Trumpism: Page 19 - The Arsenal discussion community: One More in the Tolly

Trumpism

Qwiss

Claudius wrote:
Qwiss! wrote:
Is there anyway the dems could filibuster long enough to keep Gorsuch out until the next midterms? How quickly could Congress Republicans and Trump put through a rule change to get rid of the filibuster?

They'd do this pretty quickly. It's futile. They should rather save it for when a liberal judge retires, and they need to motivate for the Republican president to move towards a judge who is more acceptable to the left.

The thing with Gorsuch is that he's replacing a conservative mainstay, and would normally breeze through the process 80-20 anyway given his incredible credentials. If they compromise the filibuster now, they will regret it when Trump forces down another judge in a few years.

I don't think it's a reasonable argument to say a new justice should be like Scalia. Why should his term run past his own lifetime? This seat should have been filled by Garland but for obstructionism. I think the dems should fight. What difference will it make if they lose the filibuster in a couple of years or now?

Of course the idea of the dems fighting is pretty fanciful.

Klaus

Qwiss! wrote:
I think the dems should fight. What difference will it make if they lose the filibuster in a couple of years or now?

I don't get this logic either.

There's also the possibility that another judge won't die or step down before Trump's first term is over.

ElGeniodeOviedo

The senate election map is very unfavorable to the Dems in 2018 anyway, the Trump regime could be crashing and burning and they would be unlikely to pick up more than 2-3 seats. A few Democrats will vote for Gorsuch anyway, even Alito got ₅ of them

Qwiss

El Genio de Oviedo wrote:
The senate election map is very unfavorable to the Dems in 2018 anyway, the Trump regime could be crashing and burning and they would be unlikely to pick up more than 2-3 seats. A few Democrats will vote for Gorsuch anyway, even Alito got ₅ of them

Yeah but thats largely because they are so spineless. At least if they go hard at Trump it might give people something to get behind. Get the people who are riled up out campaigning for them. Try to ignite some sort of action that goes beyond tweets with #resistance at the end. The reason the GOP win mid terms is because they care more (and gerrymandering). Evangelicals always vote, gun notes always vote, the tea party always vote. They are all very politically engaged, liberals need more of that but you need to give them something to believe in.

flobaba

I think they are afraid of being labeled as the drivers of division and don't want to be accused of the same thing they accused Republicans of when Obama was in power- obstructionism. Then again, it has to be hard to keep fighting when it is essentially, mostly meaningless due to the Republican majority. And the trump era only just begun. It must be exhausting already. They need to identify and pick their battles, and fight those hard, but they can't go at everything.

Qwiss

Thats what they have been doing though and its getting them nowhere. This bullshit of playing nice while the other side use every dirty trick in the book is pathetic. Look at the Merick Garland thing, the Dems didn't even fight that. They just said "look at how they are behaving, how uncouth" and it handed the GOP not only the Scalia seat but also the election.

They're not going to lose voters by standing up for themselves and fighting the Trump administration.

Rex

This guy gets it. 🙂

Bold Tone

Qwiss! wrote:
El Genio de Oviedo wrote:
The senate election map is very unfavorable to the Dems in 2018 anyway, the Trump regime could be crashing and burning and they would be unlikely to pick up more than 2-3 seats. A few Democrats will vote for Gorsuch anyway, even Alito got ₅ of them

Yeah but thats largely because they are so spineless. At least if they go hard at Trump it might give people something to get behind. Get the people who are riled up out campaigning for them. Try to ignite some sort of action that goes beyond tweets with #resistance at the end. The reason the GOP win mid terms is because they care more (and gerrymandering). Evangelicals always vote, gun notes always vote, the tea party always vote. They are all very politically engaged, liberals need more of that but you need to give them something to believe in.

[font=Helvetica, Roboto,]NancyPelosi[/font][font=Helvetica, Roboto,] defends her role in the Democratic party.[/font]
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/dem-civil-war-pelosi-fires-back-warren/

ElGeniodeOviedo

Qwiss! wrote:
El Genio de Oviedo wrote:
The senate election map is very unfavorable to the Dems in 2018 anyway, the Trump regime could be crashing and burning and they would be unlikely to pick up more than 2-3 seats. A few Democrats will vote for Gorsuch anyway, even Alito got ₅ of them

Yeah but thats largely because they are so spineless. At least if they go hard at Trump it might give people something to get behind. Get the people who are riled up out campaigning for them. Try to ignite some sort of action that goes beyond tweets with #resistance at the end. The reason the GOP win mid terms is because they care more (and gerrymandering). Evangelicals always vote, gun notes always vote, the tea party always vote. They are all very politically engaged, liberals need more of that but you need to give them something to believe in.

While I largely agree with you regarding the Democrats, although it may be improving marginally given recent developments, they have very little chance of making any change in the Senate in 2018 regardless. Only ₃₀ seats have races, and the Dems are defending over 20 and the Republicans only 9. Those Dem seats include places like Indiana and Montana where Trump won handily, whereas the only Republican up for relection in a state Clinton won is Nevada (Arizona is very winnable as well in my view.)

