Support NeoGAF

[Ignatz Mouse]

The filibuster is almost universally used by republicans to obstruct democratic majorities.

This would be the first time I can think of Democrats even using it in recent memory.

I'm pretty sure it was a thing under GWB, at least occasionally. Because I recall conservatives talking about wanting to get rid of it.

 

[Ac30]

Le Pen is about to get dunked by Macron, AdD is polling at like 6% and Geert Wilders just massively underperformed his goals. Doesn't this mean the Western European far right is doing much worse (in countries whiter than the US) than here? Sweden Democrats have a low amount of seats even though it's the European country that's seen the highest net migration.

Losing 60-40 to Macron is hardly getting dunked. Let's not celebrate early. She's also not as immediately repulsive as Trump and talks somewhat coherently. Even if Macron wins the FN getting 40% does not bode well for future elections.

 

[The Technomancer]

you poor poor soul.

Its literally that or mass starvation. The economy of the past is very fundamentally never returning

 

[Slacker]

If anyone enjoys looking out for up-and-comers, I think Beto O'Rourke may have something. He's challenging Ted Cruz for his senate seat next year: https://www.texastribune.org/2017/03/31/to-beat-ted-cruz-beto-orourke-throw-out-playbook/

 

[Ac30]

Here's how the process would go:

1. McConnell files cloture on Gorsuch.
2. Cloture period elapses (one legislative day plus forty hours if I remember correctly).
3. Cloture vote to end the filibuster and proceed to the vote on Gorsuch is held, goes 59-41 or so.
4. President of the Senate (probably Pence) rules that the vote fails.
5. McConnell raises a point of order and says that a majority vote of senators should be sufficient to end cloture on a SCOTUS appointment.
6. Parliamentarian rules that the rules don't permit this.
7. McConnell appeals the ruling of the parliamentarian to the full Senate.
8. Senate votes to overrule the parliamentarian by a majority vote.
9. Having overruled the parliamentarian, the precedent is now recorded that a majority vote of senators is sufficient to end cloture on a SCOTUS appointment.

Can Pence vote on a rule change if it's 50-50?

 

[pigeon]

Can Pence vote on a rule change if it's 50-50?

Sure. As far as I know, the president of the Senate always breaks ties if he is present.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

Can Pence vote on a rule change if it's 50-50?

Some people were floating that objection, but no one was able to back it up, so it seems not.

 

[Teggy]

Wait, so they would need 60 votes to reinstate the filibuster after taking it away or no?

 

[Ziltoidia 9]

I really wish some of the senators could vote against the nuclear option but still be for the nomination. Some of the tweeners in the senate could be for both.

 

[Vimes]

Its literally that or mass starvation. The economy of the past is very fundamentally never returning

Even if the GOP hadn't gotten in control of all three branches I would be concerned about whether the govt, corporations and society at large will simply wait for everything to be on fire before reacting seriously to this issue. Just like climate change.

When automated trucks arrive I'm pretty sure we're either gonna have an even higher rate of 'deaths of despair,' or just outright violence.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Losing 60-40 to Macron is hardly getting dunked. Let's not celebrate early. She's also not as immediately repulsive as Trump and talks somewhat coherently. Even if Macron wins the FN getting 40% does not bode well for future elections.

60-40 is absolutely still a crushing defeat even if it should be 100-0. I guarantee you that If the election went 60-40 and Trump got Goldwater'd we would be having a much different conversation right now.

also if "Le Pen is a much stronger candidate than Trump" is true, doesn't that show that Western Europe is less susceptible to far right nationalism than America?

 

[Cesare Borgia]

@TheRickWilson 41m41 minutes ago

I have told you people this a hundred times; underestimate Mitch McConnell at your own peril.

https://twitter.com/TheRickWilson/status/848957279428792320

Thank god for the House or else McConnell would be running circles around Trump. And thank god for the House or else he would have done it to Obama as well.

Still not sure I believe he'll shitcan the filibuster...

 

[pigeon]

Wait, so they would need 60 votes to reinstate the filibuster after taking it away or no?

Technically they could reinstate the filibuster with a majority vote, but I can't imagine that happening. Why would anybody bother?

 

[Ourobolus]

Technically they could reinstate the filibuster with a majority vote, but I can't imagine that happening. Why would anybody bother?

The only way I ever see that happening is if one side has 60 votes, they push through everything they want, then at the end of the term they decide to reinstate it in case they lose seats.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Did Spicer just say that Trump donated his first paycheck to the National Park Services?

BULL FUCKING SHIT.

E: Oh its to "upkeep battlefields". Great.

 

[Teggy]

Technically they could reinstate the filibuster with a majority vote, but I can't imagine that happening. Why would anybody bother?

