Jump to content
Tywin et al.

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

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DMC said:

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.

Bush's Social Security proposal was deeply unpopular with the public and couldn't even pass the Republican held House. It never reached a point where a filibuster was relevant. 

For abortion you'll have to be more specific, although if your stance is that it's not possible to demonstrate its effectiveness because all the minority leader has to do is threaten it, I guess that's not going to be possible. 

1 minute ago, Martell Spy said:

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.

Weakening bankruptcy law has been an area of bipartisan agreement. Child labor laws and the 40 hour work week are extremely popular and even if deep down in their dark hearts Republicans would love to eliminate them it would be politically insane. Even the pre-existing condition clause, only a recent protection, was too popular for most Republicans to contemplate eliminating even as they tried to scrap much of the rest of the ACA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Bush's Social Security proposal was deeply unpopular with the public and couldn't even pass the Republican held House. It never reached a point where a filibuster was relevant. 

This is not seeing the forest for the trees.  If the filibuster did not exist in 2005, then that changes the GOP's calculus.  The House did not pass SS reform because there was no reason to risk it when they knew it wasn't going to get through the Senate (because, of course, you're right, it was unpopular and Bush monumentally failed at going public to try and change that).  But, they may have been willing to risk it even in the face of an electoral cost - like the Dems did with the ACA - if it was achievable due to the nonexistence of the filibuster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m amazed that more citizens didn’t protest to take away medical insurance and SS funds that they have been compelled to contibute to. The answer is clearly to divert money away from public schools, engage the plebs by attacking women and minorities and make it difficult to vote...s

Share this post


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

Bush's Social Security proposal was deeply unpopular with the public and couldn't even pass the Republican held House. It never reached a point where a filibuster was relevant. 

For abortion you'll have to be more specific, although if your stance is that it's not possible to demonstrate its effectiveness because all the minority leader has to do is threaten it, I guess that's not going to be possible. 

Weakening bankruptcy law has been an area of bipartisan agreement. Child labor laws and the 40 hour work week are extremely popular and even if deep down in their dark hearts Republicans would love to eliminate them it would be politically insane. Even the pre-existing condition clause, only a recent protection, was too popular for most Republicans to contemplate eliminating even as they tried to scrap much of the rest of the ACA. 

I'm talking about heavily restricting or eliminating chapter 7, the one most regular people use for bankruptcy. It's definitely not bi-partisan. And doubtfully the previous ones would fly with current day Dems as well. They're not crazy enough to do that isn't a very good argument, since they have done crazy and politically risky things.

I am not really against removing the filibuster though, so we may be arguing over nothing. Just was gaming it out.

Edited by Martell Spy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it's a bad source, but if it's true, I'm done with Karen Bass

Also, between this and the Cuba stuff from the '70s, there's some serious oppo-digging happening about her. She really must be a finalist for the VP slot.

In other news entirely,

He's the kinda moderate Murdoch who had wanted to Fox News to become more like CNN. He's also been a Biden donor this cycle. With him out, I guess Fox News will be doubling down on its current path for the coming decades with his brother calling all the shots.

Share this post


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

He's the kinda moderate Murdoch who had wanted to Fox News to become more like CNN. He's also been a Biden donor this cycle. With him out, I guess Fox News will be doubling down on its current path for the coming decades with his brother calling all the shots.

HE'S RUNNING

Share this post


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

Well, it's a bad source, but if it's true, I'm done with Karen Bass

Didn't Clinton (Bill) sell out for less?

I vaguely recall him lobbying on their behalf, in exchange for Travolta portraying him more kindly in Primary Colors - yes, I know the protagonist was merely, let's say inspried by Bill, and not named after him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching Jim Carrey  crushing it on Real Time makes me wonder how people will think about us 100 years from now. A guy that crawled out of the ass of a fake robotic rhinoceros is far more rational than the actual President. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McConnell signal to Republican Senate candidates: Distance from Trump if necessary

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/31/politics/senate-mcconnell-trump-firewall/index.html

Quote

 

Washington (CNN)Sen. Mitch McConnell is allowing Republican Senate candidates to do whatever it takes to salvage their campaigns ahead of what Republicans increasingly fear could be a devastating election for their party.

