I'm unconvinced that this is true, and I am strongly convinced by the evidence of the current situation that normalizing evil has negative consequences.
-
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 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
I'm unconvinced that this is true, and I am strongly convinced by the evidence of the current situation that normalizing evil has negative consequences.
BlastProcessing
Member
You win elections by standing for something.
The counterfactual here seems hard to evaluate, but you think that if Scalia had died last week instead of last year, people would be about as angry about the illegitimacy of Republicans getting to pick his successor? And I just don't think it's very plausible that people are meaning this "let's not confirm anyone while the investigation is ongoing" thing to imply "and if it turns out that Trump was in bed with Russia let's not confirm anyone nominated by his successor either". Like, if they're already pretty sure that the election was stolen why isn't it just "no nominations for anyone until after the next presidential election"? I mean, I get why you might not want to have Schumer saying that but that's not really a position I've seen anyone stake out anywhere.
I also think you know a pretty unrepresentative group of people. I mean, a lot of people were also convinced that Barack Obama was not a legitimate president because he was born in Kenya and also that he only won because of massive voter fraud, but nobody of importance thought it made sense to advance that as the reason why he shouldn't get to put anyone on the Court. And the voter fraud was actually something mainstream Republicans were happy to argue was real. I am pretty sure that "Russia stole the election", in such a way that Republican governance is illegitimate, is not going to strike the large majority of Americans as true even if they believe that Russia influenced the election and even if they come to believe that Trump was personally involved and should be punished.
Coriolanus
Banned
I mean, if you're willing to take that line of thinking for 2007-11, you also gotta factor that playing that exact same game got you shafted from 2012-18 =/
is complicated, is wot im saying.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Manchin is popular in WV because of all the conservative shit he does and being "bipartisan"
I doubt him opposing Gorsuch would even matter but whatever, that's his thing. The extent to which I care about Manchin opposing Gorsuch is entirely based on the idea of party unity. That's why his lone support of Sessions was bad, in my opinion
(Party ID is less important in a state like WV, fwiw. Many "Democrats" don't vote for Democratic candidates at all and haven't done so for decades, but their party ID hasn't changed)
Dominican Power
Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...f-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?tid=ss_tw
The State Dept is in disarray.
The State Dept is in disarray.
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
He didn't even want the job so it makes sense.
I don't think I made that claim. You asked for a legitimate justification for the argument that Trump appointments are invalid, and I happen to have one. I think there are a large number of different reasons that Gorsuch should not be nominated, and Garland is probably the most important one to me, so I'd be less angry if Garland hadn't happened, but still somewhat angry!
Sure you have. Lots of people have said that if Trump gets removed we need a special election or something along those lines. That's an implicit recognition of the fact that the GOP shouldn't be allowed to wield presidential power if Trump is convicted, which includes nominations. Other people, who think less about government, probably already think that if Trump is removed some kind of system will work things out so that somebody appropriate becomes president afterwards.
Obviously you won't see party officials saying anything like that, because it would be very dramatic and there's no real precedent. But, I mean, there is a possibility that Trump is colluding with the Russians and significant members of the Republican Party were involved either directly or by knowingly condoning it, including the Vice President and the Speaker of the House, second and third in line to the presidency. If that is true, and it comes out, I think it is probably incorrect to assume that the presidential succession will just all run in good order. I don't know exactly what might happen because America has never faced a situation like this before. Precedent will be written.
I mean, okay? Argument from "that seems unlikely to me" doesn't seem super moving to me. I am not sure there's anything I can say in response to this.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
You mean letting a Putin ally run the state department is bad for america's international interests?
UltimaPooh
Member
GAF game on comp tonight with Batman, Owzers, and Pollux is here... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qg5ueS-zC_k
We ended up losing the match but god damn it I think we did fucking fantastic on both round especially this attack round of ours.
I think we got good team chemistry... Just couldn't bring it together in our last game. I blame the random Rein charging when he doesnt need to.
We ended up losing the match but god damn it I think we did fucking fantastic on both round especially this attack round of ours.
I think we got good team chemistry... Just couldn't bring it together in our last game. I blame the random Rein charging when he doesnt need to.
Make Amari Great Again
shinra-bansho
Member
There's kind of absolutely nothing to suggest that the FBI investigating Trump has any bearing on opposition to Gorsuch...?
Where is this even coming from, besides I'm assuming YouTube or something.
If anything, there is amongst scant polling that the populace has largely decoupled Gorsuch from his nominating President.
Where is this even coming from, besides I'm assuming YouTube or something.
