Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Unrelated to anything, but look at the socks George W. Bush wore to his wife's funeral.
It's really adorable, and a nice way to remember her.
edited 21st Apr '18 5:54:10 PM by megaeliz
One thing to be done is that internet should be considered a utility, which I'm pretty sure hasn't changed since the last time I read about it. Like, we use it every day to communicate the same way landlines are used. And hell, we even use it on our phones now!
So yeah, it does in fact have the same use to us as health insurance, consider that we use phones and computers to do things like pay for our health insurance, make sure our employers can contact us, that we can get in contact with our employers or potential employers, that a lot people use to conduct their business through setting up webstores and various other things now that make the internet their place of business.
So yeah, De Marquis, the internet pretty much is just as financially valuable to us as health insurance. I'm not sure why you wouldn't think that it is, since so much of our lives are now conducted through internet services.
![]()
Well, I imagine the lawsuits will be able to hold it back for a little bit at least.
This this got buried on the last page, and it's really cute, look at the socks GWB wore to his wife's funeral today.
edited 21st Apr '18 6:04:29 PM by megaeliz
Double post but new topic.
Senate panel will vote on bill to protect Mueller despite McConnell's opposition [1]
"Some have raised the question of why the committee plans on proceeding with the markup despite the fact that the majority leader has indicated that he will not take this bill up on the floor," said Grassley, R-Iowa., at a committee meeting. "The views of the majority leader are obviously important to consider, but they do not govern what happens here on the Judiciary Committee."
Mc Connell said Tuesday on Fox News that he would not bring the bipartisan bill to the Senate floor for a vote, even if it is approved by the Judiciary Committee. The committee is scheduled to vote next Thursday, after debating amendments.
"We'll not be having this on the floor of the Senate," Mc Connell, R-Ky., said during an interview on Fox News.
Grassley said he promised the bill's main sponsors — Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham and Thom Tillis and Democrats Chris Coons and Cory Booker — that he would schedule a committee vote if they worked together to merge two bills to protect Mueller into one.
The senators have done that, introducing the Special Counsel Independence and Integrity Act last week. The bill says that Mueller or any future special counsel can only be fired "for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest, or other good cause." A special counsel who is fired could appeal to the courts to be reinstated.
"Where there are issues of national importance, such as the appointment of special counsels and the investigation of a sitting president, Congress must consider its constitutional role and act to make sure that it can avail itself of its traditional checks against the executive branch," Grassley said...
President Trump has repeatedly referred to the investigation as a "witch hunt" and insists that there was no collusion between his campaign and the Russians. On Wednesday night, Trump wouldn't say whether he would ever fire Mueller or Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general overseeing the probe.
"They've been saying I'm going to get rid of them for the last three months, four months, five months, and they’re still here," Trump said at a news conference. "So we want to get the investigation over with, done with. Put it behind us."
However, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said she believes "that the possibility that he (Mueller) may be fired is very real."
"His authority must not be undermined in any way, shape or form," she said at Thursday's meeting. "I urge my colleagues to pass (the bill) immediately."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee's senior Democrat, said she hopes Mc Connell will drop his opposition to the bill.
"I support this legislation and hope Leader Mc Connell will reconsider giving it floor time," she said.
Tillis, R-N.C., said it's up to him and the other senators on the committee to rally support for the legislation.
"The reality is it's on us to get the votes to get it passed," Tillis said. He said he doesn't think Trump will fire Mueller but he "can't say the same for future presidents."
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., noted that Grassley has said publicly that "it would be suicidal" for Trump to fire Mueller. Members of Congress from both parties have warned that it would spark a constitutional crisis.
"We have to remember that this is about the rule of law, no matter who the president is," she said. "We cannot allow anyone to obstruct justice."
Grassley is offering an amendment to the bipartisan bill that would require the Department of Justice to report to Congress when it makes any major decisions about the special counsel, including firing him or her. The chairman said he would provide the exact language of his amendment to committee members by the end of Thursday.
Grassley said he is upset by speculation that his amendment is some kind of "conspiracy to ruin the bill."
"I don't even know how to conspire," he declared, prompting laughter from committee members.
