|
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 October 05 2018 23:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2018 22:51 ticklishmusic wrote: Police pay in the US isn't actually that bad - typically above average for the area, though maybe not quite high as in Canada. And the benefits are relatively good as well. One of the few professions where pensions are still common. Well that is good news, I had heard it was terrible. It should be high, I mean people spend so much time talking about NFL player safety with worry about concussions and those dudes make great money considering the risks. Police officers might actually die, they should make good money. It has to be one of the worst jobs, when you consider how the general pubic feels about you, safety, hours, stress. Not a fun gig. Well keep in mind that it's a lot different from different places. Some places can afford great wages and some police forces have strong unions but there are also a lot of places that pay poorly and take anyone they can get.
Public sector benifits yeah but after 30 years you almost need to force people to take it.
|
On October 06 2018 00:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2018 00:56 iamthedave wrote:On October 06 2018 00:07 On_Slaught wrote:On October 06 2018 00:02 Mohdoo wrote:On October 06 2018 00:00 TheTenthDoc wrote:On October 05 2018 23:56 On_Slaught wrote: Murkowski no is interesting since I assume if she would vote no here she will vote no this weekend. Collins says she will announce her vote tonight. While it 99% is yes, there is at least the question for now. Would be hilarious if Manchin ends up being the deciding yes vote. I do not think Manchin is willing to be the one to push it from 49-51 to 50-50. He might push it from 50-50 to 51-49, as he did today, and people who hate him on the left will cast it that way out of ignorance or malice, but his detractors on the left all dislike him regardless of what he does here so it's hard to argue that there's utility in a no when it's at 50-50. That said, you never really know. I would legitimately fear for Manchin's safety if he ended up being the deciding vote. Id be more worried if he voted no. A man was just arrested in FL for saying online he was selling his house and getting his dogs taken care of because he was getting ready to drive to DC with his hollow points and kill as many people who voted against Kavanaugh as possible before being killed himself. He said he would wake up in the middle of the night thinking about killing Democrats because it was on his mind so often. I still think it's a matter of when, not if, that we see either a congressman or reporter shot/killed due to this climate. But remember, both sides are just as bad *finger wagging ensues* Very few people say just as bad. Many say are both bad. And this is a crazy point to make, I'm sure their are fuckin crazy Dem who are considering shooting Reps as well. I hope they all get caught and stopped.
I was being sarcastic.
I'll bet there's a lot fewer of those people. Democratic media isn't full of people saying all Republicans should die. Yeah there's plenty of vitriol, but the really violent talk comes mostly from the right. Of course, the Democrats don't have people like Alex Jones stoking the flames, or the toxic sludge heap of Breitbart 'news'.
A microcosm of all of this was when Sarah Palin drew a bunch of targets on a map, one of them got shot, and the general political response was 'WHAT A BIZARRE COINCIDENCE', as opposed to the rational response, which would have been the political equivalent of shooting Palin off in a rocket in the direction of the sun. She should have been untouchably toxic. Even IF you believe that the poster she put out had nothing to do with the completely coincidental shooting of a 'target' she'd nominated, the fact that the rhetoric itself wasn't excised by the GOP said everything you needed to know.
It was all signs of things to come. Now we have a President who openly suggested the NRA's supporters should get involved if things don't go their way, and everyone shrugs and moves on.
Without a proper pushback, or a choice by the leadership to change how they talk, things will inevitably get worse. There'll always be someone who pushes the boundaries. Now Trump's pushed them further than I think anyone else ever has. Result? Wholesale adoption of the tactics and strategy. Because it 'works'.
You can't achieve civility when both sides decide its a complete irrelevance. Nonetheless, it's not the Democrats who've been pushing these boundaries, it's always been the Republicans.
|
3pm is when Collins is announcing her decision. If she's a yes then Manchin is a yes, and vice versa. Count on it.
|
That is the bet I would make. I'm interested to see why she didn't just announce the intent to vote yes right after the vote today. If she is a "no", it is going to be an exciting Friday for everyone.
|
Murkowski is a firm no, so Manchin has to flip for them to get to 50 and a Pence tiebreaker (and that's if Daines shows up).
|
On October 06 2018 01:57 farvacola wrote: Murkowski is a firm no, so Manchin has to flip for them to get to 50 and a Pence tiebreaker. Not true. Collins needs to also flip. Right now they have 49 yes R and one maybe from the R side.
If collins votes yes its over no matter what
|
I said that assuming Collins would vote the line, but yeah, she needs to be yes too.
Edit: nvm I see what you're saying, even if Collins is a no, Manchin could still tip it.
|
Manchin being the vote that confirms BK would be he legacy for the rest of his career and beyond. And it would effectively murder the remaining tolerance for conservative Democrats like him. If Collins votes "no", he will follow her lead.
