US Politics: the Lying Liars Who Lie edtion

[lokisnow]

It's not as though democrats will ever repeal or replace any trump accomplishment, did they ever undo any of the bush atrocities perpetrated on our government? Nope. Same will be true of any post trump government. Eveything trump does will be eternal and enshrined into permanence because democrats have no spine to undo anything. They will just make his accomplishments permanent and build on them and tell the base "nothing to see here move along."

anything of obamas that trump gets rid of will not be used as evidence that a new government can undo a prior governments achievements, rather democrats will use this as evidence that they should never try to do those things again.

and what will Be the rationale for democrats not undoing trumps atrocities? "Well the economy depends on stability, so we can't just undo all trumps evil, we have to live with it forever, even if it's morally wrong, because think of the business community, one cannot disrupt them or expect them to account for political cycles !"

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, lokisnow said:

It's not as though democrats will ever repeal or replace any trump accomplishment, did they ever undo any of the bush atrocities perpetrated on our government? Nope.

Yes, they did. They stopped the 'enhanced interrogation', they weakened other provisions of the Patriot Act or let them expire, they added the Fair Pay act first thing, and they went after environmental regulations almost immediately. They also moved to get out of Iraq despite that being a likely bad idea.

Did they undo EVERYTHING? No, because they couldn't. 

Just now, lokisnow said:

Same will be true of any post trump government. Eveything trump does will be eternal and enshrined into permanence because democrats have no spine to undo anything. They will just make his accomplishments permanent and build on them and tell the base "nothing to see here move along."

anything of obamas that trump gets rid of will not be used as evidence that a new government can undo a prior governments achievements, rather democrats will use this as evidence that they should never try to do those things again.

and what will Be the rationale for democrats not undoing trumps atrocities? "Well the economy depends on stability, so we can't just undo all trumps evil, we have to live with it forever, even if it's morally wrong, because think of the business community, one cannot disrupt them or expect them to account for political cycles !"

Basing your whole argument on a false premise doesn't do you any favors.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

snip

I really don't disagree with this. But, I was talking more in terms of the Democrats strategy going forward in the future. It really needs to get a very hard nosed mentality against the Republican Party.

The Republican Party is one sick puppy. And I don't think it has it in itself to reform. It only will reform by outside pressure.

[Kalbear]

Just now, OldGimletEye said:

I really don't disagree with this. But, I was talking more in terms of the Democrats strategy going forward in the future. It really needs to get a very hard nosed mentality against the Republican Party.

The Republican Party is one sick puppy. And I don't think it has it in itself to reform. It only will reform by outside pressure.

Neither party is likely to 'reform'. The only metric is getting more votes, and the most likely outcome is increased non-center politics and ideological uncompromising positions. Sure, you might have moderates in vulnerable places, but as we've seen moderates cave to ideology, only occasionally voting in a sad show against their party when it is meaningless to do so.

The Republican party will only 'reform' when there is an actual strong party apparatus (currently there is not) and there exists any actual reason to do so (right now there is not). As long as voters will continue to vote for (as Pelosi put it) whatever mammal has an R over voting for anyone else, Republicans will continue to put up allegedly mammalian candidates. 

[Altherion]

31 minutes ago, 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. 

Why do you think the filibuster is a good thing? It was not in the original design of Congress -- the Constitution clearly specifies which issues require a supermajority. In fact, it was never designed by anyone at all: it arose out of a sequence of rule changes which people didn't quite think through and was seized by people who favor the preservation of the status quo. It was fine while Senators used it sparingly, but there's no going back to that time now that they've figured out they can use it for nearly everything (i.e. once it starts being abused, it will always be abused). The sooner we get rid of it, the better.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Altherion said:

Why do you think the filibuster is a good thing? It was not in the original design of Congress -- the Constitution clearly specifies which issues require a supermajority. In fact, it was never designed by anyone at all: it arose out of a sequence of rule changes which people didn't quite think through and was seized by people who favor the preservation of the status quo. It was fine while Senators used it sparingly, but there's no going back to that time now that they've figured out they can use it for nearly everything (i.e. once it starts being abused, it will always be abused). The sooner we get rid of it, the better.

It's a good thing when it is one of the only things remaining that encourages (or requires) some semblance of compromise and bipartisan agreement. 

I'm happy to get rid of it entirely if we can also ensure that we have other things to encourage compromise.

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Neither party is likely to 'reform'. The only metric is getting more votes, and the most likely outcome is increased non-center politics and ideological uncompromising positions. Sure, you might have moderates in vulnerable places, but as we've seen moderates cave to ideology, only occasionally voting in a sad show against their party when it is meaningless to do so.

The Republican party will only 'reform' when there is an actual strong party apparatus (currently there is not) and there exists any actual reason to do so (right now there is not). As long as voters will continue to vote for (as Pelosi put it) whatever mammal has an R over voting for anyone else, Republicans will continue to put up allegedly mammalian candidates. 

Sure, the Republican Party won't reform. I think that is what I said. I'm under no illusion that it will. It will only change when forced to do so. I'm certainly not preachin' puppies, unicorns, and rainbows here.

I think my model here quite frankly is the conservative movement itself, which really started to gain traction in the early 1970s. I can't really stand conservatives, but I have to have a little respect for their tenaciousness, to some extent. It seems to me they were willing to lose elections in the short term to stick to their guns. And I think they were successful in shifting the country to the right.

