Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So Sessions has been confirmed as the new AG.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/jeff-sessions-vote-senate-slog/

Too bad his confirmation hearings had to focus on whether or not Elizabeth Warren could accuse him of being a racist instead of debating important issues like whether or not Sessions will continue Obama's precedent that the WH administration doesn't even need to involve the judiciary in order to give US citizens their due process rights before killing them with a drone attack. Now Trump, Pence, Sessions and Bannon can just huddle up and decide if it's ok to kill you.

And Sessions was confirmed with bipartisan support thanks to Joe Manchin. Wonder why a Democrat would want to confirm Sessions?

http://www.redstate.com/rs_insider/2016/12/21/joe-manchin-has-a-secret-reason-to-vocally-support-jeff-sessions-for-ag/

But there’s another reason why Manchin may be especially keen to play nice with Sessions, and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who heads the committee tasked with getting Sessions confirmed. Manchin’s daughter is the CEO of Pharma giant Mylan. And for what it’s worth, some very well-placed people in both parties counting likely votes on the Sessions nomination tell the Insider this is is a primary reason why Sessions will, no matter what, get confirmed on a bipartisan vote.

If the name Mylan isn’t ringing a bell, it’s the pharmaceutical company that’s been getting the guts ripped out of it over its pricing of EpiPens, the one that directly benefits from and funds lobbying to achieve the curtailment of a drug discount program that gets poor, red-state patients EpiPens at a discount, and most importantly, the Mylan that remains the focus of a Department of Justice probe and has found itself in the crosshairs of Sen. Grassley. In other words, the Mylan whose success or failure may depend a heck of a lot on who the next Attorney-General is, and what his attitude is towards the company- oh, and whether Grassley stops poking his nose into Mylan matters.

Contrary to what Mylan has claimed, it has not settled with the DOJ (recently, it has “clarified” that it is working to finalize a settlement). In fact, the DOJ has told Grassley that it cannot testify before a hearing he convened because the Department hasn’t agreed a settlement. That means this whole Mylan-DOJ dispute could easily still be a live problem for Manchin’s daughter when President-elect Trump assumes office, and something that just maybe Manchin thinks might be more easily resolved if a guy who arguably owes him one is in the Attorney-General’s job, not to mention if another Mylan foe also owes him one for help getting that Attorney-General confirmed with a bipartisan vote.

I bet Joe gets a good return on his investment with that vote.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Wait, are we actually going to argue that all the opposition to devos is all just a ploy from a teachers union and not because she's a genuinely terrible candidate who had probably the most embarrassing confirmation hearing we've ever seen?

Pretty much...

The Teacher's Union pressured the 2 GOP senators...that much was obvious.

Whembly...I find this hard to accept. DeVos had a disastrous confirmation with an almost total inability to speak to most of the issues put before her and some rather inane or bizarre answers.

We saw obstruction in this case because she is genuinely unqualified. One will notice that several nominees sailed through largely without issue, because those candidates were not unqualified.

The idea that a single union, particularly a teachers union no less, has that kind of pull is a bit hard to take as the major or sole reason behind the opposition to DeVos, especially after she bombed her job interview with the senate worse than any interview I've ever seen or been involved with. We certainly arent seeing Unions have such pull elsewhere with nominations. This really feels like a weak deflection in this instance.

If teachers unions would have this kind of power, teachers wouldn't be at the bottom of the food chain in so many states.

 whembly wrote:

'I won'.

Don't like it? Engage the political process!

You should be participating, or clamoring for the next generation of Democrat politicians.

YES! HAVE YOUR OWN VERSION OF THE TEA PARTY! (would that be #TheResistence ???)

...

Than why the hell are you complaining about the complainingg?


(and I'd rather have a 3rd party revolution, as I disagree with the D's quite a bit, but sadly our current system prevents that. Hopefully we might see some states adopt IRV in the coming years though, which should help)

To be sure, the two parties are more polarized than before, so the issues are more apparent.

Here's the DW-nomiate scores in the last Congress, that I think i'll be much of the same in this Congress:

Spoiler:

So, we're going to see more of the same...

If the GOP don't do anything to Obamacare in the next two years, there's going to be some bloodletting that's for sure...

That's not really the question I asked but whatever.

Biden said:
"...it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
The Turtle™, used this to justify NOT have any hearings until after the November election by making it a campaign issue so that 'the voters can have a say'.

If you object to the Turtle to making it a campaign issue... by all means. Maybe this'll now be 'The Mitchell Rule' from hence forward. (as was a success)

Logically, had Clinton won I'm sure the GOP would've rather have Garland than whomever Clinton would've picked.

And, if you paid attention, you see he was objecting to the politicization of the nomination process, and wanted to delay it until after the election, but before the next president. And he was speaking in June of the election year, whereas Scalia died in February. It's just not applicable. It was unprecedented obstruction for partisan gain, nothing more, nothing less.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
So Sessions has been confirmed as the new AG.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/politics/jeff-sessions-vote-senate-slog/

Too bad his confirmation hearings had to focus on whether or not Elizabeth Warren could accuse him of being a racist instead of debating important issues like whether or not Sessions will continue Obama's precedent that the WH administration doesn't even need to involve the judiciary in order to give US citizens their due process rights before killing them with a drone attack. Now Trump, Pence, Sessions and Bannon can just huddle up and decide if it's ok to kill you.

And Sessions was confirmed with bipartisan support thanks to Joe Manchin. Wonder why a Democrat would want to confirm Sessions?

He's also a centrist, and his state voted for Trump. He wouldn't have stopped he nomination even if he didn't vote, so why not get a boost form it (from his point of view anyway)?

I agree with Cotor Shas...Joe Machin is one of my Senators, and it's deep deep Trump country here.

I'm not saying there's no favor being handed out to Sessions here, but it's also true that Machin is just as horrified of the wrath of Trump as any Republican Senator or Congressman out there.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 whembly wrote:

'I won'.

Don't like it? Engage the political process!

You should be participating, or clamoring for the next generation of Democrat politicians.

YES! HAVE YOUR OWN VERSION OF THE TEA PARTY! (would that be #TheResistence ???)

...

Than why the hell are you complaining about the complainingg?

I'm not. I'm responding to your retort.

(and I'd rather have a 3rd party revolution, as I disagree with the D's quite a bit, but sadly our current system prevents that. Hopefully we might see some states adopt IRV in the coming years though, which should help)

IRV would be a good thing I'm sure...

Not sure how it'll break up the 2 party system though.

To be sure, the two parties are more polarized than before, so the issues are more apparent.

Here's the DW-nomiate scores in the last Congress, that I think i'll be much of the same in this Congress:

Spoiler:

So, we're going to see more of the same...

If the GOP don't do anything to Obamacare in the next two years, there's going to be some bloodletting that's for sure...

That's not really the question I asked but whatever.

I was just opining that we're going to see more of the same in the new future as we've seen in the past.

Biden said:
"...it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."
The Turtle™, used this to justify NOT have any hearings until after the November election by making it a campaign issue so that 'the voters can have a say'.

If you object to the Turtle to making it a campaign issue... by all means. Maybe this'll now be 'The Mitchell Rule' from hence forward. (as was a success)

Logically, had Clinton won I'm sure the GOP would've rather have Garland than whomever Clinton would've picked.

And, if you paid attention, you see he was objecting to the politicization of the nomination process, and wanted to delay it until after the election, but before the next president. And he was speaking in June of the election year, whereas Scalia died in February. It's just not applicable. It was unprecedented obstruction for partisan gain, nothing more, nothing less.

Sure it's applicable... had Clinton won, they would've started the confirmation process of Garland (thereby, not giving HRC a chance to fill it herself). The twist here is that he announce it's also a campaign issue and allow the voters to have a say.

This is all within the purview of how the Senate Majority want to use the Advise & Consent powah.

Is it a partisan tactic? YES. Is it a "bad thing"... depends on who's team you're on.

Yes it's sorta a crass thing to say, and I'm not trying to have a go with you. Only that, we all need to recognize that the majority has a hella lot of sway over the conduct of their office. As such, with respect to Garland... the Turtle made it a campaign issue and tactically won.

I totally, 100% get that many of you are disappointed that Obama didn't get to fill the seat, because you're concerned with the ideological makeup of the courts.