If anything, there is amongst scant polling that the populace has largely decoupled Gorsuch from his nominating President.
There's one: Your name is Joe Manchin and you're too cocky to think you'll be primaried.
Edit: The implication was not that a primary would succeed, but that he has to tow the political line he is towing, although I can see why my wording is poor.
BlastProcessing
Member
Schumer argued it from the Senate floor.
Schumer calls for delaying Gorsuch vote because of Trump-Russia probe
Politico said:
Roland_Gunner
Member
Please tell us more about the complexities of the West Virginia electorate. I'm sure Manchin can use your input.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm not sure what Schumer arguing it is supposed to matter in a conversation about whether people care or if it's an effective attack vs other attacks.
I'm pretty sure Gotchaye is arguing it is a poor line of attack. But could be mistaken.
Edit: and in the absence of a good line of attack and/or being able to communicate it well, they should just move this along. Because it's one of the few positive Trump stories out there right now. And he's going to be confirmed regardless.
I'm pretty sure Gotchaye is arguing it is a poor line of attack. But could be mistaken.
Edit: and in the absence of a good line of attack and/or being able to communicate it well, they should just move this along. Because it's one of the few positive Trump stories out there right now. And he's going to be confirmed regardless.
Good breakdown on why Flynn story may have leaked (you might want to get out of the happening bunker)
https://www.justsecurity.org/39426/explainer-flynns-request-immunity/
https://www.justsecurity.org/39426/explainer-flynns-request-immunity/
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
Joe isn't going anywhere.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
I don't think he's too cocky to think he'll be primaried, I think he's too cocky and thinks any primary challenge will fail badly. Which is probably true!
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
I can get this one for you without consulting Manchin: lots of West Virginians believe in white supremacy but also enjoy federal spending and as such are willing to vote for a white supremacist who brings money back home over a white supremacist who will fuck them over.
I think there's a good case we should keep white supremacy out of the party though.
anyways if Manchin is so perfect he should be safe from a primary from those purity trolls so no need to worry about him, right?
Let's start here.
Remember Steve King? The Congressman who said we can't rebuild America with somebody else's babies because he wants America to be a white Christian country?
Let's say Steve King gets redistricted and decides for his political safety he really needs to switch parties and become a Democrat.
Should the Democratic Party allow him to join?
What if King was already a Democrat when he made those comments? Should the Democratic Party eject him or mount a primary campaign against him?
Remember Steve King? The Congressman who said we can't rebuild America with somebody else's babies because he wants America to be a white Christian country?
Let's say Steve King gets redistricted and decides for his political safety he really needs to switch parties and become a Democrat.
Should the Democratic Party allow him to join?
What if King was already a Democrat when he made those comments? Should the Democratic Party eject him or mount a primary campaign against him?
Chuck Schumer reads an opposition statement like he's reading the menu aloud at a Dennys.
I think that the Russia angle could be an effective attack, but Democrats are just piss-poor at pushing a message.
I don't think the issue here is exactly which message is the winning one. It's Democrats consistently failing at getting behind a message and pushing it passionately.
I think that the Russia angle could be an effective attack, but Democrats are just piss-poor at pushing a message.
I don't think the issue here is exactly which message is the winning one. It's Democrats consistently failing at getting behind a message and pushing it passionately.
NihonTiger90
Member
Fuck no. Because ...
... We can do better. Find someone who can run and win the district.
Manchin/Heitkamp are different because they have to win a wider coalition of voters across the state than you usually do in a district like that.
I totally agree. I think a lot of the problems with the party lie with ineffective advertising and messaging. Being a successful politician means being able to be persuasive with your rhetoric and a lot of that is passion and charisma.
shinra-bansho
Member
They can't passionately push it because only the lunatic fringe and I guess Millenials thinks that Trump is an "illegitimate President" based on information currently known.
Also again, Gorsuch isn't Trump and no one views him through the same lens as Trump anyway. Gorsuch could have been nominated by any run of the mill GOP President.
I.e. it probably just isn't a good attack.
Also again, Gorsuch isn't Trump and no one views him through the same lens as Trump anyway. Gorsuch could have been nominated by any run of the mill GOP President.
I.e. it probably just isn't a good attack.
Okay, so, if Steve King was a senator, then you'd be okay with him becoming a Democrat?
Ehhh, Honestly, my hot take is that Republicans are just better at getting angry at anything and everything, especially their main voting bloc. Logic and reason hurt Democrats because they just generally are too rational for their own good. Its like, once it's clear something is bad they don't drill it home nonstop because they just assume you already know it's a bad thing.
shinra-bansho
Member
I'm pretty sure the left is pretty good at being ineffectually angry.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Tacitly supporting fringe arguments because they feel good is the kind of thinking that led to Trump taking over the GOP and Corbyn destroying Labor in England.