[Mexal]

 

[Altherion]

32 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's a good thing when it is one of the only things remaining that encourages (or requires) some semblance of compromise and bipartisan agreement. 

I'm happy to get rid of it entirely if we can also ensure that we have other things to encourage compromise.

It would encourage bipartisan agreement if the two parties were willing to routinely negotiate with each other. As it stands, substantial fractions of the population consider each other evil (or close to that) and compromise on most significant issues is impossible so the filibuster simply preserves the status quo.

[Cas Stark]

40 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Why do you think the filibuster is a good thing? It was not in the original design of Congress -- the Constitution clearly specifies which issues require a supermajority. In fact, it was never designed by anyone at all: it arose out of a sequence of rule changes which people didn't quite think through and was seized by people who favor the preservation of the status quo. It was fine while Senators used it sparingly, but there's no going back to that time now that they've figured out they can use it for nearly everything (i.e. once it starts being abused, it will always be abused). The sooner we get rid of it, the better.

It started being used in the 1850s, and things went fairly well until the many, many changes to the rules that occurred starting in the 70s to curtail the power of the committee chairs and to "improve" things....but things as we see...did not improve but got worse and worse.

Compromise is important, running the country on straight majority rule for everything will be disastrous.

[Martell Spy]

Sen. McCaskill Rips Into Sen. Hatch Over GOP Scheme to Revamp Trumpcare in Secret

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/09/sen_mccaskill_rips_into_sen_hatch_over_gop_scheme_to_revamp_trumpcare_in.html

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It would encourage bipartisan agreement if the two parties were willing to routinely negotiate with each other. As it stands, substantial fractions of the population consider each other evil (or close to that) and compromise on most significant issues is impossible so the filibuster simply preserves the status quo.

The reason that they are unwilling to negotiate is that there is currently no reason for them to do so. With the removal of things like earmarks, getting things done against the common political view of the party has no benefit. This changed in the 90s - and with the removal of earmarks went a lot of the actual carrot for giving negotiations.

Give those back, give people in congress actual wins for voting on things, and you'll see a lot more compromise. 

If you instead expect that the parties themselves are going to become more centrist without giving a reason why - good luck with that.

[Zorral]

So . . . romperoitler says he will testify under oath in the Russian investigation.  Like he's going to show us his tax returns?

Meanwhile the current sec of state is in the middle east trying to get other ME nations to pull back from attacking Qatar, while romperitler in D.C. spouts off to the world press in a press conference of how it's Qatar's fault -- and still missing that we've got air bases there.

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Zorral said:

So . . . romperoitler says he will testify under oath in the Russian investigation.  Like he's going to show us his tax returns?

Meanwhile the current sec of state is in the middle east trying to get other ME nations to pull back from attacking Qatar, while romperitler in D.C. spouts off to the world press in a press conference of how it's Qatar's fault -- and still missing that we've got air bases there.

 

No, he said he's WILLING to do it. He also said he was willing to release his tax returns. 

[Cas Stark]

Hahhaha, he is so fucking crazy.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Hahhaha, he is so fucking crazy.

You should have seen his press conference today. I took two public speaking courses in college and I don't recall a single person who was worse than he was today. 

[OldGimletEye]

Yes, I think a higher inflation target would probably be prudent.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-06-09/the-fed-needs-a-better-inflation-target

Quote

Today, a group of economists published a letter urging the U.S. Federal Reserve to consider a monumental change in policy: raising its target for inflation above the current 2 percent.

Also,

Memo

From: The Reality Based Community

To: Conservative Idiots

 

Re: Why Obama Couldn’t Simply Do It Like Ronnie Did It.

 

See last picture at bottom. That is all. Carry on.

http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2017/05/the-new-york-fed-dsge-model-forecast-may-2017.html

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Martell Spy said:

Sen. McCaskill Rips Into Sen. Hatch Over GOP Scheme to Revamp Trumpcare in Secret

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/06/09/sen_mccaskill_rips_into_sen_hatch_over_gop_scheme_to_revamp_trumpcare_in.html

They are saying the key to stopping this monstrosity is trying to stall it past the July 18th recess. It seems that McConnell is acutely aware of that deadline. I'm getting the impression that killing Obamacare is a personal thing for him, and that's troubling, as he is no Paul Ryan. I fear that he's going to pull this off.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

@Altherion,

Multiple people have given you good reasons why the filibuster can be a net positive, but I'll add in one more: the Supreme Court. The 60 vote threshold encouraged Presidents to pick more moderate judges, relatively speaking. Of course there are liberal and conservative justices, but they're almost always mainstream. Now, Presidents can pick the most liberal or conservative justices imaginable, and that will lead to a court that is even more polarized and less representative of the direction American is going in.

Personally, I wish there was always 3 liberals, 3 moderates and 3 conservatives. That way we'd get rulings that are likely the most precise, morally and constitutionally.  

[OldGimletEye]

And Trumpy, you're doing a heckuva job!!!

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2462

Quote

The president's job approval rating dips to a new low, a negative 34 - 57 percent, compared to a negative 37 - 55 percent in a May 24 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University, and a negative 35 - 57 percent April 4, his lowest score so far.