|
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 June 28 2018 08:03 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 07:40 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 07:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 06:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
democrats, progressives, whatever got complacent. xdaunt posted a article about conservatives and how, essentially, they always lost - the other side of that is the other side won. the other side got complacent in various ways - we started dividing ourselves, instilling purity tests, all the while ceding control of state level governments. and now we are here. I don't understand how that works. Going back to 1980s, the Presidency runs like this R (Reagan) R (H. W. Bush) D (Bill Clinton) R (Dubya) D (Obama) R (A complete arsehole) Two Democrat Presidents in nearly FORTY YEARS and this is 'The Republicans always lost'? i suggest you take a look at the bit xdaunt posted which i referred to. I suggest you provide a link to said bit if you want me to look at it. its literally like 2 pages ago, not hard to find. but tl;dr regardless of held offices conservatives were "losing" on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. and generally liberals steadily marched ahead with their agenda in a fashion that began to seem inevitable until it wasn't
I don't really get it. Those are still issues that they are losing. All they've been doing in the past year and a half is throwing band-aids on bullet holes.
The guy who wrote the flight 93 election article apparently left the Trump administration if that tells you anything. The one thing of Trump's that stood out above standard Rebpublican fare from a policy point was immigration, and they're still losing that, assuming the goal was to ensure a white Christian country for the foreseeable future. And ironically enough, public support for left shifting policy is on the rise, so there is no reason why the next election won't be an even graver flight 93. And the one after that. And the one after that. At this point it just comes off to me as nonsense to rationalize voting for someone as immoral and unethical as Trump. The results don't match the panic that fueled them.
|
On June 28 2018 10:41 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 08:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:40 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 07:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 06:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
democrats, progressives, whatever got complacent. xdaunt posted a article about conservatives and how, essentially, they always lost - the other side of that is the other side won. the other side got complacent in various ways - we started dividing ourselves, instilling purity tests, all the while ceding control of state level governments. and now we are here. I don't understand how that works. Going back to 1980s, the Presidency runs like this R (Reagan) R (H. W. Bush) D (Bill Clinton) R (Dubya) D (Obama) R (A complete arsehole) Two Democrat Presidents in nearly FORTY YEARS and this is 'The Republicans always lost'? i suggest you take a look at the bit xdaunt posted which i referred to. I suggest you provide a link to said bit if you want me to look at it. its literally like 2 pages ago, not hard to find. but tl;dr regardless of held offices conservatives were "losing" on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. and generally liberals steadily marched ahead with their agenda in a fashion that began to seem inevitable until it wasn't I don't really get it. Those are still issues that they are losing. All they've been doing in the past year and a half is throwing band-aids on bullet holes. The guy who wrote the flight 93 election article apparently left the Trump administration if that tells you anything. The one thing of Trump's that stood out above standard Rebpublican fare from a policy point was immigration, and they're still losing that, assuming the goal was to ensure a white Christian country for the foreseeable future. And ironically enough, public support for left shifting policy is on the rise, so there is no reason why the next election won't be an even graver flight 93. And the one after that. And the one after that. At this point it just comes off to me as nonsense to rationalize voting for someone as immoral and unethical as Trump. The results don't match the panic that fueled them.
Indeed, when fighting the pull of big government the most you can hope for are reprieves. Trump has done a lot of good, but what is needed are changes to laws and institutions. Even controlling and slowing the bureaucracy is not something one president could do. If I were a leftist, I'd be more concerned than I was in summer 2016, but I'd still be hopeful. A government and country this size has considerable inertia.
edit: on a semi-related note, it turned out to be true that opposing Gorsuch when the balance of the Court wouldn't change was foolish for Democrats, although that seems to be the way their court strategy has gone on the last few years. They really didn't think they were ever going to lose another election.
https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/27/schumer-hadnt-insisted-filibustering-gorsuch-hed-much-better-position-now/
edit2: A follow up to what I mentioned earlier, from the same author of the piece I cited. Midterm year confirmations are not extraordinary, especially when the same party controls the Senate and the Presidency.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On June 28 2018 09:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 09:13 Danglars wrote:From the journal of politics courtesy of 538, a survey of what the two parties look like in our heads:
Republicans think 36% of Democrats are atheist/agnostic. In reality, 9%.
Republicans think 46% of Democrats are black. In reality, 24%.
Republicans think 38% of Democrats are LGB. In reality, 6%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are 65 and older. In reality, 21%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are Evangelicals. In reality, 34%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans earn $250,000 or more. In reality, 2% do.
