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.

 whembly wrote:
Exercising 'Advise & Consent' as the majority sees fit ≠ "cheating".

As we've explained, many times, there is more to the rules than RAW. It was "cheating" in that it broke the unwritten rules of how the senate does its business, trading short-term partisan gain for long-term damage to the integrity of the system.

Otherwise, why bother with the current filibuster rules? Right now, all of this is just an elaborate Kabuki theater. May be best to just nuke 'em all... and force these folks to make their case (up/down) rather than hiding behind archaic parliamentarian tactics.

So, let me get this straight:

The republicans use blanket obstructionism, the democrats remove the filibuster option, and you blame the democrats for allowing this to happen and call them short-sighted for undermining the filibuster rules.

The democrats consider obstructing, the question of the republicans ending the filibuster option in response is raised, and suddenly the filibuster is "archaic parliamentarian tactics" and not a word of condemnation for the republican party.

No, you aren't at all the paragon of partisan My Team politics...

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Exercising 'Advise & Consent' as the majority sees fit ≠ "cheating".

They didn't do what they are supposed to have done and you know it. Trotting out this pathetic "excuse" just makes you look like a stooge.

You should probably reconsider your actions.

"They didn't do what they are supposed to have done and you know it."

Great. Please show me where's it's mandated that they must give Garland an up or down vote.

Newsflash: You can't. You're just pissed off that the Turtle pulled this off.

You'd get more empathy from me if you simply stated 'I'm pissed that this happened... even if the majority has the right to do this'.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 infinite_array wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

I, for one, am glad that the senate have at least a bit of maturity. The Dems there have been reluctant to make big moves. As have the GOP. Good. Big decisions need a bit of thought. Somebody needs to wear the big boy pants and act the grown up, cause it sure as gak isn't coming from the populist pres. or house.

If the Senate had maturity, they would have had hearings for Garland and then the Republicans would have voted to deny.

Instead, the GOP is stomping it's feet because the mean ol' Democrats won't let them celebrate after cheating.

Exercising 'Advise & Consent' as the majority sees fit ≠ "cheating".

You can say that it pissed you off... and its totally understandable.

What boggles the mind is that the Democrats *want* to filibuster Gorsuch in *retaliation* over the GOP's handling of Garland.

The time to do it, IMO, is if Souter or RBG retires.

Otherwise, why bother with the current filibuster rules? Right now, all of this is just an elaborate Kabuki theater. May be best to just nuke 'em all... and force these folks to make their case (up/down) rather than hiding behind archaic parliamentarian tactics.

"Advise & Consent" would have been having the hearing for Garland and then using the Republican's majority in the Senate to deny his confirmation. Refusing to hold any hearings whatsoever while establishing a unprecedented rule by McConnell is as close to "cheating" as you can get.

'Advise & Consent' is conducted however the Senate wants.

At least the Democrats have given Gorsuch his hearings, as undeserved as they are.

Democrats didn't *give* Gorsuch anything. Do you think they willingly wanted this hearing? They're in the minority.

It's absolutely disgusting for you to call what the Democrats are doing "elaborate Kabuki theater" and denying an up/down vote when Republicans refused to do the same when they had a safe majority.

And Democrats aren't filibustering Gorsuch in retaliation for Garland.

Yes... it *is*. It's the only thing that makes sense. Their constituents want some kind of scalp. The trouble here... is THAT scalp will be the filibuster being nuked.

They're filibustering because they don't want another conservative orginalist activist on the Supreme Court to make Americans suffer for generations to come.

"suffer"??

God forbid that jurist actually applies the fething law as written.

Like I said, if Republicans had bothered to nominate a moderate conservative that might swing every once in a while, we wouldn't be in this position. But the Republicans nominated an extremist and expect Democrats to choke down Gorsuch.

Gorsuch is an 'extremist'? o.O That's laughable.

But, you had no problem when Reid nuked the filibuster for non-SCoTUS position.. right? Just as long as they were liberal jurists, it's honky-dory right?

And back round in circles again...

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Exercising 'Advise & Consent' as the majority sees fit ≠ "cheating".

As we've explained, many times, there is more to the rules than RAW. It was "cheating" in that it broke the unwritten rules of how the senate does its business, trading short-term partisan gain for long-term damage to the integrity of the system.

No more different than when:
Democrats borked Bork...

Or that Democrats filibustered Miguel Estrada seven times from the appellate courts.

Or when 2005, the GOP & Democrats formed The Gang of 14 to resolve the impasse.

Oh wait... gee... they got the gak together and made something happen... eh?

Otherwise, why bother with the current filibuster rules? Right now, all of this is just an elaborate Kabuki theater. May be best to just nuke 'em all... and force these folks to make their case (up/down) rather than hiding behind archaic parliamentarian tactics.

So, let me get this straight:

The republicans use blanket obstructionism, the democrats remove the filibuster option, and you blame the democrats for allowing this to happen and call them short-sighted for undermining the filibuster rules.

Yup.

The democrats consider obstructing, the question of the republicans ending the filibuster option in response is raised, and suddenly the filibuster is "archaic parliamentarian tactics" and not a word of condemnation for the republican party.

You haven't been reading what I've posted... have you? I'm *against* nuking the filibuster. Whether it's from the Democrats or Republicans.

The more they remove these 'hard stops', the less likely this body would be more deliberative. That's bad in my opinion.

If they get to the point of removing every filibuster/cloture mechanisms... then the senate is just like the HOUSE.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Compel wrote:
And back round in circles again...

There's a difference between "GOP is being dick holes... but they have every right to do so" vs. "GOP employ cheating/illegal tactics.. blah, blah blah".

Stop having to the same conversation with him, at this point you are just the battered wife's going back once more thinking that this time he'll change.

It's pointless to have people on ignore if every other person quotes the same weekly conversation anyway.

EDIT: 'nother indication that The Reid Rule will be invoked:

McCain says tried at talks Friday and today, it's clear Democrats are proceeding w filibuster. He'll vote with GOP to change Senate rules https://t.co/ikzTZytd0Q

— Laura Litvan (@LauraLitvan) April 3, 2017

When McCain is throwing in the towel to preserve the filibuster... it's over.

smdh

The Russian stink on this administration keeps getting stinkier...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/blackwater-founder-held-secret-seychelles-meeting-to-establish-trump-putin-back-channel/ar-BBzi1NI?li=BBnbcA1&ocid=ASUDHP

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Exercising 'Advise & Consent' as the majority sees fit ≠ "cheating".

They didn't do what they are supposed to have done and you know it. Trotting out this pathetic "excuse" just makes you look like a stooge.

You should probably reconsider your actions.

And as always, we've established that the answer to this is the same as always:



Obviously I am pissed that the GOP essentially stole Merrick Garland from us - they didn't steal it from Obama. And yes, it does seem messed up to reward that. But on the other hand, Gorsuch could be a lot worse and I don't know that it's a good idea to be better than then by doing the same worst stuff.

Strategically, they could filibuster Gorsuch, he could withdraw, they'd nuke the filibuster, and Trump could pick another feth-you pick the way he did with Perry and a few others.

 d-usa wrote:
Stop having to the same conversation with him, at this point you are just the battered wife's going back once more thinking that this time he'll change.

It's pointless to have people on ignore if every other person quotes the same weekly conversation anyway.

But this time she's really going to hold the football! Run at it, Charlie!

@whembly: consider the complaints as to why people are against him. None of them have to do with his credentials or really much of his beliefs. It's all process. Now consider why. We feel gypt. Cheated. We might , and should have, had a temporary majority in the Sup. court. We didn't get it. Process. Now the Dems are debating him on nothing more than process. I really wish it wasn't like this. Both Garland and the current nominee desrve better than us

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: consider the complaints as to why people are against him. None of them have to do with his credentials or really much of his beliefs. It's all process. Now consider why. We feel gypt. Cheated. We might , and should have, had a temporary majority in the Sup. court. We didn't get it. Process. Now the Dems are debating him on nothing more than process. I really wish it wasn't like this. Both Garland and the current nominee desrve better than us

Of course. I totally understand why some of you are pissed.

