Jump to content
Tywin et al.

U.S. Politics: 22 Trillion Problems But An Unsecured Border Ain’t One

Recommended Posts

According to Mitch McConnell, Trump will sign the budget deal and the declare a national emergency.

Quote

McConnell:  I've just had an opportunity to speak with President Trump, and he would, I would say to all my colleagues, has indicated that he's prepared to sign the bill. He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time. And I've indicated to him that I'm going to prepare -- I'm going to support the national emergency declaration.

McConnell is like the embodiment of everything people hate about politicians. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

According to Mitch McConnell, Trump will sign the budget deal and the declare a national emergency.

McConnell is like the embodiment of everything people hate about politicians. 

Shit just got interesting.  If Trump actually ends up doing this, House Dems will pass a joint resolution rescinding the state of emergency, which will then be sent to the Senate. This joint resolution is privileged; old Myrtle the Turtle cannot block it.  So he's saying he will be whipping Republicans for a vote against the joint resolution. It is by no means clear if Senate Republicans have enough votes to block the resolution. 

If it passes both chambers, Trump will have to veto it, sending it back to Congress to see if they can override (they probably can't). But this will be tied up in legal action for years.  The main takeaway from this is that is forces Senate Republicans into a corner; whether to vote to uphold an extremely unpopular declaration, which gives precedent for future Democratic presidents to take advantage of, or whether to go against Trump and the base. He basically handed them a bomb and is asking them to blow up Republican divisions in the Senate so that he can save face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Shit just got interesting.  If Trump actually ends up doing this, House Dems will pass a joint resolution rescinding the state of emergency, which will then be sent to the Senate. This joint resolution is privileged; old Myrtle the Turtle cannot block it.  So he's saying he will be whipping Republicans for a vote against the joint resolution. It is by no means clear if Senate Republicans have enough votes to block the resolution. 

If it passes both chambers, Trump will have to veto it, sending it back to Congress to see if they can override (they probably can't). But this will be tied up in legal action for years.  The main takeaway from this is that is forces Senate Republicans into a corner; whether to vote to uphold an extremely unpopular declaration, which gives precedent for future Democratic presidents to take advantage of, or whether to go against Trump and the base. He basically handed them a bomb and is asking them to blow up Republican divisions in the Senate so that he can save face.

It's a mess all right.  I really thought people had talked Trump down from this cliff, and instead he was just going to use executive actions to move money to the wall.  Which was itself legally questionable, but far less scary for Senate Republicans.  McConnell agreeing to support the Emergency is itself a big deal.  Although with him looking at a possible primary challenge in 2020 he can't exactly afford to have a showdown with Trump at this point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Gabbard and Gillibrand don’t have paths to victory at the moment, so they’re less likely to get free airtime. It’s the nature of the beast, fair or not. Plus they’re also hurt by the fact that they don’t have anything that distinguishes them from the crowd.  

 

40 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

She sucks, the media knows it, and her campaign is a shambles. She ain't going anywhere other than RT-financed Jill Stein limbo.

I'm not disputing either of those things. I'm still a bit bothered seeing pundits fall over themselves to interview the 'Big Names' and hope and pray Beto runs because he's cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every Day Is a New Low in Trump's White House
The president steps over bright ethical and moral lines wherever he encounters them. Everyone in America saw it when he fired my boss. But I saw it firsthand time and time again.

ANDREW G. MCCABE

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/02/andrew-mccabe-fbi-book-excerpt-the-threat/582748/

Quote

In this moment, I felt the way I’d felt in 1998, in a case involving the Russian Mafia, when I sent a man I’ll call Big Felix in to meet with a Mafia boss named Dimitri Gufield. The same kind of thing was happening here, in the Oval Office. Dimitri had wanted Felix to endorse his protection scheme. This is a dangerous business, and it’s a bad neighborhood, and you know, if you want, I can protect you from that. If you want my protection. I can protect you. Do you want my protection? The president and his men were trying to work me the way a criminal brigade would operate.

 

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Gertrude said:

 

I'm not disputing either of those things. I'm still a bit bothered seeing pundits fall over themselves to interview the 'Big Names' and hope and pray Beto runs because he's cool.

I don't see why; Beto currently polls ahead of Gabbard by a large margin, and I believe he's right up there with Gillibrand. And he's making some big news with his rallies in opposition to Trump. 

It's also almost two years until the election and over 15 months until the nomination, so the media focusing on others instead of the ones who are running but who are doing newsworthy things seems totally reasonable to me. It's not like Gillibrand is doing anything of note, and I would imagine Gabbard wants to slink back into her shitty hole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is nuts.

I've been searching around trying to get an idea of what the whip count will be in the Senate for the upcoming joint resolution.

Democrats need 4 votes, assuming that they can keep Manchin in line (which I think they'll be able to on this one - he just won re-election after all). 

There are at least 5 to 7 vulnerable Republican incumbents in 2020: McSally, Ernst, Perdue (maybe), Collins, Cornyn (maybe), Tillis and Gardner. 