Hence why I've been banging on the drum that if we're so concerned about the Court's reach in our lives (additionally the executive depts)... maybe we ought to ask for a type of government that doesn't have that reach in the first place.

Otherwise, all of this partisan back and forth isn't going change.

 whembly wrote:
The Turtle™, used this to justify NOT have any hearings until after the November election by making it a campaign issue so that 'the voters can have a say'.

There's that dishonesty and #AlternativeHistory again. That's the exact opposite of what the "Biden Rule" was about. The point was to NOT make the (hypothetical) justice an election issue by waiting until after the election, allowing the nomination process to happen free from the distractions of campaigning. There was no "let the voters have a say" element because the nomination would be considered before the new president took office. As I said, this is the key difference between the two: Biden said "we'll consider your nominee, but not until november", the republican party in 2016 said "we won't consider your nominee, period". Please stop pretending that the two are equivalent.

For those who actually care about the truth of the subject, here is an explanation complete with Biden's full statement: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Sure it's applicable... had Clinton won, they would've started the confirmation process of Garland (thereby, not giving HRC a chance to fill it herself).

Yeah right. Let's be honest here, given the precedent of republican obstructionism there was zero chance of that happening. The obstructionism simply would have continued until 2020, or 2024, or whenever a republican finally managed to win.

This is all within the purview of how the Senate Majority want to use the Advise & Consent powah.

We've been over this already. No, it is not. It might not be illegal by strict RAW, but there is no reasonable definition of "advise and consent" that includes "refuse to consider any nomination until a republican is president to make it".

Is it a "bad thing"... depends on who's team you're on.

Not everyone shares your ridiculously partisan My Team vs. Your Team approach to issues. As I've already explained, a blanket refusal to accept nominations is bad no matter which party does it.

I totally, 100% get that many of you are disappointed that Obama didn't get to fill the seat, because you're concerned with the ideological makeup of the courts.

No, we're concerned with the integrity of the system as a whole. The system can not function if there's a de facto rule that supreme court justices can not be appointed unless one party has both the presidency and a 60-vote majority in the senate. That effectively means that supreme court justices will rarely be appointed, and keeping the court at a full nine will be difficult at best.

Hence why I've been banging on the drum that if we're so concerned about the Court's reach in our lives (additionally the executive depts)... maybe we ought to ask for a type of government that doesn't have that reach in the first place.

Lolwut?

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The Turtle™, used this to justify NOT have any hearings until after the November election by making it a campaign issue so that 'the voters can have a say'.

There's that dishonesty and #AlternativeHistory again. That's the exact opposite of what the "Biden Rule" was about. The point was to NOT make the (hypothetical) justice an election issue by waiting until after the election, allowing the nomination process to happen free from the distractions of campaigning. There was no "let the voters have a say" element because the nomination would be considered before the new president took office. As I said, this is the key difference between the two: Biden said "we'll consider your nominee, but not until november", the republican party in 2016 said "we won't consider your nominee, period". Please stop pretending that the two are equivalent.

For those who actually care about the truth of the subject, here is an explanation complete with Biden's full statement: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/

#AlternativeHistoryStrikesAgain

The Turtle didn't say "we won't consider your nominee, period". From your very own politifact link:
"The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision".

Furthermore, the Senate has no constitutional duty to accept Obama’s nominee. They can reply to any of Obama's judicial nominee and say... "that's nice".

 whembly wrote:
The Turtle didn't say "we won't consider your nominee, period". From your very own politifact link:
"The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision".

Oh FFS, stop with the revisionist history. The republican party explicitly said that no nominee would be considered until at least after January 20th 2017. We have their own words saying this, so I don't know why you insist on saying that the two situations are equivalent.

"One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'"
-Mitch McConnell

"This committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20th, 2017."
-Letter from the senate judiciary committee republicans

Furthermore, the Senate has no constitutional duty to accept Obama’s nominee. They can reply to any of Obama's judicial nominee and say... "that's nice".

Again, RAW. But the government functions by more than just strict RAW, and a blanket refusal breaks the system.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Sure it's applicable... had Clinton won, they would've started the confirmation process of Garland (thereby, not giving HRC a chance to fill it herself).