It doesn't change anything, but by doing the right thing, he's putting the blame squarely on Mc Connell's shoulders, and shows that the GOP may be starting to break ranks a bit.
edited 21st Apr '18 7:11:40 PM by megaeliz
![]()
![]()
On top of that, certain states either made NN a statewide thing (see: California) or in the process to doing it. The IS Ps are lobbying to undermine it, but I'm a little optimistic that their attempt will fail (especially with the aformentioned lawsuits).
Of course, that still leaves out European IS Ps and local IS Ps in starts where Net Neutrality is dead...
edited 21st Apr '18 7:27:27 PM by MorningStar1337
![]()
![]()
Europe isn't effected by this, it's specifically a US repeal, other countries have their own net neutrality laws. Most European countries aren't dumb enough to do this, don't have the monopoly issue with their IS Ps the US does, and the EU gives net neutrality to it's members.
They were the second to do it after Montana, in fact.
edited 21st Apr '18 7:49:06 PM by Wariolander
A few pages back, megaeliz's quoting of Trump tweets:
"Pakistani mystery man"? What fresh (or stale) conspiracy theory is this?
More proof he intends to fire Rosenstein (this time for having established the Special Counsel on false premises), then Mueller. Which makes what the Senate is doing right now even more imperative.
ROTFL! I'd thought I'd gotten used to his bald-faced lies, but that really takes the cake. Since when is Maggie Haberman, who's had it in for the Clintons for years as part of her/the Times' desperation to appear "balanced" and appealing to "both sides", a "Crooked H flunkie"?
Re: Grassley: As funny as his comment is that he doesn't know how to conspire (and I admit I did genuinely laugh), we're talking about the guy who recommended Christopher Steele be investigated. If he doesn't know how to conspire, he's certainly good at supporting the agendas of those who do and are.
That said, I am frankly astounded he's doing and saying what he is. I mean even if there is no way to force the vote without McConnell's approval (is there?), he's still going through with the committee voting. Is that because he knows there's no way it'll ever make it the floor, so this is just more going through the motions to make it seem Republicans still care about rule of law? Or does he think giving the appearance this will go through will be enough to make Trump back off of Rosenstein and Mueller? Is this connected to Sessions saying he'd quit if Rosenstein is fired (i.e. Grassley is supporting Sessions, or thinks him saying that means he needs to get more serious about the bill)?
And all of this notwithstanding, and even if nothing happens, there's the fact he was willing to say that about what McConnell said not mattering in what the committee is doing. Is this sort of talk toward the Majority Leader usual for Grassley? I'd assume not. Is this just a way to show the Senate no longer approves of McConnell as Majority Leader, or does it speak to that larger GOP split megaeliz mentioned above?
edited 21st Apr '18 7:58:40 PM by Ingonyama
So, not only do both Kennedy and Romney now have to spend time and resources into this Primary, but Utah Republicans could easily pick Kennedy (who is a Far-Right Politician) over Romney (who is only a Right-Wing Politician), which could make Utah more competitive then just having Romney run immediately.
Didn't hear about that one, huh?
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |
Not really... Civil suits can be brought up for criminal actions which actually happened with O.J. Simpson where he had both a criminal suit for murder that he won and a civil suit for wrongful death that he lost. In addition, a lawsuit like this has precedent as the Democrats actually filed a civil suit against the Nixon Campaign for Watergate which ended in a settlement after Nixon was impeached.
The DNC is pushing low-polling Dems to exit races before the midterms, in hopes of uniting voters behind a single candidate, and push Republicans out of California races. Full article text
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw....*reads up on the Mann Act* Well this is a textbook case of abusing a law as 'necessary'.
And the fact that Jack Johnson got arrested thrice under it and convicted while Charles Fucking Manson got his charges dropped (granted, 50 years in between but still) is really a thing that should anyone just consider scrapping and replacing it with a new and better written version.
"You can reply to this Message!"It staggers me that she thinks that's really going to help if it causes enough vote splitting to get the Republicans a seat.
Or that being a doctor is relevant. Unless it's trying to justify an absurd ego in an unrelated field.
edited 22nd Apr '18 6:14:51 AM by RainehDaze

Well, that's nothing new. FOX still parades around Oliver North, and Trump pardoned Scooter Libby.