Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, January 15, 2018

OTP 15 January 2018:Mississippi’s anti-gay marriage law is hurting two college baseball teams

The “stick to sports” mantra took on a life of its own in 2017, as the interweaving of sports and politics was undeniable and, ultimately, angered quite a few sports fans. Still, protests during the national anthem or political tweets by athletes never actually got in the way of the action or stopped games from being played.

But politics have halted a college baseball series between the University of Southern Mississippi and Stony Brook University, a public school in New York. The two schools were scheduled to meet in a three-game series in February, but dueling declarations in each state have now made that series impossible. The kicker? It has absolutely nothing to do with baseball.

 

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 15, 2018 at 03:13 PM | 2103 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: college baseball, off topic, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 21 of 22 pages ‹ First  < 19 20 21 22 > 
   2001. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:34 PM (#5610403)
Why do so many musicals feature Nazis like "The Sound of Music", "Cabaret", "Springtime for Hitler", and "The Blues Brothers"?

Because Jews control Broadway.
   2002. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:40 PM (#5610407)
Astaire's greatest moments all involve dancing with Rogers.


Not quite. Fred Astaire also danced iconically with:
*A coat rack
*A ceiling
*Numerous shoes
*Gangsters
*9 or 10 other Fred Astaires

But you can see the toll it took on him.
   2003. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:43 PM (#5610408)
Geez, Andy, you like a lot of those musicals more than I do :)

You have to remember that I've probably seen over 3000 movies by now, and I've lost track of the number of musicals that never made it past the first half hour. Fortunately none of these were in an actual movie theater.

My own favorites are the early Rodgers and Hart experiments (Love Me Tonight, Hallelujah I'm a Bum), Astaire & Rogers, Yankee Doodle Dandy, the high MGM Technicolor of the Minnelli/Freed era (Singin' in the Rain is the most famous, but The Band Wagon is better IMO), the Menken/Ashman films for Disney (Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast). Pretty standard taste. There is a degree of camp involved, I admit. You can't really seriously approve of An American in Paris, for instance, but the music and dancing are really fabulous.

I've finally come around to not disliking the Astaire/Rogers movies, and maybe the next time around I'll actually like them. But they do all seem to run together into one big dance number.

But Yankee Doodle Dandy is just one of a zillion code era Hollywood biopics that seem as dated as the production code itself. Cagney's one of my favorite actors, I know he's a great dancer, and I know Yankee Doodle Dandy is his favorite movie, but then Cagney also wound up as a Republican, so I'm not taking his word on everything. That title number alone was so cringeworthy that I couldn't make it to the end of the film, and that's certainly the only Cagney movie I'll ever say that about.

Garland singing "The Man That Got Away" in A Star is Born is one of the greatest things ever, for sure.

Seconded.
   2004. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 21, 2018 at 12:55 PM (#5610413)
Translated page from Manager Magazin, a German business publication: Deutsche Bank finds evidence of dubious deals by Trump's son-in-law Kushner
The Deutsche Bank has evidence that the real estate investor Jared Kushner or related companies or persons in their business could have directed suspicious money through Deutsche Bank.

...Your information has been transmitted by Deutsche Bank to the German Financial Supervisory Authority Bafin. They are also to approach the US special investigator Robert Mueller, who is researching possible security-related financial ties of the Trump clan - including Russia. The Deutsche Bank declined to comment.
   2005. Morty Causa Posted: January 21, 2018 at 03:45 PM (#5610429)
2002

And a number of other female swifties, including just about anyone who could dance. Yes, Astaire had the quality of Kelly's career without Ginger, and then he had Ginger. That number with Powell to Begin the Beguine is pretty neat and adroit by both, so it's not like he couldn't do it with others. The deficiency wasn't his. It was his other partners.

   2006. BDC Posted: January 21, 2018 at 03:54 PM (#5610437)
Not to mention that Fred Astaire was as distinctive a singer as anybody in the movies, and compiled a long list of standards written with him expressly in mind, by Kern, Porter, Gershwin, Berlin, etc. He would not have won any vocal prizes, but he had a tremendously expressive voice.
   2007. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 21, 2018 at 04:03 PM (#5610440)
I didn't say "failing to rescue a hostage." I said refusing to rescue a hostage for political gain. Saying, "Go ahead and kill the hostage; it'll make you look bad and so I'll benefit" is completely immoral.

Doesn't follow. There is a reason why you don't negotiate with terrorists. The only way to try to rescue the hostage here, is to give the terrorists what they want. If you capitulate, and give them what they want, then you encourage them to take more hostages in the future. It is perfectly moral to not let that happen, even if it results in the first hostage being killed.
   2008. Morty Causa Posted: January 21, 2018 at 04:05 PM (#5610443)
I remember a number of composers going on record as holding that he did their songs best. Berlin, for sure, I believe.

And there's this as to his dancing:

CITY BALLET: FRED ASTAIRE IS HONORED IN DANCE

''The New York City Ballet mourns the loss of Fred Astaire and acknowledges his great gift to dance.'' With this simple sentence, printed on a program insert, the company paid tribute to ''the greatest dancer in the world,'' as George Balanchine called him in 1973.
   2009. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 21, 2018 at 04:32 PM (#5610462)
Doesn't follow. There is a reason why you don't negotiate with terrorists. The only way to try to rescue the hostage here, is to give the terrorists what they want. If you capitulate, and give them what they want, then you encourage them to take more hostages in the future. It is perfectly moral to not let that happen, even if it results in the first hostage being killed.
You're still only reading half of what I wrote. I didn't say refusing to negotiate with hostage takers; I said refusing to negotiate for political gain.


I mean, I think your attempt to make the argument you’re making shows why the entire metaphor is misplaced; as you note, one doesn't negotiate with terrorists¹ because if you do it just means that you'll be forced to do it again in the future. Whereas if you don't, they won't commit more terrorism because they won't have the incentive. But, well, saying "I won't negotiate with the people on the other side of the political aisle because then I'll be forced to negotiate with them in the future" is ridiculous. Yes, you will (except on the rare occasions when you can muster control over the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the presidency), but there's nothing wrong with that. Negotiating with people who disagree with you is how you do your job as a legislator.

Note that Democrats could just as easily be spun as the hostage takers here; they're holding CHIP and the government hostage until they get what they want on DACA.




¹Except that the topic was not terrorists, but hostage takers. And people do pay ransoms to get kidnapping victims back.
   2010. Morty Causa Posted: January 21, 2018 at 04:34 PM (#5610463)
Garland singing "The Man That Got Away" in A Star is Born is one of the greatest things ever, for sure.

Garland at her best is truly wonderful. I'll just add wrt A Star is Born that a lot of credit is due to James Mason. It may be his best performance. (And Garland really pressured Cary Grant to take the role. Because they were friends, Grant even stooped to doing an audition with the director and another good friend George Cukor. Cukor's verdict: two things were apparent to Cukor after the reading: Grant would have been great and there was no way in hell he was going to do it.)
   2011. tshipman Posted: January 21, 2018 at 04:37 PM (#5610466)
I mean, I think your attempt to make the argument you’re making shows why the entire metaphor is misplaced; as you note, one doesn't negotiate with terrorists¹ because if you do it just means that you'll be forced to do it again in the future. Whereas if you don't, they won't commit more terrorism because they won't have the incentive. But, well, saying "I won't negotiate with the people on the other side of the political aisle because then I'll be forced to negotiate with them in the future" is ridiculous. Yes, you will (except on the rare occasions when you can muster control over the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the presidency), but there's nothing wrong with that. Negotiating with people who disagree with you is how you do your job as a legislator.


