|
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 07:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:07 zlefin wrote:On March 31 2017 07:00 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2017 06:48 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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'.
The hell are you talking about?
I'm trying to say all Manchin has to do is be less supportive of Trump and I wouldn't think he needs a primary opponent.
EDIT: But besides shooting down the idea of actually "letting the voters decide" the party isn't even slightly critical of shit like this. So a primary opponent seems like the only option, even if it's not going to change 2018's outcome at the ballot
|
On March 31 2017 07:19 Nevuk wrote:
Bernie was pretty obviously more popular than Hillary in rural areas, and it wasn't all just latent "muh sexism". He was more lenient on gun control and didn't play on identity politics at nearly the same level. Clinton was a uniquely bad candidate for winning over rural voters.
Bernie focused on issues better. He talked about economics and wall street and kept the conversation from gun control and the like.
the issue I have with the good democrats thing is that if they're "good democrats" in that definition their going to be former senators and will be replaced with a Republican who votes with the president 90 percent of the time. Show me a progressive can win in those areas and then we'll talk. But really West Virginia is not the place to try that in my opinion.
|
On March 31 2017 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:07 zlefin wrote:On March 31 2017 07:00 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2017 06:48 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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. Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:13 biology]major wrote:On March 31 2017 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:01 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 31 2017 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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. 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.
Get over Garland, the democrats managed to lose an election that was thought impossible to lose by every major poll and media outlet. You had a chance to put in the most liberal judge you wanted if HRC won, but she didn't. With every advantage in the book, except for russia, she lost. Out of that disastrous defeat, and adding insult to injury losing to a clown like Donald Trump, we have a respectable and qualified person nominated to the supreme court. This is the best you are going to get, the democrats can actually hold off the big ticket items from being implemented because the republicans can't capitalize. Realize that this nomination could have been much worse, and out of the shit situation the democrats find themselves in, this is no where near their worst problem.
|
On March 31 2017 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:20 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2017 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:07 zlefin wrote:On March 31 2017 07:00 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2017 06:48 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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'. The hell are you talking about? I'm trying to say all Manchin has to do is be less supportive of Trump and I wouldn't think he needs a primary opponent.
If Manchin is to supportive of Trump or not is not up to you. Its up to his constituents.
|
On March 31 2017 07:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:07 zlefin wrote:On March 31 2017 07:00 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2017 06:48 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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'.
The problem with addressing the problem this plainly is that it misses the fact that party endorsement/support is key to ballot access in many states. This makes translating the voters' wishes into votes less than straightforward.
|
Canada11404 Posts
I don't really know what one wants in a judge, but he seemed a pretty clear thinking level-headed guy. From the few clips I've seen, he didn't rise to Franken's bait to speculate on political affairs and did so reasonably. He's at least firmly committed to the role of the judge to stay out of partisan politics.
|
On March 31 2017 07:29 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:07 zlefin wrote:On March 31 2017 07:00 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2017 06:48 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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:On March 31 2017 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:01 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 31 2017 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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. 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. Get over Garland, the democrats managed to lose an election that was thought impossible to lose by every major poll and media outlet. You had a chance to put in the most liberal judge you wanted if HRC won, but she didn't. With every advantage in the book, except for russia, she lost. Out of that disastrous defeat, and adding insult to injury losing to a clown like Donald Trump, we have a respectable and qualified person nominated to the supreme court. This is the best you are going to get, the democrats can actually hold off the big ticket items from being implemented because the republicans can't capitalize. Realize that this nomination could have been much worse, and out of the shit situation the democrats find themselves in, this is no where near their worst problem.
No. That isn't how it works. How you win matters almost as much as winning. You can tell people to get over it all you want, but they don't care. This is winning, but just barely. So now the weak ass president who can't even get this own party to vote his way the other side that he did everything in his power to piss off during the election.
Winning is the easy part.
|
On March 31 2017 07:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:20 Gorsameth wrote:On March 31 2017 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:07 zlefin wrote:On March 31 2017 07:00 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2017 06:48 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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'. The hell are you talking about? I'm trying to say all Manchin has to do is be less supportive of Trump and I wouldn't think he needs a primary opponent. If Manchin is to supportive of Trump or not is not up to you. Its up to his constituents.
