Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LongRider

U.S Politics; The Price of Steele

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Hereward said:

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I assume that if Lamb wins Trump will just blast the Republican as a lousy choice.

Indeed, we already saw this show in Alabama.  Trump cannot fail, he can only be failed by others.  If Trump is defeated in 2020, it will be because the voters failed him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Yeah, he's gonna go for that bipartisan consensus good press, just like he did with DACA.

The scenario only makes sense if the Democrats win the Senate. Trump was failed by Republican and hear from the Democrats they will advance no SC nominee I think it is something that Trump can see some benefits. Yeah highly unlikely but it is something Trump can do.

21 minutes ago, Shryke said:

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.

Democrats have made statement of how bad the removal for S.C and states it should be restore. If that is what you really think than you proceed to do that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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 how are you going to get the other side to stop? And how are you going prevent the other side from going even farther? In an event like this not only is it okay to respond in kind, but it's a must. To do anything else is to signal to the other side you will roll over and they can do whatever they like. So it's not about payback necessarily, but showing that you will react to what the other side does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

The scenario only makes sense if the Democrats win the Senate. Trump was failed by Republican and hear from the Democrats they will advance no SC nominee I think it is something that Trump can see some benefits. Yeah highly unlikely but it is something Trump can do.

Democrats have made statement of how bad the removal for S.C and states it should be restore. If that is what you really think than you proceed to do that. 

I'm not even sure what you are arguing anymore.

Democrats may well not play hardball about SCOTUS and lower court nominations. They can be dumb like that. But it's absolutely a dumb move because it cedes control of the courts to the GOP.

As for Trump, he's not gonna do shit. He's said before he would totally cooperate with the Democrats and he's done nothing. He likes to talk for the cameras to get good press but then he goes back off screen and he talks to his inner circle and he's back to business as usual. And court nominations are absolutely something the GOP is laser focused on making sure go their way. It's not gonna happen. Trump doesn't care and the GOP really really really does.

Edited by Shryke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

Except how are you going to get the other side to stop? And how are you going prevent the other side from going even farther? In an event like this not only is it okay to respond in kind, but it's a must. To do anything else is to signal to the other side you will roll over and they can do whatever they like. So it's not about payback necessarily, but showing that you will react to what the other side does.

But that then ensures that Republicans will take it further. Where does it end? How broken does the system have to become?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tywin et al. said:

But that then ensures that Republicans will take it further. Where does it end? How broken does the system have to become?

It doesn't end until the Republican party acknowledges that the Democratic party can be a legitimate governing party. Good luck with that.

Not responding will just ensure the Republican party continues this strategy because it works though, so that doesn't help either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tywin et al. said:

But that then ensures that Republicans will take it further. Where does it end? How broken does the system have to become?

The rules need to change if no one is getting appointed ever.  But in the meantime the Dems need to oppose any Trump nominee, because the GOP has shown that's what they do in the same situation.  It's either that or just be fine with a SC that will eventually be made of only GOP picks.  

Sure, if Trump nominates Obama, confirm him.  But we all know he's going to be nominating arch-conservatives.  The ethical, honorable, and procedural high ground here isn't 'play by tradition and the rules' it's 'give no quarter because you're not getting any either'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

But that then ensures that Republicans will take it further. Where does it end? How broken does the system have to become?

So you can do nothing, in which case they take if further because there's nothing to stop them and you're screwed. Or you can respond in kind, maybe the other side will do the sane thing and not escalate or maybe they will, but at least in this case you have a chance.

You can't worry about causing escalation when this is the one option that might stop escalation and you weren't the one who escalated in the first place.

 

ETA: Not responding in turn is like watching another country ready their army to invade you but not getting your own army ready because you're worried it might escalate the situation. Shit already escalated that's not on you.

Edited by TrueMetis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shryke said:

I'm not even sure what you are arguing anymore.

Democrats may well not play hardball about SCOTUS and lower court nominations. They can be dumb like that. But it's absolutely a dumb move because it cedes control of the courts to the GOP.

As for Trump, he's not gonna do shit. He's said before he would totally cooperate with the Democrats and he's done nothing. He likes to talk for the cameras to get good press but then he goes back off screen and he talks to his inner circle and he's back to business as usual. And court nominations are absolutely something the GOP is laser focused on making sure go their way. It's not gonna happen. Trump doesn't care and the GOP really really really does.

A highly unlikely sceaniro that involves a SC Justice rumor retirement. 

Trump treats the Democrats the way he does, in part, for he sees them as losers. The Democrats take the Senate and they will be winners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

A highly unlikely sceaniro that involves a SC Justice rumor retirement. 

Trump treats the Democrats the way he does, in part, for he sees them as losers. The Democrats take the Senate and they will be winners.

No, if Democrats take the Senate, it will either be because they are cheaters or the Republicans are losers. Only those with the Trump name can be winners and will be treated accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

So you can do nothing, in which case they take if further because there's nothing to stop them and you're screwed. Or you can respond in kind, maybe the other side will do the sane thing and not escalate or maybe they will, but at least in this case you have a chance.

