|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 20 2020 09:57 Wegandi wrote:
Interest, ok? I can perhaps get behind that, but the folks in this thread are way beyond interest. They seem more invested than like 50% of our own citizens which is beyond reason as folks in EU states are barely affected by US policies and most of that has to do with trade and foreign entanglements, not internal matters like SCOTUS rulings, regulatory schemas, etc. So, please, spare me your piety.
Uhhh, no. It's interest. We're not making policy, and we're not deciding elections, we're just a group of people in a forum chatting about stuff. And yeah, that interest gets pretty invested when, as established, what happens in the US tends to ripple to the rest of the world. What happens in the US is important. So again, tone down the obnoxious self-righteous tone. People have a right to be interested in discussing US politics. I don't know who you think you are.
|
One would hope that this entire debacle would open most people's eyes (particularly conservatives) to the fact that everything that our system of government is built on, including the Constitution, is deeply flawed and wholly insufficient to maintain a functioning, ethical democratic institution.
|
On September 20 2020 11:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
One would hope that this entire debacle would open most people's eyes (particularly conservatives) to the fact that everything that our system of government is built on, including the Constitution, is deeply flawed and wholly insufficient to maintain a functioning, ethical democratic institution.
The problem with this is that Democrats only say this when they're not in power so its hollow. I know a lot of conservatives and they'll just say it's you being a sore loser, that you can't take not being in power and are willing to destroy everything if your side isn't in power for perpetuity. It's like the gif/meme of that college aged dude crying and yelling when Trump won.
|
On September 20 2020 11:35 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 11:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
One would hope that this entire debacle would open most people's eyes (particularly conservatives) to the fact that everything that our system of government is built on, including the Constitution, is deeply flawed and wholly insufficient to maintain a functioning, ethical democratic institution. The problem with this is that Democrats only say this when they're not in power so its hollow. I know a lot of conservatives and they'll just say it's you being a sore loser, that you can't take not being in power and are willing to destroy everything if your side isn't in power for perpetuity. It's like the gif/meme of that college aged dude crying and yelling when Trump won.
I guess what I'm saying is what incentive do I have to say something only because I'm salty when I'm not saying it to someone who can change anything? Why would that change what I say? It might be that we approach this entire idea differently, but to me, this is purely about mental stimulation, improving my understanding of other people's views, and conveying what I think and feel to you all. I'm not whining because I'm not asking you to change anything. I have no influence and neither do you, so from the perspective of stimulation and self-betterment, I am not served by conveying anything less than what I feel is true.
|
On September 20 2020 11:35 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 11:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
One would hope that this entire debacle would open most people's eyes (particularly conservatives) to the fact that everything that our system of government is built on, including the Constitution, is deeply flawed and wholly insufficient to maintain a functioning, ethical democratic institution. The problem with this is that Democrats only say this when they're not in power so its hollow. I know a lot of conservatives and they'll just say it's you being a sore loser, that you can't take not being in power and are willing to destroy everything if your side isn't in power for perpetuity. It's like the gif/meme of that college aged dude crying and yelling when Trump won.
If you actually read the discussions that take place, there are plenty of progressives who also express problems with Democrats on the regular, even though Trump and Republicans are the ones actively fucking shit up right now. People are frustrated that Democrats aren't doing much in their role to stop things from getting worse. I don't know what thread you're reading, honestly.
|
On September 20 2020 11:48 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 11:35 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 11:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
One would hope that this entire debacle would open most people's eyes (particularly conservatives) to the fact that everything that our system of government is built on, including the Constitution, is deeply flawed and wholly insufficient to maintain a functioning, ethical democratic institution. The problem with this is that Democrats only say this when they're not in power so its hollow. I know a lot of conservatives and they'll just say it's you being a sore loser, that you can't take not being in power and are willing to destroy everything if your side isn't in power for perpetuity. It's like the gif/meme of that college aged dude crying and yelling when Trump won. If you actually read the discussions that take place, there are plenty of progressives who also express problems with Democrats on the regular, even though Trump and Republicans are the ones actively fucking shit up right now. People are frustrated that Democrats aren't doing much in their role to stop things from getting worse. I don't know what thread you're reading, honestly.
It was Democrats that destroyed the filibuster so the minority party has limited power to stop anything in the current iteration (They wanted simple majority for everything, so they're getting what they served - they just don't like it now that they're getting dunked on. That to me is hilariously delightful in how karmically just it is). They only have themselves to blame really. It's like they could never envision themselves out of power and when that happened they cry foul. /shrug
I'm sure GOP will bitch about the same things soon enough. It's a stupid football game where the tension consistently rises, incentivizes the worst impulses of human beings, and will result in continuing violence as it is abundantly clear that the sectarianism isn't going to get better. You have people forced together who want nothing to do with each other. One side (Democrats) that will never let the other side leave if it came to it, so we're stuck in this shit hole situation. To me, it's abundantly clear what babies the side not in power are. It's like the guy who dishes the jokes, but can never take one.
https://reason.com/2019/07/29/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rejects-court-packing-as-a-bad-idea/
|
Northern Ireland26794 Posts
On September 20 2020 12:12 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 11:48 NewSunshine wrote:On September 20 2020 11:35 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 11:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
One would hope that this entire debacle would open most people's eyes (particularly conservatives) to the fact that everything that our system of government is built on, including the Constitution, is deeply flawed and wholly insufficient to maintain a functioning, ethical democratic institution. The problem with this is that Democrats only say this when they're not in power so its hollow. I know a lot of conservatives and they'll just say it's you being a sore loser, that you can't take not being in power and are willing to destroy everything if your side isn't in power for perpetuity. It's like the gif/meme of that college aged dude crying and yelling when Trump won. If you actually read the discussions that take place, there are plenty of progressives who also express problems with Democrats on the regular, even though Trump and Republicans are the ones actively fucking shit up right now. People are frustrated that Democrats aren't doing much in their role to stop things from getting worse. I don't know what thread you're reading, honestly. It was Democrats that destroyed the filibuster so the minority party has limited power to stop anything in the current iteration (They wanted simple majority for everything, so they're getting what they served - they just don't like it now that they're getting dunked on. That to me is hilariously delightful in how karmically just it is). They only have themselves to blame really. It's like they could never envision themselves out of power and when that happened they cry foul. /shrug I'm sure GOP will bitch about the same things soon enough. It's a stupid football game where the tension consistently rises, incentivizes the worst impulses of human beings, and will result in continuing violence as it is abundantly clear that the sectarianism isn't going to get better. You have people forced together who want nothing to do with each other. One side (Democrats) that will never let the other side leave if it came to it, so we're stuck in this shit hole situation. To me, it's abundantly clear what babies the side not in power are. It's like the guy who dishes the jokes, but can never take one. https://reason.com/2019/07/29/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rejects-court-packing-as-a-bad-idea/
Democrats destroyed the filibuster? When did that happen?
I’m not a huge fan of the Dems or their platform but they did that?
|
On September 20 2020 12:34 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 12:12 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 11:48 NewSunshine wrote:On September 20 2020 11:35 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 11:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
One would hope that this entire debacle would open most people's eyes (particularly conservatives) to the fact that everything that our system of government is built on, including the Constitution, is deeply flawed and wholly insufficient to maintain a functioning, ethical democratic institution. The problem with this is that Democrats only say this when they're not in power so its hollow. I know a lot of conservatives and they'll just say it's you being a sore loser, that you can't take not being in power and are willing to destroy everything if your side isn't in power for perpetuity. It's like the gif/meme of that college aged dude crying and yelling when Trump won. If you actually read the discussions that take place, there are plenty of progressives who also express problems with Democrats on the regular, even though Trump and Republicans are the ones actively fucking shit up right now. People are frustrated that Democrats aren't doing much in their role to stop things from getting worse. I don't know what thread you're reading, honestly. It was Democrats that destroyed the filibuster so the minority party has limited power to stop anything in the current iteration (They wanted simple majority for everything, so they're getting what they served - they just don't like it now that they're getting dunked on. That to me is hilariously delightful in how karmically just it is). They only have themselves to blame really. It's like they could never envision themselves out of power and when that happened they cry foul. /shrug I'm sure GOP will bitch about the same things soon enough. It's a stupid football game where the tension consistently rises, incentivizes the worst impulses of human beings, and will result in continuing violence as it is abundantly clear that the sectarianism isn't going to get better. You have people forced together who want nothing to do with each other. One side (Democrats) that will never let the other side leave if it came to it, so we're stuck in this shit hole situation. To me, it's abundantly clear what babies the side not in power are. It's like the guy who dishes the jokes, but can never take one. https://reason.com/2019/07/29/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rejects-court-packing-as-a-bad-idea/ Democrats destroyed the filibuster? When did that happen? I’m not a huge fan of the Dems or their platform but they did that?
https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-senate-fillibuster-100243
What an idiotic doofus of epic proportions. That's why I said you reap what you sow. It's why I have no sympathy for the Democrats. Karma.