What breaks down in your analysis is that Republicans have in fact tied up DACA and CHIP with the budget three times now.

So Democrats have conceded, multiple times in fact, to what Republicans want.
   2012. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 21, 2018 at 04:45 PM (#5610470)
The GOP hasn't made a good faith effort to negotiate with Democrats since the 1980s or so. Why on earth would the Dems make one for them now?
   2013. greenback took the 110 until the 105 Posted: January 21, 2018 at 04:58 PM (#5610485)
As long as Stephen Miller is in charge of negotiating immigration we are going nowhere. He’s been an outlier for years.

Thus spake Senator Lindsey Graham.

The GOP hasn't made a good faith effort to negotiate with Democrats since the 1980s or so. Why on earth would the Dems make one for them now?

A more generous reading in this case is that Trump doesn't want to say "No" to the Dreamers, and Republicans are waiting for somebody to get on Fox & Friends and tell Trump that it's OK to ignore Stephen Miller as long as he gets his beautiful wall.
   2014. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 21, 2018 at 05:02 PM (#5610491)
A more generous reading in this case is that Trump doesn't want to say "No" to the Dreamers, and Republicans are waiting for somebody to get on Fox & Friends and tell Trump that it's OK to ignore Stephen Miller as long as he gets his beautiful wall.

That'd work only if that somebody on Fox & Friends made that comment within five minutes of a scheduled Senate vote, which would allow time for Trump to make a phone call to McConnell but not enough time for Miller or Sessions to counter it.
   2015. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 21, 2018 at 05:08 PM (#5610495)
You're still only reading half of what I wrote. I didn't say refusing to negotiate with hostage takers; I said refusing to negotiate for political gain.

You say "for political gain" like it is some sort of gotcha. They are politicians. Everything they do is "for political gain". The key is that that political gain, is something that transfers into actual policies, that Democrats supposedly think are important too, and are morally imperative too.

¹Except that the topic was not terrorists, but hostage takers. And people do pay ransoms to get kidnapping victims back.

Terrorists can and do take hostages. It used to be a very common tactic to try and achieve what they want. The reason it is far less common than it used to be, is because the government refused to negotiate and give them what they wanted. Individuals can negotiate for an individual hostage. But this is not that kind of a situation.

I mean, I think your attempt to make the argument you’re making shows why the entire metaphor is misplaced; as you note, one doesn't negotiate with terrorists¹ because if you do it just means that you'll be forced to do it again in the future. Whereas if you don't, they won't commit more terrorism because they won't have the incentive. But, well, saying "I won't negotiate with the people on the other side of the political aisle because then I'll be forced to negotiate with them in the future" is ridiculous. Yes, you will (except on the rare occasions when you can muster control over the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the presidency), but there's nothing wrong with that. Negotiating with people who disagree with you is how you do your job as a legislator.

Why do you think you will be forced to negotiate in the future? The Republicans just spent 8 years basically refusing to negotiate with the Democrats on anything. Why should the Dems not return the favor? When you are dealing with a bad faith actor, continuing to negotiate in good faith is a mug's game. Giving them concessions for things they claim to want anyway is absolutely insane. That is how you set them up to exploit you over and over and over.
   2016. greenback took the 110 until the 105 Posted: January 21, 2018 at 05:16 PM (#5610508)
That'd work only if that somebody on Fox & Friends made that comment within five minutes of a scheduled Senate vote, which would allow time for Trump to make a phone call to McConnell but not enough time for Miller or Sessions to counter it.

Maybe Ivanka would distract Miller while Sessions gets stuck in an elevator vandalized by an Obama holdover.

Actually I've read General Kelly is the driving force here, although I find these stories inherently suspicious. Regardless it would help if somebody on F&F explicitly stated that Kelly is the real power in the White House, because God knows Trump won't stand for that.
   2017. Shredder Posted: January 21, 2018 at 05:33 PM (#5610540)
You say "for political gain" like it is some sort of gotcha. They are politicians. Everything they do is "for political gain". The key is that that political gain, is something that transfers into actual policies, that Democrats supposedly think are important too, and are morally imperative too.
When get to be as cynical as David*, you lose the ability to believe that sometimes people have actual principles that become policies that they would like to see put into place even if the politician himself doesn't personally benefit. At that point, there is no decision a politician can possibly make that isn't done for cold political reasons. It can't possibly be true that Chuck Schumer really feels that Dreamers should be allowed to stay in the county. No, his only reason for pushing that policy is to gain politically somehow.

*Note that in the age of principled politicians like Bob "not a dime added the deficit" Corker changing his vote in light of the huge windfall he stood to receive under the new tax law, it's certainly understandable why people have become this cynical.
Why do you think you will be forced to negotiate in the future? The Republicans just spent 8 years basically refusing to negotiate with the Democrats on anything. Why should the Dems not return the favor? When you are dealing with a bad faith actor, continuing to negotiate in good faith is a mug's game. Giving them concessions for things they claim to want anyway is absolutely insane. That is how you set them up to exploit you over and over and over.
Keep in mind that the party currently telling everyone that the Dems are "holding CHIP hostage" for DACA are making the argument that DACA isn't a pressing issue right now, because DACA doesn't expire for most registrants until March, so we have a couple months to deal with it. Note as well that these are the very same people who said a couple of months ago that we could just deal with CHIP later because it wasn't really in danger of running out in the very near future. Certainly those are people who are really sincere in their negotiations.
   2018. tshipman Posted: January 21, 2018 at 05:36 PM (#5610545)
Why do you think you will be forced to negotiate in the future? The Republicans just spent 8 years basically refusing to negotiate with the Democrats on anything. Why should the Dems not return the favor? When you are dealing with a bad faith actor, continuing to negotiate in good faith is a mug's game. Giving them concessions for things they claim to want anyway is absolutely insane. That is how you set them up to exploit you over and over and over.


A key insight from game theory is that when you're playing the Ultimatum game, the correct move when playing against an intransigent partner is to just do ### for tat.
   2019. Stormy JE Posted: January 21, 2018 at 05:39 PM (#5610546)
FBI ‘Failed To Preserve’ Five Months Of Text Messages Between Anti-Trump FBI Agents:
The FBI “failed to preserve” five months worth of text messages exchanged between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, the two FBI employees who made pro-Clinton and anti-Trump comments while working on the Clinton email and the Russia collusion investigations.

The disclosure was made Friday in a letter sent by the Justice Department to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC).

“The Department wants to bring to your attention that the FBI’s technical system for retaining text messages sent and received on FBI mobile devices failed to preserve text messages for Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page,” Stephen Boyd, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs at the Justice Department, wrote to Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, the chairman of HSGAC.

He said that texts are missing for the period between Dec. 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017. ...

