Support NeoGAF

[Dubbedinenglish]

So here's a question. If Republicans somehow got over their hatred of roads and bridges and got their shit together enough to pass a reasonable infrastructure bill, would you want dems to fillibuster that? I'm torn because I want Republicans to have a taste of our last 8 years, but I also really want to see our infrastructure fixed. Our failing bridges could be a danger to everyone.

Depends on the how. Who will get contracts, where and for what.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

So here's a question. If Republicans somehow got over their hatred of roads and bridges and got their shit together enough to pass a reasonable infrastructure bill, would you want dems to fillibuster that? I'm torn because I want Republicans to have a taste of our last 8 years, but I also really want to see our infrastructure fixed. Our failing bridges could be a danger to everyone.

I don't trust the GOP to not mask a massive hand out to private contractors as an infrastructure bill.

In fact, that's probably exactly what any infrastructure bill they propose will be.

 

[Wilsongt]

Is the right turning on Megyn?

 

[CoffeeJanitor]

So here's a question. If Republicans somehow got over their hatred of roads and bridges and got their shit together enough to pass a reasonable infrastructure bill, would you want dems to fillibuster that? I'm torn because I want Republicans to have a taste of our last 8 years, but I also really want to see our infrastructure fixed. Our failing bridges could be a danger to everyone.

Pass it.

 

[StoOgE]

After taking a break earlier this week bond yields have started to creep back up. This is the biggest story no one is talking about. All the chaos from team Trump is starting to freak out investors. If they aren't careful higher interest rates are going to hurt the economy before his tax cuts or new infrastructure spending hit.

Assuming it is an actual real infrastructure deal and not 10 million dollars to upgrade Maralago and Columbus Circle you pass it.

We should drag their ass on everything we can that is bad for the American people. But, we shouldn't hurt people just for political gain.

 

[dramatis]

Is the right turning on Megyn?

I think Megyn Kelly feels she has to push outside the box too. She has a long career ahead of her.

That's probably why there's backlash from the right, I suppose.

 

[Blader]

My instinct is that, after dragging Republicans for 6 years on obstructing and blocking everything, I would not want to see Democrats do the same and stoop to their level.

But given the level of danger presented by Trump and a totally Republican government, not to mention that the GOP was rewarded over and over again for gridlock, well then, fuck it. Why not obstruct? Clearly it pays off.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

No way. GOP will be like the horny teenager who miraculously convinced the prettiest girl in school to sleep with him. They'll be so excited that all caution will be thrown to wind and repercussions ignored eventually leading to a spectacular if ill-timed blowup. These guys simply won't be able to help themselves.

This is part of what makes everything so stressful. We just endured a huge shock, and the only things we have to go on are vague guesses balancing what we know about their intentions vs what we know about their competence, and the soonest we'll have any real proof is late January. I think checking out of politics for a while is necessary for my anxiety.

 

[BotoxAgent]

My instinct is that, after dragging Republicans for 6 years on obstructing and blocking everything, I would not want to see Democrats do the same and stoop to their level.

But given the level of danger presented by Trump and a totally Republican government, not to mention that the GOP was rewarded over and over again for gridlock, well then, fuck it. Why not obstruct? Clearly it pays off.

however, climate change is the most important issue for me. If Trump actually makes positive steps to help the environment, I would totally support him (but unlikely he does this).


I don't see how Republicans would be game for a massive infrastructure bill unless they figure out a way to pay for it.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Glad to see twitter removed some white nationalist accounts. I love seeing pepes scream about their freedom of speech and wanting their orange god to do something about it.

 

[A Link to the Past]

How many Republicans are vowing to fight for the filibuster?

 

[Poodlestrike]

I think it's clear at this point that conservation is not going to save us; frankly, it was a long shot BEFORE Trump, and now that we're going to have 4 years of repeatedly making things worse, it's even more of a long shot. We need to start looking at geoengineering solutions, directly lowering global temperatures. It's not a bad policy platform either, more high-tech industry is always welcome, as is lifting personal responsibility for climate change off peoples' shoulders.

My instinct is that, after dragging Republicans for 6 years on obstructing and blocking everything, I would not want to see Democrats do the same and stoop to their level.

But given the level of danger presented by Trump and a totally Republican government, not to mention that the GOP was rewarded over and over again for gridlock, well then, fuck it. Why not obstruct? Clearly it pays off.

It pays off for conservatives; Liberals are entirely too wishy washy and obsessed with fairness and good governance and all that bullshit. We'd be punished for the kind of mindless obstructionism the Republicans indulge in.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Geoengineering sounds incredibly dangerous.

What could possibly go wrong directly tampering with the climate of the planet?

 

[Gotchaye]

Geoengineering: a terrible idea whose time has come

My instinct is that, after dragging Republicans for 6 years on obstructing and blocking everything, I would not want to see Democrats do the same and stoop to their level.

But given the level of danger presented by Trump and a totally Republican government, not to mention that the GOP was rewarded over and over again for gridlock, well then, fuck it. Why not obstruct? Clearly it pays off.

The strategic problem here is that the long-term equilibrium we're headed towards is total obstruction such that things only get done when one party has total control. If Democrats do the same thing they were criticizing Republicans for, this is very quickly going to become the new normal. I guess if there's no hope of the Republicans straightening out then this is the best we can do, but this is substantially worse than somehow getting back to being able to achieve things that are genuinely bipartisan.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Geoengineering sounds incredibly dangerous.

What could possibly go wrong directly tampering with the climate of the planet?

Lots of stuff.

You know what'll happen if we don't?

I'm not saying it's not risky, I'm saying that at this point I have very little faith that NOT doing it is any less risky.

 

[Blader]

however, climate change is the most important issue for me. If Trump actually makes positive steps to help the environment, I would totally support him (but unlikely he does this).


I don't see how Republicans would be game for a massive infrastructure bill unless they figure out a way to pay for it.

Trump doesn't believe in climate change and is appointing a climate change denier to oversee the EPA. He will take no positive steps to help the environment, and if anything, will spend the next years opening up federal lands for drilling.

How many Republicans are vowing to fight for the filibuster?

Do you mean nuke the filibuster, or join Dems in the filibuster?

I think McConnell sounded a bit wary of doing the former. I think, or hope, he realizes the balance of power can shift and while a 60-vote threshold might encumber them, removing it can bite them in the ass in just a few years.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Trump doesn't believe in climate change and is appointing a climate change denier to oversee the EPA. He will take no positive steps to help the environment, and if anything, will spend the next years opening up federal lands for drilling.



Do you mean nuke the filibuster, or join Dems in the filibuster?

I think McConnell sounded a bit wary of doing the former. I think, or hope, he realizes the balance of power can shift and while a 60-vote threshold might encumber them, removing it can bite them in the ass in just a few years.

Joining Dems.

I certainly hope McConnell joins, as if he has any political common sense.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Trump doesn't believe in climate change and is appointing a climate change denier to oversee the EPA. He will take no positive steps to help the environment, and if anything, will spend the next years opening up federal lands for drilling.

Which concerns me because the collapse of drilling isn't on availability, it on a lack of profit. Unless he is going to subsidize it there will only be environmental damage and reduction of protected lands.

 

[Pixieking]

Geoengineering sounds incredibly dangerous.

What could possibly go wrong directly tampering with the climate of the planet?

Not technically geoengineering, but this will be part of the future, I think:

CO2 turned into stone in Iceland in climate change breakthrough

 

[Maledict]

The filibuster should go. It's a stupid rule that hinders government and encourages partisanship. The 'checks and balances' system might have been great when started, but in modern politics it isn't necessary and actually causes more harm than good. Other major countries manage just fine without it - winners of elections should be able to do what they were elected to do, and then if that doesn't work out they get punished at the ballot box.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Not technically geoengineering, but this will be part of the future, I think:

CO2 turned into stone in Iceland in climate change breakthrough

This is something I'd count as geoengineering; directly altering the composition of the atmosphere, rather than just trying to limit emissions.

