US Politics: Ask Fox News

[aceluby]

5 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Again, what's the end game here?  To stall for four years (or 8)?  And then what?

Again, this was the GOP plan if Hillary won.  For some reason I don't remember you asking these questions before.  Probably my bad memory.

[Swordfish]

10 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Again, this was the GOP plan if Hillary won.  For some reason I don't remember you asking these questions before.  Probably my bad memory.

Probably.

 

[MerenthaClone]

15 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Again, what's the end game here?  To stall for four years (or 8)?  And then what?

If the filibuster is dead the instant it is used, its dead anyway.  The endgame isn't to stall Gorsuch specifically but to show that the Democratic party stands for something at all besides "well we're not Trump I guess?"

Hell, I'd be happy with them insisting that Gorsuch not get a vote until Garland does, even if that vote is a "no."

[A Horse Named Stranger]

21 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

Why will it hurt the Democratic party in ways that the GOP was not?  

The democratic base seems more sane, and seems to have somewhat higher expectations from their representatives. Just think of all the shitty scandals Republicans get away with, which their Democratic counterparts would never survive. 

As for the SCOTUS. I am not sure what is the right way to handle it. You really can't delay a vote for four years with a minority. So the most prudent course is weigh in the alternatives. Is the nominee somewhat acceptable or outright Scalia awful. If it's the latter throw everything at the GOP to block him. 

[Maithanet]

The difference is that the Republicans have the majority in the Senate.  Thus, they could (and did) prevent Garland from getting a vote.  The Democrats cannot do that. 

The new normal is that the President doesn't get to make SC nominations unless his party also controls the Senate.  I don't like it, I think it is total bullshit, but it is now in place, and it may not ever go away.  IF Democrats controlled the Senate, I would be 100% fine with them saying that they will vote for Garland and only Garland. 

But they don't.  So they can huff and puff, but it doesn't really matter.  I think opposing Gorsuch when it is doomed to failure isn't a winning play.  So just delay, vote against him when it's time, and move on to battles that can actually make a difference.

[S John]

45 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

It may bring some moderates in, but how many people will it push away?  Given the protests that have been occurring, I think there is a large group of people who want to see some kind of definitive stand from their representatives instead of a small, guarded retreat. People who won't show up to vote either.  

Why will it hurt the Democratic party in ways that the GOP was not?  

 

e:  Shit, I think that on balance, their obstruction in the SCOTUS actually helped them, which is obscene.  

It could have.  I know a lot of conservatives who claim to have voted, not for Trump per se, but for a conservative Supreme Court seat. 

In my personal opinion, I think most of those people still would've voted for Trump even if Garland was confirmed because you can extrapolate that rationale indefinitely.... maybe would've claimed they were voting for the possibility of Ginsberg's seat opening up or something.  I think it's just a way for the conservatives who see themselves as reasonable compared to the die-hard Trumpists to give themselves a reason to not feel quite as guilty about voting for a known buffoon like Trump.  I don't like him but, but..... the Supreme Court! 

That said, since Garland was stalled, the idea that in this election voting (R) was directly and immediately tied to voting for a conservative court may indeed have helped Trump get some votes he may not have otherwise gotten.  Can't really say for sure, but I do think it's plausible.  

 

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

Again, what is the end game of stalling here?  

Other than proving you're just as petty as the republicans, and that all that bluster about being the responsible party is just so much hot air?

So they stall on Gorsuch.  Then what?

What's your plan here, other than 'they started it!!!!'........

Why, to reduce the size of the bloated SCOTUS, of course! Just like the Republicans!

[Swordfish]

44 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

If the filibuster is dead the instant it is used, its dead anyway.  The endgame isn't to stall Gorsuch specifically but to show that the Democratic party stands for something at all besides "well we're not Trump I guess?"

And what, exactly, would stalling that nomination show that the democratic party stands for?

Because from where I'm sitting, it seems like the message about what they stand for that they'd be sending would be mostly bad, especially given the aneurysms they had over this topic last year.  because there is nothing that I've seen that is particularly objectionable about Gorsuch.  if there was, you'd have a point here, but there doesn't seem to be.

And, the republicans help on to at least some shred of [plausible deniability in the sense that they only actually held out 'until the election'.

I know some of them threatened to hold out if Hilary was elected, but that didn't happen.  For a bunch of people who love to trot out the 'false equivalency' mantra, you guys are a little blind to it here.

They really have no choice here but to let this go, despite some number of people on the left's thirst for payback.  it's just a terrible, terrible look for them to hold out on this, given that a lot of them are on record on this issue already suggesting it's basically tantamount to treason.

I am not as optimistic as you are that 'well, they started it!!!!!' is a particularly viable excuse at this point for doing something you railed against just a few months ago, and I'm not so sure it's worth the risk.

The democrats need to pick their battles, and i just don't think this is the one they want to go out on a limb for.  Of course, YMMV.

I mean, you yourself said this:

Quote

Shit, I think that on balance, their obstruction in the SCOTUS actually helped them, which is obscene.  

If you think it's obscene for them, why would it not be obscene for the democrats, even assuming it actually helps them, which I'm not so sure it would?

 

 

 

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Why, to reduce the size of the bloated SCOTUS, of course! Just like the Republicans!

I would love to see it actually go the other way.  Raise the number of justices to like, 30 and remove the significance of SCJ nomination from the presidential selection process entirely.

 

[Seli]

1 hour ago, Swordfish said:

Yeah.  It would be next level moronic for the democrats to obstruct that nomination for purely political reasons.

They could always obstruct because he is (allegedly) in favour of removing individual rights (eg, he is apparently of the opinion that companies ought to have a right to know about child bearing plans of prospective employees). 

