• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sirpopopop said:
The GOP will be rewarded by the voters for nuking the filibuster.

They will see it as an "adult" taking action against a crying child.

Whereas when the GOP obstructed, the public saw it as heroes fighting for democracy.

Red America is all in on fascism.
Click to expand...

Not really, no. Party in power is always blamed for everything. And people in general don't give a shit about Senate rules.
 
Manmademan said:
It's mostly the third one.

Keep in mind also that the filibuster is tied to a LOT of power in the Senate.

Any senator from anywhere can grind legislation to a halt by calling for cloture on a vote, and they don't even need to do so publicly. This kills everything but loverwhelmingly popular legislation stone dead, or forces radical bills out of the house to compromise.

Remove that, and suddenly senators don't have much more power than your run of the mill congressional rep. Everything passes by 51% of the votes regardless.

There are a lot of voices on both sides of the aisle reluctant to Nerf the power of a Senate office that way.
Click to expand...

Let me put it this way:

As soon as the filibuster is removed, the GOP is setting a time limit on the procedure of passing bills. For example, if McConnell tries to pass a healthcare bill, he has to hope that the Democrats don't trick anyone into voting for a "poison pill" type amendment to any bill.

Suddenly Democrats can force the GOP to vote on amendments similar to what the GOP did whenever democrats used reconciliation to get around the filibuster.

Sirpopopop said:
The GOP will be rewarded by the voters for nuking the filibuster.

They will see it as an "adult" taking action against a crying child.

Whereas when the GOP obstructed, the public saw it as heroes fighting for democracy.

Red America is all in on fascism.
Click to expand...

Except no one cares about shit like that. What the voters are going to care about is whether their lives are helped or hurt by what the GOP does.

If the GOP thought they were immune from criticism, then they wouldn't so damn scared about actually repealing the ACA.

You all think that the protests happening are as powerless as the Occupy protests, but it's looking more and more like the kind of protests that happened in the 60s when people were CONSTANTLY protesting.
 
Sirpopopop said:
The GOP will be rewarded by the voters for nuking the filibuster.

They will see it as an "adult" taking action against a crying child.

Whereas when the GOP obstructed, the public saw it as heroes fighting for democracy.

Red America is all in on fascism.
Click to expand...

Or nobody is going to care about rules and instead care about the laws that are passed
 
Bonen no Max'd said:
If we want to play this game, Daschle getting a few more votes in 2004 means we have a much better ACA without the good shit that got thrown out.
Click to expand...

I'm just pointing out that sometimes major events are determined by luck alone.

Ebola was a bullshit story that killed zero American voters and yet the Dems lost three Senate seats because the media lost their minds over it. With those three extra seats, Trump would not be able to accomplish very much at all of his agenda.
 
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
I'm just pointing out that sometimes major events are determined by luck alone.

Ebola was a bullshit story that killed zero American voters and yet the Dems lost three Senate seats because the media lost their minds over it. With those three extra seats, Trump would not be able to accomplish very much at all of his agenda.
Click to expand...

Most of our history has just been the right thing happening at the right time, or the wrong thing happening at the wrong time.

sphagnum said:
Wouldn't they just be killing the filibuster for SCOTUS appointments, not for legislation?
Click to expand...

Once the cat is out of the bag, the next time Democrats attempt to filibuster one of Trump's bills, he'll demand they get rid of it entirely.
 
The filibuster is a useful tool for both parties to duck blame or anger from their base. Removing it would put the republican party on the hook for everything that happens. Suddenly there would be no barrier for gutting entitlement reform, major abortion changes, and every other extremist idea on the far right's agenda. Is that the agenda republicans want to pass going into 2018 midterms? Or would they rather go into 2018 arguing "we cut taxes, gutted regulations, and fixed parts of Obamacare. Give us a super majority so we can overcome democrat obstruction to outright repeal/replace Obamacare and dominate the Supreme Court." The latter is a much better sale.

It also threaten's the power/importance of the Speaker and majority leader.
 
So Obama and Biden want Perez.

I'm inclined to go with who those two would prefer.
 
Asked in the "go nuclear" OT thread but I don't expect a nuanced procedural discussion there. If they want to kill filibuster for SC noms don't they have to wait until the start of a session or year? Or can they rule change at any point with majority vote?
 
thefro said:
If everyone wanted Ellison he would have already locked the race up.

It'll go to multiple ballots.
Click to expand...

Sanders, Schumer, Pelosi, Warren etc all have given their blessing. Doubt any opposition goes far.

Fedelias said:
Huh, I don't know what to make of that split of opinion. I'd be happy with either I think.
Click to expand...

I like Perez with a strong connection to unions and some who can get the message to working class. Though right now reconciliation between factions on the left is also a major point. Ellison gets that unity.
 
Collins is gonna vote no on DeVos too, lol.

Teacher's union too stronk.

(And DeVos' incredible stupidity is judged more harshly than male stupidity. For another example, see how Trump is still viewed as intelligent whereas Palin is not).
 
Trump’s net approval rating remained relatively flat, although his negatives and positives rose. Roughly half (49 percent) of voters said they approved of Trump’s performance, up from 46 percent immediately following his inauguration. About 4 in 10 (41 percent) of voters disapprove of his first several days in office, compared with 37 percent who said the same the week before.

