OT: Did Congress Really Do That?

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
As one of their very first actions, the Republicans of the House voted  
to gut their independent Office of Congressional Ethics.  Trump used the  
Executive Tweet power and got them to reverse themselves.

Maybe Trump won't be all bad...

--  

Rick C

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 12:13:30 PM UTC+11, rickman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Trump won't do anything blatantly obviously crooked, which still leaves him a lot of room for profitable manoeuvre.

He's a serial liar, but he is skilled enough to produce the lie that works with the audience of the moment. He's nowhere near skillful enough to have a self-consistent set of lies.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney  

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On 01/04/2017 11:24 PM, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

CEO Trump may find out that the Republican Congress, the CIA, and the  
NSA have very different ideas about who is actually running America,  
Inc. now.

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 4:41:49 PM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Which one of them is most likely to think that he's Putin's glove-puppet?

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On 05/01/2017 05:52, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

All of them.

--  
Regards,
Martin Brown

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On 05/01/17 05:52, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Supplementary question: which one is more likely to care?

The NSA and CIA, I presume.

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On 1/5/2017 12:41 AM, bitrex wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The Republican Congress backed down on this one, so I guess for now it  
will still be the President-Elect.  But I think this shows why Trump was  
not supported by the party.  He isn't in the "club" and won't be kissing  
the same asses everyone else does.

who knows... maybe he will be able to do a little swamp draining.

--  

Rick C

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On 1/5/2017 1:15 AM, rickman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

If you add enough alligators, the water will be displaced and there will  
only be mud which means there will be no alligator food and then the  
alligators will emigrate to the lakes and rivers and make more  
alligators and then it will be alligators everywhere with a lot of mud  
and very hungry alligators.

--  
Grizzly H.




Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 16:44:16 -0500, mixed nuts

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No, the enviro-weenies will claim that the DC swamp 'gator is an
endangered species and stop the swamp draining.  The Army Corps will
never give him a permit.

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On 05/01/17 04:24, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote:
 > He's [Trump] nowhere near skillful enough to
 > have a self-consistent set of lies.

Does he need to? He's managed well enough without
that skill so far.


Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On 1/5/2017 5:33 AM, Tom Gardner wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

One of his attributes has been that he makes it sound like he is saying  
something when if you actually look at the words spoken, he has said  
nothing.  Often he doesn't even form complete sentences.  So it is hard  
to hold him to what he "said".

We will see if people hold him to what he implies.  So far he has said  
some pretty damming things after he was elected.  Essentially he has  
said on more than one occasion that much of what he said while  
campaigning was just said to campaign and he doesn't even need to give  
it further thought.

We'll see if he continues to stage publicity stunts like the Carrier  
event that make it look like he is keeping his promises.  More important  
will be if his supporters are able to look past his rhetoric and see  
what he actually does or doesn't do.

--  

Rick C

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
The democrats put Trump in office.  

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 10:54:09 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I don't know. He ran as a Republican, which the Republicans ought to have been able to prevent, by finding a less repulsive candidate.  

James Arthur did find Ted Cruz less repulsive than Trump, which pretty much defines the level of right-wing bigotry the Republican Party expected from their voters.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 9:33:30 PM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Politicians as a group do seem to need to master that particular skill.

Trump is a rather poor politician, but the Republican party couldn't find anything better, and Hillary Clinton is a woman, which frightened off just enough voters to lose her the electoral college.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On 01/05/2017 08:14 AM, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Are we sure she's a woman, though, and not some fashion of human-cyborg  
hybrid?

My guess as to her 21st century starsign is Myers Briggs personality  
type "INTJ":

https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality

Logical. Efficient. Not fully human.

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On Saturday, January 7, 2017 at 2:25:14 AM UTC+11, bitrex wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Seems unlikely. Nobody has made any fuss about having put together any kind of human-cyborg hybrid, and paraplegic's would be delighted if somebody could do it for them.
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

You'd have to be illogical and inefficient to be "fully" human? No blatant defects equals no charm? Seems irrational to me.