We'll see. The last time we had a midterm wave, in 2006, the Democrats did very well to win several states that favor conservatives but the political reality was less polarized than now. At the moment, a marginal change in seats is the odds-on bet.

y va marquer

Daz

I think that is unfair on pigs.

arsedocmd

this dude is a star.

y va marquer

Claudius

Qwiss! wrote:
Thats what they have been doing though and its getting them nowhere. This bullshit of playing nice while the other side use every dirty trick in the book is pathetic. Look at the Merick Garland thing, the Dems didn't even fight that. They just said "look at how they are behaving, how uncouth" and it handed the GOP not only the Scalia seat but also the election.

They're not going to lose voters by standing up for themselves and fighting the Trump administration.

I agree that Dems are more gentle, and it's cost them these last few years. As a croup, they channeled Obama; while republicans, especially far right conservatives have been more aggressive. I think they're driven by a fear of extinction or obsolescence, especially when they look and see transfestites in their bathrooms and men marrying men. These things rile up my republicans mates.

That said, the Dems do not need to descend to these levels. The current Supreme Court nominee is incredibly qualified for the job. This isn't one of Trump's cabinet hacks. They should fight him, but just enough, and keep it principles based. They shouldn't attempt to block him just for the sake of confrontation and retribution like Cowboys under a midday sun. Save your amo for the real battles that lie ahead.

Qwiss

y va marquer wrote:

Made from Ingredients 😆

ElGeniodeOviedo

Claudius wrote:
Qwiss! wrote:
Thats what they have been doing though and its getting them nowhere. This bullshit of playing nice while the other side use every dirty trick in the book is pathetic. Look at the Merick Garland thing, the Dems didn't even fight that. They just said "look at how they are behaving, how uncouth" and it handed the GOP not only the Scalia seat but also the election.

They're not going to lose voters by standing up for themselves and fighting the Trump administration.

I agree that Dems are more gentle, and it's cost them these last few years. As a croup, they channeled Obama; while republicans, especially far right conservatives have been more aggressive. I think they're driven by a fear of extinction or obsolescence, especially when they look and see transfestites in their bathrooms and men marrying men. These things rile up my republicans mates.

That said, the Dems do not need to descend to these levels. The current Supreme Court nominee is incredibly qualified for the job. This isn't one of Trump's cabinet hacks. They should fight him, but just enough, and keep it principles based. They shouldn't attempt to block him just for the sake of confrontation and retribution like Cowboys under a midday sun. Save your amo for the real battles that lie ahead.

Quite right, the time to fight and raise hell was with the Garland nomination. Unfortunately, the Dems believed that Hillary was a lock to win the presidency so they approached the issue very complacently. I don't see how it's tenable to attempt to block a nomination for four whole years, especially since another seat on the bench could very well be vacated.

Qwiss

And if another seat is vacated after the midterms and the GOP still control the house then what? How are they going to save that one? They need to fight now. Oppose everything Trump does and hope to ignite their base and take back the house. If they do that they'll actually have some power to dictate the next justice if they need to.

ElGeniodeOviedo

Well, they can fight as much as they like, but at the end of the day, the Republicans have enough votes to confirm Gorsuch as soon as McConnell chooses to go for the so-called "nuclear option" rule change. He's one who stills puts on the masquerade of "the comity of the senate" so he'll wait awhile before going ahead, but he'll do it if the occasion requires it. Gorsuch by all accounts is a pretty staunch conservative but I haven't yet seen any red flags that would disqualify him like Harriet Miers, etc.

As for the other justices and seats, the only question mark is Justice Ginsburg really, sorry to be so morbid. It's obviously a difficult decision for anyone who loves his or her work to retire, and she still very much enjoys working apparently, but she has potentially shifted the power balance of the court for the next decade if anything happens to her.

The level of fight will be dictated by the selection of the judge in question. If Trump picks someone nutty for the next opening (if one comes about) like say, Ted Cruz, he may face a real opposition. I just don't see the Gorsuch choice lending itself itself as much to public controversy

Qwiss

They're going to confirm Gorsuch either way, I agree. They can still oppose it though. What I'm saying is they need to fight more and this is their biggest fight. It should have been Garland so they should demand a compromise on how extreme the new judge is if McConnell wants to avoid killing the filibuster. He probably wont budge but I still think they should make him do it because a) it'll piss off democratic voters and get them more motivated and b) because its going to go in the next few years anyway, may as well force it now rather than later and keep having it hanging over them.

y va marquer

I used to joke that chess was terrible preparation for politics in Putin’s Russia because in chess we have fixed rules and uncertain results, but in Putin’s elections it’s exactly the opposite. But for personal development, chess developed my ability to plan, to look for connections, to find weak spots, to see the big picture.

One lesson is to not to play desperately if your position is worse but still reasonable. Lashing out wildly in an inferior position usually only hastens defeat. Meanwhile, solid, stubborn defense can demoralize the attacker, make him lose confidence. When that happens, the tables can turn. Keep fighting, stay steady, keep morale high — and public protests are good for all of these things.

« Previous Page Next Page »