EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7231
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States43259 Posts
I'm the kind of bad Democratic who agrees with that logic. | ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
Franken's been going after the Internet bill but I guess talk shows would rather talk about Russia (seriously can we just make Franken the de facto head of the party? the more I see from this guy the more impressed I am). he's also doing this | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23488 Posts
On March 31 2017 06:52 farvacola wrote: Heitkamp is cut from the same cloth. You got Donnelly, Nelson, McCaskill, Stabenow, Casey, still to come. Probably a few more. Admittedly I didn't think they would prematurely say they would actually vote FOR Gorsuch. I figured they would just let him get a vote. Democrats are even more spineless than I thought. On March 31 2017 06:58 On_Slaught wrote: What am I missing here. What do Democrats possibly gain from fighting on the Supreme Court nomination in what is a literally unwinnable battle. The end results of fighting is only that you make Trump's Administration look stronger because they beat you. If you simply acquiesce and admit that he's a fine qualified candidate and move on and let the story die then you can move on and focus on battles you can actually win. I mean they won't live as long as Gorsuch but Democrats will essentially have voted for the next Scalia. I mean I get not filibustering, but voting FOR him, before it's even actually up for a vote is just pathetic. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On March 31 2017 06:48 zlefin wrote: 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. This view of the political landscape relies on a dry sort of categorization that I find decreasingly useful as folks like Trump have come into power. As GH has been referencing, Bernie's ability to do well in states where folks like Manchin supposedly hold the left-side reins suggests that, at the very least, the "center" is very much something that can be moved. Put another way, I've grown up surrounded by limp-dick Democrats who appeal towards a center that is beholden entirely to conservatives and accordingly find themselves relegated to local government and state legislative minorities. Democrats in Ohio get steamrolled pretending to be like Manchin, and I'd rather try something different. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
On March 31 2017 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote: You got Donnelly, Nelson, McCaskill, Stabenow, Casey, still to come. Probably a few more. Admittedly I didn't think they would prematurely say they would actually vote FOR Gorsuch. I figured they would just let him get a vote. Democrats are even more spineless than I thought. Casey's been slamming the Trump administration since the election. Not sure where he stands on Gorsuch but wouldn't be surprised if he refused to support it. He's only voted with trum 27 percent of the time compared to Heidkamp's 54. It doesn't even make sense for him. Clinton lost by .7 percentage points. not in the 30s or 40s. I guess if he wants to play up his bipartisan side maybe but overall I've been pleasantly surprised with Casey and don't think that'll change too much regardless of what he does here. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 31 2017 06:58 On_Slaught wrote: What am I missing here. What do Democrats possibly gain from fighting on the Supreme Court nomination in what is a literally unwinnable battle. The end results of fighting is only that you make Trump's Administration look stronger because they beat you. If you simply acquiesce and admit that he's a fine qualified candidate and move on and let the story die then you can move on and focus on battles you can actually win. just because you can't win doesn't mean you don't get more credit for standing up and fighting. sometimes it makes the enemy look more like an unreasonable bully than them looking "strong" and the republicans can't win without taking the so-called drastic measure (or enough dems deciding to let cloture be invoked) also maybe something about doing wha'ts arguably right, but that seems unlikely. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
Why are you worried about democrats being spineless? soon the democrats will take over the house and senate, not because of their own vision or message but because the white house is unable to utilize it's majority and has a ridiculously low approval rating. edit: to gh. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23488 Posts
On March 31 2017 07:01 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: Casey's been slamming the Trump administration since the election. Not sure where he stands on Gorsuch but wouldn't be surprised if he refused to support it. He'll probably just not filibuster as opposed to coming out in support of the next Scalia like other "Democrats". On March 31 2017 07:03 biology]major wrote: Gorsuch is one of the few presidential things trump has done, and the democrats fighting this nomination just makes them look like partisan hacks. He is a qualified judge, opposing him on the basis that he was nominated by somone you hate is not a justification. Why are you worried about democrats being spineless? soon the democrats will take over the house and senate, not because of their own vision or message but because the white house is unable to utilize it's majority and a ridiculously low approval rating. edit: to gh. I agree Gorsuch is the thing I could see any Republican administration doing. My opposition is on what kind of judge he would be and has little to do with who nominated him (other than it would have to a be a Republican admin). As we've seen, taking over majorities doesn't mean shit if Democrats can't even get behind a public option, let alone single payer or policies in those veins. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