Johnson expressed concern over the missing text messages, which were sent during a key period of the Russia investigation. During that time frame is when the Steele dossier was published by BuzzFeed News, when Strzok participated in a Jan. 24 interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, and when James Comey was fired as FBI director.

The end date of the missing Strzok-Page texts is also significant. That’s because May 17 is the day when Mueller was appointed to take over the FBI’s probe of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government.

“The loss of records from this period is concerning,” Johnson wrote in a letter sent Saturday to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
Emphasis mine.

Deleted evidence in an investigation of this significance? I'm shocked, SHOCKED.

Lois Lerner to the courtesy phone...
   2020. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 21, 2018 at 05:39 PM (#5610547)
A more generous reading in this case is that Trump doesn't want to say "No" to the Dreamers, and Republicans are waiting for somebody to get on Fox & Friends and tell Trump that it's OK to ignore Stephen Miller as long as he gets his beautiful wall.


I see absolutely no reason to give Trump a "generous" reading on this issue of any issue at all. The single, solitary, only, last-remaining-standing, absolutely anything else but this one, (domestic) position Trump hasn't spun like a weather vane in a hurricane on is his support of base white nationalism. There's little reason to think this is Stephen Miller managing Trump's puppet strings rather than to assume that white nationalism is a core, fundamental belief of Donald Trump.

In FP, of course, the only issue Trump will never bend on is cockholstering Putin.
   2021. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 21, 2018 at 05:40 PM (#5610548)
Deleted evidence in an investigation of this significance? I'm shocked, SHOCKED.

Also, Lois Lerner to the courtesy phone...


They're controlling you through your teeth. You need to pull those things out with pliers, man.
   2022. Shredder Posted: January 21, 2018 at 05:49 PM (#5610556)
So can anyone pinpoint the moment when Jason became a full on conspiracy loon?
   2023. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: January 21, 2018 at 05:49 PM (#5610558)
Juan, fixed the page. !

edited
   2024. Stormy JE Posted: January 21, 2018 at 05:55 PM (#5610567)
So can anyone pinpoint the moment when Jason became a full on conspiracy loon?
There's still *zero* evidence of Trump collusion with Russia yet lefties here have spent more than a year claiming of course it happened. But yeah, keep rocking yourself to sleep at night muttering that I'm the "conspiracy loon." It's a great look.
   2025. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: January 21, 2018 at 05:56 PM (#5610569)
There's still *zero* evidence to date of Trump collusion with Russia yet lefties here have spent more than a year claiming of course it happened. But yeah, you keep rocking yourself to sleep at night muttering that I'm the "conspiracy loon." It's a great look.
ZERO EVIDENCE! ZERO EVIDENCE! GREAT LOOK! GREAT LOOK!
   2026. Stormy JE Posted: January 21, 2018 at 06:00 PM (#5610572)
Maybe one day the lefties here will read this and then acknowledge the previous administration might have deliberately and maliciously weaponized the federal government against political opponents -- and that it began long before Trump won his first primary.
   2027. Shredder Posted: January 21, 2018 at 06:02 PM (#5610575)
There's still *zero* evidence of Trump collusion with Russia yet lefties here have spent more than a year claiming of course it happened. But yeah, keep rocking yourself to sleep at night muttering that I'm the "conspiracy loon." It's a great look.
A better look than bringing up some stupid IRS "scandal" that has been debunked about a million times, but that doesn't stop you. And I'm not muttering that you're a conspiracy loon. I'm calling you a conspiracy loon on a forum in which you're a prolific, well, contributor isn't the right word, because that would imply that you contribute something.
   2028. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: January 21, 2018 at 06:03 PM (#5610576)
Maybe one day one of the lefties will read this
Topping the list was Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, the guy we caught spying on us.
   2029. Stormy JE Posted: January 21, 2018 at 06:16 PM (#5610589)
A better look than bringing up some stupid IRS "scandal" that has been debunked about a million times, but that doesn't stop you. And I'm not muttering that you're a conspiracy loon. I'm calling you a conspiracy loon on a forum in which you're a prolific, well, contributor isn't the right word, because that would imply that you contribute something.
The IRS apologized to conservative groups because it wasn't a scandal? Thanks, genius.

But keep crying "COLLUSION!!!" It's a great look.
   2030. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 21, 2018 at 06:29 PM (#5610597)
Can someone explain how keeping intelligence tabs on a nation that was clearly and willfully drifting deeper and deeper into Putin’s orbit is a gotcha about whatever the hell the voices in his head tell Jason Hillary and Obama did from their secret Kenyan compound?
   2031. Count Posted: January 21, 2018 at 06:37 PM (#5610600)
There's a ton of evidence of Trump - Russia collusion JE as you've acknowledged before. Strange you keep returning to this point.
   2032. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 21, 2018 at 07:08 PM (#5610610)

What breaks down in your analysis is that Republicans have in fact tied up DACA and CHIP with the budget three times now.
Except that it's Democrats trying to tie DACA to the budget now. The Republican position is "Let's do the budget now, and then we'll get to DACA," and Democrats have said "No."
   2033. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 21, 2018 at 07:09 PM (#5610611)

You say "for political gain" like it is some sort of gotcha. They are politicians. Everything they do is "for political gain". The key is that that political gain, is something that transfers into actual policies, that Democrats supposedly think are important too, and are morally imperative too.
Republicans doing it is bad; Democrats doing it is of course.
   2034. Shredder Posted: January 21, 2018 at 07:15 PM (#5610616)
Except that it's Democrats trying to tie DACA to the budget now. The Republican position is "Let's do the budget now, and then we'll get to DACA," and Democrats have said "No."
Probably because the Republicans kept saying "let's do 'X' now, then we'll get to CHIP" with no intention to actually ever get to CHIP until they could use it as a hostage. So Democrats are finally saying, "no, fv*k that 'later' sh!t, let's just do DACA now". But Republicans know if they do DACA now, they can't hold Dreamers hostage the next time CR deadline comes along. But sure, it's just the Democrats that are doing this for political reasons. C'mon, David, you're smarter than this.

If Republicans, as a party, are opposed to allowing Dreamers to legally stay in the country, they should just say so. Paul Ryan should step up and say "despite the fact that a DACA bill would pass the house with a large, bi-partisan majority, we Republicans control the floor, and as a group, we want them deported, so no deal."
   2035. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 21, 2018 at 07:25 PM (#5610620)
David. Why do you continue to ignore the GOP’s decades long tendency to lie outright about policy negotiations?
   2036. tshipman Posted: January 21, 2018 at 07:46 PM (#5610624)
Except that it's Democrats trying to tie DACA to the budget now. The Republican position is "Let's do the budget now, and then we'll get to DACA," and Democrats have said "No."


This isn't true. D's have agreed to fund CRs twice. Each time there was a promise for action on Immigration and CHIP. Each time, the Rs have backtracked on that.

Again, if this were September, your arguments would have merit.
   2037. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 21, 2018 at 07:46 PM (#5610625)
Except that it's Democrats trying to tie DACA to the budget now. The Republican position is "Let's do the budget now, and then we'll get to DACA," and Democrats have said "No."

