Jump to content

US Politics: Ask Fox News


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

Apropos of nothing being discussed, I see Mr. "I won't take a paycheck" has cashed his second one.

"Oh" said his supporters last year. "He's a rich man, can't be influenced, and he'll work for free!"

Mr. Orange Swamp Thing Goes To Washington was always one of my favorite movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Except that the Democrats are siblings of the Republicans, not the parents (since they have no power over them). There are no parents (unfortunately) in U.S. politics. So if one sibling can continuously get away with mistreating the other one without consquences (i.e. the other sibling fighting back), why would the misbehaving one stop? A bully doesn't usually stop bullying until there are negative consequences for his/her behaviour. 

it's your analogy, not mine  Don't blame me for ti's flaws.

Stalling on this nomination is not likely to 'stop the bully'.  Your whole premise here is nonsensical.

We've already discussed the reasons why it's a bad idea.  You can agree or disagree, but this analogy is silly.

 

7 hours ago, Fez said:

I think the goal at this point is just to delay the vote to the point that he isn't seated until after the last oral arguments of the year, which is in April I think. That way he won't be part of this year's cases at all and conservatives won't have a majority for any of them.

Most aren't huge blockbusters, and the biggest IMO, the gerrymandering one, was already argued so he wouldn't be part of that ruling anyway; but every Supreme Court ruling is important and even a one-year reprieve is worth fighting for.

 

my point is, according to democrats on the hill, last year it was a constitutional crisis that we weer down a SCJ, and the republicans were traitors for delaying for political reasons.

So they either believed that then and don't care now.  or they never really believed any of that nonsense i the first place, and this has always been a political battle, and not really a constitutional or ideological battle.  it would be great if we could all stop pretending otherwise.

 

Quote

It's absolutely political blackmail. I don't see how that can even be debated. And yes, others have used it as a campaign tool, but never like the way Trump did. 

I'm not following you.  how was it any different?  he's still just a candidate at that point. 

 

Quote

You have to keep in mind how foreign diplomacy works, and even the most subtle slight can send shock waves. If you browse some foreign papers online you'll see that our NATO allies have taken note of this and they're not happy about it. 

it can, sure.  Doesn't mean it does.  I'll take your word for it on the foreign papers taking notice.  i still don't think that constitutes a major international diplomatic incident.  

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is absolutely nuts. Nunes calls a press conference, says he has a source who brought him information that there might have been legal, incidental collection of surveillance on Trump's associates during the transition. Now, instead of talking with the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee (Schiff), he holds a press conference and rushes off to the WH to brief them. Why is the head of a bi-partisan investigation into Trump/Russia briefing the people who are under investigation prior to even talking to his own committee? If there was ever a reason to have a bi-partisan independent commission to investigate this, we just got exhibit A. Exhibit B is Nunes not even knowing who two of the main people under investigation (Manafort and Page) actually are. Disgusting.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

it's your analogy, not mine  Don't blame me for ti's flaws.

Stalling on this nomination is not likely to 'stop the bully'.  Your whole premise here is nonsensical.

We've already discussed the reasons why it's a bad idea.  You can agree or disagree, but this analogy is silly.

Yes, I'm very aware that it's my analogy, since the Republicans acting like spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum seems eerily prescient these days. You're the one who somehow thought that the Democrats would be the parents in that scenario. I guess we do both agree that the Democrats are definitely the adults in the room compared to the Republicans, but them being parents in the analogy would only work if they actually had some sort of power over the Republicans (like parents do over children), which they don't, so that's where your response to my analogy falls apart. 

My point is that absent a neutral arbiter with actual powers over the parties (i.e. parents in the analogy) the only recourse is negative consequences (i.e. payback) to the offending party for the outrages act they have committed (which in this case would be stalling a SC nomination for a year), so that they are less tempted to do the same in the future. Yes, maybe they will still do it anyway, but bending over backwards for them (by ignoring that the whole thing happened in the first place) and acting like everything is business as usual will almost guarantee that they will do the same thing again next time. I mean, why wouldn't they, if they clearly can not only get away with it, but it actually benefits them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes 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.

If the perpetrator somehow turns out to be white, it will be branded the act of a deranged individual and the incident quickly forgotten. If, as you say, the perpetrator turns out to be Muslim, it will be branded a terrorist attack, linked with Brussels, Paris, and others, and used relentlessly by demagogues like Le Pen and Trump as examples as to why Islam is evil and why brown-skinned folks from the Middle East need to be kept out of the West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

Yes, I'm very aware that it's my analogy, since the Republicans acting like spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum seems eerily prescient these days. You're the one who somehow thought that the Democrats would be the parents in that scenario. I guess we do both agree that the Democrats are definitely the adults in the room compared to the Republicans, but them being parents in the analogy would only work if they actually had some sort of power over the Republicans (like parents do over children), which they don't, so that's where your response to my analogy falls apart. 