Yeah right. Let's be honest here, given the precedent of republican obstructionism there was zero chance of that happening. The obstructionism simply would have continued until 2020, or 2024, or whenever a republican finally managed to win.

They could try. I don't think they could last much longer...

Additionally, had Clinton won, Obama could withdraw his nominee, to allow his successor to pick the next justice, instead.... as an extra shiv to the kidney.

This is all within the purview of how the Senate Majority want to use the Advise & Consent powah.

We've been over this already. No, it is not.

That's your opinion. Please stop characterizing that as hard core facts.

It might not be illegal by strict RAW, but there is no reasonable definition of "advise and consent" that includes "refuse to consider any nomination until a republican is president to make it".

#AlternativeHistoryStrikesAgainPartDeux

Stop pushing the premise that the GOP would've "refuse to consider any nomination until a republican is president to make it". You are willfully mischaracterizing this.

Is it a "bad thing"... depends on who's team you're on.

Not everyone shares your ridiculously partisan My Team vs. Your Team approach to issues. As I've already explained, a blanket refusal to accept nominations is bad no matter which party does it.

It's not a blanket refusal... it's pausing the process until after the November elections.

Of course this whole thing is partisan political bloodsport. No one is looking like angels here...

I totally, 100% get that many of you are disappointed that Obama didn't get to fill the seat, because you're concerned with the ideological makeup of the courts.

No, we're concerned with the integrity of the system as a whole.

No your not based on you approving Harry Reid's motion to nuke the filibuster on non-SCOTUS judicial picks. You don't get to make that argument anymore.

The system can not function if there's a de facto rule that supreme court justices can not be appointed unless one party has both the presidency and a 60-vote majority in the senate. That effectively means that supreme court justices will rarely be appointed, and keeping the court at a full nine will be difficult at best.

Again, you are willfully mischaracterizing the whole ordeal.

Hence why I've been banging on the drum that if we're so concerned about the Court's reach in our lives (additionally the executive depts)... maybe we ought to ask for a type of government that doesn't have that reach in the first place.

Lolwut?

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
The Turtle didn't say "we won't consider your nominee, period". From your very own politifact link:
"The Senate will continue to observe the Biden Rule so that the American people have a voice in this momentous decision".

Oh FFS, stop with the revisionist history. The republican party explicitly said that no nominee would be considered until at least after January 20th 2017. We have their own words saying this, so I don't know why you insist on saying that the two situations are equivalent.

"One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.'"
-Mitch McConnell

"This committee will not hold hearings on any Supreme Court nominee until after our next President is sworn in on January 20th, 2017."
-Letter from the senate judiciary committee republicans

So how are those statements to be taken that no hearings would be held until the next GOP President?

Furthermore, the Senate has no constitutional duty to accept Obama’s nominee. They can reply to any of Obama's judicial nominee and say... "that's nice".

Again, RAW. But the government functions by more than just strict RAW, and a blanket refusal breaks the system.

So you're disappointed... okay then, don't vote for a GOP senator.

Remember when some people on this board were #NeverTrump?

Good times, good times.

 whembly wrote:
Stop pushing the premise that the GOP would've "refuse to consider any nomination until a republican is president to make it". You are willfully mischaracterizing this.

No, I'm extending it out to its inevitable conclusion. The republican obstructionism strategy was very clearly to refuse Obama's pick in the hope that a republican would be president in 2020. All that stuff about "let the voters decide" was nothing more than a pretense of legitimacy thrown over a policy of "only republicans get to nominate justices". If you believe that the obstructionism would end merely because it failed to provide an immediate benefit, well, I have a bridge to sell you.

It's not a blanket refusal... it's pausing the process until after the November elections.

No it isn't. FFS, stop with the revisionist history. The republican party openly stated that the "pause" was until after the new president took office, not until after the election. I've provided you with the quotes, please acknowledge them and stop making indisputably false claims. After this point it's no longer excusable as sincere ignorance and crosses the line into deliberate lying.

Of course this whole thing is partisan political bloodsport. No one is looking like angels here...

And this is just ridiculous both-sides-ism. It's awfully convenient when you can handwave away everything with "everyone is bad" and ignore any questions of one side being worse than the other.