In a better world, a “gang” of Senators would figure out some deal to save the filibuster, ala 2005's Gang of 14.

But since it's hyperpoliticized (sp?) by both parties... it's getting absolutely fugly.

Tit For Tat is also known as being tough but fair. It is a reciprocal strategy. The Republicans were unreasonable and wouldn't give a vote. A reciprocal strategy is for the Democrats to do the same. In fact, the should be very explicit about it- it's not that we think your nomination is horrible, it's that we think you acted horribly and that cannot be rewarded.

The very real risk is that the Republicans will continue to be horrible, and undercut the minority party's ability to do much. Which might very well bite them after the midterms. But it might not, as the Republican base seems quite happy with utterly destructive governance, unfulfillable promises, and continually blaming the other side, and the donors are happy so long as the Republicans continue to support tax cuts for the wealthy and strip away regulations.

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: consider the complaints as to why people are against him. None of them have to do with his credentials or really much of his beliefs. It's all process. Now consider why. We feel gypt. Cheated. We might , and should have, had a temporary majority in the Sup. court. We didn't get it. Process. Now the Dems are debating him on nothing more than process. I really wish it wasn't like this. Both Garland and the current nominee desrve better than us

Of course. I totally understand why some of you are pissed.

In a better world, a “gang” of Senators would figure out some deal to save the filibuster, ala 2005's Gang of 14.

But since it's hyperpoliticized (sp?) by both parties... it's getting absolutely fugly.

In a better world, the senate Dems wouldn't have felt jaded. In a better world, they would have let a vote go through. I, a complete democrat, want the vote to go thuogh. Who created this less than better world? It wasn't harry Reid, the boogieman.this, not the lower court stuff will come back to haunt you, cause Ginsburg is a tough old bird.

 d-usa wrote:
Stop having to the same conversation with him, at this point you are just the battered wife's going back once more thinking that this time he'll change.

It's pointless to have people on ignore if every other person quotes the same weekly conversation anyway.

At what point does his treatment of other posters and insulting of your intelligence constitute a rule 1 violation that will actually be punished?


But no, it's OT itself that the mods need to threaten.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@whembly: consider the complaints as to why people are against him. None of them have to do with his credentials or really much of his beliefs. It's all process. Now consider why. We feel gypt. Cheated. We might , and should have, had a temporary majority in the Sup. court. We didn't get it. Process. Now the Dems are debating him on nothing more than process. I really wish it wasn't like this. Both Garland and the current nominee desrve better than us

Of course. I totally understand why some of you are pissed.

In a better world, a “gang” of Senators would figure out some deal to save the filibuster, ala 2005's Gang of 14.

But since it's hyperpoliticized (sp?) by both parties... it's getting absolutely fugly.

In a better world, the senate Dems wouldn't have felt jaded. In a better world, they would have let a vote go through. I, a complete democrat, want the vote to go thuogh. Who created this less than better world? It wasn't harry Reid, the boogieman.this, not the lower court stuff will come back to haunt you, cause Ginsburg is a tough old bird.

The boogieman is the increased polarization between the parties.

Starting with Dems borking Bork...

Then shortly after the 2000 election, Dubya nominated eleven appellate court nominees. Two of them, as a gesture of bipartisanship, were liberals. The Senate flipped to Democrats majority thus the Judiciary Committee was in Democrats control... refused to give hearings to any of the conservative nominees while moving the liberal ones forward.

Then in 2004/05 Senate went back to the GOP, and Democrats filibustered of judicial nomination, targeting Miguel Estrada, P. Owen, W.Pryor, Janice Brown. It took the “Gang of 14” agreement to overcome the minority party's filibuster.

This is the back and forth I was talking about.

So... when Reid nuked the filibuster. I blame him and the Democrats for not trying to stop the further drastic change that's transpiring in the Senate.

Just as I'll blame when the Turtle nukes the SCoTUS filibuster... Filibuster/cloture is a thing of the past.

That's the real shame here.

What's to stop anyone from nuking the filibuster altogether (ie, legislative)???

A directly elected Senate (thanks 17th amend) without the filibuster is a smaller, less accountable, more arrogant version of the House.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Stop having to the same conversation with him, at this point you are just the battered wife's going back once more thinking that this time he'll change.

It's pointless to have people on ignore if every other person quotes the same weekly conversation anyway.

At what point does his treatment of other posters and insulting of your intelligence constitute a rule 1 violation that will actually be punished?

But no, it's OT itself that the mods need to threaten.

Excusez-moi?

Seems to me that you're having issues with posters having a different opinion and wanting the authoritah to "make it right".

The problem isn't the pigeon gaking everywhere. It's a pigeon, that's what it does.

The problem is with you guys who really should know better who keep showing up with bags of bread crumbs. Please, just stop.

There is never, ever going to be an honest debate there. Not this time, not next time, not ever.

 Ouze wrote:
The problem isn't the pigeon gaking everywhere. It's a pigeon, that's what it does.

The problem is with you guys who really should know better who keep showing up with bags of bread crumbs. Please, just stop.

There is never, ever going to be an honest debate there. Not this time, not next time, not ever.

If you're going to accuse me of being a troll, lying or not having an honest debate... please, do hit the triangle of love and ask the Mods to weigh in.

Otherwise, feel free to actually make your case and actually participate on the topic on hand.

 Ouze wrote:
The democrats have gotten enough votes for a filibuster of Gorsuch.

I think this is a mistake and he should have an up and down vote. The best response to previous bad governance is good governance, not revenge-bad-governance.

While I agree, the reality is that if Democrats were to let this be politics as usual, then they'd be accepting what Republicans did in 2016 as okay. Maybe that would be the best for governance of the country, but it would be politically unacceptable to much of the Democratic base. Politics is always going to win that battle.

Gorsuch will take the post, though. Republicans aren't gonna think twice about taking the nuclear option, and that'll be that. Filibuster will be gone from the senate for judicial appointments.

If the only reason not to filibuster is to keep the filibuster alive, isn't it already dead?

 d-usa wrote:
If the only reason not to filibuster is to keep the filibuster alive, isn't it already dead?

I guess it was effectively dead the moment McConnell indicated he was going to nix it as soon as he ran into it anyway.

 whembly wrote:
Exercising 'Advise & Consent' as the majority sees fit ≠ "cheating".

Except they didn't exercise 'advise & consent'. They took advantage of the literal power granted under 'advise & consent' to stonewall the process until they, they hoped, there would be a different president who would give them a nomination more in line with their own political beliefs.

I wouldn't call this cheating, as they were following the rules as written. But of course, as we all know, players who follow the rules as written purely to win, with no regard for how it impacts the game are absolute jerks who can destroy the unwritten social contract that makes a group work.

Which is what has happened here. Republicans will get their win, and get Gorsuch nominated to the bench. And the everyone else will scramble to figure out how politics works now that Republican leadership just don't give a feth about accepted practice anymore.

What boggles the mind is that the Democrats *want* to filibuster Gorsuch in *retaliation* over the GOP's handling of Garland.

What you're missing is that to Republicans this is just about making sure Kennedy is the conservative leaning swing vote. The process to achieve that goal is irrelevant to them.

But to Democrats this is about a nomination being taken away from Obama, and now being used by Trump.

Otherwise, why bother with the current filibuster rules? Right now, all of this is just an elaborate Kabuki theater. May be best to just nuke 'em all... and force these folks to make their case (up/down) rather than hiding behind archaic parliamentarian tactics.

As I've said a bunch of times, the filibuster was never going to last in a politicaly partisan environment. Whether its from the minority abusing the filibuster to block as a matter of routine, or the majority not wanting to be stopped by a special rule they have allowed the minority... any way you cut it the filibuster doesn't survive in a partisan political environment.

You know how I've been saying to you for about 7 years now how Republicans need to be very wary about where they are taking politics, because once you start dismissing political norms you never know where you're going to end up? Well we're just starting down that process.

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The democrats have gotten enough votes for a filibuster of Gorsuch.

I think this is a mistake and he should have an up and down vote. The best response to previous bad governance is good governance, not revenge-bad-governance.

While I agree, the reality is that if Democrats were to let this be politics as usual, then they'd be accepting what Republicans did in 2016 as okay. Maybe that would be the best for governance of the country, but it would be politically unacceptable to much of the Democratic base. Politics is always going to win that battle.

Gorsuch will take the post, though. Republicans aren't gonna think twice about taking the nuclear option, and that'll be that. Filibuster will be gone from the senate for judicial appointments.

It's a situation with no good answer, only several bad ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At any rate, I hope this thread keeps going. Yes people pop in with horrible arguments but I've been convinced its worth addressing them--the first time. Some people are pretty set on doubling down on the same bad logic and I think its appropriate to put them aside in favor of more rational discussion (which does actually happen).

 whembly wrote:
Great. Please show me where's it's mandated that they must give Garland an up or down vote.

The idea that politics begins and ends with what is written down in law is hopelessly dysfunctional. It's the kind of idea that produces the broken democracies of Asia, Africa and the Middle East. It's the shock lesson that was learned by the architects of Iraq, who thought that if they gave Iraq a strong constitution then everything would just fall in to place. They didn't realise that what is written on the page is a lot less important people's expectations about how things are done.

What makes strong democracies work is the build up of culture, of historically accepted practice. That Republicans broke one of those accepted practices is bad enough. That you and millions of other Republicans are now arguing that what McConnell is okay because the only thing that matters is the black and white rule written on the page is a looming disaster.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Exercising 'Advise & Consent' as the majority sees fit ≠ "cheating".

Except they didn't exercise 'advise & consent'. They took advantage of the literal power granted under 'advise & consent' to stonewall the process until they, they hoped, there would be a different president who would give them a nomination more in line with their own political beliefs.

Yup. A rather dangerous gambit since everyone and their brother didn't think Trump would win and HRC waltz into the White House. Had HRC won, Obama could've pulled Garland's nomination and either "gifted" the seat to HRC or chosen a more extreme jurist.

I wouldn't call this cheating, as they were following the rules as written. But of course, as we all know, players who follow the rules as written purely to win, with no regard for how it impacts the game are absolute jerks who can destroy the unwritten social contract that makes a group work.

Dude... that's politics. Stahp believing that there's enough politicians who'd abide such social contract for the betterment of their institution.

Which is what has happened here. Republicans will get their win, and get Gorsuch nominated to the bench. And the everyone else will scramble to figure out how politics works now that Republican leadership just don't give a feth about accepted practice anymore.

We all can thank Harry Reid in pushing the Senate down that slippery slope.

What boggles the mind is that the Democrats *want* to filibuster Gorsuch in *retaliation* over the GOP's handling of Garland.

What you're missing is that to Republicans this is just about making sure Kennedy is the conservative leaning swing vote. The process to achieve that goal is irrelevant to them.

Sure.

Just as it was irrelevant to Reid in nuking the filibuster in 2013 so that he can stack the appellate court. The "end" justified the means here...

Reid even admitted that he's laying out the groundwork for future Democrat majorities to nuke the filibuster for SCoTUS.

But to Democrats this is about a nomination being taken away from Obama, and now being used by Trump.

Yup. Democrats want their scalp or at least an apparance of "fighting back".

Otherwise, why bother with the current filibuster rules? Right now, all of this is just an elaborate Kabuki theater. May be best to just nuke 'em all... and force these folks to make their case (up/down) rather than hiding behind archaic parliamentarian tactics.

As I've said a bunch of times, the filibuster was never going to last in a politicaly partisan environment. Whether its from the minority abusing the filibuster to block as a matter of routine, or the majority not wanting to be stopped by a special rule they have allowed the minority... any way you cut it the filibuster doesn't survive in a partisan political environment.

You know how I've been saying to you for about 7 years now how Republicans need to be very wary about where they are taking politics, because once you start dismissing political norms you never know where you're going to end up? Well we're just starting down that process.

Cat's already out of the bag man.

These donkey-caves (both parties) are always acting like there's going to be this "permanent majority" for their party.

