TheKitttenGuard Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Did we really want to eliminate the filibuster for lower court nominations in 2013? Ideally, of course not, but if your opponent is cheating and there's no referee, the only two options are to cheat right back or concede defeat. If Reid and the Dems not wrung their hands about it for so long and just done it in 2009, there'd be far more Dems on the bench right now, and that's ultimately all that matters. If you think something is wrong then you stop it and you do not perpetuate for some payback. If Trump nominate Merrick Garland are you stating the Democratic Party not allow it if they are in the majority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 6 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said: If you think something is wrong then you stop it and you do not perpetuate for some payback. If Trump nominate Merrick Garland are you stating the Democratic Party not allow it if they are in the majority? Except in reality, you can't stop it. It's not "payback" to play by the same rules. As for Trump nominating Garland, well, again, let's stick to reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 5 minutes ago, dmc515 said: Except in reality, you can't stop it. It's not "payback" to play by the same rules. As for Trump nominating Garland, well, again, let's stick to reality. No it is payback and you are continuing what you state is wrong. Merrick Garland will be someone exactly Trump will nominate if the Democratic Party regained the Senate and declare no Trump nominee. He will not look to stick to ideology if it fails him. He will gladly talk of Democratic hypocrisy and brag how he can do something that Obama could not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 2 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said: Cory Booker is a Trekkie. I think that should move him up to one of the top contenders for the 2020 nomination. He also happens to be a fairly solid progressive (with the caveat about the pharma bill, but bygones) He seems dumb. Nothing wrong with it, but every time I watch him speak I think to myself 'What a dumb motherfucker. Seriously? Is he stupid? Maybe he's just trying to be as non threatening as possible. But goddamn if he doesn't seem like a dumb. And I know dumb, ok? I'm the MOST dumb, nobody knows about dumb more than Dumb Jace. Ok? Brain Dead Booker'. That could just be me though. 1 hour ago, Zorral said: By the enormous range of ignorance she displays here, a betting type of person might well be willing to bet she doesn't know czar is derived from caesar . . . . Hey! Hey! That was a pretty good one. You uh, you got me on that one. I'm gonna make like Pete and capitulate, luckily I've taken to sewing gems into my corset so I'm kind of bullet proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 3 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said: No it is payback and you are continuing what you state is wrong. Explain to me how following the same standards as the GOP has set - rather than being the only side to abide by old norms, which will inevitably lead to a judiciary almost entirely filled with reactionaries - is solely payback. It's politics and it's standing up for what you believe in. 12 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said: Merrick Garland will be someone exactly Trump will nominate if the Democratic Party regained the Senate Ha! We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 New Monmouth Poll: Lamb leads Saccone according to all three possible turnout possibilities. Quote Lamb leads Saccone, 51 percent to 45 percent, the poll shows — using a turnout model that mirrors a Democratic surge that’s appeared in other special elections throughout the last year. Three percent of likely voters are undecided, and 1 percent would support another candidate. A Monmouth poll released in mid-February, using the same model, found Saccone with a slight edge, 49 percent to 46 percent. The poll suggests Lamb can win even if that Democratic surge falls short, however. In a more-restrictive turnout model — designed to mirror a lower-turnout electorate that typically votes in midterm elections — Lamb has a slim, 2-point lead, 49 percent to 47 percent. A higher-turnout scenario, more similar to a presidential election, produces a 7-point Lamb lead, 51 percent to 44 percent. I'll admit I have been able to keep my expectations in check on this race, because expecting an R+21 district like PA-18 to deliver a Democrat is just setting yourself up for disappointment. But all signs are that Lamb is a much better candidate than Saccone, in a very Pro-Democrat environment. We'll see if that's enough. Outside Republican spending has been huge in the race and I would love for the big Republican Super PACs to have just wasted 10 million dollars. Not to mention Lamb is the kind of Democrat I want to see elected. By which I mean even though I am much more liberal than Lamb, I am totally supportive of big tent Democrats of all stripes. Let's run conservative democrats is conservative districts and liberal candidates in liberal districts and then work together when it comes to governing. I think that gets the best results for the party and the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 He'd nominate Michael Cohen before he nominated someone who wouldn't lick the soles of his shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Maithanet said: New Monmouth Poll: Lamb leads Saccone according to all three possible turnout possibilities. I'll admit I have been able to keep my expectations in check on this race, because expecting an R+21 district like PA-18 to deliver a Democrat is just setting yourself up for disappointment. But all signs are that Lamb is a much better candidate than Saccone, in a very Pro-Democrat environment. We'll see if that's enough. Outside Republican spending has been huge in the race and I would love for the big Republican Super PACs to have just wasted 10 million dollars. Not to mention Lamb is the kind of Democrat I want to see elected. By which I mean even though I am much more liberal than Lamb, I am totally supportive of big tent Democrats of all stripes. Let's run conservative democrats is conservative districts and liberal candidates in liberal districts and then work together when it comes to governing. I think that gets the best results for the party and the country. You're quite right. Just because someone isn't all-aboard on abortion (or at least publicly for their district) doesn't mean they can't be a Democrat. That being said, all 16 Dems who voted to deregulate banks last week need to be fucked into the dirt by primary challengers and left to cry into the piles of money they stole from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 2 hours ago, IheartIheartTesla said: Cory Booker is a Trekkie. I