U.S. Politics. Next?

[Werthead]

 

Quote

Some of the revelations aren't so earth-shattering, but just plain weird. Wolff writes about Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski coming to have dinner (including fish, which the latter doesn't eat) at the White House. They got to talking about their then supposedly secret, but not really secret, relationship:

'You guys should just get married,' prodded Trump.
'I can marry you! I'm an Internet Unitarian minister,' Kushner, otherwise an orthodox Jew, said suddenly.
'What?' said the president. 'What are you talking about? Why would they want you to marry them when I could marry them? When they could be married by the president! At Mar-a-Lago!'

 

 

Quote

 

For Jared and Ivanka, as really for everybody else in the new administration, quite including the president, this was a random and crazy turn of history such that how could you not seize it? It was a joint decision by the couple, and, in some sense, a joint job. Jared and Ivanka made an earnest deal between themselves: if sometime in the future the time came, she'd be the one to run for president (or the first one of them to take the shot). The first woman president, Ivanka entertained, would not be Hillary Clinton, it would be Ivanka Trump.

Bannon, who had coined the Jarvanka conflation now in ever greater use, was horrified when the couple's deal was reported to him. 'They didn't say that? Stop. Oh come on. They didn't actually say that? Please don't tell me that. Oh my god.'

 

 

 

[butterbumps!]

I was curious what people think the Dems should do in the event they win both chambers of Congress in 2018.  I know that for at least the Senate this is a longshot hypothetical, but I'm curious what people's thoughts are regarding how Dems should proceed if it happens.

Trump signs literally anything you put in front of him, and doesn't have any policy agenda of his own.  I kind of wonder if the Dems could get a ton of crazy legislation passed like this.  You get Chuck and Nancy to tell him that everyone's going to love him if he signs this single-payer health care bill, and, like that, it becomes law.  And so on for other progressive legislation, b/c this cretin seriously doesn't know any better, and has an infinite need for approval, especially from the sort of people who lean liberal.

Outside of impeachment (not my preferred choice), what would a Dem controlled-Congress look like with Trump at the top?

[Isalie]

I have an incredibly hard time seeing any cooperation with Trump actually happening, even if Dems were in a strong position, it isn't like Fox wouldn't tell him that SP was a bad idea.

[SkynJay]

There is part of me that wonders if Trump would suddenly reverse his politics if Dems took both houses.  Think of all the wins he could brag about if he started passing things put through by political party that actually knows how to govern.

But since I am guessing he will just double down on stupid I would like the Dems not to impeach (barring him truly threatening nuclear war) but rather start getting his vetoes on the record.  Pass legislation that states the president and all future presidents but give up their businesses, release tax returns, be audited to make sure they are not personally profiting from the position, etc.  Target everything Trump swears he is not doing but in no way would sign off on.  Get him on the record for all of it.

Because I would much rather have him voted out of office than the drama of yanking him out as long as the worst of his abuses can be stopped by Dems in Congress.

[butterbumps!]

7 minutes ago, Mikael said:

I have an incredibly hard time seeing any cooperation with Trump actually happening, even if Dems were in a strong position, it isn't like Fox wouldn't tell him that SP was a bad idea.

I think that's a good point, but I wonder if it's as simple as that.  He craves constant adulation, but he really craves it from people like Obama, the Times, celebrities, other billionaires, many of whom lean left.   He really, really wants to be loved, especially by respectable people and institutions.   If the Times started heaping praise on his newfound liberal agenda, he might ditch Fox.

He also wants to "win."   Idk, it puts him in an interesting spot, where he gets to sign his little papers and claim a bunch of "wins."  Would he be smart enough to see it that way?

The other question I had is whether Dems should do this if given a pliable Trump.  It might make his brand a lot less toxic if he's getting credit for these wins, but it strikes me as the right thing to do if given the chance.

8 minutes ago, SkynJay said:

There is part of me that wonders if Trump would suddenly reverse his politics if Dems took both houses.  Think of all the wins he could brag about if he started passing things put through by political party that actually knows how to govern.

But since I am guessing he will just double down on stupid I would like the Dems not to impeach (barring him truly threatening nuclear war) but rather start getting his vetoes on the record.  Pass legislation that states the president and all future presidents but give up their businesses, release tax returns, be audited to make sure they are not personally profiting from the position, etc.  Target everything Trump swears he is not doing but in no way would sign off on.  Get him on the record for all of it.