I've met a few of the type, and while being clear-sighted does tend to make people impatient with the less clear-sighted, they do tend to be clear-sighted about social as well as technical questions, and socially deft in consequence.

The English define a gentleman as somebody who is never unintentionally rude, and the INTJ type would never be unintentionally brutal. I don't think that Hillary Clinton is quite up to that standard.

--  
Bill Sloman, Sydney


Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 8:13:30 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

They did no such thing, the story has been misrepresented by the "fake news
" main stream media. The original legislation requires that the authority o
f the office be renewed by each new Congress, so they didn't do anything sp
ecial by voting on it. The office does not and never did have the authority
 to enforce ethics rules, all it did was independently investigate and repo
rt on allegations of ethics violations and then forward the results to the  
House Ethics Committee which has the enforcement authority. All the GOP did
 was make some minor rule changes regarding publicizing information pertain
ing to ongoing investigations, they did not "gut" anything. The Office of C
ongressional Ethics is a Pelosi creation so you know that means it's a bunc
h of worthless garbage. Their record has been investigations mainly directe
d at Democrats and not Republicans, and they're just a bunch of hot air, th
ey will never catch anything big. The real bad actors in Congress and on th
eir staffs sabotage the office by inundating them with anonymous fabricatio
ns of corruption to keep them too busy to go after anything real.

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On 1/5/2017 9:37 AM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 4, 2017 at 8:13:30 PM

UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>> As one of their very first a
ctions, the Republicans of the House voted
>> to gut
their independent Office of Congressional Ethics.  Tru
mp used the
>> Executive Tweet power and got them to
reverse themselves.
>>
>> Maybe Trump won't be all b
ad...
>>
>> --
>>
>> Rick C
>
> They did no such

 thing, the story has been misrepresented by the "fake
 news" main stream media. The original legislation req
uires that the authority of the office be renewed by e
ach new Congress, so they didn't do anything special b
y voting on it. The office does not and never did have
 the authority to enforce ethics rules, all it did was
 independently investigate and report on allegations o
f ethics violations and then forward the results to th
e House Ethics Committee which has the enforcement aut
hority. All the GOP did was make some minor rule chang
es regarding publicizing information pertaining to ong
oing investigations, they did not "gut" anything. The
Office of Congressional Ethics is a Pelosi creation so
 you know that means it's a bunch of worthless garbage
. Their record has been investigations mainly directed
 at Democrats and not Republicans, and they're just a
bunch of hot air, they will never catch anything big.
The real bad actors in Congress and on their staffs sa
botage the office by inundating them with anonymous fa
brications of corruption to keep them too busy to go a
fter anything real.
 
Sounds like the Republican spin
 on the story.  I didn't get this from  
biased, fake
new reports.  This was carried on *every* mainstream m
edia  
and even the non-mainstream media.  The fact is
 under the rule changes  
the OCE would have come unde
r the purview of the Ethics Committee which  
is 100%
congressmen.  The Office of Congressional Ethics would
 not be  
able to refer a case to prosecutors without
approval by the Ethics  
Committee.  So in effect the
foxes would be in charge of the hen house.
 
You can
try to paint the Office of Congressional Ethics as a p
artisan  
office, but they have investigated Democrats
 as well as Republicans.
 
Clearly you are no support
er of Congressional ethics.
 
--  
 
Rick C


Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 1:55:23 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it
he
news" main stream media. The original legislation requires that the authori
ty of the office be renewed by each new Congress, so they didn't do anythin
g special by voting on it. The office does not and never did have the autho
rity to enforce ethics rules, all it did was independently investigate and  
report on allegations of ethics violations and then forward the results to  
the House Ethics Committee which has the enforcement authority. All the GOP
 did was make some minor rule changes regarding publicizing information per
taining to ongoing investigations, they did not "gut" anything. The Office  
of Congressional Ethics is a Pelosi creation so you know that means it's a  
bunch of worthless garbage. Their record has been investigations mainly dir
ected at Democrats and not Republicans, and they're just a bunch of hot air
, they will never catch anything big. The real bad actors in Congress and o
n their staffs sabotage the office by inundating them with anonymous fabric
ations of corruption to keep them too busy to go after anything real.
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it
  
