balladofwindfishes
Member
This is an incredibly stupid idea. This is war for the sake of war, since we know Trump doesn't care at all for the victims.
-
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
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Quick round of Tomahawks is what I am betting
metalslimer
Member
He will send a missile at a rebel Hospital
aspiegamer
Member
Trump has spent zero effort trying to sell any military action to the American public. He underestimates the effort needed with that. W spent over a year pitching the Iraq war for christ sake. Now Trump is loosely hyping two interventions on extremely short notice? Good luck with that. Especially North Korea.
And watch, we'll probably get target data from the Russians in an act of "cooperation" and they'll send coordinates of US-backed rebels by "mistake."
And watch, we'll probably get target data from the Russians in an act of "cooperation" and they'll send coordinates of US-backed rebels by "mistake."
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Fam I'm too busy playing Persona
djplaeskool
Member
Most Sony fanboys seem too busy playing games in recent months.
Also, this is a shaky day for bicameral process, not just for democrats.
Oh for sure. I was more observing the "globalist" slur being used for the man with the obvious Jewish surname being labeled as a "populist insult" rather than a racist one.
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
There we go. Finally got nuked.
balladofwindfishes
Member
lol
They are so desperate for some kind of political "win"
They are so desperate for some kind of political "win"
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Johnny, what a Maverick
Outdoor Miner
Member
He's got some serious concerns okay?!?
Pandora012
Member
I really want this to bite them in the ass. That said if Dems get back in control, I hope that they reinstate the filibuster rule.
benicillin
Banned
Why? They won't. It's gone now and it's not coming back.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Wait why? That would only hurt Democrats.
Veritigo_X
Member
If dems did that they'd be doing republicans a huge favor!
Box of Kittens
Banned
Democrats won't (and shouldn't) reinstate the filibuster.
"Now that we're in power again, let's make it harder to get anything done."
"Now that we're in power again, let's make it harder to get anything done."
More_Badass
Member
Pandora012
Member
Because I don't want the Senate to become like the House the way things are now everything is by party lines. I'd rather some both parties work together than excluding the other. But that of course only works if there aren't so many extremes, and way more moderates. So I guess I should have said, reinstate it if there are saner people in office. Which probably won't happen any time soon.
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
Final vote is tomorrow.
balladofwindfishes
Member
This is our government now. Compromise and bipartanship is dead and isn't coming back any time soon
Which is precisely what every party in power will say for the rest of time.
I guess at the very least if a party does win outright, they can actually pass their agenda. Of course, if it's a shit agenda that you don't agree with it's not exactly a positive thing. Hence the point of the filibuster.
I don't understand that picture, Nay won so the motion to appeal (nuke the filibuster) didn't pass?
This is only for SCOTUS nominees, not legislation.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Yes.
Our government system is broken, and will continue to be. I think "no justices unless you also hold the senate" is just how it's going to work from now on.
Our government wasn't set up for a large block of the legislation to be completely insane and self destructive.
Pandora012
Member
I mean, what's to stop them?
It's how they worded the question. If they wanted to nuke it they had to vote Nay.
Give that a year or two...
balladofwindfishes
Member
Insane House written bills being thrown to the senate in hopes of a quick stamp of approval.
I'm aware.
But we're undoubtedly heading towards a showdown in the Senate... Perhaps at this point it's a question of when, not if, the filibuster is ended there too.
Regardless of the politics behind the entire thing, Gorsuch isn't really an unqualified nominee in the traditional sense, but even McConnell wants to have cover for some of the BS Ryan and the House are bound to throw his way even if only to be able to blame Democrats for its failure.
balladofwindfishes
Member
If the Senate causes a shutdown it won't be because of the Democrats
What's the Democratic argument for keeping the legislative filibuster? Which unpopular bills did the Dem house jam through in 2009?
I get why McConnell doesn't want to deal with the idiots in the GOP house caucus. But his whole schtick is obstructionism by any means necessary. The Dems have a positive, somewhat ideologically coherent policy platform.
Of course. That's the rule now.
You have to match the GOP tit-for-tat to deincentivize "bad" behavior.
I get why McConnell doesn't want to deal with the idiots in the GOP house caucus. But his whole schtick is obstructionism by any means necessary. The Dems have a positive, somewhat ideologically coherent policy platform.
Of course. That's the rule now.
You have to match the GOP tit-for-tat to deincentivize "bad" behavior.
I mean, Cruz and his fellow Rethugs vowed to fight against every Clinton nomination if she were president, so at this point it's clear they don't give a shit about what the government was set up to do.
nintendoman58
Member
So let me get this straight.
Dems filibustered Gosurch, then the GOP nuked the filibuster, and now they're going to have another vote for Gosurch just like that to get him on?
Dems filibustered Gosurch, then the GOP nuked the filibuster, and now they're going to have another vote for Gosurch just like that to get him on?
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
Nay that they need 60 votes to pass anymore. If I am not mistaken.
Yes.
This was how it was going to happen from the start, what were you expecting?
Also, the filibuster is an undemocratic vestige in an inherently undemocratic legislative body. It exists to slow the legislative process and, by design, favors the status quo (and, in term, conservativism).
It strikes me that, if the optimal response is tit-for-tat, Democrats might as well get something seriously useful out of it, like a public option or immigration reform.
Yes, where they only need a majority (51 votes) to confirm.
It basically means moving forward that if you're the president and you have a majority in the senate, you can put in whatever crazy-ass ideologues you want without any system in place to stop their confirmation.
Really not good overall, but this is where we're heading as a government. And you partially have right wing media to thank for this, since they've convinced most of the country that liberals hate America and freedom, and if you work with them you should be hung for treason.
This is a fair argument, but of course the next logical question to ask is what exactly would the minority party even do without any institutional procedure to exert some modicum of power? Why even be there? Just stay home.
Pandora012
Member
It would be nice of them to remember how doing something like this fucked over the Dems.
whyamihere
Banned
I would've hoped that if there were a President Clinton and we had 50-51 seats and couldn't get 60 for Garland that Schumer would've gone nuclear on SCOTUS nominees. So, I don't really have a lot of outrage for this besides the fact that Garland should've gotten a hearing and vote.
Oh shit, I thought you were joking.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked