2015 American Politics Thread: The 114th Congress Is in the House!

or Wall Street knows it's going to pass anyway.

On endemic corruption and our New Nixon

"As for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton may not be the worst person to fly the reform flag, but then again, she might be. Her first problem is her past. If the Clintons didn’t invent pay-to-play politics, with such minions as Rahm Emanuel and Terry McAuliffe in tow, they came close to perfecting it. Her second problem is her present: her special way of handling her email; the alleged conflicts of interest over at the Clinton Foundation; the pricey speeches she gave and Bill still insists on giving. Her third problem is how she handles questions about it all: her defensive tone; her far-too-clever syntactical evasions; her insistence on being praised even as she stumbles; and, yes, her seeming sense of entitlement.

In a June 2 Gallup poll, 57 percent of respondents said Hillary is not “honest or trustworthy.” In a Public Policy Polling survey of Ohio voters this week, she led Ted Cruz by a point and was tied with Marco Rubio. The first poll explains the others. This week, Bill Clinton said he’ll stop giving $500,000 speeches if she becomes president. Yesterday, Hillary went to New York City to deliver a populist-themed speech. Neither Clinton has a clue about the depth of public anger over watching big-money interests treat government as their personal toy. If Clinton loses the nomination or the general election, this will be the reason why.

Bernie Sanders does a far better job on the issue, but even he doesn’t quite nail it. Like Clinton, he says his Supreme Court appointees must commit to overturn Citizens United. He said it first, but every Democrat says it now and it feels like a dodge. Overturning Citizens United, whether by judicial review or constitutional amendment, is a highly conjectural remedy. A president could serve two terms and not get to replace a single Republican Supreme Court justice, and hell will freeze over before a 38th state ratifies a constitutional amendment.

Democrats speak of Citizens United as if overturning it would restore a golden age of ethics; as if its mere existence excuses all the bad bargains they strike with the rich and powerful; as if it proved that where corruption is concerned, they are only victims, never culprits. Government was corrupt before Citizens United was filed and will have to be cleaned up before it’s overturned. Voters want to hear some practical ideas about how to do it up–but so far Democrats don’t have any.

The sight of any Democrat raising billions while offering vague assurances of future reform won’t satisfy anyone and comes at a high opportunity cost. Jeb Bush has possibly been breaking at least two major campaign finance laws all year. Democrats can’t call him to account because they do the same thing. How much money must they raise to recoup the expense of ceding the high moral ground?

One reason Democrats can’t talk about corruption is that it’s as much in their nature to defend government as it is in the Republicans’ nature to attack it. The idea that government may be rotten at its core is alien to them. Two of Clinton’s declared Democratic opponents, Martin O’Malley and Lincoln Chafee, attack her ethics, but the only reform either proposes is to pick him over her. Neither seems able to frame the issue properly. Democrats just aren’t very good at it."

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/14/heres_how_bernie_sanders_could_win_the_one_issue_where_hillarys_vulnerable_and_where_the_tea_party_might_be_right/

Hillary Clinton may not be the worst person to fly the reform flag, but then again, she might be[

the always artful salon

Not saying that's the worse way to begin a story, but then again, it might be.

it is what it is - until it isn't

The game is the game.

http://i.imgur.com/nFFxh1Y.jpg

Not saying that's the worse way to begin a story

It's not the beginning.

i see it's just a game except FOR THE SECRET STUFF HILMART ACTUALLY BELIEVES, do you see

Open my eyes. Let the salon.com story run through my veins.

ha, just got a new email from opm re: the "cyber intrusion".

OPM has recently discovered that additional systems were compromised. These systems included those that contain information related to the background investigations of current, former, and prospective federal government employees, as well as other individuals for whom a federal background investigation was conducted.

lol

jesus

this is all tombot's fault

nah, he had a vacation day when this happened

just seize this as an opp'ty to get the dirt on yr coworkers, KM.

gov't should just give you all new identities

you can be John Smallberries

my new name is mick jagger

FBI should be taking from this that any backdoor the good guys have can and will be used by the bad guys, but they won't.

they need even better backdoors to catch these bad guys do u see

this fuckin guy

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) was escorted out of Tuesday’s Benghazi deposition by panel chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) about a minute after he snuck into the private hearing, The Hill reported.

The former House Oversight Chairman reportedly attempted to observe Sidney Blumenthal’s deposition before the House Select Committee. Blumenthal was an adviser to 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Issa and Gowdy spoke outside the hearing before Issa sulked off, according to The Hill.

“Sorry about that,” Gowdy reportedly said as he reentered the closed-door session.

According to The Hill, Issa had gone to the briefing room where Blumenthal was to be interviewed but the room was empty as a lunch recess had been called.

When Trey fucking Gowdy is the mature one you know you're dealing with some beyond-obsessive psychos.

Time for Hoos to get back to work and stop that work-around Boehner has come up with to push TPP. I guess I can contact my pro-TPP Dem rep and beg him again to change his mind, when this comes up for a vote again

that fucking guy

so it looks like their plan is to:

1. tuck TAA into something noncontroversial/essential (the highway bill, probably!), pass *that* in the house (if GOP goes for it?)
2. pass TPA (if Dems/Tea Party go for it?) solo in the house
3. shoot TAA-less TPA over to the senate and pass it (if Dems go for it without TAA in it?)

there are a lot of question marks in there and it wouldn't be an easy win for them but there *is* a path, so we've got to get back to it.

negotiators in other countries are saying now that if it's not passed by August recess then they're ready to basically suspend negotiations until the second year of the next presidency--so this really is the finish line.

tbf there's absolutely no reason to have any faith that Boehner can get anything past his caucus

is this the kind of thing where the bulk of the GOP really hates it or feels compelled to hate it by their constituency (aside from the crazies)

by the crazies i mean the bachmann/king/gohmert end

I'd guess constituency. If some Dems cave in to White House, that might also give Boehner the numbers he needs

Boehner won't do it if it requires majority Dem + minority GOP tho

what worries me shakey is that the vote last week suggests that the numbers *are* there to pass standalone fast track/TPA--McConnell is now saying he has assurances from some of last week's No vote dems that if he & Boehner "promise" to tuck TAA into something else to ensure it passes, then they'll vote for fast track. fuckin horse trading sycophants.

is this the kind of thing where the bulk of the GOP really hates it or feels compelled to hate it by their constituency (aside from the crazies)

― goole, Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:58 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

the breitbart crew have been pushing really hard on the "obamatrade" angle ("house GOP kowtows to their corporate masters & empowers obama with fast track") trying to swing more crazies the right way, but the bulk of the house is part of the corporate GOP & is thus "pro-trade."

we're trying to hit the people who voted wrong pretty hard too.

huh yeah that's bad news

To change subjects for a sec: Benghazi Committee chair Drago Malefoy has officially turned himself into Ken Starr, hoovering any evidence that will impugn a Clinton during an election year.

I am shocked

lol malefoy

goddammit
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/19/business/house-sends-trade-bill-back-to-senate-in-bid-to-outflank-foes.html?_r=0

Senate Democrats will also have to gamble that House Democrats will not again vote against the measure when it comes across the Rotunda.

ugh there's no way this happens, if they vote yes on TAA in the africa bill in the senate the house dems are never gonna shoot their feet and vote against it at that point, that'd be entirely pointless

we have to kill it in the senate, which is a much scarier and less plausible prospect.

fuck

h00s, i have a question about ISDS -- who gives the organization any authority to fine countries? is it just that the countries involved in the trade bill are voluntarily placing themselves under ISDS authority? putting aside why the US would be okay with that when we're already so reticent to sign onto any UN obligations lest we risk our sovereignty, why would any of the other countries want this?

we have to kill it in the senate, which is a much scarier and less plausible prospect.

yeah I have much less faith in my senators. well one of them anyway.

They also want to make sure that Mr. Boehner will bring up that measure once the Senate is done with it — most likely at the end of next week. Mr. Obama and Democrats aligned with him on trade have to support Mr. McConnell and Mr. Boehner, basically saying, “Trust us that we trust them.”

lol riiiight

who gives the organization any authority to fine countries? is it just that the countries involved in the trade bill are voluntarily placing themselves under ISDS authority? putting aside why the US would be okay with that when we're already so reticent to sign onto any UN obligations lest we risk our sovereignty, why would any of the other countries want this?

― Mordy, Thursday, June 18, 2015 6:35 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yeah by signing onto the agreement the countries are giving the arbitration tribunals the right to fine based on any violation of rules contained in the agreement.

Generally speaking, negotiators in other countries begrudgingly agree to it as 'the cost of doing business' with the multinational (American) companies pushing for the deal. In a lot of my protest actions around tourist traps here in DC I've been approached by people from lots of other TPP countries who are excited to see American opposition because "everyone in our country is against this, and the secret courts."

my favorite detail about the ISDS process is that the tribunals who make the decisions literally come from the same pool of corporate lawyers arguing on behalf of the multinationals--so they could come in to work monday, argue a case for philip morris, clock out, then come in the next day and be 1/3rd of the tribunal on a different philip morris case.

I just can't understand why the US govt would be willing to hand over some of its sovereignty to an arbitration tribunal. Are the corporations bullying Obama into this? Or is the idea that without the tribunal there won't be any way of enforcing the trade agreements? (In which case isn't the better way to ensure compliance to tie the applicability of the treaty itself to its adherence?) Also, who gets the fine money?

Oh, I see. So the individual corporation would get it. Seems like a terrible idea to have corporations enforcing the details of a multinational treaty. They aren't even parties to it!

Are the corporations bullying Obama into this? Or is the idea that without the tribunal there won't be any way of enforcing the trade agreements? (In which case isn't the better way to ensure compliance to tie the applicability of the treaty itself to its adherence?)

yeah its sold as an enforcement mechanism. it's theoretically possible for (say) Barclays to take the US to court over Dodd-Frank, and no one really explains *why* that won't happen when Obama mocks that idea as ridiculous, except for this kind of unspoken notion that the international capital that plays nice together helps everybody win.

why, how could anybody honestly mistrust the interests of international capital, that's just silly

It just seems like we manage to have enforcement mechanisms on every other treaty we sign without giving open season to every corporation's legal team to start draining the capital of every signatory to TPP.

well i'd kinda argue that draining the capital of pacific rim signatories to make room for american capital is what the agreement (and 'free trade' generally) is *for*

though tbf realistically ISDS isn't really a big part of that plan in terms of dollars--example of outrageous settlements abound, but the money is really used as leverage to change laws in the corps' favor rather than, say, an explicit bleedout of welfare programs overlapping with corporate interests. ISDS is just a particularly egregious part of it.

what are the enforcement mechanisms in NATO?

couldn't tell you tbh

Nukes iirc