The GQP: Trumpist Death Cult

[retread 2951]

 

[SmokeyTheBear 5562]

Fantastic

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Fantastic

[Chad Fuck 17771]

1 hour ago, retread said:

 

"We didn't have to ask Matt, they just told us."

[Pancho 44993]

 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

Just now, Pancho said:

 

I remember first seeing the exit polls of race.  I think it was Bush-Clinton in 92.  Something like 90% went D.  Blew my mind, the way that something like that would the first time you become aware of it.  Mentioned this shocking fact to [white adult I won't care about a lot so I don't want to say who] and [he/she] said "sounds like only 10% can think for themselves."  That sort of shit sticks with you when you hear it as a kid.

[Post Oak 20266]

2 hours ago, retread said:

 

The human jizz sock is upset

[Pancho 44993]

Republicans and conservatives are eerily quiet on this....

 

[henrygandorf 29194]

i guess if you can't legally change asylum laws, you can make it out to where america seems way shittier than wherever you're coming from.

of course the 5 year olds probably aren't in on the strategic parts of the plan.

[F250 28818]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Justin Amash going for the lucrative “both sides”.   What does FISA stand for again?  Who should hate FISA the most right now?  

Either way, this Amash guy has talent. 

[DDD Dad 14351]

8 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Justin Amash going for the lucrative “both sides”.   What does FISA stand for again?  Who should hate FISA the most right now?  

Either way, this Amash guy has talent. 

Amashtasis?

[Anastasis 23485]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

 

 

 

There are very few truly bipartisan issues in DC.  Increasing spending is one.  Wiping their ass with the Constitution is another.

[Hank Scorpio 17731]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

 

 

There are very few truly bipartisan issues in DC.  Increasing spending is one.  Wiping their ass with the Constitution is another.

You forgot perpetual war. 

[Anastasis 23485]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

Amashtasis?

The amendment was attached to a spending appropriations bill (HR 2740) and would have forbid the use of any funds to submit a surveillance request under Section 702's guidelines unless the requesting organization—the National Security Agency (NSA)—certifies that the surveillance is not "to acquire the communications of a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States, any acquisition of a communication as to which no participant is a person who is targeted pursuant to the authorized acquisition, or any acquisition of a communication known to be entirely domestic."

Translation: The purpose of Section 702 of FISA is intended to authorize warrantless secret surveillance of foreign targets of interest in other countries who may be plotting against the United States. In practice, we know that the NSA has been collecting significant amounts of domestic communications of American citizens, without warrants, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This was the surveillance that Edward Snowden helped expose, and we've been arguing over it ever since.

 

Despite repeatedly and loudly complaining that he and his aides had been illegally surveilled under FISA as a candidate, President Donald Trump has done nothing to actually restrain these surveillance powers. Last year, given the opportunity to rethink the limits of Section 702 when it was up for renewal, Congress and Trump instead expanded its authority to snoop on Americans.

So this year, Amash and Lofgren embarked on a new effort to stop the NSA from secretly collecting Americans' communications. Amash spoke passionately in defense of his amendment on the House floor last evening:

We can see what's wrong with Washington right here. We have Republicans for months saying "We're worried about FISA abuse. FISA's out of control!" Here we are trying to limit FISA and they're running against it. They're saying "No, we can't limit FISA!" Democrats say, "We want to hold the president in check. Executive power is out of control." We have an amendment to hold the president in check. This is our time to stand up for the American people. I'm sick of going home and telling them that neither side wanted to defend their rights.

But it was not to be. The amendment got all of 10 minutes of debate and was defeated.

Of interest: Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio) and Amash have been at odds over Trump's behavior to the point that Amash has left the House Freedom Caucus they both helped found. Nevertheless Jordan showed up to declare his support for Amash's amendment, speak in favor of it, and vote for it. On the other side of the aisle, notable Democrats supporting Amash included Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

 

OMG BoThSidEs StAsIs. Easier to post drivel than to actually engage brain. 

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Anastasis

[Anastasis 23485]

3 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

You forgot perpetual war. 

Should be ranked #1. 

[F250 28818]

It's not both sides, it's bipartisan.

[Captainant 27764]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

OMG BoThSidEs StAsIs.  

 

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

There are very few truly bipartisan issues in DC.  Increasing spending is one.  Wiping their ass with the Constitution is another.

 

[DDD Dad 14351]

3 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The amendment was attached to a spending appropriations bill (HR 2740) and would have forbid the use of any funds to submit a surveillance request under Section 702's guidelines unless the requesting organization—the National Security Agency (NSA)—certifies that the surveillance is not "to acquire the communications of a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States, any acquisition of a communication as to which no participant is a person who is targeted pursuant to the authorized acquisition, or any acquisition of a communication known to be entirely domestic."

Translation: The purpose of Section 702 of FISA is intended to authorize warrantless secret surveillance of foreign targets of interest in other countries who may be plotting against the United States. In practice, we know that the NSA has been collecting significant amounts of domestic communications of American citizens, without warrants, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This was the surveillance that Edward Snowden helped expose, and we've been arguing over it ever since.

 

Despite repeatedly and loudly complaining that he and his aides had been illegally surveilled under FISA as a candidate, President Donald Trump has done nothing to actually restrain these surveillance powers. Last year, given the opportunity to rethink the limits of Section 702 when it was up for renewal, Congress and Trump instead expanded its authority to snoop on Americans.

So this year, Amash and Lofgren embarked on a new effort to stop the NSA from secretly collecting Americans' communications. Amash spoke passionately in defense of his amendment on the House floor last evening:

We can see what's wrong with Washington right here. We have Republicans for months saying "We're worried about FISA abuse. FISA's out of control!" Here we are trying to limit FISA and they're running against it. They're saying "No, we can't limit FISA!" Democrats say, "We want to hold the president in check. Executive power is out of control." We have an amendment to hold the president in check. This is our time to stand up for the American people. I'm sick of going home and telling them that neither side wanted to defend their rights.

But it was not to be. The amendment got all of 10 minutes of debate and was defeated.

Of interest: Rep. Jim Jordan (R–Ohio) and Amash have been at odds over Trump's behavior to the point that Amash has left the House Freedom Caucus they both helped found. Nevertheless Jordan showed up to declare his support for Amash's amendment, speak in favor of it, and vote for it. On the other side of the aisle, notable Democrats supporting Amash included Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.

 

OMG BoThSidEs StAsIs. Easier to post drivel than to actually engage brain. 

 

Well at least you didn't neg me.  

[Anastasis 23485]

8 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Well at least you didn't neg me.  

I thought about pos repping it.  I don't do CR negging. 

[Anastasis 23485]

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

  

 

20 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Easier to post drivel than to actually engage brain. 

Case in point

[HenryJames 66170]

 

[Chooky 13319]

3 hours ago, Anastasis said:

I thought about pos repping it.  I don't do CR negging. 

Negged.

[retread 2951]

[Pancho 44993]

 

[bolverk 29717]

5 hours ago, F250 said:

 

Can I get a link to the roll call on this vote, please? I'd really like to know how specific congress critters voted on this. TIA.

[Anastasis 23485]

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Can I get a link to the roll call on this vote, please? I'd really like to know how specific congress critters voted on this. TIA.

Here is the people who voted against.  And the link to the full roll from the article: https://www.c-span.org/congress/votes/?109001/House/116-1/345

 

REPUBLICAN

• Aderholt R-AL, No
• Allen R-GA, No
• Amodei R-NV, No
• Armstrong R-ND, No
• Arrington R-TX, No
• Babin R-TX, No
• Bacon R-NE, No
• Baird R-IN, No
• Balderson R-OH, No
• Banks R-IN, No
• Barr R-KY, No
• Bergman R-MI, No
• Bilirakis R-FL, No
• Bost R-IL, No
• Brady R-TX, No
• Brooks R-IN, No
• Buchanan R-FL, No
• Bucshon R-IN, No
• Calvert R-CA, No
• Carter R-TX, No
• Carter R-GA, No
• Cheney R-WY, No
• Cole R-OK, No
• Collins R-NY, No
• Collins R-GA, No
• Conaway R-TX, No
• Cook R-CA, No
• Crawford R-AR, No
• Crenshaw R-TX, No
• Diaz-Balart R-FL, No
• Duffy R-WI, No
• Dunn R-FL, No
• Ferguson R-GA, No
• Fitzpatrick R-PA, No
• Fleischmann R-TN, No
• Flores R-TX, No
• Fortenberry R-NE, No
• Foxx R-NC, No
• Gallagher R-WI, No
• Gibbs R-OH, No
• González-Colón R-PR, No
• Granger R-TX, No
• Graves R-MO, No
• Green R-TN, No
• Guest R-MS, No
• Guthrie R-KY, No
• Hagedorn R-MN, No
• Hartzler R-MO, No
• Higgins R-LA, No
• Hill R-AR, No
• Hollingsworth R-IN, No
• Hudson R-NC, No
• Huizenga R-MI, No
• Hurd R-TX, No
• Johnson R-SD, No
• Johnson R-LA, No
• Johnson R-OH, No
• Joyce R-PA, No
• Joyce R-OH, No
• Katko R-NY, No
• Kelly R-PA, No
• King R-IA, No
• King R-NY, No
• Kinzinger R-IL, No
• Kustoff R-TN, No
• LaHood R-IL, No
• Latta R-OH, No
• Lesko R-AZ, No
• Long R-MO, No
• Lucas R-OK, No
• Luetkemeyer R-MO, No
• Marshall R-KS, No
• McCarthy R-CA, No
• McCaul R-TX, No
• McHenry R-NC, No
• McKinley R-WV, No
• Meuser R-PA, No
• Miller R-WV, No
• Mitchell R-MI, No
• Moolenaar R-MI, No
• Newhouse R-WA, No
• Norman R-SC, No
• Nunes R-CA, No
• Olson R-TX, No
• Palazzo R-MS, No
• Palmer R-AL, No
• Pence R-IN, No
• Ratcliffe R-TX, No
• Reed R-NY, No
• Reschenthaler R-PA, No
• Rice R-SC, No
• Riggleman R-VA, No
• Roby R-AL, No
• Rogers R-AL, No
• Rogers R-KY, No
• Rooney R-FL, No
• Rouzer R-NC, No
• Rutherford R-FL, No
• Scalise R-LA, No
• Scott R-GA, No
• Shimkus R-IL, No
• Simpson R-ID, No
• Smith R-NJ, No
• Smucker R-PA, No
• Spano R-FL, No
• Stauber R-MN, No
• Stefanik R-NY, No
• Steil R-WI, No
• Stewart R-UT, No
• Stivers R-OH, No
• Taylor R-TX, No
• Thornberry R-TX, No
• Timmons R-SC, No
• Tipton R-CO, No
• Turner R-OH, No
• Upton R-MI, No
• Wagner R-MO, No
• Walberg R-MI, No
• Walden R-OR, No
• Walorski R-IN, No
• Watkins R-KS, No
• Wenstrup R-OH, No
• Westerman R-AR, No
• Williams R-TX, No
• Wilson R-SC, No
• Womack R-AR, No
• Young R-AK, No

DEMOCRATIC

• Aguilar D-CA, No
• Allred D-TX, No
• Axne D-IA, No
• Beatty D-OH, No
• Bera D-CA, No
• Bishop D-GA, No
• Blumenauer D-OR, No
• Brindisi D-NY, No
• Brown D-MD, No
• Brownley D-CA, No
• Bustos D-IL, No
• Butterfield D-NC, No
• Carbajal D-CA, No
• Cárdenas D-CA, No
• Carson D-IN, No
• Cartwright D-PA, No
• Case D-HI, No
• Casten D-IL, No
• Castor D-FL, No
• Cisneros D-CA, No
• Cleaver D-MO, No
• Cohen D-TN, No
• Cooper D-TN, No
• Costa D-CA, No
• Cox D-CA, No
• Craig D-MN, No
• Crist D-FL, No
• Crow D-CO, No
• Cuellar D-TX, No
• Cummings D-MD, No
• Cunningham D-SC, No
• Davids D-KS, No
• Delgado D-NY, No
• Demings D-FL, No
• Deutch D-FL, No
• Espaillat Cabral D-NY, No
• Finkenauer D-IA, No
• Fletcher D-TX, No
• Frankel D-FL, No
• Fudge D-OH, No
• Garamendi D-CA, No
• Garcia D-TX, No
• Garcia D-IL, No
• Gonzalez D-TX, No
• Gottheimer D-NJ, No
• Grijalva D-AZ, No
• Heck D-WA, No
• Higgins D-NY, No
• Hill D-CA, No
• Himes D-CT, No
• Horn D-OK, No
• Houlahan D-PA, No
• Hoyer D-MD, No
• Johnson D-TX, No
• Kaptur D-OH, No
• Keating D-MA, No
• Kilmer D-WA, No
• Kim D-NJ, No
• Kind D-WI, No
• Kirkpatrick D-AZ, No
• Krishnamoorthi D-IL, No
• Lamb D-PA, No
• Langevin D-RI, No
• Lawrence D-MI, No
• Lawson D-FL, No
• Lee D-NV, No
• Levin D-CA, No
• Lewis D-GA, No
• Lipinski D-IL, No
• Loebsack D-IA, No
• Lowey D-NY, No
• Luria D-VA, No
• Malinowski D-NJ, No
• Maloney D-NY, No
• McAdams D-UT, No
• McBath D-GA, No
• McEachin D-VA, No
• McNerney D-CA, No
• Morelle D-NY, No
• Mucarsel-Powell D-FL, No
• Murphy D-FL, No
• Napolitano D-CA, No
• Norcross D-NJ, No
• Norton D-DC, No
• O'Halleran D-AZ, No
• Panetta D-CA, No
• Pascrell D-NJ, No
• Peters D-CA, No
• Peterson D-MN, No
• Quigley D-IL, No
• Rice D-NY, No
• Richmond D-LA, No
• Rose D-NY, No
• Rouda D-CA, No
• Ruiz D-CA, No
• Ruppersberger D-MD, No
• Ryan D-OH, No
• Sablan D-MP, No
• Schiff D-CA, No
• Schneider D-IL, No
• Schrier D-WA, No
• Scott D-GA, No
• Sewell D-AL, No
• Shalala D-FL, No
• Sherman D-CA, No
• Sherrill D-NJ, No
• Slotkin D-MI, No
• Soto D-FL, No
• Spanberger D-VA, No
• Stevens D-MI, No
• Suozzi D-NY, No
• Swalwell D-CA, No
• Thompson D-CA, No
• Thompson D-MS, No
• Torres D-CA, No
• Torres Small D-NM, No
• Trahan D-MA, No
• Trone D-MD, No
• Underwood D-IL, No
• Van Drew D-NJ, No
• Veasey D-TX, No
• Vela D-TX, No
• Visclosky D-IN, No
• Wasserman Schultz D-FL, No
• Waters D-CA, No
• Wexton D-VA, No

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Anastasis
wrong link

[Francisco 2.0 32428]

With all the hijinks coming out of the State of Alabama, we probably need a dedicated Alabama thread.  Until that day, this is as good a place as any:

https://www.theroot.com/alabama-quietly-passes-law-allowing-church-with-history-1835697951

Quote

In 2017, when Briarwood Presbyterian Church asked the overwhelmingly Republican legislature of Alabama to grant it the authority to form its own police force, politicians let the bill die amid public outcry over the separation of church and state, the congregation’s history of racism and its public homophobia.

 

Quote

Two years later, the Associated Press reports that Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey unceremoniously signed legislation on Wednesday that allows Briarwood to create a law enforcement agency to arrest and detain anyone who breaks the law on the sprawling church property that is home to 3,000 weekly worshipers, 2,000 K-12 students and a seminary that trains its future Christian leaders.

 

Quote

Briarwood is one of the largest and most influential churches in the entire Bible Belt and has a long history of racism. In 1973, 260 churches with congregations totaling 41,000 members split from the Presbyterian Church in the United States and formed what would become the Presbyterian Church in America. Although the current PCA website attributes the split to PCUS’s “liberal theology,” the truth is, the mostly Southern congregations seceded from the larger PCUS after the PCUS decided that it would allow black and white parishioners to worship together. 

And where did those church leaders meet to form this Confederate church?

Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Vestavia, Ala.

 

Spoiler

Since its founding, Briarwood has been notorious for continuing to root for everyone straight, white and male. Not only does it not allow women to have leadership roles as ministers or deacons, but the church’s history is also rife with racism and homophobia, including:

A football game against predominantly black Fairfield High School, when Briarwood Christian School students came on the field to a “Make America Great Again, Trump the Tigers” sign.

Briarwood pastor Harry Reeder advocating for the continued use of the Confederate flag and speaking at ceremonies for neo-Confederate groupslike the Sons of Confederate Veterans (although many will point out that his racism doesn’t count because he has black kids in his family).

“Practical Encouragement for Christians in a Time of Cultural Transitions Part 2,” a sermon that aired on Briarwood’s national radio network informing listeners how to get “in the mode to persuade” friends and family that homosexuality is against the word of God.

In 2012, at its national conference, the church issued an official condemnation to Disney for “promoting homosexuality.” 

In 2013, Briarwood severed its ties with the Boys Scouts of America over BSA’s decision to allow gay youths to participate in the organization. 

When PCA asked for forgiveness and apologized for its racist past way back in 2016 (pdf), 863 church leaders voted in favor of the proclamation; 123 voted against it. 

Despite the fact that tax-exempt churches are prohibited from taking political stances, Reeder also shills for Trump and the GOP, as he did in his broadcast, Mike Pence Places a Hedge Around His Marriage. 

Reeder also finds time to repudiate everything Obama, which he did April 6 in a broadcast from the church’s radio station: “Unmasking, Leaking, Lying, Obama’s Watergate?”

Reeder regularly voices distaste for the Presbyterian “Revoice” movement that seeks to reconcile LGBTQ Presbyterians with the church. “The unmistakable proposal in Revoice is that same-sex attraction is a syndrome to be strategically managed,” he writes. “That is not God’s voice. To be clear same-sex attraction is not a syndrome to be managed. It is a sinful desire to be mortified.”

The legislation was first introduced by Sen. J.T. “Jabo” Waggoner, the 80-year-old powerbroker who has served in the Alabama Legislature since 1963 and hails from a family of powerful men.

Randy Marshall of the Alabama ACLU told the Associated Press that he expects the law to be challenged in court for the unconstitutionality of allowing a religious institution to have government power. The K-12 school does not report its diversity numbers but I’m sure the police department will be more than transparent, although a 2015 drug raid at the school is still shrouded in mystery. 

Briarwood and other Alabama churches are now free to form their own political forces while Alabama politicians worry about the big issues like criminalizing women who insist they have control over their own vaginas; combating the influx of Mexican immigrants coming across the border Alabama shares with Georgia and, of course, those anti-American Islamic fundamentalists who want to incorporate their religious values into the law.

God Bless the great state of Alabama.

 

[bolverk 29717]

 

 

1

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Here is the people who voted against.  And the link to the full roll from the article: https://www.c-span.org/congress/bills/bill/?116/hr2740

 

 

 

Since this is a Texas-centric board, I'm posting this so that others can see how their rep voted:

• Fletcher D-TX, No
• Green D-TX, Aye
• Gonzalez D-TX, No
• Escobar D-TX, Aye
• Jackson-Lee D-TX, Aye
• Castro D-TX, Aye
• Cuellar D-TX, No
• Garcia D-TX, No
• Johnson D-TX, No
• Allred D-TX, No
• Veasey D-TX, No
• Vela D-TX, No
• Doggett D-TX, Aye
•  
• Gohmert R-TX, Aye
• Crenshaw R-TX, No
• Taylor R-TX, No
• Ratcliffe R-TX, No
• Gooden R-TX, Aye
• Wright R-TX, Aye
• Brady R-TX, No
• McCaul R-TX, No
• Conaway R-TX, No
• Granger R-TX, No
• Thornberry R-TX, No
• Weber R-TX, Aye
• Flores R-TX, No
• Arrington R-TX, No
• Roy R-TX, Aye
• Olson R-TX, No
• Hurd R-TX, No
• Marchant R-TX, Aye
• Williams R-TX, No
• Burgess R-TX, Aye
• Cloud R-TX, Aye
• Carter R-TX, No
• Babin R-TX, No

[F250 28818]

Chip Roy - Aye

 

 

 

[Blotto 23574]

So by clicking on a few links, it appears that Amash was trying to get this amendment attached to a spending appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies .  I can only assume that once attached it would either succeed or fail based upon the success of the House bill to which it was attached? 

Its been awhile since I last reviewed my Schoolhouse Rock lessons on how a bill becomes law, but that seems kind of fucked up if my assumptions are correct.  Making a determination on the validity of the FISA process would seem have very little to do with budget appropriations, so why the hell are they grouped together into a single vote. Why can't Amash propose a bill that only addresses FISA, and would pass or fail on its own merits?

The entire process is fucked up, as it gives cover to congressman to tacitly vote for/against one issue while defending the vote based on a completely unrelated issue in the same bill. If I remember correctly, thats how the internet gambling bill was passed.....it was tacked onto a bill dealing with Port Security which has fuck all to do with internet gambling. Makes no damn sense.   

[Anastasis 23485]

 

9 minutes ago, Blotto said:

Why can't Amash propose a bill that only addresses FISA, and would pass or fail on its own merits?

Amash rallied support for an amendment during the FISA reauthorization.  It was defeated by a bunch of spineless GOP votes, with enough Democrats, led by Pelosi and Schiff, to overcome the measure. 

 

https://www.cato.org/blog/house-votes-reauthorize-fisa-section-702-mass-surveillance-program

 

JANUARY 11, 2018 1:06PM

House Votes To Reauthorize FISA Section 702 Mass Surveillance Program

By PATRICK G. EDDINGTON

SHARE

Two months of drama in the House of Representatives over the soon-to-expire FISA Section 702 mass surveillance program came to an end this morning, with a bipartisan group of House members first defeating a FISA reform amendment (USA RIGHTS Act) offered by Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), then passing the GOP House leadership bill. The key votes in support of the GOP House leadership effort came from Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Adam Schiff (D-CA).

The progressive activist group Demand Progress, which spearheaded the campaign on the political left for meaningful surveillance reforms, issued a blistering statementafter the vote, the key paragraph of which follows:

Demand Progress has opposed the FISA Amendments Reauthorization Act from the start and has instead urged the House to pass strong reform legislation, like the USA RIGHTS Act, which was offered as an amendment but defeated 183-233, despite strong support from members of both parties. 55 Democrats voted against the amendment, where a swing of 26 votes would have meant its adoption and the protection of Americans’ privacy. The USA RIGHTS amendment would have enacted meaningful reforms to Section 702, which are imperative given the government’s historical abuse of surveillance authorities and the danger posed by future abuses.

Amash garnered 58 GOP votes for his amendment (offered with several other Democratic and Republican House members), by far his best showing since his first attempt to rein in federal mass surveillance programs in the summer of 2013, in the wake of Edward Snowden’s revelations. 

The FISA Amendments Act was first passed in 2008, when Pelosi was Speaker. In her floor speech in support of the FISA Amendments Act on June 20, 2008, Pelosi made this claim:

Some in the press have said that under this legislation, this bill would allow warrantless surveillance of Americans. That is not true. This bill does not allow warrantless surveillance of Americans. I just think we have to stipulate to some set of facts.

In fact, as Demand Progress noted in their 2017 report on Section 702, the FISA Court itself found the federal government had done exactly that in a number of cases. But as is so often the case in politics, it is emotion and perception, not facts and reason, that dominate debate on Capitol Hill. Today was another one of those days.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Anastasis

[swraith 347]

^^ because that is how the legislative process works. Making sausage is messy. 

 

Amash would never get a committee to vote on this by itself. 

Edited June 21, 2019 by swraith

[Blotto 23574]

13 minutes ago, swraith said:

^^ because that is how the legislative process works. Making sausage is messy. 

 

Amash would never get a committee to vote on this by itself. 