My point is that absent a neutral arbiter with actual powers over the parties (i.e. parents in the analogy) the only recourse is negative consequences (i.e. payback) to the offending party for the outrages act they have committed (which in this case would be stalling a SC nomination for a year), so that they are less tempted to do the same in the future. Yes, maybe they will still do it anyway, but bending over backwards for them (by ignoring that the whole thing happened in the first place) and acting like everything is business as usual will almost guarantee that they will do the same thing again next time. I mean, why wouldn't they, if they clearly can not only get away with it, but it actually benefits them?

They already got away with it.

Again, if you have some issue with some of the reasons that have been discussed around why it's a bad idea, then by all means, speak up.  Your analogy here is generic and uninteresting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

They already got away with it.

Again, if you have some issue with some of the reasons that have been discussed around why it's a bad idea, then by all means, speak up.  Your analogy here is generic and uninteresting.

I couldn't care less what you think of my analogy. The point is that we punish children who misbehave in order to teach them that they better not do that again (i.e. that actions have consequences - what a novel idea!) . Since there are no parents here, the only way to teach that lesson is through payback. 

But I know that your modus operandi around here when backed into a corner is to play obtuse. so... :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

I couldn't care less what you think of my analogy. The point is that we punish children who misbehave in order to teach them that they better not do that again (i.e. that actions have consequences - what a novel idea!) . Since there are no parents here, the only way to teach that lesson is through payback. 

 

Of course, the younger, weaker sibling often also gets bullied worse of they try and fight back, and so should pick their battles carefully.  it may surprise you to learn that life is not always exactly like a John Hughes movie.

 

Quote

But I know that your modus operandi around here when backed into a corner is to play obtuse. so... :dunno:

it would be better, perhaps, in your eyes to devolve into ad hominem, apparently.

 

Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

Of course, the younger, weaker sibling often also gets bullied worse of they try and fight back, and so should pick their battles carefully.  it may surprise you to learn that life is not always exactly like a John Hughes movie.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

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

Right now? The fact that they hold neither the executive or legislative branches. And are about to face a Conservative heavy Supreme Court. Like it or not, they are clearly weaker right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Right now? The fact that they hold neither the executive or legislative branches. And are about to face a Conservative heavy Supreme Court. Like it or not, they are clearly weaker right now.

This was what happened in 2010 and Republicans were able to block everything the entire year.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Trump feels somewhat vindicated in accusing Obama of illegal wiretaps because there may have been some interception of Trump comms during totally legal information collection activity as part of the ongoing Russia investigation under FISA.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, aceluby said:

This was what happened in 2010 and Republicans were able to block everything the entire year.  

Sure, the Dems could play the obstructionist game, but I find it to be pretty deplorable. I'd say fight tooth and nail, especially on legislation that they find to be terrible (like this Trumpcare fiasco that is coming up) but stop short of outright obstruction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, the Dems could play the obstructionist game, but I find it to be pretty deplorable. I'd say fight tooth and nail, especially on legislation that they find to be terrible (like this Trumpcare fiasco that is coming up) but stop short of outright obstruction.

I agree that the Democrats should refrain from obstructing just for the sake of obstructing. But filibustering a conservative SC nominee does not fall into that category, imo. Filibustering a centrist SC nominee, simply because he/she was nominated by Trump and is not Merrick Garland, would probably fall into that category, though (depending on one's definition of centrist). But that is not likely to happen unless the Republicans are trying to set a trap for the Democrats. 

As others have said in this thread, the SC filibuster is probably living on borrowed time anyway. Make the Republicans be the ones to nuke it, if they are willing to do it over this nomination (and if they aren't, well then the Democrats just successfully called their bluff). Sooner or later (probably sooner, if Trump keeps going the way he is) the Democrats will regain a majority in the Senate (no gerrymandering opportunities for the Republicans there) and if the Republicans conveniently have already abolished the filibuster (whether just for SC nominees or altogether) that will prove very convenient for Democrats at that time. Why take the political risk of being responsible for abolishing the (outdated) filibuster when you can get your opponents to do it for you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Sure, the Dems could play the obstructionist game, but I find it to be pretty deplorable. I'd say fight tooth and nail, especially on legislation that they find to be terrible (like this Trumpcare fiasco that is coming up) but stop short of outright obstruction.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 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?

How about wanting a government that actually does what it is designed to do? I understand your point, but if this is the new normal, then we are truly fucked. I admit that you might be right, but we sure as hell shouldn't settle for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...