No your not based on you approving Harry Reid's motion to nuke the filibuster on non-SCOTUS judicial picks. You don't get to make that argument anymore.

Reid's action was a response to a system that was already broken. We've been over this already, if the filibuster option ceases to be an option of last resort and starts to be used as the default response to any action by the other party then of course it's not going to exist anymore.

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

This has nothing to do with the power of the supreme court.

So how are those statements to be taken that no hearings would be held until the next GOP President?

They aren't, explicitly. But they do demonstrate beyond any dispute that the republican obstructionism in 2016 had nothing to do with the "Biden Rule" as you claimed it did. I don't expect you to admit it, but your revisionist history is now clear for anyone reading this thread.

So you're disappointed... okay then, don't vote for a GOP senator.

And I'm sure you'd be saying "okay then, I won't vote for a democrat senator" if The Other Team had won and Your Team was complaining about their actions. I'm sure you wouldn't be objecting at all, you'd just passively wait until the next election and cast your vote. Definitely true...

 jasper76 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 jmurph wrote:
Does anyone else think that maybe the best course for the Dems is to let Trump have what he wants in the cabinet positions? Seriously, just stand aside and say hey, it's on you buddy. Want a billionaire donor for ed secretary? A disgraced hack who couldn't even fill her term as governor for ambassador to our northern neighbor? Whatever. You guys have the votes.

Although fighting and showing that the Repubs will happily silence even token resistance may have it's benefits. "The bottom line is, it was long overdue with her," Lindsey Graham said. "I mean, she is clearly running for the nomination in 2020." Because screw that debate stuff. Not like Repub supporters care, of course. The Trumpistos seem to prefer imprisonment or execution....

I think the Democrats are currently running the risk of diluting the efficacy of their opposition through frequency. If it comes across that every sigle issue is opposed, then the opposition will not be taken seriously because people will become fatigued. Pick your battles.

The pre-Trump Republicans did the same thing to themselves with their staunch opposition to Obama. They came across as dysfunctional and hyperventilating. This in part I believe is responsible for Trumps success in defeating the GOP at the presidential level.

Yet, the party won a lot of elections, controls the government, and was rewarded for their behavior by the voters. Therefore..... you are wrong.


I really, really, really wish you were fight. However, we have seen that the "actual" voters who vote (in the party base) love this schtick and will reward it. If we learned anything from Karl Rove it was screw everyone else as long as the base is motivated!

I'd be sincerely interested to know how much of the downticket Republican success was due to conviction in the candidates, or people just voting party line under Trump. Or were people voting for downticket Republicans in order to better enable Trump. I don't know if such a thing is even knowable.

I was speaking about Presidential politics. The Presidential GOP candidates were routed by the outsider Trump. When it comes to Presidential politics, I don't think an "obstructionist" will end up winning the election, and I think nominating one would be a losing strategy. Elizabeth Warrens efforts will play well in her progressive stronghold, but I don't see it playing well nationally.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
So...now Conway has gone on to Fox & Friends and basically used it to hawk Ivanka's business.


"Go buy Ivanka’s stuff is what I would tell you, I hate shopping, I’m going to go get some myself today.”

“This is just wonderful line,” she continued. “I own some of it. I fully… I’m going to give a free commercial here. Go buy it today, everybody. You can find it online.”

...draining the swamp indeed.

Of all the figures that have emerged from the Trump phenomenon, including Trump himself, I find Kellyann Conway to be the most villainous and unsavory. I cringe every time I see an image of her ghostly, ghastly face.

Seriously, she looks like the Plague incarnated into human form. I won't forget how she said Trump was unpresidential and vulgar when campaigning for Cruz, then did a 180 after her man was defeated. Opportunist to the core.

There are several aspects to the Democrat situation. The first is that representative democracy demands an opposition to the government to properly scrutinise and thereby modify bad ideas. Therefore the Democrats should certainly attack any ideas they feel are bad. That doesn't mean they should attack all of the government's ideas, only the genuinely bad ones. To some degree of course, "badness" is in the eye of the beholder, e.g. public lavatory access rules.