Because I would much rather have him voted out of office than the drama of yanking him out as long as the worst of his abuses can be stopped by Dems in Congress.

I like that too-- definitely codify norms into laws that would prevent someone like him from getting elected and abusing the office again.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I was curious what people think the Dems should do in the event they win both chambers of Congress in 2018.  I know that for at least the Senate this is a longshot hypothetical, but I'm curious what people's thoughts are regarding how Dems should proceed if it happens.

Trump signs literally anything you put in front of him, and doesn't have any policy agenda of his own.  I kind of wonder if the Dems could get a ton of crazy legislation passed like this.  You get Chuck and Nancy to tell him that everyone's going to love him if he signs this single-payer health care bill, and, like that, it becomes law.  And so on for other progressive legislation, b/c this cretin seriously doesn't know any better, and has an infinite need for approval, especially from the sort of people who lean liberal.

Outside of impeachment (not my preferred choice), what would a Dem controlled-Congress look like with Trump at the top?

My default assumption would be to simply obstruct Trump and his administration every way it can, which given the way the Trump administration is proceeding is the right way to go.

If the Democrats win, and can influence Trump in some fashion, to sign progressive legislation, the Democratic Party must extract from Trump heavy concessions, probably first and foremost getting Trump to unequivocally denounce alt right bullshit and Trump’s other socially regressive policies.

The quandary that liberals are going to face here is passing legislation that might be popular, but where Trump will take credit, perhaps bolstering his re election chances. To the extent the Democratic Party passes legislation that does that, it must get a lot out of the bargain. They must be extremely tough negotiators.

[Maithanet]

26 minutes ago, SkynJay said:

There is part of me that wonders if Trump would suddenly reverse his politics if Dems took both houses.  Think of all the wins he could brag about if he started passing things put through by political party that actually knows how to govern.

But since I am guessing he will just double down on stupid I would like the Dems not to impeach (barring him truly threatening nuclear war) but rather start getting his vetoes on the record.  Pass legislation that states the president and all future presidents but give up their businesses, release tax returns, be audited to make sure they are not personally profiting from the position, etc.  Target everything Trump swears he is not doing but in no way would sign off on.  Get him on the record for all of it.

Because I would much rather have him voted out of office than the drama of yanking him out as long as the worst of his abuses can be stopped by Dems in Congress.

Very, very unlikely a Republican minority in the Senate would allow anything to get to the President's desk.  They filibustered everything for years to prevent Obama from accomplishing things, you think they won't go to bat to protect their boy Trump?

Not much chance you could get legislation on tax returns or emoluments into a reconciliation bill. 

[butterbumps!]

12 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Very, very unlikely a Republican minority in the Senate would allow anything to get to the President's desk.  They filibustered everything for years to prevent Obama from accomplishing things, you think they won't go to bat to protect their boy Trump?

Not much chance you could get legislation on tax returns or emoluments into a reconciliation bill. 

As a minority, would they be able to filibuster away liberal legislation that Trump might be otherwise coaxed into signing?   If they can't, and certain parts of the liberal agenda made it through, would that sufficiently remove Repug incentive to block that sort of legislation?

ETA: @OldGimletEye  idk if obstruction can work for the Dems.   Unlike the Tea Party, whose platform is basically to stop government, the Dem's are all about making government work.  So idk if that's a great idea, as much as my innate reaction is to want to thwart everything that fucker does.

[Maithanet]

1 minute ago, butterbumps! said:

As a minority, would they be able to filibuster away liberal legislation that Trump might be otherwise coaxed into signing?   If they can't, and certain parts of the liberal agenda made it through, would that sufficiently remove Repug incentive to block that sort of legislation?

Why do you think they wouldn't be able to filibuster away any Democratic legislation?  In 2010 (after losing Ted Kennedy), that's exactly what the Republicans did, and that was with only 41 Republican senators.  Maybe if the Senate Minority Leader thinks certain legislation will help Trump/Republicans win elections they would let it go forward.   But there's no way that tax returns or emoluments would qualify. 

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

ETA: @OldGimletEye  idk if obstruction can work for the Dems.   Unlike the Tea Party, whose platform is basically to stop government, the Dem's are all about making government work.  So idk if that's a great idea, as much as my innate reaction is to want to thwart everything that fucker does.

