The last time politics was boring in America was during like the Ford administration.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
The last time politics was boring in America was during like the Ford administration.
It was pretty boring during Obama's second term as well.The last time politics was boring in America was during like the Ford administration.
Officerrob
Banned
These people on CNN who literally say the ACA saved their lives who voted for Trump...
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I don't know exactly how many Dem senators are wanting to try and work with Republicans on Gorsuch but it makes me glad that Schumer is basically "nope, we're filibustering."
I guess this is his first real test to see if he can keep his caucus in line. I don't think any of the Democrats from states Trump won or came close to but Romney didn't will be interested in this (except maybe King) but the five senators from Romney states plus Bennet and Carper are close to enough to break the filibuster. If I'm McConnell and don't want to nuke the filibuster, I'd probably try to go Manchin/Hetikamp/Donnelly/McCaskill/Tester/Bennet/Carper/King, in that order.
I guess this is his first real test to see if he can keep his caucus in line. I don't think any of the Democrats from states Trump won or came close to but Romney didn't will be interested in this (except maybe King) but the five senators from Romney states plus Bennet and Carper are close to enough to break the filibuster. If I'm McConnell and don't want to nuke the filibuster, I'd probably try to go Manchin/Hetikamp/Donnelly/McCaskill/Tester/Bennet/Carper/King, in that order.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
NPR is pretty freaking terrible in their coverage of Gorsuch.
I get that that they want to be bipartisan, but on the liberal side they've done a terrible job of representing it. Maybe there is smarter defenses of Gorsuch from the conservative side, since I haven't researched it myself, but bipartisanship shouldn't mean dumbing down the liberal side into something that's worth attacking.
Take for instance how Gorsuch claims to be a textualist, not a corporatist, in his frozen truckdriver case, when the text seems pretty damn clear that stuff this stuff is wrong?
Let's look at the text of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982:
This fucking extremely lazy reporting of "both sides" based purely on whatever narrative people in government are trying to propagandize is so fucking terrible, and why media deserves all the terrible polling, business, and general mistrust it gets. God damn, is it too much to ask people to do their fucking jobs?
I get that that they want to be bipartisan, but on the liberal side they've done a terrible job of representing it. Maybe there is smarter defenses of Gorsuch from the conservative side, since I haven't researched it myself, but bipartisanship shouldn't mean dumbing down the liberal side into something that's worth attacking.
Take for instance how Gorsuch claims to be a textualist, not a corporatist, in his frozen truckdriver case, when the text seems pretty damn clear that stuff this stuff is wrong?
Let's look at the text of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982:
(b) No person shall discharge, discipline, or in any manner
discriminate against an employee with respect to the employee's
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment for
refusing to operate a vehicle when such operation constitutes a
violation of any Federal rules, regulations, standards, or orders
applicable to commercial motor vehicle safety or health, or because
of the employee's reasonable apprehension of serious injury to
himself or the public due to the unsafe condition of such equipment.
The unsafe conditions causing the employee's apprehension of
injury must be of such nature that a reasonable person, under the
circumstances then confronting the employee, would conclude that
there is a bona fide danger of an accident, injury, or serious impair-
ment of health, resulting from the unsafe condition. In order to
qusilify for protection under this subsection, the employee must have
sought from his employer, and have been unable to obtain, correc-
tion of the unsafe condition.
This fucking extremely lazy reporting of "both sides" based purely on whatever narrative people in government are trying to propagandize is so fucking terrible, and why media deserves all the terrible polling, business, and general mistrust it gets. God damn, is it too much to ask people to do their fucking jobs?
It was pretty boring during Obama's second term as well.
With gay marriage, ISIS, Ukraine, Boehner's implosion, the 2016 election, etc?
LostMyNarbles
Member
8 Years of Republicans obstructing Obama and pulling an unprecedented political play when they refused to even give Garland a hearing and yet some Democrats still think they can be reasoned with. Absolutely disgusting.
McConnell actually strikes me as the type of person that keeps his word. He's a shithead but he thinks he is a member of the most exclusive club in the world and that he's an old school dealer. He liked Biden for example...and not Reid.
I'm not saying it's a "good" deal, but again 'bustering is for optics. If anyone thinks they won't go nuclear just for SC nominations, you cray.
That's not optics, setting that norm matters for future SCOTUS noms, so dems should force the filibuster to be nuked now to formalize it.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Is anyone but Politico reporting this Democrat "deal?"
Because this feels like "ignore the chaos in the GOP going on right now, because look over here at the Democrats!!"
Because this feels like "ignore the chaos in the GOP going on right now, because look over here at the Democrats!!"
The vote on Gorsuch isn't for another two weeks, is it? I'd be much more inclined to believe that's a serious strategy if it were being reported, like, a week from now instead of tonight.
McConnell isn't spineless. I loathe the guy, but he's got a spine of steel to be able to maintain a discipline of pure opposition over his entire caucus for eight years, down to an unprecedented year-long blockade of a president's SCOTUS appointment.
heh, given that he was nearly assassinated twice on the job, I'd bet Ford himself would beg to differ.
... Right. So they'll just do it during the next confirmation. McConnell is completely spineless, what more do we need to see at this point?
He's already caved at the prospect of even using the nuclear option because Trump leaned on him.
McConnell isn't spineless. I loathe the guy, but he's got a spine of steel to be able to maintain a discipline of pure opposition over his entire caucus for eight years, down to an unprecedented year-long blockade of a president's SCOTUS appointment.
The last time politics was boring in America was during like the Ford administration.
heh, given that he was nearly assassinated twice on the job, I'd bet Ford himself would beg to differ.
Perhaps but I really hope it's not AHCA Freedom Caucus Edition.Something will end up passing the Senate
The Senate could defy the FC and make it closer to original AHCA. Kinda like when the House passed the public option and then the Senate felt that was too extreme. This is on the other side of the spectrum. This will make original AHCA look good. All part of the master plan?
Also, Dems strategy on Gorsuch is why I don't expect great things from them in 2018. What a joke.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I don't think Dems want to waste time on Gorsuch. They won't get better, they need to move on.
Funkyhamster
Member
Aside from the optics of not appeasing the Democratic base, what's so bad about this deal? If McConnell goes back on his word, the outcome would be the same, and if he somehow keeps his word, the outcome would be better. I don't see it as attempting to compromise so much as saving political capital for a time when it might be more impactful (e.g., if Trump nominates David Duke or Milo or whoever to replace a liberal justice). Maybe there's a nuance of the deployment of the nuclear option that I'm missing, though.
Edit: Unless the idea is to gamble that the next SC vacancy will come during a Democratic administration?
I don't think Dems want to waste time on Gorsuch. They won't get better, they need to move on.
Good way to lose in 2018.
Dems need to start actually trying.
Fenderputty
Banned
Rage inducing
StopMakingSense
Member
I don't think Dems want to waste time on Gorsuch. They won't get better, they need to move on.
Yeah, that isn't the worst deal they could make. Save the filibuster for the appointment that will tip the court.
I don't think Dems want to waste time on Gorsuch. They won't get better, they need to move on.
Who knows? Trump's second choices for NatSec Advisor and Labor Secretary were way better than his first picks!
Plasticine
Member
Nice to see the Democrats haven't tired of trying to kick that football. Maybe someday. Someday.
heh, given that he was nearly assassinated twice on the job, I'd bet Ford himself would beg to differ.
And nobody even remembers. Boring!
Aside from the optics of not appeasing the Democratic base, what's so bad about this deal? If McConnell goes back on his word, the outcome would be the same, and if he somehow keeps his word, the outcome would be better. I don't see it as attempting to compromise so much as saving political capital for a time when it might be more impactful (e.g., if Trump nominates David Duke or Milo or whoever to replace a liberal justice). Maybe there's a nuance of the deployment of the nuclear option that I'm missing, though.
Edit: Unless the idea is to gamble that the next SC vacancy will come during a Democratic administration?
There is no reason to set the expectation that Republicans need 50 votes for SCOTUS but Dems need 60. This idea of saving political capital is just false. Since there is no way to enforce the promise, you would give up the filibuster of Gorsuch in exchange for nothing.
What consequence would McConnell face for the next nomination if he decides to nuke the filibuster?
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Is that plan to just copy The West Wing still floating around? The one where we'll confirm Gorsuch and then just trust the goodwill of Trump and Republicans to put Garland on the court for Ginsburg or Breyer?
I really hope that wasn't real.
I really hope that wasn't real.
What, seriously? What has the GOP done in the last decade that has in any way indicated that Republicans would make good on a deal like this?