In recent weeks, the Senate majority leader has become so concerned over Republicans losing control of the Senate that he has signaled to vulnerable GOP senators in tough races that they could distance themselves from the President if they feel it is necessary, according to multiple senior Republicans including a source close to McConnell.
That could mean breaking with Trump on the administration's response to the coronavirus pandemic and the continued efforts by the President to paint an optimistic picture despite rising cases and deaths across parts of the country, especially in many Republican states in the South and Midwest.
While this may give some senators the flexibility to draw a distinction between themselves and the President, it also forces them to walk a tightrope. Trump remains enormously popular with the Republican base, and any attempts to undercut him risks alienating those voters.
"These vulnerable senators can't afford to explicitly repudiate Trump," said one senior Republican on Capitol Hill. "They just need to show they are independent on issues important in their states."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, Trump is throwing a temper tantrum and wants to ban TikTok? Isn't that the thing everyone 18 to 21 uses constantly? Is he just purely assuming he can take the 50 and up crowd and win?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Didn't Clinton (Bill) sell out for less?

 

Quote

I vaguely recall him lobbying on their behalf,

The administration had spent a year or more, prior to the meeting with Travolta, indicating that they felt Germany's position on Scientology was discriminatory.

Quote

in exchange for Travolta portraying him more kindly in Primary Colors

Travolta and everyone else said that Primary Colors was not mentioned when Clinton arranged for NSA Sandy Berger to talk to Travolta and a delegation to hear their concerns and reassure them that the U.S. position on Germany's dealings with Scientology was going to remain consistent.

In any case the film was not directed, written, or produced by Travolta, so I'm dubious of what impact doing Travolta a favor would have on the film's portrayal of the character. I don't know the origins of the claim, but would not be surprised if it was one of those things that first arose in the fever swamp of the right.

 

Edited by Ran

Share this post


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

 

The administration had spent a year or more, prior to the meeting with Travolta, indicating that they felt Germany's position on Scientology was discriminatory.

Travolta and everyone else said that Primary Colors was not mentioned when Clinton arranged for NSA Sandy Berger to talk to Travolta and a delegation to hear their concerns and reassure them that the U.S. position on Germany's dealings with Scientology was going to remain consistent.

In any case the film was not directed, written, or produced by Travolta, so I'm dubious of what impact doing Travolta a favor would have on the film's portrayal of the character. I don't know the origins of the claim, but would not be surprised if it was one of those things that first arose in the fever swamp of the right.

 

Possible. I recalled reading that connection being made in some meh paper back in the day, and the US administration lobbying for Scientology conincided with some other shit that cult pulled at that time (post Primary Colors release). Can't really recall what it was about,  probably them aggressively trying recruit new members, or harassing ex-members, or some real estate shizzle - it's been over twenty years by now. And I only remembered it, because the cult of L. Ron was brought up here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Argonath Diver said:

Wait, Trump is throwing a temper tantrum and wants to ban TikTok? Isn't that the thing everyone 18 to 21 uses constantly? Is he just purely assuming he can take the 50 and up crowd and win?

This is one of those times, like with Huawei, where there's a good chance that is an actual, serious problem with the technology being a tool of the Chinese government. However, no one outside his base trusts Trump, he can't deliver a clear message, and he fumbles the US's ability to respond to the issue.

Share this post


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

This is one of those times, like with Huawei, where there's a good chance that is an actual, serious problem with the technology being a tool of the Chinese government. However, no one outside his base trusts Trump, he can't deliver a clear message, and he fumbles the US's ability to respond to the issue.

I've seen technical analyses by security experts who find TikTok's data management to be horrifying, so I needed no convincing. It's just funny that this is the first thing Trump may actually be right about.

Share this post


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

I've seen technical analyses by security experts who find TikTok's data management to be horrifying, so I needed no convincing. It's just funny that this is the first thing Trump may actually be right about.

It’s also just the way he goes about it, like a bull in a china shop.  WE’RE BANNING IT. 

The irony of it is that Trump will go hard against TikTok and Huawei - which I agree with - but in withdrawing US aid and influence around the world China is filling the vacuum in a lot of places. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...