Well, I'm pretty much a die hard liberal, and believe that government can do positive things, and there is just so much Republican horseshit to be undone, it's hard to know where to even begin.

But, if the Dems don't play tough, large parts of their constituencies may see it as being sold down the river and I couldn't blame them for seeing that way. And I think at this point, future Democratic victories are going to depend a lot on getting the Democrat's natural base to turn out and vote.

[Fragile Bird]

I sure hope someone files a complaint with whatever Bar Association WH counsel Don McGahn belongs to about his ethics.

And that comment about 'Comey was a rat, did you see what Dean did to Nixon' sure sounds like Trump. And speaking of complaints to bar associations, in Rosenstein took part in digging and releasing dirt on Comey, or ordering others to do it, he needs to be fired.

[butterbumps!]

30 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Why do you think they wouldn't be able to filibuster away any Democratic legislation?  In 2010 (after losing Ted Kennedy), that's exactly what the Republicans did, and that was with only 41 Republican senators.  Maybe if the Senate Minority Leader thinks certain legislation will help Trump/Republicans win elections they would let it go forward.   But there's no way that tax returns or emoluments would qualify. 

Oh I have no idea what can be filibustered away-- I was genuinely asking.   I had assumed that if a majority in the House and Senate, as well as the President, are on board for certain legislation, it could pass despite a minority against it- that they wouldn't/ couldn't perpetually filibuster every single piece of Dem-initiated legislation.   But that's not really what your contention is, I think.   You're not so much saying that no progressive legislation will make it through, but rather you're rejecting the idea that the aforementioned checks on the presidency would (because the GOP would see no utility in doing so), and that they'd pull out the filibuster to prevent it.   

Is there nothing that would cause a gop Senate minority to find checks on tax returns and emoluments worthwhile (prior to the 2020 election, I mean)?  

as an aside, can you refresh my memory on why the Dems haven't filibustered, such as on the tax bill?   Why is GOP filibustering a bigger threat to passing legislation than Dem-initiated?

 

[Werthead]

Can this book get any better?

Quote

 

Tony Blair has arrived. He's described as one of Jared Kushner's "many new patrons"

 

That's a "No", then.

[Maithanet]

5 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Oh I have no idea what can be filibustered away-- I was genuinely asking.   I had assumed that if a majority in the House and Senate, as well as the President, are on board for certain legislation, it could pass despite a minority against it- that they wouldn't/ couldn't perpetually filibuster every single piece of Dem-initiated legislation.   

Under Obama this is exactly what the Republican did in 2010 after they lost Ted Kennedy's seat, until after the 2010 midterm when they took the House.  Virtually nothing was passed in 2010 because the Republicans decided to filibuster everything in an effort to hurt Obama.  Once they won the House in 2010, they no longer needed to filibuster everything, because Boehner wouldn't allow anything to pass the House anyway.  With the filibuster, a 41 member minority can literally prevent any legislation from going forward, if they are determined enough.

Quote

as an aside, can you refresh my memory on why the Dems haven't filibustered, such as on the tax bill?   Why is GOP filibustering a bigger threat to passing legislation than Dem-initiated?

The exception to my above statement is reconciliation rules.  I'm not a reconciliation expert, but the short answer is that once a year, the majority can deem a single bill to be part of reconciliation.  This bill MUST by rule involve the budget in some way, and these bills cannot be filibustered, and thus can pass with only 51 votes.  The health care bill was the 2017 fiscal year reconciliation bill (health care has huge budgetary implications, which made it eligible for reconciliation).  It failed, which was a huge wasted opportunity.  The 2018 fiscal year reconciliation bill was the tax cut, which passed with 52 Republican votes. 

Because reconciliation bills must be budget related, maybe you could squeeze something about emoluments into one, maybe not.  I doubt you could do it with tax return information, which is a public information issue. 
 

Quote

Is there nothing that would cause a gop Senate minority to find checks on tax returns and emoluments worthwhile (prior to the 2020 election, I mean)?  

 

I doubt it.  Hard to see a political benefit to Senate Republicans to make problems for Trump.  Trump's popularity makes crossing him risky for the primary, and his unpopularity drags them down in the general.  There's no incentive for them to let tax returns or anything go forward. 

[Dr. Pepper]

Listening to the book on audio. There are no surprising revelations so far. But it is genuinely entertaining and terrifying. Still can’t believe this clown is in charge of anything.

[polishgenius]

36 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Can this book get any better?

