US Politics: A small step from going viral to going postal

[Fragile Bird]

Further to my post about the DoJ taking over Trump’s defense in the Carroll rape case, apparently the justification the DoJ is using is that when Trump denied the allegations while president he was acting as president and therefore it’s legit for the DoJ to defend him.

Congratulations, folks, your tax dollars are defending rape allegations from Trump’s private life more than 20 years ago, just because he’s president!

[Jace, Extat]

That's the smartest thing he's ever done. Well played, Bill Burr.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I was disappointed because your arguments against the filibuster article were largely ad hominem.

Huh?  I pointed out that the complaint about the Obama stimulus was illegitimate - otherwise known as bullshit - because it is.  Then I pointed out that their argument that abolishing the filibuster wouldn't lead to increased polarization/negative partisanship was absurd - otherwise known as bullshit - because it is.  Sorry if my language hurt your feelings, but those assertions are not ad hominem in the slightest.

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I do not foretell, for all foretelling now is vain: on the one hand lies darkness, on the other only hope.  But if we win in November then we must reform our broken politics. 

Are you trying to write a screenplay for a comic book movie?

2 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

But, you know what, Trump did win.  He won the presidency, and the Republicans won Congress.  They won the right to govern and be accountable to the electorate.  That's just democracy and we have to accept it. 

What the hell does this have to do with the issue of abolishing the filibuster or not?

2 hours ago, The Great Unwashed said:

None...because of the filibuster.

Uh, no.  The modern obstructionist usage of the filibuster didn't really get going until the 1990s.  There's a whole two hundred years of presidents and congresses before that.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

ou're for the sake of and creating issues that don't exist.

No I'm not.  How about you address my point - why should the filibuster be abolished if it's Republicans that are much more likely to benefit from such a move in the longterm?  Do you disagree?  If so, why, and if not, then why should Dems do it?

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

There's also the disengaged voter. That Trump can lie so brazenly about this and there's no outcry over his attempt to flip this in the SC shows the issue is more than just his base. And the race tightening shows there's more than just the base at play as these are swing voters here. If you're telling me that they're all leaning Trump as informed voters about what Trump's really up to with healthcare, I don't believe that for a moment.

First off, no, I'm certainly not saying disengaged voters are informed voters.  Second, just because disengaged voters are not raising an "outcry" over Trump doesn't mean they're gonna vote for them.  It'd be pretty weird if disengaged voters raised an "outcry" over anything, right?  Third, is the race really tightening?  Perhaps slightly, but not anymore than what should be expected as the election closes in on an electorate.

1 hour ago, Lollygag said:

Relying on the educated and informed American voter paying attention and even better, understanding, to save anything is a pretty poor strategy.

Well educated whites and minorities are pretty much what the Dems have to rely on at this point because uneducated whites are long gone.  That's just the reality.

[Gaston de Foix]

10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Further to my post about the DoJ taking over Trump’s defense in the Carroll rape case, apparently the justification the DoJ is using is that when Trump denied the allegations while president he was acting as president and therefore it’s legit for the DoJ to defend him.

Congratulations, folks, your tax dollars are defending rape allegations from Trump’s private life more than 20 years ago, just because he’s president!

The Department of Injustice.  Bill Barr makes Jeff Sessions look good.   

[Kalbear]

To be clear, the next step after the DoJ takes over the case is to dismiss it immediately, because the government cannot be held liable for defamation and cannot be sued. 

This is amazingly remarkable. It is a massive abuse of power. It essentially makes the argument that Trump was acting in his capacity as POTUS and therefore cannot be charged with any civil charge while doing so. 

I kind of get where they're going, but it's a massive overreach of executive power. Barr is precisely the person that Trump wanted. 

[Gaston de Foix]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Huh?  I pointed out that the complaint about the Obama stimulus was illegitimate - otherwise known as bullshit - because it is.  Then I pointed out that their argument that abolishing the filibuster wouldn't lead to increased polarization/negative partisanship was absurd - otherwise known as bullshit - because it is.  Sorry if my language hurt your feelings, but those assertions are not ad hominem in the slightest.

Are you trying to write a screenplay for a comic book movie?

What the hell does this have to do with the issue of abolishing the filibuster or not?

The majority of your response was ad hominem.  Anyway, three points to which I wanted to respond. 

1.  The authors mentioned the stimulus incidentally but focussed on the failure of cap and trade in 2010 because of the 60 vote threshold.  That's legislation that really mattered.  Talk about the hard (and important) example not the easy one. 

2.  It is absolutely accurate that abolishing the filibuster wouldn't lead to increased polarization/partisanship. Look at the last five years: Garland, Kavanaugh, impeachment.  We're in the middle of a global pandemic and Americans are in desperate need of federal help and Congress is still gridlocked. Bipartisanship is dead.  The only language Mitch understands is power and his caucus backs him to the hilt.  

