yes, she is. And she has.

But Schumer is not trying to create "wins" for Trump. He is trying to create losses. Every time he comes to the podium, he carries 45-47 votes in his pocket.

This is what Big had to say about Mac:

"But McConnell made it a goal to give Obama as few "wins" as possible..."

Well, it has been the goal of every Democrat to give every Republican as few wins as possible. Republicans return the favor. I just noticed and commented on the pot-kettle situation I saw.

For some reason I can't quote....

Lad...

I think you're trying to read something into my comment that isn't there. You seem to be trying to read me saying that the middle is against Pelosi and that's not it at all.

It seems obvious that at this point, the middle is not convinced that Trump is guilty, or even that if Trump cooperated, that he would be found guilty. If the middle were convinced, Pelosi would be putting this before the Senate and using it to challenge Senators against public opinion.

So the choices are these...
Either most of the middle thinks Trump is innocent (I don't believe this)
or most have a problem with the legislative branch acting in a political and underhanded way to convict the executive branch of acting in a political and underhanded way

If you choose to believe they think Trump is innocent, that's your call.

If they thought he was guilty, it seems obvious that they would support impeachment and Pelosi would be moving forward with some haste to convict him, or at least to put vulnerable senators at risk.

(01-02-2020 02:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  For some reason I can't quote....

Lad...

I think you're trying to read something into my comment that isn't there. You seem to be trying to read me saying that the middle is against Pelosi and that's not it at all.

It seems obvious that at this point, the middle is not convinced that Trump is guilty, or even that if Trump cooperated, that he would be found guilty. If the middle were convinced, Pelosi would be putting this before the Senate and using it to challenge Senators against public opinion.

So the choices are these...
Either most of the middle thinks Trump is innocent (I don't believe this)
or most have a problem with the legislative branch acting in a political and underhanded way to convict the executive branch of acting in a political and underhanded way

If you choose to believe they think Trump is innocent, that's your call.

If they thought he was guilty, it seems obvious that they would support impeachment and Pelosi would be moving forward with some haste to convict him, or at least to put vulnerable senators at risk.

I disagree with that analysis, because that analysis relies on Senators caring about what "the middle" thinks. I don't believe either party is motivated by what "the middle" thinks, and they are operating primarily based on what their supporters think. And in that case, Dems overwhelmingly support impeachment, and Reps overwhelmingly don't.

Furthermore, we should be looking at support for impeachment at this stage, not removal from office. Independents (those we can use as a proxy for "the middle") are pretty split about whether or not Trump should have been impeached. Most polling shows them around 50% for (with polls a few pts on either side). Just look at 538, regarding impeachment: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

So I think Pelosi is holding on to articles until the Senate explains how their hearings will occur, to try and get as favorable of an outcome as possible, so that moderate Republicans have a chance to influence the procedures. I think that because, even if Independents favored impeachment 70-30, there are enough Republicans in safe seats that Pelosi would still be worried about getting, what she views, as a fair trial.

What I have trouble with is anyone who claims that it would be pure politics for the senate not to convict, without acknowledging that what just transpired in the house was the most disgustingly partisan lynch mob/witch hunt/kangaroo court.

The only positive that I could see coming from this would be for people to realize that the grand jury process is pretty much a lynch mob/witch hunt/kangaroo court, and enact some protections for the rights of the accused there.

(01-02-2020 02:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  what she views, as a fair trial.

What she views as a fair trial is one that goes her way.

7 Republicans in the House Ofer to pass the DACA fix and it is widely believed that at least 51, and likely 60, Senators would vote in favor. But because McConnell says Trump will veto it, he refuses to even bring it to the floor. And personally, I think that would be a political win for Trump that the Dems are willing to give him.

During the 2018-19 government shutdown, after the new Congress was sworn in, the House passed the appropriations bill that previously passed the senate unanimously in December 2018. McConnell refused to even bring the bill up for a vote.

The House passed a background check bill with 8 Republicans. McConnell refuses to bring it to the floor.

The House passed the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization with 33 Republicans and McConnell refuses to bring it to the floor of the Senate.

There are plenty of others.

(01-02-2020 07:25 PM)mrbig Wrote:  7 Republicans in the House Ofer to pass the DACA fix and it is widely believed that at least 51, and likely 60, Senators would vote in favor. But because McConnell says Trump will veto it, he refuses to even bring it to the floor. And personally, I think that would be a political win for Trump that the Dems are willing to give him.

During the 2018-19 government shutdown, after the new Congress was sworn in, the House passed the appropriations bill that previously passed the senate unanimously in December 2018. McConnell refused to even bring the bill up for a vote.

The House passed a background check bill with 8 Republicans. McConnell refuses to bring it to the floor.

The House passed the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization with 33 Republicans and McConnell refuses to bring it to the floor of the Senate.

There are plenty of others.

Gosh, this is unprecedented. Harry Reid always moved everything to the floor ASAP.

OO - feel free to provide your examples of Reid refusing to put legislation that passed the House with some support from both parties on the senate floor. I am genuinely curious what you come up with, but unwilling to do the legwork for you.

(01-03-2020 01:24 AM)mrbig Wrote:  OO - feel free to provide your examples of Reid refusing to put legislation that passed the House with some support from both parties on the senate floor. I am genuinely curious what you come up with, but unwilling to do the legwork for you.

I don't want to do the legwork either. As you have said, nothing is going to change your mind. You will not even listen. So why waste my precious time? So I will just take your word that Reid always moved everything to the floor at lightning speed, never held anything back, always tried to give Republicans "wins", etc., and that this was the way business was done in the Senate until the evil McConnell took over. Reid angel, McConnell devil.

I am wondering though, why Reid felt he had to do the nuclear option thing. What brought on that unforced error?

Never mind - I looked it up. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...story.html

OO - we were having a discussion on passing (or refusing to even bring up for a vote) legislation. What does this article on voting on Presidential appointments have to do with legislation?

Also, to answer your question, and as described in the article you cited, Reid felt compelled to do it because of heightened levels of obstructionism by the Senate minority (aka McConnell).

Also also, from reading the article you cited, I can’t tell whether the journalist author is a Republican or Democrat. Can you help me with that?

Also also also, my comment about you not being able to change my mind was a comment about journalists and had nothing to do with who in Washington was primarily responsible for obstructionism at a specific point in time. So I am open to changing my mind on this topic. Let the evidence and citations flow forth! Just don’t cite any of them pesky Republican or Democratic journalists you do abhor!

Interesting news out of Iraq regarding Iran. Big decision by Trump to OK the strike.