The problem is that a awful lot of this government's ideas look like they are bad. Just about the only thing I agree with Trump is that NATO member nations should spend a realistic amount of their national budget on NATO capable assets. Most of the rest of his ideas are stupid and/or nasty, IMO, and will be at best completely ineffective while costing a lot of money. However, that is no reason to let give them a free pass.

The next thing is that the Democrats need to find some challengers on the national level who can run for governors, senate seats and eventually the presidency. This can only be done by challenging (see above.)

Another thing is that the Democrats don't need to convert the GOP voter base, they need to energise their own base better. Clinton won the popular vote by a good margin. Trump only won the EC by a narrow margin in a few key states. This happened because enough Democrat voters stayed at home. Those voters need to be got to the polling booths at the next round of elections. This cannot be done by lounging around in Congress being wishy-washy and ineffective.

Finally, referring back to the previous three points, if the Democrats want to convert GOP voters, which certainly would not be a bad thing, then they need to oppose gakky ideas so that when the shittiness starts to rub off all over everything, they can clearly show their hands are filled with gak-cleaning gear and the government's hands are smeared with gak up to the armpits.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Stop pushing the premise that the GOP would've "refuse to consider any nomination until a republican is president to make it". You are willfully mischaracterizing this.

No, I'm extending it out to its inevitable conclusion. The republican obstructionism strategy was very clearly to refuse Obama's pick in the hope that a republican would be president in 2020. All that stuff about "let the voters decide" was nothing more than a pretense of legitimacy thrown over a policy of "only republicans get to nominate justices". If you believe that the obstructionism would end merely because it failed to provide an immediate benefit, well, I have a bridge to sell you.

Of course the strategy is that they were hoping Cheeto Jesus would win... but, had Clinton won I don't think the Senate GOP would've survived by not taking up the nomination.

It's not a blanket refusal... it's pausing the process until after the November elections.

No it isn't. FFS, stop with the revisionist history. The republican party openly stated that the "pause" was until after the new president took office, not until after the election. I've provided you with the quotes, please acknowledge them and stop making indisputably false claims. After this point it's no longer excusable as sincere ignorance and crosses the line into deliberate lying.

I don't understand why you're making this distinction... 'After the new president took office' is AFTER the November elections... no?

I don't think you understand how this was an EXTREMELY dangerous gambit by the Turtle, as had Clinton won last November... the Senate would've started the Garland hearing, in which Obama COULD'VE rescinded the Garland pick and either picked someone more extreme (as it is his right) OR allowed Clinton to pick the next one... which many on the right were fully worried about.

Of course this whole thing is partisan political bloodsport. No one is looking like angels here...

And this is just ridiculous both-sides-ism. It's awfully convenient when you can handwave away everything with "everyone is bad" and ignore any questions of one side being worse than the other.

It about being pragmatic Peregrine. You're acting like this is new...

No your not based on you approving Harry Reid's motion to nuke the filibuster on non-SCOTUS judicial picks. You don't get to make that argument anymore.

Reid's action was a response to a system that was already broken. We've been over this already, if the filibuster option ceases to be an option of last resort and starts to be used as the default response to any action by the other party then of course it's not going to exist anymore.

Now who's doing the handwaving here?

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

This has nothing to do with the power of the supreme court.

Erm... the powers of the supreme court isn't part of the government? o.O

So how are those statements to be taken that no hearings would be held until the next GOP President?

They aren't, explicitly. But they do demonstrate beyond any dispute that the republican obstructionism in 2016 had nothing to do with the "Biden Rule" as you claimed it did. I don't expect you to admit it, but your revisionist history is now clear for anyone reading this thread.

I haven't changed gak. You have every right to be upset... maybe your party needs to do some soul-searching, take some lessons learned to heart and re-calibrate for the next election.

So you're disappointed... okay then, don't vote for a GOP senator.

And I'm sure you'd be saying "okay then, I won't vote for a democrat senator" if The Other Team had won and Your Team was complaining about their actions. I'm sure you wouldn't be objecting at all, you'd just passively wait until the next election and cast your vote. Definitely true...

I'm not telling you that you can't object.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Remember when some people on this board were #NeverTrump?

Good times, good times.

Election is over, is it not?