3.   The argument for the filibuster (an argument you have made) is that the Republicans will do terrible things legislatively and the filibuster divides power and protects minority rights.  It's a serious argument, but as I've mentioned before Australia, Canada, UK etc etc. all have a simple majority threshold for legislation and they do a better job of protecting minority rights than the US.   

[Gaston de Foix]

7 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

To be clear, the next step after the DoJ takes over the case is to dismiss it immediately, because the government cannot be held liable for defamation and cannot be sued. 

This is amazingly remarkable. It is a massive abuse of power. It essentially makes the argument that Trump was acting in his capacity as POTUS and therefore cannot be charged with any civil charge while doing so. 

I kind of get where they're going, but it's a massive overreach of executive power. Barr is precisely the person that Trump wanted. 

I don't get this.  if Bill Clinton can be sued by Paula Jones why can't Trump for his private words? I mean I get this is vexatious litigation designed to delay the case until after the election.  But how can any self-respecting DOJ lawyer defend this?

[ants]

I think it is a lot easier for racists to defend the status quo than to explicitly remove protections.  Which does not mean it can't/won't be done, but that it doesn't play as well.  

Conservatives get a huge bonus because its easier to defend the status quo than change things.  If you can shift the status quo and show nothing is harmed/worse (like the ACA did), then shifting from it becomes harder.  The filibuster stops progressives shifting the status quo, and should go. 

[Lollygag]

28 minutes ago, DMC said:

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

ou're for the sake of and creating issues that don't exist.

No I'm not.  How about you address my point - why should the filibuster be abolished if it's Republicans that are much more likely to benefit from such a move in the longterm?  Do you disagree?  If so, why, and if not, then why should Dems do it?

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

There's also the disengaged voter. That Trump can lie so brazenly about this and there's no outcry over his attempt to flip this in the SC shows the issue is more than just his base. And the race tightening shows there's more than just the base at play as these are swing voters here. If you're telling me that they're all leaning Trump as informed voters about what Trump's really up to with healthcare, I don't believe that for a moment.

First off, no, I'm certainly not saying disengaged voters are informed voters.  Second, just because disengaged voters are not raising an "outcry" over Trump doesn't mean they're gonna vote for them.  It'd be pretty weird if disengaged voters raised an "outcry" over anything, right?  Third, is the race really tightening?  Perhaps slightly, but not anymore than what should be expected as the election closes in on an electorate.

2 hours ago, Lollygag said:

Relying on the educated and informed American voter paying attention and even better, understanding, to save anything is a pretty poor strategy.

Well educated whites and minorities are pretty much what the Dems have to rely on at this point because uneducated whites are long gone.  That's just the reality.

Bold 1: You're making my point for me. I never brought up the filibuster, just that relying on the education of the American voter as a strategy for anything is idiotic which goes way beyond that particular issue. As you've asked, I have very mixed feelings about the whole thing and don't have a strong stance on it either way - which is why I didn't bring it up.

Bold 2: You're moving the goal posts. My point was they're not raising an outcry because they aren't aware. Are you feeling ok? I was discussing specifically voters being unaware of Trump's attempts to remove pre-existing condition coverage and that he has nothing to replace the ACA with. You then replied that the only issue was Trump's base being uneducated neglecting to mention the whole issue of voters being disengaged. 

4 hours ago, DMC said:

5 hours ago, Lollygag said:

I'm aware of that but that wasn't my point. Trump's campaign is fully aware of the approval hence why they keep pushing that Trump's saving pre-existing condition coverage and his repeal of the ACA is based entirely on the idea that he'll replace it with something better. [...]

what Trump's doing and his polling numbers show it.

This demonstrably is not true beyond his base.  Healthcare is one of the most salient issues, consistently, and the Dems win on it.  And they win on it because of the GOP - and Trump's - policies on the subject.  As for his polling numbers, wtf you talking about?  All the polling numbers show is his base is willing to swallow his bullshit on healthcare, just like they are for everything else.

Third response: You know very well that when I've said educated, I was speaking about being informed about current events, certain issues, etc, not education level.

This is where I'm done. If you're not just being a troll at this point, then take a break because you sure come across that way.

 

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

1.

1.  It is far from certain cap and trade would have passed even without the filibuster.  The key indication there is the fact that it was DOA with the Senate - if they thought they were anywhere close they would have pursued it.  But if you want specifics, we got...Begich, Pryor, Lincoln, Lieberman, Bayh, Harkin, Landrieu, McCaskill, Baucus, Ben Nelson, Hagan, Johnson, and Webb all at least as questionable.  And at least half of them definite nos.  Blaming it on the filibuster is unfounded.  Blame it on the makeup on the Senate.

