US Politics - And Now it Begins

[kairparavel]

57 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Abolish ICE

Terrible slogan. I think you mean 'defund'.

[DMC]

6 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

Democrats don't do this, as far as I can tell, they take a look at polls, and they use that to determine what position is popular and take that.

Democrats don't do it because they don't have the undemocratic institutional advantages the GOP does.  The Republicans don't have to convince most of Americans to support their policies because they don't have get the votes of most Americans.  And polling has shown, on most specific policy areas, Democrats do defeat the the GOP on messaging.  Their three big disadvantages there are the GOP is perceived as the party that favors tax cuts, is "strong" on defense, and "strong" on law and order.  The last one is a battle worth having, the second one the GOP has squandered during this century, and the first one...well, I'm not too optimistic on that one.  Everybody hates taxes and the American public is too stupid to realize the GOP isn't cutting theirs.

7 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

I'd argue not being as ruthless as your opponent when you have power compared to when they do is an irresponsible use of power. Why should I continue to support people who are committed to irresponsibly using power?

This argument is completely wrong when it comes to abolishing the filibuster.  The Dems didn't do it in 2009, aye, but the GOP didn't do it in 2017 either.  Ya know why?  Cuz neither of them had the votes.  It was the Dems who started abolishing the judicial filibuster, and while they should have done it sooner, it's just flagrantly and objectively inaccurate to say the Dems haven't been as ruthless as the GOP when it comes to abolishing the filibuster.

11 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Does anyone really think that a Democratic Senate would ever block the Supreme Court nominee of a Republican president, even now?

Uh, yes.  The Dems were the first one's to politicize the confirmation process of SCOTUS nominees in the modern era.  Look up Robert Bork and Ted Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" speech.

[Lollygag]

19 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Any sources/ reseach for this assumption about leftists?

It's not assumptions, just noticing patterns. I've just lived among the far right my whole life. Trying to reason never works and just results in the same stuff on repeat in perpetuity. It's really about stuff going on at the emotional level.

I've not delved into any hard research before but it looks like there's some out there. Just to be clear - there's very loosy-goosy word usage when it comes to progressive, left, far left, socialist and communist and these words are used interchangeably when they shouldn't be.

https://www.theperspective.com/debates/politics/similar-far-left-far-right/

38 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Are there really no competent, eligible progressives for cabinet positions besides Sanders, Warren or other senators?

Maybe to this point, someone was addressing why there weren't younger progressives in line for the leadership positions and it was pointed out that these are technical positions needing a lot of policy knowledge, history, procedure knowledge, etc, stuff that doesn't appeal to the more hot-headed of either party.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

Democrats don't do it because they don't have the undemocratic institutional advantages the GOP does.  The Republicans don't have to convince most of Americans to support their policies because they don't have get the votes of most Americans.  And polling has shown, on most specific policy areas, Democrats do defeat the the GOP on messaging.  Their three big disadvantages there are the GOP is perceived as the party that favors tax cuts, is "strong" on defense, and "strong" on law and order.  The last one is a battle worth having, the second one the GOP has squandered during this century, and the first one...well, I'm not too optimistic on that one.  Everybody hates taxes and the American public is too stupid to realize the GOP isn't cutting theirs.

This argument is completely wrong when it comes to abolishing the filibuster.  The Dems didn't do it in 2009, aye, but the GOP didn't do it in 2017 either.  Ya know why?  Cuz neither of them had the votes.  It was the Dems who started abolishing the judicial filibuster, and while they should have done it sooner, it's just flagrantly and objectively inaccurate to say the Dems haven't been as ruthless as the GOP when it comes to abolishing the filibuster.

Uh, yes.  The Dems were the first one's to politicize the confirmation process of SCOTUS nominees in the modern era.  Look up Robert Bork and Ted Kennedy's "Robert Bork's America" speech.

I'm sorry, I forgot when Democrats refused to sit anyone nominated by a Republican president, remind me when that happened? Oh, Anthony Kennedy was nominated and unanimously approved in Bork's stead? You don't say.

[Lollygag]

11 minutes ago, kairparavel said:

Terrible slogan. I think you mean 'defund'.

There's not a crap-ton of tv shows about heroic ICE agents and they're not relevant to most people like cops are. If I get in a car wreck, I'm not calling ICE.

