• 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 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
pigeon said:
To put this another way: if we passed a bill that protected the Dreamers and then funded the wall, how would we prevent the Republicans from immediately passing a bill that unprotects the Dreamers? If we cannot prevent them from doing so, what possible justification would there be for supporting a bill that funds the wall?
Click to expand...

I agree with most of this, but this part doesn't make sense to me as I noted above. If the GOP will just immediately pass a bill deporting Dreamers, then they have the political will to attempt this and the capital to pull it off. They would just pass a bill to deport the Dreamers (or let Trump kill it and respond with nothing).

The lay of the land is that these kids will get deported if a bill isn't passed. That most definitely gives us less leverage than I think your assessment gives us. We actually can't say "if we don't get X, we don't pass anything" because each day would see more deportations. Unless we can find a legal way to tie DACA into the budget of the federal government, where the onus is on them to pass a bill and not us.

edit: Though I'll say again, I don't want the wall in there. I refuse to believe that it has to get to that point with Pelosi on our side. There are other options.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
pigeon said:
Okay, so let's talk about the politics of "letting the hostages be deported."

My focus whenever we talk about hostage situations is on the actual power relationship, because that's all that really matters. Hostage takers try to convince you that, having gained power with a threat of force, they will negotiate fairly. There is no reason to believe that is true.

The Republicans have the power, right now, to save all the Dreamers from deportation. They also have the power to allow them to be deported. The Democrats have no power to influence either option. (This analysis ignores the existence of the filibuster because it's a social norm which can be violated.) Therefore, there is actually no action the Democrats can take to prevent deportation -- any deal they made could immediately be reneged on by the Republicans in a separate bill, which the Democrats would have no power to stop. The illusion of a negotiation is exactly that.

The only way for us to prevent the Dreamers from being deported is through political action to convince the Republicans, who actually hold power, that they want to protect them. Some political action has already occurred. That's why the Republican leaders are talking about wanting to protect them.

Normally you would expect Republican leaders to simply put up and pass a bill that protects the Dreamers. Again, they have the full power to do so. They haven't, though, because they don't actually have agreement within their caucus to pass the bill. They need to temporarily form a coalition between less-racism-focused Republicans and Democrats in order to pass it, with Democrats making up the majority of the votes.

But given that their desire is to avoid deporting the Dreamers, and that they need to coalition with the Democrats to do so, there is no reason for us to make a trade. We should support a bill that contains the issue on which we agree -- preventing Dreamer deportation -- and nothing we don't agree on. That's how coalition politics works.

To put this another way: if we passed a bill that protected the Dreamers and then funded the wall, how would we prevent the Republicans from immediately passing a bill that unprotects the Dreamers? If we cannot prevent them from doing so, what possible justification would there be for supporting a bill that funds the wall?
Click to expand...
This is good analysis. If Ryan and co. really want DREAMers protected they should pass the bill without a wall. The wall is a deliberate poison pill to give them an out from standing up to Trump, should they pursue that route.
 
J

jtb

Banned
pigeon said:
Okay, so let's talk about the politics of "letting the hostages be deported."

My focus whenever we talk about hostage situations is on the actual power relationship, because that's all that really matters. Hostage takers try to convince you that, having gained power with a threat of force, they will negotiate fairly. There is no reason to believe that is true.

The Republicans have the power, right now, to save all the Dreamers from deportation. They also have the power to allow them to be deported. The Democrats have no power to influence either option. (This analysis ignores the existence of the filibuster because it's a social norm which can be violated.) Therefore, there is actually no action the Democrats can take to prevent deportation -- any deal they made could immediately be reneged on by the Republicans in a separate bill, which the Democrats would have no power to stop. The illusion of a negotiation is exactly that.

The only way for us to prevent the Dreamers from being deported is through political action to convince the Republicans, who actually hold power, that they want to protect them. Some political action has already occurred. That's why the Republican leaders are talking about wanting to protect them.

Normally you would expect Republican leaders to simply put up and pass a bill that protects the Dreamers. Again, they have the full power to do so. They haven't, though, because they don't actually have agreement within their caucus to pass the bill. They need to temporarily form a coalition between less-racism-focused Republicans and Democrats in order to pass it, with Democrats making up the majority of the votes.

But given that their desire is to avoid deporting the Dreamers, and that they need to coalition with the Democrats to do so, there is no reason for us to make a trade. We should support a bill that contains the issue on which we agree -- preventing Dreamer deportation -- and nothing we don't agree on. That's how coalition politics works.

To put this another way: if we passed a bill that protected the Dreamers and then funded the wall, how would we prevent the Republicans from immediately passing a bill that unprotects the Dreamers? If we cannot prevent them from doing so, what possible justification would there be for supporting a bill that funds the wall?
Click to expand...

Thanks for this post.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
AntraxSuicide said:
I agree with most of this, but this part doesn't make sense to me as I noted above. If the GOP will just immediately pass a bill deporting Dreamers, then they have the political will to attempt this and the capital to pull it off. They would just pass a bill to deport the Dreamers (or let Trump kill it and respond with nothing).
Click to expand...

I don't think I completely understand what you're saying here, but I would say that Paul Ryan has already said he doesn't want them deported. To the degree that we are compromising with Ryan and not the GOP as a whole it's even more true that we have no reason to offer him anything.

AntraxSuicide said:
The lay of the land is that these kids will get deported if a bill isn't passed. That most definitely gives us less leverage than I think your assessment gives us. We actually can't say "if we don't get X, we don't pass anything" because each day would see more deportations.
Click to expand...

So we should stop ICE from deporting people. I'm strongly in favor of this! But this is a problem for the American people, not the Democratic Party.
 
D

dramatis

Member
I guess I feel like maybe right now what needs to be done is buy some time to convince a few Republican senators to get onboard Graham's DREAM Act which he reintroduced earlier this summer, or else figure out how the House Republican from CO's bill will play out.
 
Amibguous Cad

Amibguous Cad

Member
pigeon said:
Okay, so let's talk about the politics of "letting the hostages be deported."

My focus whenever we talk about hostage situations is on the actual power relationship, because that's all that really matters. Hostage takers try to convince you that, having gained power with a threat of force, they will negotiate fairly. There is no reason to believe that is true.

The Republicans have the power, right now, to save all the Dreamers from deportation. They also have the power to allow them to be deported. The Democrats have no power to influence either option. (This analysis ignores the existence of the filibuster because it's a social norm which can be violated.) Therefore, there is actually no action the Democrats can take to prevent deportation -- any deal they made could immediately be reneged on by the Republicans in a separate bill, which the Democrats would have no power to stop. The illusion of a negotiation is exactly that.

The only way for us to prevent the Dreamers from being deported is through political action to convince the Republicans, who actually hold power, that they want to protect them. Some political action has already occurred. That's why the Republican leaders are talking about wanting to protect them.

Normally you would expect Republican leaders to simply put up and pass a bill that protects the Dreamers. Again, they have the full power to do so. They haven't, though, because they don't actually have agreement within their caucus to pass the bill. They need to temporarily form a coalition between less-racism-focused Republicans and Democrats in order to pass it, with Democrats making up the majority of the votes.

But given that their desire is to avoid deporting the Dreamers, and that they need to coalition with the Democrats to do so, there is no reason for us to make a trade. We should support a bill that contains the issue on which we agree -- preventing Dreamer deportation -- and nothing we don't agree on. That's how coalition politics works.

To put this another way: if we passed a bill that protected the Dreamers and then funded the wall, how would we prevent the Republicans from immediately passing a bill that unprotects the Dreamers? If we cannot prevent them from doing so, what possible justification would there be for supporting a bill that funds the wall?
Click to expand...

American politics does not warrant this extreme caricature of pessimism.

If you want to get all game theory about it, Ds and Rs are in an iterated prisoner's dilemma. Is it possible that republicans will just straight up tear up a deal they made a week earlier with the democrats? I mean, they are physically capable of it. But as long as there's some non zero-sum outcomes to be gained by cooperation with the other party, defecting and burning their bridges with the other party in such a gaudy way is not something they would do. This isn't wishful thinking; it's not in Republicans' best interests because Democrats have an enforcement mechanism and a means of punishment.

Politics has gotten pretty stupid, but I at least trust the two parties to be dimly aware, somewhere in the back of their mind, that they'll be negotiating with these guys tomorrow and next week and next year and next decade, and act accordingly.

Besides which, as said, if they have the votes to enact this betrayal, they have the votes to just do it in the open. In what way does burning to a cinder the last bit of comity between the parties endear this vote to a Murkowski, or McCain, or Rubio, any more than screwing over the dreamers in the first place would?
 
A

AntraxSuicide

Banned
pigeon said:
I don't think I completely understand what you're saying here, but I would say that Paul Ryan has already said he doesn't want them deported. To the degree that we are compromising with Ryan and not the GOP as a whole it's even more true that we have no reason to offer him anything.
Click to expand...

I was referring to the idea that if you pass something shitty and good, the GOP will repeal the good parts a few days later and then you just get the shitty bill. If that's the case, then I think they'd just pass a shitty bill. Since they aren't doing that, I agree that this means there's probably political will to pass something good. But in the hypothetical, we're already in a situation where the only bill on the table is one with wall funding. Instead of being put in that situation, I think we should head it off by controlling the budget fight and stopping it there. I think that fight is one where we have a lot of leverage, whereas we don't have any without bringing in the threat of a shutdown.

So we should stop ICE from deporting people. I'm strongly in favor of this! But this is a problem for the American people, not the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

I actually do think it's more of an issue for the Dems than for people. I don't think people can reasonably prevent deportations for more than a few days; ICE have guns and if you've ever met the types they recruit, they'll use them (with likely no consequences). Dems should instead try to reduce their funding or otherwise make their jobs harder through administrative holdups and budget cuts.

This is all in addition to citizens helping fellow residents stay out of the crosshairs, but I don't think that would really be enough to work for more than a few weeks.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Amibguous Cad said:
American politics does not warrant this extreme caricature of pessimism.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding, or do you just live in another country?

Amibguous Cad said:
If you want to get all game theory about it, Ds and Rs are in an iterated prisoner's dilemma. Is it possible that republicans will just straight up tear up a deal they made a week earlier with the democrats? I mean, they are physically capable of it. But as long as there's some non zero-sum outcomes to be gained by cooperation with the other party, defecting and burning their bridges with the other party in such a gaudy way is not something they would do. This isn't wishful thinking; it's not in Republicans' best interests because Democrats have an enforcement mechanism and a means of punishment.

Politics has gotten pretty stupid, but I at least trust the two parties to be dimly aware, somewhere in the back of their mind, that they'll be negotiating with these guys tomorrow and next week and next year and next decade, and act accordingly.
Click to expand...

What part of that accounts for the thing where the Republican Party deliberately condones and normalizes abuse of power, profiteering, and support of white supremacy by the President of the United States in pursuit of tax cuts?

Comity died when Gorsuch was seated. The deliberate sabotage of Congressional investigations into serious violations of national security should really have made that clear by now.

Amibguous Cad said:
Besides which, as said, if they have the votes to enact this betrayal, they have the votes to just do it in the open. In what way does burning to a cinder the last bit of comity between the parties endear this vote to a Murkowski, or McCain, or Rubio, any more than screwing over the dreamers in the first place would?
Click to expand...

This clearly shows the abusive nature of the relationship. When the Republicans violate governing norms, it is not destroying comity to recognize that they have done so. The comity has already been eradicated.

If the Republicans don't have the votes to punish the Dreamers, they should pass a bill to protect the Dreamers.

If the Republicans don't have the votes to punish the Dreamers OR to protect the Dreamers, it's unclear to me why they have any leverage to demand anything, since they have no capacity to legislate. Since Dems will provide the majority of the votes, we will write the bill. That's what we do for budgets and debt ceilings.
 
K

Kusagari

Member
Tranqueris said:
If Irma doesn't cause any problems and the decision gets delayed again then I'm gonna say it's because he couldn't use the death and destruction to pull another Arpaio.
Click to expand...

