|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 31 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:
The newest Senate Republican throws out a lifeline for a floundering Trump WH.
No shock here. Democrats don’t need him to filibuster and Trump is super popular in his state. I doubt they could have forced him if they tried.
I love that here and elsewhere we had it drilled into us that "Bernie isn't a real Democrat" but someone who supports Trump so frequently is in those same peoples eyes.
There's not going to be a filibuster. There's going to be the ~30 dems that say he needs 60 votes, then there will be about 10 that say he deserves an up or down vote, and 51 will be enough but Manchin will have voted for him just to make it bipartisan.
|
On March 31 2017 06:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 06:01 Plansix wrote:On March 31 2017 05:57 KwarK wrote:On March 31 2017 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 05:20 LegalLord wrote:
I honestly feel that the attempt to saturate Trump with criticism - that which is deserved and that which is not - makes it harder to call him out when he does something genuinely wrong. That ISP bill should have died a miserable death by deadness. Instead it got buried because we just had so much other bullshit that no one gave a dang about it. People should really wonder how something like that sneaks past. That's not something supported even by the constituents of the people who voted for it. At least it will be legal for Comcast to sell your browsing/viewing history to the parties it's covering on MS/NBC. It didn't sneak past. The Republicans control all three branches and they are in favour of it. It passed with political support, it wasn't buried and it wouldn't have been blocked had there been less other drama. The people in power generally supported it. It wasn't particularly controversial within the Republican party. Pretty sure it has to avoid being filibustered in the senate as well, which is likely. I already posted about this earlier, but the FCC rule was invalidated under joint resolutions enabled via statute (the Congressional Review Act) that bypass the filibuster by design.
I missed that. Well then I guess we all get to us VPNs and businesses get to pay to not have their information sold.
Now I am thinking about my firm’s internet connection and agreement with their ISP. I am going to assume this doesn’t impact us because its above my pay grade to care.
|
On March 31 2017 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote:No shock here. Democrats don’t need him to filibuster and Trump is super popular in his state. I doubt they could have forced him if they tried. I love that here and elsewhere we had it drilled into us that "Bernie isn't a real Democrat" but someone who supports Trump so frequently is in those same peoples eyes. There's not going to be a filibuster. There's going to be the ~30 dems that say he needs 60 votes, then there will be about 10 that say he deserves an up or down vote, and 51 will be enough but Manchin will have voted for him just to make it bipartisan.
Bernie hasn't schmoozed with the right donors and hasn't endorsed the right candidates for the party. Of course he isn't a real Democrat.
|
On March 31 2017 06:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 06:08 zlefin wrote:On March 31 2017 06:05 LegalLord wrote:On March 31 2017 06:03 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2017 05:59 LegalLord wrote:On March 31 2017 05:57 zlefin wrote:On March 31 2017 05:46 LegalLord wrote:
It's a good thing we didn't risk this turn of events happening, that we selected the most electable candidate possible to ensure that Trump wouldn't win because he's just so bad that we can't risk it. please stop trolling. it's very old by now. and we all know no choice can ensure trump wouldn't win. It's necessary to make sure people understand properly about how things came to where they are now - as a result of some laughably and clearly idiotic shilling for a candidate that everyone but those most invested in her success knew would be terrible. That it bothers you to have that point drilled does not surprise me. I don't blame Democrats for 'a significant part of the country' being idiots. No, they aren't responsible for the base of support of Trump being there. But you knew we had that if you had seen the Bush years. The problem was of course that they played the game in such a way that they gave the clown a path to victory. They pissed off enough of their base that enough people voted for Trump as a lesser evil. and it's still far from clear that an alternative would have in fact produced a better result. Guess we had no choice but to be defeated by Trump then. No possible way to beat the least liked candidate in history, nosiree.
you're changing the claim being made, which proves you're arguing in bad faith, so again trolling.
I've asked you nicely to stop, you seem to want to continue to troll, so be it.
|
Well we couldn't have won with another candidate and we didn't win. Where does that put us?