538More discussions and the link (thankfully free) to the journal article are available at 538. Stereotypes are pretty far off to a little off. Some of them are pretty funny. Some of those are indeed hilarious! 38% of Democrats are gay? 44% of Republicans are in the top ~5% of earners?
Well i mean it's somehow ideologically consistent with the rabble rousers of each party.
Still stupid but actually thinking critically about politics is not something current politics encourages. Us vs them tends to do that.
|
Nothing would change. McConnell would change the rules and approve the appointment. There is no good position with this Republican Party. The only solution is to put them in the minority.
|
On June 28 2018 11:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 10:41 Tachion wrote:On June 28 2018 08:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:40 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 07:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 06:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
democrats, progressives, whatever got complacent. xdaunt posted a article about conservatives and how, essentially, they always lost - the other side of that is the other side won. the other side got complacent in various ways - we started dividing ourselves, instilling purity tests, all the while ceding control of state level governments. and now we are here. I don't understand how that works. Going back to 1980s, the Presidency runs like this R (Reagan) R (H. W. Bush) D (Bill Clinton) R (Dubya) D (Obama) R (A complete arsehole) Two Democrat Presidents in nearly FORTY YEARS and this is 'The Republicans always lost'? i suggest you take a look at the bit xdaunt posted which i referred to. I suggest you provide a link to said bit if you want me to look at it. its literally like 2 pages ago, not hard to find. but tl;dr regardless of held offices conservatives were "losing" on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. and generally liberals steadily marched ahead with their agenda in a fashion that began to seem inevitable until it wasn't I don't really get it. Those are still issues that they are losing. All they've been doing in the past year and a half is throwing band-aids on bullet holes. The guy who wrote the flight 93 election article apparently left the Trump administration if that tells you anything. The one thing of Trump's that stood out above standard Rebpublican fare from a policy point was immigration, and they're still losing that, assuming the goal was to ensure a white Christian country for the foreseeable future. And ironically enough, public support for left shifting policy is on the rise, so there is no reason why the next election won't be an even graver flight 93. And the one after that. And the one after that. At this point it just comes off to me as nonsense to rationalize voting for someone as immoral and unethical as Trump. The results don't match the panic that fueled them. Indeed, when fighting the pull of big government the most you can hope for are reprieves. Trump has done a lot of good, but what is needed are changes to laws and institutions. Even controlling and slowing the bureaucracy is not something one president could do. If I were a leftist, I'd be more concerned than I was in summer 2016, but I'd still be hopeful. A government and country this size has considerable inertia.
As a liberal, I'm pretty thoroughly past hopeful. For all the things Trump and Republicans are failing at, the GOP is using Trump to confirm judges at a record pace, and the entire judiciary is going to skew activist conservative for most of my life at this rate.
If conservatives felt like they were losing their country in 2016, that's definitely how liberals feel now. We've got Republicans in total control of the government at all levels, and despite seeming to win in popular opinion on issues such as health care, gay marriage, abortion, and even economic policy, the political right is undermining health care progress, carving out exceptions for gay rights, restricting abortion and abortion access until it's basically unavailable where they can, and they just passed unilateral tax legislation. We've got white nationalists feeling energized and empowered and openly marching in the streets.
And now with long term control of the Supreme Court, and presumably replacing a moderate conservative with an ideologue, we can expect more of the state level voter disenfranchisement (fewer voting hours and polling places, more difficult registration processes, etc.) to be upheld by the Supreme Court, creating further systemic advantages for Republicans that will let them continue to hold power even if they lose popularity.
This isn't a country for me or people like me. Not like this.
And it's almost certainly going to get even worse before there's any opportunity for it to get better.
What, exactly, do you think I should feel hopeful about?
|
The Cortez win in new York is a much bigger deal than people are giving credit. I think this is actually really huge. It gives me hope that my prediction Trump would birth a left version of the tea party will end up true. This could totally be the beginning of Democrat establishment getting a solid boot to the curb.
I expect we are going to end up in a situation where Democrats and socialists form a coalition of sorts. I want this other party to grow and I want it to play hardball with Democrats. I could see an Oregon seat totally going the way of socialists. Start with deep blue districts and work your way out. This is just so huge. There are so many movements that end up stagnant because no "real" progress being made gives everyone cold feet. This shell finally cracked. Let it flow.
