• 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 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Trudeau shouldn't fall for this. Trump isn't going anywhere. Mulcair is a two-faced idiot, doesn't have the interest of the country at heart.
 
D

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
VendettaRed07 said:
So we are just going to let this guy get confirmed after they stole a pick?

There's no guarantee that they even will. No chance would republicans be confirming someone if democrats pulled the same shit.
Click to expand...

And then they pick a more conservative judge and nuke the filibuster....then we're really fucked.

Were fucked either way lol
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Soroc said:
He's doing it Apprentice style....

Seriously, he's flown both candidates out so he has a winner and loser. He is obsessed with Reality TV
Click to expand...

Remember, he moved the date of his pick up in an obvious move to get out of this Muslim ban news cycle. That makes impossible to look away.

Taking command of the news cycle has always been his only major talent even since long before presidential campaign started. The guy is a complete idiot outside of that.
 
G

Gruco

Banned
Hillary is such a neoliberal, she probably would have nominated Dick Cheney. This is for the best. Just look at her emails.
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
kirblar said:
Correct, so you pick the option that has you punching them in the goddamn face.
Click to expand...

Speaking from a pure game theory perspective, you fight everything and force Mitch's hand on the filibuster. If he axes it, make him do that for everything, not just appointments. And then when Ryan inevitably sends the "Gut Medicaid/care/Social Security Act" over to the Senate, you watch as Mitch is forced to either vote against it (getting him blasted by his own people) or votes for it (which is political suicide; never fucking touch old people's money).

Like Schumer said a few weeks ago, the GOP has got to own the next 2 years. Dems shouldn't help at all. It's not moral, but it's savvy.
 
B

Bonen no Max'd

Banned
AntraxSuicide said:
Yeah, I'm certainly better if we lie about this stuff versus something like switching to an All Lives Matter platform (the latter might legit lose my vote), but it's still a lie. Protectionism is a disaster and will do nothing for most Americans.
Click to expand...
So this is actually interesting because I said nothing about protectionism or trade deals but there's some key things I want to address with this sentiment.

The first point is America does a lot of protectionism, both in and outside of manufqcturing. With manufacturing we offer massive tax cuts to companies as incentives to not move their capital. Washington, for example, cuts a bunch of special deals to keep Boeing instate. It's basically the inverse of placing tariffs.

Outside of manufacturing, we employ all sorts of policies to protect other domestic industries. Everyone was defensive about Booker's vote concerning the Klobuchar amendment because pharmaceuticals are an important part of his constituent industries, but that is just as protectionist. The whole country would be better off with cheaper drugs, right? But Booker is protecting much wealthier individuals than the manufacturers you fantasize about getting rid of. The same applies to the agricultural industries we heavily subsidize, even though making corn more expensive would make for much healthier Americans since we'd drink less soda. Part of our trade goals are to sell our subsidized corn everywhere! What about the protectionist policies to keep out foreign doctors to inflate the paychecks of our own.

But I wasn't even talking about protectionism. Where did Hillary talk about the strong need for powerful teacher unions? I imagine teachers in Wisconsin, who have smaller paychecks so rich people pay less taxes (as an aside, though, her running mate was for right to work). Where was her vision of a massive public works administration to revive decaying urban areas like Cleveland or Detroit. When did she passionately talk about her free college plan so every American can have a decent job in the new economy? Where did she talk about price controls to radically change the cost of healthcare? What about an Alaska style public wealth find? These are all transformational ideas that the ruling class doesn't want because it would cost them money.

This also ignores automation replacing doctors and lawyers but no one talks about that.
 
A

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
Fuck it: filibuster him. Force Mitch McConnell to evoke the nuclear option. Keeping the base happy is important. The Democratic base wants obstruction for this minority-run government and obstruction worked out well for Republicans.
 
S

Sibylus

Banned
While I agree with Mulcair, at the same time Trudeau is in a delicate situation that Mulcair is not. He has to try to stay on Trump's good side, even if he is a racist fascist pushing the world to the brink. He can't be as flippant as Mulcair is here.


Conservative MP rises and argues (not comprehensive, this is dense af):
- Canada needs to get its own house in order first
- Need immigration caps
- Calls the government's refugee policies failures
- Criticizes the government for not bringing over Yazidis (genocide victims) or more LGBT refugees, on the rationale that they were more difficult to seek out. Says shame on all of us.
- Says we should not condemn religious bans out of hand (not sure if I heard this right)
- Condemns her own party's election promise of a "barbaric practices" hotline. Condemns inaction on Syria, women's rights, genocide. Says we are all complicit in humanitarian failures.
- Criticizes the UN's impotence and political handshaking in this.
- Criticizes polarized politics, and "can't happen here"ism.