Irma will be nowhere near America on Tuesday. It's still probably a week+ away from hitting anywhere.
 
S

studyguy

Member
So this letter...

Basically Trump and Co pen up some compete and utter garbage. Rosenstein actually gets it and goes something like holy fuck this is awful let me rewrite this. Then is somehow surprised Trump used it to justify booting Comey in the end.

What kind of fucking moron doesn't expect this.
 
S

SatelliteOfLove

Member
chadskin said:
It wouldn't be a Friday without someone resigning from the White House:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/01/politics/keith-schiller-donald-trump/index.html

I bet this will particularly upset Trump.
Click to expand...

So what? Is Hope Hicks next or something?

BoboBrazil said:
Wed—Trump calls Grassley to talk 'ethanol'
Thurs—Grassley raises Qs about Comey-Clinton
Fri—Trump tweets Grassley news
Click to expand...

Don't be an idiot, Chuck. Even if this is red meat to temporarily placate the base, you can't stop this.

Or do and make this as painful as possible for everyone.
 
A

Autodidact

Banned
Aaron Strife said:
New Texas congressional map released

http://gis1.tlc.state.tx.us/?PlanHeader=PLANc307

Hillary actually won TX-10 under this map 47-46 meaning she carried 15 congressional districts in Texas to Trump's 21. Obama only won 11 of Texas' districts, all of which are represented by Democrats.
Click to expand...

TX-23 (Hurd's district), TX-32 (Pete Sessions's district in which Democrats fielded no challenger last year despite Hillary's winning it), and now TX-10 will be prime pickup opportunities next year.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Autodidact said:
TX-23 (Hurd's district), TX-32 (Pete Sessions's district in which Democrats fielded no challenger last year despite Hillary's winning it), and now TX-10 will be prime pickup opportunities next year.
Click to expand...
TX-7 is also a Clinton Republican district.

The problem with TX-7, TX-10 and TX-32 is that Clinton won these seats on the backs of Romney voters, similar to her nearly winning GA-6. Ossoff was able to more or less match Clinton's percentage in the special election, but that was in an open seat contest - I imagine Culberson, McCaul and Sessions will be able to exploit their incumbency advantage to buffer any sort of realignment. Obviously that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, I just wouldn't expect to flip any of those three if we're being totally honest.

TX-23 however is winnable. It went from Obama nearly winning it to Hillary easily winning it, and it's elected a Democrat before.
 
T

Teggy

Member
Regarding this September 30 deadline - can't they just start back up in the spring or whenever the next budget period starts?
 
B

Beer Monkey

Member
studyguy said:
So this letter...

Basically Trump and Co pen up some compete and utter garbage. Rosenstein actually gets it and goes something like holy fuck this is awful let me rewrite this. Then is somehow surprised Trump used it to justify booting Comey in the end.

What kind of fucking moron doesn't expect this.
Click to expand...

And then he appoints Mueller making it far worse for Trump. Rosenstein really might be a dope. But I'm good with how it played out.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Teggy said:
Regarding this September 30 deadline - can't they just start back up in the spring or whenever the next budget period starts?
Click to expand...
Yes, but they can only do one reconciliation bill a year and they want next year's to be tax cuts.

That's the real prize for the Republicans - they don't give a shit about ACA repeal other than the fact that they promised it for seven years. If they really wanted it repealed, they would have spent much longer on it before giving up, and not just tried ramming it through at midnight.
 
J

Joe

Member
Atilac said:
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson Set to Resign Early After Nasty Feud with Trump
Not sure if the source is trustworthy
Click to expand...

Well one of their references is this WaPo article that states:

On Tillerson, Trump has come to see his top diplomat's approach to world affairs as ”totally establishment," in the words of one Trump associate. Several people close to Trump said they would be surprised if Tillerson stays in his post past his one-year mark in January. They hinted that his departure may come far sooner, with one describing it as ”imminent."
Click to expand...
That would be fantastic. Anything that gets Trump's R-approval rating down as quickly as possible should be applauded.
 
S

Sibylus

Banned
Tillerson never belonged in the job to begin with, and maybe the world will get an actual diplomat this time (hahahaha).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
58K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom