• 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.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT16| Unpresidented

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Gotchaye said:
I think they're the same argument. Crab is valuing the filibuster because it lets the Democrats stop some of the worst things Trump or Paul Ryan might want to do, and it can be used this way because actually there are Republican Senators who would also be opposed to those things but who want to pass other things that the Democrats are opposed to. The argument is that the Democrats should not obstruct the not-as-terrible things that those few Republicans want so that those Republicans don't make the calculation that it makes sense to give Trump and Ryan what they want so that they can get the things the Democrats are obstructing. If there's a hostage-taking here it's the Democrats taking hostage policy that McCain et al. want unless they're willing to let a majority of the Senate make law.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We agree not block, I don't know, McCain wanting tax reductions, in return for him helping us block Muslim internment camps; or we block tax reductions, McCain agrees to abolish the filibuster as a results, and next session we get tax cuts AND internment camps.

I don't think people realize how precarious the Democratic position is. Their entire influence is dependent on being able to pick off a few Republican senators.
 
Z

Zukkoyaki

Member
I know that once things have settled more into place, a new DNC chair is named and we have a better idea of the lay of the land I'm going to start working with the local dems here in Missouri. Currently kicking around ideas to help educate people. I may design a little handout outlining the rogues gallery that is Trump's cabinet and advisers. Like, "This is what you voted for. You were played." Basically try to educate people without getting in their face and calling them racist.
 
N

neurosisxeno

Member
Adding up all these percentages of the vote is pretty interesting--especially when you start seeing states where McMullin's or Stein's vote totals are outclassed by rounding errors...
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Crab said:
If you think this is playing politics, you don't understand how to play politics. If the Democrats use the filibuster on *everything*, even small things, it will be eliminated for the next Senate session. Then, Trump and co. can put something absolutely horrific stuff through in 2018, and we really are fucked. If the Democrats pick their battles and make sure they always manage to use the filibuster on something where they can pick off a moderate Republican to go with them, the filibuster can survive until 2018. In 2018, the Democrats can then block everything, and hope they retake the Senate for 2019 so they aren't at risk of losing it again.

I'm not saying don't use the filibuster. I'm saying: be very careful when you use it. It needs to be used on the big stuff, and we need to make sure it is still around to be used in 2018. The filibuster survives only so long as moderate Republicans feel they need us. If we go nuts with it, they'll pick Trump over us. The Democrats are not in the same strategic position as the Republicans were; they can't expect to just mirror old Republican strategies and have them work.
Click to expand...

Eh, I was exaggerating. Not literally everything.

But, on things that really matter, they need to take a stand. Medicare. PSLF. Student loans. Climate Change stuff. They need to be able to tell the American voter in 2018, "We stood up and did our best to stop it."
 
T

Totakeke

Member
I think you guys are underestimating the amount of terrible legislation coming through compared to the amount of acceptable legislation though. In terms of optics I don't think it matters much.

Here's the first filibuster scenario. Should democrats filibuster the appointment of Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, and Mike Pompeo?
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Plinko said:
Eh, I was exaggerating. Not literally everything.

But, on things that really matter, they need to take a stand. Medicare. PSLF. Student loans. Climate Change stuff. They need to be able to tell the American voter in 2018, "We stood up and did our best to stop it."
Click to expand...

Those are the things I meant by big issues that are worth filibustering. I doubt any of us here could lay out a definitive set, though, because we're entirely at the mercy of moderate Republicans in what we can pick. I expect Graham will be getting a lot of dinner invitations shortly.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Totakeke said:
Here's the first filibuster scenario. Should democrats filibuster the appointment of Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, and Mike Pompeo?
Click to expand...

No idea yet - as I've been saying, depends on which appointments moderate Republicans are willing to back us on. As many as we can persuade to do so, I think.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
Totakeke said:
I think you guys are underestimating the amount of terrible legislation coming through compared to the amount of acceptable legislation though. In terms of optics I don't think it matters much.

Here's the first filibuster scenario. Should democrats filibuster the appointment of Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, and Mike Pompeo?
Click to expand...

no. i don't think you should filibuster cabinet appointments. we lost. let him choose his team, for better or worse.

filibuster the shit out of SC and policy though.
 
