|
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 April 07 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 02:43 brian wrote:On April 07 2017 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 02:41 Acrofales wrote:On April 07 2017 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 07 2017 02:27 Azuzu wrote:On April 07 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On April 07 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:
Congratulations Democrats. You have proven your chops in short-sighted obstructionism. 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? 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. 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? 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.
If FDR couldn't pull it off with his popularity, there is zero chance the democrats in this current climate.
|
Norway28706 Posts
On April 07 2017 02:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 02:41 Acrofales wrote:On April 07 2017 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 07 2017 02:27 Azuzu wrote:On April 07 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On April 07 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:
Congratulations Democrats. You have proven your chops in short-sighted obstructionism. 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? 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. Nothing is impossible now. And we are the country that outlawed booze.
I think plenty countries outlawed booze from 1910 and onwards. And alcohol is illegal in many countries to this very day. 
|
On April 07 2017 02:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 02:43 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2017 02:41 Acrofales wrote:On April 07 2017 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 07 2017 02:27 Azuzu wrote:On April 07 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On April 07 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:
Congratulations Democrats. You have proven your chops in short-sighted obstructionism. 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? 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. Nothing is impossible now. And we are the country that outlawed booze. I think plenty countries outlawed booze from 1910 and onwards. And alcohol is illegal in many countries to this very day.
Of course. I just like to use it as an example of bad ideas of the past that a lot of people thought wouldn't happen.
|
On April 07 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 02:43 brian wrote:On April 07 2017 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 02:41 Acrofales wrote:On April 07 2017 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 07 2017 02:27 Azuzu wrote:On April 07 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On April 07 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:
Congratulations Democrats. You have proven your chops in short-sighted obstructionism. 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? 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. 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? 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. If FDR couldn't pull it off with his popularity, there is zero chance the democrats in this current climate.
FDR was trying to expand it to 15, and didn't have the whole obstructionist senate that denied him a legitimate pick beforehand. Plus his fight was with the court itself, not congress.
But Democrats are really bad at this stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't.
|
|
|
On April 07 2017 02:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 02:43 brian wrote:On April 07 2017 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 02:41 Acrofales wrote:On April 07 2017 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 07 2017 02:27 Azuzu wrote:On April 07 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On April 07 2017 02:12 LegalLord wrote:
Congratulations Democrats. You have proven your chops in short-sighted obstructionism. 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? 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. 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? 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. If FDR couldn't pull it off with his popularity, there is zero chance the democrats in this current climate. FDR was trying to expand it to 15, and didn't have the whole obstructionist senate that denied him a legitimate pick beforehand. Plus his fight was with the court itself, not congress. But Democrats are really bad at this stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't.
There is also the problem that changing the court as "payback" means that it will forever be open to change as political retribution. Congress member will start drafting bills to make specific members resign due to age limits and so on.
|
Mattis to brief Trump on options for military action in Syria
Defense Secretary James Mattis will brief President Trump on military options against Syria, CBS News’ David Martin reports, after a chemical attack in northern Syria, believed to have been carried out by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, killed at least 72 people, many of them children.
Mr. Trump is going to be briefed by Mattis in Florida on some options, one of which would be cruise missile strikes from U.S. Navy ships.
At a news conference Wednesday, the president called the chemical attack in Syria was a “horrible, horrible thing” that “crossed a lot of lines for me.” He also acknowledged, “It is now my responsibility,” though he did not indicate what actions he would consider.
U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley condemned the United Nations and threatened U.S. could retaliate unilaterally against Syria.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mattis-to-brief-trump-on-options-for-military-action-in-syria/
|
I would have thought the Democratic Senators would appreciate the value of getting an extra critic of executive power on the supreme court ASAP.
Or that at least a tenth of them would.
|
On April 07 2017 03:17 Buckyman wrote:
I would have thought the Democratic Senators would appreciate the value of getting an extra critic of executive power on the supreme court ASAP.
Or that at least a tenth of them would.
while they may have noted that, there are a lot of other considerations to factor in.
the courts are likely to do fine on dealing with executive overreach in any event, so it's not a top concern.
|
On April 07 2017 03:17 Buckyman wrote:
I would have thought the Democratic Senators would appreciate the value of getting an extra critic of executive power on the supreme court ASAP.
Or that at least a tenth of them would.