Can I not praise Trump if he does something I like (gorsuch pick)??? Can I also ding Trump if he does something I don't like? (twit fights)

@Kilkrazy: The thing is, to a certain extent, we already have had a referendum on all of Trumps ideas that are being perceived as controversial. Almost every single thing he's doing is something he campaigned on, and the American people voted him in on. So Dems run a fair risk of entrenching Trump voters in the R column, because what the Fema are opposing is almost exactly what Trump folks voted for.

Yes, the Dems desperately need talent. But if they want to win over independent voters, they also need to critically examine where they went wrong, and adjust their platform accordingly. I don't see that happening almost anywhere. What I see is that they think they were never wrong on anything, it was just a bad candidate with low turnout, and doubling down on almost everything policy-related.

I hope I'm wrong about that, but the situation appears quite dire to me as far as Democrats go. I'd suggest some serious self-evaluation.

But blanket opposition is another way they can go...it will certainly appease their progressive base. But does anyone really think that progressivism is the future of the country? The way I see things, is the trend is that people are buying what the progressives are selling less and less, not more and more. That perception could obviously be influenced by where I live, what I see here, and what I see online.

Where I live is decidedly Trump country, and here progrrssivism is viewed generally with the same disdain that capitalists hold for communists. Seriously. People here on the whole absolutely hate progressivism.

I'm sure a lot of D voters stayed home because they thought Hillary would win. Joke's on them it seems.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm sure a lot of D voters stayed home because they thought Hillary would win. Joke's on them it seems.

Has anyone even considered that the Democrats actually lost some support, rather than they just decided to stay home because they thought it was in the bag.

One things for sure, we can't trust what polls tell us anymore.

 jasper76 wrote:
@Kilkrazy: The thing is, to a certain extent, we already have had a referendum on all of Trumps ideas that are being perceived as controversial. Almost every single thing he's doing is something he campaigned on, and the American people voted him in on. ... ...

Except that they didn't. Trump lost the popular vote by a significant margin, and edged the EC system by the lowest margin for a long time. This was against the worst candidate in presidential history according to the Republican narrative, a candidate so awful she should have been locked up or shot.

In fact, Clinton only needed a couple of hundred thousand more votes in a couple of close-run states like Pennsylvania and Florida and she would be President right now with a big majority in the EC as well as a solid win in the popular vote.

Remember how Clinton was dogged throughout the campaign by the private email server scandal, which was blown up again by the FBI chief a few days before the election? Despite all of that and all the other crap, Clinton only barely lost the EC, and actually won a majority of the votes.

Trump does not have the mandate of the American people.

I never said he had a "mandate", I said his ideas were put up to a national referendum, and he won.

If you want to think that the Dems don't need to change their platform, go ahead and double down, but don't say I didn't warn you.

NOTE: bowing out of the conversation now...30K awaits

Trump denied again, this time by the 9th.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html

 whembly wrote:
Of course the strategy is that they were hoping Cheeto Jesus would win... but, had Clinton won I don't think the Senate GOP would've survived by not taking up the nomination.

That will of course remain hypothetical. But even in the "stop obstructing or die" scenario the republican party is not voluntarily stopping their obstruction because they want the system to work and aren't willing to break it for political gain, they're doing it because they're forced to.

I don't understand why you're making this distinction... 'After the new president took office' is AFTER the November elections... no?

I'm making the distinction because it's a massive difference in what the result of the two statements is.

Biden said "trying to do the confirmation process in election season is going to be a disaster, we'll talk about it in november". The result is that the current (republican) president would still be able to make their nomination and have them considered, just at a slightly later date.

McConnell and the republican party said "Obama does not get to appoint a justice, nothing is going to happen until after we have a new president". The result is that the current (democrat) president would NOT still be able to make their nomination and have them considered.

I don't know why you keep acting like the two are equivalent.

I don't think you understand how this was an EXTREMELY dangerous gambit by the Turtle, as had Clinton won last November...

Why do you think the fact that breaking the system can be dangerous somehow makes it acceptable?

It about being pragmatic Peregrine. You're acting like this is new...