The filibuster should go. It's a stupid rule that hinders government and encourages partisanship. The 'checks and balances' system might have been great when started, but in modern politics it isn't necessary and actually causes more harm than good. Other major countries manage just fine without it - winners of elections should be able to do what they were elected to do, and then if that doesn't work out they get punished at the ballot box.

We'd need to restructure the entire system for that to work.

 

[dramatis]

The Atlantic's feature article for this month kind of paints a gloomy picture for the world if relations with China get worse. Now that Trump has been elected, man.

China’s Great Leap Backward

Instead the question is whether something basic has changed in the direction of China’s evolution, and whether the United States needs to reconsider its China policy. For the more than 40 years since the historic Nixon-Mao meetings of the early 1970s, that policy has been surprisingly stable. From one administration to the next, it has been built on these same elements: ever greater engagement with China; steady encouragement of its modernization and growth; forthright disagreement where the two countries’ economic interests or political values clash; and a calculation that Cold War–style hostility would be far more damaging than the difficult, imperfect partnership the two countries have maintained.

That policy survived its greatest strain, the brutal Tiananmen Square crackdown of 1989. It survived China’s entry into the World Trade Organization in 2001 and the enormous increase in China’s trade surpluses with the United States and everywhere else thereafter. It survived the U.S. bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999 (an act assumed to be intentional by every Chinese person I’ve ever discussed it with), periodic presidential decisions to sell arms to Taiwan or meet with the Dalai Lama, and clashes over censorship and human rights.

The next president, then, will face that great cliché, a challenge that is also an opportunity. The challenge is several years of discouraging developments out of China: internal repression, external truculence, a seeming indifference to the partnership part of the U.S.-China relationship. The opportunity is to set out the terms of a new relationship at the very moment when it is most likely to command China’s attention: at the start of a new administration.

Rather than being based purely on personalities, these changes are most often traced to the messages—both emboldening and unsettling—that the Chinese leadership took from the world financial collapse of 2008.

The messages were that maybe China’s moment had finally arrived. The financial crisis had started in America, after five years of a disastrous Middle Eastern war—and just as the China of the Beijing Olympics was seeming shiny and unstoppable in every way. I was living in Beijing at the time and couldn’t miss the tone in state media and from government officials that the rise and decline of empires was happening faster than anyone had foreseen. “The crisis made the leadership much more confident and assertive abroad—but also more worried and nervous about what might happen to their own economy at home,” a foreign academic, who didn’t want to be named, told me. “And the combination of being arrogant abroad and paranoid at home is about the least desirable combination of all, from the rest of the world’s perspective.”

The paradoxical combination of insecurity and aggressiveness is hardly confined to China. The United States has all too many examples in its own politics. But this paradox on a national-strategic scale for China matched what many people told me about Xi himself as a leader: The more uncertain he feels about China’s diplomatic and economic position in the world, and the more grumbling he hears about his ongoing crackdown, the more “decisively” he is likely to act. “Xi is a weak man who wants to look strong,” a foreign businessman who has worked in China for many years told me. “He is the son of a famous father [Xi Zhongxun, who fought alongside Mao as a guerrilla and became an important Communist leader] and wants to prove he is worthy of the name. As we’ve seen in other cultures, this can be a dangerous mix.” Ten years ago, when I visited a defense-oriented think tank in Beijing, I was startled to see a gigantic wall map showing U.S.-affiliated encampments and weapons on every Chinese frontier except the one bordering Russia. I came to understand that the graphic prominence of the U.S. military reflected a fairly widespread suspicion that the United States wishes China ill, is threatened by its rise, and does not want to see China succeed. Almost no one I spoke with recently, however, foresaw a realistic danger of a shooting war between China and the United States or any of its allies—including the frequently discussed scenario of an unintentional naval or aerial encounter in the South China Sea. Through the past few years, in fact, U.S. military officials, led by the Navy, have engaged their People’s Liberation Army counterparts in meetings, conferences, and exercises, precisely to lessen the risk of war by miscalculation. “Naval forces are actually pretty good at de-escalating and steering out of one another’s way,” a senior U.S. Navy officer told me.

 

[Frank the Great]

Geoengineering sounds incredibly dangerous.

What could possibly go wrong directly tampering with the climate of the planet?

I mean, we've been doing it in the other direction for 150 years. Any ill effects of geoengineering can't be worse than the eventual destruction of our planet, which is guaranteed if we do nothing.

If it's the only option, it's the only option. And it looks like it is.

 

[Tall4Life]

The filibuster should go. It's a stupid rule that hinders government and encourages partisanship. The 'checks and balances' system might have been great when started, but in modern politics it isn't necessary and actually causes more harm than good. Other major countries manage just fine without it - winners of elections should be able to do what they were elected to do, and then if that doesn't work out they get punished at the ballot box.

But we have to deal with those disastrous policies for 4 years. And for that to really work we'd need a parliamentary system where you vote for the party and they pick a candidate (which could be disastrous considering how crazy some people can be. We also don't have a real vote of no confidence, so we'd be forced to live under those horrendous policies for 4 years. The filibuster is fine. It does impede progress but that's the point. It gives the minority party power it otherwise wouldn't have.

 

[Plinko]

So here's a question. If Republicans somehow got over their hatred of roads and bridges and got their shit together enough to pass a reasonable infrastructure bill, would you want dems to fillibuster that? I'm torn because I want Republicans to have a taste of our last 8 years, but I also really want to see our infrastructure fixed. Our failing bridges could be a danger to everyone.

Bridges for sure, but our power grid is also decades behind where it should be. That needs billions of dollars to upgrade immediately.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I mean, we've been doing it in the other direction for 150 years. Any ill effects of geoengineering can't be worse than the eventual destruction of our planet, which is guaranteed if we do nothing.

If it's the only option, it's the only option. And it looks like it is.

What if we do all this artificial stuff to our climate thinking it helps and find out 20 years later we actually just sped the problem up due to a lack of knowledge we gained 20 years later?

We don't really have the best of track records with getting stuff right the first time, and with this, there aren't any do overs if we mess up.

 

[faisal233]

This is something I'd count as geoengineering; directly altering the composition of the atmosphere, rather than just trying to limit emissions.



We'd need to restructure the entire system for that to work.

I disagree, just on principle I believe the filibuster in its current form is bullshit. It was supposed to provide the minority party to take the ability to take a principled stand on issues they felt strongly about.

The current process of just filing a memo is crap, the Senate was never meant to operate on a 60 vote system for routine matters.

I don't think McConnell will get rid of it but I might be wrong. He needs a way to keep the crazies in check and is more interested in doing incremental damage to progressive causes so the gop doesn't face a Hugh backlash in the next election.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

What if we do all this artificial stuff to our climate thinking it helps and find out 20 years later we actually just sped the problem up due to a lack of knowledge we gained 20 years later?

We don't really have the best of track records with getting stuff right the first time, and with this, there aren't any do overs if we mess up.

There also aren't any do overs now. It's simply a fact that our planet is on its way out. And it's probably true that our older solutions of "just do a carbon tax" are no longer enough.

 

[Boke1879]

The media coverage of Trump will only be more contentious. Just glancing at CNN at work they are talking about his transition team mess

And they are also going to be covering the school walkouts in protest of him. We are in interesting times folks

 

[Frank the Great]

What if we do all this artificial stuff to our climate thinking it helps and find out 20 years later we actually just sped the problem up due to a lack of knowledge we gained 20 years later?

