U.S. Politics: Some Of Us Did Warn You, But It Can't Happen Here...

[DanteGabriel]

Lololol

I have to at least give him credit for ideological consistency.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

5 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

 

The big disadvantage is chaos. It's a very realistic possibility that the Republicans will destroy Medicaid. They after all just put out some of the worst bills in history that did exactly that. What happens if say Democrats expand healthcare in some manner, maybe Medicaid expansion, Medicare expansion, and public option. Then, Republicans win a blow-out and in coming months rip up Medicaid completely. Even if the Republicans then lose power next cycle, that's a ton of chaos and suffering in a short term of time. And picking up the pieces might be quite hard as it is healthcare policy.

For healthcare they can use reconciliation to get around the filibuster, anyway, which is exactly what they tried when they attempted to repeal the ACA. They failed to get a simple majority for that. On this issue history has shown that any progress in expanding healthcare will be difficult to undo.

In any case, living in a democracy means taking the chance that your opponents might win in the future. I'd rather a system that makes progress easier to achieve than one that makes it extra-difficult on the hope that maybe in the future it will also make it harder for your opponents to undo the progress you made. Making achingly slow or no progress at all risks allowing problems to fester until they become full blown crises, and that's when you'll see real chaos.

[Martell Spy]

4 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

For healthcare they can use reconciliation to get around the filibuster, anyway, which is exactly what they tried when they attempted to repeal the ACA. They failed to get a simple majority for that. On this issue history has shown that any progress in expanding healthcare will be difficult to undo.

In any case, living in a democracy means taking the chance that your opponents might win in the future. I'd rather a system that makes progress easier to achieve than one that makes it extra-difficult on the hope that maybe in the future it will also make it harder for your opponents to undo the progress you made. Making achingly slow or no progress at all risks allowing problems to fester until they become full blown crises, and that's when you'll see real chaos.

McCain is gone and Collins may be retired soon, that's 2 of the 3 R's that voted against it right there. The composition of a future Republican Senate majority, with say 53 to 55 seats, may be far different. I wouldn't want to rely on Senator Romney to save Medicaid. Republican huge evil schemes do usually fail, see Social Security privatization. Does not mean they always will.

Really, the likely thing is party donors and activists would demand a huge tax cut for the rich every two years.

Quote

 

White House senior adviser Stephen Miller scolded former President Barack Obama on Friday for his “shockingly political” remarks on voter suppression at the funeral service for Rep. John Lewis, an icon of the civil rights movement.

In an interview on “Fox & Friends,” the policy aide to President Donald Trump accused his boss’ predecessor of spreading lies about efforts by elected officials to stifle voter participation and minority engagement ahead of November’s election.

“That was shockingly political for a funeral service, but it's also totally disconnected from reality,” Miller said. “It is scandalously, outrageously false.”

 

Stephen Miller: Obama’s comments at Lewis funeral ‘totally disconnected from reality’
The former president used a portion of his eulogy for the late civil rights leader to endorse several voting reform policies.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/31/stephen-miller-obamas-comments-at-lewis-funeral-totally-disconnected-from-reality-389386
 

[DireWolfSpirit]

They need rest, they are so exhausted , the Senate is having nappy time while unemployment insurance expires for millions.

Stimulus negotiations latest: The Senate's not in town as $600 unemployment benefits are set to expire

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/31/politics/stimulus-negotiations-state-of-play/index.html

[Ser Reptitious]

Interesting background video about the rise of AOC (plus a few others, but those others did not - yet, at least - succeed): 

 

[OnionAhaiReborn]

2 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

McCain is gone and Collins may be retired soon, that's 2 of the 3 R's that voted against it right there. The composition of a future Republican Senate majority, with say 53 to 55 seats, may be far different. I wouldn't want to rely on Senator Romney to save Medicaid. Republican huge evil schemes do usually fail, see Social Security privatization. Does not mean they always will.

 

But if they're going to use reconciliation anyway the filibuster is no protection, so,  like it or not, you're going to be relying on some members of future Republican majorities being unwilling to roll back whatever expansions of the safety net Democrats manage to push through. 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

But if they're going to use reconciliation anyway the filibuster is no protection

Comparing reconciliation to abolishing the filibuster is like comparing a gun with one bullet to one with unlimited ammo.

[DireWolfSpirit]

We have a stupendously awful eviction crisis looming-

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f209d31c5b66859f1f3545b

From that article-

Just over 30% of U.S. households were not able to pay their July rent on time, according to a recent report from Apartment List. Of those, the majority were young and low-income renters in urban areas.  

As many as 23 million renters could be evicted by the end of September, according to the COVID-19 Eviction Defense Project, with Latinx and Black renters affected the most. That’s around the same percentage of households who believe they won’t be able to make their next monthly rent or mortgage payment, a Census Bureau survey found. 

Scary stuff.

[Kalbear]

6 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

For healthcare they can use reconciliation to get around the filibuster, anyway, which is exactly what they tried when they attempted to repeal the ACA. They failed to get a simple majority for that. On this issue history has shown that any progress in expanding healthcare will be difficult to undo.

They can do this ONLY if they're actually removing things. If they're adding anything, reconciliation won't work very well - as reconciliation needs to be at best revenue-neutral. Reconciliation is a great  tool for Republicans to remove things. It's a shit tool for Democrats, which is why the filibuster is especially bad as a Dem - Republicans can usually get at least one major thing they carea bout done every year. Dems almost certainly can't.

 

[DMC]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They can do this ONLY if they're actually removing things. If they're adding anything, reconciliation won't work very well - as reconciliation needs to be at best revenue-neutral. Reconciliation is a great  tool for Republicans to remove things. It's a shit tool for Democrats, which is why the filibuster is especially bad as a Dem - Republicans can usually get at least one major thing they carea bout done every year. Dems almost certainly can't.

To be fair, these rules are malleable and easily subject to change in the future.  If the parliamentarian deems a bill violates the Byrd Rule, for instance, the leader can simply fire the parliamentarian - as Trent Lott did in 2001.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

To be fair, these rules are malleable and easily subject to change in the future.  If the parliamentarian deems a bill violates the Byrd Rule, for instance, the leader can simply fire the parliamentarian - as Trent Lott did in 2001.

I guess that's true, but that's also the case for the filibuster, with similar pros and cons. Hell, if you wanted to be SUPER cynical you could abolish the filibuster with a majority senate and have the last act be as you lose your majority to re-create it again with a requirement that it has a filibuster-proof majority to overrule it. 

[GrimTuesday]

1 hour ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

They need rest, they are so exhausted , the Senate is having nappy time while unemployment insurance expires for millions.

Stimulus negotiations latest: The Senate's not in town as $600 unemployment benefits are set to expire

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/31/politics/stimulus-negotiations-state-of-play/index.html

I don't get this move by McConnell, feels like a misstep. We are in the midst of a contentious election, you have members whose seats are decidedly in peril and some who, while looking good right now, may start to lose ground if shit really hits the fan, and you just shrug your shoulders and head home? You can say that Republicans hate their voters and don't care, but they certainly do care about holding onto their seats where they can.

I know that the Republican ideology basically boils down to cutting off ones noes to spite their face, but if their voters are drowning too, even they will turn against them eventually.

Big brain boy genus Jared totally fucked us all

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/07/how-jared-kushners-secret-testing-plan-went-poof-into-thin-air

[Kalbear]

This is an excellent thread about a lot of the things I fear. The main distillation from this is that Trump can - and almost certainly will - cause a lot of chaos without having the legal power to do so, and states will do a lot worse and wait to get sued later (as has already happened):

 

[Kalbear]

Just now, GrimTuesday said:

I don't get this move by McConnell, feels like a misstep. We are in the midst of a contentious election, you have members whose seats are decidedly in peril and some who, while looking good right now, may start to lose ground if shit really hits the fan, and you just shrug your shoulders and head home? You can say that Republicans hate their voters and don't care, but they certainly do care about holding onto their seats where they can.

For most senators their seats are very, very safe. There are a few who are in trouble, but they were likely gone anyway. 

Just now, GrimTuesday said:

I know that the Republican ideology basically boils down to cutting off ones noes to spite their face, but if their voters are drowning too, even they will turn against them eventually.

Citation needed.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Hell, if you wanted to be SUPER cynical you could abolish the filibuster with a majority senate and have the last act be as you lose your majority to re-create it again with a requirement that it has a filibuster-proof majority to overrule it. 

Right, and then the incoming majority could just change that rule on January 3, and on and on...

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right, and then the incoming majority could just change that rule on January 3, and on and on...

If you made it a filibuster-proof requirement, how could they?

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

If you made it a filibuster-proof requirement, how could they?

Because the majority can still reform any Senate (or House for that matter) rule with 51 votes.  That's the precedent that dates back to the creation of Congress, and even if the minority enacted a court challenge, no court is going to require a supermajority for the Senate to change their own rules.  It would require an amendment to fortify such a requirement.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

1 hour ago, DMC said:

Comparing reconciliation to abolishing the filibuster is like comparing a gun with one bullet to one with unlimited ammo.

I didn't make a comparison, I made a point about the recent history of the filibuster as it relates to healthcare. Healthcare was raised as an area where eliminating the filibuster could cause chaos by allowing Republicans to tear up the safety net. I pointed out that, as they have already shown willingness to (attempt) to use the reconciliation process to repeal the ACA, the filibuster does not actually offer any protection in this area.

I still have yet to see anyone offer any historical examples of the filibuster actually being used to thwart reactionary legislation, though I've pointed out its ugly history as a tool against Civil Rights legislation, and all those who lived through the Obama years will remember how effective it was as a tool against progressive legislation. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I still have yet to see anyone offer any historical examples of the filibuster actually being used to thwart reactionary legislation

The filibuster most certainly blocked Bush from pushing through his social security privatization efforts upon reelection.  It's also surely blocked many abortion measures a GOP trifecta would pass any time in the last 30 years.  The way the filibuster is abused in modern times makes it difficult to concretely demonstrate what it's stopped - because all the minority leader has to do is threaten a filibuster (and honestly the majority leadership already knows what the minority is going to filibuster anyway) - but it's incredibly naive to say it hasn't been a safeguard for Dems from 2002-2006 and 2017-2019 against Republican overreach.

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

But if they're going to use reconciliation anyway the filibuster is no protection, so,  like it or not, you're going to be relying on some members of future Republican majorities being unwilling to roll back whatever expansions of the safety net Democrats manage to push through. 

Maybe discussing Medicaid wasn't the best example. Some random things the Republicans could do with no filibuster: Destroy bankruptcy laws as a favor for the credit card companies. Attack child labor laws and the 40 hour work week. Remove the pre-existing condition clause from the ACA.