No, this isn't at all about being pragmatic. This is about your My Team Is Always Right partisanship. Pragmatism means acknowledging that both sides do bad things when they do those things, not handwaving away the differences between those things and acting like all bad things are all equally bad. Both-sides-ism is nothing more than an attempt to justify Your Team's actions by diverting any criticism to some vague "everyone is bad" target.

Erm... the powers of the supreme court isn't part of the government? o.O

Honestly, I have no clue where you're going with this argument, so I'm just going to drop it. If you can restate it in a way that other people can understand I'll address it.

I haven't changed gak.

#AlternativeHistory

You claimed that McConnell's policy in 2016 was equivalent to Biden's earlier statements, when they very clearly are not the same.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

In fact, Clinton only needed a couple of hundred thousand more votes in a couple of close-run states like Pennsylvania and Florida and she would be President right now with a big majority in the EC as well as a solid win in the popular vote.

Not even that, it's something like a combined margin of 80k votes in the states with the closest margin. So 80k R voters staying home or 40K switching to D and the EC goes to Clinton.

This is why anyone with the benefit of hindsight speaking like a Clinton loss was obvious and inevitable is full of it. The election could very much have gone either way on that night.

I think my favorite part of the denial by the 9th is the acknowledgement by the court that the White House is simply making up crap as they go along:




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit:

And Trump's reply to the ruling? "See you in court!"

Does he realize they are actually in the second court already?

 jasper76 wrote:
I never said he had a "mandate", I said his ideas were put up to a national referendum, and he won.

If you want to think that the Dems don't need to change their platform, go ahead and double down, but don't say I didn't warn you.

NOTE: bowing out of the conversation now...30K awaits

Well you are still wrong. It wasn't a referendum.

Hey guys, whats this nuclear thing? I am just going to say its bad.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-new-start-russia-vladimir-putin-nuclear-treaty-phone-call-latest-a7572281.html

Good to see he can come to a swift and decisive opinion about a complex international agreement he'd never heard of before.

 d-usa wrote:
Trump denied again, this time by the 9th.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html

I have to wonder if the SCOTUS will even bother seeing the case at this rate.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I never said he had a "mandate", I said his ideas were put up to a national referendum, and he won.

If you want to think that the Dems don't need to change their platform, go ahead and double down, but don't say I didn't warn you.

NOTE: bowing out of the conversation now...30K awaits

Well you are still wrong. It wasn't a referendum.

I agree with jasper... it pretty much WAS a referendum.

Trump won despite having to overcome the early Establishment GOP, #NeverTrumpers, Democrats and the Fully Armed and Operational Media Guard™.

The people voting for him either don't care for his faults, cheered him on or simply voting 'not-Clinton'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Trump denied again, this time by the 9th.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/09/politics/travel-ban-9th-circuit-ruling/index.html

I have to wonder if the SCOTUS will even bother seeing the case at this rate.

Probably...

It's likely the DOJ will slow-walk it until Gorsuch is seated though...

 jasper76 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I'm sure a lot of D voters stayed home because they thought Hillary would win. Joke's on them it seems.

Has anyone even considered that the Democrats actually lost some support, rather than they just decided to stay home because they thought it was in the bag.

One things for sure, we can't trust what polls tell us anymore.

Well, Democrats losing support would rely on people seeing what the Democrats were doing, comparing it to their personal values, and deciding that the Democrats were doing a worse job of supporting those values that before. People staying home would just mean that people thought their side would win anyway and were too lazy to bother. Obviously there is a mix of factors at hand, but lets just say I have far more faith in peoples' laziness than them spending the effort to make even a cursory evaluation of things. Certainly GOP supporters haven't done much of the latter.

 whembly wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
I never said he had a "mandate", I said his ideas were put up to a national referendum, and he won.

If you want to think that the Dems don't need to change their platform, go ahead and double down, but don't say I didn't warn you.

NOTE: bowing out of the conversation now...30K awaits

Well you are still wrong. It wasn't a referendum.

I agree with jasper... it pretty much WAS a referendum.

Trump won despite having to overcome the early Establishment GOP, #NeverTrumpers, Democrats and the Fully Armed and Operational Media Guard™.

The people voting for him either don't care for his faults, cheered him on or simply voting 'not-Clinton'.

Actually, didn't he lose the "referendum" by a few million?