As some of his fellow Democratic senators remained on the fence, Reid called in a heavy hitter to close the deal: President Barack Obama, according to sources familiar with the matter. Obama personally called senators on Wednesday to back the move, and Reid ultimately won the vote on a slim margin, 52-48. Just three Democrats broke with Reid: the retiring Carl Levin of Michigan, the moderate Joe Manchin of West Virginia and the vulnerable Mark Pryor of Arkansas.
By the way Obama is probably a bigger doofus than Reid in this whole shtick.
Asked how history would remember him after this move, Reid told POLITICO: “I don’t write history.”
That's just funny.
The latest move left Republicans howling in protest and warning that Reid would ultimately come to regret it.
You don't say.
“Good, let him do it,” Reid said when asked about McConnell’s threats to change the rules further if he becomes majority leader.
Bahahahaa.
Frustrated by gridlock, Democrats said it was about time to take that step — no matter what it means for the future of the institution. But it may only perpetuate the gridlock and could usher in a sweeping conservative agenda the next time the GOP returns to power.
Hmmm. Maybe gridlock is good...whodathunk.
“Having guts — that’s how,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said when asked how she would characterize Reid’s move.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a long-time proponent of killing the filibuster, said Reid would be remembered as a leader who brought the Senate into the 21st century.
Pie meet face. Face say hi to pie.
PS: I'm waiting for the next (D) President to abuse EO's and powers and call the GOP doofuses for being a party to the out of control Executive.
|
On September 20 2020 11:48 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 11:35 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 11:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
One would hope that this entire debacle would open most people's eyes (particularly conservatives) to the fact that everything that our system of government is built on, including the Constitution, is deeply flawed and wholly insufficient to maintain a functioning, ethical democratic institution. The problem with this is that Democrats only say this when they're not in power so its hollow. I know a lot of conservatives and they'll just say it's you being a sore loser, that you can't take not being in power and are willing to destroy everything if your side isn't in power for perpetuity. It's like the gif/meme of that college aged dude crying and yelling when Trump won. If you actually read the discussions that take place, there are plenty of progressives who also express problems with Democrats on the regular, even though Trump and Republicans are the ones actively fucking shit up right now. People are frustrated that Democrats aren't doing much in their role to stop things from getting worse. I don't know what thread you're reading, honestly.
The progressives tend to call the Democrats out for incompetence, yes. They tend not to be the ones complaining about how Republicans play dirty per se. It's the Democrats among us who do that.
Wegandi is not wrong in noting that evidently, Republicans seem to be a lot more competent in squeezing what they want out of playing the government game. Dirty they may be, but they play a dirty game well.
|
On September 20 2020 12:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 11:48 NewSunshine wrote:On September 20 2020 11:35 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 11:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
One would hope that this entire debacle would open most people's eyes (particularly conservatives) to the fact that everything that our system of government is built on, including the Constitution, is deeply flawed and wholly insufficient to maintain a functioning, ethical democratic institution. The problem with this is that Democrats only say this when they're not in power so its hollow. I know a lot of conservatives and they'll just say it's you being a sore loser, that you can't take not being in power and are willing to destroy everything if your side isn't in power for perpetuity. It's like the gif/meme of that college aged dude crying and yelling when Trump won. If you actually read the discussions that take place, there are plenty of progressives who also express problems with Democrats on the regular, even though Trump and Republicans are the ones actively fucking shit up right now. People are frustrated that Democrats aren't doing much in their role to stop things from getting worse. I don't know what thread you're reading, honestly. The progressives tend to call the Democrats out for incompetence, yes. They tend not to be the ones complaining about how Republicans play dirty per se. It's the Democrats among us who do that. Wegandi is not wrong in noting that evidently, Republicans seem to be a lot more competent in squeezing what they want out of playing the government game. Dirty they may be, but they play a dirty game well.
Dirty implies playing outside the rules. Rarely do Republicans do that. Democrats often don't care about the rules and will change them at their whim if they view it as a short-term gain (FDR packing the courts, Reid destroying the filibuster, first ones using the courts to bypass the legislature, etc.). They only bring up the rules when it suits them, otherwise they're perfectly content with ignoring or bypassing them. It's why they view the Constitution as a "living" document so they're not bound by any of it, but Republicans tend to hold the opposite view. They (while they're poor at it mind you) rhetorically at least believe in limited powers (tenuously, like I mentioned, but Democrats don't even give lip service).
