EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7279
| 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. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28779 Posts
| ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote: You have an addiction to making non-arguments and claiming someone else is unsound. There was no victory to be had here. Only forcing the nuclear option. Good job. Republicans aren't going to be blamed for this. "No victory" seems to sum up the state of your politics quite nicely for the last half-decade. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote: You have an addiction to making non-arguments and claiming someone else is unsound. There was no victory to be had here. Only forcing the nuclear option. Good job. Republicans aren't going to be blamed for this. you have an addiction to posting unsound bs on a regular basis. I claim unsound things are unsound, which is reasonable. republicans have a majority portion of blame for this, claiming otherwise is just bs'ing. | ||
|
brian
United States9639 Posts
| ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
When President Trump flies in to Palm Beach County, Jorge Gonzalez stays firmly on the ground. That's a problem for the 35-year-old because his small business, Skywords Advertising, only really works in the air, and when the president pays a visit he brings a 10-mile no-fly zone with him. "Every weekend he's here we have to shut down," said Mr Gonzalez, who employs three other pilots. "And right now that's every weekend." Since taking office 10 weeks ago, Mr Trump has spent seven weekends at Mar-a-Lago, a sun-kissed coastal expanse in Palm Beach that he bought in 1985 and turned into a private members club. His visits have riled taxpayers and raised concerns over an uneasy mix of business and politics. On Thursday he will once again jet down to the so-called "Winter White House", this time to host the Chinese president Xi Jinping. Roads will close, Secret Service agents will swarm, Navy gunboats will patrol, and Mr Gonzalez will kick his heels. "About 97% of my business occurs on the weekends, and I make 80% of my revenue between January and May," he said. "We were told to expect him to come once a month. We never imagined it would be every weekend." Mr Gonzalez estimated that he'd lost about $65,000 and several clients since Mr Trump took office. "At this rate we might survive through the summer," he said, "but I don't see the company lasting much beyond that." Mr Gonzalez isn't the the only one feeling the pinch in Palm Beach. When the president flies in for the weekend it costs the county sheriff's office and city police about $85,000 a day in overtime pay. And other small businesses, from skydiving outfits to local restaurants, say they are losing thousands of dollars. "This is having a big impact on our budget," said Paulette Burdick, the Palm Beach County mayor. "We fully understand the need to protect the president but it's unfair to ask local taxpayers to pay. And there are a lot of people down here who feel that way." Mayor Burdick has written twice to the Trump administration asking to be reimbursed for the costs. "To date, we haven't heard a word back," she said. "I have a long list of things I'd like to say to President Trump," she added, "regarding this, I'd just like to ask him to reimburse us our money." White House press secretary Sean Spicer has defended the trips, saying the president uses them for vital work. He said on Monday that Mr Trump would not compensate Palm Beach County, arguing that the president had already made a "sizable donation" to the federal government by foregoing his $400,000 salary. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39497447 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:20 GreenHorizons wrote: They did more or less. Problem was that McCaskill and others FINALLY realized they needed progressives if they wanted to keep their seat and they had 0 chance at getting them by voting for Gorsuch. I'm not sure that democrats with highly progressive agendas are going to win in those states. The problem that the democrats are facing right now is that Trump's victory and presidency are going to gut the democrat's traditional union voter base. I don't see an easy way for democrats to reclaim those voters after their shafting of Bernie and open antagonization of white working class voters in favor of minority special interest groups. | ||
|
Azuzu
United States340 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote: If nothing else, the democrats should have let their vulnerable senators up for re-election in red states allow the vote. I think that the democrats miscalculated here. I think everyone has miscalculated how badly this will turn out in the long run. It's easy to get caught up in the excitement of something you view as victory without noticing the resentment and division continuing to build. Strategically, I think the timing also could have been better. Why not wait until later in the term to force the nuclear option? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote: Congratulations Democrats. You have proven your chops in short-sighted obstructionism. The rule isn’t sustainable if people are going to abuse it. The full filibuster won’t survive the Trumps term if the Republican remain the majority in the Senate. It might not make it through even if the Democrats obtain a majority. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:27 Azuzu wrote: I think everyone has miscalculated how badly this will turn out in the long run. It's easy to get caught up in the excitement of something you view as victory without noticing the resentment and division continuing to build. Strategically, I think the timing also could have been better. Why not wait until later in the term to force the nuclear option? everyone knows it turns out badly in the long run; but in the short/medium run they feel their choices are forced by situational factors, and/or justify the long-term damage. and they all know the resentment has been building for decades; but they choose to foster rather than squashing the resentment because supporting the resentment gets them elected. if they wait, then gorsuch won't be on the court for awhile, which will hurt their chances of getting favorable supreme court rulings. also, from a political perspective, it's generally better to do bad stuff far away from election time. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States601 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23759 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:24 xDaunt wrote: I'm not sure that democrats with highly progressive agendas are going to win in those states. The problem that the democrats are facing right now is that Trump's victory and presidency are going to gut the democrat's traditional union voter base. I don't see an easy way for democrats to reclaim those voters after their shafting of Bernie and open antagonization of white working class voters in favor of minority special interest groups. It depends on what part of progressiveness they focus on. But it's not about radically progressive candidates taking the spots of McCaskill's (at least not this cycle) it's about showing them they can't just keep giving us the finger and expecting our votes. Miraculously McCaskill actually figured that out. Probably has something to do with Hillary coming out of the woods and having literally nothing to say about the Gorsuch nomination. Which probably had something to do with both her and Obama voting to confirm him previously. Union voters are figuring out the hard way that Trump was all talk and no substance when it comes to getting them their jobs. Sure the carrier lies or other inflated and exaggerated things he's done for jobs make some headlines, but the people he's talking about and the countless other workers who aren't part of those PR stunts know he's fing them (or are coming to that realization over time). This filibuster is the first sign of life from a dying Democratic party. They didn't want to filibuster this but they thought they didn't have a choice, a marked change from the open and continuous shafting of Bernie's wing. Heitkamp and Manchin are gone though, Manchin will have to be replaced or Democrats will have a senator who votes with Republicans on stuff like SC judges such as Gorsuch. (note he's not just giving him an up or down vote, but supporting him for the SC). | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18243 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote: You have an addiction to making non-arguments and claiming someone else is unsound. There was no victory to be had here. Only forcing the nuclear option. Good job. Republicans aren't going to be blamed for this. The spin so far seems to be favouring the Democrats here, but I don't watch Fox, so there's that. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:27 Azuzu wrote: I think everyone has miscalculated how badly this will turn out in the long run. It's easy to get caught up in the excitement of something you view as victory without noticing the resentment and division continuing to build. Strategically, I think the timing also could have been better. Why not wait until later in the term to force the nuclear option? Like I said previously, I think that the republicans had every incentive to use the nuclear option given their current structural advantage in holding a senate majority that's unlikely to change any time soon. Also, Supreme Court judge appointees have been increasingly younger and they have lingered on the bench for increasingly long periods of time. We're going to see a bunch of appointees in the near term, but there won't be as many after the next decade in all likelihood. The GOP has the clear advantage here. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18243 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:37 xDaunt wrote: Like I said previously, I think that the republicans had every incentive to use the nuclear option given their current structural advantage in holding a senate majority that's unlikely to change any time soon. Also, Supreme Court judge appointees have been increasingly younger and they have lingered on the bench for increasingly long periods of time. We're going to see a bunch of appointees in the near term, but there won't be as many after the next decade in all likelihood. The GOP has the clear advantage here. You're assuming someone doesn't do something radical and add 5 justices to the SC just because. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23759 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:41 Acrofales wrote: You're assuming someone doesn't do something radical and add 5 justices to the SC just because. I mean Democrats are going to have a good argument to add 1 and then a pretty easy argument for why it actually has to be 2. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:41 Acrofales wrote: You're assuming someone doesn't do something radical and add 5 justices to the SC just because. Nothing is impossible now. And we are the country that outlawed booze. | ||
|
brian
United States9639 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote: I mean Democrats are going to have a good argument to add 1 and then a pretty easy argument for why it actually has to be 2. uh, what possibly good argument is there for adding 1? it's an odd number of justices for a reason right? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23759 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:43 brian wrote: uh, what possibly good argument is there for adding 1? it's an odd number of justices for a reason right? That's why you read the whole post  1 because Republicans obstructed them out of one (democrats could vote for a senator saying they would do this) then the second because of the reason you mention. EDIT: Not to mention Democrats would get a lot more support on the idea if we got 2 more Trump judges in the meantime. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
| ||
| ||
