|
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 02:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 02:07 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 02:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 01:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 01:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 23:26 JimmiC wrote: [quote] I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that if someone is at risk if they make that vote they up there chances of losing, and the Republicans can't really "force" them. I'm not sure how many politicians from either party would be willing to make a moralistic stand this close to a highly contested election.
Also some conservatives would think it was doing the right thing others that value fairness and process would be the Alaskan senator and might have actually believed in the reason that they blocked Obama for.
I'm not saying many or any are moralistic just that there can be cases made for both depending on what matters to them most. You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ. I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session. Would the fear of the Dems packing the court be enough? No. Three reasons. 1. They are counting on dems to behave like they have in the past, and roll over on their backs and showing their bellies instead of doing anything. 2. Mcconnell reminds me a lot of Putin, both are tactically very good but not amazing at strategy. They'll do anything for a short term benefit, regardless of any long term downsides. If Trump ever loses power, then Putin's strategies in 2016 and poisoning in western countries may come back to bite him so hard - think of how many sanctions aren't being enforced by Trump, and how much worse it can get for Russia economically. 3. The fact that it would piss off the dems more than possibly anything else is a massive upside for them with their base. If you predict the current GOP doing the move that will piss off democrats the most and has the most future possible downsides, it's usually what they'll do. I would think the lame duck push through would be what it would take for the Dems to take the nuclear option but I get your points. I also think that, but it's totally understandable to me why McConnell thinks it's just a bluff. I have a American acquaintance who voted Trump with his reasoning being that American politics was so cancerous that you needed to elect a poison to show how rotten it was and start to actually fix things. If a blue wave happens and there is enough pressure to actually change and fix things he might have been right and I would have to eat some crow. This is going to be one of the most interesting and intense elections of my lifetime because there is actually a very dramatic difference between the candidates and the parties. And there is way more people passionately pissed off. There seems to be so much dry tinder and a whole bunch of sparks. This could go so many dramatically different ways. Many of them frightening.
Didn't work since more than 40% of the electorate is still happily rooting for the poison.
|
United States40778 Posts
On September 20 2020 02:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 02:07 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 02:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 01:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 01:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 23:26 JimmiC wrote: [quote] I'm not sure what you mean? I'm saying that if someone is at risk if they make that vote they up there chances of losing, and the Republicans can't really "force" them. I'm not sure how many politicians from either party would be willing to make a moralistic stand this close to a highly contested election.
Also some conservatives would think it was doing the right thing others that value fairness and process would be the Alaskan senator and might have actually believed in the reason that they blocked Obama for.
I'm not saying many or any are moralistic just that there can be cases made for both depending on what matters to them most. You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ. I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session. Would the fear of the Dems packing the court be enough? No. Three reasons. 1. They are counting on dems to behave like they have in the past, and roll over on their backs and showing their bellies instead of doing anything. 2. Mcconnell reminds me a lot of Putin, both are tactically very good but not amazing at strategy. They'll do anything for a short term benefit, regardless of any long term downsides. If Trump ever loses power, then Putin's strategies in 2016 and poisoning in western countries may come back to bite him so hard - think of how many sanctions aren't being enforced by Trump, and how much worse it can get for Russia economically. 3. The fact that it would piss off the dems more than possibly anything else is a massive upside for them with their base. If you predict the current GOP doing the move that will piss off democrats the most and has the most future possible downsides, it's usually what they'll do. I would think the lame duck push through would be what it would take for the Dems to take the nuclear option but I get your points. I also think that, but it's totally understandable to me why McConnell thinks it's just a bluff. I have a American acquaintance who voted Trump with his reasoning being that American politics was so cancerous that you needed to elect a poison to show how rotten it was and start to actually fix things. This argument is comparable to trying to get increased funding for law enforcement by raping people.
|
I certainly wouldn't vote for Trump, but it's hard to imagine the brunch liberals would be realizing how bad things have been for decades or how vulnerable the system is to actors like Trump without him.
|
On September 20 2020 02:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 02:16 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 02:07 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 02:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 01:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 01:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 19 2020 23:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
You asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions just to push through another SCJ; I asked how many Republican senators would be risking their positions to *not* push through another SCJ. I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session. Would the fear of the Dems packing the court be enough? No. Three reasons. 1. They are counting on dems to behave like they have in the past, and roll over on their backs and showing their bellies instead of doing anything. 2. Mcconnell reminds me a lot of Putin, both are tactically very good but not amazing at strategy. They'll do anything for a short term benefit, regardless of any long term downsides. If Trump ever loses power, then Putin's strategies in 2016 and poisoning in western countries may come back to bite him so hard - think of how many sanctions aren't being enforced by Trump, and how much worse it can get for Russia economically. 3. The fact that it would piss off the dems more than possibly anything else is a massive upside for them with their base. If you predict the current GOP doing the move that will piss off democrats the most and has the most future possible downsides, it's usually what they'll do. I would think the lame duck push through would be what it would take for the Dems to take the nuclear option but I get your points. I also think that, but it's totally understandable to me why McConnell thinks it's just a bluff. I have a American acquaintance who voted Trump with his reasoning being that American politics was so cancerous that you needed to elect a poison to show how rotten it was and start to actually fix things. This argument is comparable to trying to get increased funding for law enforcement by raping people.
You are fairly famous for awful analogies and this is one of your worst!
To the rest of you you are making it very hard to find a silver lining
|
On September 20 2020 03:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 02:56 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 02:16 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 02:07 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 02:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 01:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 01:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote: [quote] I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session. Would the fear of the Dems packing the court be enough? No. Three reasons. 1. They are counting on dems to behave like they have in the past, and roll over on their backs and showing their bellies instead of doing anything. 2. Mcconnell reminds me a lot of Putin, both are tactically very good but not amazing at strategy. They'll do anything for a short term benefit, regardless of any long term downsides. If Trump ever loses power, then Putin's strategies in 2016 and poisoning in western countries may come back to bite him so hard - think of how many sanctions aren't being enforced by Trump, and how much worse it can get for Russia economically. 3. The fact that it would piss off the dems more than possibly anything else is a massive upside for them with their base. If you predict the current GOP doing the move that will piss off democrats the most and has the most future possible downsides, it's usually what they'll do. I would think the lame duck push through would be what it would take for the Dems to take the nuclear option but I get your points. I also think that, but it's totally understandable to me why McConnell thinks it's just a bluff. I have a American acquaintance who voted Trump with his reasoning being that American politics was so cancerous that you needed to elect a poison to show how rotten it was and start to actually fix things. This argument is comparable to trying to get increased funding for law enforcement by raping people. You are fairly famous for awful analogies and this is one of your worst! To the rest of you you are making it very hard to find a silver lining The only 'silver lining' to Trumps election was the world realising that America was more fucked then we thought and that the EU has to stand on its own.
|
On September 20 2020 03:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 02:56 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 02:16 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 02:07 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 02:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 01:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 01:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 20 2020 00:05 JimmiC wrote: [quote] I don't think any, if they are in a battle ground state I think it being open is much more motivating for Rep voters then them knowing it is done. And I think pushing one through pisses off Dems and encourages them to vote more. Pushing it through seems like a falling on the sword to get the SJC locked in kind of move. I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session. Would the fear of the Dems packing the court be enough? No. Three reasons. 1. They are counting on dems to behave like they have in the past, and roll over on their backs and showing their bellies instead of doing anything. 2. Mcconnell reminds me a lot of Putin, both are tactically very good but not amazing at strategy. They'll do anything for a short term benefit, regardless of any long term downsides. If Trump ever loses power, then Putin's strategies in 2016 and poisoning in western countries may come back to bite him so hard - think of how many sanctions aren't being enforced by Trump, and how much worse it can get for Russia economically. 3. The fact that it would piss off the dems more than possibly anything else is a massive upside for them with their base. If you predict the current GOP doing the move that will piss off democrats the most and has the most future possible downsides, it's usually what they'll do. I would think the lame duck push through would be what it would take for the Dems to take the nuclear option but I get your points. I also think that, but it's totally understandable to me why McConnell thinks it's just a bluff. I have a American acquaintance who voted Trump with his reasoning being that American politics was so cancerous that you needed to elect a poison to show how rotten it was and start to actually fix things. This argument is comparable to trying to get increased funding for law enforcement by raping people. You are fairly famous for awful analogies and this is one of your worst! To the rest of you you are making it very hard to find a silver lining No silver linings in 2020, sorry.
|
On September 20 2020 03:23 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 03:02 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 02:56 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 02:16 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 02:07 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 02:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 01:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 01:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 00:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:[quote] I hope you're right There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session. Would the fear of the Dems packing the court be enough? No. Three reasons. 1. They are counting on dems to behave like they have in the past, and roll over on their backs and showing their bellies instead of doing anything. 2. Mcconnell reminds me a lot of Putin, both are tactically very good but not amazing at strategy. They'll do anything for a short term benefit, regardless of any long term downsides. If Trump ever loses power, then Putin's strategies in 2016 and poisoning in western countries may come back to bite him so hard - think of how many sanctions aren't being enforced by Trump, and how much worse it can get for Russia economically. 3. The fact that it would piss off the dems more than possibly anything else is a massive upside for them with their base. If you predict the current GOP doing the move that will piss off democrats the most and has the most future possible downsides, it's usually what they'll do. I would think the lame duck push through would be what it would take for the Dems to take the nuclear option but I get your points. I also think that, but it's totally understandable to me why McConnell thinks it's just a bluff. I have a American acquaintance who voted Trump with his reasoning being that American politics was so cancerous that you needed to elect a poison to show how rotten it was and start to actually fix things. This argument is comparable to trying to get increased funding for law enforcement by raping people. You are fairly famous for awful analogies and this is one of your worst! To the rest of you you are making it very hard to find a silver lining The only 'silver lining' to Trumps election was the world realising that America was more fucked then we thought and that the EU has to stand on its own. Wait. You’re saying the EU realizes that it has to stand on its own?
Let me get a sharpie out for another checkbox of Trump promises fulfilled. No 2% to NATO. German gas deals with Russia. Go do your thing, Europe, as you’ve been doing.
|
On September 20 2020 03:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 03:23 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2020 03:02 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 02:56 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 02:16 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 02:07 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 02:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 01:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 01:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 00:54 KwarK wrote: [quote] There is nothing stopping them losing the election and filling the seat during a lame duck session. Would the fear of the Dems packing the court be enough? No. Three reasons. 1. They are counting on dems to behave like they have in the past, and roll over on their backs and showing their bellies instead of doing anything. 2. Mcconnell reminds me a lot of Putin, both are tactically very good but not amazing at strategy. They'll do anything for a short term benefit, regardless of any long term downsides. If Trump ever loses power, then Putin's strategies in 2016 and poisoning in western countries may come back to bite him so hard - think of how many sanctions aren't being enforced by Trump, and how much worse it can get for Russia economically. 3. The fact that it would piss off the dems more than possibly anything else is a massive upside for them with their base. If you predict the current GOP doing the move that will piss off democrats the most and has the most future possible downsides, it's usually what they'll do. I would think the lame duck push through would be what it would take for the Dems to take the nuclear option but I get your points. I also think that, but it's totally understandable to me why McConnell thinks it's just a bluff. I have a American acquaintance who voted Trump with his reasoning being that American politics was so cancerous that you needed to elect a poison to show how rotten it was and start to actually fix things. This argument is comparable to trying to get increased funding for law enforcement by raping people. You are fairly famous for awful analogies and this is one of your worst! To the rest of you you are making it very hard to find a silver lining The only 'silver lining' to Trumps election was the world realising that America was more fucked then we thought and that the EU has to stand on its own. Wait. You’re saying the EU realizes that it has to stand on its own? Let me get a sharpie out for another checkbox of Trump promises fulfilled. No 2% to NATO. German gas deals with Russia. Go do your thing, Europe, as you’ve been doing.
I must have missed the "be so embarrassingly awful your allies no longer trust you in the slightest' as one of his promises. Not one I would be proud of, but me and you have almost nothing in common so I guess that makes sense.
@Nouar fuck 2020.
|
So hopefully I'll point out the following and not need to do so again (hahaha!)
With exceptions usually caused by outside factors, presidents almost always nominate replacements, even near presidential elections (and of course midterm elections). When the Senate has belonged to the same party, they have almost always confirmed those nominees. When they didn't agree, they are often rejected, unless the president nominates someone who the Senate actually wants.
These are the "norms." It is NOT normal to hold these seats open in this situation. Putting aside how the party of "norms" has spent four years crapping all over them in other areas, Democrats cannot point to history, they instead try to use what some Republican senators said in 2016 and 2018. And you will notice that they are not, in fact pointing to any norms or history. They are going back a grand 4 years. There is no doubt, because we know the history, that Democrats would do the same thing in this situation. And they'd point to the historical precedent Republicans are pointing to now. I highly urge, for anyone interested, the following article. It's not bombastic (it was written a little over a month ago, and is now timely). It is longer than your average online article, just fyi.
A few GOP Senators said there should be no vote taken in a presidential election year, and a few took a few days to fully look into the history. McConnell's first statement in 2016 was wrong, but he quickly corrected himself. Graham is in a harder spot, but he's now saying the Kvanaugh hearings changed things for him. He's obviously covering his ass, although the Kavanaugh hearings absolutely changed things for Republican voters.
