Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Martell Spy

U.S. Politics: Hey! Teachers! Leave Them Kids Alone

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Are the Democrats going to get both President, and Senate majority?  And, what's to stop the Republicans doing the same?

Nothing at all will stop them, save keeping either POTUS or the senate or if congress chooses to actually act. 

But that's what the state of affairs is right now. There is no returning to norms. There is damage control and triage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Are the Democrats going to get both President, and Senate majority?  And, what's to stop the Republicans doing the same?

The same thing that stopped them from stealing the majority on the court in the first place: nothing.

But it's already happening so you either fight back or you roll over and accept complete defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jace, The Sugarcube said:

In other fucking hilarious news, Dems (including Silly Schumer) are already claiming that Trump should 'wait until after the election' to appoint a new justice.

They can't even get AtM'd with dignity.

Huh? This is the Democrats actually having a spine and playing smart. They literally have no power here so they are throwing McConnell's own words back in his face to oppose him in the media. It won't work because, again, they literally have no power to stop the appointment and McConnell doesn't give a shit about anything except power, but it's more or less the attack they've got.

The only other real track to take here is the whole "Trump is under investigation" thing. But that amounts to about the same, just different messaging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

 

 

Also, i.e. packing the courts, just no. It’s a terrible idea that will set an awful precedent, and for the love of god don’t let Trump get wind of the idea. I could easily see him changing the court’s make up to 15 and shoehorning in six more conservatives.   

Pfft this appeasement rationalization of yours is bollocks, all a couple of court packing attacks and counterattack’s does that is create the needed pressure to passing a constitutional amendment defining the Supreme Court and limiting judiciary terms.

Sure it might be inconvenient for DC cocktail party planners and attendees to have to learn the names of more justices but I don’t give a fuck about that inconvenience. politics is life and death war for all us non DC denizens, and just because the DC creatures benefit from judicial stasis doesn’t mean we all shouldn’t be trying our damneedsf to shake up this godawful wretched situation.

and if you are not a millionaire, calling your senator does fuck all, you’re much better off supporting any primary challenger to your senator, because any grostesquerie in office is always already compromised and has enthusiastically sold out their constituents so they can get lifetime supplies of free booze.

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

Socialists are a small part of the Democratic party, and this is the first incumbent Democrat in Congress to lose a primary since 2014.  Don't make this into something it's not.  By all accounts, Crowley fell asleep at the switch and assumed he'd coast to reelection.  Complacency is never good, and I'm happy to give Democrats a wake up call that they need to make sure they stay in touch with their districts. 

EDIT: Clarity

Yeah, first of all, Crowley wasn't a "centrist" at all.  In the 113th Congress (2013-14 - the one most recent one I could quickly download) there was about 150 Democratic MCs with more "conservative" voting records than Crowley.  His score was about on par with Henry Waxman, Elijah Cummings, and Pittsburgh's Mike Doyle.  Those aren't centrists by any stretch.  The primary showed that people are pissed off don't ignore your constituent - like, for instance, neglecting to show up to a debate against your opponent.  Ocasio-Cortez won running a good grassroots campaign that focused on the corporatism and impotence of the Dem congressional leadership.  Good for her.  Also, as far as descriptive representation goes, it'd be nice to have a Latina in there considering the district is half hispanic and only 18% white.

2 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

An interesting thought experiment might be why the court's only remaining 'swing' vote picked now to resign.  

As has been pointed out, Kennedy wasn't really much of a swing vote in recent years:

Quote

Justice Kennedy did not join the liberal bloc in *any* of the Court's 19 5-4 decisions this term.

Other than Obergefell he really wasn't worth much for leftists over the past decade.

2 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Hey, go blame the majority of white women who stabbed their sisters in the back. Those reproduction rights were nice. Too bad someone had to come and take them away.

White women supported Clinton at higher rates in 2016 than they did with Obama in 2012.  White women really weren't the problem - white males becoming increasingly conservative was (and turnout, rise in third party vote, etc.)

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

If you want to feel even worse, think about this: Jeff Flake recently announced he would be blocking all of Trump's judicial nominees until the Senate takes up a vote on the tariff legislation. 

So...the fate of our Republic hangs in balance and our only potential savior is: Jeff Fucking Flake.

Thank God they legalized weed here because I'm going to spend the rest of my life high.

Yeah relying on Jeff Flake to block a conservative justice would take a lot of weed to rationalize as a possibility.

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Nope. The Republicans have defined the agenda of the federal government since the 80s. Clinton snuck in on a 3-way spoiler race and this entire conversation was about that tack to the centre that he used to win those races. The Democrats were pushing hard for the centre because they didn't believe they could win otherwise and the results are pretty suggestive of that being correct.

Like, you wanna keep making this about something else. Your only point is horseshit based on misinterpretation.

LOL, you said the Dems "have been out in the wilderness" since Nixon.  Disregarding the plain fact that this obviously isn't the case, it also often wasn't the case in many of the reddest of states over that time period.  The only thing that's horseshit here was your statement, no interpretation needed, as is your whining that the way they won wasn't up to your standards.