She's still talking. I doubt we see eye to eye much on policy, but her rant right now is pretty excellent in a lot of points.
 
G

Gruco

Banned
Real talk, I don't think the democrats should support anyone other than Merrick Garland until republicans agree to a constitutional amendment to ensure that such a scenario can never play out again.
 
M

metalslimer

Member
Gruco said:
Real talk, I don't think the democrats should support anyone other than Merrick Garland until republicans agree to a constitutional amendment to ensure that such a scenario can never play out again.
Click to expand...

I would be fine with that. There needs to be some repercussions to what they did
 
S

Sibylus

Banned
Liberal MP asks pointed question about the CPC tipline and Kellie Leitch's (CPC leadership candidate, one of the Trump wannabes) promise to institute value tests. Important, but not germane to the debate at hand.

CPC MP rises again and again makes an appeal to work on the issue at hand.

NDP MP rises:
- Demands action beyond tweeting.
 
G

Gruco

Banned
What happened in 2016 was a fucking degradation of democracy. There is no world in which the appropriate response to it is to shrug your shoulders and say "oh well, looks like we lost this one guys?
 
K

kirblar

Member
Bonen no Max'd said:
So this is actually interesting because I said nothing about protectionism or trade deals but there's some key things I want to address with this sentiment.

The first point is America does a lot of protectionism, both in and outside of manufqcturing. With manufacturing we offer massive tax cuts to companies as incentives to not move their capital. Washington, for example, cuts a bunch of special deals to keep Boeing instate. It's basically the inverse of placing tariffs.

Outside of manufacturing, we employ all sorts of policies to protect other domestic industries. Everyone was defensive about Booker's vote concerning the Klobuchar amendment because pharmaceuticals are an important part of his constituent industries, but that is just as protectionist. The whole country would be better off with cheaper drugs, right? But Booker is protecting much wealthier individuals than the manufacturers you fantasize about getting rid of. The same applies to the agricultural industries we heavily subsidize, even though making corn more expensive would make for much healthier Americans since we'd drink less soda. Part of our trade goals are to sell our subsidized corn everywhere! What about the protectionist policies to keep out foreign doctors to inflate the paychecks of our own.

But I wasn't even talking about protectionism. Where did Hillary talk about the strong need for powerful teacher unions? I imagine teachers in Wisconsin, who have smaller paychecks so rich people pay less taxes (as an aside, though, her running mate was for right to work). Where was her vision of a massive public works administration to revive decaying urban areas like Cleveland or Detroit. When did she passionately talk about her free college plan so every American can have a decent job in the new economy? Where did she talk about price controls to radically change the cost of healthcare? What about an Alaska style public wealth find? These are all transformational ideas that the ruling class doesn't want because it would cost them money.

This also ignores automation replacing doctors and lawyers but no one talks about that.
Click to expand...
"The ruling class"? That's just as much an empty buzzword as "The Establishment" or "The Bourgeoisie". If you're lost without a nebulous boogeyman to fight when there's an actual demon at the gates, that is insanity to me.

No one talks about Unions because almost no one's in them anymore. Trying to wind back the clock is pointless. And if you try to point out Canada- their private sector is almost as low as ours. The difference in unionization is almost completely due to the public sector.

And Obama's team was looking an acting on deregulation in areas where it's protectionist. There's no reason that wouldn't have continued under a Clinton admin.
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
Gorsuch's arguments outside of the court room are even more aggressively unintelligent than Scalia's so that's just impressive.

On the hot-button issue of abortion, Gorsuch's judicial record is quiet. But in his 2006 book The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, he did seemingly point in an anti-abortion direction, rejecting the case for legalizing assisted suicide on the grounds that "human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable, and the taking of human life by private persons is always wrong." Gorsuch also rejected the "libertarian case for assisted suicide" because, he argued, "faithful adherence to libertarian theory" would also justify the legalization of "mass suicide pacts...duels, and the sale of one's life (not to mention the use of now illegal drugs, prostitution, or the sale of one's organs)."
Click to expand...

