|
It's going to piss off From-Two-Years-Ago Mitch McConnell even morequote:“You think this is in the best interest of the United States Senate and the American people?” asked the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, sounding incredulous.
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
evilweasel posted:As a practical matter though, Democrats won't give up poo poo to keep the government open because they view shutdowns as likely to hurt Republicans, not them. So Mitch doesn't have a strong hand here. Yeah, and Obama isn't personally on the hook anyway. Like he is not going to give up jackshit. The Dems have declared government by hostage taking off limits. They're not going to back down from that in an election year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Killing the filibuster now though is just so drat dumb of an idea for Republicans. It gets them zero new power (since Obama can always veto things) and who cares if they make Obama veto the Puppies and Children act, all of the candidates can just disavow it and Obama's not running again. If the Democrats win in 2016, the Republicans want that filibuster because there's at least a reasonable chance they're in the minority again. And if a Republican wins in 2016, they can just abolish the filibuster then and go crazy ramming everything through. It's just a dumb plan all around which is probably why McConnell isn't a fan, but reality has never been the far-rights strong point. The only situation it makes sense is if they have the votes now, think they'll win in 2016, but think they'll lose a seat or two (but not the majority) and not have the votes in the caucus to kill it. And that's pretty far-fetched.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
born on a buy you posted:actually defaulting would lead to a mad max hellscape where boehner's leathery skin is worn with pride by the dc warlord battling the nyc crew. there will be no parties. only eternal battle for survival and the occasional blood orgy. Well you've sold me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
born on a buy you posted:actually defaulting would lead to a mad max hellscape where boehner's leathery skin is worn with pride by the dc warlord battling the nyc crew. there will be no parties. only eternal battle for survival and the occasional blood orgy. SHINY AND CHROME!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:My understanding is that a lot of that is gone now, especially with the people like Ted Cruz running around. They have the majority of state legislatures (31 R, 11 D, 8 split), the majority of governorships (31 R, 18 D, 1 I), the house, the senate, and the SCOTUS. The Republican Party is the dominant political party in this country
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
I'm ready for Immortan Joe Biden.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Paul Ryan: "Witness me!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Aw god drat it Past Mitch, you left Future Mitch holdin the bag again!
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:They have the majority of state legislatures (31 R, 11 D, 8 split), the majority of governorships (31 R, 18 D, 1 I), the house, the senate, and the SCOTUS. I'm almost glad they're too fragmented to do even more damage than they're doing now.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:They have the majority of state legislatures (31 R, 11 D, 8 split), the majority of governorships (31 R, 18 D, 1 I), the house, the senate, and the SCOTUS. A thing which can evaporate quickly. Remember when they were never going to be the minority party again? It also ignores some fundamental truths about how they've won those elections. They win them in depressed turnout, off-year elections and heavily gerrymandered districts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:A thing which can evaporate quickly. Remember when they were never going to be the minority party again? The issue is that how they got it doesn't change the amount of power they currently possess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Also saying the Democrats would get blamed for Republicans blowing up the economy is, asinine and is exactly the sort of dumb "strategy" that will gift wrap the house, senate and presidency to Democrats. It's what happened with the Volcker recession, Nixon, Carter, and Reagan though. Nixon demanded monetary and fiscal policies that lead to stagflation, which really kicked in under Carter. Carter directed Volcker to combat it and he increases federal funds rate. Recession followed as we unwound Nixon's policies, Carter ate the blame in the election, and Reagan came into power in time to reap the rewards from Volcker's actions and credit his own policies
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
