House GOP moves to weaken independent Ethics watchdog

[infinitemeridian]

actually, damajin didnt defend it and thought it was a bad idea. Top GOP leadership are also against it.

Figure credit need to go where credit it due at least.

Let me rephrase. Trump fanatics will defend this. The cult of personality is real.

[Lumineus]

I'm not sure what the consequences of this really entail. The independent ethics board, which didn't even exist until the end of W's second term, doesn't generally do anything until after the press have already had their say, and all they really have the power to do is deliver reports recommending the censure of individual congressmen, which you won't get without bipartisan support anyway, and which is also mostly toothless. It's not as if they can mobilize the DoJ to shut down an entire political party, nor do they have veto powers. They are basically useless.

[Tragedia]

Drain the swamp?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Everything you listed, has the same evidence base as "fake news" that Wikileaks own wiki account made assertions about. The same logic that ruled she was a satanist, is what ruled pay to play for positions she never had power over assigning.

It's not like she announced Clinton Foundation's second largest donor as small businesses administrator, despite no experience. You don't need to see Wikileaks to notice who Trump is appointing. Yet, for Hillary, it exists somewhere in those emails. There is no actual appointment she had the power to make, but someone can assert it in an email. It's the same...

- - - Updated - - -



We need a Wikileaks of Trump accepting donations and then appointing someone to office. Because him blatantly doing it with at least Linda McMahon and Woody Johnson is not enouph. We need emails from Linda McMahon to Trump, asking for a consultation or a speaking engagement. Because, even though Hillary had no power to do what she is accused of, the fact there is an email reveals the truth. Until then, Trump him self assigning Linda McMahon, the second only to Trump him self, donor to Trump foundation, in small business administration is not enouph to show pay to play. Even Woody Johnson of the butt fumble Jets ownership fame, has gotten a U.K. ambassadorship is not enough. We need assertions from emails, because reality simply doesn't fit our opinion.

Oh, I see. Because there was no DNC leaks, then that means nothing that was leaked was true. Got it.

And by the way, everything I said has hard-written evidence in the e-mails, which are also very well documented. You don't even have to find the e-mails through the search engine, you can simply type any of these on google and you'll find the proof you're looking for. I am not going to do this research for you. The evidence is there, you're just willfully blind to it.

I'd prefer to listen to someone who DOESN'T believe the Jews are the source of all evil, TYVM.

- - - Updated - - -



You say that as though they ever sincerely cared about corruption.

I don't even understand where the hell this claim come from.

Wikileaks has its own agenda (as this past election proved) and are hardly "trustworthy" in what they randomly choose whether to divulge or not.

If agenda equals "Making the leak as impactful as possible", then yes, sure.

Literally nothing you just wrote has anything to do with the claim you made. You're evading. Back up the claim you made.

Again, willfull ignorance. I've showed you that they made nothing of significance. Why don't you show me some things of significance they did? Or do you know they have none and put the burden of proof on me? Hard to show that nothing exist when nothing exist.

Please describe these claims in detail.

I don't have to. Educate yourself and do a little bit of research in the e-mail database.

The problem? That leak did not come at a time when Bush or anyone for that matter was running for office. It couldn't have influenced anything.

Furthermore, notice how I kept calling the email's goal being a dump of email. Compare the page you linked, to this one:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/

So I'm not biased with my assertions, what do you see as the difference?

Right. Because they received the data at that time. They've received the DNC data before the elections and as they aim to release the e-mails in the most impactful way possible, I couldn't have tought of a better time to release them. They succeeded beyond expectations.

Given that Wikileaks has become little more than a Putinist propaganda arm, how about...no?

Neckbearded malcontents aside, that does not absolve the need for a formalized watchdog or public advocate. This idea that vital functions of the governing system can just be crowdsourced is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Wikileaks is not a Russian watchdog, has even been removed from government documents as being related, has been confirmed by the FBI that no link exist between these two entities, but hey, whatever float your boat.