But god, if this vote is lost because McConnell set it for the same day a Senator was supposed to attend his daughter's wedding, it would be legendary.
|
I assume that if the vote fails that they can't try again next week?
|
I would have to double check, but I believe it is over at that point. He would need to be re-nominated and voted out of committee again.
|
On October 06 2018 02:21 Plansix wrote: I would have to double check, but I believe it is over at that point. He would need to be re-nominated and voted out of committee again. Yes I think that's the case, that's why invoking cloture is a big deal.
|
On October 06 2018 01:57 farvacola wrote: Murkowski is a firm no, so Manchin has to flip for them to get to 50 and a Pence tiebreaker (and that's if Daines shows up).
Murkowski being a firm no, to me, says that McConnell already got Collins to be a firm yes. Allowing Murkowski to vote no to hold on to her seat is only acceptable if they already have the other votes. So if Flake and Manchin vote for Kav, it is gg. Only hope is that dude's wedding and Collins voting no with Manchin.
|
On October 06 2018 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2018 01:57 farvacola wrote: Murkowski is a firm no, so Manchin has to flip for them to get to 50 and a Pence tiebreaker (and that's if Daines shows up). Murkowski being a firm no, to me, says that McConnell already got Collins to be a firm yes. Allowing Murkowski to vote no to hold on to her seat is only acceptable if they already have the other votes. So if Flake and Manchin vote for Kav, it is gg. Only hope is that dude's wedding and Collins voting no with Manchin.
Murkowski is in the unique position of winning off write in. She can tell Mitch to fuck off. What is he going to do? Primary her?
|
Murkowski is the Manchin of the Republican party. They hate it when she votes against them, but they can't do shit to her because she won a write in campaign with that really hard to spell name.
|
Manchin is probably praying Collins is a yes to give him cover. Looks like Collins is getting a fuckton of pressure from both sides, including from her home state constituents and newspapers. I think she genuinely wants to vote no but there are just so many political considerations she has to take into account.
|
Apologies for posting two depressing articles in a day, but this article sums up the fears of liberals, including myself, super accurately. It's by Christopher R. Browning, a leading historian on the holocaust. He compares several qualities of the current state of our republic with interwar Germany. The similarities are chilling.
Conservatives - if you want to understand why we're all flipping out about B-Kav read this.
If the US has someone whom historians will look back on as the gravedigger of American democracy, it is Mitch McConnell. He stoked the hyperpolarization of American politics to make the Obama presidency as dysfunctional and paralyzed as he possibly could. As with parliamentary gridlock in Weimar, congressional gridlock in the US has diminished respect for democratic norms, allowing McConnell to trample them even more. Nowhere is this vicious circle clearer than in the obliteration of traditional precedents concerning judicial appointments. Systematic obstruction of nominations in Obama’s first term provoked Democrats to scrap the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominations. Then McConnell’s unprecedented blocking of the Merrick Garland nomination required him in turn to scrap the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations in order to complete the “steal” of Antonin Scalia’s seat and confirm Neil Gorsuch. The extreme politicization of the judicial nomination process is once again on display in the current Kavanaugh hearings. ... Whatever secret reservations McConnell and other traditional Republican leaders have about Trump’s character, governing style, and possible criminality, they openly rejoice in the payoff they have received from their alliance with him and his base: huge tax cuts for the wealthy, financial and environmental deregulation, the nominations of two conservative Supreme Court justices (so far) and a host of other conservative judicial appointments, and a significant reduction in government-sponsored health care (though not yet the total abolition of Obamacare they hope for). Like Hitler’s conservative allies, McConnell and the Republicans have prided themselves on the early returns on their investment in Trump. The combination of Trump’s abasement before Putin in Helsinki, the shameful separation of families at the border in complete disregard of US asylum law (to say nothing of basic humanitarian principles and the GOP’s relentless claim to be the defender of “family values”), and most recently Michael Cohen’s implication of Trump in criminal violations of campaign finance laws has not shaken the fealty of the Republican old guard, so there is little indication that even an explosive and incriminating report from Special Counsel Robert Mueller will rupture the alliance. ... Faced with the Mueller investigation into Russian meddling in the US election and collusion with members of his campaign, Trump and his supporters’ first line of defense has been twofold—there was “no collusion” and the claim of Russian meddling is a “hoax.” The second line of defense is again twofold: “collusion is not a crime” and the now-proven Russian meddling had no effect. I suspect that if the Mueller report finds that the Trump campaign’s “collusion” with Russians does indeed meet the legal definition of “criminal conspiracy” and that the enormous extent of Russian meddling makes the claim that it had no effect totally implausible, many Republicans will retreat, either implicitly or explicitly, to the third line of defense: “Better Putin than Hillary.” There seems to be nothing for which the demonization of Hillary Clinton does not serve as sufficient justification, and the notion that a Trump presidency indebted to Putin is far preferable to the nightmare of a Clinton victory will signal the final Republican reorientation to illiberalism at home and subservience to an authoritarian abroad. ... Perhaps the most apt designation of this new authoritarianism is the insidious term “illiberal democracy.” Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in Turkey, Putin in Russia, Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, and Viktor Orbán in Hungary have all discovered that opposition parties can be left in existence and elections can be held in order to provide a fig leaf of democratic legitimacy, while in reality elections pose scant challenge to their power. Truly dangerous opposition leaders are neutralized or eliminated one way or another.