And we shouldn't forget the what they tried to do to Kavanaugh, for all the people saying Democrats don't play dirty. From Bork to Thomas to Ailto to Kavanaugh, they absolutely play dirty. The difference is that they have been unlucky with SCOTUS roulette. The last time this scenario appeared for a Democrat WH and Senate, LBJ nominated someone for CJ (who was already on the Court) who had corruption issues that ultimately forced him to resign altogether.
It's not that they are too weak, or play too nice. We know from 2018 that that's some horsepucky. They are short-sighted and tactically inept, not morally superior. Voting to filibuster Gorsuch, at the very start of Trump's term, with no possibility of success, may cost them not one SC seat (Kavanaugh) but two.
On hypocrisy, we have the a prominent Democratic senator, now their nominee for president, who argued in 2016 that the opposing party Senate should have taken up and confirmed the nominee of a president in his final year (which again, would have been a historical anomaly). He argued in the 1990s that if the Democrats had control at the end of Clintons term, they would confirm. He argued in 2016 that the Republican senate should confirm. Even if you totally disregard what I said above about history, there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.
I think what is more dangerous than a new nominee before an election, in these politically intense times, is lying about "norms" and "democracy" in ways that will inflame certain segments of the public to believe things to be worse than they are.
Now today the courts have a lot of power, and that should be reduced. That would be one way to cool things. But one side now feels like they are winning the courts and the other still wants to use them to push through things the electorate didn't vote for. So good luck.
TL:DR complain about this as a matter of raw political power if you must, but do not claim it is unusual, and that is a grave threat to democracy. That's worse. And wrong.
|
On September 20 2020 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote: I certainly wouldn't vote for Trump, but it's hard to imagine the brunch liberals would be realizing how bad things have been for decades or how vulnerable the system is to actors like Trump without him. Aren't the very same people who you are describing here pretty much advocating for a return to exactly the way things were a few years ago?
|
On September 20 2020 04:20 Introvert wrote:
Now today the courts have a lot of power, and that should be reduced. That would be one way to cool things. But one side now feels like they are winning the courts and the other still wants to use them to push through things the electorate didn't vote for. So good luck.
TL:DR complain about this as a matter of raw political power if you must, but do not claim it is unusual, and that is a grave threat to democracy. That's worse. And wrong. Pretty rich of you to think about what the electorate voted for, when we look at previous republican presidents and the popular vote/electoral college. I don't think you should go that way. Do you honestly believe that a 6-3 court would reflect what the electorate looked like these past 20 years ?
You have other avenues to explore. And the LEAST of the decency would be to wait until her body is cold before trampling on her last wishes. It is unusual in that 17 of the current republican senators asserted in 2016 that no nominee should be put to a vote in an election years and that voters should get a say. They are now (as you are) moving the goalposts because it suits them. These people did not mention anything at the time about a split senate/presidency, and conveniently forget the results of the 2018 election, only looking at a 1/3 election in the Senate to say "our majority was increased, so we are justified", while ignoring the overall countryside voter wishes in the House.
That is what the electorate currently voted for across the country. Not the Senate, which is a body made to cater to states, not to the electorate.
What would you think if they decide to hold confirmation hearings and appoint that judge in the lame-duck session after the election ?
You know perfectly well also that the "anomalies" started with the mass judicial and executive filibusters by McConnell during the Obama administration, while they were in the minority. Again, so much for your "the electorate didn't vote for".
|
On September 20 2020 04:20 Introvert wrote:So hopefully I'll point out the following and not need to do so again (hahaha!) With exceptions usually caused by outside factors, presidents always nominate replacements, even near presidential elections (and of course midterm elections). When the Senate has belonged to the same party, they have almost always confirmed those nominees. When they didn't agree, they are often rejected, unless the president nominates someone who the Senate actually wants. These the "norms." It is NOT normal to hold these seats open in this situation. Putting aside how the party of "norms" has spent four years crapping all over them in other areas, Democrats cannot point to history, they instead try to use what some Republican senators said in 2016 and 2018. And you will notice that they are not, in fact pointing to any norms or history. They are going back a grand 4 years. There is no doubt, because we know the history, that Democrats would do the same thing in this situation. And they'd point to the historical precedent Republicans are pointing to now. I highly urge, for anyone interested, the following article. It's not bombastic (it was written a little over a month ago, and is now timely). It is longer than your average online article, just fyi. A few GOP Senators said there should be no vote taken in a presidential election year, and a few took a few days to fully look into the history. McConnell's first statement in 2016 was wrong, but he quickly corrected himself. Graham is in a harder spot, but he's now saying the Kvanaugh hearings changed things for him. He's obviously covering his ass, although the Kavanaugh hearings absolutely changed things for Republican voters. And we shouldn't forget the what they tried to do to Kavanaugh, for all the people saying Democrats don't play dirty. From Bork to Thomas to Ailto to Kavanaugh, they absolutely play dirty. The difference is that they have been unlucky with SCOTUS roulette. The last time this scenario appeared for a Democrat WH and Senate, LBJ nominated someone for CJ (who was already on the Court) who had corruption issues that ultimately forced him to resign altogether. It's not that they are too weak, or play too nice. We know from 2018 that that's some horsepucky. They are short-sighted and tactically inept, not morally superior. Voting to filibuster Gorsuch, at the very start of Trump's term, with no possibility of success, may cost them not one SC seat (Kavanaugh) but two. On hypocrisy, we have the a prominent Democratic senator, now their nominee for president, who argued in 2016 that the Senate should have taken up and confirmed a lame-duck president's nominee (which again, would have been a historical anomaly). He argued in the 1990s that if the Democrats had control at the end of Clintons term, they would confirm. He argued in 2016 that the Republican senate should confirm. Even if you totally disregard what I said above about history, there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. I think what is more dangerous than a new nominee before an election, in these politically intense times, is lying about "norms" and "democracy" in ways that will inflame certain segments of the public to believe things to be worse than they are. Now today the courts have a lot of power, and that should be reduced. That would be one way to cool things. But one side now feels like they are winning the courts and the other still wants to use them to push through things the electorate didn't vote for. So good luck. TL:DR complain about this as a matter of raw political power if you must, but do not claim it is unusual, and that is a grave threat to democracy. That's worse. And wrong.
It is nice that you conveniently forget that this exact same senate with this exact same leader completely blocked any nominee by a sitting president for month with the excuse that it is an election year. This isn't about history. It is the absurd hypocrisy that these people demonstrate at every possible junction.
And Trump wasn't "lucky" with the SC roulette. Well, he was, but he was helped by that exact same hypocrisy 4 years ago.
And "The electorate" voted for Clinton in 2016. That shouldn't be forgotten. But in your stupid election system, it doesn't matter what the electorate wants, because some votes are far more valuable than others, and some votes are completely worthless. What matters are the few people in swing states who are not already locked in. Everyone else doesn't matter in your elections. Leading to someone with a huge minority of votes winning and ruining any chance of progress for decades due to the shitty broken way you allocate judges.
|
All you need to know to see how irrelevant history and precedent are to the modern context are to look at how rushed sitting politicians were to redefine "lame duck" from "period in between an election one loses or does not run in and the inauguration of their replacement" to "within their final year of office." It makes it really hard to figure out what people are talking about, and much easier to distort historical reality, which is of course precisely the point.
It's not like Schumer proposed that Obama should fill a vacancy that opened in December-nor, as far as I'm aware, did he say we should fill a vacancy that opens in September (I'm sure a vague out of context results a la Jones' "full birth abortion" that proved to be utter nonsense might be findable, though)-but this is what a cursory read of Introvert's post suggests in the terms of the actual meaning of lame duck, and would indeed be dumb.
"Oh, but words change in meaning!" Yes. But here they are changing specifically for political ends, probably decided on by some marketing team. Finding against redefinitions for such naked power-grab purposes is, at least in my opinion, something worth doing.
Moreover, pretending there is any ideological basis for any Senator's decision in 2016, or any one made in 2020, is just silly, and hypocrisy only means anything in ideological terms. Norms haven't mattered to most of the people at the levers of power in Washington since at least 2012 and probably not since 1996. Graham will vote whatever way maximizes his personal power. McConnell will vote in whatever may maximizes his own personal impact and legacy power. Of course Schumer will do the same.
|
On September 20 2020 06:19 TheTenthDoc wrote: All you need to know to see how irrelevant history and precedent are to the modern context are to look at how rushed sitting politicians were to redefine "lame duck" from "period in between an election one loses or does not run in and the inauguration of their replacement" to "within their final year of office." It makes it really hard to figure out what people are talking about, and much easier to distort historical reality, which is of course precisely the point.
It's not like Schumer proposed that Obama should fill a vacancy that opened in December-nor, as far as I'm aware, did he say we should fill a vacancy that opens in September (I'm sure a vague out of context results a la Jones' "full birth abortion" that proved to be utter nonsense might be findable, though)-but this is what a cursory read of Introvert's post suggests in the terms of the actual meaning of lame duck, and would indeed be dumb.
"Oh, but words change in meaning!" Yes. But here they are changing specifically for political ends, probably decided on by some marketing team. Finding against redefinitions for such naked power-grab purposes is, at least in my opinion, something worth doing.
Moreover, pretending there is any ideological basis for any Senator's decision in 2016, or any one made in 2020, is just silly, and hypocrisy only means anything in ideological terms. Norms haven't mattered to most of the people at the levers of power in Washington since at least 2012 and probably not since 1996. Graham will vote whatever way maximizes his personal power. McConnell will vote in whatever may maximizes his own personal impact and legacy power. Of course Schumer will do the same.
yes, lame duck is imprecise and i carried it from another thought somewhere else. Although it has also been used to talk about, for instance, presidents who immediately announce they will not run again. Theodore Roosevelt became a "lame-duck" almost instantly after winning in 1904 because he announced he would not run again. However I will change it.
And no one said anything about ideological considerations. I certainly did not. I reply to this post because it appears this is a pattern: studiously avoiding the point of what was actually written.
|
On September 20 2020 03:46 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 03:34 Danglars wrote:On September 20 2020 03:23 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2020 03:02 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 02:56 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 02:16 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 02:07 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 02:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 01:14 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 01:07 JimmiC wrote: [quote] Would the fear of the Dems packing the court be enough? No. Three reasons. 1. They are counting on dems to behave like they have in the past, and roll over on their backs and showing their bellies instead of doing anything. 2. Mcconnell reminds me a lot of Putin, both are tactically very good but not amazing at strategy. They'll do anything for a short term benefit, regardless of any long term downsides. If Trump ever loses power, then Putin's strategies in 2016 and poisoning in western countries may come back to bite him so hard - think of how many sanctions aren't being enforced by Trump, and how much worse it can get for Russia economically. 3. The fact that it would piss off the dems more than possibly anything else is a massive upside for them with their base. If you predict the current GOP doing the move that will piss off democrats the most and has the most future possible downsides, it's usually what they'll do. I would think the lame duck push through would be what it would take for the Dems to take the nuclear option but I get your points. I also think that, but it's totally understandable to me why McConnell thinks it's just a bluff. I have a American acquaintance who voted Trump with his reasoning being that American politics was so cancerous that you needed to elect a poison to show how rotten it was and start to actually fix things. This argument is comparable to trying to get increased funding for law enforcement by raping people. You are fairly famous for awful analogies and this is one of your worst! To the rest of you you are making it very hard to find a silver lining The only 'silver lining' to Trumps election was the world realising that America was more fucked then we thought and that the EU has to stand on its own. Wait. You’re saying the EU realizes that it has to stand on its own? Let me get a sharpie out for another checkbox of Trump promises fulfilled. No 2% to NATO. German gas deals with Russia. Go do your thing, Europe, as you’ve been doing. I must have missed the "be so embarrassingly awful your allies no longer trust you in the slightest' as one of his promises. Not one I would be proud of, but me and you have almost nothing in common so I guess that makes sense. @Nouar fuck 2020.
Don't think Danglars really cares how the rest of the world views America. Nor do a lot of Trump supports. America First, fuck everyone else, focus on us and that's it.
The new Chinese-led global paradigm should be interesting for the next generation....
|
On September 20 2020 04:31 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 03:00 GreenHorizons wrote: I certainly wouldn't vote for Trump, but it's hard to imagine the brunch liberals would be realizing how bad things have been for decades or how vulnerable the system is to actors like Trump without him. Aren't the very same people who you are describing here pretty much advocating for a return to exactly the way things were a few years ago? I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. Just because they gain some awareness doesn't mean they have any intention to address it.
|
On September 20 2020 04:20 Introvert wrote:So hopefully I'll point out the following and not need to do so again (hahaha!) With exceptions usually caused by outside factors, presidents always nominate replacements, even near presidential elections (and of course midterm elections). When the Senate has belonged to the same party, they have almost always confirmed those nominees. When they didn't agree, they are often rejected, unless the president nominates someone who the Senate actually wants. These are the "norms." It is NOT normal to hold these seats open in this situation. Putting aside how the party of "norms" has spent four years crapping all over them in other areas, Democrats cannot point to history, they instead try to use what some Republican senators said in 2016 and 2018. And you will notice that they are not, in fact pointing to any norms or history. They are going back a grand 4 years. There is no doubt, because we know the history, that Democrats would do the same thing in this situation. And they'd point to the historical precedent Republicans are pointing to now. I highly urge, for anyone interested, the following article. It's not bombastic (it was written a little over a month ago, and is now timely). It is longer than your average online article, just fyi. A few GOP Senators said there should be no vote taken in a presidential election year, and a few took a few days to fully look into the history. McConnell's first statement in 2016 was wrong, but he quickly corrected himself. Graham is in a harder spot, but he's now saying the Kvanaugh hearings changed things for him. He's obviously covering his ass, although the Kavanaugh hearings absolutely changed things for Republican voters. And we shouldn't forget the what they tried to do to Kavanaugh, for all the people saying Democrats don't play dirty. From Bork to Thomas to Ailto to Kavanaugh, they absolutely play dirty. The difference is that they have been unlucky with SCOTUS roulette. The last time this scenario appeared for a Democrat WH and Senate, LBJ nominated someone for CJ (who was already on the Court) who had corruption issues that ultimately forced him to resign altogether. It's not that they are too weak, or play too nice. We know from 2018 that that's some horsepucky. They are short-sighted and tactically inept, not morally superior. Voting to filibuster Gorsuch, at the very start of Trump's term, with no possibility of success, may cost them not one SC seat (Kavanaugh) but two. On hypocrisy, we have the a prominent Democratic senator, now their nominee for president, who argued in 2016 that the opposing party Senate should have taken up and confirmed the nominee of a president in his final year (which again, would have been a historical anomaly). He argued in the 1990s that if the Democrats had control at the end of Clintons term, they would confirm. He argued in 2016 that the Republican senate should confirm. Even if you totally disregard what I said above about history, there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around. I think what is more dangerous than a new nominee before an election, in these politically intense times, is lying about "norms" and "democracy" in ways that will inflame certain segments of the public to believe things to be worse than they are. Now today the courts have a lot of power, and that should be reduced. That would be one way to cool things. But one side now feels like they are winning the courts and the other still wants to use them to push through things the electorate didn't vote for. So good luck. TL:DR complain about this as a matter of raw political power if you must, but do not claim it is unusual, and that is a grave threat to democracy. That's worse. And wrong.
Or you could show some moral fiber and denounce the hypocritical, lying, disgusting behaviour of your representatives. They are just shy of dancing and pissing on the corpse of a respectable judge with a distinguished career. But no a big post of whataboutism is easier huh.
|
On September 20 2020 06:50 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2020 03:46 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 03:34 Danglars wrote:On September 20 2020 03:23 Gorsameth wrote:On September 20 2020 03:02 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 02:56 KwarK wrote:On September 20 2020 02:16 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 02:07 Nevuk wrote:On September 20 2020 02:05 JimmiC wrote:On September 20 2020 01:14 Nevuk wrote: [quote] No. Three reasons. 1. They are counting on dems to behave like they have in the past, and roll over on their backs and showing their bellies instead of doing anything. 2. Mcconnell reminds me a lot of Putin, both are tactically very good but not amazing at strategy. They'll do anything for a short term benefit, regardless of any long term downsides. If Trump ever loses power, then Putin's strategies in 2016 and poisoning in western countries may come back to bite him so hard - think of how many sanctions aren't being enforced by Trump, and how much worse it can get for Russia economically. 3. The fact that it would piss off the dems more than possibly anything else is a massive upside for them with their base.
If you predict the current GOP doing the move that will piss off democrats the most and has the most future possible downsides, it's usually what they'll do. I would think the lame duck push through would be what it would take for the Dems to take the nuclear option but I get your points. I also think that, but it's totally understandable to me why McConnell thinks it's just a bluff. I have a American acquaintance who voted Trump with his reasoning being that American politics was so cancerous that you needed to elect a poison to show how rotten it was and start to actually fix things. This argument is comparable to trying to get increased funding for law enforcement by raping people. You are fairly famous for awful analogies and this is one of your worst! To the rest of you you are making it very hard to find a silver lining The only 'silver lining' to Trumps election was the world realising that America was more fucked then we thought and that the EU has to stand on its own. Wait. You’re saying the EU realizes that it has to stand on its own? Let me get a sharpie out for another checkbox of Trump promises fulfilled. No 2% to NATO. German gas deals with Russia. Go do your thing, Europe, as you’ve been doing. I must have missed the "be so embarrassingly awful your allies no longer trust you in the slightest' as one of his promises. Not one I would be proud of, but me and you have almost nothing in common so I guess that makes sense. @Nouar fuck 2020. Don't think Danglars really cares how the rest of the world views America. Nor do a lot of Trump supports. America First, fuck everyone else, focus on us and that's it. The new Chinese-led global paradigm should be interesting for the next generation....
