Dems introduce MAR-A-LAGO Act to publish visitor logs - Polidicks

[quote] Senate Democrats are doubling down on their effort to force the Trump administration to publicly release visitor logs for the White House and Mar-a-Lago with a bill named for Trump's Florida resort. Sens. Tom Udall (N.M.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Tom Carper (Del.) and Jack Reed (R.I.) on Friday introduced the the Make Access Records Available to Lead American Government Openness Act — or MAR-A-LAGO Act. The legislation would require the Trump administration to publish public visitor logs for the White House "or any other location where President Trump regularly conducts official business." Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) is also introducing a House version of the legislation. Democrats have hounded the Trump administration to continue the Obama-era practice of publicly releasing visitor logs, and they want him to extend it to the Florida resort he has called the "winter White House." [/Quote] [URL="http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/325651-dems-introduce-bill-to-publish-mar-a-lago-white-house-visitor-logs"]The Hill[/URL]

ignoring the content of the law, I want to shake the hand of whoever came up with that name and have a beer with them.

Prepare for another vote on party lines, gotta follow the parties stance on everything because the chair said so.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;52007176]Prepare for another vote on party lines, gotta follow the parties stance on everything because the chair said so.[/QUOTE] well many republicans refused to vote for the new healthcare plan so there's still hope

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;52007176]Prepare for another vote on party lines, gotta follow the parties stance on everything because the chair said so.[/QUOTE] Not all republicans blindly approve of everything the orange man wants them to vote for. The healthcare bill was proof of that.

[QUOTE=stotd;52010469]well many republicans refused to vote for the new healthcare plan so there's still hope[/QUOTE] Not for any good reason, the ones that defected did so because they thought the new bill was still too much like obamacare.

[QUOTE=Plattack;52010507]Not for any good reason, the ones that defected did so because they thought the new bill was still too much like obamacare.[/QUOTE] To be fair, the reason it failed is because the Republican party didn't have enough votes because some reps thought it was ridiculously harsh and unnecessary, and they also didn't have enough votes because other reps disagreed with how much of the ACA it left intact and wanted more/all of it gone. It puts Trump's "famous" prowess as a negotiator up for questioning when he gives the Republican-controlled Congress an ultimatum on fixing this "awful" health insurance system his party has spent most of a decade trying to repeal, shelves the repeal-and-replace plan when they fail, and then follows through on previous public statements of blaming the other team while changing nothing at all. And then when you consider that this means that Trump's government hasn't been able to do anything in two months except slash "inconvenient" agencies and screw with immigration via executive order and let's not forget the frequent expensive weekends at Mar-a-Lago, it's dead-baby comedy of the highest quality.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;52010478]Not all republicans blindly approve of everything the orange man wants them to vote for. The healthcare bill was proof of that.[/QUOTE] Self Preservation > Party > Country Fortunately they have to worry about their 2018 reelection prospects

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;52010896]Self Preservation > Party > Country Fortunately they have to worry about their 2018 reelection prospects[/QUOTE] It's unfortunate that as soon as a new term starts all they give a shit about is how to win two years from now, rather than "how should I do my job [i]well[/i] for the next two years"

[QUOTE=Da Big Man;52010932]It's unfortunate that as soon as a new term starts all they give a shit about is how to win two years from now, rather than "how should I do my job [i]well[/i] for the next two years"[/QUOTE] Imagine if doing your job well got you reelected.

Imagine if doing your job [I]horribly[/I] also got you reelected, because the brain-dead decisions you made (even while being advised by your own staff and research as terrible) satisfied the people who voted for you, and having done otherwise would've gotten you [B]unelected.[/B] Imagine if term limits meant that politicians not just could but forced them to make decisions without chasing their reelection-ball. Oh, by the way, you don't need to imagine the first one.

[QUOTE=Da Big Man;52010932]It's unfortunate that as soon as a new term starts all they give a shit about is how to win two years from now, rather than "how should I do my job [i]well[/i] for the next two years"[/QUOTE] I wish Congress had term limits so people wouldn't just sit on their asses until the next election season but the people with the power to change the rules also benefit from said rules so there's a zero percent chance of that ever happening

US separation of powers is retardedly broken, I think this election has proven that imo

[QUOTE=Da Big Man;52013448]US separation of powers is retardedly broken, I think this election has proven that imo[/QUOTE] How?

[QUOTE=Da Big Man;52013448]US separation of powers is retardedly broken, I think this election has proven that imo[/QUOTE] I mean, the courts have so far brought down both of Trumps attempts at a pseudo muslim ban The Congress is the one that's being questionable now, but time will tell.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;52007175]ignoring the content of the law, I want to shake the hand of whoever came up with that name and have a beer with them.[/QUOTE] Probably could have got Big T's endorsement if he had prefixed the bill with "Great".

[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;52012469]I wish Congress had term limits so people wouldn't just sit on their asses until the next election season but the people with the power to change the rules also benefit from said rules so there's a zero percent chance of that ever happening[/QUOTE] Thing is, I have no problem with congressmen who are actually worth a damn keeping their seats. I think there needs to be some requirements for re-election though, like "you need a 50-60%+ approval rating to be eligible for re-election". Throw in a "you need an approval rating of 70%+ to be eligible for a raise", see if that doesn't light a fire under their asses.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;52014264]Thing is, I have no problem with congressmen who are actually worth a damn keeping their seats. I think there needs to be some requirements for re-election though, like "you need a 50-60%+ approval rating to be eligible for re-election". Throw in a "you need an approval rating of 70%+ to be eligible for a raise", see if that doesn't light a fire under their asses.[/QUOTE] The problem is, that just incentivizes bribery and pork-barrel politics. Because now what matters most is getting that number up above the minimum level and the pandering will balloon by an order of magnitude to compensate. Sure, you'd [I]think[/I] it'd incentivize people to actually do a good job and do right by their constitutents, but politics isn't a game you win by playing fairly or doing the long way, at least according to the mindset of the goons in DC gobbling up taxpayer salaries.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;52015078]The problem is, that just incentivizes bribery and pork-barrel politics. Because now what matters most is getting that number up above the minimum level and the pandering will balloon by an order of magnitude to compensate. Sure, you'd [I]think[/I] it'd incentivize people to actually do a good job and do right by their constitutents, but politics isn't a game you win by playing fairly or doing the long way, at least according to the mindset of the goons in DC gobbling up taxpayer salaries.[/QUOTE] True, though like the saying goes, "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time". Those are the tactics they already employ, and many of them [I]still[/I] have sub-20% approval ratings.

[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;52012469]I wish Congress had term limits so people wouldn't just sit on their asses until the next election season but the people with the power to change the rules also benefit from said rules so there's a zero percent chance of that ever happening[/QUOTE] Term limits are an awful idea. We would lose out on those who are a true and deep understanding of government, and make corporate/special interest placement much, much easier in our Congress.

[QUOTE=Llamaguy;52015340]Term limits are an awful idea. We would lose out on those who are a true and deep understanding of government, and make corporate/special interest placement much, much easier in our Congress.[/QUOTE] Bribing 1 person continuously is a lot easier than finding new people to bribe every x years. Look at Russia a bit. Also you're saying that as if corporate/special interests are actually subdued well. And the people with deep understanding of government generally work a level lower since they're the ones actually doing the stuff that's decided.