2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:31 am

Jia Nanfeng wrote: I see Democrat members who just a couple years ago held strong border-protection positions suddenly make 180s to avoid agreeing with Trump;


Politicians on both sides of the aisle are certainly known to flop based on what they can get out of it, but not sure its fair to conflate all Dems who are for stronger border security, but not for a wall, as doing 180s. Many Dems are out there representing that they want stronger border security, and detailing what measures could be taken to accomplish that, but that doesn't mean a wall.

I see “fact checks” of wall claims repeatedly saying “This is correct, but”, as if interpretation of facts should run through political filters;


Political filters? If party says "X people entering the country are criminals" and some basic demonstrates that those the majority of those "crimes" they've committed involve traffic violations etc...then you're likely to hear a concession and then context. I'm not sure that rises to the level of political filtering per se.

these same facts are further shoved aside in favor of a holier-than-thou argument for morality, when arguments for or against practicality would be more convincing;


what? are you suggesting morality isn't a part of the equation? and that whats practical should supersede when human rights are involved?

yes, I indeed see much annoying political posturing, and the shutdown is the ultimate symptom of their willingness to screw people over if it means scoring points with their voters.


Agree with this sentiment. Is that why you, or at least scores of people, voted for Trump though. His willingness to accomplish his goals at the cost of anything? Isn't this what he promised?
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4371
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Thu Jan 17, 2019 5:50 pm

A couple updates on the federal pay situation:

A law was signed by Trump which guarantees back pay for all federal employees. In the meantime, several organizations are offering 0% interest loans to federal and military personnel.

Additionally the annual pay raises that I previously said the Trump cabinet was set to receive have been put on hold by the President until Congress is back in session.

In other news the State of the Union is still scheduled to occur, despite Pelosi vocalizing fears of security risks. The secret service will be covering the event as usual; they say there’s no need to worry.
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Sage
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:30 pm

Jia Nanfeng wrote:A couple updates on the federal pay situation:

A law was signed by Trump which guarantees back pay for all federal employees. In the meantime, several organizations are offering 0% interest loans to federal and military personnel.


I'm glad to hear that and glad to see some bipartisanship from a bill proposed by Dems and agreed to by Repubs. I hear there are additional bills proposed by some Democratic senators proposing prohibiting creditors and landlords from taking actions against fed workers during these times. Interesting concepts, though I'd like to simply see a resolution to the shutdown preferably.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4371
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:16 pm

Rep. Dan Crenshaw reported today that House Republicans proposed a bill which would pay all federal employees their first missed paycheck now instead of later. Only 6 Democrats bothered to vote so it didn’t pass.

Oof.
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Sage
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:51 pm

Jia Nanfeng wrote:Rep. Dan Crenshaw reported today that House Republicans proposed a bill which would pay all federal employees their first missed paycheck now instead of later. Only 6 Democrats bothered to vote so it didn’t pass.

Oof.


Maybe I missed something, do you mean only six Democrats did not bother to vote, and 222 voted no? I could have misinterpreted the information so please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe still not the best move, but considering the two sides seem to be introducing separate bills towards reopening I guess can see hardball.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4371
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:02 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:
Jia Nanfeng wrote:Rep. Dan Crenshaw reported today that House Republicans proposed a bill which would pay all federal employees their first missed paycheck now instead of later. Only 6 Democrats bothered to vote so it didn’t pass.

Oof.


Maybe I missed something, do you mean only six Democrats did not bother to vote, and 222 voted no? I could have misinterpreted the information so please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe still not the best move, but considering the two sides seem to be introducing separate bills towards reopening I guess can see hardball.

Here’s the official numbers: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll043.xml

In that list the italics are Rep and the normal text are Dems.
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Sage
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:11 pm

Jia Nanfeng wrote:
Shikanosuke wrote:
Jia Nanfeng wrote:Rep. Dan Crenshaw reported today that House Republicans proposed a bill which would pay all federal employees their first missed paycheck now instead of later. Only 6 Democrats bothered to vote so it didn’t pass.

Oof.


Maybe I missed something, do you mean only six Democrats did not bother to vote, and 222 voted no? I could have misinterpreted the information so please correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe still not the best move, but considering the two sides seem to be introducing separate bills towards reopening I guess can see hardball.

Here’s the official numbers: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll043.xml

In that list the italics are Rep and the normal text are Dems.


Agreed. Perhaps I'm continuing to misinterpret. The list appears to indicate only sixteen** (edit: messed this up first post as well) individual did not bother to vote, including nine republicans. I read that as saying 222 people voted no, all dems. And 195 voted yes, with 4 Dems. Am i misunderstanding that?

EDIT: The list alone says that 6 Democrats voted yes, which I think is where that misleading bit of information comes from, I put 4 because my eyes only saw 4 but I'm sure I missed some. Weird way to keep track imo. It's just a confusing bit of info you provide, since the House dems have tried and passed bills to open the gov (without wall funding) and nullify the issue but McConnell has insisted the Senate will do nothing, and as of yet, have not. Seems tad disingenuous to indicate Dems are sitting on thier hands while Repubs are pushing work (which is exactly wha the only obviously biased website I found that info on indicated)
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4371
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:37 pm

6 Dems voted in favor of the bill, yes. The rest of the Dems (222) voted Nay. No Reps voted against it.

The total no-vote count is 16, being 6 Dems and 10 Reps.
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Sage
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:39 pm

Jia Nanfeng wrote:6 Dems voted in favor of the bill, yes. The rest of the Dems (222) voted Nay. No Reps voted against it.

The total no-vote count is 16, being 6 Dems and 10 Reps.


This sounds in line with the list. I took from your original wording that only 6 dems could be bothered to vote, I see now you meant that only six democrats chose to vote for this particular measure.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4371
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election Speculation

Unread postby Jia Nanfeng » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:44 pm

Shikanosuke wrote:
Jia Nanfeng wrote:6 Dems voted in favor of the bill, yes. The rest of the Dems (222) voted Nay. No Reps voted against it.

The total no-vote count is 16, being 6 Dems and 10 Reps.


This sounds in line with the list. I took from your original wording that only 6 dems could be bothered to vote, I see now you meant that only six democrats chose to vote for this particular measure.

I can see now where the misunderstanding comes from. I should have said “Only six Dems voted in favor of it”.

I was just surprised this became a partisan issue to such a degree after weeks of Dems voicing support for the unpaid workers.
User avatar
Jia Nanfeng
Sage
 
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:30 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved