Jump to content

SilasCoade

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    3,400
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by SilasCoade

  1. 4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    He's not good enough to be the Jerk.  I want him entering the courthouse for sentencing in an ill-fitting suit he had to buy from a thrift shop, with a visible and still-wet shitstain in the back produced from a mix of his elderly loss of bowel control and his abject terror of going to prison.

    All the suffering in the universe is insufficient to do justice to what they tried to visit on MY country of 350 million people.

    We hunted down and killed every member of Al Qaeda we could find for attacking our country.  That Rudy and his fellow traitors walk the earth alive is testament to WAY more mercy than they deserve.

    It's more of a testament to the racism and islamophobia that pervades US culture than it is to mercy though. If he was Rudy bin Suleiman and could quote the Koran in Arabic he'd be strung up with the quickness.

    • Hook 'Em 4
  2. I'd like to see them go to an all-tourney format. Let every team host an 8-team one-week tourney with two 4-team round robin pools followed by a championship game. Tourney championships are first tie breaker in seeding or earn extra cash or some sort of draft compensation or something. Reduced travel stress. Reduced back to backs. Improve experience for fans of other teams. Improve revenue for stadiums of teams that suck but do good numbers when visiting stars are there. Also more efficient use of facilities.

  3. 2 minutes ago, troph said:

    Let’s get another climate bill going. I’m down for it. If you really think strengthening and expanding NATO and  neutralizing Russia is “we’ll see” then I really don’t know what to make of you.  Now if you say not progressive enough I can’t argue. 

    I don't really mean to derail the thread so if you want to move the convo elsewhere I'd be happy to. My comment on the NATO/Russia stuff is not meant as a critique so much as an acknowledgement that in something as complex as this geopolitical hellscape, nothing is guaranteed. Does this neuter Russia, leaving China dependent on Western cooperation for continued growth and development, or does it make Putin desperate, leading to nuclear winter and a generation of West Coast kids immortalized as atomic shadows kneeling under desks? I don't think the latter is likely, but it's not impossible.

  4. 6 minutes ago, 'stache said:
    12 minutes ago, troph said:

    Biden is fine? Most historic climate bill our country has ever seen. NATO expansion and neutering of Russia so the US can pivot to a pacific strategy almost exclusively for the next 25 years, coalescing an alliance against China with allies such as the Aussies and Brits. Economy is remarkably resilient. DOJ is independent - like it’s supposed to be.  Just because he’s not demanding attention like a reality tv male whore doesn’t mean he’s meh. 

    JFC, this! He’s one of the most effective presidents we’ve had and got shit done in just a few years. Even if others are doing the heavy lifting, he hired them, he knows his shit. He’s not as progressive as I’d like, that’s literally it, any democrat is closer to my beliefs than any of the hate mongering fraud worshippers. Biden 2024! Hell put his head in one of those Futurama jars and give him 4 more years after that!

    Oh you mean the climate bill that's 25 years too late and a few trillion dollars short, that one? My grandchildren aren't going to have to worry about forest fires b/c there aren't going to be any fucking forests. But sure, carbon capture away. I do give credit on the economy. I guess time will tell if the foreign policy approach is a winning one. I'm glad we're not in a war for the first time in a few generations. Like I said, he's fine. I have no problem with the job he's done. You can applaud his meh media presence because you're already on his side, but he really did nothing to win over the moderate conservatives or squash the Trumpkins. He's been fine this term. He's not going to be fine in 2028. He's going to be unfit for office. The decline can be as swift as it is inevitable. If it's him or Trump I'll hold my nose and do my duty, but I sure wish it wasn't him.

    • Fuck You 1
  5. 3 minutes ago, troph said:

    Listening to her it’s clear she would have made a fantastic president. 

    I think she would have been ... fine. Just like Biden's pretty much ... fine. I will take fine all god damn day after the nightmare of Trump. If Hillary wanted to run in 2024 I'd vote for her over Joe because I am presented with a mountain of evidence every single day that people over 80 should not be running to the grocery store on their own much less running the country.