NihonTiger90
Member
Nope on that, either, and it has to do with what King has said rather than he doesn't follow a strict liberal party line, etc.
If Manchin was out there talking about the superior white race, I'd be all for dumping his ass this instant.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
This is true of literally any conservative nominee, so I don't find this convincing when the GOP actually did in fact win control of the Senate. I'm an authoritarian technocrat at heart, but at least for now, it's a democracy and that means that this argument doesn't really hold water.
And this is the only actual reason for the opposition which is why I'm fine with it. It's a stupid waste of time since it means nothing (I'm firmly in the camp that thinking a filibuster would stand up even after Collins and Murkowski said they'd get rid of it is pretty much the height of political naiveté).
It's a base thing. It's meaningless to not filibuster so you might as well do it.
Yes, truly we could win every state in the Union by just pretending they're all Vermont. Why has this 50 state strategy never been done?!
Notice on the other side of the fence that states like Maine have Republicans in the Senate precisely because they let them throw away meaningless votes in exchange for local favor; if you think Collins/Murkowski were voting No on Devos, for example, because they actually thought she'd get blocked and not because they had the other 50+1 votes anyway, I don't think you get their strategy.
We don't need Manchin for much of anything in the way of obstruction, but it'd be nice if after the midterms we could count on his vote for all those things everyone on the far left tells me that we should be relaxing our social views on to get (and I'm certain I've seen that argument in here, that Manchin would probably vote yes for economic shit geared to rural white people).
Senate map already looks like shit next year, WV would be a good hold.
I mean, you don't have to think Trump is an illegitimate president to oppose him. And roughly 90% of the Democratic base at least oppose him. Him being a Russian stooge certainly contributes to that.
Effective messaging helps keeps those people engaged. It's not just for the "lunatic fringe" and millennials.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Just today Manchin and Heitkamp voted to prevent states from defunding Planned Parenthood. They were joined by exactly two out of 52 GOP senators. Comparing them to Steve King is absurd and insulting.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
If Manchin puts a white hood on but still votes for the ACA should we still keep him in the party? If Jeff Sessions promises to vote for Schumer as majority leader and Medicare for All should we just be glad we have that Alabama seat?
lol
I realize he was basically just us getting super lucky
AntraxSuicide
Banned
No one is passionate against Gorsuch because he's the kind of nominee that literally any Republican president would push for (and is probably better than some on the Court right now honestly), and all the arguments against him are just covers for the only good one, which no one cares about anyway.
Russian stuff? No one is attaching Gorsuch to Trump in this way.
Stole a seat? No one cares (good bit of data here)
His beliefs are bad? Not compared to any Republican nominee, and they won the Senate so they get to pick (unless you argue about stealing the seat, but then no one cares).
The only reason to filibuster is because there's no downside and a small upside, so might as well do it. If I was Chuck, I'd filibuster too, but it's all just pointless theater. You block, they nuke the block, then Gorsuch gets his seat. In less than 6 months, no one even cares.
A) If people have issues with Democratic messaging, are y'all telling your Senators/Congressmen? royalan maybe you should write to Schumer (even though I know you aren't his constituent)?
B) However shit Manchin may be, he's not Steve King. This line of discussion seems hyperbolic?
B) However shit Manchin may be, he's not Steve King. This line of discussion seems hyperbolic?
shinra-bansho
Member
If we're talking up this pointless Russian angle wrt Gorsuch then general Democratic opposition to Trump is irrelevant.
General Democratic opposition to Trump actually seems irrelevant anyway. Because the numbers for Trump don't translate into numbers for Gorsuch, where only a comparatively low 60% of Democrats oppose him.
General Democratic opposition to Trump actually seems irrelevant anyway. Because the numbers for Trump don't translate into numbers for Gorsuch, where only a comparatively low 60% of Democrats oppose him.
whyamihere
Banned
This is hyperbolic, pigeon.
Okay. What if Manchin was endorsing Steve King for office and saying he'd be a great senator? Are we still fine? Is it okay to endorse and support an overt white supremacist?
No, it's Socratic. There are more steps in the argument!
whyamihere
Banned
Thank god he didn't.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Yeah, I was gonna say, I get that there's a line to draw, but "red state senator casts pointless vote for nominee that isn't hated and is exactly like any other nominee would be, if not better, in a situation where the filibuster isn't even taken off the table because it's one vote so whatever" is at least a few planets away from "hood wearing white supremacist."