The Republican position is "Let's do the budget now, where you give us everything we can get, and then we'll get to DACA and use it as a hostage to get more of what we want later."
   2038. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 21, 2018 at 07:52 PM (#5610630)
Shredder, #2022:
So can anyone pinpoint the moment when Jason became a full on conspiracy loon?


I assume the moment is MAY 17, the end date of the missing Strzok-Page texts... and also the exact day when Mueller was appointed to take over the FBI’s probe of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian government. The calendar date that the Daily Caller deems highly "significant" because obviously the #1 thing any special prosecutor would have done upon seizing control would have been to shout "Get me those Strzok-Page texts!!", which are patently the heart of the cover-up and the corruption and the Hillary. Take down Strzok-Page and the whole rotten edifice collapses. And it all occurred on May 17. Not May 17 and May 19, which would have gotten everyone off the hook, but the same day. Some people would call that an insignificant coincidence, but those people are part of the conspiracy... if not the conspiracy itself.

The missing emails were sent "during that time frame is when the Steele dossier was published by BuzzFeed News, when Strzok participated in a Jan. 24 interview with then-national security adviser Michael Flynn, and when James Comey was fired as FBI director." And the time frame doesn't merely cover those events, but also somewhere between 2 and 11 re-re-filings of Jared Kushner's financial disclosures, Chris Christie getting his political throat cut, and the time Trump said Meryl Streep was a sucky actress. Follow the muddy.

Seriously though, as we've already seen with the "rogue server," these emails will almost certainly be found elsewhere. Much to the chagrin of the people who insist that George Papadoupolis is an unrelated and insignificant nobody but Peter Strzok is the epicenter of villainy. If the FBI had known what the extent of the anti-FBI campaign was going to be in the past half-year, they surely would have been more diligent about the upkeep of these centrally important emails.

Love to hear more about how and why the May 17 date is "significant," other than Daily Caller editors now playing #17 in Powerball.
   2039. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: January 21, 2018 at 07:54 PM (#5610633)
Except that it's Democrats trying to tie DACA to the budget now. The Republican position is "Let's do the budget now, and then we'll get to DACA," and Democrats have said "No."
I think it's more along the lines of "Democrats said 'and you will commit to that?'" and the Republicans said "look, there's a wooly mammoth in the sky!"

It's preposterous to tie the budget to DACA, but the Ds have to do it because all alternatives are worse.

The Rs should have recognized this would be the case and taken effective action to prevent it. They failed to do that, either due to incompetence, overconfidence or laziness (likely a mix of all three). That's not the Ds fault, and the Ds have no reason to capitulate.
   2040. Stormy JE Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:05 PM (#5610643)
As Mike Doran points out:
Fortunately, nothing significant happened in this period, except for the great patriotic effort to enforce the Logan Act, the framing of Mike Flynn, and the launch of the Mueller probe under false pretenses.
During the US attorneys controversy of the Bush administration, Attorney General Gonzales revealed to the Senate Judiciary Committee that millions of e-mails that had been stored on a private server were lost. If you said boo about this development. never mind that that a POTUS enjoys nearly unlimited authority to dismiss federal attorneys, then you've got no leg to stand on when it comes to the whereabouts of the Strzok-Page text messages.

EDIT: Oh, and it's also not a particularly good look to dismiss the importance of any of Strzok's text messages, then in your next breath claim that, hey, Mueller demoted him as soon as he discovered something was seriously wrong.
   2041. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:05 PM (#5610644)
either due to incompetence, overconfidence or laziness (likely a mix of all three).


And "arrogance". Don't forget that.
   2042. Count Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:10 PM (#5610650)
Under what false pretenses was the Mueller investigation -which, remember, you say you support- launched?
   2043. Count Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:11 PM (#5610654)
The FBI agent was having an affair over a work phone which seems like terrible judgment that by itself warrants some reprimand. I'm fine with investigating the "insurance" text but would be really surprised if anything came of it.
   2044. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:14 PM (#5610656)
...the framing of Mike Flynn


Too bad Mike Doran wasn't a little quicker with his tweet; it would have saved Flynn a guilty plea.
   2045. Stormy JE Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:16 PM (#5610659)
Under what false pretenses was the Mueller investigation -which, remember, you say you support- launched?
Don't put words into my mouth.
   2046. Stormy JE Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:19 PM (#5610662)
Too bad Mike Doran wasn't a little quicker with his tweet; it would have saved Flynn a guilty plea.
Flynn is accused of lying to FBI agents, but the issue in question had involved no criminal activity.
   2047. Stormy JE Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:26 PM (#5610668)
Here's Chairman Ron Johnson's letter to FBI Director Wray.

But by all means, fellas, keep the "conspiracy loon" talk coming...

See ya tomorrow.
   2048. Stormy JE Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:34 PM (#5610677)
Before I go, I'm reminded that in Trump's first four months in office (20 Jan-20 May), we experienced approximately one executive branch leak per day, of which 78 were related to the Russia collusion probe -- and some were potentially harmful to national security. How many came from Strzok and Page?
   2049. tshipman Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:37 PM (#5610681)
But by all means, fellas, keep the "conspiracy loon" talk coming...


The fact that Republican politicians provide cover to conspiracy theorists for shameful reasons doesn't make those conspiracies more respectable.
   2050. Shredder Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:38 PM (#5610682)
Yeah, Jason hasn't at all turned into a complete conspiracy loon.
Flynn is accused of lying to FBI agents, but the issue in question had involved no criminal activity.
No, Mr. Reynolds Wrap, Flynn was not simply accused of it, he pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents. We don't what other criminal activities he wasn't charged with in exchange for that plea. But please, just remember to wear a thin ski cap or something under the tinfoil, because that stuff can really scratch.

Also, as an aside, I love how Jason links to tweets of fellow loons and just cites the name, as if anyone here is ever supposed to have heard of Mike Doran.
   2051. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:41 PM (#5610684)
Jason’s best buds relationship with the lion Breitbart is becoming clearer.
   2052. BDC Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:41 PM (#5610685)
despite the fact that a DACA bill would pass the house with a large, bi-partisan majority, we Republicans control the floor, and as a group, we want them deported, so no deal

QFT. The only thing I might amend is to change “we want them deported” to “we want them here, ignorant, scared, and working for sub-minimum wage.”
   2053. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:42 PM (#5610686)
Don't put words into my mouth.


Gotta keep that holster free and clear for future use ;)
   2054. Zonk, Bearer of Responsibility Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:42 PM (#5610687)
its JE's bedtime - well, he won't be asleep for a while, but it takes a couple hours to do a complete deep state check of the room before bed.
   2055. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 21, 2018 at 08:45 PM (#5610688)
It's preposterous to tie the budget to DACA, but the Ds have to do it because all alternatives are worse.
They don't have to do it; they want to do it, because they place a higher priority on DACA than on other things.
The Rs should have recognized this would be the case and taken effective action to prevent it. They failed to do that, either due to incompetence, overconfidence or laziness (likely a mix of all three). That's not the Ds fault, and the Ds have no reason to capitulate.
Look, you can argue that it's all politics and whoever has the leverage at a particular moment gets to control what happens. That's fine. I have no quarrel with that argument. I have a quarrel with the argument that it's awful when X does it, but when Y does it it's because Y had no choice in the matter. X is engaged in hostage taking or terrorism, while Y is just driving a hard bargain or standing up for itself or the like. Shutdowns are the height of irresponsibility if done in an effort to block Obamacare, but the height of statesmanship if done to protect illegal immigrants.
   2056. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:03 PM (#5610694)
Also, as an aside, I love how Jason links to tweets of fellow loons and just cites the name, as if anyone here is ever supposed to have heard of Mike Doran.