Yeah the ones Bernie was agreeing with about Healthcare being a right and who agreed that the coal jobs aren't coming back no matter what Trump says. You have literally no idea what they want.
It's peculiar hearing this from you after you seemed to be familiar with how "party politics" works. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you're not quite understanding what I'm talking about.
|
On March 31 2017 07:32 Falling wrote:
I don't really know what one wants in a judge, but he seemed a pretty clear thinking level-headed guy. From the few clips I've seen, he didn't rise to Franken's bait to speculate on political affairs and did so reasonably.
Any other senate he would have been passed through without a problem. He is more than qualified. But the Republicans played with fire by holding up Obama's nominee and the Democrats want to see them get burned. Otherwise there is no guarantee that the Republicans won't do it again.
|
On March 31 2017 07:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:29 biology]major wrote:On March 31 2017 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:07 zlefin wrote:On March 31 2017 07:00 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2017 06:48 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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:On March 31 2017 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:01 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 31 2017 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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. 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. Get over Garland, the democrats managed to lose an election that was thought impossible to lose by every major poll and media outlet. You had a chance to put in the most liberal judge you wanted if HRC won, but she didn't. With every advantage in the book, except for russia, she lost. Out of that disastrous defeat, and adding insult to injury losing to a clown like Donald Trump, we have a respectable and qualified person nominated to the supreme court. This is the best you are going to get, the democrats can actually hold off the big ticket items from being implemented because the republicans can't capitalize. Realize that this nomination could have been much worse, and out of the shit situation the democrats find themselves in, this is no where near their worst problem. No. That isn't how it works. How you win matters almost as much as winning. You can tell people to get over it all you want, but they don't care. This is winning, but just barely. So now the weak ass president who can't even get this own party to vote his way the other side that he did everything in his power to piss off during the election. Winning is the easy part.
but you aren't going win. That's my point, Gorsuch will be the next supreme court justice. What is supposed to normally be atleast a semi-bipartisan nomination, will be ruined with the nuclear option, and will cause political hacks like schumer to have even more weight for future supreme court justice nominations. If you call opposing a supreme court justice and then losing, and also disrupting a bipartisan voting system "winning", then there is nothing left to discuss.
|
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 has a ridiculously low approval rating.
edit: to gh.
good thing that's not the reason for opposing him. it's a blatant lie, and extremely disingenuous, to call that the reason, when you full well know the reason: the claim that the seat was stolen via improper means (which it was).
it doesn't make them look like partisan hacks, because it's not partisan hackery; the only people who think it make shtem look like partisan hacks are actual partisan hacks on the other side.
edit:
it was ruined by the republicans actions of the past year, when they were offered a moderate choice and declined it. there's no basis for putting it on the dems when the republicans already broke the system. you don't get to act extremely partisan, then complain the other side isn't acting bipartisan. (well, you can, but it's not a terribly sound position)
|
United States43536 Posts
I'm with bio for once.
Also Bernie didn't face the same disinformation and propaganda campaign Clinton did because he wasn't the candidate. Bernie's popularity among the groups easily swayed by facebook news is mostly indicative of how little the Russians behind facebook news give a shit about Bernie.
|
On March 31 2017 07:38 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:33 Plansix wrote:On March 31 2017 07:29 biology]major wrote:On March 31 2017 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:07 zlefin wrote:On March 31 2017 07:00 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2017 06:48 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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:On March 31 2017 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:01 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 31 2017 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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. 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. Get over Garland, the democrats managed to lose an election that was thought impossible to lose by every major poll and media outlet. You had a chance to put in the most liberal judge you wanted if HRC won, but she didn't. With every advantage in the book, except for russia, she lost. Out of that disastrous defeat, and adding insult to injury losing to a clown like Donald Trump, we have a respectable and qualified person nominated to the supreme court. This is the best you are going to get, the democrats can actually hold off the big ticket items from being implemented because the republicans can't capitalize. Realize that this nomination could have been much worse, and out of the shit situation the democrats find themselves in, this is no where near their worst problem. No. That isn't how it works. How you win matters almost as much as winning. You can tell people to get over it all you want, but they don't care. This is winning, but just barely. So now the weak ass president who can't even get this own party to vote his way the other side that he did everything in his power to piss off during the election. Winning is the easy part. but you aren't going win. That's my point, Gorsuch will be the next supreme court justice. What is supposed to normally be atleast a semi-bipartisan nomination, will be ruined with the nuclear option, and will cause political hacks like schumer to have even more weight for future supreme court justice nominations. If you call opposing a supreme court justice and losing, and then disrupting a bipartisan voting system by doing so "winning", then there is nothing left to discuss.
