|
theflyingorc posted:His actions did not increase the number of Federal court positions Trump will get to fill. This is 100% untrue. If he hadn't folded for literally no reason those people wouldn't have even been confirmed by now.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:Schumer fast tracked 16 fascists onto the federal courts for life so Joe Donnelly and Claire Mccaskill could lose by 9 points instead of 11. He fails at both politics and policy should never be given the benefit of the doubt about anything. They were going to be voted in anyway. The choice was not "either prevent 16 judges from serving on the court, or go home earlier" it was "go home earlier to campaign, or waste time in Washington doing nothing that will matter".
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This is 100% untrue. If he hadn't folded those people wouldn't have even been confirmed by now. Correct. They would have instead been confirmed in December. MASSIVE difference!
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
eke out posted:v normal interview Well, he certainly does have a gut
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Correct. I'm pretty sure they would've been confirmed by the first week of November, but only because evilweasel laboriously explained to him why he was wrong many times. of course, nothing has ever gotten through to mcmagic so why would it start now
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:49
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Correct. There are, as a 100% certainty, going to be people getting confirmed in 2020 who would not have been able to be confirmed due to this "deal." You can't really even call it a deal since dems got LITERALLY nothing in the exchange. I'll shut up about the "deal" if someone can explain to me why one Dem Senator who wasn't up for reelection could not have stayed in DC to deny them unanimous consent and make each one of the nominees take the full 72 hours.... There is literally zero justification for what happened. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Nov 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:There are, as a 100% certainty, going to be people getting confirmed in 2020 who would not have been able to be confirmed due to this "deal." You can't really even call it a deal since dems got LITERALLY nothing in the exchange. Last I checked, there weren't enough days left to run out the current empty spots before the end of Trump's term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Read the thread? The consensus seems to be that there is indeed 1.6B for border security?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:51
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Looks like we may have another PR statehood vote soon. The house GOP agreed to a very simple yes/no one-question vote on statehood so that all opponents (independence, status quo, that "free association" bullshit, something else) can all come together to vote no if they don't want statehood rather than boycotting the vote. I presume they are confident that the vote would fail because things could get awkward if PR unambiguously supported statehood with a high turnout. This is hosed up and is yet another example of the GOP loving with things to screw the Dems. "Yes Statehood" or "No Statehood" shouldn't be the options given. It should be "Statehood or Independence, pick one, no more being a territory". That the referendum won't be structured like that pretty much ensures that "No" is going to win. And even if "No" loses, it's not like the GOP senate is going to admit PR.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:The consensus seems to be that there is indeed 1.6B for border security? So you don't understand what's happening, good. This bill does not defund ICE, no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:The consensus seems to be that there is indeed 1.6B for border security? It appears that at some point last year, they allocated some amount of money for border security. Some of that money seems to have been delivered but not all of it, and there was some kind of deal in place to continue funding the government that Trump wants to torpedo to demand 5 billion for an actual wall. This is what I have gathered, I was reading on my phone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Last I checked, there weren't enough days left to run out the current empty spots before the end of Trump's term. The senate has to do other things... Why would democrats do ANYTHING to make anything they do easier? It's just capitulation for the sake of it and it's offensive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The senate has to do other things... Why would democrats do ANYTHING to make anything they do easier? It's just capitulation for the sake of it and it's offensive. Thanks for switching to a new, completely unrelated argument and abandoning your first one
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:There are, as a 100% certainty, going to be people getting confirmed in 2020 who would not have been able to be confirmed due to this "deal." You can't really even call it a deal since dems got LITERALLY nothing in the exchange. You are apparently presuming that the Senate's capability to confirm judges will be jam-packed from now through 2020 for the entire two years. You are wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:So are the Democrats not offering 1.6B for border security? the current appropriations bill, which was used as a model for the short-term resolution that takes us from early October to early December, allocates 1.6 billion dollars for border fencing in the southwest Rio Grande region, subject to some restrictions you probably wouldn't care about even if you bothered to read them if the reporting on what Schumer said is accurate and in-context, he may be willing to adhere to the appropriations bill's guidelines in the current shutdown negotiation Lightning Knight posted:It appears that at some point last year, they allocated some amount of money for border security. Some of that money seems to have been delivered but not all of it, and there was some kind of deal in place to continue funding the government that Trump wants to torpedo to demand 5 billion for an actual wall. This is what I have gathered, I was reading on my phone. this is essentially accurate on the broad strokes; the deal isn't binding, exactly, but omnibus funding bills are big and hard (  ) to reach agreement on, especially in a timely fashion, so any big changes A) risk a government shutdown, and B) risk the other side basically-correctly blaming the shutdown on that particular demandif this is something that, for example, forums poster Lightning Knight considers an acceptable risk and/or correct tactic, that's fine! Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Nov 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