[CostinR]

Let me rephrase. Trump fanatics will defend this. The cult of personality is real.

Why do you assume Trump fanatics want to defend what the GOP House did? I might care to remind you that Trump fanatics despise the GOP.

Trump fanatics only want to defend Trump, if you make this move about Trump sure they'll defend him then, but why would you? What's the value?

[Dug]

Why do you assume Trump fanatics want to defend what the GOP House did? I might care to remind you that Trump fanatics despise the GOP.

Really? Seems the only thing "Trump fanatics" are interested in is winning/losing. They've shown 0 interest in Trump loading his cabinet up with establishment politicians and millionaires. All they care about is "kek liberal tears". Maybe you're right and one day they'll wake the fuck up and realize how they were conned but right now they're still riding off their "win".

[CostinR]

Really? Seems the only thing "Trump fanatics" are interested in is winning/losing. They've shown 0 interest in Trump loading his cabinet up with establishment politicians and millionaires. All they care about is "kek liberal tears". Maybe you're right and one day they'll wake the fuck up and realize how they were conned but right now they're still riding off their "win".

How many Trump fanatics do you even know? Cause I can tell you that's BS. Betsy DeVos was ripped to shreds by Trump fanatics over her common core support and she had to publicly come out against it.

Trump's labor secretary? Breitbart, the home of the alt-right, went after him hard.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...-puzder-232402

Donald Trump on Thursday faced criticism over his labor secretary pick from an unlikely source: Breitbart News, a right-wing media organization that championed Trump's presidential candidacy.

As reports spread of the Trump transition team's plan to announce restaurant chain CEO Andrew Puzder as head of the Labor Department, Breitbart released a piece picking apart the executive's views, writing that he "stands diametrically opposed to Trump’s signature issues on trade and immigration."

Trump fanatics have their bricks ready. Puzder was forced to say publicly he had changed his stance after all the criticism. If Trump had picked Mitt Romney as Secretary of State there would be riots on the streets.

The caveat is that cabinet is not policy. No one that I know that's a Trump fanatic online is a fan of Steve Mnuchin, in fact many were furious over that choice. I mean sure there are some that will defend Trump no matter what he does, that is true. That happens with everyone.

[Orbitus]

Let me rephrase. Trump fanatics will defend this. The cult of personality is real.

Yep, Zombergy and Bloodelf already have. Just waiting for Orlong, Hooked, and Ransath to jump on the bandwagon and we have the full set.

[Captain N]

Yep, Zombergy and Bloodelf already have. Just waiting for Orlong, Hooked, and Ransath to jump on the bandwagon and we have the full set.

If you listen real hard you can already hear the sounds of them banging on and on about how Real Americans are all in support of this.

[Orbitus]

I don't have to. Educate yourself and do a little bit of research in the e-mail database.

Yes, you do. You made the claim, you provide the evidence. Not some vague bullshit that can be interpreted 1000 different ways. Actual evidence that any of the sort happened.

[Waarheid]

Seeing some reports that the entire GOP leadership in Congress opposed this.

A vote can't be called without the speaker's OK. Last I looked Paul Ryan is a GOP leader. I can't imagine him calling a vote prior to the actual session, and without time for public comment, about legislation that he opposed.

[Orbitus]

If you listen real hard you can already hear the sounds of them banging on and on about how Real Americans are all in support of this.

Yeah, you always hear that shit when its a thread about Republicans and defending Trump. If Trump can do anything and get away with anything, they will call him "clever". But if Hillary and the Dems would have done this, they would call them anything from socialists to communists to fascists and calling for anything they can do to get them thrown in jail or voted out.

[Waarheid]

Good, liberals clearly weren't sufficiently motivated to turn out,

So few liberals voted that Clinton recieved 2.8 million more votes than Trump.
The word of this past election cycle is gerrymandering (and foreign operatives to help tip the balance a bit more).

[CostinR]

Yeah, you always hear that shit when its a thread about Republicans and defending Trump

Why the hell is this conversation about Trump? This was the GOP House making a decision that only really affects them.

Why does every single thing that the GOP do get turned into a Trump discussion and a smear against Trump supporters because they "shockingly" don't care about a House Ethics Office.

It's like that stupid story of Paul Ryan banning cameras in the House. Did Trump do that as well? Is a coal miner in West Virginia supposed to care that the Speaker of the House banned filming in the House? Apparently they must, national importance and all that.

[Bullettime]

I'm not sure what the consequences of this really entail. The independent ethics board, which didn't even exist until the end of W's second term, doesn't generally do anything until after the press have already had their say, and all they really have the power to do is deliver reports recommending the censure of individual congressmen, which you won't get without bipartisan support anyway, and which is also mostly toothless. It's not as if they can mobilize the DoJ to shut down an entire political party, nor do they have veto powers. They are basically useless.

It's more that they do independent investigations and then forward their findings to others in recommending punishments or providing information to the press. Hell, it was formed because the House Ethics Committee fucked up multiple times by using it for personal gains and corruption afoot on both sides of the aisle.

Having it now partisan means we'll just end up with another committee, like the House Ethics Committee, being freely used for partisan witch hunts.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Yes, you do. You made the claim, you provide the evidence. Not some vague bullshit that can be interpreted 1000 different ways. Actual evidence that any of the sort happened.

What you're asking me is to give you proof that I have a sheet next to me. I tell you that I do, it's right in my binder! Then you tell me that you don't believe me. I'm telling you to open and check it yourself.

Because if you don't, then you're going to say anything -- that it's no paper, that it's somewhat plastic. You're going to say the lighting's not great, that the sheet does not quite look like a sheet. It's too wide, too lengthy, not white enough. That you can't quite smell the odor of paper.

So no, I've been there and done that enough time already on this forum. People like you here does not look for evidence, they look to get something from which to refute and filter through their own biased lens of "truths".

Educate your own self. Make that research by yourself, because this way the only person you have to refute is yourself.

[Jimusmc]

Why the hell is this conversation about Trump? This was the GOP House making a decision that only really affects them.

Why does every single thing that the GOP do get turned into a Trump discussion and a smear against Trump supporters because they "shockingly" don't care about a House Ethics Office.

It's like that stupid story of Paul Ryan banning cameras in the House. Did Trump do that as well? Is a coal miner in West Virginia supposed to care that the Speaker of the House banned filming in the House? Apparently they must, national importance and all that.

because liberals are still mad their ass got whooped by a celebrity and it's glorious

[Wells]

Vote on this was by secret ballot, which is always how people who aren't ashamed of their decisions vote.

- - - Updated - - -

Why the hell is this conversation about Trump? This was the GOP House making a decision that only really affects them.

Still waiting for the guy who ran on "drain the swamp" to oppose loosening ethics oversight in government....

[alexw]

If people need a reason to care in order to turn out, may as well give it to them.

I wasn't pro burn down prior to this, but I am pro people get what they pay for. They want trump? They get his policies and all the shit that comes with it

Which is why I want to see medicare and social security privatized (then brought back in 4 years), because those target Trump voting demographics like a laser beam.

The retirees who voted Trump on the idea that it was going to be everyone else who gets kicked in the nuts and not them, need to be at the forefront of feeling that pain themselves.

[xChurch]

So few liberals voted that Clinton recieved 2.8 million more votes than Trump.
The word of this past election cycle is gerrymandering (and foreign operatives to help tip the balance a bit more).

Hard to fix gerrymandering without control of the government though, numbers are the only thing that matters now. If anything rules regarding elections will only favour the Republicans more in the future. Motivating people to vote is more important now than ever since at the end of the day it's still about having more numbers in the right spots.