Meh I know Gorsuch is getting confirmed. I know that Trump probably finishes his first term. I know that the rich are going to get tax cuts and our rights are going to get infringed upon. I know these things because elections have consequences.
By not electing Murphy, Feingold, Kander, McGinty and all those other Senate candidates, we guaranteed this outcome and so we need to live with it. Democrats are in the weakest position they've been in for generations and we're seeing that reality play out. Filibuster will get nuked, if the shoe was on the other foot I'd expect a Democratic Senate to do everything in their power to put in the most liberal judge possible into the SCOTUS.
I am glad of the political theater we're seeing with this administration. It can only serve to depress Republican turnout while energizing independents and Democrats to actually vote against Trump the next go around. One side resists progress, they also won. We should do everything possible to get our wins how we can get them. And I'd rather Joe Manchin in the Senate with a D next to his name than a Collins or Murkowski because when it comes to a hypothetical vote to add a public option to the ACA for example, he's a firmer yes- vote than the other two. Just tired of seeing Republicans score wins at my expense.
By not electing Murphy, Feingold, Kander, McGinty and all those other Senate candidates, we guaranteed this outcome and so we need to live with it. Democrats are in the weakest position they've been in for generations and we're seeing that reality play out. Filibuster will get nuked, if the shoe was on the other foot I'd expect a Democratic Senate to do everything in their power to put in the most liberal judge possible into the SCOTUS.
I am glad of the political theater we're seeing with this administration. It can only serve to depress Republican turnout while energizing independents and Democrats to actually vote against Trump the next go around. One side resists progress, they also won. We should do everything possible to get our wins how we can get them. And I'd rather Joe Manchin in the Senate with a D next to his name than a Collins or Murkowski because when it comes to a hypothetical vote to add a public option to the ACA for example, he's a firmer yes- vote than the other two. Just tired of seeing Republicans score wins at my expense.
Okay. What if he endorsed a white supremacist for a different office, like, say, Attorney General of the United States? Okay or not okay?
No, I agree with you in much the same way I agreed with Pigeon earlier when he said that the people don't give a shit about SCOTUS. They don't. We're on the same page here.
The Democratic base doesn't give a shit about Garland (sorry Garland). What the base cares about right now is seeing our elected officials fight as hard against the Republican agenda as the Republicans spent the last decade fighting against the Democratic agenda, as well as fighting against common freaking sense.
So the argument doesn't really matter. To be fair, all of these arguments have some level of validity (unlike the bullshit Republicans tend to align behind), but at the end of the day they're all just excuses to achieve the real goal: oppose Republicans, keep the base energized, and protect your seats. Pick an argument, coordinate, get behind it and stick to it like glue.
The main point I'm making is that Democrats need to get better at uniting behind a strong message, whatever that message is. Because as of now they're total shit unless that message is "Hope...or something."
Roland_Gunner
Member
Its absurd and mostly highlights the dangers of using the Socratic method to obscure whats actually happening. The simple answer is that if Manchin were they type of person to endorse Steve King he could just leave the party, run as a Republican, and win every election by 30 points. Your flawed assumption is that the Dems are 'allowing' a relative conservative like Manchin in the party when he is a fundamentally decent person who has to vote strategically on symbolic issues to keep his seat.
So...why?
Like, that's the point of this argument! Clearly we agree that there is an amount of white supremacy that is too much for the Democratic Party.
Many people seem to think that "voting for a white supremacist for Attorney General and saying he supports the nomination" is not too much. That's basically an okay amount of white supremacy.
I would like that justified at greater length than just waving your hands at it like you folks are doing! So far it just seems like people don't want to think too much about the fact that Joe Manchin is a Democrat that supports white supremacy, rather than that they have an actual reason why the situation is importantly distinct.
I mean, if your position is that white supremacy is a "symbolic issue" then I see why you're fine with Manchin.
BlastProcessing
Member
That's pretty far from my intention with that statement. I don't think all Democrats need to stand for the same things. I don't think representative government works that way. I'm sure as hell not a purity test liberal.
My point is that it gets frustrating when I see people get so far into the weeds with optics and tactics that they completely lose sight of the basic fact that politicians need to orient themselves around a core belief system.
I am endlessly frustrated with the current, punditry driven, state of American politics where how something looks matters more than what something is. Optics are important and they have a role to play in politics, but too much is driven by them.
whyamihere
Banned
I'm not playing your dumb game that lacks context and nuance and is willfully ignorant of electoral realities. And I mean specifically about Gorsuch.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked