US Politics: the Lying Liars Who Lie edtion

[Fragile Bird]

Carry on!

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Will Os post for old time's sake given the name of the thread????

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

4 minutes ago, oberonus said:

Its honestly baffling how incompetent democrats are. They fight tooth and nail to get 60 votes to pass healthcare. And republicans are able to dismantle it with 50 (plus pence). Whenever democrats do get in full power again (if ever) they would be stupid (which they are) to not just nuke legislative filibuster for the 2 years they knoe tjey will have absolute majority, do whatever it is they want and if they lose in the midterms just change it back to 60.

That's a truly awful idea. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's a truly awful idea. 

Better still (assuming they have the White House as well) just ram through single-payer with 50 votes and no hearing. That would be the true reversal to what the Republicans are currently trying to do.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Better still (assuming they have the White House as well) just ram through single-payer with 50 votes and no hearing. That would be the true reversal to what the Republicans are currently trying to do.

And when parties change power it will just be torn down. You can't nuke the filibuster while you're in power and expect it to be put back in place once you lose power. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

And when parties change power it will just be torn down. You can't nuke the filibuster while you're in power and expect it to be put back in place once you lose power. 

Sure, but you have to use it when you're in power if your opponent did the same, right? It's like a MAD policy, only with legislation instead of nukes.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, but you have to use it when you're in power if your opponent did the same, right? It's like a MAD policy, only with legislation instead of nukes.

And all that achieves is making American politics more chaotic, partisan and ultimately unproductive. Besides, the filibuster is actually a good thing, so long as it isn't abused like it has been of late. 

[Kalbear]

certainly nothing to mobilize or organize democrats over, that sounds like work, and god knows the democrat establishment hates hard work almost as much as they dislike winning. their D.C. future consulting jobs are in no danger, so it's not as though there are any real world consequences to republicans doing what they said they would do.

boy if all the D.C. Establishment were banned from any left affiliated consulting position for life as a consequence of Obamacare being  repealed you might see them do something for the first time ever if their future millions were suddenly threatened by their current incompetence and more significantly their general malaise and inaction.

Also, on this: what would you actually have democrats do?

They have made the Osoff election the most heavily funded congressional race EVER. They have sent out wave after wave of messages to elect local and state representatives - which have actually paid off by getting races to Democrats. But otherwise they're kind of stuck. They can't stop the Senate from doing in the AHCA, even if they want to. They can't stop the House from doing it in either. The constituents have told the senators that this is bullshit, and the senators have chosen not to listen. 

What is there to do that they're not doing?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

And all that achieves is making American politics more chaotic, partisan and ultimately unproductive. Besides, the filibuster is actually a good thing, so long as it isn't abused like it has been of late. 

I agree, but until both sides come to the table, I think you have to assume this posture. It seems like it's always the left that is suing for peace here, and we don't have anything to show for it.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

And all that achieves is making American politics more chaotic, partisan and ultimately unproductive. Besides, the filibuster is actually a good thing, so long as it isn't abused like it has been of late. 

I just have to say, I'd be for getting rid of the filibuster if meant repealing and replacing the Republican Party. LOL.

[Cas Stark]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I agree, but until both sides come to the table, I think you have to assume this posture. It seems like it's always the left that is suing for peace here, and we don't have anything to show for it.

It was probably a bad idea for the Democrats to have weakened the rules to begin with.....back when they thought they would be the majority party forever.  The GOP had threatened to do it during the Bush era, but they never followed through.  LOL, if this is your idea of 'suing for peace;' I'd hate to see all out war.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Cas Stark said:

It was probably a bad idea for the Democrats to have weakened the rules to begin with.....back when they thought they would be the majority party forever.

Are you talking about Harry Reid removing the filibuster for judicial appointments and political appointments?

Just now, Cas Stark said:

The GOP had threatened to do it during the Bush era, but they never followed through.

They didn't have to, as the Democrats caved.

Just now, Cas Stark said:

 LOL, if this is your idea of 'suing for peace;' I'd hate to see all out war.

Can you point out one time during the Trump administration when anyone from the Republicans have even discussed bringing over any Democrat congressional members to vote on something with them? 