And of course they might argue that it is wrong to continue as long as the nominating president is under investigation for what could amount to treason.

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Seli said:

They could always obstruct because he is (allegedly) in favour of removing individual rights (eg, he is apparently of the opinion that companies ought to have a right to know about child bearing plans of prospective employees). 

And of course they might argue that it is wrong to continue as long as the nominating president is under investigation for what could amount to treason.

They could do a lot of things.  The question is what should they do. What they should do is let this one go.

[Ser Reptitious]

14 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

If you think it's obscene for them, why would it not be obscene for the democrats, even assuming it actually helps them, which I'm not so sure it would?

When a child misbehaves and gets away with it (or even gets rewarded for it), do you think it will act the same way again in the future?

[Swordfish]

5 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

When a child misbehaves and gets away with it (or even gets rewarded for it), do you think it will act the same way again in the future?

 

if a child misbehaves and the parents attempt to fix the behavior by exhibiting the same (or slightly worse) behavior, for a longer period of time, as some sort of petty tit for tat, do you think the child will act the same way again in the future?

 

[Seli]

7 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

They could do a lot of things.  The question is what should they do. What they should do is let this one go.

Why? If the guy is a bad candidate, and could be around for decades. Especially when the GOP has obstructed a decent one, a candidate they supported before he was actually nominated by Obama.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I remain unconvinced that there exists such a thing as 'political suicide' for Republicans save perhaps in actually doing something like compromising with Democrats.

While I won't argue against this becoming more and more true, there are still actions they can take that will sink their careers and going nuclear to pass a really bad piece of legislation could just do it. Hopefully we won't have to find out if I'm right or not. 

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

Yeah.  It would be next level moronic for the democrats to obstruct that nomination for purely political reasons.

Yeah. I tend to agree with a lot of pundits who think they should save it for a second Supreme Court nomination. Gorsuch is pretty hard to protest with the exception of what was done to Garland. 

2 hours ago, Swordfish said:

You're being a bit dramatic, aren't you?

 

And the title is misleading, actually. Assuming the article is correct, and that seems like a bit of a leap at this point, he isn't skipping the NATO meetings to go to russia, as the title implies.  He's skipping the meetings to meet here with the president of China, and sending Shannon to NATO.

 

Though of course ALL of that information is from nebulous 'unnamed sources'.

 

 

No I don't believe so. Our NATO allies are really nervous about what Trump might do and not sending his SoS isn't going to help alleviate said nerves. 

The title is slightly misleading. Tillerson is reportedly skipping a NATO meeting in April and will be going to Russia later in the month, but he's not skipping the meeting to go to Russia. It doesn't really change the problematic nature of the behavior though. 

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, Seli said:

Why? If the guy is a bad candidate, and could be around for decades. Especially when the GOP has obstructed a decent one, a candidate they supported before he was actually nominated by Obama.

He is about as good a candidate as they are going to get.

They  are not going to get a liberal candidate, and 'he's a conservative' is not a good enough reason to hold out.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, denstorebog said:

Because on average Democrats are more likely to want compromise and cooperation whereas on average Republicans are more likely to want to burn everything to the ground and hate everything that they don't like?

I can't prove it, but you can't deny it doesn't feel right.

There's also a wealth of data that indicates that Democratic supporters are more likely to punish elected Democrats. It's possible that going full obstructionists could drive a wedge between the moderates and the bleeding hearts.

 

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

But they don't.  So they can huff and puff, but it doesn't really matter.  I think opposing Gorsuch when it is doomed to failure isn't a winning play.  So just delay, vote against him when it's time, and move on to battles that can actually make a difference.

 Yup, and the Republicans have already tipped their hand that they're willing to go nuclear over this, and it's unclear if that would just be for SC nominees or scrapping the filibuster in it's entirety. If it's the latter, that means at least 2 years of Republicans literally doing whatever the hell they want. 

 

50 minutes ago, S John said:

 

That said, since Garland was stalled, the idea that in this election voting (R) was directly and immediately tied to voting for a conservative court may indeed have helped Trump get some votes he may not have otherwise gotten.  Can't really say for sure, but I do think it's plausible.  

 

It certainly did, and Trump was openly blackmailing conservative voters (there are ton's of clips of him saying Republicans/conservatives had no choice but to vote for him). 

[Swordfish]

6 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

No I don't believe so. Our NATO allies are really nervous about what Trump might do and not sending his SoS isn't going to help alleviate said nerves. 

The title is slightly misleading. Tillerson is reportedly skipping a NATO meeting in April and will be going to Russia later in the month, but he's not skipping the meeting to go to Russia. It doesn't really change the problematic nature of the behavior though. 

I just think this is more or less a tempest in a teacup.  I doubt sending tillerson would alleviate much of that angst either, given all the other things Trump says and does.  It would be a token gesture, at most.

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

 

It certainly did, and Trump was openly blackmailing conservative voters (there are ton's of clips of him saying Republicans/conservatives had no choice but to vote for him). 

oh come on....  that is not the definition of blackmail.  A president using supreme court nominations as a campaign tool is hardly a new or villainous activity.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Just now, Swordfish said:

I just think this is more or less a tempest in a teacup.  I doubt sending tillerson would alleviate much of that angst either, given all the other things Trump says and does.  It would be a token gesture, at most.

It would be a mild olive branch if nothing else. I've been listening to a lot of podcasts with European leaders/diplomats and most of them are in full break glass in case of emergency mode. If Trump et al. were serious about maintaining our relationship with NATO it's the least they could do to send our top diplomat to the first major NATO meeting during Trump's term.