US Politics: Ask Fox News

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But isn't the difference between "fighting tooth and nail" and "obstruction" just in the eye of the beholder?  Obstruction helps slow things down, which is good for the Democrats because the Republicans have all the power.  There were an awful lot of things the Democrats wanted to do in 2008-2010, but couldn't because passing the ACA took an entire year.  If Trump has to waste six months passing a health care bill, that would mean six months he doesn't have to pass National Right to Work or repeal the Endangered Species Act.

I feel like there is a distinction to be made between gumming up the works and straight-up obstruction. I'm all for the Dems gumming up the works, especially if you're talking about this repeal and replace Trumpcare bullshit. Any bill this toxic should face all the opposition that can be thrown at it.

[Ser Reptitious]

12 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not sure at this point what not obstructing gets anyone. 

Is there some idea that at some point government will go back to some semblance of 'normal'? Or anyone will be punished for any obstruction?

Well, as simplistic as it may sound, I'd say the Democrats should obstruct tooth and nail (with any tools at their disposal) laws, policies, and appointments that they do not agree with, but withhold from obstructing any laws, policies, or appointments that they either agree with or at least can live with (and in the latter case perhaps do some horse-trading). 

[Mexal]

46 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

If security services have 'unmasked' numerous US citizens in reports that got wide circulation, I think the Republicans are justified to be angry.  I gather they should be referred to as "Person A" and "Person B" or something along those lines. So this seems to be more than just Flynn being unmasked.

What I would be royally pissed off at if I were a Democrat was the fact Nunes went to his House Leader and then went to a vote and then went to the President and then held a fucking press conference before bothering to tell Democrats about the reports that were shown to him. 

Multiple issues here.

1. Knowledge of FISA warrants and targets are classified at the highest levels. Nunes said there are multiple out there and by even announcing this, seems to be letting Trump's associates know they're talking to people under surveillance. That's giving up classified information and unprecedented.

2. Nunes received this from a "source" and instead of letting the intel committee know, he held a press conference, disclosed shit he shouldn't have then ran off to the WH to let them. This is nuts given it's his associates who are having discussions with people being under surveillance with legitimate FISA warrants.

3. The timing is insanely suspect given the revelations on Monday and some Republican lawmakers telling him he needs to apologize because his credibility is at stake.

4. The surveillance was incidental collection and not specific to his associates. It was legally obtained and if some individuals were unmasked, it likely done following proper procedure to understand the context of the SIGINT. There is no indication the NSA did not follow procedure. Hell, Nunes even said himself that most associates were masked. His argument is it wasn't hard to figure out who they were which may be true.

5. What does widely disseminated mean and who has seen this SIGINT and why hasn't it been brought up before? 

None of this is normal and the way it's being handled proves an independent commission needs to be created to investigate all of this.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

13 minutes ago, Mexal said:

None of this is normal and the way it's being handled proves an independent commission needs to be created to investigate all of this.

Why this hasn't happened yet is beyond me. Can't the Dems at least set a hearing?

[Mexal]

10 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Why this hasn't happened yet is beyond me. Can't the Dems at least set a hearing?

No idea what has to happen for this to be done.

As an aside, Trump PACs sent a fundraising email shortly after Nunes press conference saying Trump is vindicated, MSM lied and asking for money. 

[Kalbear]

15 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Why this hasn't happened yet is beyond me. Can't the Dems at least set a hearing?

They cannot, as they do not lead the various committees. Again, this is a massive failure in our government and I do not see any actual recourse. To whit:

• The opposition party cannot unilaterally ask for a hearing without permission from the party in power.
• Even if they do get a hearing, they cannot get a special prosecutor or a prosecutor outside of the specific commission, nor can they guarantee that the DoJ will be run by anyone independent, either.
• Even if they do get that special prosecutor, they cannot call for impeachment by themselves.
• Even if they do call for a vote to impeach, they cannot actually impeach by themselves.
• Even if they do get the impeachment, they cannot try the person in question by themselves.
• Even if they do get the trial, they cannot vote the person out without massive help.

Which means that if you simply refuse to do anything as the party in power, there is literally nothing you can do to stop a POTUS or other impeachable official, at least legally. 

The US government has worked on the idea that the people involved will have a number of checks and balances to ensure that no single branch is incredibly corrupt and can be dealt with by the other branches if one is. This norm has been incredibly shattered since the 90s, and is essentially hosed at this point. 

[Kalbear]

43 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Well, as simplistic as it may sound, I'd say the Democrats should obstruct tooth and nail (with any tools at their disposal) laws, policies, and appointments that they do not agree with, but withhold from obstructing any laws, policies, or appointments that they either agree with or at least can live with (and in the latter case perhaps do some horse-trading). 

And again I ask - why?

What value is there for the Democrats to even remotely give an inch? If they are the opposition, they gain nothing by compromise, as they will get nothing back in return in the future. If they are the party in power, the Republicans have shown that they actually gain value by resisting at all costs and obstructing at all costs, so there is no incentive to horse trade. 

I get that we should want them to do so, but that isn't the same thing as giving them a reason why obstruction isn't the logical choice. Especially when so many progressives are shouting at them to obstruct at all times, whenever possible, and not give a single inch. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Though I suspect Trump's fanbase will see it as total vindication of his tweets.

I'm at the point where I just view Trump's core base as the real life incarnations of the actors in infomercials. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, denstorebog said:

So, if the London attack was carried out by someone by the name of, say, Salim Abu Aziz, it should be an interesting bellwether of how Trump will try and utilize these incidents. Maybe a dedicated press conference where he gets to say "radical Islamic terrorism" a couple of times. I guess he might also try and double down on the Muslim ban, but I doubt he'll try to get more mileage out of it, much as he wants to.

I think it's more important to see how Le Pen uses this for her own political gain. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

6 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I get that we should want them to do so, but that isn't the same thing as giving them a reason why obstruction isn't the logical choice. Especially when so many progressives are shouting at them to obstruct at all times, whenever possible, and not give a single inch. 

That's the reason. They are supposed to be Public Servants. We are supposed to dictate terms to them, not the other way around.Our whole system has been flipped on its' fucking head. 

[Mexal]

Schiff just told Chuck Todd there is more than circumstantial evidence in regards to Trump/Russia. That's huge news.

 

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That's the reason. They are supposed to be Public Servants. We are supposed to dictate terms to them, not the other way around.Our whole system has been flipped on its' fucking head. 

Okay - that's fine. 

What is the value of them not obstructing given that on fucking head flipped system? Specifically, is there any value in them not obstructing while the system is still screwed up? 

What I want is a system that rewards compromise, getting things done, and voting for the best politician regardless of party. In that system, it is obvious that obstruction would be a massive negative. But the system we have is a system that strongly rewards ideology, strongly rewards opposition with whatever possible methods one can use, and strongly rewards voting for party regardless of any other outcome. In that system, I would argue that obstruction is probably the best possible thing to do. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

25 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They cannot, as they do not lead the various committees. Again, this is a massive failure in our government and I do not see any actual recourse. To whit:

• The opposition party cannot unilaterally ask for a hearing without permission from the party in power.
• Even if they do get a hearing, they cannot get a special prosecutor or a prosecutor outside of the specific commission, nor can they guarantee that the DoJ will be run by anyone independent, either.
• Even if they do get that special prosecutor, they cannot call for impeachment by themselves.
• Even if they do call for a vote to impeach, they cannot actually impeach by themselves.
• Even if they do get the impeachment, they cannot try the person in question by themselves.
• Even if they do get the trial, they cannot vote the person out without massive help.

Which means that if you simply refuse to do anything as the party in power, there is literally nothing you can do to stop a POTUS or other impeachable official, at least legally. 

The US government has worked on the idea that the people involved will have a number of checks and balances to ensure that no single branch is incredibly corrupt and can be dealt with by the other branches if one is. This norm has been incredibly shattered since the 90s, and is essentially hosed at this point. 

The last three bullet points are reasonable. Probably necessary, really. The rest is crap.

[Swordfish]

2 hours ago, Ser Reptitious said:

And what exactly would make the Democrats weaker compared to the Republicans?

Ha.  Numbers make them weaker.  I'm user 'weaker' here to denote 'less powerful', just so we're clear.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 Schiff calls for Independent Investigation of the back of Nunes's actions...

 http://heavy.com/news/2017/03/live-stream-adam-schiff-devin-nunes-donald-trump-wiretapping-obama-video-press-conference-update/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

[The Anti-Targ]

20 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And again I ask - why?

What value is there for the Democrats to even remotely give an inch? If they are the opposition, they gain nothing by compromise, as they will get nothing back in return in the future. If they are the party in power, the Republicans have shown that they actually gain value by resisting at all costs and obstructing at all costs, so there is no incentive to horse trade. 

I get that we should want them to do so, but that isn't the same thing as giving them a reason why obstruction isn't the logical choice. Especially when so many progressives are shouting at them to obstruct at all times, whenever possible, and not give a single inch. 

Obstruction works for republicans because they just say that the "low taxes, freedom, small govt, choice" as opposition to everything the Democrats try to do. And that sounds all well and good because it sounds like simply obstructing prevents govt interference and excessive govt spending and too much tax. Democrats obstructing simply cannot resonate with the population because the Republicans still get to say "low taxes, freedom, small govt, choice" but this time it's "Democrats standing in the way of" these things. Because Republicans own the "freedom" narrative Democrats are in a lose-lose situation when it comes to the politics of obstruction, they lose on the narrative when in power and they lose on the narrative when in opposition.

Democrats win the political narrative when they manage to get things through that the electorate realises after the fact that they broadly beneficial, and they win the political narrative when Republicans are able implement policies that are broadly seen as  harmful after the fact. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

Democrats win the political narrative when they manage to get things through that the electorate realises after the fact that they broadly beneficial, and they win the political narrative when Republicans are able implement policies that are broadly seen as  harmful after the fact. 

I'd agree with all of that - and the idea that Democrats are in a lose-lose proposition otherwise if they obstruct or if they don't.

At the same time, as far as I can tell the Republicans are not even bothering to ask for any help or council or anything regarding laws. Nothing at all. There is zero value to the Democrats in getting these policies out because the policies are horrible. There is no way to sneak anything on these, either. 

And the only way that Democrats have gotten anything of note done in the last 16 years is either by supermajority politics or by executive order and support to government agencies. That is it. Republican politicians have been largely rewarded for this as well. 

What I believe, right now, is that Democrats and Republicans both don't 'win' based on policy in any meaningful way any more. And if policy doesn't matter to voters - and there's very little sign right now that it does - what value is there in helping create more policy? Especially if you're the party in opposition? 

[Swordfish]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I'd agree with all of that - and the idea that Democrats are in a lose-lose proposition otherwise if they obstruct or if they don't.

At the same time, as far as I can tell the Republicans are not even bothering to ask for any help or council or anything regarding laws. Nothing at all. There is zero value to the Democrats in getting these policies out because the policies are horrible. There is no way to sneak anything on these, either. 

And the only way that Democrats have gotten anything of note done in the last 16 years is either by supermajority politics or by executive order and support to government agencies. That is it. Republican politicians have been largely rewarded for this as well. 

What I believe, right now, is that Democrats and Republicans both don't 'win' based on policy in any meaningful way any more. And if policy doesn't matter to voters - and there's very little sign right now that it does - what value is there in helping create more policy? Especially if you're the party in opposition? 

Because that's your job.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

I'd agree with all of that - and the idea that Democrats are in a lose-lose proposition otherwise if they obstruct or if they don't.

At the same time, as far as I can tell the Republicans are not even bothering to ask for any help or council or anything regarding laws. Nothing at all. There is zero value to the Democrats in getting these policies out because the policies are horrible. There is no way to sneak anything on these, either. 

And the only way that Democrats have gotten anything of note done in the last 16 years is either by supermajority politics or by executive order and support to government agencies. That is it. Republican politicians have been largely rewarded for this as well. 

What I believe, right now, is that Democrats and Republicans both don't 'win' based on policy in any meaningful way any more. And if policy doesn't matter to voters - and there's very little sign right now that it does - what value is there in helping create more policy? Especially if you're the party in opposition? 

I would say that Democrats should be coming up with policies that oppose Republican policies. For instance, with Healthcare, rather than simply oppose and try to obstruct, formulate policy that would fix what a lot of what progressives see as flaws in the ACA, and say, this is what congress should be passing because these are the benefits, but oh well, you voted for the other guys, so you are probably going to get a shit sandwich for healthcare reform instead unless we can have an influence on the final outcome. Or, go to Trump and say, you're not likely to get your reform through, so if you put X, Y and Z in your Obamacare repeal and replace we'll give you enough votes to get the legislation through, as long as you give us credit. This is a one time deal, we're not negotiating back from this. 

Just now, Swordfish said:

Because that's your job.

Indeed.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I would say that Democrats should be coming up with policies that oppose Republican policies. For instance, with Healthcare, rather than simply oppose and try to obstruct, formulate policy that would fix what a lot of what progressives see as flaws in the ACA, and say, this is what congress should be passing because these are the benefits, but oh well, you voted for the other guys, so you are probably going to get a shit sandwich for healthcare reform instead unless we can have an influence on the final outcome. Or, go to Trump and say, you're not likely to get your reform through, so if you put X, Y and Z in your Obamacare repeal and replace we'll give you enough votes to get the legislation through, as long as you give us credit. This is a one time deal, we're not negotiating back from this. 

But voters have shown absurdly effectively that they don't care about that in the slightest, and it makes almost no difference at all in how they vote. This is especially true in the House. 

Also, creating big useful policies is hard and expensive; is it that valuable to create a bunch of policies that have zero chance of passing or even being debated?

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Indeed.

That is what their job should be. Their job IS to keep getting re-elected.