That may be the case, but at least in the info posted by Anastasis, the amendment Amash was pushing  in 2018 was to be attached to a bill dealing specifically with FISA. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than sneaking equivalent language into a spending appropriations bill. The practice of ramrodding legislation through by attaching amendments to completely unrelated bills pisses me off. I admit I don't have a well thought out alternative to the status quo, but that won't stop me from angrily shaking my fist at the clouds.  

[bolverk 29717]

3 minutes ago, Blotto said:

That may be the case, but at least in the info posted by Anastasis, the amendment Amash was pushing  in 2018 was to be attached to a bill dealing specifically with FISA. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than sneaking equivalent language into a spending appropriations bill. The practice of ramrodding legislation through by attaching amendments to completely unrelated bills pisses me off. I admit I don't have a well thought out alternative to the status quo, but that won't stop me from angrily shaking my fist at the clouds.  

I especially liked the clarity of a representative's intent provided in his second post about the FISA-specific vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll014.xml

Good riddance to Lamar Smith. I am curious about how Chip Roy would've voted on that one.

[Anastasis 23485]

6 minutes ago, Blotto said:

That may be the case, but at least in the info posted by Anastasis, the amendment Amash was pushing  in 2018 was to be attached to a bill dealing specifically with FISA. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than sneaking equivalent language into a spending appropriations bill. The practice of ramrodding legislation through by attaching amendments to completely unrelated bills pisses me off. I admit I don't have a well thought out alternative to the status quo, but that won't stop me from angrily shaking my fist at the clouds.  

In general I agree with your perspective. He was trying to subvert the regular process, after losing a battle last authorization round. 

That being said, in this particular case I don't give a shit. The ultimate angry shaking fist at clouds is the futile attempt to reel in the unconstitutional surveillance authority in this country. If that means tacking on bullshit to a spending bill, so be it. 

[F250 28818]

1 hour ago, Blotto said:

That may be the case, but at least in the info posted by Anastasis, the amendment Amash was pushing  in 2018 was to be attached to a bill dealing specifically with FISA. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than sneaking equivalent language into a spending appropriations bill. The practice of ramrodding legislation through by attaching amendments to completely unrelated bills pisses me off. I admit I don't have a well thought out alternative to the status quo, but that won't stop me from angrily shaking my fist at the clouds.  

Yeah, I hate when Congress ramrods legislation like this because it is usually screwing over the American citizens.

In this case, bitching about Congress using this method to return some of our civil liberties is like complaining about Christina Hendricks pushing her boobs into your face. Some things just don't warrant criticism.

 

[F250 28818]

2 hours ago, swraith said:

^^ because that is how the legislative process works. Making sausage is messy.  

True. The School House Rock explanation was theoretical and meant for children not yet exposed to reality.

2 hours ago, swraith said:

Amash would never get a committee to vote on this by itself.  

Yep.

 

[WhatTheBuck 28798]

3 hours ago, Blotto said:

The entire process is fucked up, as it gives cover to congressman to tacitly vote for/against one issue while defending the vote based on a completely unrelated issue in the same bill. If I remember correctly, thats how the internet gambling bill was passed.....it was tacked onto a bill dealing with Port Security which has fuck all to do with internet gambling. Makes no damn sense.   

Yeah, the UIGEA was tacked onto the Port Security bill at the last minute, late at night, and no one even had a chance to read it. Fuck Bill Frist and his cronies. 

[Pancho 44993]

 

[Biff Tannen 45734]

15 hours ago, HenryJames said:

 

[Patrick Bateman 3930]

Literally running scared....

 

[Gap03 3315]

41 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Literally running scared....

 

Too bad they can't send the Phoenix / Mesa PD after them ...

[Skyline 325]

 

[atomheartbevo 89791]

1 hour ago, Skyline said:

 

So Republican lawmakers are threatening the lives of the Oregon State Police.  

Welcome to Trumpmerica.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Q predicted this

[David Dennison 18946]

I wonder where the violence will break out first.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Trump deserves a prize for not murdering 150 people for no fucking reason.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Ted Lange 16142]

GTFO LYING  bitch, that’s EXACTLY who the GOP is  

 

[Brisketexan 105329]

I was gonna murder 150 people....

....but then I decided not to.

Im actually gonna be in Oslo in a week, the Nobel committee can just hand me my peace prize then.