All-Purpose NuILX thread for American Politics

children of nebb: say what up to u mans the dems

children of nebb!

i had a display name on old ilx that was "say what up to u bam and dems"

*pats self on back*

wow

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/us/michigan-city-of-troy-led-by-tea-party-mayor-rejects-federal-dollars.html

haha holy fuck

The transit fight is not Mayor Daniels’s first brush with controversy. Earlier this month, it was revealed that she posted a message to her Facebook page last June, after New York State approved same-sex marriage, stating, “I think I am going to throw away my I Love New York carrying bag now that queers can get married there.”

omg

omg

― suggest biffa (henrietta lacks), Friday, December 23, 2011 1:29 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Permalink

marvel at the Amazing Krauthammer's hypocritical and self-serving convolutions!

he called a tax cut a bribe!

Ultra-rich voters cannot be bribed. They are above all that. Their tax cuts are merely the reward for being such magnificent job creators, which they graciously accept and then put to work for the glory of America.

they can't seem to be bothered with that either these days.

shhh! someone will hear you.

children of nebb!

nebbioli?

Obama issuing signing statements along side signed bills like Bush did

When President Obama signed a budget bill on Friday, he issued a signing statement claiming a right to bypass dozens of provisions that placed requirements or restrictions on the executive branch, saying he had “well-founded constitutional objections” to the new statutes.

Among them, he singled out two sections barring the use of money to transfer prisoners from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, into the United States and limiting the ability of the government to transfer them to the custody or control of foreign countries. Mr. Obama said he would apply them in a way that avoided infringing on his powers, without any specific explanation of what that meant.

He also singled out 14 provisions that he said infringed upon his power to conduct foreign affairs…. “I have advised the Congress that I will not treat these provisions as limiting my constitutional authorities in the area of foreign relations,” Mr. Obama wrote.

disgusting & disgraceful

not sure where to post this, but this thread seems a sensible place: taxpayer-funded 'crisis-pregnancy' centers in north carolnia pressure jewish women to convert to christianity.

really shameful. knock it off, taxpayer-funded crisis-pregnancy centers in north carolina.

Ben Nelson retiring - good riddance

I certainly don't like the guy much, but he's just making a centrist ("") vote more right wing.

Hooray!

dude has undermined a more progressive Dem agenda with his bullshit, he's never done the party any favors that I've appreciated

No, generally Democrats who represent strongly Republican jurisdictions are not at the forefront of their parties. It is not uncommon for them to retard progressive change, but their impact is progressive at the margin. His resignation will have an at least marginally regressive impact for the foreseeable future.

Perhaps you missed when Nelson was the 60th vote for universal healthcare? He may have sacrificed his career for that result.

Wasn't he also one of the reasons the original legislation was gutted and barely recognizable by the time it passed too?

as a parting gift, nelson's retirement means it will be much harder for democrats to hold onto the senate in 2012.

but i guess, with friends like bill nelson, democrats don't need any enemies.

Perhaps you missed when Nelson was the 60th vote for universal healthcare?

yeah just loved his demanding pro-life concession, such a fucktard.

you really are gabbneb aren't you

with friends like bill nelson, democrats don't need any enemies.

^^^

I mean we've all seen what a roaring success this Dem majority in the Senate has been amirite

mattyglesias @mattyglesias -- Ben Nelson has to be the least-loved Senator in Washington. He somehow never managed to snag the gushing coverage of other "centrists."

lol

you really are gabbneb aren't you

also lol.

btw "I am womansplainer hear me roar" is an oddly compelling screen name. and i don't even know what a "womansplainer" is!

are you familiar with this little ditty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmifO2sKT7g&feature=related

Had drinks last night with a friend who works on the Hill, has worked on a campaign or two since 2008. He was pretty confident about the Dems losing the Senate but regaining the House -- says a bunch of criminal investigations will start coming sometime in the spring and summer over money.

A novel theory, and I told him that he would owe me quite a bit of $$ in November should this fever dream come to pass.

Nelson voted for the bill, which grants Americans universal healthcare
His GOP successor would never do so

You can quibble about the marginal provisions, but these are simple facts, whether you like them (or Nelson; I don't either) or not.

i do know that song! other songs i know: don't go breakin' my heart; muscrat love; afternoon delight.

i didn't know the word "womansplainer" is in that song, tho.

to "mansplain" is a thing now, so shakey mo is just being clever.

ah. "womansplaining," as operationally defined in the context of defining 'mansplaining'.

Anyway, good for Nelson for voting to pass heathcare (despite his strongest attempts to weaken it). I don't see this administration ever being so bold again and I don't see a Dem senate majority mattering at all in the short term. So his retirement is mostly inconsequential.

i think you're wrong about that part (admin. never being that bold again).

I do, too.

Administrations are rarely bold in a second term.

a second-term obama can aim high, since he doesn't have to worry about re-election. i'm not saying he will, but it's certainly possible (e.g., bush's effort to radically change social-security at the beginning of his second-term).

well, alfred might be right. i'd have to research it some, but you can see why -- in theory -- a second-term president might feel more empowered to push for his or her agenda.

Reagan and FDR's second terms are the only exceptions that come to mind.

There really is no good basis to generalize about the Presidency based on history. There just isn't much data out there.

historically all the big shit happens in the first term, with some very rare exceptions

xp

well, alfred might be right. i'd have to research it some, but you can see why -- in theory -- a second-term president might feel more empowered to push for his or her agenda

It never happens, and it's usually the stick with which political parties beat voters ("Don't worry -- he'll take care of X in the second term").

i'll concede the point. but it makes no sense to me; why not swing for the fences in the second term?

it's more that their parties aren't going to support sweeping agendas in the second term since the President isn't going around to help them get re-elected

Because the president is a lame duck for the next four years?

going TO BE around

There really is no good basis to generalize about the Presidency based on history. There just isn't much data out there.

rmde