Or held open hearings on a single bill of note?

Or even made one remote effort to get any kind of bipartisan support on anything?

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

It was probably a bad idea for the Democrats to have weakened the rules to begin with.....back when they thought they would be the majority party forever.  The GOP had threatened to do it during the Bush era, but they never followed through.  LOL, if this is your idea of 'suing for peace;' I'd hate to see all out war.

Your party has engaged in all out war for the better part of 8 years. If you haven't seen all out war, you haven't bothered to open your eyes. If the Merrick Garland nomination refusal wasn't all out war, what is in your mind?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I agree, but until both sides come to the table, I think you have to assume this posture. It seems like it's always the left that is suing for peace here, and we don't have anything to show for it.

Cas has the right of it. It was a bad idea to weaken the judicial filibuster, though it should be noted that what the Republicans were doing was worse. And nuking the filibuster would only poison the well, not improve it. 

Honestly, the hard truth is that American politics are going to be screwed up for a very long time. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

In honor of the thread title, possibly the greatest takedown of Bill O'Reilly in the history of ever. Al Franken posterizes O'Really at a panel regarding their respective book releases at the time. Franken had just released Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them...

 

 

 

/One from the vaults

[Mexal]

 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Tywin et al. said:

Cas has the right of it. It was a bad idea to weaken the judicial filibuster, though it should be noted that what the Republicans were doing was worse. And nuking the filibuster would only poison the well, not improve it. 

Honestly, the hard truth is that American politics are going to be screwed up for a very long time. 

I don't think I'd get rid of the filibuster.

But, after watching Republican Party nuttery for years, watching them elect Trump, destroying Dodd-Frank, and killing off the ACA, and other stuff, I sure hope in the future that the stance of the Democratic Party would be a lot less compromising and conciliatory towards the Republican Party.

If that means the Democrats lose a few short term elections, oh well. I see this as a much longer time fight. If getting a bloody nose, once in a while, is what it takes, so be it. At some point you just got to say, you've had enough.

I think a policy of appeasement towards Republicans is generally a loser.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Mexal said:

 

Jesus tapdancing Christ on a cracker, this idiot can't even make change for a Qatar... 

[TheKitttenGuard]

The critical part of the Senate bill is in trouble pf meeting reconciliation (Byrd) Rules.

Quote

The Senate parliamentarian has warned Republicans that a provision in their healthcare reform bill related to abortion is unlikely to be allowed, raising a serious threat to the legislation. 

The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, has flagged language that would bar people from using new refundable tax credits for private insurance plans that cover abortion, according to Senate sources.  

If Republicans are forced to strip the so-called Hyde Amendment language from the legislation, which essentially bars federal funds from being used to pay for abortions except to save the life of a mother or in cases of rape and incest, it may doom the bill.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/337060-parliamentarian-threatens-deadly-blow-to-gop-healthcare-bill

[Kalbear]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

I don't think I'd get rid of the filibuster.

But, after watching Republican Party nuttery for years, watching them elect Trump, destroying Dodd-Frank, and killing off the ACA, and other stuff, I sure hope in the future that the stance of the Democratic Party would be a lot less compromising and conciliatory towards the Republican Party.

If that means the Democrats lose a few short term elections, oh well. I see this as a much longer time fight. If getting a bloody nose, once in a while, is what it takes, so be it. At some point you just got to say, you've had enough.

I think a policy of appeasement towards Republicans is generally a loser.

I think it ultimately doesn't matter.

The Republicans have shown zero sign of desiring any kind of compromise or working  together. Their stated plans are to do whatever they want without interference or discussion with Democrats. They did this with Obama, and they're doing it with Trump. This will never, ever change. The sidenote on this is that the Republicans appear to largely want to dissolve any part of legislative government that they possibly can. It is easier in our system to get rid of things than it is to add things, by design. 

The Democrats haven't been particularly conciliatory towards Republicans in a while, but the issue is that it does not matter. There really isn't anything that they can do. The one hope that Democrats have is that they can get some of the non-Republicans who typically don't vote to vote for them, but that is both unlikely and will not solve the underlying failure modes that the US government has.