On March 31 2017 06:58 On_Slaught wrote: What am I missing here. What do Democrats possibly gain from fighting on the Supreme Court nomination in what is a literally unwinnable battle. The end results of fighting is only that you make Trump's Administration look stronger because they beat you. If you simply acquiesce and admit that he's a fine qualified candidate and move on and let the story die then you can move on and focus on battles you can actually win. To clarify my personal position on the matter, I don't think the Supreme Court battle is a worthwhile hill to die on, though I'll say that Gorsuch's opinions don't actually hold up to much scrutiny beyond Scalia-esqe nostalgia. The point is more about how even perfunctory actions on the part of Democrats (i.e. futile no votes, for example) continually fail to reflect the sort of difference from Republicans that important voting demographics consider important. This seems especially clear given Trump's ascendence, and to see Democrats anxious to break rank while Republicans continuously expose vulnerability suggests that the Democratic establishment has not gotten the message. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On March 31 2017 07:00 farvacola wrote: This view of the political landscape relies on a dry sort of categorization that I find decreasingly useful as folks like Trump have come into power. As GH has been referencing, Bernie's ability to do well in states where folks like Manchin supposedly hold the left-side reins suggests that, at the very least, the "center" is very much something that can be moved. Put another way, I've grown up surrounded by limp-dick Democrats who appeal towards a center that is beholden entirely to conservatives and accordingly find themselves relegated to local government and state legislative minorities. Democrats in Ohio get steamrolled pretending to be like Manchin, and I'd rather try something different. if they have an alternative that can win, fine. surely there have been some test candidates run in such places from which we could get better data? are there others with a demonstrated record of actual success on such platforms in those places? bernie data is interesting, though far from complete, it's only a few data points, so one has to be cautious making conclusions from it. out of time to go into more detail on the topics atm. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
On March 31 2017 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote: You got Donnelly, Nelson, McCaskill, Stabenow, Casey, still to come. Probably a few more. Admittedly I didn't think they would prematurely say they would actually vote FOR Gorsuch. I figured they would just let him get a vote. Democrats are even more spineless than I thought. I mean they won't live as long as Gorsuch but Democrats will essentially have voted for the next Scalia. I mean I get not filibustering, but voting FOR him, before it's even actually up for a vote is just pathetic. Fair enough. Ofc if someone else dies I definitely agree with fighting tooth and nail. We just need everyone to stay alive until 2019. If Republicans lose their majority in 2018 elections then the nuclear option is no longer a concern. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43259 Posts
On March 31 2017 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote: You got Donnelly, Nelson, McCaskill, Stabenow, Casey, still to come. Probably a few more. Admittedly I didn't think they would prematurely say they would actually vote FOR Gorsuch. I figured they would just let him get a vote. Democrats are even more spineless than I thought. I mean they won't live as long as Gorsuch but Democrats will essentially have voted for the next Scalia. I mean I get not filibustering, but voting FOR him, before it's even actually up for a vote is just pathetic. As I understand it Gorsuch isn't anything like the bastard Scalia was. Scalia had some really, really awful things to say about homosexuals and was a hardcore, more Catholic than the Pope, hates everyone, zealot. Gorsuch isn't who I would have chosen but the Democrats don't get to choose. All they get to do is confirm whether Trump's choice has the qualifications to do the job. That mostly just comes down to credentials, a history of not being really unconstitutional and impartiality. | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
On March 31 2017 05:14 GreenHorizons wrote: So the story is that WH officials leaked info to Nunez, so he could leak it back to the white house/Trump, and then leak it more publicly when he was asked about why he was there? And Spicer knowing that is significant. I have a hard time thinking very many people outside of the beltway folks care at all about the details of this. Either Trump's a Russian plant and this was an important investigation or he's not and this has been a colossal waste of time and resources. It's the continuous coverage of day-to-day developments that makes me somewhat uncomfortable. Intelligence information keeps dripping out slowly in a way that really sets a narrative. The slow drip allows people to get used to the idea, and then towards the end you bring down the hammer with no one left unconvinced. It's almost as if the democrats and the media are