Nope. The Republicans burned that bridge and now they get to play with blowing up the filibuster. The Republicans burned through that trust by holding up Obama's nominee without even a hearing. So now the senate democrats don't trust them at all.
Let me give you a preview. They are bipartisan now and the Republicans get what they want. Another seat opens up and Trump nominates another super conservative that the Democrats dislike. They ask for a better nominee and the Republicans tell them to fuck off. Then the Republicans get what they want.
That in a nutshell has been the Democrats relationship with the Republicans for the last 16 years. They try to play nice, Republicans get some tax cuts or an authorization vote on a war. Democrats ask for bipartisan support on something, Republicans tell them to fuck off. Over and over. As someone who championed bipartisanship for the last 16 years as the best way forward, the Republicans can fuck off. Let them blow up the filibuster. Lets see if they have the votes.
On March 31 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote:
I'm with bio for once.
Also Bernie didn't face the same disinformation and propaganda campaign Clinton did because he wasn't the candidate. Bernie's popularity among the groups easily swayed by facebook news is mostly indicative of how little the Russians behind facebook news give a shit about Bernie.
The Democrats get nothing from supporting this nominee. There is no reason to work with the Republicans while McConnell is leading it.
|
Yep I'm also with Bio on this one. Let them vote and let's move on to embarrassing Trump on tax reform or the budget.
|
Mike Flynn, President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser, has told the Federal Bureau of Investigation and congressional officials investigating the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russia that he is willing to be interviewed in exchange for a grant of immunity from prosecution, according to officials with knowledge of the matter.
As an adviser to Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, and later one of Mr. Trump’s top aides in the White House, Mr. Flynn was privy to some of the most sensitive foreign-policy deliberations of the new administration and was directly involved in discussions about the possible lifting of sanctions on Russia imposed by the Obama administration.
WSJ
|
On March 31 2017 07:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:38 biology]major wrote:On March 31 2017 07:33 Plansix wrote:On March 31 2017 07:29 biology]major wrote:On March 31 2017 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:07 zlefin wrote:On March 31 2017 07:00 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2017 06:48 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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:On March 31 2017 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:01 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 31 2017 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote: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. 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. 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. Get over Garland, the democrats managed to lose an election that was thought impossible to lose by every major poll and media outlet. You had a chance to put in the most liberal judge you wanted if HRC won, but she didn't. With every advantage in the book, except for russia, she lost. Out of that disastrous defeat, and adding insult to injury losing to a clown like Donald Trump, we have a respectable and qualified person nominated to the supreme court. This is the best you are going to get, the democrats can actually hold off the big ticket items from being implemented because the republicans can't capitalize. Realize that this nomination could have been much worse, and out of the shit situation the democrats find themselves in, this is no where near their worst problem. No. That isn't how it works. How you win matters almost as much as winning. You can tell people to get over it all you want, but they don't care. This is winning, but just barely. So now the weak ass president who can't even get this own party to vote his way the other side that he did everything in his power to piss off during the election. Winning is the easy part. but you aren't going win. That's my point, Gorsuch will be the next supreme court justice. What is supposed to normally be atleast a semi-bipartisan nomination, will be ruined with the nuclear option, and will cause political hacks like schumer to have even more weight for future supreme court justice nominations. If you call opposing a supreme court justice and losing, and then disrupting a bipartisan voting system by doing so "winning", then there is nothing left to discuss. Nope. The Republicans burned that bridge and now they get to play with blowing up the filibuster. The Republicans burned through that trust by holding up Obama's nominee without even a hearing. So now the senate democrats don't trust them at all. Let me give you a preview. They are bipartisan now and the Republicans get what they want. Another seat opens up and Trump nominates another super conservative that the Democrats dislike. They ask for a better nominee and the Republicans tell them to fuck off. Then the Republicans get what they want. That in a nutshell has been the Democrats relationship with the Republicans for the last 16 years. They try to play nice, Republicans get some tax cuts or an authorization vote on a war. Democrats ask for bipartisan support on something, Republicans tell them to fuck off. Over and over. As someone who championed bipartisanship for the last 16 years as the best way forward, the Republicans can fuck off. Let them blow up the filibuster. Lets see if they have the votes. Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote:
I'm with bio for once.
