|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 16, 2016 0:57:12 GMT
Clinton's popular vote lead now over the psychologically important level of one million votes.
A useless fact about the election going about on Twitter is that Hillary Clinton has now received more votes to be President than any white man in history. File that one under 'true but irrelevant'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Nov 16, 2016 1:04:20 GMT
Personally I have always argued that rather than gut the filibuster the majority party should force the minority to actually filibuster. Keep the Senate in session all night, over a weekend, etc and make them talk the whole time. That would limit filibusters to matters of real importance, as was originally intended, rather than just imposing a 60 vote threshold. If Senators can also be forced to stay on topic with regards to the matter at hand, as opposed to the likes of simply reading the telephone directory, that'd be nice too. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 11,997
Member is Online
|
Post by Khunanup on Nov 16, 2016 1:18:29 GMT
It's a measure of how this year has run that we sane people have ended up rooting for Theresa May to be PM and for Giuliani to be Secretary of State. In a few months it's possible we'll be rooting for Sarkozy to be French President, for f*cks sake.  I'm not sure the outside world rushing to tell the French they shouldn't vote for Le Pen is quite the best approach. Unless you support Marine Le Pen. You don't have to do anything practical to oppose a candidate in a foreign election. Even though I'm 3 hours away from France I'm not going to nip over and lecture the good people of Cherbourg to not back a fascist next year. I might well make my views known about the Front National more generally though prior to then. Front National are a bunch of fascist scumbags. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 16, 2016 10:08:59 GMT
Personally I have always argued that rather than gut the filibuster the majority party should force the minority to actually filibuster. Keep the Senate in session all night, over a weekend, etc and make them talk the whole time. That would limit filibusters to matters of real importance, as was originally intended, rather than just imposing a 60 vote threshold. If Senators can also be forced to stay on topic with regards to the matter at hand, as opposed to the likes of simply reading the telephone directory, that'd be nice too. That would be completely contrary to the Senate's tradition of free debate. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,644
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Nov 16, 2016 10:27:44 GMT
Clinton's popular vote lead now over the psychologically important level of one million votes. A useless fact about the election going about on Twitter is that Hillary Clinton has now received more votes to be President than any white man in history. File that one under 'true but irrelevant'. The consistent population growth of the USA means this is less significant than it might seem, as the electorate is always growing. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,862
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 16, 2016 11:06:42 GMT
Yes, third party candidates clearly hurt Republicans more. Is this actually true, though? It fairly definitely wasn't in 2000, and contrary to some initial "takes" it is now generally agreed that Perot took support roughly equally from Dems and GOP. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,757 
|
Post by john07 on Nov 16, 2016 11:30:28 GMT
Clinton's popular vote lead now over the psychologically important level of one million votes. A useless fact about the election going about on Twitter is that Hillary Clinton has now received more votes to be President than any white man in history. File that one under 'true but irrelevant'. The consistent population growth of the USA means this is less significant than it might seem, as the electorate is always growing. But didn't Trump get fewer votes than Mitt Romney? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2016 11:36:57 GMT
The consistent population growth of the USA means this is less significant than it might seem, as the electorate is always growing. But didn't Trump get fewer votes than Mitt Romney? We do not know yet, but likely not. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Nov 16, 2016 11:46:49 GMT
If Senators can also be forced to stay on topic with regards to the matter at hand, as opposed to the likes of simply reading the telephone directory, that'd be nice too. That would be completely contrary to the Senate's tradition of free debate. I'm fine with a employing a bit of creativity with things said in a speech, but I'm not sure if the spirit of free debate does or should apply to someone talking about something that had absolutely nothing to do with whatever bill they're trying to obstruct. Sure, if you can weave old childhood anecdotes into creative analogies on arguments you're making against the details of a bill you're attemping to stall (whilst still making it clear that what is being said is on topic), I'm happy to give credit, just not so much if all one is going to do is read the dictionary down to the last piece of punctuation. Come to think of it, I suppose what bothers me more is not that someone's trying to obstruction legislation in this manner, but rather the perceived lack of effort whilst doing so... |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 16, 2016 12:01:35 GMT
That would be completely contrary to the Senate's tradition of free debate. I'm fine with a employing a bit of creativity with things said in a speech, but I'm not sure if the spirit of free debate does or should apply to someone talking about something that had absolutely nothing to do with whatever bill they're trying to obstruct. Sure, if you can weave old childhood anecdotes into creative analogies on arguments you're making against the details of a bill you're attemping to stall (whilst still making it clear that what is being said is on topic), I'm happy to give credit, just not so much if all one is going to do is read the dictionary down to the last piece of punctuation. With a few exceptions, such the rule prohibiting attacks on other Senators, the Senate has always interpreted the principle of free debate in the widest possible manner. It is one of the absolute core principles of the institution. If you watch Senate proceedings on almost any day you will see that regardless of the legislation or motion that is under consideration that Senators will come to the floor and speak about a wide variety of subjects that have no connection to what is supposedly under discussion. Come to think of it, I suppose what bothers me more is not that someone's trying to obstruction legislation in this manner, but rather the perceived lack of effort whilst doing so... That's the problem at the moment, no effort at all is needed. The mere threat of a filibuster has become sufficient to block legislation as long as 41 senators won't vote to invoke cloture. They don't actually have to filibuster. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,644
Member is Online
|
Post by mboy on Nov 16, 2016 12:22:17 GMT