That being said I do think that being surprised that they held hearings without any Senators there is not the strongest leadership thing in the world. He shouldn't have been surprised. uh-oh buddy. You really messed up. Somebody GAVE YOU A COB AVATAR, you're ded kiddo
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Just for the record, I wasn't taking the tack the person you responded to here did. I know the state is very scenic and those pictures are cool. I've just been saying that it would be nice if we blend all these empty states together to make things a bit more fair in the Senate, like say, Wyodakodahotana? I could probably come up with other good ideas on why South Dakota should be kept its own state, but first and foremost is that I'm not letting some fuckface North Dakotan have any claim over any of South Dakota's greatness. We have a literal *CORN PALACE*, invented Cookies and Cream ice cream, and major parts of National Treasure 2 AND Twister were filmed here. What does Montana or North Dakota have? Fracking? Pfffft. Our state legislators needed the state geologic survey to explain to them (during actual, real legislative session no less) why A: There is no oil in South Dakota (the answer is geology) and B: Why we couldn't build an evil Mr. Burns-style sideways oil rig to steal North Dakota's oil (because that's not how poo poo works). That was a good day in session.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:56
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Thanks for switching to a new, completely unrelated argument and abandoning your first one I'm not abandoning anything. Both my arguments are correct and have yet to be contradicted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
axeil posted:This is hosed up and is yet another example of the GOP loving with things to screw the Dems. "Yes Statehood" or "No Statehood" shouldn't be the options given. It should be "Statehood or Independence, pick one, no more being a territory". The people in PR would revolt at your proposed question and there would be another mass boycott. Independence is actually a very small minority, most of the no vote either wants to keep things as they are, or vote for some weird vaguely-defined, poorly understood and probably illegal "free association." If you have "either statehood or independence", a lot of people in Puerto Rico are going to protest the vote as illegitimate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I'm not abandoning anything. Both my arguments are correct and have yet to be contradicted. Actually, if you examine my posts closely, you shall find that I have never been owned and I am actually laughing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:58
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I'm not abandoning anything. Both my arguments are correct and have yet to be contradicted. There will not be any more judges put on the bench due to Schumer's actions, so yeah, you're factually wrong, and it's been trivially demonstrated.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 23:59
|
|
|
eke out posted:Actually, if you examine my posts closely, you shall find that I have never been owned and I am actually laughing. You have not addressed my argument as to why you wanted the Dems to let the fascist GOP senate complete 3 months of work in 1 day without getting ANYTHING in return. Please address that. theflyingorc posted:There will not be any more judges put on the bench due to Schumer's actions, so yeah, you're factually wrong, and it's been trivially demonstrated. That may or may not be true. Also if there is literally any action that the GOP Senate can take as a result of Schumer's capitulation that they couldn't have taken otherwise, it is a disaster on it's face.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:That being said I do think that being surprised that they held hearings without any Senators there is not the strongest leadership thing in the world. He shouldn't have been surprised. there's some sort of pattern to when i get cobbed, but i just can't put my finger on it
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
putting up a fight matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:So are the Democrats offering 1.6B for border security? A bill with 1.6 billion passed in october, pre-election, trump is saying "now it's 5 billion" and democrats are saying "we'd rather shut down the government". You can twist that into them offering 1.6 billion, just like this bill doesn't end pedophila or gun violence or starvation so you can say dems are offering pedophila and gun violence and starvation in africa or any other random thing this bill doesn't end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:00
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You have not addressed my argument as to why you wanted the Dems to let the fascist GOP senate complete 3 months of work in 1 day without getting ANYTHING in return. Please address that. sure: the math doesn't work out that way and you don't understand how the Senate works, even though people have tried to help you out in good faith several times over the prior several months. If you find a post of yours in the old Trump thread, click the ? by your name, then scroll back, you can probably find those posts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:02
|
|
|