J

jmdajr

Member
How often do Cabinet members not get confirmed?

edit: yay history

The first high-profile cabinet rejection by the Senate was in 1834, when President Andrew Jackson lost a fight to get Attorney General Roger Taney named as treasury secretary, in the bitter fight over the Second Bank of the United States.

The Senate rejected Taney’s nomination by a 18-28 vote, but a determined Jackson was able to get Taney appointed as the Supreme Court’s chief justice in 1835 when his Democratic party had a slim Senate majority.

The next nomination fight over the cabinet involved a senator who had played a key role in Taney’s rejection: John Tyler of Virginia.

By 1843, Tyler had become president, after William Henry Harrison died, and he was openly feuding with his own Whig party. On March 3, the Senate rejected Tyler’s nomination of Caleb Cushing’s as treasury secretary three times on the same day. Three other Tyler nominees were later rejected by the Senate, giving him a record six cabinet rejections.

A third historic cabinet rejection came in the troubled administration of President Andrew Johnson. Johnson’s attorney general, Henry Stanbery, resigned his position to defend Johnson at the president’s Senate trial after his impeachment.

Johnson survived the trial, and he nominated Stanbery to resume his job as attorney general in 1868. The Senate promptly rejected Stanbery’s nomination.
Click to expand...
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
For and infrastructure bill the biggest fight will be how. I can easily see a GOP bill having privatized roads etc etc. SO I pray the Dems will be able to argue against it.
 
J

jtb

Banned
the Dems have to find ways to make the GOP pay a political price for everything that they do. every vote that they take has to be used against them. (this is the benefit of being the opposition party, I suppose)

Dubbedinenglish said:
For and infrastructure bill the biggest fight will be how. I can easily see a GOP bill having privatized roads etc etc. SO I pray the Dems will be able to argue against it.
Click to expand...

Totally agree. the media will have no nuance in their coverage -- expect it to be "dems block new bridges and roads!" so the party needs to have its act together in terms of messaging.
 
V

VRMN

Member
Dubbedinenglish said:
For and infrastructure bill the biggest fight will be how. I can easily see a GOP bill having privatized roads etc etc. SO I pray the Dems will be able to argue against it.
Click to expand...
Most of these fights will be trying to convince moderate Republicans. Susan Collins and John McCain will probably be extremely important. Winning the LA runoff would be good too.
 
B

Blader

Member
jtb said:
the Dems have to find ways to make the GOP pay a political price for everything that they do. every vote that they take has to be used against them. (this is the benefit of being the opposition party, I suppose)
Click to expand...

You'd think that the GOP controlling all three branches of government would make it easy for them to own all of the disasters heading our way. Yet, they never paid a single electoral price for their years of obstruction and dysfunction, and were actually rewarded for it handsomely over and over again.
 
R

RastaMentality

Banned
Dems should absolutely vote against these shitty appointments. Maybe not filibuster but you shouldn't want "KKK is OK" and Islamaphobes on your voting records
 
J

jtb

Banned
whyamihere said:
This feels like hazing.
Click to expand...

i don't get it. someone please explain

Blader said:
You'd think that the GOP controlling all three branches of government would make it easy for them to own all of the disasters heading our way. Yet, they never paid a single electoral price for their years of obstruction and dysfunction, and were actually rewarded for it handsomely over and over again.
Click to expand...

yup. I don't know what we do, though a 50-state strategy would be a good start.
 
Z

Zukkoyaki

Member
Blader said:
You'd think that the GOP controlling all three branches of government would make it easy for them to own all of the disasters heading our way. Yet, they never paid a single electoral price for their years of obstruction and dysfunction, and were actually rewarded for it handsomely over and over again.
Click to expand...

Most of the country is made of low-information voters that blame the president and their party for everything. As far as they knew, Obama and the dems were at fault for not getting an Infrastructure bill passed for example. This has been true for every administration ever.
 