It's why I have no sympathy for Democrats when they talk about ethics or rules or decency or whatever. They left those at the door a long long time ago. They're just getting beat at their own game and they're salty AF.
|
On September 20 2020 12:45 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 12:34 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2020 12:12 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 11:48 NewSunshine wrote:On September 20 2020 11:35 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 11:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
One would hope that this entire debacle would open most people's eyes (particularly conservatives) to the fact that everything that our system of government is built on, including the Constitution, is deeply flawed and wholly insufficient to maintain a functioning, ethical democratic institution. The problem with this is that Democrats only say this when they're not in power so its hollow. I know a lot of conservatives and they'll just say it's you being a sore loser, that you can't take not being in power and are willing to destroy everything if your side isn't in power for perpetuity. It's like the gif/meme of that college aged dude crying and yelling when Trump won. If you actually read the discussions that take place, there are plenty of progressives who also express problems with Democrats on the regular, even though Trump and Republicans are the ones actively fucking shit up right now. People are frustrated that Democrats aren't doing much in their role to stop things from getting worse. I don't know what thread you're reading, honestly. It was Democrats that destroyed the filibuster so the minority party has limited power to stop anything in the current iteration (They wanted simple majority for everything, so they're getting what they served - they just don't like it now that they're getting dunked on. That to me is hilariously delightful in how karmically just it is). They only have themselves to blame really. It's like they could never envision themselves out of power and when that happened they cry foul. /shrug I'm sure GOP will bitch about the same things soon enough. It's a stupid football game where the tension consistently rises, incentivizes the worst impulses of human beings, and will result in continuing violence as it is abundantly clear that the sectarianism isn't going to get better. You have people forced together who want nothing to do with each other. One side (Democrats) that will never let the other side leave if it came to it, so we're stuck in this shit hole situation. To me, it's abundantly clear what babies the side not in power are. It's like the guy who dishes the jokes, but can never take one. https://reason.com/2019/07/29/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rejects-court-packing-as-a-bad-idea/ Democrats destroyed the filibuster? When did that happen? I’m not a huge fan of the Dems or their platform but they did that? https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-senate-fillibuster-100243What an idiotic doofus of epic proportions. That's why I said you reap what you sow. It's why I have no sympathy for the Democrats. Karma. Show nested quote +As some of his fellow Democratic senators remained on the fence, Reid called in a heavy hitter to close the deal: President Barack Obama, according to sources familiar with the matter. Obama personally called senators on Wednesday to back the move, and Reid ultimately won the vote on a slim margin, 52-48. Just three Democrats broke with Reid: the retiring Carl Levin of Michigan, the moderate Joe Manchin of West Virginia and the vulnerable Mark Pryor of Arkansas. By the way Obama is probably a bigger doofus than Reid in this whole shtick. Show nested quote +Asked how history would remember him after this move, Reid told POLITICO: “I don’t write history.” That's just funny. Show nested quote +The latest move left Republicans howling in protest and warning that Reid would ultimately come to regret it. You don't say. Show nested quote +“Good, let him do it,” Reid said when asked about McConnell’s threats to change the rules further if he becomes majority leader. Bahahahaa. Show nested quote +Frustrated by gridlock, Democrats said it was about time to take that step — no matter what it means for the future of the institution. But it may only perpetuate the gridlock and could usher in a sweeping conservative agenda the next time the GOP returns to power. Hmmm. Maybe gridlock is good...whodathunk. Show nested quote +“Having guts — that’s how,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said when asked how she would characterize Reid’s move.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a long-time proponent of killing the filibuster, said Reid would be remembered as a leader who brought the Senate into the 21st century. Pie meet face. Face say hi to pie. PS: I'm waiting for the next (D) President to abuse EO's and powers and call the GOP doofuses for being a party to the out of control Executive.
You're missing the final switch. You can see D President EO abuse -> GOP Does same -> D calls them abuse -> gets in power, does same -> GOP calls abuse.
Now consider: Reid defeats judicial nominee filibuster -> McConnell does for supreme court judicial nominees -> Schumer/DNC Senate Maj Leader does for ordinary legislation
Obama appointees -> Trump appointees -> Biden/DNC/Lib legislation (Medicare for all, more stimulus, state bailouts, green new deal lite)
Obama already called for an end to the filibuster on bills. Democratic groups are already wargaming for how to advance a progressive agenda through the end of the filibuster with 51+ Democratic majority. The Dems stand a good chance of retaking the Senate in November with a slim majority, so you should really give more thought to the final Dem play here in this endless game of radical pendulum. Dems already have in mind the more expansive role of government power, so the complete erasure of the filibuster for ordinary legislation benefits them more.
|
On September 20 2020 13:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 12:45 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 12:34 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2020 12:12 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 11:48 NewSunshine wrote:On September 20 2020 11:35 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 11:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
One would hope that this entire debacle would open most people's eyes (particularly conservatives) to the fact that everything that our system of government is built on, including the Constitution, is deeply flawed and wholly insufficient to maintain a functioning, ethical democratic institution. The problem with this is that Democrats only say this when they're not in power so its hollow. I know a lot of conservatives and they'll just say it's you being a sore loser, that you can't take not being in power and are willing to destroy everything if your side isn't in power for perpetuity. It's like the gif/meme of that college aged dude crying and yelling when Trump won. If you actually read the discussions that take place, there are plenty of progressives who also express problems with Democrats on the regular, even though Trump and Republicans are the ones actively fucking shit up right now. People are frustrated that Democrats aren't doing much in their role to stop things from getting worse. I don't know what thread you're reading, honestly. It was Democrats that destroyed the filibuster so the minority party has limited power to stop anything in the current iteration (They wanted simple majority for everything, so they're getting what they served - they just don't like it now that they're getting dunked on. That to me is hilariously delightful in how karmically just it is). They only have themselves to blame really. It's like they could never envision themselves out of power and when that happened they cry foul. /shrug I'm sure GOP will bitch about the same things soon enough. It's a stupid football game where the tension consistently rises, incentivizes the worst impulses of human beings, and will result in continuing violence as it is abundantly clear that the sectarianism isn't going to get better. You have people forced together who want nothing to do with each other. One side (Democrats) that will never let the other side leave if it came to it, so we're stuck in this shit hole situation. To me, it's abundantly clear what babies the side not in power are. It's like the guy who dishes the jokes, but can never take one. https://reason.com/2019/07/29/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rejects-court-packing-as-a-bad-idea/ Democrats destroyed the filibuster? When did that happen? I’m not a huge fan of the Dems or their platform but they did that? https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-senate-fillibuster-100243What an idiotic doofus of epic proportions. That's why I said you reap what you sow. It's why I have no sympathy for the Democrats. Karma. As some of his fellow Democratic senators remained on the fence, Reid called in a heavy hitter to close the deal: President Barack Obama, according to sources familiar with the matter. Obama personally called senators on Wednesday to back the move, and Reid ultimately won the vote on a slim margin, 52-48. Just three Democrats broke with Reid: the retiring Carl Levin of Michigan, the moderate Joe Manchin of West Virginia and the vulnerable Mark Pryor of Arkansas. By the way Obama is probably a bigger doofus than Reid in this whole shtick. Asked how history would remember him after this move, Reid told POLITICO: “I don’t write history.” That's just funny. The latest move left Republicans howling in protest and warning that Reid would ultimately come to regret it. You don't say. “Good, let him do it,” Reid said when asked about McConnell’s threats to change the rules further if he becomes majority leader. Bahahahaa. Frustrated by gridlock, Democrats said it was about time to take that step — no matter what it means for the future of the institution. But it may only perpetuate the gridlock and could usher in a sweeping conservative agenda the next time the GOP returns to power. Hmmm. Maybe gridlock is good...whodathunk. “Having guts — that’s how,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said when asked how she would characterize Reid’s move.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a long-time proponent of killing the filibuster, said Reid would be remembered as a leader who brought the Senate into the 21st century. Pie meet face. Face say hi to pie. PS: I'm waiting for the next (D) President to abuse EO's and powers and call the GOP doofuses for being a party to the out of control Executive. You're missing the final switch. You can see D President EO abuse -> GOP Does same -> D calls them abuse -> gets in power, does same -> GOP calls abuse. Now consider: Reid defeats judicial nominee filibuster -> McConnell does for supreme court judicial nominees -> Schumer/DNC Senate Maj Leader does for ordinary legislation Obama appointees -> Trump appointees -> Biden/DNC/Lib legislation (Medicare for all, more stimulus, state bailouts, green new deal lite) Obama already called for an end to the filibuster on bills. Democratic groups are already wargaming for how to advance a progressive agenda through the end of the filibuster with 51+ Democratic majority. The Dems stand a good chance of retaking the Senate in November with a slim majority, so you should really give more thought to the final Dem play here in this endless game of radical pendulum. Dems already have in mind the more expansive role of government power, so the complete erasure of the filibuster for ordinary legislation benefits them more.
Oh, the GOP benefits as well. You rarely see them abolish prior legislation, bureaucratic overreach, etc. If it was so it would be an easy-ish (gotta have a backbone) matter to simply abolish the previous legislatures ram-throughs. Could have done it with Obama-care, but too many weak-kneed and/or sympathetic folks in the GOP this Congress. This idea that the GOP are strong-willed about their advancing in practice their rhetoric doesn't match. They're certainly not as bad (except with spending!) as the Democrats, but they're not Calvin Coolidge's or Ron Pauls either. See how folks like Amash, Massie, Labradors, etc. have been treated who want to take an ax to the thing.
