U.S. Politics: Kraving for Kavanaugh

[Mexal]

1 minute ago, Mindwalker said:

Trump just accused Germany of being a minion of the russians, or something like that. Projecting much, hon? Can't believe nobody gave him an appropriate reply...

His buddy Tom Cotton is backing it up.

 

[DanteGabriel]

11 hours ago, Frog Eater said:

A German Carnival where other leaders are satarized as well

http://www.businessinsider.com/duesseldorf-carnival-float-shows-donald-trump-mounted-by-russian-bear-2018-2

And here are some pics of Obama in bed with the Chinese, Clinton molesting Lady Liberty, Obama biting Clinton in the ass

Previous versions had Obama electrocuting Snowden

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/parade-grounds/

Its done in fun. 

Here, explain this one away.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/05/europe/donald-trump-baby-trump-uk-intl/index.html

[Centrist Simon Steele]

So this Supreme Court pick is going through no matter what, I am guessing. I am trying to think ahead about the importance of the midterms. Taking the House for Democrats and maybe the Senate seem imperative. A lot of pundits say the Senate is a long shot, but I feel like a half victory in the fall isn't a victory at all. 

So if the Dems only take the House, what good can they do? This isn't a rhetorical question. What do they start doing?

If they take both chambers of Congress, a lot more can happen, but outside of impeachment and blocking later Supreme Court picks, what do you guys see as the big moves they can make? I hope obstruction is not the only plan on the table.

I ask because my mind is so wrapped around the nightmare of Kennedy to Kavanaugh that I want to start thinking about how to promote the important, tangible steps (to myself).

[DanteGabriel]

5 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

So if the Dems only take the House, what good can they do? This isn't a rhetorical question. What do they start doing?

If they take both chambers of Congress, a lot more can happen, but outside of impeachment and blocking later Supreme Court picks, what do you guys see as the big moves they can make? I hope obstruction is not the only plan on the table.

They can launch investigations and subpoena Trump's tax returns and business records. Maxine Waters becomes chair of the Financial Services Committee, for instance. But it's not much, because you still need the Senate to convict on impeachment.

[Morpheus]

3 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Any thoughts on the latest baiting of allies right at the start of and inference weekend? With yet another example of accusing others of things he is guilty of?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44780489

Looking and sounding like a Drunk uncle, he gets to toss some tepid criticism at Russia while Putin’s hand is still so far up his ass, he is tickling his tonsils. Hurting NATO is the greatest gift Trump can give Daddy before their secretive meeting.

[DMC]

24 minutes ago, Simon Steele said:

So if the Dems only take the House, what good can they do? This isn't a rhetorical question. What do they start doing?

They have oversight powers.  Investigative powers to subpoena, command a Mueller-esque investigation of their own, or demand it be tacked on to every spending bill they pass.  The power of the purse.  They can say these trade wars are unacceptable, the US government will not be a party to mob tactics, or else you don't your funding.  The plethora of things they can do with the House are too many to list.  And in the off chance they get the Senate, they can block racist judges too.

[Maithanet]

22 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

They can launch investigations and subpoena Trump's tax returns and business records. Maxine Waters becomes chair of the Financial Services Committee, for instance. But it's not much, because you still need the Senate to convict on impeachment.

I'm not sure I'd agree "that's not much".  The House will be able to bring light to all the issues that the current Congress is sweeping under the rug.  That's a big deal.

In addition, that's only #2 on my list.  #1 is that even with the barest of Democratic majorities in the House, that's the end of further atrocious legislation like the health care bill and the tax giveaway.  If Republicans still control both chambers, there's two more reconciliation bills to worry about that could (and almost assuredly will) do further damage. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

If I thought for a second that Republican leadership would actually want to act in good faith at all, ever, what I would do is basically make a peace treaty with Republicans and agree to the following:

• Democrats would immediately get two more SCOTUS seats, one of which would be Merrick Garland.
• Everyone would pass a law to set the number of justices and their retirement based on their appointment time + 18 years or their leaving of their own choice or natural causes. Every POTUS term will have a nomination every 2 years thereafter, and if that seat is left vacant, that's fine. 
• Everyone would pass a law to reintroduce pork barrel politics and earmarks. 
• Much of the executive power would be clawed back to congress - specifically tariffs, trade, AUMF, etc.
• The electoral college would be abolished.

I agree with points 2, 3 and 4, but let's be realistic here. The first and fifth points would never fly. Maybe you could convince Republicans to agree to allow Democrats to replace Ginsburg and Breyer with liberals, but that’s it. And there is zero, zilch, nada chance that Republicans would ever abolish the Electoral College. It’s their best chance to win the presidency. After all, it’s how we got our last two Republican presidents.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, chiKanery et al. said:

I agree with points 2, 3 and 4, but let's be realistic here. The first and fifth points would never fly. Maybe you could convince Republicans to agree to allow Democrats to replace Ginsburg and Breyer with liberals, but that’s it. And there is zero, zilch, nada chance that Republicans would ever abolish the Electoral College. It’s their best chance to win the presidency. After all, it’s how we got our last two Republican presidents.

