Bernie takes the lead in first national poll post Warren attack

[HorusRa2 5,005]

2 minutes ago, Economy said:

I'll try to answer as best as I can

 

1. I know it's just a feeling. I never stated it as some fact. I literally just brought it up to discuss it based on what I've seen if his style of talking or examples like NAFTA.

 

2. I have no idea tbh. That wasn't what I was putting at issue. Whether changes are small in scale or bigger in scale like Bernie's propositions... Them needing to be passed still goes thru the exact same government process. So the issue of getting stuff passed or not is still there

 

3. I never said I was opposed to trying something different? I'm not 100% sure what ur refering to in that question

 

4. Yeah that's politics in general. We are in a democracy. The downside of it is that it's often disfunctional, everything often takes a long time to get done etc. No politician is ever free of those difficulties unless they are lucky to both have a super majority in Government and have their party support most of their ideas

 

That's why minority Governments like we have in Canada right now is a nightmare. Things mostly just stay as they are cuz nothing can ever pass

Let me try to clarify a few of my points. 

Bernie's theory of the case is that somehow pressure from the populace brought together by Bernie rallying people from state to state on any given issue will put pressure on legislators to vote in his favor. This is not a technique that has been done before so we don't have a historical precedent that we can use to determine whether or not this will be an effective way to get legislation passed. Bernie has also mentioned that he would also consider supporting candidates who would vote for his agenda as primary opponents to said legislators who would not budge.  That's a theory of change Bernie subscribes to. My point is that this theory of change is different than the status quo, and I'm asking what is your issue with trying this as a new technique to pass legislation? 

 

My comment about Warren is that the only proposal she has set forth in order to pass her legislation (which would also receive push back from the same senators and lawmakers that Bernie's policies would receive) is she wants to try eliminating the filibuster and pass legislation through budget reconciliation with a 50 + 1 vote (assuming she can get a majority in the senate or bipartisan support if they can't get a senate majority). 

 

You did mention NAFTA and I do want to hit on this as well. I understand that the USMCA is an improvement; however, why is it that people think it makes sense to create a trade agreement and pass it even if nobody is in love with it just so they can continue to argue about the problems with the agreement they just passed? You can say those modest improvements are better than nothing but I don't subscribe to the notion that there's a real benefit to incrementalism. We either get it right or we get it wrong. And besides, the people who just voted for the USMCA just gave a future attack to their opponents when it results in more job loss across this country. People that voted against it will still be able to say they didn't support the trade deal that lost people their job and their way of making a living. So, while you can argue that the purity tests make Bernie a liability because the lack of progress that has been made, but it's much better than having to defend a bad vote that everybody knew was a bad vote. But hey! It was a modest improvement. 

[Economy 53,112]

14 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

Let me try to clarify a few of my points. 

Bernie's theory of the case is that somehow pressure from the populace brought together by Bernie rallying people from state to state on any given issue will put pressure on legislators to vote in his favor. This is not a technique that has been done before so we don't have a historical precedent that we can use to determine whether or not this will be an effective way to get legislation passed. Bernie has also mentioned that he would also consider supporting candidates who would vote for his agenda as primary opponents to said legislators who would not budge.  That's a theory of change Bernie subscribes to. My point is that this theory of change is different than the status quo, and I'm asking what is your issue with trying this as a new technique to pass legislation? 

 

My comment about Warren is that the only proposal she has set forth in order to pass her legislation (which would also receive push back from the same senators and lawmakers that Bernie's policies would receive) is she wants to try eliminating the filibuster and pass legislation through budget reconciliation with a 50 + 1 vote (assuming she can get a majority in the senate or bipartisan support if they can't get a senate majority). 

 

You did mention NAFTA and I do want to hit on this as well. I understand that the USMCA is an improvement; however, why is it that people think it makes sense to create a trade agreement and pass it even if nobody is in love with it just so they can continue to argue about the problems with the agreement they just passed? You can say those modest improvements are better than nothing but I don't subscribe to the notion that there's a real benefit to incrementalism. We either get it right or we get it wrong. And besides, the people who just voted for the USMCA just gave a future attack to their opponents when it results in more job loss across this country. People that voted against it will still be able to say they didn't support the trade deal that lost people their job and their way of making a living. So, while you can argue that the purity tests make Bernie a liability because the lack of progress that has been made, but it's much better than having to defend a bad vote that everybody knew was a bad vote. But hey! It was a modest improvement. 

