Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Draco-Onis]

If the rules don't apply to everyone, they're not rules.

Ding ding ding we have a winner and this goes to the heart of the argument because the GOP has proven this the rules don't matter only power does. Our democracy is very flawed because the only people that punish congress is congress. The minimum wage aside I do not see how the democrats can go forward without getting rid of filibuster after budget reconciliation Biden's agenda is pretty much dead in the water. The republican party will say no to anything he puts forward doesn't matter what it is.

[Ivanstone]

I don't like it when the Eagles lose to the Cowboys

YOU FUCKING MONSTER. The earth will not be a just and fair place until the Eagles put together a perfect 0-16 season.

[Themius]

Hey, the Democrats can always rescind the AUMF, which I believe Biden used as justification. As Trump did before him. And Obama before him. And Bush Jr. before him.

Again, the problem seems to be that Congress doesn't want to have to be held accountable for military actions and gave that broad authority to the executive branch.

It's also important to note that Biden's administration has said AUMF will be used in accordance with international law on self-defence.

They broke international law on self-defence to bomb Syria...

In fact... Biden's administration doesn't use the 2001 and 2002 AUMF to justify actions in Iraq and Syria like Bush, Obama, and Trump did.

Remember here that trump bomb Syria citing 2002 AUMF. The House passed two resolutions to repeal the 2002 AUMF btw.

Now here is the problem...

“The United States took this action pursuant to the United States’ inherent right of self-defense as reflected in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.”

Pardon? according to international law on self-defence, this action was illegal going by the UN charter, so that's total bullshit.

"The United States always stands ready to take necessary and proportionate action in self-defense, including when, as is the case here, the government of the state where the threat is located is unwilling or unable to prevent the use of its territory by non-state militia groups responsible for such attacks"

Again... this isn't self-defence, and bombing another country claiming self-defence against... another country is foolish.

It smells like... bullshit roses. Trying to paint the same bullshit but in a better light. Citing the UN Charter while then doing something against it... is just... what purpose does that serve?

[Ivanstone]

Ding ding ding we have a winner and this goes to the heart of the argument because the GOP has proven this the rules don't matter only power does. Our democracy is very flawed because the only people that punish congress is congress. The minimum wage aside I do not see how the democrats can go forward without getting rid of filibuster after budget reconciliation Biden's agenda is pretty much dead in the water. The republican party will say no to anything he puts forward doesn't matter what it is.

And why not wait for the next reconciliation to pass a minimum wage increase?

[Themius]

I haven't seen the parliamentarian spell out "By the way, this is the Byrd Rule" and in previous posts lamented that fact. The Senate has lots of rules. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on all of them. Nor am I going to point to a single rule, say "it doesn't break that rule, therefore, it doesn't break any other rules either."



That sure sounds like it's not "advice" but actual proof of a binding opinion. If the parliamentarian's opinion carries no weight, why are we talking about this for pages and pages? Why is the House, the Senate, Harris and Biden?

Because it carries weight. Because there are rules. We don't just choose not to follow rules or laws because they don't fit our desired result. Or, at least, we shouldn't.

I want that minimum wage increase, but I will not fault Harris for following the rules. Yeah, the result isn't to my liking. I don't like it when the Eagles lose to the Cowboys, but if they score fewer points I have nobody to blame but them.

There are other options. I look forward to seeing them in action.

The Senate and the House each has an Office of the Parliamentarian to provide expert advice and assistance on questions relating to the meaning and application of that chamber's legislative rules, precedents, and practices. In the Senate, staff from the parliamentarian's office sit on the Senate dais and advise the presiding officer on the conduct of Senate business.

~https://www.senate.gov/reference/ref...cedure_vrd.htm

Expert advice and assistance on questions pertaining to the application of rules and legislative practice.

EXPERT ADVICE

Tell me where it says "The Parliamentarian passes judgements that must be followed" no... they provide guidance...

[Edge-]

Again... this isn't self-defence, and bombing another country claiming self-defence against... another country is foolish.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...rs-resolution/

Literal second paragraph -

Dear Madam Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

At my direction, on February 25, 2021, United States forces conducted a targeted military strike against infrastructure in eastern Syria used by Iran-supported non-state militia groups.

Those non-state militia groups were involved in recent attacks against United States and Coalition personnel in Iraq, including the February 15, 2021, attack in Erbil, Iraq, which wounded one United States service member, wounded four United States contractors, including one critically, and killed one Filipino contractor. These groups are also engaged in ongoing planning for future such attacks.

So yeah, actually it's well covered. And international law, like it or not, remains a largely symbolic thing rather than anything that exists in reality.

That doesn't mean we have to like it, but it's hardly illegal in any sense. It complies with the War Power Resolution as well, as he alerted Congress in writing within 48 hours.

[Themius]

You posted every step of the Byrd rule. Not following every step is unethical. Period. You might not like the rule but its currently what's in place. There are a lot of shitty things about American politics but until they can be adequately changed you have to deal with what you have.

Seriously, you keep trying to saying this is non-binding. But that's just your belief and your beliefs are less relevant than Harris's and the rest of the Senate.

do you not understand what an ethical analysis is?

To not follow a rule isn't to be unethical for fuck sakes.