If he doesn't say it's coming from his favorite Gray Lady, you can assume it's coming from one right wing source or another, which for some strange reason he almost always fails to identify.

At one point in the distant past JE also called himself a "#NeverTrump", but here's a much more forthright assessment of Trump's first year from Tom Nichols, a #NeverTrump conservative who's a professor at the Naval War College:

Trump’s first year: A damage assessment
It is now a year into the Trump presidency, and, shutdown crisis aside, the business of government goes on more or less as usual. Most of the planet remains at peace, and the administration’s handful of accomplishments — including a tax bill, the rollback of some regulations and a conservative Supreme Court justice — are pretty standard fare for a Republican White House.

Were President Trump’s critics, then, overwrought in their predictions of doom? PJ Media’s Roger Simon has declared that Never Trumpers (like me) should apologize for their apostasy and get into the trenches to fight the advancing leftist hordes. New York Times columnist David Brooks, although still reluctant in his defense of Trump, suggests that were it not for the president’s bizarre tweets, “we’d see a White House that is briskly pursuing its goals.”

This is nonsense. Trump’s presidency has done daily damage not only to the Republican Party and the conservative movement but, more important, to our constitutional system of government. The president is eroding the unwritten norms that serve as the civic girders beneath our political and legal infrastructure. And his foreign policy, insofar as he has one, is diminishing our global standing and jeopardizing our security.

It is sometimes difficult, in the wind tunnel of noise created by Trump’s most hysterical critics, to distinguish what is merely appalling from what is genuinely dangerous. Not everything the administration has done is wrong or disastrous — it has even gotten a few things right, such as the strike last year against Syria. But it is clear that Trump has already left so much destruction in his wake that it may be hard to put the pieces together again after he’s gone.

The superficial appearance of normalcy in the rest of the government is not a sign of a robust democracy, but of confusion and a lack of direction. Because Trump does not have any kind of vision or even a basic set of policy preferences, and because he has no tolerance for the boring details of governing (including staffing important political appointments), the bureaucracy has remained mostly on auto­pilot in the past year. This situation will not last, and it should be no consolation to realize that potentially awful outcomes have been averted not by statecraft and prudent administration, but by inertia and incompetence.....

The consequent damage Trump is doing to the Republican Party should worry liberals as well as conservatives. The point of political parties is to aggregate interests and soften the edges of the extremes in order to find common cause to make policy. Without viable parties, alienated and discouraged citizens withdraw from politics, and only the most motivated and aggrieved voters show up for the primaries and conventions. This is already happening in the GOP. Whatever principled origins there were to the tea party movement, for example, it fell prey to the most angry and extreme elements within it, resulting in the emergence of some truly repellent congressional candidates (think Indiana’s Richard Mourdock, who said, “even when life begins in the horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen”) and later contributing to the rise of Trump.

Democrats should not celebrate these trends: If the GOP ceases to be a sensible opposition party, if it can no longer provide the constraining influence of a governing alternative, the Democratic Party will be overtaken by extremists as well. And if both parties become captured by their fringes, America will hurl itself between far right and far left, like a dysfunctional parliament instead of a system of divided powers that has been a model of stability for nearly 2 1 / 2 centuries. A boat can be tossed from side to side only so many times before it is swamped.

Even more troubling than the effect on any one party, however, is the damage Trump is doing to our civic life. Here, I do not mean the president’s constant vulgarity, although it is shocking how accustomed we have allowed ourselves to become to behavior that would have appalled any decent American even a decade or so ago. No, the more significant concern is that Trump has convinced millions of Americans that governing the United States is not a serious business that needs to be undertaken by serious men and women.

Every president, whatever his virtues, has had his terrible flaws: from Nixon’s brooding darkness to Carter’s dour naivete, from Reagan’s sunny cluelessness to Obama’s lightweight self-regard, from Bush 41’s disconnected privilege to his son’s smirky frat-boy mien. But all of them understood the gravity of the job, and in turn, they made us feel it, too. We made fun of them, we criticized them, we immortalized them as “Saturday Night Live” caricatures. But they were presidents, and we knew the burden that rested on their shoulders, including responsibility for the safety of not just Americans but billions of other human lives.

Trump, however, has turned the presidency into a spectacle. Important matters of public policy disappear the moment he drops a curse word at a meeting, like a naughty child at a birthday party, or gets ahold of a cellphone and tweets something outrageous, like a vandal on the loose with a can of spray paint.

Some of Trump’s supporters defend these reduced expectations of the Oval Office as a welcome diminution of the imperial presidency. And yet Trump is the most imperial president in modern history, at least if measured by his status as a celebrity or a god-emperor among his supporters. To his base, Trump is a conquering hero “triggering the libs,” a middle finger to the globalists and the intellectuals, a source of anxiety to those effete Europeans who cheered Barack Obama in Berlin....

Journalist Salena Zito’s formula for Trump — that his opponents take him literally but not seriously, and that his supporters take him seriously but not literally — may have been true during the campaign, but a year later, there is no evidence that anyone, at home or abroad, takes Trump seriously.

And yet, this is a paradox: If Trump is so unserious, so inconsequential, how can his damage be so lasting?

The answer is simple. Wrecking things is easier than repairing them. Spending capital is easier than accumulating it. Chaos is easy; order is hard. It takes architects years to learn how to build a house, while ignorant scavengers can strip it bare and destroy it in hours.

Trump has deprived the presidency of its majesty, its gravity and its ability to inspire. In doing so, he has distilled the role of executive power to its elemental minimum as an almost purely destructive force. When Trump talks policy, he is ignored. But he is still the most powerful man in the world, so there is no avoiding him when he seems bent on creating havoc....

Perhaps most dispiriting, Trump has shattered the notion, at home and abroad, that no matter how partisan our politics, no matter how crazy our elections, every two to four years the result is a group of relatively stable adults who know what they’re doing.

All of this means the next president will have to rebuild the office almost from the ground up. Americans will have to learn once again to take the presidency seriously. Congress will have to return to the assumption that the president understands — and cares about — policy. International alliances will have to be healed. Foreign enemies will have to be reminded that the word of the commander in chief matters. An entire branch of government will have to be reestablished at home and abroad.

Will Americans and their next president be up to the task? Three more years of this, and any such restoration of the republic may be out of reach.
   2057. McCoy Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:04 PM (#5610695)
Well, if Wolff is to be believed it was Trump's inner circle doing the leaking.
   2058. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:10 PM (#5610698)
the launch of the Mueller probe under false pretenses.

