U.S. Politics: Rs Stand Around While Ds Try to Rescue Them

[Varysblackfyre321]

Just now, Stark Revenge said:

 The seat of the federal government should not gaining any additional powers than it already holds.

What powers do you feel it already  holds that would make statehood unfair?

2 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

The Court has no reason to be representative of anyone. They are jurists, not representatives. 

They are political appointees.

3 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

The GOP is not blameless in creating the tension that surrounds the filibuster, but it was Harry Reid that first nuked it for lower court judicial appointments that kicked off this mess

True. It was really stupid of him not have gotten rid of it completely when he had the chance.

4 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

As for the “weaponization” of the filibuster, I don’t think it’s a weaponization at all, but the Senate acting to safeguard its institution power.

At best it serves as a way for members of both parties to not have to worry about voting for a policy that may conflict with their own political and/or financial ambitions.

6 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

If a bill can’t reach 60 votes, then it has not mustered enough nationwide support to become law and should not become law.

Gay marriage has a 65+ Percent approval rating. As does marijuana legalization.

The reason why they’re not law is because of that 30-35 percent of people who’d string up Republican congressmen for voting to codify such things into law.

9 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

Bills with far reaching implications in a country of 330 million plus citizens should not be lightly passed with a narrow 50+1 majority.

Why not have 99 senators before anything is signed off?

Why not have it be neutered to what it back was before the 1970s?

12 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

The parties would be better off watering down their goals and bills and focusing on finding legislative solutions that can achieve broad nationwide support. T

Define broad.

60 percent? 70 percent? 
 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

As for the “weaponization” of the filibuster, I don’t think it’s a weaponization at all, but the Senate acting to safeguard its institution power. If a bill can’t reach 60 votes, then it has not mustered enough nationwide support to become law and should not become law. 

Tell that to the 90% of Americans, including the majority of Republicans, who support background checks.

[DMC]

28 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

Puerto Rico has a good case for statehood, DC not so much. The seat of the federal government should not gaining any additional powers than it already holds. If the argument is about representation, then the size of DC should be reduced to the core administrative buildings and Maryland should absorb the rest of the district. 

Apparently you are unaware that the bill(s) passed by the House do retain the core administrative buildings as the seat of the federal government.  See here:

Quote

The bill would turn most of present-day Washington, DC, into a new state called Washington, Douglass Commonwealth. The new state would be on equal footing with the existing 50, with the same level of control over its own affairs and full voting representation in Congress, with two senators and one representative. A small capital district comprising the Capitol complex, White House, National Mall, and other federal grounds would remain under congressional authority as the seat of the federal government.

As for retrocession, you are ignoring the fact that neither the citizens of DC nor Maryland approve of such a plan.

28 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

The Court has no reason to be representative of anyone. They are jurists, not representatives. 

The highest court in the land should absolutely be more representative of the people it presides over.  As opposed to the current composition of 4 white males, 2 white women, 1 African American male, 1 African American female, and 1 Latina.  But this is a normative point I don't expect you to agree with.  Regardless, the pragmatic reasons for handling the case load remains.

28 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

The GOP is not blameless in creating the tension that surrounds the filibuster, but it was Harry Reid that first nuked it for lower court judicial appointments that kicked off this mess. Pointing fingers and trying to find an original sin for justification is a pointless endeavor because it only leads to the system writ large unraveling.

The GOP is absolutely to blame for first destroying the norm of only using the filibuster in extraordinary circumstances - especially concerning judicial nominations.  This is an empirical fact.  Frankly, Reid waited too long in abolishing it for lower court judicial appointments.

And it's not a "pointless endeavor" when it highlights that the GOP is never going to "normalize" and play by the rules if the Dems just do so and pray they will.  The GOP has been unconcerned with breaking norms for at least this entire century.  It's absurd to ask the Dems to not respond.

28 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

As for the “weaponization” of the filibuster, I don’t think it’s a weaponization at all, but the Senate acting to safeguard its institution power.

No, this is empirically and historically wrong.  The filibuster was not used anywhere near to the extent it is now.  If a party was aligned against a bill, they would vote against it, but they would not force a cloture vote.  Again, THAT was the norm.  And then, beginning with the Clinton administration it started to rise exponentially.  Then during the Obama administration it went off the charts.  See here.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

Tell that to the 90% of Americans, including the majority of Republicans, who support background checks.