When they blanket opposed our president?
Filibustered their own legislation if Obama said anything good about it?
Shut down the government?
Accused our president of being a secret Muslim and/or terrorist sympathizer?
Whipped their base into a frenzy over locking up Hillary Clinton?
Stealing the justice seat currently in question?
Any Democrat who goes along with the GOP on a deal like this THINKING that the GOP will make good on their end is a fucking moron, and there's really no way around that.
EDIT: Why are we still talking about political capitol? Didn't #TeamLeverage learn this lesson already?
When they blanket opposed our president?
Filibustered their own legislation if Obama said anything good about it?
Shut down the government?
Accused our president of being a secret Muslim and/or terrorist sympathizer?
Whipped their base into a frenzy over locking up Hillary Clinton?
Stealing the justice seat currently in question?
Any Democrat who goes along with the GOP on a deal like this THINKING that the GOP will make good on their end is a fucking moron, and there's really no way around that.
EDIT: Why are we still talking about political capitol? Didn't #TeamLeverage learn this lesson already?
The Dems are the opposition party. Trump is unpopular and a potential gift to flip the House and the Senate in 2018. The only thing they should be focused on is wasting time, slowing down everything as much as possible, and stopping as much of this crazy bullshit as possible.
And the whole "it won't tip the balance of the courts" is asinine GOP spin that we shouldn't even bother dignifying for a second.
And the whole "it won't tip the balance of the courts" is asinine GOP spin that we shouldn't even bother dignifying for a second.
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Trump's political capital is up in flames and Dems are talking about deals? Jesus
Is that plan to just copy The West Wing still floating around? The one where we'll confirm Gorsuch and then just trust the goodwill of Trump and Republicans to put Garland on the court for Ginsburg or Breyer?
I really hope that wasn't real.
I would actually be fine with a deal where we confirmed Garland and Gorsuch, but Garland would clearly need to be first.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Aside from the optics of not appeasing the Democratic base, what's so bad about this deal? If McConnell goes back on his word, the outcome would be the same, and if he somehow keeps his word, the outcome would be better. I don't see it as attempting to compromise so much as saving political capital for a time when it might be more impactful (e.g., if Trump nominates David Duke or Milo or whoever to replace a liberal justice). Maybe there's a nuance of the deployment of the nuclear option that I'm missing, though.
Edit: Unless the idea is to gamble that the next SC vacancy will come during a Democratic administration?
I guess maybe not much "Aside from the optics of not appeasing the Democratic base", depending on how much you expect McConnell to kill the filibuster for Gorsuch.
But appeasing the democratic base is something Democrats really need to start considering. Democrats need to learn that they are a politcal party, not a policy party, and not all good policy is good politics. At least not when you're talking about slim chance future home runs over something that people actually care about right now in the present.
Yes, Gorsuch is their weakest position on polls, but the people that oppose Gorsuch are exactly the type of people democrats need to activate to be voters and stewards of the party. So maybe don't make it your primary position on sunday talk shows if you must, but definitely don't vote to break the filibuster of him.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I'm not a fan of it at all. Garland's pretty old and probably is to the right Breyer and is definitely to the right of Ginsburg. He was a compromise pick, which is why we picked him during a GOP senate session and they spat on us. If we're going to compromise, at least get a young lefty.I would actually be fine with a deal where we confirmed Garland and Gorsuch, but Garland would clearly need to be first.
It's just unbelievable.Trump's political capital is up in flames and Dems are talking about deals? Jesus
If Dems don't learn how to win in the next 2 years the GOP is going to continue to take over the country, amend the constitution and turn us into a legit theocracy
They should never get rid of the filibuster, it's one of the few ways a minority party can actually have a voice in the senate
The filibuster is already dead.
A threat requires actual force behind it to be a threat.
Bingo.The filibuster is already dead.
A threat requires actual force behind it to be a threat.
Cesare Borgia
Banned
There is no risk to opposing Gorsuch. Multiple senators are probably going to end up running for president, they gain nothing by playing along with this alleged plan (that isn't going to happen). Gorsuch is probably the best nominee Trump is going to offer up but that doesn't matter. It's not about him, it's the principle. And the fact that Trump has no political capitol, is imploding on all sides, might be removed from office, etc etc etc. Why give him his first victory of 2017? If they want to shitcan the filibuster while Trump is sub 40% approval and House republicans are spooked, go ahead.
Basileus777
Member
I'm not a fan of it at all. Garland's pretty old and probably is to the right Breyer and is definitely to the right of Ginsburg. He was a compromise pick, which is why we picked him during a GOP senate session and they spat on us. If we're going to compromise, at least get a young lefty.
Hah, the alternative is two right wing justices. If anything getting Garland is too sweet of a deal for it to ever happen.
Fenderputty
Banned
Yeah, that isn't the worst deal they could make. Save the filibuster for the appointment that will tip the court.
I don't see much reason for this. There is no garauntee a 2nd seat would need to be filled. The deal could literally have no payout. It's paying for insurance that both somone will be replaced and the nuclear option is used.
Gorsuch would flip the court. We're currently 4-4. Keeping it that way until 2018 should be a priority if they won't nominate a moderate like Garland. The upcoming WI gerrymandering case should be another reason to want to obstruct. The state just appealed the order and it should go to SCOTUS late this year.
The current political climate with Russia and the AHCA is giving the Dems the political capital needed to obstruct. This may change but until it does I don't see a reason to acquiesce.
I don't believe the turtle wants to drop the nuke. I think keeping the filibuster gives them the ability to try and shift blame on democrats for filibustering shitty bills they don't really want to pass. The house is ran by lunatics. Plus, this deal hinges on the turtle having the balls say not to Trumps demands. If you don't trust him now, why would you in the future?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Hah, the alternative is two right wing justices. If anything getting Garland is too sweet of a deal for it to ever happen.
Gorsuch is at least as conservative, and probably more conservative than Scalia.
What makes him a sweet deal? His willingness to act like a "balls and strikes" judge that every judge acts like at every confirmation hearing ever since Bork?
I really am totally willing to deal on conservative judges despite what other liberals want. Hell, I'd even take a John Robert's clone at this point. But why would we deal on fucking Gorsuch?
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Maybe I wasn't clear about what the detail entails.Hah, the alternative is two right wing justices. If anything getting Garland is too sweet of a deal for it to ever happen.
The idea was that Ginsburg or Breyer step down now (or soon) so that there's two empty spots and Trump nominates Gorsuch and Garland at the same time. If the idea was "Trump nominates Garland now and as a deal Democrats don't obstruct if a liberal justice dies" then that's a deal worth taking.
The last time politics was boring in America was during like the Ford administration.
Canada politics(not including Alberta politics) seems kinda boring compared to US politics right now.
Officerrob
Banned
Please don't act shocked and outraged when the House passes the healthcare bill tomorrow, this was always going to happen. Thinking you could rely on the HFC was always ridiculous
Please don't act shocked and outraged when the House passes the healthcare bill tomorrow, this was always going to happen. Thinking you could rely on the HFC was always ridiculous
Don't be shocked.
But please be outraged.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Please don't act shocked and outraged when the House passes the healthcare bill tomorrow, this was always going to happen. Thinking you could rely on the HFC was always ridiculous
I'll only act shocked if the house doesn't pass it.
Don't be shocked.
But please be outraged.
I am totally ready to be outraged.
Please don't act shocked and outraged when the House passes the healthcare bill tomorrow, this was always going to happen. Thinking you could rely on the HFC was always ridiculous
Don't be shocked.
But please be outraged.
Exactly. How could we not be outraged at what they're doing to America's healthcare? Obamacare wasn't perfect, but we'll literally be heading into what could possibly be even worse than our healthcare system pre-ACA with Trumpcare.
And I don't want to hear anything about how it won't pass in the Senate. There are a lot of things we never thought we'd see in our politics these days. Destroying Obamacare has always been a priority for the GOP.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Exactly. How could we not be outraged at what they're doing to America's healthcare? Obamacare wasn't perfect, but we'll literally be heading into what could possibly be even worse than our healthcare system pre-ACA with Trumpcare.
And I don't want to hear anything about how it won't pass in the Senate. There are a lot of things we never thought we'd see in our politics these days. Destroying Obamacare has always been a priority for the GOP.
I maintain it won't pass without amendment, but it is totally possible the amendment mostly curtails to what the freedom caucus wants while the senate pretends it fixes everything, voting on it far before the CBO has a chance to evaluate it, just like the house is voting on their version before the CBO can evalute its changes.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.