I'll be honest, I'm disappointed by the lack of pig-fucking it seems to contain so far.

[Fez]

If Democrats take both chambers (or even just one), I think the main thing they'll do is constantly subpoena administration records and force every official with statutory authority to spend basically all their time in committees and therefore unable to execute their duties (there was talk that this is what Republicans would've done if Clinton had won).

Most importantly, if Democrats take the Senate, there probably won't be any more confirmations of any appointments, even minor ones, unless various disclosures occur (such as Trump's tax returns).

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Fez said:

If Democrats take both chambers (or even just one), I think the main thing they'll do is constantly subpoena administration records and force every official with statutory authority to spend basically all their time in committees and therefore unable to execute their duties (there was talk that this is what Republicans would've done if Clinton had won).

Most importantly, if Democrats take the Senate, there probably won't be any more confirmations of any appointments, even minor ones, unless various disclosures occur (such as Trump's tax returns).

Not to mention run investigations that actually have teeth and work to get the truth.  Trump could fire Mueller and Rosenstein and replace them with yes-men who shut down the probe.  He cannot do the same with a House Investigation. 

In my dream scenario (note: wishful thinking coming) Democrats take the Senate, Kennedy or Thomas's seat comes open in 2019, and the Democrats have to say "so sorry, we'll have to let the voters decide".  And then Trump loses in 2020.  Tons of unlikely things in that scenario, but you have to hold onto something warm on these cold days. 

[butterbumps!]

38 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Under Obama this is exactly what the Republican did in 2010 after they lost Ted Kennedy's seat, until after the 2010 midterm when they took the House.  Virtually nothing was passed in 2010 because the Republicans decided to filibuster everything in an effort to hurt Obama.  Once they won the House in 2010, they no longer needed to filibuster everything, because Boehner wouldn't allow anything to pass the House anyway.  With the filibuster, a 41 member minority can literally prevent any legislation from going forward, if they are determined enough.

The exception to my above statement is reconciliation rules.  I'm not a reconciliation expert, but the short answer is that once a year, the majority can deem a single bill to be part of reconciliation.  This bill MUST by rule involve the budget in some way, and these bills cannot be filibustered, and thus can pass with only 51 votes.  The health care bill was the 2017 fiscal year reconciliation bill (health care has huge budgetary implications, which made it eligible for reconciliation).  It failed, which was a huge wasted opportunity.  The 2018 fiscal year reconciliation bill was the tax cut, which passed with 52 Republican votes. 

Because reconciliation bills must be budget related, maybe you could squeeze something about emoluments into one, maybe not.  I doubt you could do it with tax return information, which is a public information issue. 
 

I doubt it.  Hard to see a political benefit to Senate Republicans to make problems for Trump.  Trump's popularity makes crossing him risky for the primary, and his unpopularity drags them down in the general.  There's no incentive for them to let tax returns or anything go forward. 

thanks for the explanation.  I totally forgot about the 2010 filibuster.  And I suppose the chance that progressive legislation makes it through via a flattered, pliable Trump is probably low in that case.   Though it would raise an interesting conundrum for the Reps I think.  Would they push as hard against economically liberal policy with a (at least nominally) GOP president signing off on it?  Would that look really bad if they were seen to be holding up their party's president from passing the sort of legislation he'd essentially campaigned on?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, butterbumps! said:

As a minority, would they be able to filibuster away liberal legislation that Trump might be otherwise coaxed into signing?   If they can't, and certain parts of the liberal agenda made it through, would that sufficiently remove Repug incentive to block that sort of legislation?

ETA: @OldGimletEye  idk if obstruction can work for the Dems.   Unlike the Tea Party, whose platform is basically to stop government, the Dem's are all about making government work.  So idk if that's a great idea, as much as my innate reaction is to want to thwart everything that fucker does.

 

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Why do you think they wouldn't be able to filibuster away any Democratic legislation?  In 2010 (after losing Ted Kennedy), that's exactly what the Republicans did, and that was with only 41 Republican senators.  Maybe if the Senate Minority Leader thinks certain legislation will help Trump/Republicans win elections they would let it go forward.   But there's no way that tax returns or emoluments would qualify. 

It would a dream scenario for Democrats if they retook the House and Senate, attempted to pass legislation that they wanted and Trump would be willing to sign, and Republicans in the Senate filibustered it. It would ruin Trump and the Republican party at the same time.