I root for gridlock. The harder it is to pass a thing the better we all benefit. Stalemate, gridlock, perpetual inaction, give it to me baby. The worst thing is the check to be erased, as the posters wailing and gnashing here know now. Except, they don't recognize it, or that limits to power are beneficial, instead they're advocating war, violence, retribution, ignoring the rules, fomenting threat of rioting, etc. It's ludicrous.
|
On September 20 2020 13:23 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 13:16 Danglars wrote:On September 20 2020 12:45 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 12:34 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2020 12:12 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 11:48 NewSunshine wrote:On September 20 2020 11:35 Wegandi wrote:On September 20 2020 11:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:
One would hope that this entire debacle would open most people's eyes (particularly conservatives) to the fact that everything that our system of government is built on, including the Constitution, is deeply flawed and wholly insufficient to maintain a functioning, ethical democratic institution. The problem with this is that Democrats only say this when they're not in power so its hollow. I know a lot of conservatives and they'll just say it's you being a sore loser, that you can't take not being in power and are willing to destroy everything if your side isn't in power for perpetuity. It's like the gif/meme of that college aged dude crying and yelling when Trump won. If you actually read the discussions that take place, there are plenty of progressives who also express problems with Democrats on the regular, even though Trump and Republicans are the ones actively fucking shit up right now. People are frustrated that Democrats aren't doing much in their role to stop things from getting worse. I don't know what thread you're reading, honestly. It was Democrats that destroyed the filibuster so the minority party has limited power to stop anything in the current iteration (They wanted simple majority for everything, so they're getting what they served - they just don't like it now that they're getting dunked on. That to me is hilariously delightful in how karmically just it is). They only have themselves to blame really. It's like they could never envision themselves out of power and when that happened they cry foul. /shrug I'm sure GOP will bitch about the same things soon enough. It's a stupid football game where the tension consistently rises, incentivizes the worst impulses of human beings, and will result in continuing violence as it is abundantly clear that the sectarianism isn't going to get better. You have people forced together who want nothing to do with each other. One side (Democrats) that will never let the other side leave if it came to it, so we're stuck in this shit hole situation. To me, it's abundantly clear what babies the side not in power are. It's like the guy who dishes the jokes, but can never take one. https://reason.com/2019/07/29/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rejects-court-packing-as-a-bad-idea/ Democrats destroyed the filibuster? When did that happen? I’m not a huge fan of the Dems or their platform but they did that? https://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/harry-reid-senate-fillibuster-100243What an idiotic doofus of epic proportions. That's why I said you reap what you sow. It's why I have no sympathy for the Democrats. Karma. As some of his fellow Democratic senators remained on the fence, Reid called in a heavy hitter to close the deal: President Barack Obama, according to sources familiar with the matter. Obama personally called senators on Wednesday to back the move, and Reid ultimately won the vote on a slim margin, 52-48. Just three Democrats broke with Reid: the retiring Carl Levin of Michigan, the moderate Joe Manchin of West Virginia and the vulnerable Mark Pryor of Arkansas. By the way Obama is probably a bigger doofus than Reid in this whole shtick. Asked how history would remember him after this move, Reid told POLITICO: “I don’t write history.” That's just funny. The latest move left Republicans howling in protest and warning that Reid would ultimately come to regret it. You don't say. “Good, let him do it,” Reid said when asked about McConnell’s threats to change the rules further if he becomes majority leader. Bahahahaa. Frustrated by gridlock, Democrats said it was about time to take that step — no matter what it means for the future of the institution. But it may only perpetuate the gridlock and could usher in a sweeping conservative agenda the next time the GOP returns to power. Hmmm. Maybe gridlock is good...whodathunk. “Having guts — that’s how,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said when asked how she would characterize Reid’s move.
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a long-time proponent of killing the filibuster, said Reid would be remembered as a leader who brought the Senate into the 21st century. Pie meet face. Face say hi to pie. PS: I'm waiting for the next (D) President to abuse EO's and powers and call the GOP doofuses for being a party to the out of control Executive. You're missing the final switch. You can see D President EO abuse -> GOP Does same -> D calls them abuse -> gets in power, does same -> GOP calls abuse. Now consider: Reid defeats judicial nominee filibuster -> McConnell does for supreme court judicial nominees -> Schumer/DNC Senate Maj Leader does for ordinary legislation Obama appointees -> Trump appointees -> Biden/DNC/Lib legislation (Medicare for all, more stimulus, state bailouts, green new deal lite) Obama already called for an end to the filibuster on bills. Democratic groups are already wargaming for how to advance a progressive agenda through the end of the filibuster with 51+ Democratic majority. The Dems stand a good chance of retaking the Senate in November with a slim majority, so you should really give more thought to the final Dem play here in this endless game of radical pendulum. Dems already have in mind the more expansive role of government power, so the complete erasure of the filibuster for ordinary legislation benefits them more. Oh, the GOP benefits as well. You rarely see them abolish prior legislation, bureaucratic overreach, etc. If it was so it would be an easy-ish (gotta have a backbone) matter to simply abolish the previous legislatures ram-throughs. Could have done it with Obama-care, but too many weak-kneed and/or sympathetic folks in the GOP this Congress. This idea that the GOP are strong-willed about their advancing in practice their rhetoric doesn't match. They're certainly not as bad (except with spending!) as the Democrats, but they're not Calvin Coolidge's or Ron Pauls either. See how folks like Amash, Massie, Labradors, etc. have been treated who want to take an ax to the thing. I root for gridlock. The harder it is to pass a thing the better we all benefit. Stalemate, gridlock, perpetual inaction, give it to me baby. The worst thing is the check to be erased, as the posters wailing and gnashing here know now. Except, they don't recognize it, or that limits to power are beneficial, instead they're advocating war, violence, retribution, ignoring the rules, fomenting threat of rioting, etc. It's ludicrous.
I'd quibble on how easy it is to go back and abolish the prior overreach once instituted. People get used to handouts. The Courts can come in and interfere with abolished EO's, as we saw with Roberts and DACA. The side that wants bigger bureaucracies and a larger government role in the civil society will always favor and be better positioned to take advantage of easy passage of legislation. If Trump had been able to smash the worst excesses of the Obama regime through the same Executive means, I'd be more of your view. The same goes with the intelligence agency bureaucracy; which Trump foolishly thought would act in constitutional manner to be subordinate to the civilian elected head of the entire executive branch.
The weak-kneed members of the GOP coalition act as a road to gridlock among it's own party. The murkowskis, mccains, collinses, flakes, etc act in this way upon election. I'd prefer principled conservative majority and Reaganesque president, but close second is a GOP majority split with a bunch of moderates/center-left (gridlock hurting bad right-wing ideas, and totally stopping left-wing ideas), and behind that split Dem pres, Republican Congress and Republican pres, Democratic Congress. Gridlock isn't cool for the smaht kidz (who often think little past the title of bills, or overgeneralization of bills), but historically speaking, it's better than most bills that end up passed. If the Democrats took Congress with leadership more in the mold of Lieberman or Moynihan, that would definitely be better than some Trumpian leadership of Josh Hawley or Louie Gohmert. I say this particularly if the president remained Trump; he's got tons of bad ideas that need legislative checks. We're mostly in agreement on the gridlock issue, as counterintuitive it is, and as often dismissed as it is in this forum.
|
Regarding the abolishing the filibuster thing, I would like to reiterate that it was precipitated by Republicans, at the time a minority in the Senate, deciding that the Senate was no longer going to confirm any nominees to federal courts by president.
It started in June 2012, when McConnell decided that there were going to be no more confirmations because there was a presidential election coming up. And then when Republicans lost, he decided that there was no reason that Republicans should stop blocking all nominees, but it wasn't until around a year of this bullshit had gone by that Democrats got rid of the filibuster in November 2013.
Wegandi's timeline (conveniently) leaves this starting point out.
|
I don't believe amy coney barret can get the nod. She's qualified but always been treated as too controversial politically to pick, and was supposedly the front runner the last two seats as well.
Mcconnell's 2012 stonewalling was especially obnoxious since the higher courts were already tilted very conservatively. It was nothing but petty and vindictive spite.
|
On September 20 2020 13:58 Kyadytim wrote:
Regarding the abolishing the filibuster thing, I would like to reiterate that it was precipitated by Republicans, at the time a minority in the Senate, deciding that the Senate was no longer going to confirm any nominees to federal courts by president.
It started in June 2012, when McConnell decided that there were going to be no more confirmations because there was a presidential election coming up. And then when Republicans lost, he decided that there was no reason that Republicans should stop blocking all nominees, but it wasn't until around a year of this bullshit had gone by that Democrats got rid of the filibuster in November 2013.
Wegandi's timeline (conveniently) leaves this starting point out.
I had (wrongly I guess) assumed people would understand that Reid got rid of the filibuster because *gasp* it was being used, such that the Dem majority/President couldn't ram-rod everything it wanted through.