Or the majority of people Americans who’d like to gay marriage to be Nationalized and sodomy laws revoked.

@Stark Revenge I get you personally care for democracy, rule of civility, and consensus  you have to understand the party does not and cannot win nationally through proposing policies that would appeal to broad swaths of Americans.

Unless forced to reform they’ll rely on the Zeal MTG types to win the day and eventually move America away from democracy when in control.

You must find it worrying that multiple Republican  Congressmen can say we’re not a democracy with no backlash right?

[Stark Revenge]

I would consider these points more in depth if it wasn’t apparent that these concerns stem from the fact that Dems are not continually benefitting from the structure of government as it stands. The points about the Senate largely came after the 2016 election when Dems lost the electoral college, but won the popular vote. Talk about the filibuster and DC/Puerto Rico obscures the larger point that the left has an existing disdain for federalism as a whole. All of these proposals enlarge the power of the federal government and minimize the power of the states. There’s only so much credence I’m willing to give to these arguments when it’s evident that the end goal of these proposals is to cement the rule of the left in power. Remember, it was only in 2010 that Dems had a supermajority in the Senate. But the second voters shifted away from Dems, it was apparent that if the people would not naturally come to the proper conclusions, the system would have to be altered so that those results would be achieved. Democracy only works when both parties are willing to lose and accept the outcome as provided by the existing governmental system, and I see no evidence that is in vogue right now on the left*. 

*And the right as well to be fair, but that’s another set of issues. 

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

Remember, it was only in 2010 that Dems had a supermajority in the Senate. But the second voters shifted away from Dems, it was apparent that if the people would not naturally come to the proper conclusions, the system would have to be altered so that those results would be achieved. Democracy only works when both parties are willing to lose and accept the outcome as provided by the existing governmental system, and I see no evidence that is in vogue right now on the left*. 

This simply isn't true.  "Taxation without Representation" has been DC's unofficial motto nearly since its inception; and it's been on their license plates since 2000.  The electoral college being completely meritless has also been a movement since at least 2000 (obviously) and well before that as well.  Puerto Rico statehood has a long history as well.  Even expanding the court has, albeit only among court observers/journalists/scholars, which is admittedly a small group.

[Varysblackfyre321]

18 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

I would consider these points more in depth if it wasn’t apparent that these concerns stem from the fact that Dems are not continually benefitting from the structure of government as it stands.

That doesn’t mean the current structure of government is good or at least a necessary evil.

18 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

The points about the Senate largely came after the 2016 election when Dems lost the electoral college, but won the popular vote.

Even if that was true so what?

18 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

Talk about the filibuster and DC/Puerto Rico obscures the larger point that the left has an existing disdain for federalism as a whole.

You need to justify keeping PC/DC from statehood and the filibuster as is.

 

18 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

All of these proposals enlarge the power of the federal government and minimize the power of the states.

So was making it illegal to own slaves and making segregation illegal.

18 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

There’s only so much credence I’m willing to give to these arguments when it’s evident that the end goal of these proposals is to cement the rule of the left in power.

With the proposals offered the  republicans  could and would still win, they’d just  have to moderate away from the maga tendencies of their party.

You know stop talking about how we need patriotic education and banning abortion nationwide.

18 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

Democracy only works when both parties are willing to lose and accept the outcome as provided by the existing governmental system, and I see no evidence that is in vogue right now on the left*. 

Hillary Clinton on the night of the 2016 concurred to trump. Most democrats when asked acknowledged trump legitimately won.

It is blasphemy for a republican to state the fact Trump lost.

Hell even Desantis—who you admire—cannot say this simple thing.

Dude, you’re entire rational for why these proposals should be rebu

[Varysblackfyre321]

27 minutes ago, Stark Revenge said:

*And the right as well to be fair, but that’s another set of issues. 

When the left loses they try to make it easier for people to vote, and give more equal representation in terms of votes(a-la talk of reforming the EC having a federal standard for voting).

When the right loses they try to lynch Congress now.

[Varysblackfyre321]

19 minutes ago, DMC said:

This simply isn't true.  "Taxation without Representation" has been DC's unofficial motto nearly since its inception; and it's been on their license plates since 2000.  The electoral college being completely meritless has also been a movement since at least 2000 (obviously) and well before that as well.  Puerto Rico statehood has a long history as well.  Even expanding the court has, albeit only among court observers/journalists/scholars, which is admittedly a small group.

It should also be noted again(as you’ve already done so)  even if they’re (sorry if I misgendered you Stark.) right that still doesn’t mean any of the proposals shouldn’t be accepted.

People can do and do good things for self-serving reasons.

That doesn’t mean x good thing shouldn’t be done.

[mormont]

Summing up: Stark's Revenge has the position that the Democrats must respect norms even as the Republicans shred them. He insists Dems must moderate their position even as Republicans become more extreme. He admits that Republicans have done the things he's criticising Dems for doing, but will not criticise the Republicans equally. Any mention of the Republicans' sins gets a response demanding that people defend the Democrats. And after all this, he insists that even if the Dems did respect norms, moderate their policies, and refrain from all the things he's complaining about, he'd still vote Republican.

Doesn't seem like a position worth engaging with to me, but that's just me.

[SeanF]

Abolish the filibuster, pack the Supreme Court with judges who vote the way you want, create new States that vote the way you agree with.  That’s fine.

But, what happens when the other side wins, and does exactly the same?

It all seems moot, in any case, as the Democrats don’t have the votes to achieve these things.

[Varysblackfyre321]

7 minutes ago, SeanF said:

But, what happens when the other side wins, and does exactly the same?

I don’t think they’d be deterred from doing exactly the same out of respect to the opposition not.

14 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It all seems moot, in any case, as the Democrats don’t have the votes to achieve these things.

Edited 6 minutes ago by SeanF

True.

[illrede]

To alter the status quo meaningfully in the United States you need (1) enough of the people (House), (2) enough of the places (Senate), (3) for a long enough duration (Court) to go along with it or it just doesn't come off fully. Not something I would change (ironically even using that mechanism).

[DMC]

22 minutes ago, SeanF said:

But, what happens when the other side wins, and does exactly the same?

To echo Varys, the idea that the Republican party - and not even the Trumpists, but also the McConnell..ites? (turtles?) - would not pack the court or create new states if they needed to or if it would help them (respectively) is diametrically opposed to how they've behaved the last twenty years.  Regardless of what the Dems do or don't do.  As for the filibuster, obviously once it's abolished the GOP isn't gonna bring it back, no.

25 minutes ago, SeanF said:

It all seems moot, in any case, as the Democrats don’t have the votes to achieve these things.

Yup.  Nor will they any time soon.

[Martell Spy]

A lens of empathy’: disability advocates on John Fetterman and leadership

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/oct/27/john-fetterman-senate-debate-disability-advocates

Quote

 

The lieutenant governor used a close-captioning device and fumbled some of his sentences – which some commentators claimed was evidence that he was not “fit to serve”.

But some people with disabilities saw things differently: someone adapting to a life crisis anyone could experience.

“To see someone who is in recovery, using these tools that were fairly new to him, and doing so in a public debate where the stakes are so high and all eyes are on him – it’s pretty incredible,” said Maria Town, the president of the American Association of People with Disabilities, a Washington DC-based civil rights organization. “I have a lot of respect for what he was doing.”

 

 

[Zorral]

Um -- the US didn't start with 9 SCOTUS members.  

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/who-were-the-first-six-supreme-court-justices

It also didn't operate then as it does now.

The Court had to be overhauled -- even get a building -- as times changed, states were added, population grew, to be more in step and actually functional.

So it isn't even violating 'norms' to add more members than the 9 we now have.

[Varysblackfyre321]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

he insists that even if the Dems did respect norms, moderate their policies, and refrain from all the things he's complaining about, he'd still vote Republican.

 

They appear to want democrats to disadvantage themselves because it’d be beneficial to their side.

Which can be understandable. But it’s annoying when conservatives present this demand as for the greater good of both sides and pretend that compromise is a virtue in it if itself.

 

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

So it isn't even violating 'norms' to add more members than the 9 we now have.

Yeah that may benefit democrats. So don’t do it.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Chuck Schumer had a hot-mic moment where he was caught saying to Biden where my head is right now, that Georgia was going downhill for the Dems while Nevada was looking better. Just a few days ago I was thinking the opposite though.

[DanteGabriel]

4 hours ago, Stark Revenge said:

I would consider these points more in depth if it wasn’t apparent that these concerns stem from the fact that Dems are not continually benefitting from the structure of government as it stands.

You can just admit you don't actually have a decent argument, you know.