You call it trolling - but as with most Clintonites you have a remarkable inability to acknowledge where the fault really lies and have lots of talent at convincing yourself that you can mask it by creating a web of hoopla. It wouldn't be necessary to bring this up if it weren't clear that certain people don't get it. For example, whoever thought that showing off DWS was a bright idea.
|
On March 31 2017 06:16 LegalLord wrote:
Well we couldn't have won with another candidate and we didn't win. Where does that put us?
You call it trolling - but as with most Clintonites you have a remarkable inability to acknowledge where the fault really lies and have lots of talent at convincing yourself that you can mask it by creating a web of hoopla. It wouldn't be necessary to bring this up if it weren't clear that certain people don't get it. For example, whoever thought that showing off DWS was a bright idea.
We know who thought that was a good idea, the same pleather clad genius that has had Mook, and the rest reemerging from the ashes.
|
On March 31 2017 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote:No shock here. Democrats don’t need him to filibuster and Trump is super popular in his state. I doubt they could have forced him if they tried. I love that here and elsewhere we had it drilled into us that "Bernie isn't a real Democrat" but someone who supports Trump so frequently is in those same peoples eyes. There's not going to be a filibuster. There's going to be the ~30 dems that say he needs 60 votes, then there will be about 10 that say he deserves an up or down vote, and 51 will be enough but Manchin will have voted for him just to make it bipartisan.
We will have to see who is right on that one. My bet is there will be one because Democrats are that pissed. And I am pretty sure democrats like Bernie a hell of a lot more than Manchin. He is the modern day Joe Lieberman, only shittier.
|
On March 31 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote:No shock here. Democrats don’t need him to filibuster and Trump is super popular in his state. I doubt they could have forced him if they tried. I love that here and elsewhere we had it drilled into us that "Bernie isn't a real Democrat" but someone who supports Trump so frequently is in those same peoples eyes. There's not going to be a filibuster. There's going to be the ~30 dems that say he needs 60 votes, then there will be about 10 that say he deserves an up or down vote, and 51 will be enough but Manchin will have voted for him just to make it bipartisan. We will have to see who is right on that one. My bet is there will be one because Democrats are that pissed. And I am pretty sure democrats like Bernie a hell of a lot more than Manchin. He is the modern day Joe Lieberman, only shittier.
Democrats like Bernie a hell of a lot more, but not the leadership/Daou's, that's pretty damn obvious. You'll see them say something negative about Bernie before you see them pressure Manchin (which you suggest is pointless anyway).
So when there isn't a filibuster/it fails quickly what will be your take?
|
On March 31 2017 05:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 05:20 LegalLord wrote:
I honestly feel that the attempt to saturate Trump with criticism - that which is deserved and that which is not - makes it harder to call him out when he does something genuinely wrong. That ISP bill should have died a miserable death by deadness. Instead it got buried because we just had so much other bullshit that no one gave a dang about it. People should really wonder how something like that sneaks past. That's not something supported even by the constituents of the people who voted for it. At least it will be legal for Comcast to sell your browsing/viewing history to the parties it's covering on MS/NBC.
Because it was buried under Russia, Healthcare, and whatever Trump decided to tweet out to grab attention while pickpocketing the people.
|
On March 31 2017 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:On March 31 2017 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote:No shock here. Democrats don’t need him to filibuster and Trump is super popular in his state. I doubt they could have forced him if they tried. I love that here and elsewhere we had it drilled into us that "Bernie isn't a real Democrat" but someone who supports Trump so frequently is in those same peoples eyes. There's not going to be a filibuster. There's going to be the ~30 dems that say he needs 60 votes, then there will be about 10 that say he deserves an up or down vote, and 51 will be enough but Manchin will have voted for him just to make it bipartisan. We will have to see who is right on that one. My bet is there will be one because Democrats are that pissed. And I am pretty sure democrats like Bernie a hell of a lot more than Manchin. He is the modern day Joe Lieberman, only shittier. Democrats like Bernie a hell of a lot more, but not the leadership/Daou's, that's pretty damn obvious. You'll see them say something negative about Bernie before you see them pressure Manchin (which you suggest is pointless anyway). So when there isn't a filibuster/it fails quickly what will be your take?