Because they think that they'll be losing the senate and don't think the democrats will have the guts to undo it again? I guess that doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[pigeon]

The only way I ever see that happening is if one side has 60 votes, they push through everything they want, then at the end of the term they decide to reinstate it in case they lose seats.

Yeah, but then if the other party gets 51 they'll just immediately change the rules back.

Because they think that they'll be losing the senate and don't think the democrats will have the guts to undo it again? I guess that doesn't make a lot of sense.

The argument about longstanding norms of Senate comity is...somewhat weaker in that situation, yeah.

 

[Syncytia]

Man, I'm really about to shit some bricks at this press conference with Senators for Gorsuch. The cognitive dissonance is unbelievable. Garland was just a year ago, and they think we don't remember how they blocked him?

 

[Box of Kittens]

I never get these arguments about reinstating the filibuster right before the next Congress. The new Senate can just get rid of it again by majority vote.

 

[Ourobolus]

I never get these arguments about reinstating the filibuster right before the next Congress. The new Senate can just get rid of it again by majority vote.

I'm not saying it's a good plan

 

[tedrotheredro]

I thought Trump said he wouldn't take a salary. Not quite the same as donating the salary to where he sees fit. No chance he doesn't deduct it on his taxes, which we'll never see.

It's a ridiculous sideshow anyway. He's paid far more from a single Mar-a-Lago weekend than this paycheck,

 

[Father_Brain]

I mean, sure, I guess. I don't trust those people since they voted for a white supremacist and that's kind of a key issue for me. But maybe they can feel bad about it and repent.

Well, keep on not trusting them. I don't really see why treating their votes as potentially winnable requires you to trust them, or like them, or think they're good people, or have any sort of positive opinion of them personally.

As for the "repent" part: clearly, many/most/all (the percentage isn't the pertinent part here) Obama-Trump voters are racist, and yet they were able to vote for Obama in 2012 without first purging all the racism from their hearts. Would it have been a better outcome for minorities and the fight against white supremacy if their votes had been treated as unwinnable absent proof that they had fully repented of their racism, and they had broken for Romney instead?

Here are some things I believe:

1. Social justice and economic justice are not opposed, they're linked. We should be arguing for both without leaving either behind. Call it solidarity or intersectionality, it doesn't matter. Basically just run Jesse Jackson.
2. Some people are worried the Democrats will go soft on economic justice (or already have) and some people are worried the Democrats will go soft on social justice (or already have). These people tend to view each other as opposing the two issues, which creates conflict. It doesn't help that there are people in both camps who do actually oppose the two, but I think not the majority in either. But, you know, it's a good idea to be clear that you are advocating for both, rather than just one.

Agree 100% with #1, mostly agree with the second; I find class-last and class-never politics to be much more prevalent on the center and center-left than class-uber-alles politics are on the left, but both are bad and should be called out as such. (On a related note, I don't agree that Sanders is a class-first leftist like he's often criticized as, but I definitely will agree that he's bad at talking about intersectionality and conveying that he isn't.)

3. Clinton did not lose resoundingly. She lost an extremely close election. It was close enough that weather could've made the difference, to say nothing of emails, Russia, intraparty conflict, being old, or any of the other countless factors that contributed. It's not a good idea to assume drastic changes are required in response to a close election loss, no matter how shitty things are.

Absolutely, a better candidate could have won with the same campaign and platform, and Clinton herself could have won with a slightly better campaign and the same platform. But this isn't just about the presidential election.

4. White supremacy is bad, etc. People should take more time to be horrified that everybody in the Republican Party was willing to vote for a white supremacist because he was running as a Republican. That is the biggest reason Trump won.

Absolutely, it is horrific, but what does "take more time to be horrified" mean in terms of actual political practice? If you mean acknowledging the huge role racism played in this election, then sure. Not pandering either actively or passively to racists, definitely. Committing to anti-racist action and policy, absolutely. But does it mean something beyond that?

 

[SEGAvangelist]

I thought Trump said he wouldn't take a salary. Not quite the same as donating the salary to where he sees fit. No chance he doesn't deduct it on his taxes, which we'll never see.

It's a ridiculous sideshow anyway. He's paid far more from a single Mar-a-Lago weekend than this paycheck,

I think he's required to take a salary or something like that.

 

[The Technomancer]

Absolutely, it is horrific, but what does "take more time to be horrified" mean in terms of actual political practice? If you mean acknowledging the huge role racism played in this election, then sure. Not pandering either actively or passively to racists, definitely. Committing to anti-racist action and policy, absolutely. But does it mean something beyond that?

I mean, it has huge implications for both who we can "win back" and what would be required to "win them back". That's why this whole thing is a debate in the first place!