You also must think I am stupid for you to utter that first paragraph. Let me enlighten you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama
It is very easy to see how many more than 0 (your claim *see June 12th, 2012 timeline to said next year 2013) got confirmed. Why is it Democrats get simple facts so wrong all the time?
Anyways, more to the point, that's the entire point of the power of the filibuster to have the minority position check the majority. Now that's gone by the doing of said Democrat party you guys are wailing about the majority doing what you did. Give me a break. You have zero sympathy and standing here. Take it like you dished it. Don't threaten bullshit.
|
I should add...look at the confirmation vote #'s for Obama's judges compared to Trumps:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump
Note: Compare how often 35-40 voted against confirmation by the GOP during Obama's tenure and by the Democrats during Trump's tenure. (I'll give you the answer, the Dems overwhelmingly vote to deny confirmation compared to the Republicans)
Democrats are butt hurt crybabies. Always have been always will be.
|
On September 20 2020 14:07 Nevuk wrote:
I don't believe amy coney barret can get the nod. She's qualified but always been treated as too controversial politically to pick, and was supposedly the front runner the last two seats as well.
Mcconnell's 2012 stonewalling was especially obnoxious since the higher courts were already tilted very conservatively. It was nothing but petty and vindictive spite.
Look at the year 2012:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_appointment_history_for_United_States_federal_courts
(47% GOP appointments, 44% Democrat appointments) Doesn't seem hugely tilted.
As of now, 7 of the 13 district appeals courts are majority GOP appointed, in 2012 this was 6ish with a toss-up of 1 due to a vacant spot. Again, hardly tilted very much.
Now, currently of all the district courts, Democrats have appointed 317 compared to GOP 303. By breakdown of partisan majority: 5 GOP, 7 Democrat.
You guys are really bad at evaluating political realities and/or seem to distort the facts so often that I can't think it all ignorance or willful neglect.
PS: It doesn't matter who the GOP/Trump nominate because Democrats will always vote against them (sans 1 or 2 like Manchin). You live in this fantasy world where the Democrats will actually vote in favor. This wasn't the case with Kavanaugh or Gorsuch, wasn't the case with Clarence Thomas or Alito. You have to go back to early in Reagan's first term for the Democrats to vote affirmatively for a nominee. Compared to the GOP the Democrats are downright "vindictive" in your words.
|
On September 20 2020 14:07 Nevuk wrote:
I don't believe amy coney barret can get the nod. She's qualified but always been treated as too controversial politically to pick, and was supposedly the front runner the last two seats as well.
Mcconnell's 2012 stonewalling was especially obnoxious since the higher courts were already tilted very conservatively. It was nothing but petty and vindictive spite.
While there is noise being made about the judge in Florida, both picks are precisely because of their political (or in Barret's case "controverial") value. After the ridiculous attacks on Barret in her first confirmation fight, the GOP wants Democrats doing things like going after her on her Catholic faith ("the dogma lives loudly within you" and going after her association with the Knights of Columbus iirc). Similar with Lagoa, a Cuban-American whose parents fled Fidel Castro. Maybe this is one reason dems lose? The Republicans want these fights.
Money is still on ACB but with the election so close Lagoa has value I didnt see immediately yesterday. Kinda thought with all the hype they'd still go with ACB. Still do. She has been interviewed before but there was always talk about "saving" her for RBG's seat. Been going around conservative circles since 2018 at least.
|
On September 20 2020 14:52 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 14:07 Nevuk wrote:
I don't believe amy coney barret can get the nod. She's qualified but always been treated as too controversial politically to pick, and was supposedly the front runner the last two seats as well.
Mcconnell's 2012 stonewalling was especially obnoxious since the higher courts were already tilted very conservatively. It was nothing but petty and vindictive spite. While there is noise being made about the judge in Florida, both picks are precisely because of their political (or in Barret's case "controverial") value. After the ridiculous attacks on Barret in her first confirmation fight, the GOP wants Democrats doing things like going after her on her Catholic faith ("the dogma lives loudly within you" and going after her association with the Knights of Columbus iirc). Similar with Lagoa, a Cuban-American whose father fled Fidel Castro. Maybe this is one reason dems lose? The Republicans want these fights. Money is still on ACB but with the election so close Lagoa has value I didnt see immediately yesterday. Kinda thought with all the hype they'd still go with ACB. Still do. She has been interviewed before but there was always talk about "saving" her for RBG's seat. Been going around conservative circles since 2018 at least.
I'd be happy with ACB. She'd probably be the most pro-2A justice and her record on civil liberties isn't the worst. More originalists the merrier. (I'd also be happy with neutering the SCOTUS, but that's not going to happen)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