I'm sure they would have any other time. He should have made it through fine if the previous Senate had not held up Obama's nomination.
|
On April 07 2017 03:03 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 02:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 02:43 brian wrote:On April 07 2017 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 02:41 Acrofales wrote:On April 07 2017 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 07 2017 02:27 Azuzu wrote:On April 07 2017 02:17 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
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? 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. 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? 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. If FDR couldn't pull it off with his popularity, there is zero chance the democrats in this current climate. FDR was trying to expand it to 15, and didn't have the whole obstructionist senate that denied him a legitimate pick beforehand. Plus his fight was with the court itself, not congress. But Democrats are really bad at this stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't. There is also the problem that changing the court as "payback" means that it will forever be open to change as political retribution. Congress member will start drafting bills to make specific members resign due to age limits and so on.
That ship has sailed.
|
On April 07 2017 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 03:03 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2017 02:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 02:52 Plansix wrote:On April 07 2017 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 02:43 brian wrote:On April 07 2017 02:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 02:41 Acrofales wrote:On April 07 2017 02:37 xDaunt wrote:On April 07 2017 02:27 Azuzu wrote:
[quote]
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. 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. 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. If FDR couldn't pull it off with his popularity, there is zero chance the democrats in this current climate. FDR was trying to expand it to 15, and didn't have the whole obstructionist senate that denied him a legitimate pick beforehand. Plus his fight was with the court itself, not congress. But Democrats are really bad at this stuff, so I wouldn't be surprised if they couldn't. There is also the problem that changing the court as "payback" means that it will forever be open to change as political retribution. Congress member will start drafting bills to make specific members resign due to age limits and so on. That ship has sailed.
I agree. But I am not comfortable with political parties messing around with the make up of the court avoid their agenda isn't overturned. We can't go full Calvin Ball.
|
On April 07 2017 03:17 Buckyman wrote:
I would have thought the Democratic Senators would appreciate the value of getting an extra critic of executive power on the supreme court ASAP.
Or that at least a tenth of them would.
Also the fact that he's pro business too, which a lot of these congressman are as well...
|
|
|
On April 07 2017 03:46 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Also the fact that he's pro business too, which a lot of these congressman are as well...
It's not clear that he's "pro business" in any meaningful way.
|
On April 07 2017 02:24 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +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
I want someone to ask Spicer or Trump to name a single thing he is doing in Florida that can't be done at the White House. Let's see if they can think of anything other than golfing, which ofc you can do in the DC area too.
This cost thing will come to a head someday, and he will get shit on from all sides.
|
I mean, if Scalia had died January 31st of 2017 I think Gorsuch might have had Democrats clicking their heels. The man's going to be screwed with nearly as much as Garland; more's the pity when Gorsuch himself opposed when Garland got screwed by politics in the past.
|
Don't really see an issue with the Dems filibustering despite the inevitable nuclear option. Shows they at least have a spine, a lot of media outlets would've spun them as a party of cowards if they just let Gorsuch get the nomination sans the filibuster.
Now it's just up to their voter base to turnout in midterms and 2020
|
On April 07 2017 03:15 ImFromPortugal wrote:Mattis to brief Trump on options for military action in SyriaDefense Secretary James Mattis will brief President Trump on military options against Syria, CBS News’ David Martin reports, after a chemical attack in northern Syria, believed to have been carried out by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, killed at least 72 people, many of them children. Mr. Trump is going to be briefed by Mattis in Florida on some options, one of which would be cruise missile strikes from U.S. Navy ships. At a news conference Wednesday, the president called the chemical attack in Syria was a “horrible, horrible thing” that “crossed a lot of lines for me.” He also acknowledged, “ It is now my responsibility,” though he did not indicate what actions he would consider. U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley condemned the United Nations and threatened U.S. could retaliate unilaterally against Syria. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mattis-to-brief-trump-on-options-for-military-action-in-syria/
I wonder how long it's going to be his responsibility until something goes wrong and he's on Twitter.
|
We have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was in fact the Assad regime that conducted the attack and not rebels/ISIS/whatever storing the chemicals in residential areas, as Assad and Russia claims. The US cannot afford to go to war under false pretenses again. While I hate getting involved in other national conflicts, I believe the US has a moral responsibility to depose Assad for crimes against humanity if he or his forces conducted the attack
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