President Donald Trump, the intellectual leader of the conservative movement, fired the Director of the FBI because the latter was investigating the former’s connections to another country; a country who, according to the intelligence community of the greatest nation on the planet, led an influence campaign targeted at the U.S. presidential election. The Mueller probe was then initiated by the President’s own party. This leads to one question...

how do you sleep at night?
   2059. Shredder Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:20 PM (#5610700)
Of course, all of this talk about what "the Dems" are doing completely ignores the fact that the Republicans can't even get to 50 on their own. Schumer only released a few Dems because they didn't matter, but this bill can't pass regardless of what the Dems do at the moment.
   2060. Shredder Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:22 PM (#5610701)
If he doesn't say it's coming from his favorite Gray Lady, you can assume it's coming from one right wing source or another, which for some strange reason he almost always fails to identify.
His also the first to immediately dismiss a source based on his perception of the site's bias. He may have come to his conspiracy theory lunacy more recently, but he's long been this thread's largest hypocrite.
   2061. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:28 PM (#5610702)
Of course, all of this talk about what "the Dems" are doing completely ignores the fact that the Republicans can't even get to 50 on their own. Schumer only released a few Dems because they didn't matter, but this bill can't pass regardless of what the Dems do at the moment.


SCHUMER SHUTDOWN. See any wiggle room in those two words? No? That's because there isn't any!
   2062. zenbitz Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:36 PM (#5610707)
Except that it's Democrats trying to tie DACA to the budget now. The Republican position is "Let's do the budget now, and then we'll get to DACA," and Democrats have said "No."


Be that as it may, the Democrats get zero responsibility for a government shutdown. Congress can pass a CR with 50% whenever it wants. Or am I missing some nuance of parliamentary procedure?
   2063. Srul Itza At Home Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:40 PM (#5610709)
There's little reason to think this is Stephen Miller managing Trump's puppet strings rather than to assume that white nationalism is a core, fundamental belief of Donald Trump.


The problem with this analysis is that it assumes that Donald Trump has any core, fundamental belief, beyond "Me Me Me"
   2064. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:40 PM (#5610710)
Also, as an aside, I love how Jason links to tweets of fellow loons and just cites the name, as if anyone here is ever supposed to have heard of Mike Doran.

If he doesn't say it's coming from his favorite Gray Lady, you can assume it's coming from one right wing source or another, which for some strange reason he almost always fails to identify.

His also the first to immediately dismiss a source based on his perception of the site's bias.


That's not the first time I've planted a lead-in line for some observant person to pick up and run with. Nice catch.

He may have come to his conspiracy theory lunacy more recently, but he's long been this thread's largest hypocrite.

Nah, he's just a standard issue Republican, Anno Domini 2018. The only reason I keep singling him out is that I think he's capable of being something better. I just hope he jumps ship before his reputation among non-crazies isn't in complete tatters.
   2065. Shredder Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:42 PM (#5610711)
Be that as it may, the Democrats get zero responsibility for a government shutdown. Congress can pass a CR with 50% whenever it wants. Or am I missing some nuance of parliamentary procedure?
They need 60 votes to get past cloture, ever since the Republicans destroyed democratic norms in the Senate and basically made every bill subject to filibuster rules. This would require the buy in of at least 9 dems, or 10 until McCain gets back. But as of now, they have only 46 Republican votes, so basically Republicans are responsible for shutting down the government. They could have made this subject to reconciliation, which would have required 50+1 votes (assuming Pence breaks the tie), but they already wasted that on failing to repeal Obamacare, and passing their tax bill.
   2066. zenbitz Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:44 PM (#5610712)
The Republican position is "Let's do the budget now, and then we'll get to DACA,"


Take the particulars out of this. Swap Republicans with Democrats or any other party in power in any other state - and DACA with any other law or concession. No opposition party would ever agree to these terms. Not for any law they actually cared about.
   2067. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:54 PM (#5610715)
Of course, all of this talk about what "the Dems" are doing completely ignores the fact that the Republicans can't even get to 50 on their own. Schumer only released a few Dems because they didn't matter, but this bill can't pass regardless of what the Dems do at the moment.

That's complete nonsense. Senate Democrats wouldn't be filibustering if they had the votes, they'd pass their own funding bill. If Senate Democrats end their filibuster, the House bill would pass.
   2068. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2018 at 09:57 PM (#5610717)
Be that as it may, the Democrats get zero responsibility for a government shutdown. Congress can pass a CR with 50% whenever it wants. Or am I missing some nuance of parliamentary procedure?

Senate Democrats are the ones filibustering. Strange that people keep missing that.
   2069. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:00 PM (#5610719)
They're only following the time-honored historical traditions of the U.S. Senate.
   2070. tshipman Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:05 PM (#5610721)
Senate Democrats are the ones filibustering.


Them and 5 Republicans.
   2071. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:17 PM (#5610722)
Senate Democrats are the ones filibustering.

Them and 5 Republicans.

More accurately, 4 Republican Senators voted against cloture, with Senator McConnell also casting a tactical "No" vote, which will allow him the option to move for reconsideration if the circumstances warrant. Five Democrats also crossed over to vote with the GOP majority.
   2072. zenbitz Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:18 PM (#5610723)
They need 60 votes to get past cloture, ever since the Republicans destroyed democratic norms in the Senate and basically made every bill subject to filibuster rules.


How did they pass tax reform then? I thought they could pass anything with 51 votes under reconciliation?

Oooh I think I figured it out from Wikipedia:

Reconciliation bills can be passed on spending, revenues, and the federal debt limit[4] once a year per topic unless Congress passes a revised budget resolution for that fiscal year (under section 304 of the Congressional Budget Act).[5] As an example, if a budget resolution's reconciliation instructions affect both spending and revenues, no further reconciliation legislation can occur on these topics in the same fiscal year without a revised budget resolution.[5]


They already reconciled this year.
   2073. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:23 PM (#5610725)
Except that it's Democrats trying to tie DACA to the budget now. The Republican position is "Let's do the budget now, and then we'll get to DACA," and Democrats have said "No."


That's because they agreed to that in December and then McConnell and Ryan refused to hold a vote on the DACA bill. The Graham-Durbin bill is ready and has been ready for several days now.

I believe what it comes down to at this point is that leaders in both parties believe that the public will direct more anger at the other party over the shutdown. Once one of the parties sees polling showing that they're the ones hurting, they'll make a deal.
   2074. tshipman Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:28 PM (#5610726)
I believe what it comes down to at this point is that leaders in both parties believe that the public will direct more anger at the other party over the shutdown. Once one of the parties sees polling showing that they're the ones hurting, they'll make a deal.


I think that there genuinely is a lot of confusion added from Trump.

Trump keeps scrambling the balance. First he says he'll sign something, then he calls back and demands more/something different.
   2075. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:36 PM (#5610727)
More accurately, 4 Republican Senators voted against cloture, with Senator McConnell also casting a tactical "No" vote, which will allow him the option to move for reconsideration if the circumstances warrant. Five Democrats also crossed over to vote with the GOP majority.