Also Bernie didn't face the same disinformation and propaganda campaign Clinton did because he wasn't the candidate. Bernie's popularity among the groups easily swayed by facebook news is mostly indicative of how little the Russians behind facebook news give a shit about Bernie. The Democrats get nothing from supporting this nominee. There is no reason to work with the Republicans while McConnell is leading it.
Or maybe the democrats could try to win seats and the white house...
|
bio -> how is that relevant to the claims disputed?
dood -> I'd be very hesitant to grant immunity to flynn, he's one of the top candidates for being the one who may've worked with russia imho.
|
On March 31 2017 07:50 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:46 Plansix wrote:On March 31 2017 07:38 biology]major wrote:On March 31 2017 07:33 Plansix wrote:On March 31 2017 07:29 biology]major wrote:On March 31 2017 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:07 zlefin wrote:On March 31 2017 07:00 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2017 06:48 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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:On March 31 2017 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:01 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 31 2017 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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'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. 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. Get over Garland, the democrats managed to lose an election that was thought impossible to lose by every major poll and media outlet. You had a chance to put in the most liberal judge you wanted if HRC won, but she didn't. With every advantage in the book, except for russia, she lost. Out of that disastrous defeat, and adding insult to injury losing to a clown like Donald Trump, we have a respectable and qualified person nominated to the supreme court. This is the best you are going to get, the democrats can actually hold off the big ticket items from being implemented because the republicans can't capitalize. Realize that this nomination could have been much worse, and out of the shit situation the democrats find themselves in, this is no where near their worst problem. No. That isn't how it works. How you win matters almost as much as winning. You can tell people to get over it all you want, but they don't care. This is winning, but just barely. So now the weak ass president who can't even get this own party to vote his way the other side that he did everything in his power to piss off during the election. Winning is the easy part. but you aren't going win. That's my point, Gorsuch will be the next supreme court justice. What is supposed to normally be atleast a semi-bipartisan nomination, will be ruined with the nuclear option, and will cause political hacks like schumer to have even more weight for future supreme court justice nominations. If you call opposing a supreme court justice and losing, and then disrupting a bipartisan voting system by doing so "winning", then there is nothing left to discuss. Nope. The Republicans burned that bridge and now they get to play with blowing up the filibuster. The Republicans burned through that trust by holding up Obama's nominee without even a hearing. So now the senate democrats don't trust them at all. Let me give you a preview. They are bipartisan now and the Republicans get what they want. Another seat opens up and Trump nominates another super conservative that the Democrats dislike. They ask for a better nominee and the Republicans tell them to fuck off. Then the Republicans get what they want. That in a nutshell has been the Democrats relationship with the Republicans for the last 16 years. They try to play nice, Republicans get some tax cuts or an authorization vote on a war. Democrats ask for bipartisan support on something, Republicans tell them to fuck off. Over and over. As someone who championed bipartisanship for the last 16 years as the best way forward, the Republicans can fuck off. Let them blow up the filibuster. Lets see if they have the votes. On March 31 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote:
I'm with bio for once.
Also Bernie didn't face the same disinformation and propaganda campaign Clinton did because he wasn't the candidate. Bernie's popularity among the groups easily swayed by facebook news is mostly indicative of how little the Russians behind facebook news give a shit about Bernie. The Democrats get nothing from supporting this nominee. There is no reason to work with the Republicans while McConnell is leading it. Or maybe the democrats could try to win seats and the white house...