zoux posted:Their moms, sisters, wives, daughters and mistresses are women. They aren't terrified by women. Hillary Clinton is the "woman they have been prepped to hate daily for 25 years". The conservative media has been selling "Hillary is the devil" since most of this board was in elementary school and/or diapers. I'm not sure she's necessarily going to inspire less insanity than Obama. Fried Chicken posted:Being generous the thought may be that this time they have the senate as well and can make him do it, so the Dems will take the blame for the cuts like how they did for everything in the 90s Any hope of that working died with these Speaker shenanigans. There may have been a vague chance of them picking off some idiot Blue Dog and devising a New Grand Bargain that restores fiscal responsibility or whatever while raising the debt ceiling. That's the sort of poo poo which gets the David-Brooks-crowd salivating and when Obama vetoed it they might decide to blame him. Any slim chance of that died when they alienated the Smug Centrist/Moderate crowd. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It also ignores some fundamental truths about how they've won those elections. They win them in depressed turnout, off-year elections and heavily gerrymandered districts. So? Those state elections aren't going to suddenly switch to being in the Presidential cycle unless state legislators move them. Gerrymanders aren't going to get undone unless state legislators fix them in 2021-2022. We've got to be able to beat them in the existing off-year elections in their heavily gerrymandered districts in order to change those things. Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:A thing which can evaporate quickly. Remember when they were never going to be the minority party again? And how quickly are the Dems going to be to unwind the policies they are putting into place now? (Remember when Obama was going to close Gitmo on day 1?). Are they going to void out on resumes the experience and connections GOP appointed administrators? Nullify all the operative building the in power party can do? Give back the time, health, security, and wealth that citizens are losing from the GOP's actions? Yeah, balance of power can change. It is still what it is now and it allows for shoring up weaknesses to keep or return to power.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:A thing which can evaporate quickly. Remember when they were never going to be the minority party again? evilweasel posted:The issue is that how they got it doesn't change the amount of power they currently possess. Yeah, and the biggest problem is that last one. Turnout and off-year elections come and go, gerrymandering will last a long time, and in most cases will not be addressed until 2021 at the earliest, when the 2020 census information forces redistricting. Admittedly, legislatures can choose to redistrict without responding to a census (I think the Supreme Court even allows it if there is no reason to do so besides partisan gain), but same thing, you have to force the people who benefit from the bullshit to actually stop benefiting from it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:They have the majority of state legislatures (31 R, 11 D, 8 split), the majority of governorships (31 R, 18 D, 1 I), the house, the senate, and the SCOTUS. I've never thought that the Republicans control the SCOTUS. Maybe I'm just ignorant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:It's what happened with the Volcker recession, Nixon, Carter, and Reagan though. Nixon demanded monetary and fiscal policies that lead to stagflation, which really kicked in under Carter. Carter directed Volcker to combat it and he increases federal funds rate. Recession followed as we unwound Nixon's policies, Carter ate the blame in the election, and Reagan came into power in time to reap the rewards from Volcker's actions and credit his own policies Those were complex budget and macroeconomics issues; not a global financial meltdown brought on by the Republican Party holding the country hostage over something that they cannot otherwise achieve under normal legislative means. Those are significant differences. evilweasel posted:The issue is that how they got it doesn't change the amount of power they currently possess. I am saying it's not as iron-held as he's trying to make it out and that the majority of people don't actually agree with their policies, let alone their methods. Fried Chicken posted:And how quickly are the Dems going to be to unwind the policies they are putting into place now? (Remember when Obama was going to close Gitmo on day 1?). Are they going to void out on resumes the experience and connections GOP appointed administrators? Nullify all the operative building the in power party can do? Give back the time, health, security, and wealth that citizens are losing from the GOP's actions? My point was that their power is not as secure as they'd like, and if they majorly gently caress up the country in a very real and palatable way their fortunes will fade, quickly. But remember back in 2000/2004 when people proclaimed that the "Republican ground game" was just too strong for any Democrat to ever win a national election? BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:I've never thought that the Republicans control the SCOTUS. Maybe I'm just ignorant. You have Scalia and Alito who are pretty much openly partisan, Roberts who is partisan but knows to play the game, and Thomas who is weird but pretty reliable in going with the conservative part of the court. Kennedy is the general tie-breaker, but with the exception of social issues, is pretty strongly in favor of conservative interpretations. They control it just as well as they control the house, which is numerically, they should never be beat, but the "moderates" keep the "radicals" from running ramshod. e: In an even simpler way, 5 of the justices were nominated by Republican Presidents. None of them have strayed too far from the right. e2: On top of that, the next likely replacement is one of the liberal ones, Ginsburg. Scalia and Kennedy would be next, just going by age, but I don't think Scalia would retire unless there was a Republican President. foobardog fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Oct 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:I've never thought that the Republicans control the SCOTUS. Maybe I'm just ignorant. Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are hard-core conservatives. The two "swing votes" of Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts lean pretty far to the right normally. Anything positive that's come from the Court has come from one of those two switching sides - gay marriage (both cases) was Kennedy and the ACA was Roberts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
foobardog posted:You have Scalia and Alito who are pretty much openly partisan, Roberts who is partisan but knows to play the game, and Thomas who is weird but pretty reliable in going with the conservative part of the court. Kennedy is the general tie-breaker, but with the exception of social issues, is pretty strongly in favor of conservative interpretations. Jackson Taus posted:Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are hard-core conservatives. The two "swing votes" of Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts lean pretty far to the right normally. Anything positive that's come from the Court has come from one of those two switching sides - gay marriage (both cases) was Kennedy and the ACA was Roberts. Well yeah, but I'm not saying SCOTUS isn't conservative, I'm saying that it's not Republican. Just listing the more conservative members while leaving out Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsburg does nothing to convince me that they're in the Republican's pocket. A 'Republican' SCOTUS would not have permitted gay marriage or the ACA, in my opinion. I think the court is split enough to not be (strongly at least) Republic or Democrat, with conservative economic opinions and moderate/liberal social opinions that often dissatisfy both parties.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:Well yeah, but I'm not saying SCOTUS isn't conservative, I'm saying that it's not Republican. Just listing the more conservative members while leaving out Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsburg does nothing to convince me that they're in the Republican's pocket. A 'Republican' SCOTUS would not have permitted gay marriage or the ACA, in my opinion. I think the court is split enough to not be (strongly at least) Republic or Democrat, with conservative economic opinions and moderate/liberal social opinions that often dissatisfy both parties. It is republican-controlled. When we discuss how the Senate is Republican-controlled, we don't bother to list the Democrats. Because they're in the minority. There is not a split in the Court. The right wing has not gotten their way in only two high-profile instances, while they have gotten their way in virtually every other high profile case. There is no serious debate over this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
foobardog posted:e: In an even simpler way, 5 of the justices were nominated by Republican Presidents. None of them have strayed too far from the right. I don't know what this forum thinks about FiveThirtyEight, but I've recently read an interesting article by them claiming that Justices become more liberal as they age. Oliver Roeder posted:A typical justice nominated by a Republican president starts out at age 50 as an Antonin Scalia and retires at age 80 as an Anthony Kennedy. A justice nominated by a Democrat, however, is a lifelong Stephen Breyer. edit: evilweasel posted:It is republican-controlled. When we discuss how the Senate is Republican-controlled, we don't bother to list the Democrats. Because they're in the minority. Well, alright. I'll chalk this up to me learning something new.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Rollofthedice posted:I don't know what this forum thinks about FiveThirtyEight, but I've recently read an interesting article by them claiming that Justices become more liberal as they age. The one really important thing about that chart is Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Scalia's age. The next President almost certainly could create a conservative lock on the Supreme Court for decades (replace Ginsburg or Kennedy with a strong conservative), or break it (replace Kennedy or Scalia with a liberal).
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
foobardog posted:e2: On top of that, the next likely replacement is one of the liberal ones, Ginsburg. Scalia and Kennedy would be next, just going by age, but I don't think Scalia would retire unless there was a Republican President. Scalia may not retire under a Democratic presidency, but he is still mortal, presumably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The one really important thing about that chart is Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Scalia's age. The next President almost certainly could create a conservative lock on the Supreme Court for decades (replace Ginsburg or Kennedy with a strong conservative), or break it (replace Kennedy or Scalia with a liberal). Yes, though a Democrat with a Republican House/Senate is going to be forced to nominate a "moderate."