Why is the default assumption that the R no votes were tactical but the D yes votes were genuine?
   2076. Shredder Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:38 PM (#5610729)
Why is the default assumption that the R no votes were tactical but the D yes votes were genuine?
That's only the default assumption if you're a total hack like Clapper. Though I admit, I kinda like slimy little weasel a little better.
   2077. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:41 PM (#5610730)
Because he’s Clapper. He’s a hack troll.
   2078. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:54 PM (#5610732)
Why is the default assumption that the R no votes were tactical but the D yes votes were genuine?
Uh, that's not what he said. McConnell's vote was tactical, not the other four Republicans.
   2079. greenback took the 110 until the 105 Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:58 PM (#5610733)
Maybe one day the lefties here will read this and then acknowledge the previous administration might have deliberately and maliciously weaponized the federal government against political opponents -- and that it began long before Trump won his first primary.


Nobody seems to have responded directly to this. It's a worthwhile read, but it doesn't say anything close to Obama "weaponized the federal government against political opponents." The TL/DR of the article is this quote:

The message to the NSA from the White House amounted to: “You decide” what to deliver, a former intelligence official said.


That's the exact opposite of weaponization. That's letting the experts do their jobs and apply their expertise when making an decision. A slightly longer version of the same theme:

Administration and intelligence officials said the White House didn’t ask the NSA to identify any lawmakers during this period.

“From what I can tell, we haven’t had a problem with how incidental collection has been handled concerning lawmakers,” said Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat and the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. He declined to comment on any specific communications between lawmakers and Israel.

The NSA reports allowed administration officials to peer inside Israeli efforts to turn Congress against the deal. Mr. Dermer was described as coaching unnamed U.S. organizations—which officials could tell from the context were Jewish-American groups—on lines of argument to use with lawmakers, and Israeli officials were reported pressing lawmakers to oppose the deal.

“These allegations are total nonsense,” said a spokesman for the Embassy of Israel in Washington.


In the article nobody disputes Representative Schiff's statement. If you want to argue that the reporter screwed up, and missed that part, then why did you send me to this article in the first place? And there's a more important subtext here, which needs to be addressed: When a foreign power is making aggressive attempts to influence US foreign policy, then shouldn't the intelligence agencies monitor the activities of that foreign power? The counter-argument, I guess, would be that Israel is considered an ally, but again the article has an explicit statement from Mike Rogers, former Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, that “Intelligence professionals have a saying: There are no friendly intelligence services."

By linking to this article, either you've very cleverly disguised yourself as someone supporting the prior administration's approach to surveillance of Israel or you're a weirdly incompetent partisan hack.
   2080. Joyful Calculus Instructor Posted: January 21, 2018 at 10:59 PM (#5610734)
Trump keeps scrambling the balance. First he says he'll sign something, then he calls back and demands more/something different.


Did Schumer ever say that the DACA bill being signed is a requirement for funding the government? It seems so simple to just vote on the Graham-Durbin bill, which would pass easily, then fund the government. If Trump then signs the bill to fund the government but vetos Graham-Durbin, so be it. McConnell and Ryan can only guarantee a vote, not a signature.
   2081. The Yankee Clapper Posted: January 21, 2018 at 11:02 PM (#5610735)
More accurately, 4 Republican Senators voted against cloture, with Senator McConnell also casting a tactical "No" vote, which will allow him the option to move for reconsideration if the circumstances warrant. Five Democrats also crossed over to vote with the GOP majority.

Why is the default assumption that the R no votes were tactical but the D yes votes were genuine?

McConnell's vote was tactical. If you vote with the side that prevails, you can later move to reconsider. Majority Leaders of both parties often do that type of tactical vote when their party is on the short end of a vote.

Apparently, this concept is beyond the ability of either Shredder (#2076) or Sam (#2077) to comprehend. Nice going guys, once again displaying your ignorance.
   2082. tshipman Posted: January 21, 2018 at 11:05 PM (#5610736)
Did Schumer ever say that the DACA bill being signed is a requirement for funding the government? It seems so simple to just vote on the Graham-Durbin bill, which would pass easily, then fund the government. If Trump then signs the bill to fund the government but vetos Graham-Durbin, so be it. McConnell and Ryan can only guarantee a vote, not a signature.


I think what is being discussed is basically a vote on Graham-Durbin in the House. The concern is that Rs will offer a vote in the Senate, but refuse to let the bill hit the House.

No one really knows what Trump will do, but he'll definitely own DACA if he vetoes a bipartisan bill.
   2083. Hot Wheeling American, MS-13 Enthusiast Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:00 AM (#5610743)
Trump keeps scrambling the balance. First he says he'll sign something, then he calls back and demands more/something different.

The art of the deal!
   2084. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:01 AM (#5610744)
Who thinks that those five Democratic 'yes' votes for a doomed bill were NOT tactical votes? Let's see some hands.
   2085. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 22, 2018 at 12:53 AM (#5610748)
Who thinks that those five Democratic 'yes' votes for a doomed bill were NOT tactical votes? Let's see some hands.

Some of the Democrat no votes could have been tactical as well. That is, they'd rather not go to the mat on DACA but bowed to the political wishes of the party. Because the primary objective is to embarrass DJT and the GOP Congress ahead of the 2018 midterms.
   2086. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 22, 2018 at 01:34 AM (#5610752)
Yeah, that too. And the same goes for the GOP no votes. Like John McCain's narrow history of mavericking, Rand Paul doesn't always get to Rand Paul when it counts.

This wasn't a bill that was one critical vote away. This is something that was never coming within 8 votes of passage, maybe more. Lots of elbow room for strategizing and shenanigans.
   2087. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 03:33 AM (#5610753)

Who thinks that those five Democratic 'yes' votes for a doomed bill were NOT tactical votes? Let's see some hands.
I don't understand what the tactic you're suggesting is. They actually opposed the bill, but voted for it anyway in order to...?
   2088. Greg K Posted: January 22, 2018 at 07:32 AM (#5610760)
McConnell's vote was tactical. If you vote with the side that prevails, you can later move to reconsider. Majority Leaders of both parties often do that type of tactical vote when their party is on the short end of a vote.

This type of procedure actually comes up in John Adamson's radical re-assessment of the 1641 impeachment of the earl of Strafford that he published a few years ago. It's always been assumed that John Pym was part of a blood-thirsty, radical religious movement out to get Strafford, but Adamson argues that he was the leading edge of a moderate faction that was trying to save Strafford in exchange for concessions from Charles.

Counter-intuitively, Pym voted to switch from proceeding by trial to attainder statute in order to undermine that switch. If he opposed then he wouldn't be able to sit on the committee that dealt with the amendments to the bill that the Lords would come back with. And also, by voting yes, he was able to secure the job of taking the bill to the Lords and explaining it to them. At one point the Lords asked him if this meant that Commons intended to abandon the trial, (which was absolutely the point of the bill, and the issue they had debated for hours) to which Pym mumbled and incoherent answer that left the Lords with the impression that the trial was still on. When the delegation got back to the Commons Pym got chewed out for not being able to answer a pretty straight forward question. He sheepishly responded by saying he had forgotten whether the trial was to be abandoned or not. Which was about as believable as a member of the Senate today forgetting what DACA is.
   2089. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 22, 2018 at 07:49 AM (#5610762)
A propos of nothing and everything, I've been re-reading a fair amount of A.J. Liebling, and in his collection of journalistic criticism called The Press, which is included in the LOA edition devoted to his domestic writing, he described the long gone left wing tabloid PM in a way that should resonate with my fellow Democrats who saw what happened in the swing states in 2016. I once bought a long run of PM in my book shop, and Liebling not only captures that paper's dilemma perfectly, he also captures the mentality of the BernieBots among us:

....Also, [PM] had gathered about a hundred thousand readers, who loved it exactly as it was. One hundred thousand is an awkward number, because it was half of what PM needed to pay its way. It was too many to throw away but not enough to make the paper go. PM couldn't get the second hundred thousand unless it changed; it couldn't change without losing a substantial number of the first hundred thousand. Once, in a gesture toward popular appeal, the sports department picked an all-scholastic Greater New York football team. The paper received a flock of letters from old readers reproaching it for exalting brutality and asking it why it didn't pick an all-scholastic scholastic team....