I predict 4 seats in Congress going to this new party the next election cycle. Then probably 10 after that, assuming Democrats don't find a way to adapt.
|
On June 28 2018 11:28 Mohdoo wrote:
The Cortez win in new York is a much bigger deal than people are giving credit. I think this is actually really huge. It gives me hope that my prediction Trump would birth a left version of the tea party will end up true. This could totally be the beginning of Democrat establishment getting a solid boot to the curb.
I expect we are going to end up in a situation where Democrats and socialists form a coalition of sorts. I want this other party to grow and I want it to play hardball with Democrats. I could see an Oregon seat totally going the way of socialists. Start with deep blue districts and work your way out. This is just so huge. There are so many movements that end up stagnant because no "real" progress being made gives everyone cold feet. This shell finally cracked. Let it flow.
I predict 4 seats in Congress going to this new party the next election cycle. Then probably 10 after that, assuming Democrats don't find a way to adapt.
Stop talking about "new parties". It doesn't work in our elective system and that system won't change unless the Rs and Ds change how it works - something they have 0 incentive to do.
On June 28 2018 09:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 09:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 28 2018 09:13 Danglars wrote:From the journal of politics courtesy of 538, a survey of what the two parties look like in our heads:
Republicans think 36% of Democrats are atheist/agnostic. In reality, 9%.
Republicans think 46% of Democrats are black. In reality, 24%.
Republicans think 38% of Democrats are LGB. In reality, 6%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are 65 and older. In reality, 21%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are Evangelicals. In reality, 34%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans earn $250,000 or more. In reality, 2% do.
538More discussions and the link (thankfully free) to the journal article are available at 538. Stereotypes are pretty far off to a little off. Some of them are pretty funny. Some of those are indeed hilarious! 38% of Democrats are gay? 44% of Republicans are in the top ~5% of earners? The gay one is my favorite because the logical extension of that is all the deep blue sections of the country with banging economies have to have cloning facilities or something. Or gay people just figured out how to get each other preggers. But yeah, I blame the broadcast media for this one. They have had zero interest displaying anything but cartoon cut outs of the political parties.
There are people out there that are convinced a gay gene exists. Which is... honestly laughable.
|
On June 28 2018 11:28 Mohdoo wrote:
The Cortez win in new York is a much bigger deal than people are giving credit. I think this is actually really huge. It gives me hope that my prediction Trump would birth a left version of the tea party will end up true. This could totally be the beginning of Democrat establishment getting a solid boot to the curb.
I expect we are going to end up in a situation where Democrats and socialists form a coalition of sorts. I want this other party to grow and I want it to play hardball with Democrats. I could see an Oregon seat totally going the way of socialists. Start with deep blue districts and work your way out. This is just so huge. There are so many movements that end up stagnant because no "real" progress being made gives everyone cold feet. This shell finally cracked. Let it flow.
I predict 4 seats in Congress going to this new party the next election cycle. Then probably 10 after that, assuming Democrats don't find a way to adapt.
given how bad the tea party is; what makes you think a leftist version of the tea party would be a good thing?
|
The tea party has been amazing for republicans. Bad for people who want congress govern. Amazing for people who only care about the courts so they can over turn Roe v Wade and other decisions as such.
|
On June 28 2018 11:43 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 11:28 Mohdoo wrote:
The Cortez win in new York is a much bigger deal than people are giving credit. I think this is actually really huge. It gives me hope that my prediction Trump would birth a left version of the tea party will end up true. This could totally be the beginning of Democrat establishment getting a solid boot to the curb.
I expect we are going to end up in a situation where Democrats and socialists form a coalition of sorts. I want this other party to grow and I want it to play hardball with Democrats. I could see an Oregon seat totally going the way of socialists. Start with deep blue districts and work your way out. This is just so huge. There are so many movements that end up stagnant because no "real" progress being made gives everyone cold feet. This shell finally cracked. Let it flow.
I predict 4 seats in Congress going to this new party the next election cycle. Then probably 10 after that, assuming Democrats don't find a way to adapt. given how bad the tea party is; what makes you think a leftist version of the tea party would be a good thing?
When I compare "relevance of social conservatism" before and after the tea party, I have a hard time thinking the tea party was a bad thing for Republicans. The tea party made people think their vote might actually change something. That's big.
It's the same reason Cortez won.
|
On June 28 2018 08:13 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 07:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 07:48 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 07:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 07:25 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 07:13 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2018 07:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 28 2018 07:02 xDaunt wrote:On June 28 2018 06:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Perhaps for you and other republicans, but for the left policy was more important than the tabloid crap Republicans tended to focus on.
On slavery. Slavery isn't in the constitution at all. The constitution considered the importing of people, but not slaves. According to the constitution everyone here was a person. The treatment of Black people was irrefutably unconstitutional.