In addition, there are 2 retiring in 2020: Alexander and Roberts, who are most likely looking more towards concerns about their legacy rather than political concerns; they're also both on the more moderate-ish end of the Republican spectrum.

Cornyn has come out pretty strongly against the declaration, but he's leadership so will probably end up backing it. Among others who have come out against the declaration are Collins, Blunt, Thune, and Romney. Thune will be the one doing the whipping, so expect him to oppose the resolution also. Then there is also Murkowski, who leans more moderate-ish.

Leaving out Cornyn, Thune and Perdue (because whether he faces a serious threat in 2020 is conditional), that leaves at least 10 Republican Senators who could potentially back the resolution. Then you have Lee and Paul, who are unpredictable, but whose rhetoric tends toward opposing executive overreach. 

And that's just a quick count on my part...there could be others who come out in favor of the resolution in order to avoid setting a precedent for a Democratic president in the future.

McConnell announced the emergency declaration before the White House did, which means he was giving Republicans as much advance notice as possible...which means that he agreed to back an emergency declaration without knowing whether he could whip enough opposition to defeat the House's resolution...which means that Trump basically told McConnell that he'd refuse to sign the appropriations bill unless McConnell agreed to back the emergency declaration. 

Holy shit! This is some prime-time political theater!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting. If you think like the GOP might be that the Democrats will almost never actually control the senate AND POTUS at the same time, it might make sense for them to allow it and set the precedent and let it happen. They'll give some BS answers about how this is the Dems fault for not compromising enough and they're forced into it, and will decry  Dems trying it later (and presumably block it later when they get control of the House). 

Share this post


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

 

I'm not disputing either of those things. I'm still a bit bothered seeing pundits fall over themselves to interview the 'Big Names' and hope and pray Beto runs because he's cool.

It's still early though. Gillibrand has the NYC media to help her in time if she does something attention worthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

This is nuts.

I've been searching around trying to get an idea of what the whip count will be in the Senate for the upcoming joint resolution.

Democrats need 4 votes, assuming that they can keep Manchin in line (which I think they'll be able to on this one - he just won re-election after all). 

There are at least 5 to 7 vulnerable Republican incumbents in 2020: McSally, Ernst, Perdue (maybe), Collins, Cornyn (maybe), Tillis and Gardner. 

In addition, there are 2 retiring in 2020: Alexander and Roberts, who are most likely looking more towards concerns about their legacy rather than political concerns; they're also both on the more moderate-ish end of the Republican spectrum.

Cornyn has come out pretty strongly against the declaration, but he's leadership so will probably end up backing it. Among others who have come out against the declaration are Collins, Blunt, Thune, and Romney. Thune will be the one doing the whipping, so expect him to oppose the resolution also. Then there is also Murkowski, who leans more moderate-ish.

Leaving out Cornyn, Thune and Perdue (because whether he faces a serious threat in 2020 is conditional), that leaves at least 10 Republican Senators who could potentially back the resolution. Then you have Lee and Paul, who are unpredictable, but whose rhetoric tends toward opposing executive overreach. 

And that's just a quick count on my part...there could be others who come out in favor of the resolution in order to avoid setting a precedent for a Democratic president in the future.

McConnell announced the emergency declaration before the White House did, which means he was giving Republicans as much advance notice as possible...which means that he agreed to back an emergency declaration without knowing whether he could whip enough opposition to defeat the House's resolution...which means that Trump basically told McConnell that he'd refuse to sign the appropriations bill unless McConnell agreed to back the emergency declaration. 

Holy shit! This is some prime-time political theater!

Dude. Just stop.

Why do you people keep doing this to yourselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Dude. Just stop.

Why do you people keep doing this to yourselves?

Yeah, it doesn't matter if it passes the Senate or not. Trump will veto it and that will be it. Then Democrats have to find someone with standing and the courts will put this on hold for a long time. 

It's insane that Republicans are willing to set this precedent over such a small issue. They will regret this one day if the courts rule in Trump's favor.

Share this post


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

Yeah, it doesn't matter if it passes the Senate or not. Trump will veto it and that will be it. Then Democrats have to find someone with standing and the courts will put this on hold for a long time. 

It's insane that Republicans are willing to set this precedent over such a small issue. They will regret this one day if the courts rule in Trump's favor.

Actually if you assume that these long awaited 'Moderate' Republicans have a scrap of intelligence to go along with their positions, their activities after the failed repeal of the ACA are perfectly logical.

Republic's dead bro. Get what you can or want out of it while you're in a position to do so, and appeasing the petulant child at the top is a prerequisite for maintaining influence.

This is a staple of every failed governmental system in human history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Actually if you assume that these long awaited 'Moderate' Republicans have a scrap of intelligence to go along with their positions, their activities after the failed repeal of the ACA are perfectly logical.

Republic's dead bro. Get what you can or want out of it while you're in a position to do so, and appeasing the petulant child at the top is a prerequisite for maintaining influence.

This is a staple of every failed governmental system in human history.

Jace is smhart and wise and powerful and Jace. 

