U.S. Politics-Hope Floats 2: We All Float Down Here

[JGP]

4 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

It's entirely unclear how Kennedy retiring will affect the Mueller investigation.  Sure, SCOTUS may eventually have to rule on whether Trump can be compelled to follow a subpoena and/or able to pardon himself, but (1) we don't know if those cases will ever come to fruition, (2) even if they did, we don't know how future SCOTUS would rule, (3) we also don't know how Kennedy would have ruled, for that matter, and (4) even if SCOTUS rules in Trump's favor in both of those hypothetical cases, it doesn't end Mueller's investigation.

Ok. I suppose then my follow up would be if SCOTUS can't be counted on to check the Executive as appears to be the case [not certain about that] what's to stop Trump himself from finally shutting it down, now? Or will he ram his appointment through first, thinking perhaps he's stacked the deck enough to clear himself of triggering a constitutional crisis by doing so? 

[The Marquis de Leech]

17 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

They’ll ultimately vote for someone, but hopefully you can get Collins or Murkowski (or both) to vote against anyone who won’t say how they feel about Roe.  

Collins and Murkowski will vote for who they're told to vote for. You'd have to go back to Olympia Snowe/Arlen Specter, and more likely Lincoln Chafee, before you'd get a Republican willing to put their neck on the line.

[JGP]

2 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Collins and Murkowski will vote for who they're told to vote for. You'd have to go back to Olympia Snowe/Arlen Specter, and more likely Lincoln Chafee, before you'd get a Republican willing to put their neck on the line.

Collins has already said that she thought the hold up over Obama's pick was wrong and that they shouldn't do so again. She's out.

ETA: Sorry. I guess I'm agreeing with you, not arguing lol

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

what's to stop Trump himself from finally shutting it down, now? Or will he ram his appointment through first, thinking perhaps he's stacked the deck enough to clear himself of triggering a constitutional crisis by doing so?

What's stopping Trump from shutting it down thus far is much more the political ramifications than the potential court check.  Strategically, his best way to skirt everything would be to get the nomination through, wait til after the midterms, and then shut it down (in the hopes he retains both chambers).  If he were to shut down the investigation before the nomination got through, it's quite possible Flake and others would block his nomination (which is otherwise a virtual impossibility).  And of course, shutting it down before the midterms would be a big fuck you to his party that then has to run for reelection in the next few months.

[JGP]

So waiting for confirmation of his appointment is probably what his handlers will advise. He may listen, he may not.  Feels like shutting it down at that point, and all the ensuing liberal tears would be vindicating to his base. And if the Republicans played it right, could use the fear of a massive Dem turnout in response to then bring subsequently out their own. I don't know how confident I'd be that it would actually fuck his party up over the midterms. I'm really hoping I'm wrong here, of course. Do you think the Republicans are worried about turnout backlash over the current immigrant abuse situation? I should look for some polling on the issues I suppose.

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Do you think the Republicans are worried about turnout backlash over the current immigrant abuse situation? I should look for some polling on the issues I suppose.

The polling is bad.  Which is probably why he actually back down with that EO (but not really of course).  As for your thought that engendering massive Dem turnout by shutting down the investigation would in turn engender more turnout among his own base, that seems like counterintuitive logic to me, but hey ya never know I guess.

[Martell Spy]

Voting rights is at the top of my list of worries. There is no doubt there will be further attacks. We may see a tipping point where voting no longer matters. That is the real game over. 

[JGP]

DMC: You teach this shit, right? It makes sense to me but I could totally be wrong and want to learn. Through Trump, while his base may not have power they may think they're shareholders in it, no? If, as some have stated, many [even those that didn't particularly LIKE Trump] turned out for the SCOTUS seat, wouldn't they do so if afeared for the seat of their POTUS? 

Martell: Yeah. Fuck, man. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

32 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

Collins and Murkowski will vote for who they're told to vote for. You'd have to go back to Olympia Snowe/Arlen Specter, and more likely Lincoln Chafee, before you'd get a Republican willing to put their neck on the line.

Maybe. I think it all depends on the nominee. Looking at the list DMC posted, some of those people have obvious red flags. If one of them is selected, they could get blocked. If that does happen, it will be interesting to see if the can get a second candidate confirmed before the midterm elections.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

If, as some have stated, many [even those that didn't particularly LIKE Trump] turned out for the SCOTUS seat, wouldn't they do so if afeared for the seat of their POTUS?

To the first part, yes, it's entirely possible if not likely that the SCOTUS seat - and especially getting it confirmed - could be a distinct enthusiasm boost for the GOP.  On the second part, I'm not sure I follow - we were talking about Trump shutting down the investigation, right?  Why would that make his base fear for Trump's seat?  Shouldn't it make them less fearful for his "seat?"

2 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Looking at the list DMC posted, some of those people have obvious red flags. If one of them is selected, they could get blocked.

I do think a handful of them could have competence/lack or record concerns among conservatives a la Harriet Miers.

[Fragile Bird]

In other news, the yield curve is slowly but steadily looking like it will invert, meaning short term rates being higher than long term rates. This has always been an indicator of a coming recession. 

Any comments from our knowledgeable financial people?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/yield-curve-inversion-1.4724637?cmp=FB_Post_News

 

[JGP]

3 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

To the first part, yes, it's entirely possible if not likely that the SCOTUS seat - and especially getting it confirmed - could be a distinct enthusiasm boost for the GOP.  On the second part, I'm not sure I follow - we were talking about Trump shutting down the investigation, right?  Why would that make his base fear for Trump's seat?  Shouldn't it make them less fearful for his "seat?"

We were. But you convinced me that the timing is off to do it now. So I hopped to the midterms, as it seems to me anyway that it arguably sensible that the Republicans need to buckle down and get fear mongering again because right now it feels like [possibly] the elections may be the last credible threat to their coup?

---  

To that end, as an aside though not unrelated, I imagine Trump will have to back down on more than just the Chinese trade war. For the moment.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

We were. But you convinced me that the timing is off to do it now. So I hopped to the midterms, as it seems to me anyway that it arguably sensible that the Republicans need to buckle down and get fear mongering again because right now it feels like [possibly] the elections may be the last credible threat to their coup?

---  

To that end, as an aside though not unrelated, I imagine Trump will have to back down on more than just the Chinese trade war. For the moment.

Gotcha.  Pretty much agreed with all this.

 

[DMC]

Anyone catch GOP MCs melting down about the Mueller investigation in "questioning" Rosenstein?  My favorite is this:

Quote

Rep. @Jim_Jordan: "Did you threaten to subpoena their calls and emails?"

Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein: "No sir, and there's no way to subpoena phone calls."

 

[JGP]

3 minutes ago, DMBouazizi said:

Anyone catch GOP MCs melting down about the Mueller investigation in "questioning" Rosenstein?  My favorite is this:

 

And quite a few people present laughed at that. Jordan is pretty fucking obnoxious.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Lol why? I’m the one being calm and pointing out how to take action while most of you are freaking out and doing nothing. This type of overreaction is what often times does liberals in. Quit being keyboard warriors and take real action.

 .

How does this do 'liberals in'?

Kennedy retiring matters.  Whether he was a conservative or not, he's going to be replaced with a conservative Trump appointee.  And Breysr and Ginsberg could easily be replaced as well this term.  Maybe that doesn't matter to you, there are people who aren't you who stand to lose actual standing and basic rights in this world because of this.  This may not have been the straw that broke the camel's back moment, but if his replacement is approved before the midterms this is a pretty serious blow to people of color, the LGBTQ community, women, etc.  

And now you're doubling down on telling everyone to chill out, don't worry, these groups have already been treated shittily in the last, no big deal.  

And then followed up with the patronizing suggestion to take action and arrogant assumption that because people are expressing outrage over something that could likely cause suffering for many people, they couldn't possibly have actually tried to do anything about it.  

Take a look in the mirror and consider the fact that maybe you said something flippant and insensitive.  Or don't.  I don't give a fuck if you're calm (my pulse is a stone cold 65 bpm) and other people are expressing emotion.  It doesn't mean they don't have a grievance or cause for concern and it certainly doesn't mean that they aren't doing something about it or haven't been engaged with these problems outside of this board.  You know nothing.

 

[LongRider]

4 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

And, I don't want to take anything away from Ocasio-Cortez's win [a highpoint lately, for sure] but she managed to bring out the voters [available] to her only.

I think one could say the same for Trump the Rust Belt votes that won him the EC.   He got votes available to him only, because the campaign and the RNC went after them.   It makes a  difference. 

[JGP]

2 minutes ago, LongRider said:

I think one could say the same for Trump the Rust Belt votes that won him the EC.   He got votes available to him only, because the campaign and the RNC went after them.   It makes a  difference. 

Ok, I get it. True.

ETA: So was it apathy that led to such low voter out? Do primaries not really blip on most people's radar?

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

ETA: So was it apathy that led to such low voter out? Do primaries not really blip on most people's radar?

It's not really apathy in that case but rather no one expected Ocasio-Cortez to win in the district - so in that way sure it didn't really blip on most's radar.  The district is not competitive in the general and she was not expected to be competitive against Crowley.  That being said, turnout was about the same as the last time Crowley faced a competitive primary (and she obviously still won by a healthy margin):

Quote

With 98 percent of precincts reporting as of Wednesday, the State Board of Elections shows 27,826 registered Democrats cast votes in Tuesday’s primary in New York’s 14th District. With 235,745 registered Democrats as of April, according to the BOE, this comes out to a turnout of around 11.8 percent.

This turnout is about the same as in Crowley’s last competitive primary, in 2004. According to the Federal Election Commission, 12.4 percent of Democrats in Crowley’s district voted that year, which was a presidential election year, unlike this year, and saw congressional and state-level primaries on the same September day. New York has since moved its congressional primaries to June.

 

[Fragile Bird]

Earlier this week I heard news reports that several hundreds of children were re-united with their parents after being separated from them by the border guards, but now CNN is reported that the actual number is 6 children.

Yup. A total of 6 children, out of 2,300 or so.