    • Hook 'Em 6
  6. 3 hours ago, Message Board User said:

     

    I'm not saying I doubt him, but what is he claiming Morey lied about? Did he get promised a max deal for taking a short term discount last time? Does he think they weren't really making a good faith effort to trade him? What's the lie?

  7. 10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    you can't use them to investigate already indicted people

    So you just have to ignore any damning evidence that comes out if it pertains to a different case involving an individual already under indictment? That's the part that seems stupid.

     

  8. 12 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

    You have to read between the lines a little bit.  The government filed a motion for a Garcia hearing, alleging that there are three witnesses represented by Woodward that they intend to call as trial witnesses against Nauta in Florida.

    That motion, which is not of record, was accompanied by two sealed grand jury "documents," presumably transcripts of these witnesses' testimony implicating Nauta.

    Judging by what Cannon wrote, these witnesses gave their testimony before a DC Grand Jury after Nauta was indicted:

    "address the legal propriety of using an out-of-district [DC] grand jury proceeding to continue to investigate and/or to seek post-indictment hearings on matters pertinent to the instant indicted matter in this district."

    That seems to indicate that the testimony in question was taken before an out-of-district DC grand jury after Nauta's indictment, raising the issue of possible violation of DOJ policies posted immediately upthread.  Maybe she is utterly full of shit in interpreting the government's evidence that way, but I think you can see a reason for concern.  Hopefully the government has an adequate explanation.

    The key word in the policies pertaining to use of grand juries is "solely."  As long as there was some other purpose for interrogating these witnesses in DC about things Nauta did relative to the crimes for which he is already indicted, they should be ok.  Hopefully it's a little stronger than that.  Smith has been aggressive as hell with grand juries, and I like it.  I just hope he didn't cross a line.

    Like this Yuscil Taveras (sp?) guy that apparently fired Woodward and then ratted on Nauta.  Apparently he was the supervisor of the surveillance tapes that Nauta and the other guy tried to get to erase them.  He apparently testified to the Florida grand jury, which then issued the superseding indictment, for a new defendant and an existing one for a new crime.  They apparently did that one right.

    As a layperson I just have to say this is the stupidest fucking argument of all time. You're telling me that the Feds have some mafioso in their sights, and separately have a NJ garbage truck company exec on the hook for tax evasion and the garbage man lets slip that he saw mafioso dump a body into his truck and paid him to keep quiet about it that that testimony is null b/c it occurred in the context of a different investigation? That's dumb as hell.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  9. 3 hours ago, C-Man said:

    Yep. Looks like he's the first one to get arrested. The white hillbillies who started the entire thing wound up getting cuffed-and-stuffed, it appears though. We'll see if any of them get charged.

     

    I just saw the one dude hit the lady over the head with a folding chair. That's going to be punished, no doubt. I think the rest of the women getting attacked came from other women.

    I guess some of the people in the blue shirts were women that I initially thought were dudes

  10. On 8/4/2023 at 7:12 AM, BamaATL said:

    My view on it, and it's just that, is that you don't want unnecessary redundancy in spending.  I.E. The Air Force has surveillance satellites to do one thing, they Marines want another, and since the don't coordinate we wind up with two systems instead of the more efficient one. But having all their satellite needs filtered and coordinated in on spot, some waste may be reduced.  At least that is the idea in theory.  Now why it couldn't just stay under the Air Force umbrella, basically pissing contest.

    In many contexts redundancy is not inefficiency. Having redundant surveillance systems seems like a good idea.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  11. 1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

    One thing I like about term limits is their proponents have a lot of theoretical arguments to support them that have been conclusively disproven by decades of data, but they just keep thinking their theoretical arguments must be correct.

    I don't think you're reading those studies with a critical eye. Oh noes, this century old system did not immediately adapt to an abrupt disruption. The disrupting policy therefore must be bad. Give me a 50 year study to compare ten minutes versus none. Also is great that these studies highlight pitfalls of term limits. Why not legislate ways to address those when instituting term limits? Implementation details.

  12. 11 hours ago, Mole said:

    Limiting the number of terms members can serve would:

    1. Take power away from voters: 

    Spoiler

    Perhaps the most obvious consequence of establishing congressional term limits is that it would severely curtail the choices of voters. A fundamental principle in our system of government is that voters get to choose their representatives. Voter choices are restricted when a candidate is barred from being on the ballot.

    False. I would argue that allowing Mitch McConnell to run indefinitely curtails the choices of voters because of the inherent advantages an incumbent has in our system.

     

    2. Severely decrease congressional capacity: 

    Spoiler

    Policymaking is a profession in and of itself. Our system tasks lawmakers with creating solutions to pressing societal problems, often with no simple answers and huge likelihoods for unintended consequences. Crafting legislative proposals is a learned skill; as in other professions, experience matters. In fact, as expert analysis has shown with the recently passed Senate tax bill, policy crafted by even the most experienced of lawmakers is likely to have ambiguous provisions and loopholes that undermine the intended effects of the legislation. The public is not best served if inexperienced members are making policy choices with widespread, lasting effects.

    Being on the job allows members an opportunity to learn and navigate the labyrinth of rules, precedents and procedures unique to each chamber. Term limits would result in large swaths of lawmakers forfeiting their hard-earned experience while simultaneously requiring that freshman members make up for the training and legislative acumen that was just forced out of the door.

    Plus, even with term limits, freshman members would still likely defer to more experienced lawmakers—even those with just one or two terms of service—who are further along the congressional learning curve or who have amassed some level of institutional clout. Much as we see today, this deference would effectively consolidate power in members that have experience in the art of making laws. In other words, a new, though less-experienced, Washington “establishment” would still wield a disproportionate degree of power over policymaking.

    Even in instances where staffers, rather than members, lead the charge in crafting policies, it is often the member-to-member interactions that solidify a measure’s final details, build coaltions, and ultimately get legislation passed. Take, for example, the recent Sen. Graham-Sen. Durbin alliance that has recently proposed a bipartisan immigration compromise. Such a partnership is due in no small part to the pair’s long history—Graham and Durbin served two years together in the House and the Senate for 21 years and counting. Term limits would severely hamper the opportunity for these necessary relationships to develop. Strangers in a new environment are in a far worse position to readily trust and rely on their colleagues, particularly from across the aisle.

    3. Limit incentives for gaining policy expertise: 

    Spoiler

    Members who know their time in Congress is limited will face less pressure to develop expertise on specific issues simply because, in most cases, the knowledge accrued won’t be nearly as valuable in a few short years.

    We have seen a semblance of this effect after Republicans limited House committee chairs to six years at the helm. The incentives for chairs to dive deep into the policy details of their committee’s jurisdiction are now limited, given that chairs know they will soon be forced to give up the gavel. (In the 115thCongress alone, an alarming seven House Chairs have announced their retirements from Congress.)

    Thus, term limits would impose a tremendous brain drain on the institution. Fewer experienced policymakers in Congress results in increased influence of special interests that are ready and willing to fill the issue-specific information voids. Additionally, a decrease in the number of seasoned lawmakers would result in greater deference to the executive branch and its agencies that administer the laws on a daily basis, given their greater expertise and longer tenure.

    4. Automatically kick out effective lawmakers: 

    Spoiler

    No matter how knowledgeable or effectual a member may be in the arduous tasks of writing and advancing legislation, term limits would ensure that his or her talents will run up against a strict time horizon. In what other profession do we force the best employees into retirement with no consideration as to their abilities or effectiveness on the job? Doesn’t it make more sense to capitalize on their skills, talents and experience, rather than forcing them to the sidelines where they will do their constituents, the public and the institution far less good? Kicking out popular and competent lawmakers simply because their time runs out ultimately results in a bad return on the investment of time spent learning and mastering the ins and outs of policymaking in Congress.

    The above three items are all variants of the same argument, essentially the loss of institutional knowledge argument. One could mitigate this through the details of term limits such as 3 terms vs 5 terms vs some stipulation on the number of terms one could be the senior position from one's state/district. This also excludes the possibility of incoming legislators recognizing the value their predecessors represent. The incoming legislators need chiefs of staff and policy advisors. Isn't it better to hire someone for those positions that knows their way through the jungle rather than someone who's never been in the shit? Number 4 above in particular presents an important and rarely recognized assumption. Essentially the argument that other professions don't enforce retirement without regard to abilities assumes that politics was intended to be and should continue to be a lifelong career rather than an interval of service to the state. Additionally the idea that this does not happen in other professions is simply not true. In fact, the closest analogy is the military where people get retired all the time in the "up or out" policy.

     

    5. Do little to minimize corruptive behavior or slow the revolving door:

    Spoiler

    Because term limits have never existed on the federal level, political scientists have studied states’ and foreign governments’ experiences with term limits to project what effects the measure would have on Congress. These studies regularly find that many of the corruptive, ‘swampy,’ influences advocates contend would be curtailed by instituting term limits are, in fact, exacerbated by their implementation.

    Take lobbyist influence, for example. Term limit advocates contend lawmakers unconcerned with reelection will rebuff special interest pressures in favor of crafting and voting for legislation solely on its merits. However, the term limit literature commonly finds that more novice legislators will look to fill their own informational and policy gaps by an increased reliance on special interests and lobbyists. Relatedly, lawmakers in states with term limits have been found—including from this 2006 50-state survey—to increase deference to agencies, bureaucrats, and executives within their respective states and countries simply because the longer serving officials have more experience with the matters.

    Advocates also suggest that limiting the number of terms lawmakers can serve will ultimately result in fewer members looking to capitalize on their Hill relationships and policymaking experience by becoming lobbyists themselves. Establishing term limits, however, would likely worsen the revolving door problem between Congress and the private sector given that mandating member exits ensures a predictable and consistently high number of former members available to peddle their influence. The revolving door phenomenon is considered a normative problem without term limits and relatively few departing members per cycle. With term limits, the number of influential former members would drastically increase, giving more private sector landing spots to members whose time has run out. More lobbying firms would have members able to advance their special interests with former members making use of their relationships and deep understanding of the ways of the Hill.

    On the surface, the case for term limits is strong given their potential to curtail the forces of corruption that so many assume dictate the ways of Washington. But, precisely because the creation of successful public policies by even the most experienced of officials is so difficult and uncertain, we should not mandate that our most effective and seasoned lawmakers be forced out of the institution. Instead, as constituents, we should rely on the most effective mechanism available to remove unresponsive, ineffectual members of Congress: elections.

    This seems like the most valid argument against, but I suggest there are flaws here as well. One flaw is conflating the problem of term limits with the problem of reliance on lobbyists. Increased limits and regulations on lobbyists and campaign finance reform could go a long way to limiting the revolving door by de-incentivizing the corporate billionaire class from hiring lobbyists in the first place. It also again ignores the potential for incoming legislators to retain their predecessors in advisory roles.

     

  13. 15 hours ago, slorch said:

    Vote better.

    I just feel it should be up to the citizens to determine their representation.  

    Admittedly oversimplified, but there are trade-offs with or without term limits, either way.   Neither set-up is going to magically correct what ails us.

    I understand that term limits might have drawbacks too, but it's naive to just say "vote better". In our fucked up two party system the incumbent has huge advantages that make it difficult to get them primaried out unless they run afoul of the political machine. So then the choice ends up being the probably corrupt 12 term octogenarian or the dude that wants to instill the Christian version of Sharia law. You have to incentivize the machine to not allow power to congeal on individuals and to put forth moderate candidates that can attract voters from both sides.

  14.   

    9 hours ago, slorch said:

    I don't support term limits, but I would support this.

    Time's up.  Go retire...

    I'm very curious what the argument against term limits would be. Age limits, term limits, campaign contribution limits. I'm for all the limits.

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...