I swear you brought this up a while ago, so I don't know how you wouldn't be aware of an argument you presented to me. What do you mean slavery is not in the Constitution? Surely you have heard of the 3/5 clause, right? What I have argued previously is that the founders get an unduly bad rap for slavery given that they did quite a bit to curtail slavery and limit its influence in the US at the founding and in the years thereafter. For example, radical SJW types like to point at the 3/5 clause as evidence that the founders were a bunch of racists, saying "SEE! They didn't even consider black people to count as whole people!" The point that these folks are missing is that the 3/5 clause was put in expressly to limit the political power of the slave states. The simple reality is that the US probably would not have gained and retained independence and cohesion if the country chose to eliminate slavery at the time of the founding. It simply was not a realistic expectation. But if you look at what actually happened back then, the US had one of the most robust and successful abolitionist movements at the time of its founding. It was just too early to completely resolve the issue. They were racist and thought Black people less than a full person, but the constitution calls them persons not slaves or property. The stripping of their humanity was unconstitutional and all the white guys just agreed to turn a blind eye to it as long as they could. There's no way you can read the constitution and find justification for enslaving people. Otherwise there would have been many more slaves of a variety of ethnicities. There's a reason other groups while working conditions were not much better than slavery they weren't property and had rights. Because the stripping of their humanity was as unconstitutional as it was to do to black people but none of the white men in power gave a shit. Well there is a way to read it as legalizing slavery because the southern states signed it. And that is how it was enforced for a nearly a century. You can say the language implies that black people are full citizens and cannot be deprived of civil liberties. And it does. But that is not how the people who wrote it saw it or enforced it. That was my original point. Ignoring the constitution is how this country started. SCOTUS, congress, and the executive oversaw the national disregard of the founding document. To pretend they will save us now disregards a basic understanding of US history. My guy, they wrote it together and agreed on the terms and what they meant When you say ignoring, you mean ignoring your modern day interpretation of the language written into the Constitution. The bill of rights was added after directly after and it is the only part of the people's document that addresses individual rights. And article 1, section 9 directly addresses the import of slaves and says congress cannot prohibit it. SECTION 9
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. You don't import people with rights and you don't tax them upon delivery. Slavery was 100% legal under the Constitution. No, not for a textualist. Which you may remember is especially popular on the right. The agreement was that slavery would be unconstitutional, but there would be no way to enforce a penalty. Not because we didn't have a system capable of such by way of mechanism, but by way of not having enough white guys that thought those words applied to Black people, despite there being no textual/constitutional/moral justification for such a position. I'm not sure you understand my point as you seem to be making it rather than refuting it and then just adding the contrarian line that "it was constitutional because they said it was, ignore the text of the document in question" You are completely off base here. The textualist interpretation of the constitution does not support your position. More to the point, there is no serious support for your position. Surely there is and was in the abolitionist movement. The very eloquent lecturer at the City Hall doubtless felt some embarrassment from the fact that he had literally to give the Constitution a pro-slavery interpretation; because upon its face it of itself conveys no such meaning, but a very opposite meaning. He thus sums up what he calls the slaveholding provisions of the Constitution. . www.blackpast.organd here We may sum up Spooner's analysis of these three clauses as follows: even if we assume that the framers or ratifiers of the Constitution intended to reference slavery in these three passages, when the framers of the Constitution chose to speak euphemistically rather than making their intentions explicit, they simply failed whether by intention or inadvertence-to effectively incorporate an authorization for slavery into the Constitution. These sections cannot, therefore, prevent other portions of the Constitution such as that. providing for the writ of habeas corpus from being interpreted to render slavery unconstitutional. Even had everyone in the founding generation "known" that certain clauses were "intended" to sanction slavery, the generally accepted meaning of the language chosen to carry out their intentions fell short of the mark. In this respect, Spooner's version of "original meaning" runs contrary to those modem originalists who base interpretation on original intent. It views the framers as teachers who well-understood the scheme scholarship.law.georgetown.edu You're missing the critical point. The very fact that the Constitution does not expressly prohibit slavery necessarily means that slavery was left to the states. This is civics 101 stuff. EDIT: And citing to Spooner is ridiculous. His position was a radical outlier.
So your argument is hinging on the Constitution leaving to the states the sole discretion to determine whether an individual person had rights under the Constitution or not?
I don't think that's what it says or would be considered constitutional. Otherwise instead of trials they could have just made white people slaves and sold their families.
On June 28 2018 09:13 Danglars wrote:From the journal of politics courtesy of 538, a survey of what the two parties look like in our heads: Show nested quote +
Republicans think 36% of Democrats are atheist/agnostic. In reality, 9%.
Republicans think 46% of Democrats are black. In reality, 24%.
Republicans think 38% of Democrats are LGB. In reality, 6%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are 65 and older. In reality, 21%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans are Evangelicals. In reality, 34%.
Democrats think 44% of Republicans earn $250,000 or more. In reality, 2% do.
538More discussions and the link (thankfully free) to the journal article are available at 538. Stereotypes are pretty far off to a little off. Some of them are pretty funny.
You guys missed the funniest part.
The Democratic reality is higher than their respective percentages of national representation and the Republican realities are all lower than their national representation percentages.
I'd be really interested to see how they see themselves.
|
On June 28 2018 11:26 Plansix wrote:
Nothing would change. McConnell would change the rules and approve the appointment. There is no good position with this Republican Party. The only solution is to put them in the minority.
The congressional republicans seem to be very short sighted in how they handled things the last 10-20 years. Especially the last few, when Dems gain control back anytime soon Democrats will be out for blood and abuse all the shit McTurtle and his ilk did. Then it becomes a question of what the Democratic party will look like by then. If the Progressives have gained a lot more traction by then the GOP will be in for a rude awakening.
|
On June 28 2018 12:07 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 11:26 Plansix wrote:
Nothing would change. McConnell would change the rules and approve the appointment. There is no good position with this Republican Party. The only solution is to put them in the minority. The congressional republicans seem to be very short sighted in how they handled things the last 10-20 years. Especially the last few, when Dems gain control back anytime soon Democrats will be out for blood and abuse all the shit McTurtle and his ilk did. Then it becomes a question of what the Democratic party will look like by then. If the Progressives have gained a lot more traction by then the GOP will be in for a rude awakening.
If the Democrats had not go nuclear in 2013... things would be exactly the same as they are now, but they would have appointed fewer judges to the bench. Just stop buying the bullshit that Republicans care about norms or rules as anything other than weapons to be used against Democrats. They don't trust the Democrats or the left and there is not reason to trust them in return.
|
On June 28 2018 11:07 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 10:41 Tachion wrote:On June 28 2018 08:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:40 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 07:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 06:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
democrats, progressives, whatever got complacent. xdaunt posted a article about conservatives and how, essentially, they always lost - the other side of that is the other side won. the other side got complacent in various ways - we started dividing ourselves, instilling purity tests, all the while ceding control of state level governments. and now we are here. I don't understand how that works. Going back to 1980s, the Presidency runs like this R (Reagan) R (H. W. Bush) D (Bill Clinton) R (Dubya) D (Obama) R (A complete arsehole) Two Democrat Presidents in nearly FORTY YEARS and this is 'The Republicans always lost'? i suggest you take a look at the bit xdaunt posted which i referred to. I suggest you provide a link to said bit if you want me to look at it. its literally like 2 pages ago, not hard to find. but tl;dr regardless of held offices conservatives were "losing" on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. and generally liberals steadily marched ahead with their agenda in a fashion that began to seem inevitable until it wasn't I don't really get it. Those are still issues that they are losing. All they've been doing in the past year and a half is throwing band-aids on bullet holes. The guy who wrote the flight 93 election article apparently left the Trump administration if that tells you anything. The one thing of Trump's that stood out above standard Rebpublican fare from a policy point was immigration, and they're still losing that, assuming the goal was to ensure a white Christian country for the foreseeable future. And ironically enough, public support for left shifting policy is on the rise, so there is no reason why the next election won't be an even graver flight 93. And the one after that. And the one after that. At this point it just comes off to me as nonsense to rationalize voting for someone as immoral and unethical as Trump. The results don't match the panic that fueled them. Indeed, when fighting the pull of big government the most you can hope for are reprieves. Trump has done a lot of good, but what is needed are changes to laws and institutions. Even controlling and slowing the bureaucracy is not something one president could do. If I were a leftist, I'd be more concerned than I was in summer 2016, but I'd still be hopeful. A government and country this size has considerable inertia. edit: on a semi-related note, it turned out to be true that opposing Gorsuch when the balance of the Court wouldn't change was foolish for Democrats, although that seems to be the way their court strategy has gone on the last few years. They really didn't think they were ever going to lose another election. https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/27/schumer-hadnt-insisted-filibustering-gorsuch-hed-much-better-position-now/edit2: A follow up to what I mentioned earlier, from the same author of the piece I cited. Midterm year confirmations are not extraordinary, especially when the same party controls the Senate and the Presidency. + Show Spoiler +
Are you implying that if the Dems hadn't filibustered Gorsuch but had done so for Kennedy's replacement McConnell would have been like "oh well, I guess we won't ensure right wing dominance of SCOTUS for the next generation or two after all"? If so, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week. McConnell is shameless. After the stunt he pulled with Garland there was no way the SCOTUS appointment filibuster was going to last through Trump's term, one way or another.
Hopefully the Dems use this as an excuse to do away with the filibuster entirely the next chance they get. Requiring a supermajority to get anything done is stupid.
|
On June 28 2018 11:28 Mohdoo wrote:
I predict 4 seats in Congress going to this new party the next election cycle. Then probably 10 after that, assuming Democrats don't find a way to adapt.
Provided Ocasio-Cortez wins in November, which she will, they already have four seats with the Justice Democrats (Grijalva, Jayapal, Khanna). Think they should be able to get a few more.
Surprisingly they have had no candidates in Oregon so far.
|
On June 28 2018 12:07 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 11:26 Plansix wrote:
Nothing would change. McConnell would change the rules and approve the appointment. There is no good position with this Republican Party. The only solution is to put them in the minority. The congressional republicans seem to be very short sighted in how they handled things the last 10-20 years. Especially the last few, when Dems gain control back anytime soon Democrats will be out for blood and abuse all the shit McTurtle and his ilk did. Then it becomes a question of what the Democratic party will look like by then. If the Progressives have gained a lot more traction by then the GOP will be in for a rude awakening.
I truly believe we will see the pendulum swing the other direction with extreme vengeance. It's not a matter of it so much as a matter of when. And I think most Republicans will agree with that. Incumbents have enormous disadvantages long term. Current societal/political dynamics make it impossible for things like what happened to W bush and Obama to be prevented. Opposition is just so favored. Democrats were worried this would happen and were complete wusses during their reign, compared to current Republicans.
Government is blamed for so much and government has such a toxic image in the US. Voters get very complacent when things are going their way and there is extreme division in the country. On the other hand, people freak out and vote when the other party is in power.
|
On June 28 2018 12:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 11:28 Mohdoo wrote:
I predict 4 seats in Congress going to this new party the next election cycle. Then probably 10 after that, assuming Democrats don't find a way to adapt. Provided Ocasio-Cortez wins in November, which she will, they already have four seats with the Justice Democrats (Grijalva, Jayapal, Khanna). Think they should be able to get a few more. Surprisingly they have had no candidates in Oregon so far.
Oregon didn't get the large influx of non-white people that Washington did (they went further out of their way to ban them and subjugate the ones they allowed) to offset it's more white Anarchic history. So a lot of it's "progressiveness" is actually just Anarchists/"classical liberals" compromising with white liberals.
|
On June 28 2018 12:23 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 11:07 Introvert wrote:On June 28 2018 10:41 Tachion wrote:On June 28 2018 08:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:40 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 07:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 06:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
democrats, progressives, whatever got complacent. xdaunt posted a article about conservatives and how, essentially, they always lost - the other side of that is the other side won. the other side got complacent in various ways - we started dividing ourselves, instilling purity tests, all the while ceding control of state level governments. and now we are here. I don't understand how that works. Going back to 1980s, the Presidency runs like this R (Reagan) R (H. W. Bush) D (Bill Clinton) R (Dubya) D (Obama) R (A complete arsehole) Two Democrat Presidents in nearly FORTY YEARS and this is 'The Republicans always lost'? i suggest you take a look at the bit xdaunt posted which i referred to. I suggest you provide a link to said bit if you want me to look at it. its literally like 2 pages ago, not hard to find. but tl;dr regardless of held offices conservatives were "losing" on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. and generally liberals steadily marched ahead with their agenda in a fashion that began to seem inevitable until it wasn't I don't really get it. Those are still issues that they are losing. All they've been doing in the past year and a half is throwing band-aids on bullet holes. The guy who wrote the flight 93 election article apparently left the Trump administration if that tells you anything. The one thing of Trump's that stood out above standard Rebpublican fare from a policy point was immigration, and they're still losing that, assuming the goal was to ensure a white Christian country for the foreseeable future. And ironically enough, public support for left shifting policy is on the rise, so there is no reason why the next election won't be an even graver flight 93. And the one after that. And the one after that. At this point it just comes off to me as nonsense to rationalize voting for someone as immoral and unethical as Trump. The results don't match the panic that fueled them. Indeed, when fighting the pull of big government the most you can hope for are reprieves. Trump has done a lot of good, but what is needed are changes to laws and institutions. Even controlling and slowing the bureaucracy is not something one president could do. If I were a leftist, I'd be more concerned than I was in summer 2016, but I'd still be hopeful. A government and country this size has considerable inertia. edit: on a semi-related note, it turned out to be true that opposing Gorsuch