Ok. In the first part I didn't get what u were saying. I have no issue with that about using people as pressure tactics. So if ur asking whats my issue with trying that, there is none. I guess only time will tell if that works or not

 

The Warren paragraph I'm not sure what ur talking about there ull have to clarify better

 

The part on NAFTA and incrementalism I have to disagree with u on that one... I think if u have an opportunity to improve on something even if it's only marginal you should take it rather than just leave things as they are as there's no benefit what's so ever to just leaving it as they are. I never subscribed to a black and white all or nothing idea in politics

 

If there was another serious proposal with better improvements to labor standards and environment laws I think voting no could be justified but since there wasn't, I don't see what there is to gain by voting no.

 

USMCA can just as easily in the future be questioned and brought up again for amendments as the old NAFTA. Passing these incremental changes doesn't stop it for further adjustments

 

If the new deal failed to get thru, either the US would pull out entirely in which case then these Standards that did exist wouldn't exist at all, or the US would just stay in the old NAFTA and it's unlikely leaders would want to dissect it yet again right after all the drama and create further uncertainty

 

Either way, the other two alternatives are worse

 

Unless Bernie was planning on becoming President and planning on bringing up NAFTA again and planning to try to change it. That's the only way I see voting no made sense

[HorusRa2 5,005]

27 minutes ago, Economy said:

Ok. In the first part I didn't get what u were saying. I have no issue with that about using people as pressure tactics. So if ur asking whats my issue with trying that, there is none. I guess only time will tell if that works or not

 

The Warren paragraph I'm not sure what ur talking about there ull have to clarify better

 

The part on NAFTA and incrementalism I have to disagree with u on that one... I think if u have an opportunity to improve on something even if it's only marginal you should take it rather than just leave things as they are as there's no benefit what's so ever to just leaving it as they are

 

If there was another serious proposal with better improvements to labor standards and environment laws I think voting no could be justified but since there wasn't, I don't see what there is to gain by voting no.

 

USMCA can just as easily in the future be questioned and brought up again for amendments as the old NAFTA. Passing these incremental changes doesn't stop it for further adjustments

 

If the new deal failed to get thru, either the US would pull out entirely in which case then these Standards that did exist wouldn't exist at all, or the US would just stay in the old NAFTA and it's unlikely leaders would want to dissect it yet again right after all the drama and create further uncertainty

 

Either way, the other two alternatives are worse

 

Unless Bernie was planning on becoming President and planning on bringing up NAFTA again and planning to try to change it. That's the only way I see voting no made sense

With regard to my first point, when I say why are you opposed to something new? What I'm really saying is that your posts (in general) seem very doubtful that a Bernie presidency would accomplish anything. What I'm saying is that what Bernie's saying he wants to do does not have a historical precedent in terms of success or failure rate. So it doesn't really make sense to me to me doubtful of it. Instead, I think it's a great idea and we should try it. If it doesn't work, then now we'll know. 

 

My paragraph with regard to Warren is this: Bernie's theory of change is not Warren's theory of change. Warren wants to work in our existing system and to try eliminating the filibuster. Then she wants to pass legislation through budget reconciliation. In simple terms, to pass something through budget reconciliation, you can get something passed with a simple majority in the senate (51 - 49). That is all that Warren has proposed to pass the policies that are just as demonized by the right as Bernie's. I provided a little extra detail after my reply. 

 

All I can say is that we fundamentally disagree with the incrementalism approach. I don't think it makes any sense to keep rehashing the same arguments in congress as opposed to having a debate and actually solving issues. I get that both sides have to give a little and that everything doesn't get passed in its pure form but the USMCA is still a trade deal that will result in job loss because it was a trade deal created by big multinational corporations and their interests in mind. It is not a deal that is going to benefit workers and doesn't address the concerns about climate change, which is arguably critically important. I also think it is politically naive to think that it would be okay to vote for a bill that everyone knows is going to cost american jobs. 2 or 4 more years from now, everyone who voted for that bill is going to have ads put out saying they voted for a bill that took jobs away from americans and hurt the economy. Why would someone want to do that to themselves over "modest" improvements. Democrats lost the 2016 election by and large because of trade in the midwest because Trump said he would get them a better deal and because Hillary supported all the bad trade deals that lost jobs. And if you still disagree with me, then that's fine. I am not here to tell you what to think but I am here to offer a different point of view. 