If a rule says you must throw out all food does it make it ethical to then give food meant for trash to the homeless? You would fucking say yes.

[Draco-Onis]

And why not wait for the next reconciliation to pass a minimum wage increase?

That makes no sense what would change? the GOP fired or ignored the advice something you are against.

[Edge-]

EXPERT ADVICE

Yeah, that doesn't mean it's meaningless. Don't get me wrong, I'm on team "Ignore the parliamentarian" right now and all, but for example, everything the CDC put out was "expert advice", too. Expert advise is usually something you want to follow, though when it comes to purely political matters it often takes a back seat to politics.

[Breccia]

Ding ding ding we have a winner

This rule, however, did apply. And recently. Not even Trump and McConnell broke the parliamentarian on the tax cut for the rich.

When we find a rule the GOP actually did break, for example not impeaching Biden when caught red-handed blackmailing a country for political dirt, then I'm right there with you.

YOU FUCKING MONSTER.

COME AT ME BROMO

[Shadowferal]

YOU FUCKING MONSTER. The earth will not be a just and fair place until the Eagles put together a perfect 0-16 season.

WTF???

[Breccia]

no... they provide guidance...

"Are we allowed to do this?"
"No."
"Well shit. I guess we'll try something else."

Your depiction of the parliamentarian is at odds with the office's proven history in the last tenure, and the current situation at hand.

[Ivanstone]

That makes no sense what would change? the GOP fired or ignored the advice something you are against.

Because the minimum wage increase is incidental to COVID relief. A different bill could be crafted under reconciliation that would work better with a minimum wage increase.

Furthermore, the Dems should’ve thought of this beforehand.

[Shadowferal]

That makes no sense what would change? the GOP fired or ignored the advice something you are against.

Contrary to the current post trend, we're probably going to find out soon enough.

[Draco-Onis]

This rule, however, did apply. And recently. Not even Trump and McConnell broke the parliamentarian on the tax cut for the rich.

When we find a rule the GOP actually did break, for example not impeaching Biden when caught red-handed blackmailing a country for political dirt, then I'm right there with you.

Because the GOP waited until democrats broke a rule before deciding on doing so...

Again it doesn't matter we elected Joe Kombaya Biden I expect him to get rolled over like Obama did.

[Themius]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...rs-resolution/

Literal second paragraph -



So yeah, actually it's well covered. And international law, like it or not, remains a largely symbolic thing rather than anything that exists in reality.

That doesn't mean we have to like it, but it's hardly illegal in any sense. It complies with the War Power Resolution as well, as he alerted Congress in writing within 48 hours.

But this part is what is not supported by the UN Charter. America itself supports it via our own laws, and its citing of the charter at the end is just fluff.
If the US were indeed following the UN charter then it would deem its own actions as illegal.

No one would deem it acceptable for say... Canada to bomb an area in America if a white terror group killed a bunch of people up there and came back here and we did nothing about it?

This is a uniquely American thing using our own laws I know that. However, unlike Bush, Obama, and Trump, Biden cites international law and the UN charter to justify his actions. Which is a nice novelty... but it's bs.

- - - Updated - - -

"Are we allowed to do this?"
"No."
"Well shit. I guess we'll try something else."

Your depiction of the parliamentarian is at odds with the office's proven history in the last tenure, and the current situation at hand.

did you just ignore what the office of the parliamentarian itself says its role is?

"but they function"

is not the same as "but their duty"

- - - Updated - - -

Because the minimum wage increase is incidental to COVID relief. A different bill could be crafted under reconciliation that would work better with a minimum wage increase.

Furthermore, the Dems should’ve thought of this beforehand.

How is the min wage increase incidental to covid relief when covid itself has probably done enough economic damage to set back 2 generations?

[Felya]

did you just ignore what the office of the parliamentarian itself says its role is?

Why did GOP get rid of one, to pass Bush tax cuts, instead of just ignoring?

[Draco-Onis]

Contrary to the current post trend, we're probably going to find out soon enough.

Biden has already said he wasn't going to do anything about it frankly I don't think he wanted to change the minimum wage. Biden is an institutionalist who follows procedure sad because this is our only shot to stop the runaway freight train coming at us. If democrats do not pass a voting rights act democrats will lose the house and the senate but koombaya Biden won't repeal the fillibuster.

[Elegiac]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-...rs-resolution/

Literal second paragraph -

So yeah, actually it's well covered. And international law, like it or not, remains a largely symbolic thing rather than anything that exists in reality.

That doesn't mean we have to like it, but it's hardly illegal in any sense. It complies with the War Power Resolution as well, as he alerted Congress in writing within 48 hours.

Yep.

I am once again asking Congress to repeal the 2001 AUMF.

[Ivanstone]

do you not understand what an ethical analysis is?

To not follow a rule isn't to be unethical for fuck sakes.

If a rule says you must throw out all food does it make it ethical to then give food meant for trash to the homeless? You would fucking say yes.

I already listed all the potential ramifications.

And yes, it’s still unethical. Giving away that food to the homeless instead would also still earn you the ire of 50 GOP senators, numerous GOP state AG’s and 6 SCOTUS justices who would fight you tooth and nail and cause all that food to rot before it could be given away.

Also they would call the cops on the homeless.