when the balance of the Court wouldn't change was foolish for Democrats, although that seems to be the way their court strategy has gone on the last few years. They really didn't think they were ever going to lose another election. https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/27/schumer-hadnt-insisted-filibustering-gorsuch-hed-much-better-position-now/edit2: A follow up to what I mentioned earlier, from the same author of the piece I cited. Midterm year confirmations are not extraordinary, especially when the same party controls the Senate and the Presidency. + Show Spoiler + Are you implying that if the Dems hadn't filibustered Gorsuch but had done so for Kennedy's replacement McConnell would have been like "oh well, I guess we won't ensure right wing dominance of SCOTUS for the next generation or two after all"? If so, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week. McConnell is shameless. After the stunt he pulled with Garland there was no way the SCOTUS appointment filibuster was going to last through Trump's term, one way or another. Hopefully the Dems use this as an excuse to do away with the filibuster entirely the next chance they get. Requiring a supermajority to get anything done is stupid.
Read what I linked. They'd have a stronger claim to having some input. They could conceivably get a more moderate justice, and if McConnell ran over that (possible) he'd have a large political problem.
|
On June 28 2018 12:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 12:23 Mercy13 wrote:On June 28 2018 11:07 Introvert wrote:On June 28 2018 10:41 Tachion wrote:On June 28 2018 08:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:40 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 07:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 06:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
democrats, progressives, whatever got complacent. xdaunt posted a article about conservatives and how, essentially, they always lost - the other side of that is the other side won. the other side got complacent in various ways - we started dividing ourselves, instilling purity tests, all the while ceding control of state level governments. and now we are here. I don't understand how that works. Going back to 1980s, the Presidency runs like this R (Reagan) R (H. W. Bush) D (Bill Clinton) R (Dubya) D (Obama) R (A complete arsehole) Two Democrat Presidents in nearly FORTY YEARS and this is 'The Republicans always lost'? i suggest you take a look at the bit xdaunt posted which i referred to. I suggest you provide a link to said bit if you want me to look at it. its literally like 2 pages ago, not hard to find. but tl;dr regardless of held offices conservatives were "losing" on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. and generally liberals steadily marched ahead with their agenda in a fashion that began to seem inevitable until it wasn't I don't really get it. Those are still issues that they are losing. All they've been doing in the past year and a half is throwing band-aids on bullet holes. The guy who wrote the flight 93 election article apparently left the Trump administration if that tells you anything. The one thing of Trump's that stood out above standard Rebpublican fare from a policy point was immigration, and they're still losing that, assuming the goal was to ensure a white Christian country for the foreseeable future. And ironically enough, public support for left shifting policy is on the rise, so there is no reason why the next election won't be an even graver flight 93. And the one after that. And the one after that. At this point it just comes off to me as nonsense to rationalize voting for someone as immoral and unethical as Trump. The results don't match the panic that fueled them. Indeed, when fighting the pull of big government the most you can hope for are reprieves. Trump has done a lot of good, but what is needed are changes to laws and institutions. Even controlling and slowing the bureaucracy is not something one president could do. If I were a leftist, I'd be more concerned than I was in summer 2016, but I'd still be hopeful. A government and country this size has considerable inertia. edit: on a semi-related note, it turned out to be true that opposing Gorsuch when the balance of the Court wouldn't change was foolish for Democrats, although that seems to be the way their court strategy has gone on the last few years. They really didn't think they were ever going to lose another election. https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/27/schumer-hadnt-insisted-filibustering-gorsuch-hed-much-better-position-now/edit2: A follow up to what I mentioned earlier, from the same author of the piece I cited. Midterm year confirmations are not extraordinary, especially when the same party controls the Senate and the Presidency. + Show Spoiler + Are you implying that if the Dems hadn't filibustered Gorsuch but had done so for Kennedy's replacement McConnell would have been like "oh well, I guess we won't ensure right wing dominance of SCOTUS for the next generation or two after all"? If so, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week. McConnell is shameless. After the stunt he pulled with Garland there was no way the SCOTUS appointment filibuster was going to last through Trump's term, one way or another. Hopefully the Dems use this as an excuse to do away with the filibuster entirely the next chance they get. Requiring a supermajority to get anything done is stupid. Read what I linked. They'd have a stronger claim to having some input. They could conceivably get a more moderate justice, and if McConnell ran over that (possible) he'd have a large political problem.
You remember how McConnell handled Garland, right? So why would anyone think that suddenly, THIS TIME, the power of shame would just be too much for him. He'd have a "large political problem?" What, attending all the parties his supporters would throw for him? They don't care about violating norms of politics. Trump should teach everyone that.
|
On June 28 2018 11:47 Plansix wrote:
The tea party has been amazing for republicans. Bad for people who want congress govern. Amazing for people who only care about the courts so they can over turn Roe v Wade and other decisions as such.
one distinction i see between a leftist version of the tea party is that while the tea party focuses on essentially tearing down/ deregulating existing things, the leftist version would have to build stuff such as medicare for all or what have you - which is a much more difficult proposition.
On June 28 2018 12:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 12:23 Mercy13 wrote:On June 28 2018 11:07 Introvert wrote:On June 28 2018 10:41 Tachion wrote:On June 28 2018 08:03 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:40 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 07:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 28 2018 07:33 iamthedave wrote:On June 28 2018 06:57 ticklishmusic wrote:
democrats, progressives, whatever got complacent. xdaunt posted a article about conservatives and how, essentially, they always lost - the other side of that is the other side won. the other side got complacent in various ways - we started dividing ourselves, instilling purity tests, all the while ceding control of state level governments. and now we are here. I don't understand how that works. Going back to 1980s, the Presidency runs like this R (Reagan) R (H. W. Bush) D (Bill Clinton) R (Dubya) D (Obama) R (A complete arsehole) Two Democrat Presidents in nearly FORTY YEARS and this is 'The Republicans always lost'? i suggest you take a look at the bit xdaunt posted which i referred to. I suggest you provide a link to said bit if you want me to look at it. its literally like 2 pages ago, not hard to find. but tl;dr regardless of held offices conservatives were "losing" on abortion, gay rights, healthcare, etc. etc. etc. and generally liberals steadily marched ahead with their agenda in a fashion that began to seem inevitable until it wasn't I don't really get it. Those are still issues that they are losing. All they've been doing in the past year and a half is throwing band-aids on bullet holes. The guy who wrote the flight 93 election article apparently left the Trump administration if that tells you anything. The one thing of Trump's that stood out above standard Rebpublican fare from a policy point was immigration, and they're still losing that, assuming the goal was to ensure a white Christian country for the foreseeable future. And ironically enough, public support for left shifting policy is on the rise, so there is no reason why the next election won't be an even graver flight 93. And the one after that. And the one after that. At this point it just comes off to me as nonsense to rationalize voting for someone as immoral and unethical as Trump. The results don't match the panic that fueled them. Indeed, when fighting the pull of big government the most you can hope for are reprieves. Trump has done a lot of good, but what is needed are changes to laws and institutions. Even controlling and slowing the bureaucracy is not something one president could do. If I were a leftist, I'd be more concerned than I was in summer 2016, but I'd still be hopeful. A government and country this size has considerable inertia. edit: on a semi-related note, it turned out to be true that opposing Gorsuch when the balance of the Court wouldn't change was foolish for Democrats, although that seems to be the way their court strategy has gone on the last few years. They really didn't think they were ever going to lose another election. https://hotair.com/archives/2018/06/27/schumer-hadnt-insisted-filibustering-gorsuch-hed-much-better-position-now/edit2: A follow up to what I mentioned earlier, from the same author of the piece I cited. Midterm year confirmations are not extraordinary, especially when the same party controls the Senate and the Presidency. + Show Spoiler + Are you implying that if the Dems hadn't filibustered Gorsuch but had done so for Kennedy's replacement McConnell would have been like "oh well, I guess we won't ensure right wing dominance of SCOTUS for the next generation or two after all"? If so, that's the funniest thing I've heard all week. McConnell is shameless. After the stunt he pulled with Garland there was no way the SCOTUS appointment filibuster was going to last through Trump's term, one way or another. Hopefully the Dems use this as an excuse to do away with the filibuster entirely the next chance they get. Requiring a supermajority to get anything done is stupid. Read what I linked. They'd have a stronger claim to having some input. They could conceivably get a more moderate justice, and if McConnell ran over that (possible) he'd have a large political problem.
McConnell doesn't give a shit about appearances or decorum. That should be immensely clear by now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