Excerpt about the filibuster below: 

The filibuster is a powerful legislative device in the United States Senate. Senate rules permit a senator or senators to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[56] (usually 60 out of 100 senators) vote to bring debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. Even if a filibuster attempt is unsuccessful, the process takes floor time.[57] Defenders call the filibuster "The Soul of the Senate."[58]

It is not part of the US Constitution, becoming theoretically possible with a change of Senate rules only in 1806, and never being used until 1837.[59] Rarely used for much of the Senate's first two centuries, it was strengthened in the 1970s[60] and in recent years, the majority has preferred to avoid filibusters by moving to other business when a filibuster is threatened and attempts to achieve cloture have failed.[61] As a result, in recent decades this has come to mean that all major legislation (apart from budgets) effectively now requires a 60% majority to pass.

US Senator Chris Murphy engaging in a filibuster

Under current Senate rules, any modification or limitation of the filibuster would be a rule change that itself could be filibustered, with two-thirds of those senators present and voting (as opposed to the normal three-fifths of those sworn) needing to vote to break the filibuster.[56]

However, under Senate precedents, a simple majority can (and has acted to) limit the practice by overruling decisions of the chair. The removal or substantial limitation of the filibuster by a simple majority, rather than a rule change, is called the constitutional option, or colloquially, the nuclear option.

On November 21, 2013, the then Democratic controlled Senate exercised the nuclear option, in a 52 to 48 vote, to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of all executive and judicial nominees, excluding Supreme Court nominees, rather than the 3/5 of votes previously required.[62] On April 6, 2017, the Republican controlled Senate did the same, in a 52 to 48 vote, to require only a majority vote to end a filibuster of Supreme Court nominees.[63] A 60% supermajority is still required to end filibusters on legislation.

 

Excerpt of Budget Reconciliation

Reconciliation is an optional part of the annual congressional budgetary process.[3] Typically, the reconciliation process begins when the president submits a budget to Congress early in the calendar year. In response, each chamber of Congress begins a parallel budget process, starting in the Senate Budget Committee and the House Budget Committee.[4] Each budget committee proposes a budget resolution setting spending targets for the upcoming fiscal year; in order to begin the reconciliation process, each house of Congress must pass identical budget resolutions that contain reconciliation instructions.[5] Other committees then approve bills that meet the spending targets proposed by their respective budget committees, and these individuals bills are consolidated into a single omnibus bill. Each house of Congress then begins consideration of their respective omnibus bills under their respective rules of debate.[4]

The reconciliation process has a relatively minor impact in the House of Representatives, but it has important implications in the Senate. In contrast to most other legislation, senators cannot use the filibuster to indefinitely prevent consideration of a reconciliation bill, because Senate debate over reconciliation bills is limited to twenty hours. Thus, reconciliation bills only require the support of a simple majority of the Senate for passage, rather than the 60-vote super-majority required to invoke cloture and defeat a filibuster.[a][7] Senators could theoretically prevent passage of a reconciliation bill by offering an unending series of amendments in a process known as a "Vote-a-Rama," but, unlike the modern filibuster, senators introducing these amendments must stand up and verbally offer the amendments.[9]

Though the reconciliation process allows a bill to bypass the filibuster in the Senate, it does not affect other basic requirements for the passage of a bill, which are laid out in the Constitution's Presentment Clause. The House and Senate still must pass an identical bill and present that bill to the president. The president can sign the bill into law or veto it, and Congress can override the president's veto with a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress

[HorusRa2 5,005]

@Economy

Totally coincidence. I was on twitter and saw a tweet by AOC so I did some quick research (I haven't done my best research because I'm multitasking but am going to look at this further). If I take AOC's tweet and look at the information I found below about the sunset clause, it seems to me that another reason why we wouldn't want to vote for this bill is for how long we would be stuck into this agreement for years. Would modest improvements be worth that? 

 

https://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2018/12/how-exactly-will-the-new-naftas-sunset-clause-work.html

 

1. This Agreement shall terminate 16 years after the date of its entry into force, unless each Party confirms it wishes to continue this Agreement for a new 16-year term, in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs 2 through 6.

2. On the sixth anniversary of the entry into force of this Agreement, the Commission shall meet to conduct a “joint review” of the operation of this Agreement, review any recommendations for action submitted by a Party, and decide on any appropriate actions. Each Party may provide recommendations for the Commission to take action at least one month before the Commission’s joint review meeting takes place.

3. As part of the Commission’s joint review, each Party shall confirm, in writing, through its head of government, if it wishes to extend the term of this Agreement for another 16-year period. If each Party confirms its desire to extend this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for another 16 years and the Commission shall conduct a joint review and consider extension of this Agreement term no later than at the end of the next six-year
period.

4. If, as part of a six-year review, a Party does not confirm its wish to extend the term of this Agreement for another 16-year period, the Commission shall meet to conduct a joint review every year for the remainder of the term of this Agreement. If one or more Parties did not confirm their desire to extend this Agreement for another 16-year term at the conclusion of a given joint review, at any time between the conclusion of that review and expiry of this Agreement, the Parties may automatically extend the term of this Agreement for another 16 years by confirming in writing, through their respective head of government, their wish to extend this Agreement for another 16-year period.

5. At any point when the Parties decide to extend the term of this Agreement for another 16-year period, the Commission shall conduct joint reviews every six years thereafter, and the Parties shall have the ability to extend this Agreement after each joint review pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4.

6. At any point in which the Parties do not all confirm their wish to extend the term of this Agreement, paragraph 4 shall apply.

[Economy 53,112]

21 minutes ago, HorusRa2 said:

@Economy

Totally coincidence. I was on twitter and saw a tweet by AOC so I did some quick research (I haven't done my best research because I'm multitasking but am going to look at this further). If I take AOC's tweet and look at the information I found below about the sunset clause, it seems to me that another reason why we wouldn't want to vote for this bill is for how long we would be stuck into this agreement for years. Would modest improvements be worth that? 

 

https://worldtradelaw.typepad.com/ielpblog/2018/12/how-exactly-will-the-new-naftas-sunset-clause-work.html

 

1. This Agreement shall terminate 16 years after the date of its entry into force, unless each Party confirms it wishes to continue this Agreement for a new 16-year term, in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs 2 through 6.

2. On the sixth anniversary of the entry into force of this Agreement, the Commission shall meet to conduct a “joint review” of the operation of this Agreement, review any recommendations for action submitted by a Party, and decide on any appropriate actions. Each Party may provide recommendations for the Commission to take action at least one month before the Commission’s joint review meeting takes place.

3. As part of the Commission’s joint review, each Party shall confirm, in writing, through its head of government, if it wishes to extend the term of this Agreement for another 16-year period. If each Party confirms its desire to extend this Agreement, the term of this Agreement shall be automatically extended for another 16 years and the Commission shall conduct a joint review and consider extension of this Agreement term no later than at the end of the next six-year
period.

4. If, as part of a six-year review, a Party does not confirm its wish to extend the term of this Agreement for another 16-year period, the Commission shall meet to conduct a joint review every year for the remainder of the term of this Agreement. If one or more Parties did not confirm their desire to extend this Agreement for another 16-year term at the conclusion of a given joint review, at any time between the conclusion of that review and expiry of this Agreement, the Parties may automatically extend the term of this Agreement for another 16 years by confirming in writing, through their respective head of government, their wish to extend this Agreement for another 16-year period.

5. At any point when the Parties decide to extend the term of this Agreement for another 16-year period, the Commission shall conduct joint reviews every six years thereafter, and the Parties shall have the ability to extend this Agreement after each joint review pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraphs 3 and 4.

6. At any point in which the Parties do not all confirm their wish to extend the term of this Agreement, paragraph 4 shall apply.

Ah ok. I thought the sunset clause was 6 years not 16

 

Trump wanted 6 and Canada wanted 16 and it looked like we were gonna give in to that. I guess Canada won that argument

 

A side note tho I think Bernie may be embellishing the climate thing. It may not have the word climate change in it but I know the deal has sections on environmental standards

 

U don't have to convince me those standards are probably very lackluster but to say "not a dam mention" for ppl who don't know anything about the deal it probably implies no environmental standards what's so ever

 

But I know they must be weak. Here in Canada all the regulation ls put in the Oil Sands have to do with seperate emissions targets nothing to do with USMCA or NAFTA, tho it looks like Canada along with US and Australia will miss targets miserably