U.S. Politics: High Nunes or Russian to Judgement

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Um quite a bit of violence was perpetrated by the "mean old lefties" both before and after the election. Google San Jose Trump Rally and Berkeley Milo Riot. I don't think it's a good idea to downplay this bullshit. I'm not sure how one can even call themselves a liberal and advocate blocking Free Speech in any form. It's a foundational tenet of Liberalism.

A great deal of that was provoked by trumpists and the black anarchists (neither of whom are leftists or progressives or Dems or what have you) and lot of the rest highly exaggerated.

 

[Stannis is the man....nis]

It's sad that now in the RW bubble this Susan Rice story means Trump is somehow right but on the bright side Comey an the FBI are leading the investigation an they aren't basing that off of talk radio bs

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 hours ago, Zorral said:

A great deal of that was provoked by trumpists and the black anarchists (neither of whom are leftists or progressives or Dems or what have you) and lot of the rest highly exaggerated.

 That's just the sort of downplaying I'm talking about. You can't pass the baton to the other side on this one. The Berkeley Riot in particular was extremely violent. It was taken to excess by a fringe group, sure, but that group was cheered on by a mostly Lefty student crowd. Again, I don't think it's helpful to do anything other than condemn these sorts of acts. They aren't acceptable, and you are not a true advocate of liberal thought if you think it's acceptable.

[Swordfish]

21 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 That's just the sort of downplaying I'm talking about. You can't pass the baton to the other side on this one. The Berkeley Riot in particular was extremely violent. It was taken to excess by a fringe group, sure, but that group was cheered on by a mostly Lefty student crowd. Again, I don't think it's helpful to do anything other than condemning these sorts of acts. They aren't acceptable, and you are not a true advocate of liberal thought if you think it's acceptable.

Yep.Hand waving, 'they were asking for it', and 'no true leftist' are not particularly compelling arguments in this case.

[Fragile Bird]

Wow, what a revolting, puke inducing, press conference by Republican senators after the first step of confirming Gorsuch as SC justice. To hear Graham say the Democrats have not accepted the fact Trump is president and the president has the right to appoint a SC justice, after the Republicans rejected Obama's right to appoint a SC justice.

"It's unfortunate we had such a partisan process". <<<puke>>>

"The Democrats are going to conduct the first partisan filibuster ever".  Yes, because the Republicans just refused to hold hearings for Garland, basically a 7 month filibuster.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

8 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Wow, what a revolting, puke inducing, press conference by Republican senators after the first step of confirming Gorsuch as SC justice. To hear Graham say the Democrats have not accepted the fact Trump is president and the president has the right to appoint a SC justice, after the Republicans rejected Obama's right to appoint a SC justice.

"It's unfortunate we had such a partisan process". <<<puke>>>

"The Democrats are going to conduct the first partisan filibuster ever".  Yes, because the Republicans just refused to hold hearings for Garland, basically a 7 month filibuster.

The hypocrisy is thick enough to cut with a plastic spork. Fuck em. Make them nuke the filibuster.

[Fragile Bird]

More puking, this time at Sean Spicer.

He was just asked by a reporter about the fact Trump attacked Obama during the campaign for not publicly going after the human rights records of various Middle East nations, yet the WH has said that discussions about human rights with the president of Egypt will be private discussions. "Because it's been determined these are matters that are better discussed in private". Period.

And the filibuster.

"It has never been the policy to vote down someone who is qualified to be a justice, and this is a very dangerous precedent".

But no mention that it has never been the policy of the Senate to refuse to even have a hearing.

   

[OldGimletEye]

24 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Wow, what a revolting, puke inducing, press conference by Republican senators after the first step of confirming Gorsuch as SC justice. To hear Graham say the Democrats have not accepted the fact Trump is president and the president has the right to appoint a SC justice, after the Republicans rejected Obama's right to appoint a SC justice.

"It's unfortunate we had such a partisan process". <<<puke>>>

"The Democrats are going to conduct the first partisan filibuster ever".  Yes, because the Republicans just refused to hold hearings for Garland, basically a 7 month filibuster.

I'm not sure, at this point, if fillibustering Gorsuch is the best tactical move.
But, the conservative and Republican belly aching over this makes me want to blow a gasket.

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

I'm not sure, at this point, if fillibustering Gorsuch is the best tactical move.
But, the conservative and Republican belly aching over this makes me want to blow a gasket.

Honestly, there's no real good choice here. Do you reward the Republicans for absurd obstruction to the point of not holding a hearing? Do you force them to scrap the system? Do you compromise now in some horrible hopes that you'll get better, later?

Gorsuch is totally qualified and is a good legal mind. Normally he should be confirmed. These aren't normal times.

I think I'm at peace with the filibuster going away, and working towards reforming the way that appointments are made and reforming the lack of term limits on supreme court members. 

[OldGimletEye]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Honestly, there's no real good choice here. Do you reward the Republicans for absurd obstruction to the point of not holding a hearing? Do you force them to scrap the system? Do you compromise now in some horrible hopes that you'll get better, later?

Gorsuch is totally qualified and is a good legal mind. Normally he should be confirmed. These aren't normal times.

I think I'm at peace with the filibuster going away, and working towards reforming the way that appointments are made and reforming the lack of term limits on supreme court members. 

I really don't disagree with what you're saying here. As I said, "I'm not sure". I have been going back and forth on this issue for awhile.
I do agree though, that some payback is in order here.

[Kalbear]

I don't want or need payback; I simply think that the wrong choice is to reward the Republican obstructionism with a good result. It sets a horrible precedent for cooperation for everyone.

It's also interesting to me, thinking on it, that it's possible the main reason that Trump is president is because of Scalia's death. That Republicans might have been okay with Clinton as POTUS with an abstract SCOTUS seat, but not a concrete one sitting in the balance. That tale is a bit too horrifying for me to think on right now, but I suspect it's as right as any of the other countless reasons why Trump ended up becoming the last POTUS. 

[OldGimletEye]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't want or need payback; I simply think that the wrong choice is to reward the Republican obstructionism with a good result. It sets a horrible precedent for cooperation for everyone.

It seems that you do though. As a deterrent for their future conduct.

Call it what you described. Call it payback. Call it an attitude adjustment or whatever. I agree that something needs to be done as a deterrent, and the Republican Party understands why it was done. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It seems that you do though. As a deterrent for their future conduct.

Call it what you described. Call it payback. Call it an attitude adjustment or whatever. I agree that something needs to be done as a deterrent, and the Republican Party understands why it was done. 

My point isn't that it's payback, and words have meaning. It certainly is a deterrent or meant to be one, but it isn't in order to inflict pain. It is a simple logical step: if you do this, we will not support it. 

Ultimately the energy has to go to figuring out a political system that is going to have massive partisanship and still actually functions in some meaningful way. Right now the only position that both parties largely agree on is fighting wars, which is kind of a shitty thing to be bipartisan about. I think we've got to bring back the pork barrel politics of old. 

[Kalbear]

I also liked this article which puts it succinctly:

Quote

All of which is to say: Yes, hyperpartisanship is a threat to the proper functioning of our government. But the filibuster is demonstrably not an effective palliative for that problem. What troubles our system isn’t that it has too few checks on majority rule, but that an ideologically and procedurally radical right-wing party has near total control of the federal government, even as a majority of voters routinely reject it in national elections.

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

My point isn't that it's payback, and words have meaning. It certainly is a deterrent or meant to be one, but it isn't in order to inflict pain. It is a simple logical step: if you do this, we will not support it. 

It ain't much of a deterrent if it don't inflict some pain. 

I'm not one for handing out pain for pain's sake. If I thought a reconciliation of some sort were possible I'd consider it. But, it seems to me that if the Democratic Party tries to play nice guy here, the Republicans will just take them for doormats. 

[aceluby]

Make the GOP nuke the filibuster.  They are going to do it anyway and are already blaming democrats for it.

[Fez]

2 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Make the GOP nuke the filibuster.  They are going to do it anyway and are already blaming democrats for it.

There were informal whip counts of this a couple weeks ago, as of then they didn't have anywhere close to the votes to do that.

Although, that was for legislative filibusters, not SCOTUS. But I wouldn't assume they absolutely have the votes here either.

[Swordfish]

5 minutes ago, Fez said:

There were informal whip counts of this a couple weeks ago, as of then they didn't have anywhere close to the votes to do that.

Although, that was for legislative filibusters, not SCOTUS. But I wouldn't assume they absolutely have the votes here either.

plus, what do you do if they don't nuke the filibuster?  Keep filibustering?  Not sure that works in your favor.

This is not the hill the democrats want to die on.

 

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Although, that was for legislative filibusters, not SCOTUS. But I wouldn't assume they absolutely have the votes here either.

There is simply no way that Gorsuch isn't the next SC justice because of the Democrats filibuster.  Maybe (but not likely) there are enough GOP senators that want to keep the filibuster that they would make some sort of deal with the democrats to give up the filibuster voluntarily.  I'm not really sure what they could offer, maybe some input in the budget process or something? 

[aceluby]

6 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

It ain't much of a deterrent if it don't inflict some pain. 

I'm not one for handing out pain for pain's sake. If I thought a reconciliation of some sort were possible I'd consider it. But, it seems to me that if the Democratic Party tries to play nice guy here, the Republicans will just take them for doormats. 

Democrats have been treated like doormats for ages.  The GOP were rewarded for prosecuting a blow job.  They were rewarded for the biggest attack on our soil since WW2.  When Dems took over congress they flat out said they would not go after Bush so they could work with the administration.  They were rewarded w/ the only vetoes of the administration and as much filibustering as possible during Obama's first term.   Then Dems were run over for 6 years after the 2010 shellacking, to which the GOP was awarded majorities across the country.

They already take the dems as doormats, so it's about time they grow a backbone.