 

[etrain911]

Here's how the process would go:

1. McConnell files cloture on Gorsuch.
2. Cloture period elapses (one legislative day plus forty hours if I remember correctly).
3. Cloture vote to end the filibuster and proceed to the vote on Gorsuch is held, goes 59-41 or so.
4. President of the Senate (probably Pence) rules that the vote fails.
5. McConnell raises a point of order and says that a majority vote of senators should be sufficient to end cloture on a SCOTUS appointment.
6. Parliamentarian rules that the rules don't permit this.
7. McConnell appeals the ruling of the parliamentarian to the full Senate.
8. Senate votes to overrule the parliamentarian by a majority vote.
9. Having overruled the parliamentarian, the precedent is now recorded that a majority vote of senators is sufficient to end cloture on a SCOTUS appointment.

Thanks for this. Some of these can be so complex. I mean, I don't understand why, at this point, the Dems wouldn't filibuster Gorsuch. I've heard the arguments too, we can make deals with them about the next empty seat, losing the filibuster would guarantee the next empty seat could be an R pick that wouldn't even need to be moderate, etc. But, as long as the Rs have the majority, they won't blink on nuking it. They're willing to do so now, and they would be willing to do so then. Rewarding their bad behavior and betraying what the base really desires would not change that.

 

[Father_Brain]

I mean, it has huge implications for both who we can "win back" and what would be required to "win them back". That's why this whole thing is a debate in the first place!

Well, yeah, if that phrase is euphemistic language for "assuming all Trump voters are irredeemably, unreachably racist absent proof that they have fully repented of their racism," then sure, I'm much less "horrified" by it than pigeon is. I suppose that's true.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Man, I'm really about to shit some bricks at this press conference with Senators for Gorsuch. The cognitive dissonance is unbelievable. Garland was just a year ago, and they think we don't remember how they blocked him?

Most people probably don't.

 

[The Technomancer]

Well, yeah, if that phrase is euphemistic language for "assuming all Trump voters are irredeemably, unreachably racist absent proof that they have fully repented of their racism," then sure, I'm much less "horrified" by it than pigeon is. I suppose that's true.

They've shown they can be won over by rhetoric that we cannot ethically recreate. Whatever solution we do offer is going to be less palatable than what Trump sold them

 

[Ludovico]

Spicer briefings are going swimmingly, I see.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

They've shown they can be won over by rhetoric that we cannot ethically recreate. Whatever solution we do offer is going to be less palatable than what Trump sold them

If we can create ethical rhetoric to win them over (inclusive antiracist populism that redirects anger towards the 1% and big business is what I'm for) then that should be considered. We don't need all Trump voters, we either need a small fraction of them or to get nonvoters to turn out.

Saying "the reason you're actually dying is because wealthy people have been using policy to redirect wealth upwards and using their power to legally sell to you the drugs that are killing you" I think is an ethical counter to Trump. You can even point out that Trump and Republicans want them to hate minorities so that they can steal from them and who the real enemies are.

 

[Father_Brain]

They've shown they can be won over by rhetoric that we cannot ethically recreate. Whatever solution we do offer is going to be less palatable than what Trump sold them

If racist Trump voters will invariably vote their racism over all other issues, racist Obama-Trump voters probably wouldn't exist, at least not in sufficient numbers to change the election outcome.

Now, sure, it's *possible* that Trump has changed these voters so that they will uniformly vote their racism over all other issues in 2020, whereas they might not have in 2012. I remain unconvinced.

 

[etrain911]

They've shown they can be won over by rhetoric that we cannot ethically recreate. Whatever solution we do offer is going to be less palatable than what Trump sold them

I think if you appeal to their sense of anger by painting the R party as one that is built by elites who have played them for fools and want nothing more than their money and their loyalty, you could have something. They need someone to hate. Right now, it is whoever their press tells them to (minorities) but if you could find a way to harness that anger and channel it towards another target, you could get an extremely loyal voting bloc. Normally, it is hard to prove to them that they've been duped, because they're told that all of what they have is being taken by the poor and by minorities and their neighbors, but I feel like this administration could be a chance to really show who is behind the curtain.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

60-40 is absolutely still a crushing defeat even if it should be 100-0. I guarantee you that If the election went 60-40 and Trump got Goldwater'd we would be having a much different conversation right now.

also if "Le Pen is a much stronger candidate than Trump" is true, doesn't that show that Western Europe is less susceptible to far right nationalism than America?

No, that's not what the discussion was about. We were all talking about the prevalence of racism in rural areas which lines up with 40% of French voters backing Le Pen (edit: my phone wanted to auto correct Le Pen to Leave which makes sense haha). Racism is a major player.

And we can't say much there one way or the other since we can't control for the French election without the shitshow of Brexit and Trump influencing the vote.