I’ll be disappointed, but not shocked. It was a risky move to begin and 2018 looks like for them in the Senate. At the end of the day, if the senator’s constituents don’t want them to block the nomination, it won’t happen. I think it is far more likely try and it fails due to pressure on those senators.
|
Remember when we were talking about how, in the wake of the Trump candidacy, Democrats just might be able to take back Congress in one fell swoop? Where did we go wrong?
|
Something I've always wondered: How many Americans were aware that the Danish PM is currently visiting the White House and President Trump? And how did you know? The press?
|
The same place where the Democrats when wrong when they lost to Bush for the second time. A lot of them got really invested in calling the middle of the country stupid and then blamed Fox News.
On March 31 2017 06:43 Ghostcom wrote:
Something I've always wondered: How many Americans were aware that the Danish PM is currently visiting the White House and President Trump? And how did you know? The press?
I think I heard it on NPR on my drive to work. It was in passing. It is not headline news in the US right now.
|
On March 31 2017 06:43 Ghostcom wrote:
Something I've always wondered: How many Americans were aware that the Danish PM is currently visiting the White House and President Trump? And how did you know? The press?
Not many. The media doesn't tend to highlight other countries unless we're killing people in them, are neighbors, or are competitors.
|
On March 31 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 06:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:On March 31 2017 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote:No shock here. Democrats don’t need him to filibuster and Trump is super popular in his state. I doubt they could have forced him if they tried. I love that here and elsewhere we had it drilled into us that "Bernie isn't a real Democrat" but someone who supports Trump so frequently is in those same peoples eyes. There's not going to be a filibuster. There's going to be the ~30 dems that say he needs 60 votes, then there will be about 10 that say he deserves an up or down vote, and 51 will be enough but Manchin will have voted for him just to make it bipartisan. We will have to see who is right on that one. My bet is there will be one because Democrats are that pissed. And I am pretty sure democrats like Bernie a hell of a lot more than Manchin. He is the modern day Joe Lieberman, only shittier. Democrats like Bernie a hell of a lot more, but not the leadership/Daou's, that's pretty damn obvious. You'll see them say something negative about Bernie before you see them pressure Manchin (which you suggest is pointless anyway). So when there isn't a filibuster/it fails quickly what will be your take? I’ll be disappointed, but not shocked. It was a risky move to begin and 2018 looks like for them in the Senate. At the end of the day, if the senator’s constituents don’t want them to block the nomination, it won’t happen. I think it is far more likely try and it fails due to pressure on those senators.
So from doubting they won't stop Gorsuch, to not enough information, most likely they try and fail (not sure what counts as "trying"). maybe by next week I'll have you at "they were never going to do it in the first place".
You say it's what Manchin has to do because Trump is popular in WV. You think Democrats in WV like Bernie or Manchin more?
I mean Bernie did blow Hillary out in WV by 15%+ after Manchin endorsed her. Maybe the idea that Manchin has to appeal to Trump voters by caving to him repeatedly is bullshit?
|
On March 31 2017 06:43 Ghostcom wrote:
Something I've always wondered: How many Americans were aware that the Danish PM is currently visiting the White House and President Trump? And how did you know? The press?
If Trump doesn't twit it then most people will never know.
|
On March 31 2017 06:43 Ghostcom wrote:
Something I've always wondered: How many Americans were aware that the Danish PM is currently visiting the White House and President Trump? And how did you know? The press?
I'd guess less than 10% know that; I didn't recall it, though I did hear some danish-based jokes lately on another forum.
some more people might've heard it in passing but didn't really register/care about it so don't remember it. there's a lot of stuff in the news that you just sort of glance over.
|
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Democrats absolutely must abandon folks like Manchin if they want to start gathering consensus.
|
On March 31 2017 06:47 farvacola wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Democrats absolutely must abandon folks like Manchin if they want to start gathering consensus.
while it would help with consensus; it'd be an unfortunate part of a larger pattern of narrowing the ideological range of parties which has seriously problematic long-term consequences.
|
On March 31 2017 06:47 farvacola wrote:
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Democrats absolutely must abandon folks like Manchin if they want to start gathering consensus.
Don't worry, he's not alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