As the Trump being elected ought to teach everyone... voters are fickle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Great. Please show me where's it's mandated that they must give Garland an up or down vote.

The idea that politics begins and ends with what is written down in law is hopelessly dysfunctional. It's the kind of idea that produces the broken democracies of Asia, Africa and the Middle East. It's the shock lesson that was learned by the architects of Iraq, who thought that if they gave Iraq a strong constitution then everything would just fall in to place. They didn't realise that what is written on the page is a lot less important people's expectations about how things are done.

It must be a shock to the system when Democrats "bork'ed" Robert Bork...

It must be a shock when Democrats allowed liberal judges through, but refused to hold hearings for some conservative judges in Dubya's first term... and even more shocking after they lost the majority in '05, they prevented cloture on numerous picks until the gang of 14.

It must be a shock when Harry Reid changed the Senate rule, which allowed the simple majority to stack the appellate courts '13.

What makes strong democracies work is the build up of culture, of historically accepted practice. That Republicans broke one of those accepted practices is bad enough. That you and millions of other Republicans are now arguing that what McConnell is okay because the only thing that matters is the black and white rule written on the page is a looming disaster.

See... here's where your bias is showing.

I don't see you complaining when Democrats broke accepted practice.

Did you miss the several posts that I don't want the filibuster to go away?

74% of Republicans believe that Obama wiretapped Trump. Despite the complete lack of evidence, despite the flat rejection of this claim by everyone remotely associated with it, despite the fact that it turns out Trump got the idea from watching FOX, 74% of Republicans still believe Trump's claim. Anyone wondering how politics got this bad, how an idiot like Trump got elected, it's because once people buy in to a tribal identity, they will just accept all the beliefs of their team. Or at least 74% of them will.

It happens to be particularly bad with Republicans right now, probably because while the party is great at building tribal identity it's pretty bad at everything else. But this isn't a purely Republican thing. It isn't even just a political thing. It can happen to any group. Look at how many people start round 1 of the football season believing this could just be the year for their team, when any objective review will tell you they'll be doing well to win more than a handful of games. It happens because we form a belief, probably more emotionally than rationally and then we set about seeking out information to prove our belief. We form closer connections with people who argue similar claims to our own, and we become hostile to those who challenge them. Ego gets involved, especially if we start arguing for out ideas, we become emotionally committed to avoiding admitting that we made a mistake.

And we all do it. I think most people reading this are thinking about how that filtering process explains other people's terrible ideas. We don't think it affects our own as well. But it does.

And after a while the president tweets an outrageous claim that he saw on cable news, fails to provide any evidence, and three quarters of the tribe buys in to it anyway.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
In a better world, the senate Dems wouldn't have felt jaded. In a better world, they would have let a vote go through. I, a complete democrat, want the vote to go thuogh. Who created this less than better world? It wasn't harry Reid, the boogieman.this, not the lower court stuff will come back to haunt you, cause Ginsburg is a tough old bird.

One of my favourite lines is from Cry, the Beloved Country;
“I have one great fear in my heart, that one day when they are turned to loving, they will find that we are turned to hating.”

Republicans have spent a long period of time as the only hard line crazies going around. I've talked a few times about Democrats beginning their own period of extreme politics. I'm starting to wonder if what we might see is that in the wake of having Trump win through as nominee, combined with the absolute failure and mass unpopularity of the Republican legislative agenda, we might see republicans start to return to a normal kind of party. One that realises things like policy debate and coherent, plausible positions are something you actually have to have. But at the same time a revival movement among Democrats in response to Trump and the Republican agenda may see them move out to the left.

I'm not saying it is gonna happen, I'm not even saying it is likely. But it's possible, and worth thinking about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Dude... that's politics. Stahp believing that there's enough politicians who'd abide such social contract for the betterment of their institution.

Dude, you need to get out of the bubble. Go read about politics in one of the truly failing democracies. Read about the republic of the Congo, or Azerbaijan or plenty of others. These are countries with sound constitutions, just like the US has, but 10 minutes reading about what goes on there will make you the US look like the very model of democracy in comparison. The difference is that truly anything goes in those countries, ruling powers can take what they want, and do what they want to ensure they keep power.

Spend some time learning about what really bad government looks like. You'll realise how far the US still is from that, but you should also become alarmed about where the US might fall to, if you continue to ignore the importance of culture and accepted practice.

We all can thank Harry Reid in pushing the Senate down that slippery slope.

That is the silliest of bs, and you make yourself look like nothing more than a cheerleader every time you post it.

Just as it was irrelevant to Reid in nuking the filibuster in 2013 so that he can stack the appellate court. The "end" justified the means here...

And here you are using 'stack the appellate court' again. Remember we've been over this, on this exact terminology? Remember how I explained how politically loaded language hides lazy thinking?

Yup. Democrats want their scalp or at least an apparance of "fighting back".

Democrats want to make a show of fighting back, yep.

Cat's already out of the bag man.

I think ultimately, at the core of what is wrong your political analysis, is that if a Democratic, particularly Harry Reid, does something wrong, then you treat it as the original sin, and try to bring it up whenever you possibly can. When a Republican does something wrong then you just shrug and say 'both sides'.

It must be a shock to the system when Democrats "bork'ed" Robert Bork...

That's right, Teddy Kennedy set the 'bork' plan in motion. While SC nominations were increasingly political, Bork was the first time that a party decided to make the process a show for national news, as part of a political strategy of revitalising their base. It worked for Kennedy, he got his bounce and the Democrats extended their senate majority in the next year's elections.

It also led to a process of increasingly partisan, and highly public nomination battles. Kennedy shifted away from previously accepted practice, and made the process worse for all nominations to follow.

See... here's where your bias is showing.

I don't see you complaining when Democrats broke accepted practice.

Pay more attention.

The only instance in which you and I disagree on failing the process is that you claim Reid was bad for ending the filibuster on non-SC nominations, and that is only because you think a majority should just accept absolute obstruction on the chin, and do nothing about it, whereas I'm realistic enough to know that's never going to happen.

Did you miss the several posts that I don't want the filibuster to go away?

Have you read the posts in which I've explained that the filibuster is an impossibility in a partisan political environment?

I guess the big Trump news today was that he gave the first 3 months of his salary (about $80,000) to the National Parks Service, which I'd be pretty irritated with if I were a NPS employee as he proposed cutting like $1.2 Billion from the Department of the Interior budget.

But hey, that photo op!

 sebster wrote:
Republicans have spent a long period of time as the only hard line crazies going around. I've talked a few times about Democrats beginning their own period of extreme politics. I'm starting to wonder if what we might see is that in the wake of having Trump win through as nominee, combined with the absolute failure and mass unpopularity of the Republican legislative agenda, we might see republicans start to return to a normal kind of party. One that realises things like policy debate and coherent, plausible positions are something you actually have to have. But at the same time a revival movement among Democrats in response to Trump and the Republican agenda may see them move out to the left.

I'm not saying it is gonna happen, I'm not even saying it is likely. But it's possible, and worth thinking about.

Now I want to see Soviet USA. Sorry, Soviet Democratic Popular Union of American Republics.
“In Soviet America, Burger eats you!”

Let's move away from domestic politics and into the realm of foreign affairs

Trump and North Korea - it's enough to keep you awake at night, but however much it pains me to say this, I'm kinda siding with Trump on this.

The first duty of any American President is to protect the nation.

So a North Korea, building nuclear weapons, and threatening the USA every five minutes...

What are you supposed to do? There may come a time when the USA has to strike first...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


What are you supposed to do? There may come a time when the USA has to strike first...

Then I hope you like war with China.

squidhills wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


What are you supposed to do? There may come a time when the USA has to strike first...

Then I hope you like war with China.

In many respects, the USA has little to fear from a war or limited conflict with China as things stand. Due to geographical proximity and the high number of US bases and allies in the region, the USA can hurt China more than China can hurt the USA. US carrier fleets could lay waste to Chinese coastal cities. Chinese carrier fleets (and I'm aware they have none) could not do the same to Los Angeles or San Francisco.

I'm not pushing for a pillow fight, never mind a war, but any US president, be they FDR, be they Trump, has to protect the nation first and foremost...

If Trump is smart (don't laugh) he'll put the ball in China's court by demanding the North Koreans hand over their warheads to Chinese supervision or else the USA would be forced to defend itself and its allies from North Korean aggression . That would make things interesting in Beijing and allow Trump and America's allies to paint themselves as being reasonable and the victims of North Korean aggression.

So it looks like Susan Rice of the infamous Banghazi fame was the one who ordered the unmasking.
And some of the fire appears from the smoke.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/top-obama-adviser-sought-names-of-trump-associates-in-intel

op Obama Adviser Sought Names of Trump Associates in Intel
7707
April 3, 2017 10:13 AM EDT
By
Eli Lake

White House lawyers last month learned that the former national security adviser Susan Rice requested the identities of U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

The pattern of Rice's requests was discovered in a National Security Council review of the government's policy on "unmasking" the identities of individuals in the U.S. who are not targets of electronic eavesdropping, but whose communications are collected incidentally. Normally those names are redacted from summaries of monitored conversations and appear in reports as something like "U.S. Person One."
Nunes Says Trump Team Caught in U.S. Surveillance Net

The National Security Council's senior director for intelligence, Ezra Cohen-Watnick, was conducting the review, according to two U.S. officials who spoke with Bloomberg View on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. In February Cohen-Watnick discovered Rice's multiple requests to unmask U.S. persons in intelligence reports that related to Trump transition activities. He brought this to the attention of the White House General Counsel's office, who reviewed more of Rice's requests and instructed him to end his own research into the unmasking policy.

The intelligence reports were summaries of monitored conversations -- primarily between foreign officials discussing the Trump transition, but also in some cases direct contact between members of the Trump team and monitored foreign officials. One U.S. official familiar with the reports said they contained valuable political information on the Trump transition such as whom the Trump team was meeting, the views of Trump associates on foreign policy matters and plans for the incoming administration.

Rice did not respond to an email seeking comment on Monday morning. Her role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president's inauguration.

Both the House and Senate intelligence committees are probing any ties between Trump associates and a Russian influence operation against Hillary Clinton during the election. The chairman of the House intelligence committee, Representative Devin Nunes, is also investigating how the Obama White House kept tabs on the Trump transition after the election through unmasking the names of Trump associates incidentally collected in government eavesdropping of foreign officials.

Rice herself has not spoken directly on the issue of unmasking. Last month when she was asked on the "PBS NewsHour" about reports that Trump transition officials, including Trump himself, were swept up in incidental intelligence collection, Rice said: "I know nothing about this," adding, "I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that account today."

Rice's requests to unmask the names of Trump transition officials do not vindicate Trump's own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower. There remains no evidence to support that claim.

But Rice's multiple requests to learn the identities of Trump officials discussed in intelligence reports during the transition period does highlight a longstanding concern for civil liberties advocates about U.S. surveillance programs. The standard for senior officials to learn the names of U.S. persons incidentally collected is that it must have some foreign intelligence value, a standard that can apply to almost anything. This suggests Rice's unmasking requests were likely within the law.

The news about Rice also sheds light on the strange behavior of Nunes in the last two weeks. It emerged last week that he traveled to the White House last month, the night before he made an explosive allegation about Trump transition officials caught up in incidental surveillance. At the time he said he needed to go to the White House because the reports were only on a database for the executive branch. It now appears that he needed to view computer systems within the National Security Council that would include the logs of Rice's requests to unmask U.S. persons.

The ranking Democrat on the committee Nunes chairs, Representative Adam Schiff, viewed these reports on Friday. In comments to the press over the weekend he declined to discuss the contents of these reports, but also said it was highly unusual for the reports to be shown only to Nunes and not himself and other members of the committee.

Indeed, much about this is highly unusual: if not how the surveillance was collected, then certainly how and why it was disseminated.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
California is now hurtling towards getting a smackdown with the Federal government. As Arizona learned under the Obama Administration Federal Law applies when it comes to border relations and immigration.


http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/California-Senate-approves-sanctuary-state-11047699.php