1 hour ago, Fez said:

I will say, I don't think Robert's votes to overturn Roe v. Wade; though he will probably allow it to be weakened. And on a ton of other issues it's really gonna suck with him as the swing vote.

Only hope is Trump goes too far with the pick and turns off Collins and Murkowski; they are on the record pro-choice after all.

Yeah I don't think Roberts votes to overturn Roe, but as for allowing it to be weakened, what else is new?

The only prayer is McCain stays home (and alive) and Collins somehow goes against her party on the most salient issue her party's constituents vote on.  I could see the former, not really the latter.

1 hour ago, Frog Eater said:

Its completely different. The public outrage would be deafening if the Democrats tried to seat additional justices. Playing the game is different than changing the rules of the game. 

Changing the rules of the game like abolishing the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees?

Share this post


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

I will say, I don't think Robert's votes to overturn Roe v. Wade; though he will probably allow it to be weakened. And on a ton of other issues it's really gonna suck with him as the swing vote.

Only hope is Trump goes too far with the pick and turns off Collins and Murkowski; they are on the record pro-choice after all.

I don't see why you think Roberts wouldn't vote to overturn Roe. He already voted to ignore stare decisis and Abood in order to fuck over public sector unions, why would precedent stop him with Roe?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

So, Extra-Fucked?

With brown sugar, maple syrup, and bacon grease please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder (or the part of me that hasn't already died on the inside does anyway) how things would play out in the midterms if Dems let the thugs and crazies have their pound of flesh in the form of Kennedy's replacement, and then desperately whip turnout for midterms.

Gaming it out, I think if Dems fight hard enough to actually, miraculously, block Kennedy's replacement, you're going to risk turning out the batshit insane evangelicals desperately hoping to overturn Roe by winning more room for error in the Senate, especially since so many seats Dems are defending are in Trump territory.

But if you give them their pound of flesh, maybe they're satiated and complacent, and don't turn out as much. Of course, you're going to risk demoralizing your own base, so you have to fight hard enough so they're not demoralized, but not so much that you stretch the vote into September (when insurance companies start releasing estimates for rate increases under Obamacare).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

I do wonder (or the part of me that hasn't already died on the inside does anyway) how things would play out in the midterms if Dems let the thugs and crazies have their pound of flesh in the form of Kennedy's replacement, and then desperately whip turnout for midterms.

Gaming it out, I think if Dems fight hard enough to actually, miraculously, block Kennedy's replacement, you're going to risk turning out the batshit insane evangelicals desperately hoping to overturn Roe by winning more room for error in the Senate, especially since so many seats Dems are defending are in Trump territory.

But if you give them their pound of flesh, maybe they're satiated and complacent, and don't turn out as much. Of course, you're going to risk demoralizing your own base, so you have to fight hard enough so they're not demoralized, but not so much that you stretch the vote into September (when insurance companies start releasing estimates for rate increases under Obamacare).

They are NEVER satiated, never satisfied, and they never stop.  When WILL YOU LEARN?  Which is why moaning about civility toward them is just effing stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's admirable as a consideration, but short term gain for long term pain is tragically myopic, TGU.

Share this post


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

The precedent is already set. The GOP stole a SCOTUS seat via conspiring with a hostile foreign government. They are using that court, literally as we speak, to destroy the Democratic party and to curtail rights and democracy within the US. Since the structure of the US Senate makes impeachment of a justice basically impossible and since Gorsuch will never voluntarily resign, packing the courts is the Democrat's only option for dealing with the situation.

I know all of this. The problem is once you start packing the courts, it will never stop, and we both know Republicans will win that game in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

and if you are not a millionaire, calling your senator does fuck all, you’re much better off supporting any primary challenger to your senator, because any grostesquerie in office is always already compromised and has enthusiastically sold out their constituents so they can get lifetime supplies of free booze.

See above for the part I clipped.

Yes, calling your EOs is an effect method. Obviously it helps to have money, but when you crash the switchboards, senators notice. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah they Notice  switchboards were crashed it means they can’t make a lunch reservation at that trendy spot with a billionaire, which is tragic. Not sure what missing a fancy lunch has to do with constituents though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

White women supported Clinton at higher rates in 2016 than they did with Obama in 2012.  White women really weren't the problem - white males becoming increasingly conservative was (and turnout, rise in third party vote, etc.)

By 1%. Whoopty doo! The point is that other female subgroups went overwhelming for Hillary while a majority of white women went for Trump. They did this to themselves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

I know all of this. The problem is once you start packing the courts, it will never stop, and we both know Republicans will win that game in the long run.

Why do we know that? I'd speculate that if we could pack the courts and get partisan gerrymandered ruled unconstitutional as a result, that the GOP would not win enough elections long term to "outdo" us with respect to court packing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

I know all of this. The problem is once you start packing the courts, it will never stop, and we both know Republicans will win that game in the long run.

You pretty much have to attempt to pack the courts once a conservative court starts torpedoing all major liberal legislation, as happened to FDR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Are the Democrats going to get both President, and Senate majority?  And, what's to stop the Republicans doing the same?

I am just stating how it could be done. I stated there are a lot of issues and quite aware of dangers of escalation. I do not deny it is extreme measure. I think what Republicans did in 2016 was very extreme.

Share this post


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

×