None of it will ever fly.  Forgive me for speaking out of turn, but I don't think that was the intent.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

9 hours ago, DMC said:

This slippery slope argument would be a lot more convincing if we weren't halfway down the slide already while bruised and battered.  It's like telling Leo not to poke the bear 10 minutes into the bear knocking him around in Revenant.

I’m surprised you take this position, considering you know how it will end (hint: we lose).

Also, accidentally clicking on your multi-quote just cost me Jace’s meltdown for the ages!!!!!

8 hours ago, lokisnow said:

This is profoundly dumb and short sighted.

Lol, as opposed to your fantastical dream of pushing through 50 Constitutional Amendments? 

[aceluby]

16 hours ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Where would it end though man? This is what I was getting at last week. Say a Democrat adds four. What if the next Republican adds four more? ten more? This has only one logical ending: a judicial kangaroo court of sorts. 

Slippery Slope fallacy notwithstanding, I'd be ok with that.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, chiKanery et al. said:

I’m surprised you take this position, considering you know how it will end (hint: we lose).

I don't know how you know who loses.  Further, I don't know how you know anyone loses.

2 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

Also, accidentally clicking on your multi-quote just cost me Jace’s meltdown for the ages!!!!!

?  Sorry, I guess.  Just wait 6 seconds for Jace's next meltdown for the ages.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

None of it will ever fly.  Forgive me for speaking out of turn, but I don't think that was the intent.

Well of course not, but the middle points could at least be discussed. The first and last could not.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know how you know who loses.  Further, I don't know how you know anyone loses.

We both know Republicans will take it further than Democrats, and then at some point Democrats will cave.

Quote

?  Sorry, I guess.  Just wait 6 seconds for Jace's next meltdown for the ages.

Idk if she’ll ever reach the heights of Josh McDaniels spurring her ponies again.

Speaking of which, given her name, it looks like there’s room for a new Pony Queen/Empress.

[DanteGabriel]

18 minutes ago, Maithanet der Mannschaft said:

I'm not sure I'd agree "that's not much".  The House will be able to bring light to all the issues that the current Congress is sweeping under the rug.  That's a big deal.

In addition, that's only #2 on my list.  #1 is that even with the barest of Democratic majorities in the House, that's the end of further atrocious legislation like the health care bill and the tax giveaway.  If Republicans still control both chambers, there's two more reconciliation bills to worry about that could (and almost assuredly will) do further damage. 

Fair enough. I just have no faith in this feckless party to be an effective, united opposition.

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

• Everyone would pass a law to set the number of justices and their retirement based on their appointment time + 18 years or their leaving of their own choice or natural causes. Every POTUS term will have a nomination every 2 years thereafter, and if that seat is left vacant, that's fine. 
• Everyone would pass a law to reintroduce pork barrel politics and earmarks. 
• Much of the executive power would be clawed back to congress - specifically tariffs, trade, AUMF, etc.

These are Kal's middle points:  

The first is entirely unrealistic for what I said earlier - who's the original POTUS that gets to decide this, and what to do with sitting justices?  Are they "grandfathered" in, or not?  And if not, why not?  And if not, isn't that a violation of Article III Section I..this gets sticky really quick.

The second is fine.  Pork is fine.  There really doesn't need to be a law passed to "reintroduce" it because (1) it's still being done and (2) they can just ignore their own self-oversights anyway (as we know all too well).

The third is a fairy dream, based on Congress developing a spine again.  They gave that up during the Great Depression and have never taken it back.  Do I think they should?  Sure, written literally hundreds of pages on it.  But that ain't gonna change anything.

So, that's my discussion of his middle points.

3 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

We both know Republicans will take it further than Democrats, and then at some point Democrats will cave.

Nah, that's just submitting to stereotypes.  And probably this board.  I don't know that at all.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

8 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Slippery Slope fallacy notwithstanding, I'd be ok with that.

See above. Can you not see how this will obviously play out? Sure, you’ll get some short turn gratification, but this strategy won’t end well. This isn’t the same as the gun control slippery slope fallacy. It would be an utter disaster.  

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, chiKanery et al. said:

See above. Can you not see how this will obviously play out? Sure, you’ll get some short turn gratification, but this strategy won’t end well. This isn’t the same as the gun control slippery slope fallacy. It would be an utter disaster.  

So how long does extreme, asymmetric polarization last?  I sure don't know, but what I do know is while it's lasting you fight with brass knuckles and whatever else you got.  You don't just sit there and hope the other side will eventually re-matriculate to the previously accepted norms.  Could "escalation" lead to the right wing "winning" such a battle?  Sure could.  But the only way to cast them out from everybody under 55 is to cast them out like a disease.  And as the non-Boomer constituency becomes predominate, I'd rather make moves about the influence of the courts than sit there with my thumb up my ass.

[Frog Eater]

49 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Here, explain this one away.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/05/europe/donald-trump-baby-trump-uk-intl/index.html

People are assholes? He often does act like a petulant child? Ha makes himself an easy target with his bravoso?

At least your example is current and not 6 months old

 

[DanteGabriel]

25 minutes ago, Frog Eater said:

People are assholes? He often does act like a petulant child? Ha makes himself an easy target with his bravoso?

At least your example is current and not 6 months old

 

What does the age of the story matter to the central point that President Harkonnen is a laughingstock who has degraded our international standing?