You can't worry about causing escalation when this is the one option that might stop escalation and you weren't the one who escalated in the first place.

 

ETA: Not responding in turn is like watching another country ready their army to invade you but not getting your own army ready because you're worried it might escalate the situation. Shit already escalated that's not on you.

This gets to the heart of the issue. I find it interesting how quickly every R on the planet condemned Democratic processes once they'd secured the Presidency. Not because I thought they were above such hypocrisy, but I did think that at least some of the electorate would perhaps call for a reduction in party hostility seeing as they won everything. 

But no, they all to a man (and the ones who think that they should be subservient to men, so I think I'm actually following their latent desires by excluding them from the main thrust of this comment) decided to quadruple down on the Fascism train. 

Government is like fire though, as United Airlines discovered. You keep throwing gas on the fire and eventually it starts to burn your house down. 

Also, imagine I worked in some kind of metaphor about burning all the wood too fast so you have to break up the furniture to keep the cold away as you start ripping down the walls to feed the fire. 

You know,insightful and relatable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

Except how are you going to get the other side to stop? And how are you going prevent the other side from going even farther? In an event like this not only is it okay to respond in kind, but it's a must. To do anything else is to signal to the other side you will roll over and they can do whatever they like. So it's not about payback necessarily, but showing that you will react to what the other side does.

Is that not always an issue with people who profess principals that others do not.

I am more reacting on several prior post of how wrong the Republicans are for not giving Garland any consideration and got rid of the filibuster to get Gorusch through. If those two things were serious strikes against our system then you look to restore it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

A highly unlikely sceaniro that involves a SC Justice rumor retirement. 

Trump treats the Democrats the way he does, in part, for he sees them as losers. The Democrats take the Senate and they will be winners.

No, they won't. Look at his reaction to Democratic victories so far during his term. He doesn't give a shit about that. He'll just treat the losses as not his fault.

There is no indication Trump has any intention of actually working with the Democrats to get shit done. Only that he likes to talk about it cause it makes him look good in the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, WinterFox said:

This gets to the heart of the issue. I find it interesting how quickly every R on the planet condemned Democratic processes once they'd secured the Presidency. Not because I thought they were above such hypocrisy, but I did think that at least some of the electorate would perhaps call for a reduction in party hostility seeing as they won everything. 

But no, they all to a man (and the ones who think that they should be subservient to men, so I think I'm actually following their latent desires by excluding them from the main thrust of this comment) decided to quadruple down on the Fascism train. 

Government is like fire though, as United Airlines discovered. You keep throwing gas on the fire and eventually it starts to burn your house down. 

Also, imagine I worked in some kind of metaphor about burning all the wood too fast so you have to break up the furniture to keep the cold away as you start ripping down the walls to feed the fire. 

You know,insightful and relatable. 

This is not a surprising reaction to winning once you understand that the problem is not that they are mad at what the Democrats did procedurally but that they simply don't view them as legitimate. They want to exercise power and that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Is that not always an issue with people who profess principals that others do not.

I am more reacting on several prior post of how wrong the Republicans are for not giving Garland any consideration and got rid of the filibuster to get Gorusch through. If those two things were serious strikes against our system then you look to restore it. 

You can't restore it unilaterally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TrueMetis said:

ETA: Not responding in turn is like watching another country ready their army to invade you but not getting your own army ready because you're worried it might escalate the situation. Shit already escalated that's not on you.

Yeah I was gonna say it's a little like the German panzers vs. Polish cavalry myth, if the Polish refused to use tanks because that's just payback and ethically where does the escalation end?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Is that not always an issue with people who profess principals that others do not.

I am more reacting on several prior post of how wrong the Republicans are for not giving Garland any consideration and got rid of the filibuster to get Gorusch through. If those two things were serious strikes against our system then you look to restore it. 

i feel a lot of libs only see politics through electoral politics, and view electoral politics as a, albeit somewhat high stakes, game; and not just the voters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shryke said:

This is not a surprising reaction to winning once you understand that the problem is not that they are mad at what the Democrats did procedurally but that they simply don't view them as legitimate. They want to exercise power and that's it.

Yes. I'm afraid I was naive enough to think that people valued Democracy. It is quite clear to me that while the majority do, they are unwilling to fight for it. 

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yeah I was gonna say it's a little like the German panzers vs. Polish cavalry myth, if the Polish refused to use tanks because that's just payback and ethically where does the escalation end?

When you take into account all of the horrible conditions the Poles entered a conflict with Germany under I've actually always thought that those myths show an astounding bravery. You don't make cavalry charges into tanks unless you really need to do that. It's also a myth that WWII was mechanized in general outside of the Allies later in the war. There were 700,000 horses in operation Barbarossa just two years later. 

But as regards this subject, the only way out is for Democrats to meet the escalated methods of conflict and force terms. It would only take a dozen or so Republicans to agree on reform.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×