S

Slurpy2k20

Member
Zukkoyaki said:
Most of the country is made of low-information voters that blame the president and their party for everything. As far as they knew, Obama and the dems were at fault for not getting an Infrastructure bill passed for example. This has been true for every administration ever.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, most of the right wing and conservatives have argued that 9/11 was Bill Clinton's fault, and some have even placed blame on Obama.
 
J

jmdajr

Member
WJ_nkP.gif
 
G

Grief.exe

Member
Zukkoyaki said:
Most of the country is made of low-information voters that blame the president and their party for everything. As far as they knew, Obama and the dems were at fault for not getting an Infrastructure bill passed for example. This has been true for every administration ever.
Click to expand...

Ironically, I first heard the phrase "low information voter" from Rush Limbaugh.
 
T

Totakeke

Member
I was going to say there's a difference between a low-information voter and someone who subscribes to right-wing propaganda, but is there even a difference anymore?
 
Z

Zukkoyaki

Member
Paradoxal_Utopia said:
Don't worry, most of the right wing and conservatives have argued that 9/11 was Bill Clinton's fault, and some have even placed blame on Obama.
Click to expand...

Blame always gets shifted to the previous administration but they still expect the current powers that be to fix the fuck-ups.

Also anyone that thinks Obama or Bill had anything to do with 9/11 is and was always a lost cause.

Totakeke said:
I was going to say there's a difference between a low-information voter and someone who subscribes to right-wing propaganda, but is there even a difference anymore?
Click to expand...

Yes there is a difference. I'm from and still interact a lot with rural Missouri and I assure you that the alt-right and right-wing brainwashed people aren't nearly as common as this forum believes they are. Obviously there's a LOT of them but not enough to win a presidential election on their own.
 
B

Blader

Member
So I just tried a couple times to do the call the House Oversight Committee thing, and I'll try again later in the afternoon, but honestly how worth it is this even? Jason Chaffetz is the head of that committee; he's sure as hell not investigating Donald Trump for any conflicts of interest, and the House at large wouldn't do anything about it either.

I'll try again later, just don't see how the fuck this is going to motivate Chaffetz or any congressional Republican into actually doing something. It's not like there's a threshold of X amount of calls/voicemails that forces them to take action.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
I feel for Tim Scott, but he has to vote against Sessions.

Do you really want to die with your legacy consisting of being the only black man to support Jeff Sessions for attorney general? Die on your feet, not on your knees.
 
T

thehypocrite

Member
How safe are the senator seats that Trump has named for his cabinet? Can any of them be picked up? Any strategy that can improve Democrats position?
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Crab said:
Nobody is saying roll over. Come the fuck on, this is a simple argument!

The Democrats can ONLY filibuster if, at the start of a congressional session, there are not 50 votes to abolish the filibuster.

Most Republicans agree with Trump on most things. They want to abolish the filibuster so they can do these things. These are A Republicans.

Some Republicans agree with Trump on some things but not others. They want the filibuster to stay if it means they get more of the things they agree with and less of the things they do not. These are B Republicans.

If the Democrats filibuster *everything*, then B Republicans get more of what they want by abolishing the filibuster. This means in the 2018 session, Trump has free reign.

If the Democrats strategically filibuster things that B Republicans don't want and then only a small selection of additional things that are very important to them, then B Republicans get more of what they want by keeping the filibuster. This means in the 2018 session, the Democrats can block anything monstrous.

You have a choice between blocking really bad things now, and blocking really bad things later OR blocking everything now and nothing later. And if you block nothing later, blocking everything now was pointless because they'll do it later.

Note that this does not imply we have to vote for anything. Just: our power to block is limited, we cannot overuse it.
Click to expand...

This assumes B Republicans like trump about as much as they dislike him. I mean say I'm Jeff flake. I am mildly positive towards tax shit and killing America so my donors can do well. But I hate everything else about trump so I'm never likely to give him free reign.

I think McConnell, who is such a shitheap parliamentarian, is more likely to keep the filibuster and just trash democrats forever.
 
J

jtb

Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I feel for Tim Scott, but he has to vote against Sessions.

Do you really want to die with your legacy consisting of being the only black man to support Jeff Sessions for attorney general? Die on your feet, not on your knees.
Click to expand...

He's about to run for Governor, no? Don't know how that would play in SC. Otherwise, he'd have the cover to do so... people have short memories.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
thehypocrite said:
How safe are the senator seats that Trump has named for his cabinet? Can any of them be picked up? Any strategy that can improve Democrats position?
Click to expand...

Sessions's seat could be picked up if the controversy plagued Alabama Governor appoints a Senator that knew about the governor's sexual affairs and didn't speak up.

It's unlikely otherwise.
 
B

Box of Kittens

Banned
jtb said:
i don't get it. someone please explain
Click to expand...

The 2018 Senate map is brutal. Dems have to defend 25 seats (several in red states), Republicans only 8. Even in an otherwise good year (which is likely) where Dems make gains in the House and in governorships and state legislatures, it will be an uphill fight just to keep the Senate seats we have.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Totakeke said:
I think you guys are underestimating the amount of terrible legislation coming through compared to the amount of acceptable legislation though. In terms of optics I don't think it matters much.

Here's the first filibuster scenario. Should democrats filibuster the appointment of Jeff Sessions, Michael Flynn, and Mike Pompeo?
Click to expand...

I thought Reid nuked the filibuster for all appointment confirmations except for the supreme court.
 
B

BreezyLimbo

Banned
Box of Kittens said:
The 2018 Senate map is brutal. Dems have to defend 25 seats (several in red states), Republicans only 8. Even in an otherwise good year (which is likely) where Dems make gains in the House and in governorships and state legislatures, it will be an uphill fight just to keep the Senate seats we have.
Click to expand...

Lol

And people are saying to wait for 2018? Man fuck that. We are probably going to lose more seats then gain.
 
B

Blader

Member
BreezyLimbo said:
Lol

And people are saying to wait for 2018? Man fuck that. We are probably going to lose more seats then gain.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest value in 2018 is picking up governorships and state legislature seats, to both build out a bench for 2020 but also make sure we're in good standing for redistricting after the 2020 census. We can make gains in the House too (not sure if it's possible to win the majority though; maybe if we had done better than fucking 5 wins this year) but Senate will be more about stopping the bleeding.
 
T

thehypocrite

Member
Blader said:
I think the biggest value in 2018 is picking up governorships and state legislature seats, to both build out a bench for 2020 but also make sure we're in good standing for redistricting after the 2020 census. We can make gains in the House too (not sure if it's possible to win the majority though; maybe if we had done better than fucking 5 wins this year) but Senate will be more about stopping the bleeding.
Click to expand...
Also, we should target states that have voter suppression laws to overturn as much as possible.
 
A

aspiegamer

Member
We already have toll roads as backbone interstates in a lot of places. Not even saying I approve of this practice as a form of tax on the poor, but it is what it is. If selling the naming rights for the Pepsi Highway means they actually repave and improve the damn road I couldn't care less. Cost per mile varies a ton by state, mind you. Since the feds are a bunch of cowards and won't raise the gas tax they money does have to come from somewhere at some point, and as long as the money largely goes toward construction I think most people are understanding of this.

Random edit: I'd like to give a shout out to my favorite example of using a toll road for discriminatory purposes, this Chicago Skyway. For $6 you get to drive the 5+ miles straight over the south side slums, unable to see the urban blight and pretending it doesn't exist! This sort of thing I certainly don't approve of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tales of Graces f Remastered - Reviews Thread
48
3K
MadchesterManc replied
Bringing Dune Awakening to the Xbox Series S will be a "challenge", according to Funcom chief product officer
News 2 3
100
6K
mdkirby replied
First time you realized Japanese devs were GOAT?
Drama Retro Game Dev 2 3
118
4K
Spukc replied
Modern Game Devs Suck at Community Support
2
60
3K
Reizo Ryuu replied
Players are now less "accepting" that games will be fixed, say Paradox, after "underestimating" the reaction to Cities: Skylines 2's performance woes
Game Dev
47
2K
Quantum253 replied
Top Bottom