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yes, though a Democrat with a Republican House/Senate is going to be forced to nominate a "moderate." Which is why Obama getting Kagan and specially Sotomayor on the bench was so good. Those two 5 however do not equal the 10 of RBG.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Does this turtle face moron realize playing chicken with the world economy is going to make a lot of people hate our guts. He does, that is why he's folded every time and tossed the hot mess into Boehner's lap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
William Bear posted:Scalia may not retire under a Democratic presidency, but he is still mortal, presumably. Yes, but you have to travel to a distant island and dig up the hen's egg where he stores his heart
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yes, though a Democrat with a Republican House/Senate is going to be forced to nominate a "moderate." House doesn't matter. Senate, though, that will be interesting. Republicans will certainly seek to knock out any SCOTUS nominee they can, but I don't actually think a moderate would have any greater chance of making it through than a liberal. No matter who they are, they'll be demonized as super liberal on the right and it'll be a question of what you can make stick with the public at large (or, if it even matters what the public at large thinks). There's a decent chance nobody at all could get confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
foobardog posted:e2: On top of that, the next likely replacement is one of the liberal ones, Ginsburg. Scalia and Kennedy would be next, just going by age, but I don't think Scalia would retire unless there was a Republican President. Everyone who suggests a Democrat might replace Scalia assumes he died. Kennedy might retire but I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Is the filibuster still in place for SCOTUS nominees?evilweasel posted:Everyone who suggests a Democrat might replace Scalia assumes he died. Kennedy might retire but I doubt it. Mmmmmm I love assuming Scalia is dead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:House doesn't matter. Senate, though, that will be interesting. Republicans will certainly seek to knock out any SCOTUS nominee they can, but I don't actually think a moderate would have any greater chance of making it through than a liberal. No matter who they are, they'll be demonized as super liberal on the right and it'll be a question of what you can make stick with the public at large (or, if it even matters what the public at large thinks). There's a decent chance nobody at all could get confirmed. I kind of assume they'd just toss a hyper-liberal or two at Congress and then nominate a 'compromise candidate' who was actually their first choice from the get-go
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Which is why Obama getting Kagan and specially Sotomayor on the bench was so good. RBG is too good for this world, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
zoux posted:Is the filibuster still in place for SCOTUS nominees? Yes. Which is an interesting question actually: would the Republican Senate filibuster a SCOTUS nominee rather than bottle them up in committee or try to vote them down on a party-line vote? There's always a few old guys willing to vote for a qualified candidate from the other party so I could see it happening. If the same party controls both the filibuster would be immediately abolished the second someone tried to filibuster a nominee.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:McConnell isn't at any real risk of being toppled because he's elected by the Republican caucus, not the Senate as a whole, and the Republican senators mostly like him and despise Cruz. It's not a situation where they can cause the same issues as the Freedom Caucus can. If McConnell is in danger, and I'm not sold on the idea that he is, it's the danger that toppled Eric Cantor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:If McConnell is in danger, and I'm not sold on the idea that he is, it's the danger that toppled Eric Cantor. He's not up for re-election until 2020.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
DivineCoffeeBinge posted:If McConnell is in danger, and I'm not sold on the idea that he is, it's the danger that toppled Eric Cantor. Eh, I'd say the reaper is a bigger threat to him than anything else. No primary until 2020, no rebellious bloc willing to actually challenge him (Cruz had control of the floor when the CR was going through and he didn't use any opportunities to gum it up)
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Those were complex budget and macroeconomics issues; not a global financial meltdown brought on by the Republican Party holding the country hostage over something that they cannot otherwise achieve under normal legislative means. Those are significant differences. Well yeah, but 1) I could be wrong, but I don't think gerrymandering was at the same insane level then as it was now, and 2) it's much, much easier for the opposition party to gain seats when you have unpopular incumbents in charge.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 04:55 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:My point was that their power is not as secure as they'd like, and if they majorly gently caress up the country in a very real and palatable way their fortunes will fade, quickly. Their ballot box stuffing was top notch back then though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2015 22:44
|
|