Total control of the press and other media is likewise unnecessary, since a flood of managed and fake news so pollutes the flow of information that facts and truth become irrelevant as shapers of public opinion. Once-independent judiciaries are gradually dismantled through selective purging and the appointment of politically reliable loyalists. Crony capitalism opens the way to a symbiosis of corruption and self-enrichment between political and business leaders. Xenophobic nationalism (and in many cases explicitly anti-immigrant white nationalism) as well as the prioritization of “law and order” over individual rights are also crucial to these regimes in mobilizing the popular support of their bases and stigmatizing their enemies. ... The unprecedented flow of dark money into closely contested campaigns has distorted the electoral process even further. The Supreme Court decision declaring corporations to be people and money to be free speech (Citizens United v. FEC) in particular has greatly enhanced the ability of corporations and wealthy individuals to influence American politics. We are approaching the point when Democrats might still win state elections in the major blue states but become increasingly irrelevant in elections for the presidency and Congress. Trump’s personal flaws and his tactic of appealing to a narrow base while energizing Democrats and alienating independents may lead to precisely that rare wave election needed to provide a congressional check on the administration as well as the capture of enough state governorships and legislatures to begin reversing current trends in gerrymandering and voter suppression. The elections of 2018 and 2020 will be vital in testing how far the electoral system has deteriorated. ... In Trump’s presidency, [state propaganda] functions have effectively been privatized in the form of Fox News and Sean Hannity. Fox faithfully trumpets the “alternative facts” of the Trump version of events, and in turn Trump frequently finds inspiration for his tweets and fantasy-filled statements from his daily monitoring of Fox commentators and his late-night phone calls with Hannity. The result is the creation of a “Trump bubble” for his base to inhabit that is unrecognizable to viewers of PBS, CNN, and MSNBC and readers of The Washington Post and The New York Times. The highly critical free media not only provide no effective check on Trump’s ability to be a serial liar without political penalty; on the contrary, they provide yet another enemy around which to mobilize the grievances and resentments of his base. A free press does not have to be repressed when it can be rendered irrelevant and even exploited for political gain. ... No matter how and when the Trump presidency ends, the specter of illiberalism will continue to haunt American politics. A highly politicized judiciary will remain, in which close Supreme Court decisions will be viewed by many as of dubious legitimacy, and future judicial appointments will be fiercely contested. The racial division, cultural conflict, and political polarization Trump has encouraged and intensified will be difficult to heal. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, and uncontrolled campaign spending will continue to result in elections skewed in an unrepresentative and undemocratic direction. Growing income disparity will be extremely difficult to halt, much less reverse.
Finally, within several decades after Trump’s presidency has ended, the looming effects of ecological disaster due to human-caused climate change—which Trump not only denies but is doing so much to accelerate—will be inescapable. Desertification of continental interiors, flooding of populous coastal areas, and increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, with concomitant shortages of fresh water and food, will set in motion both population flight and conflicts over scarce resources that dwarf the current fate of Central Africa and Syria. No wall will be high enough to shelter the US from these events. Trump is not Hitler and Trumpism is not Nazism, but regardless of how the Trump presidency concludes, this is a story unlikely to have a happy ending. The Suffocation of American Democracy
|
LOL Collins just had lunch with McConnell. He probably threatened to cast a hex on her family for generations, something he picked up when he was a lieutenant in hell, if she isnt a yes. That or threats that he will make sure she loses her election. Either way threats were made. No way she is a no after that lunch.
Source:
|
On October 06 2018 03:05 On_Slaught wrote:LOL Collins just had lunch with McConnell. He probably threatened to cast a hex on her family for generations, something he picked up when he was a lieutenant in hell, if she isnt a yes. That or threats that he will make sure she loses her election. Either way threats were made. No way she is a no after that lunch. Source: https://twitter.com/AnaCabrera/status/1048267874903773185
There are threats on the left as well. They already raised more than a million for whoever runs against her
|
She is going to be facing some real head wins in her state if she votes yes. And I am not sure they can primary her 2020. The world will have changed quite a bit by that point.
|
Man. If Kavanaugh does get confirmed, I just realized it would be hilariously karmic for a Dem wave in 2018 and 2020 to result in a Kavanaugh impeachment and a Democrat president to appoint his replacement.
Wishful thinking, of course, nobody's impeaching SCOTUS any time soon. But it would be truly magnificent. And to hear the whining "waaaah you need to appoint a Republican cuz that's who was in power when he was appointed" would be music to my ears.
|
|
|
|