Well I agree to some degree alot of Americans take pride in being the best most influential country in the world. There is all ready grumbling about not being able to travel. Danglars and many other Trumper are going to cheer for anything and everything he says (see drinking a cup of water on a ramp, passing a cognitive decline test, insulting a republican war hero, so on) but there are other ong time Republicans that were fine if the cost of getting lower taxes for rich, SCJ if the cost was a boorish dummy. If it means they can't travel and China and other countries pass it on global influence some of that will change. Mind you it won't in 2 months.
|
Introvert, you're flat out wrong that there's precedent for this. Scalia's death was towards the edge of a normal time to have the debate. There's literally no case like this where the person was nominated and confirmed this close to the election.
Here's 538's table on it:
What there IS precedent for is refusing to seat candidates when a lame duck president tries to ram through a bunch of judges. Marbury V Madison, the case that actually gave the SC its most noted power, to overturn unconstitutional laws, was over that. Adams tried to pack the courts with a bunch of candidates in 1800-1801 after he lost re-election, and Jefferson opposed this and refused to seat candidates who hadn't been officially seated before he took office (ie, they were confirmed by the senate but still waiting on the SoS to confirm their positions). The SC decided that Jefferson was violating the law, but that the law was unconstitutional, so that he wasn't required to in the first place.
So far there's a bunch of posturing from democratic leadership. "You better not, you hypocrite" basically, but no one in leadership is going out and saying what they'd need to say to stop it : "do this and we'll pack the courts".
edit : I said that, then immediately see this from Schumer on politico. “Let me be clear: if Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans move forward with this, then nothing is off the table for next year. Nothing is off the table.” Schumer: "Nothing is off the table" if GOP moves to fill Ginsburg's seat https://www.axios.com/schumer-republicans-ginsburgs-seat-supreme-court-1aef856e-2e87-40dc-a3d7-876b863caec7.html
Nadler also backs Markey's comments that they'll expand the court the next chance they get if RBG gets replaced during lame duck session
|
On September 20 2020 07:44 Nevuk wrote:Introvert, you're flat out wrong that there's precedent for this. Scalia's death was towards the edge of a normal time to have the debate. There's literally no case like this where the person was nominated and confirmed this close to the election. Here's 538's table on it: What there IS precedent for is refusing to seat candidates when a lame duck president tries to ram through a bunch of judges. Marbury V Madison, the case that actually gave the SC its most noted power, to overturn unconstitutional laws, was over that. Adams tried to pack the courts with a bunch of candidates in 1800-1801 after he lost re-election, and Jefferson opposed this and refused to seat candidates who hadn't been officially seated before he took office (ie, they were confirmed by the senate but still waiting on the SoS to confirm their positions). The SC decided that Jefferson was violating the law, but that the law was unconstitutional, so that he wasn't required to in the first place. So far there's a bunch of posturing from democratic leadership. "You better not, you hypocrite" basically, but no one in leadership is going out and saying what they'd need to say to stop it : "do this and we'll pack the courts". edit : I said that, then immediately see this from Schumer on politico. Show nested quote +“Let me be clear: if Leader McConnell and Senate Republicans move forward with this, then nothing is off the table for next year. Nothing is off the table.” Schumer: "Nothing is off the table" if GOP moves to fill Ginsburg's seat https://www.axios.com/schumer-republicans-ginsburgs-seat-supreme-court-1aef856e-2e87-40dc-a3d7-876b863caec7.htmlNadler also backs Markey's comments that they'll expand the court the next chance they get if RBG gets replaced during lame duck session https://twitter.com/RepJerryNadler/status/1307379171354652673
of course, the only time frame I gave at all was "final year." Again, a whole bunch of nothing. You are free to actually read the article I posted, if you interested in the topic. if you are going to argue over months I think that kinda works towards my point though.
This is apparently really hard for some people. I'll leave what I think of Democrat future plans for later.
edit: although what is interesting is how Democrats already said they wanted to do that, but Biden didn't. However, Biden is a total non-entity if they take power, and even today he was nowhere to be seen. He's an empty suit.
|
|
|
|