PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
Republicans made an actual play by obstructing Garland. Democrats have absolutely no play here by obstructing Gorsuch besides satisfying a grievance that the Republicans made a successful play.
 
Good Job Bob said:
Republicans made an actual pay by obstructing Garland. Democrats have absolutely no play by obstructing Gorsuch besides satisfying a grievance that the Republicans made a successful play.
Click to expand...
A fillibuster is a successful f'n play.

If it gets nuked? Good.

If it stands and he gets blocked? Good.
 
Sibylus said:
Liberal MP rises, again returns to the assurances the Trump WH gave Canada, argues that nations have the right to set their own immigration policies. Talking about government policy and initiatives now.

The Trudeau LPC isn't going for anything right now, is the vibe I'm getting here after 3-4 MPs have risen to speak. Caution signal on.
Click to expand...
You expected otherwise? I expected the hands over ears approach all along.
That said, once NAFTA is toast, I'm going to be cheesed if Justin gives an inch to the terrible negotiator.
We'd better get the same deal with the same rules and, if not, then it'll be time to raise hell.
 
Good Job Bob said:
Republicans made an actual pay by obstructing Garland. Democrats have absolutely no play by obstructing Gorsuch besides satisfying a grievance that the Republicans made a successful play.
Click to expand...

There was no justification given, that anyone bought, from the GOP. The messaging was terrible and confused and made no sense and the polling was entirely in support of Obama and Garland.

You don't need to have any argument or rationale to block a court appointment, no voter cares.
 
Democrats need to make sure to do the following:

- Filibuster this guy
- During the hearings ask him questions about Trump's more controversial EOs
- During the hearings ask him questions about LGBTQ rights
- After asking him about "religious freedom", ask him questions about discrimination against Muslims
- Ask about Trump's conflicts of interest and if they violate the emoluments clause.
 
CPC MP asks previous MP if she has anything to argue regarding the EO and taking additional measures for refugees.

She responds that Canadians will be unaffected and sits down.

NDP MP now rises and asks the same question, presses on Article 10 of the Safe Third Country Agreement.

She responds that the requirement of the agreements are being met, that the government is monitoring the situation and have WH assurances.

CPC Immigration critic demands addressing the topic at hand, argues for opting out of the agreement.


This is going in circles. The direction of the Trudeau government is clear as crystal: caution and don't move.
 
UberTag said:
You expected otherwise? I expected the hands over ears approach all along.
That said, once NAFTA is toast, I'm going to be cheesed if Justin gives an inch to the terrible negotiator.
We'd better get the same deal with the same rules and, if not, then it'll be time to raise hell.
Click to expand...

Expected? No. Trudeau can be frustratingly given to caution. I had hopes, though. I'll call my MP again with my twopence.
 
Box of Kittens said:
Right. I mean, where's the downside to a filibuster? Where's the upside to not filibustering?
Click to expand...

See, there exists this magical quantity called "political capital" that totally exists and isn't imaginary and it's an exhaustible resource as shown by the huge price paid by Mitch McConnell for blocking everything prior to 2016 and then blocking Garland in 2016.

(Trump losing support because people think he's incompetent wouldn't be a case of using up political capital in my mind because of how political capital is defined. Political capital is defined as a thing that clearly does not exist).
 
kirblar said:
A fillibuster is a successful f'n play.

If it gets nuked? Good.

If it stands and he gets blocked? Good.
Click to expand...

It's bad for liberals if the filibuster gets nuked, because conservative run courts can do way more damage than liberal run courts can help. Conservatives love obstruction because they hate the government, and if you hate conservatives obstructing in congress, you'll really hate conservatives obstructing government progress on the supreme court with potentially decades until they can be replaced.

A court full of moderates benefits liberals way more than a court full of partisans.
 
Carpe Libertatem said:
Democrats let Gorsuch get through, RBG dies in 2018, McConnell nukes filibuster anyway to get a generational court advantage.
Click to expand...

well filibuster it is then although conservatives already have a 5-4 majority assuming this guy gets through. Replacing RBG, Kennedy and/or Breyer solidifies it for another 25+ years.

To think in an alternate reality it would be the Democrats solidifying a liberal majority for the first time since Johnson-Nixon. It's also interesting that Truman was the last time the Chief Justice was nominated by a Democrat.
 
thepotatoman said:
It's bad for liberals if the filibuster gets nuked, because conservative run courts can do way more damage than liberal run courts can help. Conservatives love obstruction because they hate the government, and if you hate conservatives obstructing in congress, you'll really hate conservatives obstructing government progress on the supreme court with potentially decades until they can be replaced.

A court full of moderates benefits liberals way more than a court full of partisans.
Click to expand...
THE FILLIBUSTER NEEDS TO DIE.

I'm not kidding on this. It no longer works. Yes, it means R/R/R does more damage, but it also frees up D/D/D to actually get shit done. It's a necessary change to actually make governance possible.

This is win/win. You fillibuster, and put the ball in McConnell's court, knowing he doesn't want to axe it.
 
Someone on NPR earlier calling in criticizing Yates because, as they saw it, why would the President even be allowed to sign an Executive Order that was unlawful? Just a reminder that most people don't even understand how the Government works.
 
Carpe Libertatem said:
Democrats let Gorsuch get through, RBG dies in 2018, McConnell nukes filibuster anyway to get a generational court advantage.
Click to expand...

This. The GOP has shown that they don't give a flying fuck about tradition and standards.

Dems need to energize their base into voting in 2018, and the best way to do that is to just oppose, oppose, oppose.

Stop wasting time trying to go high. Save the high route for AFTER we win back control and AFTER we secure that control.

Dems need to focus their messaging on being about finishing the following sentence:

"We oppose the GOP's agenda because....."

Hell, I would even go so far as to say that Democrats should start employing methods to suppress deplorable votes covertly.

thepotatoman said:
It's bad for liberals if the filibuster gets nuked, because conservative run courts can do way more damage than liberal run courts can help. Conservatives love obstruction because they hate the government, and if you hate conservatives obstructing in congress, you'll really hate conservatives obstructing government progress on the supreme court with potentially decades until they can be replaced.

A court full of moderates benefits liberals way more than a court full of partisans.
Click to expand...

Except the GOP will be stuffing the court regardless of the filibuster.

If Democrats ever take back control, they can secure it by doing the following (fuck traditions):

- Nuke the Fillibuster
- Amend the Reapportionment Act of 1929 so that the limit of House seats is 800 not 435.
- Enact a national ID that is easily accessible and required by federal law to be accepted as valid ID for the purposes of voting.
- Stuff the courts in the dirtiest ways possible: Change the limits of SCOTUS seats and stuff the new seats and/or find/frame felonies on conservative judges to kick them out.
 
thepotatoman said:
It's bad for liberals if the filibuster gets nuked, because conservative run courts can do way more damage than liberal run courts can help. Conservatives love obstruction because they hate the government, and if you hate conservatives obstructing in congress, you'll really hate conservatives obstructing government progress on the supreme court with potentially decades until they can be replaced.

A court full of moderates benefits liberals way more than a court full of partisans.
Click to expand...

If a liberal justice dies you better bet your ass they will nuke the filibuster to get a replacement. It honestly doesn't matter either way. You really think they will be respectful while RBGs seat is up?
 
kirblar said:
A fillibuster is a successful f'n play.

If it gets nuked? Good.

If it stands and he gets blocked? Good.
Click to expand...
Why is nuking the filibuster good?

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
There was no justification given, that anyone bought, from the GOP. The messaging was terrible and confused and made no sense and the polling was entirely in support of Obama and Garland.

You don't need to have any argument or rationale to block a court appointment, no voter cares.
Click to expand...
No one, including the Democratic base tbh, really cared about what was going on with Garland because everyone was super focused on the most bizarre Presidential election of our lifetime.
 
If we lose Kennedy and or either of the aging liberals and lose the filibuster fight then the only thing we can do is win back the WH, Senate and House and then add more justices.
 
Good Job Bob said:
Why is nuking the filibuster good?

No one, including the Democratic base tbh, really cared about what was going on with Garland because everyone was super focused on the most bizarre Presidential election of our lifetime.
Click to expand...

I'm betting that no one will ever care about a Supreme Court appointment. Lots of Republicans tried to make it into a campaign issue in the primary because no one trusted Trump on appointing justices and no one cared.
 
Diablos said:
If we lose Kennedy and or either of the aging liberals and lose the filibuster fight then the only thing we can do is win back the WH, Senate and House and then add more justices.
Click to expand...

You block until 2018 and try to win the senate even though at best it looks like a wash there. No matter what happens we are fucked
 
"Scalia was super conservative so the makeup of the court won't change much"

As if GOP will wait and let dems fill Ginsburg's seat if she retires during Trump's term? Good luck with that!

"They'll use the nuclear option"

As if that somehow prevents them from using it later? Gonna quote myself from the thread:

JP_ said:
If dems roll over, republicans will just kick them around like a ball anyway.

"Hey GOP, what you did was wrong, but we'll let you get away with it this time. Promise not to do it again ok?"
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, this is the same GOP that was promising to block Clinton from filling the seat if she won. Turning it into a fight isn't at all guaranteed to work, but I don't see the advantage of rolling over.

I'm not holding my breath, but I think dems should block any nom in order to preserve the normal order of things and use this fight as a campaign tool. Republicans broke the system when they blocked Obama's nomination for nearly a year -- it's still broken. Republicans want to fix it and get things back to normal? Trump should nominate Garland and republicans should confirm him -- after that, someone like Gorsuch could get confirmed next time a seat opens up. If GOP goes nuclear, dems use it to campaign and make the best of it while they try to take back the government.
 
Good Job Bob said:
Not when we have President Steve Bannon.
Click to expand...
I think it comes down to whether we want to be left bleeding slowly or quickly. The country will go to shit under republican rule regardless. If they remove the filibuster it will only happen quicker. I rather we go out with our principles intact.
 
Good Job Bob said:
Not when we have President Steve Bannon.
Click to expand...
You can't get goddamn shit done WHEN you get power.

The point is to put into place things like the ACA that act as perpetual motion machines once you're inevitably out of power. (Hi, Private industry pressure!) Nothing lasts forever.

Nothing is keeping the GOP from nuking it except McConnell. LEVERAGE IT.
 
Dierce said:
I think it comes down to whether we want to be left bleeding slowly or quickly. The country will go to shit under republican rule regardless. If they remove the filibuster it will only happen quicker.
Click to expand...

Might as well go out on principle.

This is a good hill to die on.

Bust it!
 
Good Job Bob said:
Why is nuking the filibuster good?
Click to expand...

Because the Government is broken with it. The number of filibusters each year is getting ridiculous. Yea, Democrats should be able to filibuster bullshit legislation, but it's gotten to the point where without having 60 votes in the Senate you cannot pass anything. There is no way Trump doesn't tank the Republicans in 2018 and 2020, and when the smoke clears Democrats stand to have a majority hold on the Government, maybe not a super majority, but a majority. If we let the filibuster die now, when 2020 rolls around the Democrats can actually get something done, and probably reverse all the damage Trump did within a few months or a year.

The need for 60 in the Senate leads to a "must win" attitude in Washington, and that needs to go. Nobody gives a shit about passing legislation, it's about taking political cheap shots to ensure you get re-elected. If we didn't have the filibuster, the excuse of "but it will never pass/it will just get filibustered" no longer exists.
 
If we aren't going to filibuster this pick .. then why are we scarred of it going away?

What's the point of having it if we don't use it

I'd rather it be gone entirely if only republicans use it and democrats don't
 
If the republicans go completely nuclear they will have carte Blanche of whatever they want. McConnell won't do it because whatever Healthcare failure they put out will be on them

If it gets Nuked and RBG needs to be replaced I'll ask you how you feel then
Click to expand...

They will nuke it anyway!! It's hilarious people think they will suddenly play fair
 
metalslimer said:
If the republicans go completely nuclear they will have carte Blanche of whatever they want. McConnell won't do it because whatever Healthcare failure they put out will be on them
Click to expand...

Doesn't the filibuster only apply to SCOTUS nominees now, though? Harry Reed tactical nuked it for executive appointments and I'm pretty sure that nuked it for legislation as well.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Doesn't the filibuster only apply to SCOTUS nominees now, though? Harry Reed tactical nuked it for executive appointments and I'm pretty sure that nuked it for legislation as well.
Click to expand...
It has not been nuked for legislation.

Not doing so in 2009 was a gigantic error from a naive Obama.
 
CrimzonSamurai said:
Doesn't the filibuster only apply to SCOTUS nominees now, though? Harry Reed tactical nuked it for executive appointments and I'm pretty sure that nuked it for legislation as well.
Click to expand...

No there is still a filibuster for legislature. If McConnell removes it for the SC he could go completely nuclear.
 
neurosisxeno said:
Because the Government is broken with it. The number of filibusters each year is getting ridiculous. Yea, Democrats should be able to filibuster bullshit legislation, but it's gotten to the point where without having 60 votes in the Senate you cannot pass anything. There is no way Trump doesn't tank the Republicans in 2018 and 2020, and when the smoke clears Democrats stand to have a majority hold on the Government, maybe not a super majority, but a majority. If we let the filibuster die now, when 2020 rolls around the Democrats can actually get something done, and probably reverse all the damage Trump did within a few months or a year.

The need for 60 in the Senate leads to a "must win" attitude in Washington, and that needs to go. Nobody gives a shit about passing legislation, it's about taking political cheap shots to ensure you get re-elected. If we didn't have the filibuster, the excuse of "but it will never pass/it will just get filibustered" no longer exists.
Click to expand...

This gamble relies on Democrats being able to turn people out and vote. They have failed at it consistently every single time in midterms and only a once in a lifetime candidate got it done for Pres elections.
 
Chumley said:
This gamble relies on Democrats being able to turn people out and vote. They have failed at it consistently every single time in midterms and only a once in a lifetime candidate got it done for Pres elections.
Click to expand...

If we're assuming dems can't get out the vote then it doesn't matter either way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Poll
2017-2018 NCAA Men's Basketball Topic: UNC from Redemption to Redeemed
21
3K
Corrik replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
Top Bottom