2.  You mean since we started abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees?  Quite the argument.

3.  Australia, Canada, and the UK are all Westminster systems.  It's different.

11 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Third response: You know very well that when I've said educated, I was speaking about being informed about current events, certain issues, etc, not education level.

This is where I'm done. If you're not just being a troll at this point, then take a break because you sure come across that way.

Educated voters are highly correlated with informed voters.  The two are fairly synonymous.  I think you're wrong about your healthcare point, and yes, I'm sorry I think I might have gotten your response confused with others in my head the last time when I mentioned the filibuster.  I've heard marijuana causes short term memory loss.  But if you think I'm trolling give me a fucking break.

13 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

You're moving the goal posts. My point was they're not raising an outcry because they aren't aware. Are you feeling ok?

And my point is they aren't raising an outcry because they aren't aware, but because they don't care enough to raise an outcry.  AND, that that doesn't necessarily mean they're "supporting" Trump, or are going to vote for him.  Are you feeling ok?

[Kalbear]

20 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I don't get this.  if Bill Clinton can be sued by Paula Jones why can't Trump for his private words? I mean I get this is vexatious litigation designed to delay the case until after the election.  But how can any self-respecting DOJ lawyer defend this?

Bill Clinton didn't try to claim that he couldn't be sued. Trump is claiming that, or at least the DoJ is going along with it. 

And to be clear, this isn't vexatious litigation; if this works, it simply disappears with prejudice. I'm not even sure that the DoJ needs to bring a case at that point.

[Martell Spy]

That's a classic, comparing healthcare to common consumer items. Like when they compared it to a smartphone.

Thom Tillis Staffer Compares Health Care Access To Clothes Shopping When Constituent Pleads For Help
After comparing Bev Veals' worries about losing her health insurance due to the COVID crisis, a staffer told her, "If I can’t afford that dress shirt, I don’t get to get it," dismissing her concerns as trivial.

https://crooksandliars.com/2020/09/cancer-survivor-hurt-and-angry-after

Quote

 

"You’re saying that, if you can’t afford it, you don’t get to have it, and that includes health care?" she asked.

"Yeah, just like if I want to go to the store and buy a new dress shirt. If I can’t afford that dress shirt, I don’t get to get it," he replied.

"But health care is something that people need, especially if they have cancer," Veals said.

"Well, you got to find a way to get it," he responded.

When she asked the staffer what she's supposed to do, he said, "Sounds like something you’re going to have to figure it out."

 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

24 minutes ago, DMC said:

2.  You mean since we started abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees?  Quite the argument.

3.  Australia, Canada, and the UK are all Westminster systems.  It's different.

These responses write themselves. Idk how anyone can seriously say that polarization won't increase if the filibuster is removed....

[TrackerNeil]

4 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

They won't repeal everything, but say the GND passes under unified Democratic control. If that flips, do you think Republicans will just let it stand? Public opinion be damned? 

It's hard to say what would happen, since the GND is less specific policy and more policy goals. However, what I'd imagine is that, if part of the GND provides jobs for a lot of Americans, it's going to be harder to repeal than something that directly touches fewer lives. 

Admittedly, 2020 has proven that Republicans are sometimes willing to drive directly off the cliff and just hope to survive the fall. 

[Gaston de Foix]

42 minutes ago, DMC said:

1.  It is far from certain cap and trade would have passed even without the filibuster.  The key indication there is the fact that it was DOA with the Senate - if they thought they were anywhere close they would have pursued it.  But if you want specifics, we got...Begich, Pryor, Lincoln, Lieberman, Bayh, Harkin, Landrieu, McCaskill, Baucus, Ben Nelson, Hagan, Johnson, and Webb all at least as questionable.  And at least half of them definite nos.  Blaming it on the filibuster is unfounded.  Blame it on the makeup on the Senate.

2.  You mean since we started abolishing the filibuster for judicial nominees?  Quite the argument.

3.  Australia, Canada, and the UK are all Westminster systems.  It's different.

Westminster systems are different but that difference undermines the minority-rights argument for the filibuster. Where you have an executive formed of the majority party in the legislature you have one fewer check and require one fewer elected office for legislation.  Tony Blair routinely got transformative legislation through Parliament that Obama couldn't even dream of getting through. 

The abolition of the filibuster for judicial nominees was a good and salutary decision.  I deplore the court-stacking by Mitch but again, in a democracy, if you have a system of presidential appointment this is what will happen if one party controls the presidency and the Senate.  If the Dems want to stop getting conservative judges take back the Senate.  If we have a Dem Senate and a Dem President for 4 years, we'll be able to appoint as many liberal judges as Trump has appointed conservatives.  The problem is the Republican willingness to blow up norms to secure more power.  They only norms they want to keep are those that entrench their power. 