trying to convince the public to I just want to get to the end conclusion of the investigation, or at least have things released in somewhat sensible sized chunks, rather than these tiny little leaks of almost non-information. We already knew about the Russian social media bots and the fake news from a large variety of sources - from self-admitted fake news operators, to Macedonian for-profit fake news, and Breitbart fake news, amongst others. You can possibly connect Breitbart and some others with Russian investors and then link it all together through their long-term plans regarding "Foundations of Geopolitics", but that's hardly going to be on Trump. Trump was complicit in it only in the way that a large portion of Americans are susceptible to that kind of nationalism. Just like Brexit happened because the Brits are 'just that way', which is what the Foundations of Geopolitics is based on - a realistic estimate of national demographics and their tendencies. The pendulum between globalism and nationalism swings back and forth, just as it does with the whole functioning/non-functioning government and anti-banking thing that Plansix described earlier. Maybe the Russians gave it a little push this time, big whoop. Besides, this slow continuous drip really does drown out a lot of other things that should receive coverage. We're not hearing nearly as much about the liberation of Mosul (there's been nearly 4000 civilian deaths in just February and March) in the way we did about the liberation of Aleppo (where over 1600 civilians died at the hands of the Russians and the SAA between September 2015 and November 2016). We barely heard about the ISP data selling stuff, or that court case regarding printer cartridges which could potentially screw shit up again. | ||
|
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On March 31 2017 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote: He'll probably just not filibuster as opposed to coming out in support of the next Scalia like other "Democrats". I agree Gorsuch is the thing I could see any Republican administration doing. My opposition is on what kind of judge he would be and has little to do with who nominated him (other than it would have to a be a Republican admin). As we've seen, taking over majorities doesn't mean shit if Democrats can't even get behind a public option, let alone single payer or policies in those veins. What is your rationale to oppose him then? Did you expect some sort of liberal judge to be in his place? Do you realize that not only do democrats lose public credibility by opposing a qualified judge based on politics, but to force nuclear option on an UNWINNABLE fight is silly. The only word I can use to describe this is childish, and it should not be mistaken for "fighting for your beliefs" or "having a spine". Gorsuch is the most reasonable judge you could have expected from a republican administration, stop acting like he's some sort of DeVos equivalent of the supreme court. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23488 Posts
On March 31 2017 07:07 zlefin wrote: if they have an alternative that can win, fine. surely there have been some test candidates run in such places from which we could get better data? are there others with a demonstrated record of actual success on such platforms in those places? bernie data is interesting, though far from complete, it's only a few data points, so one has to be cautious making conclusions from it. out of time to go into more detail on the topics atm. You know, an alternative isn't even necessary, if Democrats like Manchin just stopped being bad democrats there would be no need to primary them. The problem is that not only has the party shot down the idea of primaries, they won't even be slightly critical of shit like this. On March 31 2017 07:13 biology]major wrote: What is your rationale to oppose him then? Did you expect some sort of liberal judge to be in his place? Do you realize that not only do democrats lose public credibility by opposing a qualified judge based on politics, but to force nuclear option on an UNWINNABLE fight is silly. The only word I can use to describe this is childish, and it should not be mistaken for "fighting for your beliefs" or "having a spine". Gorsuch is the most reasonable judge you could have expected from a republican administration, stop acting like he's some sort of DeVos equivalent of the supreme court. What I've been trying to explain to plansix for a while now is that forcing the nuclear option was NEVER a possibility for the Democratic party. If that was the strategy, it was based on the idea that Republicans, in an unprecedented move, denied the previous justice based purely on politics. So they have no ground to suggest that it's not the new standard. Here's the fun part, Republicans didn't have the votes for the nuclear option anyway, because some of them are smart enough to know it won't be in their favor indefinitely. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21959 Posts
On March 31 2017 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote: You know, an alternative isn't even necessary, if Democrats like Manchin just stopped being bad democrats there would be no need to primary them. The problem is that not only has the party shot down the idea of primaries, they won't even be slightly critical of shit like this. I'm sorry. What? Stop being bad Democrats? Hell no. Politicians should be allowed to be as bad a Democrat or Republican as they want. Let the voters decide which Democrat/Republican they want. Not you or your definition of 'a good Democrat'. | ||
| ||