Also, can't resist:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, a lot of the 'short sighted' things matter only if you think that there is going to be some form of bipartisan government in the future. If you don't think that for whatever reason things start seeming entirely rational.

Now I'm not convinced that's the case - I think it's about 50/50 at this point - but to paraphrase Gillum, I think that is what most GOP think. Either they're dominionists, or they're planning on securing elections in nondemocratic ways, or they're thinking that the US will effectively collapse for other reasons. But that's what they're banking on. They're banking on taking out a whole lot of debt and not being around to pay. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, a lot of the 'short sighted' things matter only if you think that there is going to be some form of bipartisan government in the future. If you don't think that for whatever reason things start seeming entirely rational.

Now I'm not convinced that's the case - I think it's about 50/50 at this point - but to paraphrase Gillum, I think that is what most GOP think. Either they're dominionists, or they're planning on securing elections in nondemocratic ways, or they're thinking that the US will effectively collapse for other reasons. But that's what they're banking on. They're banking on taking out a whole lot of debt and not being around to pay. 

Oh look, the election security task force has been gutted.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trumps-dhs-guts-task-forces-protecting-elections-from-foreign-meddling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, I think a lot of folks here are ascribing too monolithic, concrete plans to a group of very disorganized and disparate actors. There's no grand plan among Republican senators, they're each just trying to thread the needle to stay in power until Trump's gone and then continue on their merry way of deregulation and tax breaks. They face a huge number of collective action problems, lack the courage to do anything about them, and are basically just muddling by. They don't want Trump to declare a national emergency, they know what the long-term effects would be, but they don't want to be the ones to stop him either. And right now they also don't want to antagonize him too much before the appropriations bill is signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yeah, it doesn't matter if it passes the Senate or not. Trump will veto it and that will be it. Then Democrats have to find someone with standing and the courts will put this on hold for a long time. 

It's insane that Republicans are willing to set this precedent over such a small issue. They will regret this one day if the courts rule in Trump's favor.

Democrats already have standing.  Republicans in Congress sued Obama in 2015 to block him from re-appropriating funds in order to make payments to insurers under the ACA and they were ruled to have standing.

And a veto doesn't end it. It just prolongs the process and ensures it is covered endlessly in the press as Democrats try to override the veto. Plus it fractures an already shaky Republican coalition.

Trump doesn't know it yet, but this was a bigger miscalculation on his part than the shutdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Fez said:

As usual, I think a lot of folks here are ascribing too monolithic, concrete plans to a group of very disorganized and disparate actors. There's no grand plan among Republican senators, they're each just trying to thread the needle to stay in power until Trump's gone and then continue on their merry way of deregulation and tax breaks. They face a huge number of collective action problems, lack the courage to do anything about them, and are basically just muddling by. They don't want Trump to declare a national emergency, they know what the long-term effects would be, but they don't want to be the ones to stop him either. And right now they also don't want to antagonize him too much before the appropriations bill is signed.

Not to mention that in the showdowns over ACA repeal, tax cuts and the Kavanaugh vote, Republicans had the luxury of holding both chambers of Congress and were facing an historically favorable Senate map in the 2018 elections. Neither of those luxuries apply now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Maithanet said:

I know it's way too early to say for sure, but right now Harris looks like the person to beat for the nomination.  She has a strong resume, she's youngish, she consistently walks the line between being tough and being charismatic, and she showed political acumen by not shrinking away from her record as a prosecutor.  I've no doubt a few people on the left won't like a prosecutor being the nominee, but I doubt it could possibly dampen enthusiasm for her in the general.  The only real downside I'm seeing is that she's from California, and while that isn't ideal, it's hardly a crippling deficiency.  She's had to navigate some bruising Democratic primaries in the past too. 

I don't actually dispute your overall point that she's looking the strongest, but

10 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Perhaps they should be reminded that a liberal icon, or used to be a liberal icon,  at least, that was a former prosecutor was Earl Warren. He was also a Republican, back in the day, when there was somewhat sane ones.

I think it would be a mistake to dismiss the people that have an issue with her history as though its just ideological objection from middle class white liberals or that sort. The people I've seen that have an issue are predominantly members of marginalised communities that have been on the receiving end of the practices she is defending. It's a genuine push back against harm they have seen done. I'm not saying that means you can't support her, just don't view it as anything other than sincere and genuine.

3 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Republic's dead bro. Get what you can or want out of it while you're in a position to do so, and appeasing the petulant child at the top is a prerequisite for maintaining influence.

 

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, a lot of the 'short sighted' things matter only if you think that there is going to be some form of bipartisan government in the future. If you don't think that for whatever reason things start seeming entirely rational.

I haven't seen anyone point this out yet, but it seems like things are getting to the point where the risk of assassination is part of the consideration for any Republicans that might consider "betraying" their own side. The emotion that surrounds betrayal tends to burn brighter and that would be up there for the sort of thing that would trigger an escalation, and I imagine the threat posed by extremists towards the other side is monitored more closely than the threat to their own side.

Share this post


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

×