Yes, third party candidates clearly hurt Republicans more. Is this actually true, though? It fairly definitely wasn't in 2000, and contrary to some initial "takes" it is now generally agreed that Perot took support roughly equally from Dems and GOP. LOL, I was talking about this year! |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Nov 16, 2016 12:45:32 GMT
That would be completely contrary to the Senate's tradition of free debate. I'm fine with a employing a bit of creativity with things said in a speech, but I'm not sure if the spirit of free debate does or should apply to someone talking about something that had absolutely nothing to do with whatever bill they're trying to obstruct. Sure, if you can weave old childhood anecdotes into creative analogies on arguments you're making against the details of a bill you're attemping to stall (whilst still making it clear that what is being said is on topic), I'm happy to give credit, just not so much if all one is going to do is read the dictionary down to the last piece of punctuation. Come to think of it, I suppose what bothers me more is not that someone's trying to obstruction legislation in this manner, but rather the perceived lack of effort whilst doing so... So what if they said "If this disastrous bill is enacted it will be damaging to Americans up and down the land! And I shall name some who will be affected:"? It would put the list on topic surely? Apparently there was a Canadian Senator who filibustered by reading his book into the record. He then took advantage of the bilingual nature of Hansard to have it published in French without having to pay for translation. |
|
|
|
Post by Lord Twaddleford on Nov 16, 2016 13:16:10 GMT
I'm fine with a employing a bit of creativity with things said in a speech, but I'm not sure if the spirit of free debate does or should apply to someone talking about something that had absolutely nothing to do with whatever bill they're trying to obstruct. Sure, if you can weave old childhood anecdotes into creative analogies on arguments you're making against the details of a bill you're attemping to stall (whilst still making it clear that what is being said is on topic), I'm happy to give credit, just not so much if all one is going to do is read the dictionary down to the last piece of punctuation. Come to think of it, I suppose what bothers me more is not that someone's trying to obstruction legislation in this manner, but rather the perceived lack of effort whilst doing so... So what if they said "If this disastrous bill is enacted it will be damaging to Americans up and down the land! And I shall name some who will be affected:"? It would put the list on topic surely? Apparently there was a Canadian Senator who filibustered by reading his book into the record. He then took advantage of the bilingual nature of Hansard to have it published in French without having to pay for translation. Like I said, I am willing to give points for creativity. Perhaps if the Senator could go into some detail as to what the knock-on effects would be for those citizens living within that particular area code... As I mentioned, what bothers me is someone just simply picking up & reading any random long-winded publication and not even attempting to justify why its contents are relevant. All things said, doing a dry reading of one's grandmother's cake recipies is still preferable to 41 senators being able to obstruct the other 59 by doing absolute bugger-all. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Nov 16, 2016 14:13:44 GMT
Frankly the media's near daily temper tantrums is definitely one of the more positive impacts of Trump's election victory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 16, 2016 16:59:40 GMT
Frankly the media's near daily temper tantrums is definitely one of the more positive impacts of Trump's election victory. Despite the fact that I watch her show and actually like her work, and dislike Trump, watching Lena Dunham's loud howls of anguish amuse me greatly after her and her celebrity mates tried to turn Clinton's campaign into a giant,endless selfie. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 16, 2016 17:03:56 GMT
Back onto the cabinet point. There are apparently rumours that Trump is considering significant jobs for his elder sons and Kushner.
That would be an appalling idea. Not just because they would be clearly nepotistic appointments but because such a thing would go down extremely badly with an electorate that has just bought into his rhetoric about politics and the economy being run on jobs-for-the-boys lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Nov 16, 2016 17:09:22 GMT
Back onto the cabinet point. There are apparently rumours that Trump is considering significant jobs for his elder sons and Kushner. That would be an appalling idea. Not just because they would be clearly nepotistic appointments but because such a thing would go down extremely badly with an electorate that has just bought into his rhetoric about politics and the economy being run on jobs-for-the-boys lines. I'm still not convinced he's not just a giant troll. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 16, 2016 17:22:10 GMT
I'm fine with a employing a bit of creativity with things said in a speech, but I'm not sure if the spirit of free debate does or should apply to someone talking about something that had absolutely nothing to do with whatever bill they're trying to obstruct. Sure, if you can weave old childhood anecdotes into creative analogies on arguments you're making against the details of a bill you're attemping to stall (whilst still making it clear that what is being said is on topic), I'm happy to give credit, just not so much if all one is going to do is read the dictionary down to the last piece of punctuation. With a few exceptions, such the rule prohibiting attacks on other Senators, the Senate has always interpreted the principle of free debate in the widest possible manner. It is one of the absolute core principles of the institution. If you watch Senate proceedings on almost any day you will see that regardless of the legislation or motion that is under consideration that Senators will come to the floor and speak about a wide variety of subjects that have no connection to what is supposedly under discussion.
Not unlike this august forum then... |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Nov 16, 2016 18:33:13 GMT
Caught up with reading The Economist from three weeks ago on the bus tonight.
Apparently, Trump was polling 17% higher than Romney among people earning less than $50,000 p.a.
Says it all, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 16, 2016 18:48:55 GMT
With a few exceptions, such the rule prohibiting attacks on other Senators, the Senate has always interpreted the principle of free debate in the widest possible manner. It is one of the absolute core principles of the institution. If you watch Senate proceedings on almost any day you will see that regardless of the legislation or motion that is under consideration that Senators will come to the floor and speak about a wide variety of subjects that have no connection to what is supposedly under discussion.
Not unlike this august forum then... We'd filibuster by reading the railway timetable. or the CAMRA handbook ... |
|