think that should move him up to one of the top contenders for the 2020 nomination. He also happens to be a fairly solid progressive (with the caveat about the pharma bill, but bygones) His biggest issue is his connections to the financial sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martell Spy Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 21 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said: No it is payback and you are continuing what you state is wrong. Merrick Garland will be someone exactly Trump will nominate if the Democratic Party regained the Senate and declare no Trump nominee. He will not look to stick to ideology if it fails him. He will gladly talk of Democratic hypocrisy and brag how he can do something that Obama could not. Well obviously if they nominate Garland you confirm him. That goes if they decide to nominate Obama as well. I just don't see either of these things happening. As has been mentioned, banning abortion makes conservative dicks hard, which means they can do nothing that stands in the way of that. And time again Trump has shown himself to be captured, by conservatives, by the NRA, by the Koches. It has nothing to do with payback. Payback is for little kids on the playground. It's about getting something close to a fair amount of SC nominations. We have already had one stolen, let's not just give up the court forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 Theresa May says that it was (almost certainly) Moscow that used a nerve agent last week in a English town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereward Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43377856 Quote She said Russia's ambassador in London had been summoned to explain whether it was "a direct action by the Russian state" or the result of it "losing control" of its stock of nerve agents. The chemical used in the attack, the PM said, has been identified as being part of a group of nerve agents known as "Novichok". Mrs May said Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had told the ambassador Moscow must "immediately provide full and complete disclosure" of the Novichok programme to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. She said the UK would consider his response before deciding what action to take, but added: "Should there be no credible response, we will conclude that this action amounts to an unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the United Kingdom." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jace, Extat Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 minute ago, Hereward said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43377856 This is pretty big actually. One wonders how far she's prepared to push to expose Trump. There are NATO commitments she can call upon in theory, and I wonder if Interpol would crack down on the traveling of the 13 indicted by Mueller at England's request. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 24 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said: He seems dumb. Nothing wrong with it, but every time I watch him speak I think to myself 'What a dumb motherfucker. Seriously? Is he stupid? Maybe he's just trying to be as non threatening as possible. But goddamn if he doesn't seem like a dumb. And I know dumb, ok? I'm the MOST dumb, nobody knows about dumb more than Dumb Jace. Ok? Brain Dead Booker'. That could just be me though Really? He seems fairly self aware and has the ability to poke fun at himself from what I understand. Then again, I don't know much about him but he already has my vote if he gets the nomination (unless he thinks Enterprise was the best Star Trek series or something equally heretical) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 55 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said: If you think something is wrong then you stop it and you do not perpetuate for some payback. Then you lose. It's more or less like a prisoner's dilemma. As long as the other side keeps betraying you, attempting to cooperate just means they win. It's not about payback it's about understanding that there are no alternative strategies here that are not a loss. If the Republican party just continues to refuse to allow Demcoratic Presidents to appoint justices to the SCOTUS and Democrats don't respond in turn then the Republicans will control the courts and no amount of cooperation will change that. Because their strategy is a winning one if Democrats do not respond in kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 I assume that if Lamb wins Trump will just blast the Republican as a lousy choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 29 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said: He seems dumb. Nothing wrong with it, but every time I watch him speak I think to myself 'What a dumb motherfucker. Seriously? Is he stupid? Maybe he's just trying to be as non threatening as possible. But goddamn if he doesn't seem like a dumb. And I know dumb, ok? I'm the MOST dumb, nobody knows about dumb more than Dumb Jace. Ok? Brain Dead Booker'. That could just be me though. I have never heard this take on Booker before. The majority of people I know either like the guy or at least want to like him but think he's a bit too connected to the financial sector and a bit too much of a self-promoter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 41 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said: No it is payback and you are continuing what you state is wrong. Merrick Garland will be someone exactly Trump will nominate if the Democratic Party regained the Senate and declare no Trump nominee. He will not look to stick to ideology if it fails him. He will gladly talk of Democratic hypocrisy and brag how he can do something that Obama could not. Yeah, he's gonna go for that bipartisan consensus good press, just like he did with DACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 4 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: It has nothing to do with payback. Payback is for little kids on the playground. It's about getting something close to a fair amount of SC nominations. We have already had one stolen, let's not just give up the court forever. If you did not like the nominee then vote the nominee down. My point is do not be eager to use the new reality when it can put you in a tight spot. You are also facing someone who loves unpredictability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 7 minutes ago, Hereward said: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43377856 I kind of thought May was going to fold and go with some nominal sanctions the Russians would ignore but that's Article 5 of the Nato treaty kind of language. Still, it's hard to see Trump provinding any kind of reliable/believable support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.