   2090. McCoy Posted: January 22, 2018 at 07:58 AM (#5610764)
In order to appease their red state. Duh.
   2091. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 22, 2018 at 08:44 AM (#5610769)
I submitted a new thread for the week. Watch for it.
   2092. tshipman Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:07 AM (#5610773)
I don't understand what the tactic you're suggesting is. They actually opposed the bill, but voted for it anyway in order to...?


So that this fall there isn't an ad cut that has a voiceover about how Heidi Heitkamp cares more about illegal immigrants than children's health.

That ad would be misleading and wrong, but politicians hate getting them cut against them.

Edit: You can tell when senators vote tactically because they don't announce their position in advance.
   2093. -- Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:15 AM (#5610776)
Five months of "missing" texts, ending right about the day one of the primary texters went to work for Mueller.(*)

A mere speedbump for the TDS brigade.

LOL, emoji, LOL.

(*) Earth to TDS brigade: There is literally zero chance that these texts went missing by some kind of accidental technical glitch. Still time to come in from the cold.
   2094. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:20 AM (#5610778)
So that this fall there isn't an ad cut that has a voiceover about how Heidi Heitkamp cares more about illegal immigrants than children's health.


Ray, of course, will still trumpet such here, every few months. Without mentioning Heidi Heitkamp, because he doesn't know her name and doesn't care.
   2095. Lassus Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:22 AM (#5610779)
Still time to come in from the cold.

You, on the other hand....
   2096. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:22 AM (#5610780)
In order to appease their red state. Duh.
...and...
So that this fall there isn't an ad cut that has a voiceover about how Heidi Heitkamp cares more about illegal immigrants than children's health.
Ah. I see the confusion, and see why people reacted negatively to the original claim -- but it's based on miscommunication. Voting based on what one's constituents want rather than one's personal views might be described as voting tactically (although it might be more commonly described as "being an elected legislator"), but it wasn't the way YC was using the term. He was talking about something different: voting a certain way because of parliamentary rules.

The other GOPers who voted against the bill did so either because they didn’t like it or because they thought their constituents wanted them to; McConnell did so purely to enable him to try to pass the bill later. Specifically, the majority leader can't move for reconsideration of a failed bill unless he was on the side that voted against the bill. For that reason, it's very common for the majority leader to vote against a bill he supports, so he can bring it up again. Harry Reid did it all the time, and McConnell does it. (This is not a criticism of either of them; it's a normal application of the rules.) If there were only going to be a single vote and the bill would never come up again, McConnell would've voted for it.
   2097. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:23 AM (#5610781)
Congratulations Jason. You’ve become SBB unhinged. I assume you two exchange tips on how to communicate with the Thetans via sewer rats.
   2098. Zonk, Bearer of Responsibility Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:27 AM (#5610784)
LOL, emoji, LOL.


Just out of the curiosity, what emoji?

It's not the pile of poop one, is it? Because some people think that one is racist.
   2099. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:29 AM (#5610785)
Fake lawyer is also fake IT consultant. Film at 11.
   2100. tshipman Posted: January 22, 2018 at 09:40 AM (#5610792)
Ah. I see the confusion, and see why people reacted negatively to the original claim -- but it's based on miscommunication. Voting based on what one's constituents want rather than one's personal views might be described as voting tactically (although it might be more commonly described as "being an elected legislator"), but it wasn't the way YC was using the term. He was talking about something different: voting a certain way because of parliamentary rules.

The other GOPers who voted against the bill did so either because they didn’t like it or because they thought their constituents wanted them to; McConnell did so purely to enable him to try to pass the bill later. Specifically, the majority leader can't move for reconsideration of a failed bill unless he was on the side that voted against the bill. For that reason, it's very common for the majority leader to vote against a bill he supports, so he can bring it up again. Harry Reid did it all the time, and McConnell does it. (This is not a criticism of either of them; it's a normal application of the rules.) If there were only going to be a single vote and the bill would never come up again, McConnell would've voted for it.


I kind of disagree, David.

Joe Donnelly or Heidi Heitkamp or whoever aren't voting their conscience or their district. They're really voting their uncertainty. They don't KNOW what the shutdown will poll, or whether their constituents would or would not like them to vote. So, without knowing, and given that Schumer has released them because their vote isn't needed to sustain any procedure, they're able to vote a broad heuristic: voters like bipartisanship and feeling like their senator is independent.

You build up that impression over time, not on one vote.
Page 21 of 22 pages ‹ First  < 19 20 21 22 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dock Ellis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP 2018 May 21: President takes British royalty to a baseball game, May 15, 1991
(134 - 2:56pm, May 21)
Last: Zonk, Bearer of Responsibility

NewsblogPosnanski: Modern Romonce
(21 - 2:56pm, May 21)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

Gonfalon CubsPadding
(5 - 2:54pm, May 21)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogJordan Hicks, Vladimir Guerrero Jr. among the MLB's youth surge
(23 - 2:50pm, May 21)
Last: Panik on the streets of London (Trout! Trout!)

NewsblogOT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition)
(4595 - 2:48pm, May 21)
Last: PASTE, Now with Extra Pitch and Extra Stamina

NewsblogDan Duquette, Orioles Understand Trading Manny Machado Seems Inevitable
(53 - 2:47pm, May 21)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogWhitey Herzog Offered Hernandez to the Mets in 1980, 2+ Years Before Trade
(1 - 2:33pm, May 21)
Last: The usual palaver and twaddle (Met Fan Charlie)

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April - June 2018)
(2074 - 2:30pm, May 21)
Last: Swoboda is freedom

NewsblogOT: Winter Soccer Thread
(2014 - 2:19pm, May 21)
Last: Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt!

NewsblogCardinals' Jordan Hicks throws MLB's fastest pitch of the year, clocking 105 mph twice
(5 - 1:48pm, May 21)
Last: What did Billy Ripken have against ElRoy Face?

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2234 - 1:44pm, May 21)
Last: aberg

NewsblogVHS via Leitch: Phillie broadcast commenting on impending rain delay
(9 - 1:25pm, May 21)
Last: Jess Franco

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-21-2018
(4 - 12:08pm, May 21)
Last: Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant

NewsblogBBTF ANNUAL CENTRAL PARK SOFTBALL GAME 2018
(81 - 12:06pm, May 21)
Last: Lassus

NewsblogOTP 2018 May 14: Political leadership, fans needed to bring baseball to Portland: Guest opinion
(1370 - 10:16am, May 21)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

Page rendered in 0.6806 seconds
47 querie(s) executed