EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2937
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On January 07 2021 01:19 LegalLord wrote: No reason they can't vote down most everything the same way they did before - this whole line of logic seems to hinge upon a contrary-to-fact assessment of how this is going to affect the behavior of a party that has every incentive to vote down all Democratic initiatives (and has to take zero of the blame, being out of power). A quick scan suggests that one seat each in Arizona and Georgia won in this election are back up for reelection in 2022, which is great news for the Republicans. All they need is for Biden to do a mediocre job (which is a near-certainty) and it'll be right back to straight party-line voting in the red states. Most Republicans I'd agree with this. Collins is the most interesting one that voted in lockstep with Republicans whenever required, but was given a throw away vote by Mitch. She is more of a centrist liberal so I could see it happening either way. | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States14003 Posts
On January 07 2021 01:28 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Most Republicans I'd agree with this. Collins is the most interesting one that voted in lockstep with Republicans whenever required, but was given a throw away vote by Mitch. She is more of a centrist liberal so I could see it happening either way. The problem with Collins is she votes Red on critical votes...even assuming Ossof takes it here, the more pressing issue is going to be Joe Manchin | ||
|
brian
United States9643 Posts
On January 07 2021 01:19 LegalLord wrote: No reason they can't vote down most everything the same way they did before - this whole line of logic seems to hinge upon a contrary-to-fact assessment of how this is going to affect the behavior of a party that has every incentive to vote down all Democratic initiatives (and has to take zero of the blame, being out of power). A quick scan suggests that one seat each in Arizona and Georgia won in this election are back up for reelection in 2022, which is great news for the Republicans. All they need is for Biden to do a mediocre job (which is a near-certainty) and it'll be right back to straight party-line voting in the red states. there is a difference from where i’m sitting. for now all the republicans senators get to say whatever they want about their support or non support of a bill that they have no intention on ever voting on. it’s a matter of accountability. Knowing McConnell would never test them to put their money where their mouth is, they can say anything. now they’ll at least have to be on record voting against it. It’s a lot easier to say you support $2k stimulus as a GOP senator knowing its fluff. now they’ll have to actually vote for it (or not.) | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On January 07 2021 01:28 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: Most Republicans I'd agree with this. Collins is the most interesting one that voted in lockstep with Republicans whenever required, but was given a throw away vote by Mitch. She is more of a centrist liberal so I could see it happening either way. Doesn't really matter for Collins. She could shoot a non-senator (or Ted Cruz) on the senate floor and it wouldn't affect her as long as she did it before 2025 (as her election is in 2026). I think it DOES matter, as a lot of Mitch's power has been in preventing anything from coming to the floor and preventing votes at all (as he did with the 2k stimulus checks - which I would hope are brought to the floor the day after Biden is inaugurated). Can he still filibuster? Yes, but I don't think it'll be as effective as it was in 2010-14. Even Manchin has a limit for what he'll find acceptable. A nuke is unlikely, but some reforms to prevent abuse may be something he could be talked into. It also prevents him from shutting down all investigations into Trump, which frankly, could matter a lot. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 07 2021 01:27 Mohdoo wrote: I’m assuming he meant in the range a recount will do anything. After 3 recounts nothing changed with a smaller margin. Ossoff appears very safely the winner An alternate usage for "end up within recount range." | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
On January 07 2021 01:41 Danglars wrote: An alternate usage for "end up within recount range." Some places were reporting very different numbers of outstanding votes, which I think is the issue. Here's the list the GA SoS provided to 538 : And there's also up to 14k absentee votes. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On January 07 2021 01:40 Nevuk wrote: Doesn't really matter for Collins. She could shoot a non-senator (or Ted Cruz) on the senate floor and it wouldn't affect her as long as she did it before 2025 (as her election is in 2026). I think it DOES matter, as a lot of Mitch's power has been in preventing anything from coming to the floor and preventing votes at all (as he did with the 2k stimulus checks - which I would hope are brought to the floor the day after Biden is inaugurated). Can he still filibuster? Yes, but I don't think it'll be as effective as it was in 2010-14. Even Manchin has a limit for what he'll find acceptable. A nuke is unlikely, but some reforms to prevent abuse may be something he could be talked into. It also prevents him from shutting down all investigations into Trump, which frankly, could matter a lot. But this is exactly the point. Do you think Mitch was providing cover for her votes for fun or do you think it was critical for her re-election? Maybe you're cynical and she will vote in lock step with Republicans and then get voted out in 2026 for not representing her constituents. Maybe democrats will run another centrist for that seat and lose in spectacular fashion again. I think dismissing her potential is a mistake. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22610 Posts
On January 07 2021 00:30 Biff The Understudy wrote: Funny enough you probably want them to, the only way something like the SC nomination process chances is if both sides want it. Frankly, not taking that road might just be basic wisdom. What prevents republican from adding 4 more seats too next time they win? Where does it stop? You want a truly independent non-partisan court? Turn the court into a partisan fight and wait for it to explode and be remade into something better. | ||
|
brian
United States9643 Posts
On January 07 2021 02:02 Gorsameth wrote: Funny enough you probably want them to, the only way something like the SC nomination process chances is if both sides want it. You want a truly independent non-partisan court? Turn the court into a partisan fight and wait for it to explode and be remade into something better. the same reasoning many used in electing Trump. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32755 Posts
On January 07 2021 02:32 Nevuk wrote: CNN is reporting Merrick Garland is Biden's AG pick. The dynamic I'm reading was that Doug Jones was the first choice if Dems failed to win the Senate, as Jones was respected across the aisle. But now that they have the votes to safely nominate people, Biden can get Garland and fill the vacant seat he leaves on that powerful appeals court. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22610 Posts
On January 07 2021 02:27 brian wrote: stacking the SC with Democrats is probably a lot less likely to result in deaths and destroyed lives compared to electing Trump.the same reasoning many used in electing Trump. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On January 07 2021 02:27 brian wrote: the same reasoning many used in electing Trump. Break the system to show that the system is broken theory. Strange how many people suddenly don't like it when they see how people *that think a little different than them* use it. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
Somehow i have the feeling that trumps resistance and reluctance to admit he lost didnt help the republicans with this senate election,and then on top of that the phonecall recently published. Curious to see how the announcement of the final count for the presidency will go,it started 12 minutes ago i think? The court wont change so the conservative republicans can at least have some consolation in having the court majority. Its not all that relevant i think,i dont expect revolutionary policys from biden where the verdict of the court could be important. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8760 Posts
On January 07 2021 02:34 Mohdoo wrote: This Trump rally is so dangerous. Good lord. He's just letting it rip. over 60 courts found the orange windbag in chief is just blowing hot air. time and time again he sidelined his staunchest allies when they were not in step with dear leader's crazy tune. same happened with Barr who was as partisan as could be but even he would not go into dangerous and uncharted territory. agent orange blew it. time to stop the squeal Republicans. seeing Trump as the saviour but losing election after election does not seem to be a sustainable model going forward. | ||
|
pmh
1416 Posts
nvm i found one. | ||
|
Slydie
2007 Posts
On January 07 2021 03:15 Mohdoo wrote: Why in the world do they take masks off when speaking. Such morons Why wouldn't they? Masks hinder communication, and they speak in good distance from others. They won't save any lives by leaving them on. | ||
| ||
