The Beginning of the End: Senate Passes Major Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill

[Gestopft]

Because that was the only viable outcome. What do you posit was an alternative? Vote in Trump, plus every D senator? That would've worked better?

Let me put it this way: I don't care so much about "establishment" politicians being voted back in. I care about the reasons that the "establishment" isn't working for the American people the way it's supposed to. Fix the system and we'll get better politicians.

- - - Updated - - -

And Obama's expanded executive order spree.

I'm sorry, but Trump has a little more power now than you're trying to give him credit for, and you can thank Obama and Clinton for that.

Executive Orders still have plenty of limitations. If he wants to push any of his agenda into actual laws, he's going to need to work with Ryan and McConnell. (Also, Obama is 16th among presidents as far as number of executive orders goes.)

[Daerio]

Why not? Just trying to understand the reasoning.

Because some cooperation in government doesn't mean the system of checks and balances has disappeared.

Congress has their purview of authority, executive has theirs, and judicial has theirs.

For example, "running against" the checks and balances system would be something like the president overreaching his authority and dipping into Congress's.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/05/...ecutive-abuse/

Perhaps no post-World War II president (and maybe none before) has justified his executive overreach by openly contending he was working around the law-making branch of government because it has refused to do what he desired. Whether a court finds his actions constitutional or not, it’s an argument that stands, at the very least, against the spirit American governance. Today, many liberals call this “leadership.”

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...orps/82835834/

"It is not so much the number of executive orders but executive orders that are in direct violation or in opposition to the intent of the Congress," said Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., in a debate over the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison last year.

Convincing Congress to follow his plan is exactly what the President should be doing. Circumventing Congress in order to "get things done" without them is exactly what the "checks and balances" are supposed to prevent.

So basically you're trying to accuse Trump of doing something that Obama has been doing for 8 years.

[Kiri]

Because some cooperation in government doesn't mean the system of checks and balances has disappeared.

Congress has their purview of authority, executive has theirs, and judicial has theirs.

For example, "running against" the checks and balances system would be something like the president overreaching his authority and dipping into Congress's.

I was asking why forcing congress to fall in line with the president, i.e. having to agree with him all the time, would not be against checks and balances. Your citation does not really answer that o.o

[Gestopft]

Convincing Congress to follow his plan is exactly what the President should be doing. Circumventing Congress in order to "get things done" without them is exactly what the "checks and balances" are supposed to prevent.

So basically you're trying to accuse Trump of doing something that Obama has been doing for 8 years.

Convincing Congress sort of involves working with them. If he has to circumvent Congress to push his agenda, it meant that Congress sure as hell hasn't "fallen in line."

[Daerio]

I was asking why forcing congress to fall in line with the president, i.e. having to agree with him all the time, would not be against checks and balances. Your citation does not really answer that o.o

I never said that Congress is "forced" to fall in line behind the president. But, if you take a specific Congressman perhaps like Paul Ryan, and publicly put him at odds against President Trump, do you think Ryan is going to have an easier or harder time getting re-elected in his state?

And that's exactly how our system is supposed to work.

[Kiri]

I never said that Congress is "forced" to fall in line behind the president. But, if you take a specific Congressman perhaps like Paul Ryan, and publicly put him at odds against President Trump, do you think Ryan is going to have an easier or harder time getting re-elected in his state?

And that's exactly how our system is supposed to work.

You did not. The person I quoted did o.o.

[Gestopft]

But, if you take a specific Congressman perhaps like Paul Ryan, and publicly put him at odds against President Trump, do you think Ryan is going to have an easier or harder time getting re-elected in his state?

That ultimately depends on the public's perception of how Trump is doing, I'd imagine.

[Daerio]

That ultimately depends on the public's perception of how Trump is doing, I'd imagine.

And if public perception is that Trump can't get anything done because Republican Congressmen are standing in his way?

Goodbye Mr. Congressman.

[Gestopft]

And if public perception is that Trump can't get anything done because Republican Congressmen are standing in his way?

Goodbye Mr. Congressman.

I was referring more to if Trump has a major fuckup or scandal that causes people to distance themselves from him. Or if the policies they do pass have noticeably negative effects. We have to give him some time before we can really judge "how he's doing." Especially on the economy.

Realistically, I'd imagine that Trump and the Congress will come together on a number of issues. Republican politicians did show a complete lack of backbone this election, so your point is taken.

[Deleted]

So every party that criticizes the USA or any ally can be silenced?!

[Strangewayes]

http://www.portman.senate.gov/public...A-A265F4B5692C

Freedom had a good run; 1984, here we come.

Edit:https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil.../s2692/text/is
Bill has different names and/or associated bills to ride along from Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 to Disinformation act to Anti-Propaganda Act.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-.../2692/all-info

It goes great along with the 2012 US Propaganda bill. http://www.businessinsider.com.au/nd...paganda-2012-5