[DMC]

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm sorry, I forgot when Democrats refused to sit anyone nominated by a Republican president, remind me when that happened?

Huh?  I don't even understand this question.  They did "refuse to sit" Bork by voting him down.  You seem to be asking about McConnell's treatment of Garland, just in a clumsy way.  And in that situation, yes, I definitely think the Dems would do the same exact thing McConnell did.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Huh?  I don't even understand this question.  They did "refuse to sit" Bork by voting him down.  You seem to be asking about McConnell's treatment of Garland, just in a clumsy way.  And in that situation, yes, I definitely think the Dems would do the same exact thing McConnell did.

JFC...Democrats refused to sit Bork, not "anyone nominated by a Republican president". We can disagree without you treating me like an idiot.

And, that's great if you think they would, but I think the most they'd do is Bork them until they crumbled under Republican rhetoric.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

48 minutes ago, DMC said:

Enough with this revisionist bullshit.  Obama and Reid didn't entertain abolishing the filibuster because they did not have the votes to do it, bottomline.  And employing their political capital on stimulus, the ACA, Dodd/Frank, and (along with Pelosi) cap-and-trade meant it was already spent anyway.  They were able to unite their caucus and party-in-the-elite on the first three even though it cost many of those members their political careers.

It's also important to remind people that the gap between Franken being seated and Kennedy passing away was just two months. Their window for a super majority was pretty narrow, and even then there were a handful of Democratic senators who were deep in their jackassery. 

[GrimTuesday]

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

Democrats don't do it because they don't have the undemocratic institutional advantages the GOP does.  The Republicans don't have to convince most of Americans to support their policies because they don't have get the votes of most Americans.  And polling has shown, on most specific policy areas, Democrats do defeat the the GOP on messaging.  Their three big disadvantages there are the GOP is perceived as the party that favors tax cuts, is "strong" on defense, and "strong" on law and order.  The last one is a battle worth having, the second one the GOP has squandered during this century, and the first one...well, I'm not too optimistic on that one.  Everybody hates taxes and the American public is too stupid to realize the GOP isn't cutting theirs.

That's kind of the thing, Democratic polices are popular. I'm going to keep trotting out the statistics of M4A, where an overwhelming number of American support it (or some version of it) and yet the Democrats still winge at supporting it. Really I'd say the biggest issue is actually the media. The fact is that pretty much all media in the US is corporate, so they are always going to be hostile to the left and left wing ideas. Beyond that, the right has FOX, which will back them to the hilt on basically everything, so they have an extremely friendly place to message. The Dems do not have that assets, and the news sources they do have are obsessed with "balance", and will put someone absolutely insane (but outwardly credible) on to attack progressive positions. It's not as simple as I make it sound, but I think the point is still valid.

Also I like paying taxes.

33 minutes ago, Mindwalker said:

Heh. I'm not invested in him, but I do think he'd be an asset as a press secretary or something in that vein (I  know that's beneath his ambitions, even though he did state he'd be happy to help in any capacity inside or outside the administration).

ETA: Why the pettiness, exactly?

Agree he is quite young, if they wanted to use someone as young, they should go for AOC. (Yes, I know they wouldn't.).

I didn't like how he conducted himself during the primary, saying anything he thought would get him ahead no matter what positions he had already taken, and he seem to have very few firmly held beliefs. I basically see him as being Benny from the The Mummy.

To be fair that does sound like the type of characteristics of a solid press secretary.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

JFC...Democrats refused to sit Bork, not "anyone nominated by a Republican president". We can disagree without you treating me like an idiot.

And, that's great if you think they would, but I think the most they'd do is Bork them until they crumbled under Republican rhetoric.

Okay, do you think it's a good thing to just flat out deny any judicial appointment made by a Republican president? 

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

JFC...Democrats refused to sit Bork, not "anyone nominated by a Republican president". We can disagree without you treating me like an idiot.

And, that's great if you think they would, but I think the most they'd do is Bork them until they crumbled under Republican rhetoric.

I'm not trying to treat you like an idiot, it's just your arguments are plainly contradicted by facts/the recent history of escalating polarization in the Senate.  The Dems did confirm Kennedy because he wasn't controversial.  And then Thomas was confirmed with 11 Democrats voting in favor but 46 Democrats voting against.  Then the GOP could have filibustered Ginsburg and Breyer, but they didn't, and each was confirmed 96-3 and 87-9, respectively.  The Dems could have filibustered Roberts and Alito, and they didn't, sure.  Then the GOP couldn't have filibustered Sotomayor, but she was still confirmed 68-31 with 9 Republicans voting yay.  The GOP could have filibustered Kagan, and didn't.  Finally, there was Garland.  If the Dems were in the same situation, they certainly would have done the same thing.  They made that it perfectly clear they would have with Barrett last month if they could have.  In the meantime, the Dems would have successfully filibustered Gorsuch but the GOP abolished it after the Dems abolished the filibuster for lower court nominations.  Then all the Democrats voted against Kavanaugh except for Manchin.

That's the entirety of the current Supreme Court.  Please identify when the Dems failed to be as ruthless in response to the Republicans being ruthless.

3 minutes ago, GrimTuesday said:

I'm going to keep trotting out the statistics of M4A, where an overwhelming number of American support it (or some version of it) and yet the Democrats still winge at supporting it. Really I'd say the biggest issue is actually the media.

The popularity of MFA varies widely depending on the wording of the item (question).  Which is why it's prudent for Dem candidates in swing districts/states to hedge or at least de-emphasize it at the moment.  As for the media being one of the biggest problems, yes, in a nutshell I very much agree.  But that's a looooooong conversation, and the since the long and short of it is we pretty much agree anyway...

[Jaxom 1974]

I don’t think Democrats would have done the same in a reversed situation vis a vis Garland. If they had the Senate and intended to never seat the nominee of a Republican President.  No. They would have had the name come up, gone through the process and then rejected thereby retaining some semblance of norms, even if everyone knew what they were doing.  They wouldn't have undermined in such a manner.  

[Freshwater Spartan]

1 minute ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

I don’t think Democrats would have done the same in a reversed situation vis a vis Garland. If they had the Senate and intended to never seat the nominee of a Republican President.  No. They would have had the name come up, gone through the process and then rejected thereby retaining some semblance of norms, even if everyone knew what they were doing.  They wouldn't have undermined in such a manner.  

Agree. Stopping Garland was a cold hearted winning move by a talented McConnell. No way the Dems do it. Obama was the leader then and winning is not his style.

[Kalbear]

Haha

 

 

[Zorral]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2020/11/23/joe-biden-trump-transition-live-updates/

Quote

Emily Murphy, head of the General Services Administration, said in a letter to President-elect Joe Biden on Monday that her office is ready to begin the formal presidential transition, after weeks of pressure from Democrats to allow the process to go ahead.

 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

If they had the Senate and intended to never seat the nominee of a Republican President.  No. They would have had the name come up, gone through the process and then rejected thereby retaining some semblance of norms, even if everyone knew what they were doing.  They wouldn't have undermined in such a manner.  

If it came up, say, in the first two years of the GOP president's term, yes.  But not in the situation of Garland.  In that, McConnell's rationale was the nomination was in itself illegitimate because "the voters should decide."  The Dems - especially the current Dems/Schumer - would have simply pointed to McConnell's precedent in such a situation.

[Lollygag]

Wonder what Trump got from Russia for this?

Maddow reporting Trump killed the Open Skies treaty which allows monitoring of Russia from air and now he's actually destroying the planes.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear Total Landscaping said:

Haha

The Illinois 4th is what I used in Intro to Gov't preps.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

If it came up, say, in the first two years of the GOP president's term, yes.  But not in the situation of Garland.  In that, McConnell's rationale was the nomination was in itself illegitimate because "the voters should decide."  The Dems - especially the current Dems/Schumer - would have simply pointed to McConnell's precedent in such a situation.

I think the point was not that Dems would do it now, but that Dems would never have violated norms like this in the pursuit of power. So if  the situation was reversed - Bush gets to nominate RBG's seat in 2016 and in some bizarre world dems have control of the senate - Schumer would never have thought to just say 'nope, not gonna do it' like McConnell did. 

Which honestly is less about Republicans and more about McConnell specifically. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 minutes ago, Lollygag said:

Wonder what Trump got from Russia for this?

Maddow reporting Trump killed the Open Skies treaty which allows monitoring of Russia from air and now he's actually destroying the planes.

He's just being a petty, vindictive asshole. Most of the moves he's made post-election are just to kneecap Biden before he's sworn in.