"The reason why assisted suicide is bad, well... Libertarian philosophy would allow for mass suicide pacts!"

http://reason.com/blog/2017/01/31/trump-nominates-neil-gorsuch-to-the-supr
 
S

Sirpopopop

Member
But I wasn't even talking about protectionism. Where did Hillary talk about the strong need for powerful teacher unions? I imagine teachers in Wisconsin, who have smaller paychecks so rich people pay less taxes (as an aside, though, her running mate was for right to work). Where was her vision of a massive public works administration to revive decaying urban areas like Cleveland or Detroit. When did she passionately talk about her free college plan so every American can have a decent job in the new economy? Where did she talk about price controls to radically change the cost of healthcare? What about an Alaska style public wealth find? These are all transformational ideas that the ruling class doesn't want because it would cost them money.
Click to expand...

She talked about this stuff a lot.

See: This video about a speech to the NEA for starters...

https://www.c-span.org/video/?41214...ses-national-education-association-conference

Your criticism here about her not talking about this stuff is unfair.
 
F

faisal233

Member
kirblar said:
No, you fillibuster it. Because McConnell doesn't want to kill it.

He's in a bind, and you don't let them win here.
Click to expand...

Correct choice. But don't do it outright. Hammer this guy in hearings, draw it out, dangle the hope of not filibustering. Then filibuster it. We need to eat up some clock.

Good Job Bob said:
Nah. Don't pull out the filibuster unless Kennedy and/or RBG steps down.
Click to expand...

Then it gets nuked anyway. And they get Scalia 3.0. long drawn out confirmation and filibuster at the end is the correct choice. If nothing else, block it for 1 year to make the GOP understand the price for Garland. Dems need to operate with the understanding that they HAVE to pick up 3 seats in the midterm, don't care if it's impossible.
 
S

Sibylus

Banned
CPC MP before sitting remarks that "I have no idea why private sponsorship was capped this year." I kinda like her fire, lol. She represents Calgary-Nose Hill, and serves as the Official Opposition Critic for Immigration, Michelle Rempel.

Liberal MP rises, responds that caps are instated because global need has to be met.

Michelle Rempel (CPC) criticizes focus, says government needed to prioritize the Yazidi genocide and declare it as such.

Michelle Rempel (CPC) calls for the lifting of the ban on private financial sponsoring of immigrants. Not sure entirely what is referred to here, take with salt.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I'd prefer if Democrat messaging was something like "refusing to support anyone that doesn't supports Roe v Wade" not "refusing to support anyone to get back at republicans over Garland".

Do democrats do any thinking about messaging at all? You don't always have to say what you think. Giving demands you don't think will be met will dog whistle to liberal ears about it just fine, and if they somehow actually go along with it, call it a win.

I'm fine with pundits and supporters talking about garland all they want, but elected Democrats whining this much about Garland sounds like the most petty and partisan thing ever, even if they are right.
 
F

faisal233

Member
thepotatoman said:
I'd prefer if Democrat messaging was something like "refusing to support anyone that doesn't supports Roe v Wade" not "refusing to support anyone to get back at republicans over Garland".

Do democrats do any thinking about messaging at all? You don't always have to say what you think. Giving demands you don't think will be met will dog whistle to liberal ears about it just fine, and if they somehow actually go along with it, call it a win.

Elected Democrats whining this much about Garland sounds like the most petty and partisan thing ever, even if they are right.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, Schumer has already started on twitter.
Gorsuch put corps over workers, been hostile toward women’s rights & been an ideolog. Skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice
Click to expand...

Hammer him in hearings. Dig up everything, delay then filibuster.
 
S

Sibylus

Banned
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.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
faisal233 said:
Absolutely, Schumer has already started on twitter.

Hammer him in hearings. Dig up everything, delay then filibuster.
Click to expand...

That's good. For the record I was referring to Merkley's statements, but I believe others have made similar statements.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Russia begins Invasion of Ukraine
News NSFW 639 640 641 642 643
32K
2M
EviLore replied
Kanye West Planning Russia Trip to Meet Putin and Perform Sunday Service, Says Advisor
21
2K
It's all in the wrist replied
NYTIMES - Report Points to Microwave ‘Attack’ as Likely Source of Mystery Illnesses That Hit Diplomats and Spies
News
7
2K
DisguiseArrsick replied
Gowdy: Trump advisers should consider quitting over Russia
0
545
Arkage replied
  • Locked
Trump "Owned by Russia for 30 years" says his "Art of Deal" Ghostwriter
2 3
131
9K
FStubbs replied
Top Bottom