eke out posted:sure: the math doesn't work out that way and you don't understand how the Senate works, even though people have tried to help you out in good faith several times over the prior several months. Trust me, I read every response and what I said is an accurate description of what happened and it has not be contradicted here. They let the republicans do 3 months of work in 1 day for nothing in return.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The people in PR would revolt at your proposed question and there would be another mass boycott. Free association being bullshit is why the question should be phrased as Statehood or Independence. Make it very clear that the status quo will not continue. They can protest it as illegitimate all they want, but the US shouldn't own colonies anymore and make it very clear that the result will be binding. If Independence wins, the US will immediately stop doing all the things it does for PR, if Statehood wins they become a state. Every other territory should also get the same vote. DC gets to become a state without a vote since they can't really become independent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Trust me (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:05
|
|
|
axeil posted:Free association being bullshit is why the question should be phrased as Statehood or Independence. Make it very clear that the status quo will not continue. idk dude if people of Porto rico likes their current status they should get to keep it
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:06
|
|
|
Yeah I get it. You have to be an rear end in a top hat and make no content posts here to reinforce how much you hate me without actually addressing what I'm saying. The FACT is that they did 3 months of work in 1 day. You have no answer to that fact other than that you don't' like me and therefore I must be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The people in PR would revolt at your proposed question and there would be another mass boycott. Don't give the status quo morons the option. Put statehood or independence on the ballot and then use the inevitable results to ram two new senators into office.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:putting up a fight matters. sure, but there's some disagreement in this thread over what to fight for and what sort of risks to take eg if we take Lightning Knight's posts in the last couple pages at face value, he thinks we should shut down the government until and unless McConnell blows up the filibuster rather than provide any amount of money for any form of border security this is probably not what he meant to say, but it's an internally consistent position. not one that i happen to agree with, mind edit: mcmagic, meanwhile, has been saying something to that effect but about basically everything, and I think that probably is what mcmagic meant to say, and i think shutting down the government until January 2021 was dumb when he argued for it in January 2017 and is dumb now A more common position that's come up in fencechat is that the symbolism of fences/walls, specifically, is strong enough in the Age of Trump that the Democrats should make a hard stand on them specifically (while not necessarily, for example, totally defunding CBP without a reform proposal in place). In this particular context, the question becomes: do we risk shutting down the government over it? Are we fine with the GOP more-or-less-correctly blaming the shutdown on the Democrats insisting on removing the previously-agreed ten remaining months of fence-related funding? If we are fine with that, why? Is it because we think it's a correct tactical decision ("the country will support our moral stance more than they hate the shutdown"), or a bad tactical decision that nevertheless is a moral imperative? I think I'm on "don't shut down the government over this, but it might be an additional handy wedge to get a short resolution until March or whatever rather than a ten-month bill", with a side helping of "also if we can goad Trump into making it about him being a big dumb baby, then a government shutdown is still not ideal but it maybe removes the threat of the Dems being unpopular for it". Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 00:12 on Nov 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
President Big Brain https://twitter.com/IanKullgren/status/1067553841619656704
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Republicans in 2009-10 didn't really choose their battles. They fought every battle they had access too on every axis. Why haven't dems learned this lesson a decade later?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
Typo posted:idk dude if people of Porto rico likes their current status they should get to keep it Referendums are dumb and voters are stupid. Force them to become a state or an independent state. No more colonies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
Star Man posted:
Devil's Tower is pretty cool too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:eg if we take Lightning Knight's posts in the last couple pages at face value, he thinks we should shut down the government until and unless McConnell blows up the filibuster rather than provide any amount of money for any form of border security This is a really loving lovely thing to do, I just want to say for the record. Framing being anti-wall as "he doesn't want to provide any money for border security" is some seriously hosed up logic, it is not an "internally consistent position" it is a strawman argument so you can knock it down and appear to be the reasonable one. "Gee, how do I keep earning these corn cob avs?" asks the person disingenuous enough to pull this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I think I'm on "don't shut down the government over this, but it might be an additional handy wedge to get a short resolution until March or whatever rather than a ten-month bill", with a side helping of "also if we can goad Trump into making it about him being a big dumb baby, then a government shutdown is still not ideal but it maybe removes the threat of the Dems being unpopular for it". 100% agree that forcing another temporary funding patch would be the best outcome here, in that it would both avoid a shutdown (absent Trump throwing a fit and being personally responsible for it with a veto) and allow this entire process to start over from a position of much more strength in the new congress. eke out fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Nov 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Lemming posted:"Democrats: We Love The Status Quo" doesn't feel super catchy 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2018 00:17
|
|