 

[pigeon]

Well, keep on not trusting them. I don't really see why treating their votes as potentially winnable requires you to trust them, or like them, or think they're good people, or have any sort of positive opinion of them personally.

Living in America requires me to believe that a large majority of Americans oppose white supremacy. That is actually a requirement for me to stay here.

Transactionally opposing white supremacy does not strike me as necessarily adequate.

I don't think my right to life and safety is a political issue. You shouldn't either.

As for the "repent" part: clearly, many/most/all (the percentage isn't the pertinent part here) Obama-Trump voters are racist, and yet they were able to vote for Obama in 2012 without first purging all the racism from their hearts. Would it have been a better outcome for minorities and the fight against white supremacy if their votes had been treated as unwinnable absent proof that they had fully repented of their racism, and they had broken for Romney instead?

I don't think I've ever suggested treating these votes as unwinnable. I'm really not sure where this idea comes from.

I just don't think we should abandon social justice to win them. I think a lot of people who want to win these votes either implicitly or explicitly suggest doing so.

Agree 100% with #1, mostly agree with the second; I find class-last and class-never politics to be much more prevalent on the center and center-left than class-uber-alles politics are on the left, but both are bad and should be called out as such. (On a related note, I don't agree that Sanders is a class-first leftist like he's often criticized as, but I definitely will agree that he's bad at talking about intersectionality and conveying that he isn't.)

Sure, whatever. Obviously we're likely to disagree on specific classification of people, but I also don't particularly care. The point is that you should be holding everybody to the same standard of consistently foregrounding both types of justice. Even if, like Bernie, you believe his heart is in the right place.

Absolutely, a better candidate could have won with the same campaign and platform, and Clinton herself could have won with a slightly better campaign and the same platform. But this isn't just about the presidential election.

I mean, I think it mostly is. We weren't having these arguments a year ago. People are generally grounding their political arguments in "this is what Dems need to do to win." I think that foundation is pretty sandy.

Absolutely, it is horrific, but what does "take more time to be horrified" mean in terms of actual political practice? If you mean acknowledging the huge role racism played in this election, then sure. Not pandering either actively or passively to racists, definitely. Committing to anti-racist action and policy, absolutely. But does it mean something beyond that?

That mostly seems fine. I just don't think people are actually being very good at doing those things.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Devin Nunes' high school photo just leaked:

 

[whyamihere]

Devin Nunes' high school photo just leaked:

a;odsklksdfjaio'jcva'lskdcmasdf

 

[dramatis]

The 80s man, they were not good for hair.

 

[pigeon]

If we can create ethical rhetoric to win them over (inclusive antiracist populism that redirects anger towards the 1% and big business is what I'm for) then that should be considered. We don't need all Trump voters, we either need a small fraction of them or to get nonvoters to turn out.

I think this seems correct. I'm not super convinced it will work but hey, no harm in trying. And it's the morally correct position.

 

[B-Dubs]

Devin Nunes' high school photo just leaked:

Ndhdjdndndjdndjbdjdbdjdndhdbdjdnjdbdjddndnbdjdndjdbdj

 

[Veritigo_X]

The 80s man, they were not good for hair.

This was apparently in the 90s...........

 

[jmdajr]

I'm glad I NEVER has a mullet.

 

[B-Dubs]

This was apparently in the 90s...........

No it wasn't. That's impossible.

 

[ascii42]

No it wasn't. That's impossible.

Time travel?

 

[sc0la]

Technically they could reinstate the filibuster with a majority vote, but I can't imagine that happening. Why would anybody bother?

Not if they apply a "no tag backs" or "for keepsies" rule when they put it back in place Those are ironclad.

 

[Veritigo_X]

No it wasn't. That's impossible.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-devin-nunes-20170404-htmlstory.html

1991. Heavily favoring the 80s side of the early 90s.

 

[Hindl]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-devin-nunes-20170404-htmlstory.html

1991. Heavily favoring the 80s side of the early 90s.

Alright that's a wash. The first 2-3 years of a decade are basically a continuation of the last decade

 

[pigeon]

Not if they apply a "no tag backs" or "for keepsies" rule when they put it back in place Those are ironclad.

Unfortunately the Senate eliminated "infinity plus one" during the run-up to the Civil War.

 

[jmdajr]

How easy to get the fillibuster back once you get rid of it?

 

[Fenderputty]

This was apparently in the 90s...........

Early 90's was basically the 80's


Edit: this has been addressed

How easy to get the fillibuster back once you get rid of it?

What's the point. Whenever power tilts again it will be nuked. Cats outa the bag

 

[Box of Kittens]

How easy to get the fillibuster back once you get rid of it?

The filibuster is a matter of Senate rules, which are themselves subject to a simple majority vote. Realistically though, once they get rid of it no one is likely to bring it back.