We don't really have the best of track records with getting stuff right the first time, and with this, there aren't any do overs if we mess up.

We shouldn't base policy on the baseless fear that the science could be horribly wrong. Otherwise we would never do anything.

And what you fear is happening anyway. We need to do something.

 

[lyrick]

The media coverage of Trump will only be more contentious. Just glancing at CNN at work they are talking about his transition team mess

And they are also going to be covering the school walkouts in protest of him. We are in interesting times folks

In the end the media got exactly what they wanted. They got a president-elect whose actions will write their headlines for them.

 

[Frank the Great]

The media coverage of Trump will only be more contentious. Just glancing at CNN at work they are talking about his transition team mess

And they are also going to be covering the school walkouts in protest of him. We are in interesting times folks

Don't Presidents usually get a very large approval bump after inaugeration? I wonder if Trump will get one.

 

[Poodlestrike]

What if we do all this artificial stuff to our climate thinking it helps and find out 20 years later we actually just sped the problem up due to a lack of knowledge we gained 20 years later?

We don't really have the best of track records with getting stuff right the first time, and with this, there aren't any do overs if we mess up.

I understand the need for caution, but we understand the principle at work fairly well at this point. I don't think the risk is in speeding up climate change, but rather, that we might ultimately cause some unforeseen side effect... which, by definition, can only be as bad as the future we're looking at right now. So there's not really a lot of room for actual downsides.

I disagree, just on principle I believe the filibuster in its current form is bullshit. It was supposed to provide the minority party to take the ability to take a principled stand on issues they felt strongly about.

The current process of just filing a memo is crap, the Senate was never meant to operate on a 60 vote system for routine matters.

I don't think McConnell will get rid of it but I might be wrong. He needs a way to keep the crazies in check and is more interested in doing incremental damage to progressive causes so the gop doesn't face a Hugh backlash in the next election.

I don't disagree that the current incarnation of the filibuster is problematic, but all the same, our system simply isn't built to include the safeguards that allow Parliamentary systems to forgo American style checks and balances.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Lots of stuff.

You know what'll happen if we don't?

I'm not saying it's not risky, I'm saying that at this point I have very little faith that NOT doing it is any less risky.

Sorry for the TVtropes link, but I agree that this is likely what the situation for global warming will be

 

[balladofwindfishes]

There also aren't any do overs now. It's simply a fact that our planet is on its way out. And it's probably true that our older solutions of "just do a carbon tax" are no longer enough.

I don't believe our planet is on its way out. Our planet has survived basically everything, and short of the sun being destroyed or all the water drying up, our planet will just keep moving along. Life can survive harsh climates and crazy weather. I'm not even sure humans would go extinct if the climate got really bad, we're too adaptable and there's too many of us in too many regions for that to happen.

It's modern civilization that's running the risk of being pushed out. If the climate gets real bad, the population of the world will begin to shrink dramatically and larger cities will no longer be viable. It won't be a fun time for those who live through it.

 

[Boke1879]

Don't Presidents usually get a very large approval bump after inaugeration? I wonder if Trump will get one.

That will be in DC right? Expect massive protests

 

[Anoregon]

I don't believe our planet is on its way out. Our planet has survived basically everything, and short of the sun being destroyed or all the water drying up, our planet will just keep moving along. Life can survive harsh climates and crazy weather. I'm not even sure humans would go extinct if the climate got really bad, we're too adaptable and there's too many of us in too many regions for that to happen.

It's modern civilization that's running the risk of being pushed out. If the climate gets real bad, the population of the world will begin to shrink dramatically and larger cities will no longer be viable. It won't be a fun time for those who live through it.

Correct. All Life (or even human life) isn't really at risk from global warming, and Waterworld-type scenario is also not really in the cards; what is at risk is life as we know it. The collapse of civilization and resulting massive loss of life as a new equilibrium is reached with a much smaller human population. Then a thousand years later we rebound and fuck it all up again!

 

[RustyNails]

Jason Kander relates a story about him owning Kris Kobach.





This guy is fucking savage, jesus.

https://twitter.com/JasonKander/status/798624945823617024

Missoura fucking failed the country. Imagine this guy heading to senate.

 

[Maledict]

But we have to deal with those disastrous policies for 4 years. And for that to really work we'd need a parliamentary system where you vote for the party and they pick a candidate (which could be disastrous considering how crazy some people can be. We also don't have a real vote of no confidence, so we'd be forced to live under those horrendous policies for 4 years. The filibuster is fine. It does impede progress but that's the point. It gives the minority party power it otherwise wouldn't have.

That's um, not how it works here... ;-)

Firstly, generally the party base chooses the leader not the MPs. It's how Cameron ended up winning, and Jeremy Corbyn. It's basically a nationwide primary where only party members who pay a fee can vote - so actually far more restricted than your primary process.

Secondly, the power of the government in a Westminster parliamentary system is incredibly strong - much more than say the president in the USA has on almost all issues. For example, Blair won an overwhelming majority in 2005 with just 35% of the vote. With that size of majority, it's basically impossible for the government to not pass the legislation it wants. Even with a very small majority like the current government has, they still have a *really* strong hand because party discipline keeps MPs in line.

(Votes of no confidence in a government are unbelievably rare. Even at the height of the poll tax riots, or the Iraq War protests, at no stage was the government ever at risk of a vote of no confidence).

I do think a lot of Americans would be horrified by how much direct power a government has in a fptp parliamentary democracy...

 

[UltimaPooh]

Missoura fucking failed the country. Imagine this guy heading to senate.

I tried!

Blunt was barely pulled over because of Trump.

If Clinton had been just a little more liked Kander probably could have taken it.

 

[TumblingHippo]

Me: "Hey, I think a friend is starting to follow hate groups. I don't think he's much of a friend anymore..."

Other Friend: "Well you don't want to a lose a friendship over politics, do you?"

What is happening to people :c

 

[Barzul]

@DafnaLinzer
Flat denial from @JasonMillerinDC on msnbc -- says Frank Gaffney is not advising or working in any way with @transition2017

 

[RustyNails]

@DafnaLinzer
Flat denial from @JasonMillerinDC on msnbc -- says Frank Gaffney is not advising or working in any way with @transition2017

Oh right. Same way Ailes was not advising or working with Trump.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Me: "Hey, I think a friend is starting to follow hate groups. I don't think he's much of a friend anymore..."

Other Friend: "Well you don't want to a lose a friendship over politics, do you?"

What is happening to people :c

There was a thread on OT with that same situation that made me furious over the way people in there kept writing off civil rights as just "politics"

 

[Blader]

I kinda worry about Kander's future. Guy seemed like a rising star, but what's the path forward for him now? Run for governor in four years?

@DafnaLinzer
Flat denial from @JasonMillerinDC on msnbc -- says Frank Gaffney is not advising or working in any way with @transition2017

So Gaffney is actually deputy chief of staff, then.

 

[jmdajr]

The myth of the bullied white outcast loner is helping fuel a fascist resurgence

Today’s American fascist youth is neither the strapping Aryan jock-patriot nor the skinheaded, jackbooted punk: The fascist millennial is a pasty nerd watching shitty meme videos on YouTube, listening to EDM, and harassing black women on Twitter

This is all pretty disheartening.

 

[Barzul]

Oh right. Same way Ailes was not advising or working with Trump.

Exactly my thinking. They're fooling no one.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I kinda worry about Kander's future. Guy seemed like a rising star, but what's the path forward for him now? Run for governor in four years?

President of the United States in four years.

 

[Tendo]

President of the United States in four years.

That is my hope. I'm on team Kander.

 

[RustyNails]

Kander vs Rubio will be glorious.