Are you really claiming that if the Dems hadn't abolished the judicial filibuster Mitch wouldn't have gotten rid of it to confirm Gorsuch?

All those D Senators you mention with the possible exceptions of Nelson and Lieberman would have fallen in line just like the Republicans have for Trump.  All of them have all since lost their seats as well, notwithstanding their so-called principled opposition.  

[Gaston de Foix]

32 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

These responses write themselves. Idk how anyone can seriously say that polarization won't increase if the filibuster is removed....

This is admittedly a more questionable claim.  Honestly, I think on everything big partisanship already rules the day. There are decent senators of both parties who try to get stuff done on the margins/interstitially.  But the Senate is just driven by the partisan composition of the country itself and both halves hate the other half so...

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Westminster systems are different but that difference undermines the minority-rights argument for the filibuster. Where you have an executive formed of the majority party in the legislature you have one fewer check and require one fewer elected office for legislation.

I don't really understand this argument.  All three have a vote of no confidence, which is a much stronger check than impeachment is.

12 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Are you really claiming that if the Dems hadn't abolished the judicial filibuster Mitch wouldn't have gotten rid of it to confirm Gorsuch?

What?  Never did I ever say anything to even imply that.  I'm saying since the abolishment of the judicial filibuster is endogenous with the rise in polarization/negative partisanship.  They each caused the other.  And that will only be exacerbated by the abolishment of the legislative filibuster.  This is a pretty simple point.

12 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

All those D Senators you mention with the possible exceptions of Nelson and Lieberman would have fallen in line just like the Republicans have for Trump.

No they wouldn't have because a lot of them were up for reelection.  They all lost anyway, but doesn't change the fact they would never touch cap and trade.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

It's hard to say what would happen, since the GND is less specific policy and more policy goals. However, what I'd imagine is that, if part of the GND provides jobs for a lot of Americans, it's going to be harder to repeal than something that directly touches fewer lives. 

All the more reason to try and kill it quickly. What could aid in that endeavor? 

Quote

Admittedly, 2020 has proven that Republicans are sometimes willing to drive directly off the cliff and just hope to survive the fall. 

That's how suicide pacts work, and so far, it's proven to be way better than they should have hoped for. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

This is admittedly a more questionable claim.  Honestly, I think on everything big partisanship already rules the day. 

So....make it easier? 

Quote

There are decent senators of both parties who try to get stuff done on the margins/interstitially.  

I worked for one. And I've been loosing faith for a long time now.

Quote

But the Senate is just driven by the partisan composition of the country itself and both halves hate the other half so...

Except the idea that there are two halves is a false premise from the jump. It's really more like 25-30% are liberals, 20-25% hate liberals, and thus are some kind of "conservative," 10-15% are politically active in at least some minor way and overall a plurality just register somewhere on the IDK to I don't give a shit scale, assuming they even vote. 

We deserve our country.

[Paladin of Ice]

On 9/8/2020 at 4:10 PM, Ser Reptitious said:

Re: the filibuster (from the discussion in the last thread)

At this point, keeping the filibuster seems to me the equivalent of playing prevent defence: you have basically given up on making any more notable gains and are simply trying to prevent the other side from eliminating what you have already achieved so far. 

I expect that strategy will work out about as well in the political sphere as it does on the football field.

Yep, this is the key thing for me. As long as the filibuster is in place, the Democrats need 60 votes in the Senate to do anything. So either you need 60 Dem Senators, (which happens so rarely you might as well not even mention it, and will only ever produce watered down crap  that is acceptable to the most conservative member of that 60) or you need to get Republican Senators to go along with it. And as we all should have learned in the last dozen years or so, Republican Senators have 3 modes when it comes to negotiating with Democrats on Democratic priorities: 1) Will not negotiate with Democrats, period, end of story. 2) Will not negotiate with Democrats in good faith, like all the assholes who were promising that they were totally "negotiating" on the ACA for a year only because they wanted to get it right, not because they wanted to take every chance to lie to the public and run out the clock until the mid-term elections, and 3) will only negotiate with Democrats if they can get at least 5 times as many Republican priorities passed as the watered down Democrat priorities.

The filibuster is for people who think things are just fine the way they are and don't need to change. And if that's you, let me know what world you're from, because it sounds like a better one than this, which needs an absolute metric fuckton of change. The only way the filibuster is worth keeping is if it's changed so much that it might as well not be the filibuster anymore.

Let the cards fall where they may. Learn to sell the voters on your positions for real instead of half-heartedly mouthing a few words it and letting the system block you from actually doing it. Yeah, it'll change the political landscape, but the political landscape is always changing. Adapt or die.