Quoted text here. Click to load it

That's the way it works now, the OCE does not refer cases to prosecutors, t
hey report to the House Ethics Committee and they do the referring. A lot o
f their stuff doesn't get referred anywhere, it's trivial little slap on th
e wrist stuff. You also have a funny idea of the law, reporting discovery o
f criminal activity is not a discretionary authority, it is a duty under th
e law. How thick are you that you haven't realized the mainstream media are
 a lethal combination of corruption and ignorance. All the big players need
 to be put out of business, they are a faux media.

Re: OT: Did Congress Really Do That?
On 1/5/2017 3:54 PM, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Thursday, January 5, 2017 at 1:55:23 PM U

TC-5, rickman wrote:
>> On 1/5/2017 9:37 AM, bloggs.f
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, Jan
uary 4, 2017 at 8:13:30 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote:
>>>>
 As one of their very first actions, the Republicans o
f the House voted
>>>> to gut their independent Offic
e of Congressional Ethics.  Trump used the
>>>> Execu
tive Tweet power and got them to reverse themselves.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
>>>> Maybe Trump won't be all bad...
>>>>
>>>>
 --
>>>>
>>>> Rick C
>>>
>>> They did no such thin
g, the story has been misrepresented by the "fake news
" main stream media. The original legislation requires
 that the authority of the office be renewed by each n
ew Congress, so they didn't do anything special by vot
ing on it. The office does not and never did have the
authority to enforce ethics rules, all it did was inde
pendently investigate and report on allegations of eth
ics violations and then forward the results to the Hou
se Ethics Committee which has the enforcement authorit
y. All the GOP did was make some minor rule changes re
garding publicizing information pertaining to ongoing
investigations, they did not "gut" anything. The Offic
e of Congressional Ethics is a Pelosi creation so you
know that means it's a bunch of worthless garbage. The
ir record has been investigations mainly directed at D
emocrats and not Republicans, and they're just a bunch
 of hot air, they will never catch anything big. The r
eal bad actors in Congress and on their staffs sabotag
e the office by inundating them with anonymous fabrica
tions of corruption to keep them too busy to go after
anything real.
>>
>> Sounds like the Republican spin
 on the story.  I didn't get this from
>> biased, fak
e new reports.  This was carried on *every* mainstream
 media
>> and even the non-mainstream media.  The fac
t is under the rule changes
>> the OCE would have com
e under the purview of the Ethics Committee which
>>
is 100% congressmen.  The Office of Congressional Ethi
cs would not be
>> able to refer a case to prosecutor
s without approval by the Ethics
>> Committee.  So in
 effect the foxes would be in charge of the hen house.

>>
>> You can try to paint the Office of Congressio

nal Ethics as a partisan
>> office, but they have inv
estigated Democrats as well as Republicans.
>>
>> Cl
early you are no supporter of Congressional ethics.
>
Quoted text here. Click to load it
>> --
>>
>> Rick C
>
> That's the way it works
now, the OCE does not refer cases to prosecutors, they
 report to the House Ethics Committee and they do the
referring. A lot of their stuff doesn't get referred a
nywhere, it's trivial little slap on the wrist stuff.
You also have a funny idea of the law, reporting disco
very of criminal activity is not a discretionary autho
rity, it is a duty under the law. How thick are you th
at you haven't realized the mainstream media are a let
hal combination of corruption and ignorance. All the b
ig players need to be put out of business, they are a
faux media.
 
I see.  I think I understand now.  The
Republicans approved a measure  
that would do nothing
 regarding the Office of Congressional Ethics but  
fo
r no reason a lot of people got up in arms about it an
d the  
Republicans backed off and killed the measure
some of them saying they  
would take care of it later
 on.
 
Got it.  Republicans are good at doing nothing
 and *that* is what people  
were complaining about?

 
--  
 
Rick C


Site Timeline