Maybe the GOP should get a super majority in the Senate if they are going to pull tactics like they did last year. But they didn't, so now they have to fight. Being bipartisan doesn't win you elections. The GOP has proven this over and over. Can't whine now because the Democrats took a page out of their book.
|
United States43536 Posts
On March 31 2017 07:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote:
I'm with bio for once.
Also Bernie didn't face the same disinformation and propaganda campaign Clinton did because he wasn't the candidate. Bernie's popularity among the groups easily swayed by facebook news is mostly indicative of how little the Russians behind facebook news give a shit about Bernie. The Democrats get nothing from supporting this nominee. There is no reason to work with the Republicans while McConnell is leading it.
The individuals entrusted with the responsibility of serving in the United States Senate have a higher responsibility than the one they owe to their political party. They have a duty to ensure the Supreme Court is not left with vacant seats, that unqualified candidates are kept out and that qualified candidates are approved. Country before party. It doesn't matter whether the Democratic party gains.
|
United States43536 Posts
On March 31 2017 07:50 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2017 07:46 Plansix wrote:On March 31 2017 07:38 biology]major wrote:On March 31 2017 07:33 Plansix wrote:On March 31 2017 07:29 biology]major wrote:On March 31 2017 07:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:07 zlefin wrote:On March 31 2017 07:00 farvacola wrote:On March 31 2017 06:48 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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:On March 31 2017 07:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 31 2017 07:01 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On March 31 2017 06:59 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
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'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. 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. Get over Garland, the democrats managed to lose an election that was thought impossible to lose by every major poll and media outlet. You had a chance to put in the most liberal judge you wanted if HRC won, but she didn't. With every advantage in the book, except for russia, she lost. Out of that disastrous defeat, and adding insult to injury losing to a clown like Donald Trump, we have a respectable and qualified person nominated to the supreme court. This is the best you are going to get, the democrats can actually hold off the big ticket items from being implemented because the republicans can't capitalize. Realize that this nomination could have been much worse, and out of the shit situation the democrats find themselves in, this is no where near their worst problem. No. That isn't how it works. How you win matters almost as much as winning. You can tell people to get over it all you want, but they don't care. This is winning, but just barely. So now the weak ass president who can't even get this own party to vote his way the other side that he did everything in his power to piss off during the election. Winning is the easy part. but you aren't going win. That's my point, Gorsuch will be the next supreme court justice. What is supposed to normally be atleast a semi-bipartisan nomination, will be ruined with the nuclear option, and will cause political hacks like schumer to have even more weight for future supreme court justice nominations. If you call opposing a supreme court justice and losing, and then disrupting a bipartisan voting system by doing so "winning", then there is nothing left to discuss. Nope. The Republicans burned that bridge and now they get to play with blowing up the filibuster. The Republicans burned through that trust by holding up Obama's nominee without even a hearing. So now the senate democrats don't trust them at all. Let me give you a preview. They are bipartisan now and the Republicans get what they want. Another seat opens up and Trump nominates another super conservative that the Democrats dislike. They ask for a better nominee and the Republicans tell them to fuck off. Then the Republicans get what they want. That in a nutshell has been the Democrats relationship with the Republicans for the last 16 years. They try to play nice, Republicans get some tax cuts or an authorization vote on a war. Democrats ask for bipartisan support on something, Republicans tell them to fuck off. Over and over. As someone who championed bipartisanship for the last 16 years as the best way forward, the Republicans can fuck off. Let them blow up the filibuster. Lets see if they have the votes. On March 31 2017 07:41 KwarK wrote:
I'm with bio for once.
Also Bernie didn't face the same disinformation and propaganda campaign Clinton did because he wasn't the candidate. Bernie's popularity among the groups easily swayed by facebook news is mostly indicative of how little the Russians behind facebook news give a shit about Bernie. The Democrats get nothing from supporting this nominee. There is no reason to work with the Republicans while McConnell is leading it. Or maybe the democrats could try to win seats and the white house...
In fairness they did with the White House. In 2012. When it mattered for this seat. The stealing of the nomination was indefensible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