The national poll surveyed 1,991 registered voters. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.
Click to expand...

170201_executive_orders.png


https://morningconsult.com/2017/02/01/voter-optimism-grows-trumps-first-week/
 
I like that the American people approve of Trump banning the VA from hiring more doctors.

I think these same people also would be a fan of fighting a meaningless war and then say that they love veterans (who they support dying).
 
Dubbedinenglish said:
Sanders, Schumer, Pelosi, Warren etc all have given their blessing. Doubt any opposition goes far.
Click to expand...

That's not what Howard Dean says:

American Prospect Interview with Howard Dean said:
So neither of the frontrunners, Representative Keith Ellison or Labor Secretary Tom Perez, has it locked up?

They're both great people. I campaigned with Keith, I think he's fantastic. I've never met Tom Perez, but everybody I talk to says he's great. But I think they're both handicapped by being perceived rightly or wrongly as other people's candidates. This is an outsider election. There are 447 people in the DNC, and 400 of them are outside Washington. This is the most important vote of their life. They do not want to have Chuck Schumer or Barack Obama tell them how to vote.

If you're the state chair from Colorado or Alabama, you do not care what anybody says. It's your vote, and it's a big deal. This is the one big thing, other than going the convention every four years, that DNC members get to do.
Click to expand...

Dean won in 2005 despite the objections of the DC people to him.
 
Crocodile said:
Interesting thread from a woman who demonstrated outside the recent Democratic retreat in West Virginia
Click to expand...

Right, the idea that 'don't filibuster now to save it for next time' assumes they won't pre-emptively nuke the filibuster to shove a conservative leaning justice down our throats if one of the two liberal leaning justices near retirement bows out first before Kennedy. We have a history of the GOP literally kicking us in the shins before we can even move so why assume they won't do so in the future.
 
Honestly I think IF the filibuster is made to be gone for SCOTUS i think for legislation there is a really good chance it gets tossed as well. Especially after what happened today.

We're turning into an autocracy. GOP national state
 
VendettaRed07 said:
I'm not. Their track record in this department sucks

I'll go with who the democratic base wants
Click to expand...

This. Ellison has the support of both the moderates and the Bernie fans.

Perez's place should be leading whatever group will file lawsuits against voter suppression and gerrymandering.

We need to have the official "leadership" be people who unite the GOP's opposition.
 
Crocodile said:
Interesting thread from a woman who demonstrated outside the recent Democratic retreat in West Virginia
Click to expand...
It's ironic how much democrat strategy often mirrors white moderate pleasantry politics: "if you fight against extremism by any means necessary you're just as bad as the extremists; you have to be the better person; you knocked down a trash can while protesting for your life/rights, I can't support that."

You have to meet extremism with extremism and make it clear that it's a zero sum game. Instead we've had a situation where republicans have constantly gained power while democrats have declined to respond in kind. So each time republicans gain the majority they push the envelope, and each time democrats gain the majority they play by the rules that are disappearing. Now, there are exceptions. Reid understood this and pushed back. I wish Obama had been more open to listening to Reid on republican obstruction and how to check it. But ultimately I just don't buy that democrats are prepared to do what needs to be done.

Trump is probably going to get his SC pick regardless but a complete filibuster is required. I have no problem with holding hearings though.
 
Fedelias said:
Has Obama commented on/endorsed anyone in particular for DNC chair?
Click to expand...

He's too busy chilling with Richard Branson.

(fwiw, he's the one who pushed Perez to enter the race, so safe to say he's endorsing Perez.)

Personally I like Perez and Buttigeg the most, but would probably rather have them run for office than lock themselves into the party chair gig for the next four years. I also don't know what Buttigeg's organizing skills are like, whereas Ellison has a good track record of it.

ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Collins is gonna vote no on DeVos too, lol.

Teacher's union too stronk.

(And DeVos' incredible stupidity is judged more harshly than male stupidity. For another example, see how Trump is still viewed as intelligent whereas Palin is not).
Click to expand...

If Collins was going to vote no on DeVos, why would she vote yes for her to move out of committee?
 
Gen Flynn and other NSC staff are in the WH briefing.

https://twitter.com/ZekeJMiller/status/826863828780580864

Also this

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...485974350252&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.b87a0636f717

The ranking Democrats of six House congressional committees asked the Pentagon on Wednesday for information about President Trump’s national security adviser, suggesting that he may have violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause by accepting a fee for speaking at a 2015 Moscow dinner.

The lawmakers suggest that the fee he received may have violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which prohibits top officials from receiving payments from foreign governments.

“It is extremely concerning that General Flynn chose to accept payment for appearing at a gala hosted by the propaganda arm of the Russian government, which attacked the United States in an effort to undermine our election,” the members wrote in the letter sent today .

The letter, signed by the ranking Democrats on the House Intelligence, Oversight, Armed Services, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security committees, requested any information the Pentagon had about “how much General Flynn was paid for his dinner with Vladi­mir Putin, whether he received additional payment from Russian or other foreign sources, and whether he sought the approval of the Department of Defense or Congress to accept these payments.” The speech was made during a celebration dinner for Russian Television.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Poll
2017-2018 NCAA Men's Basketball Topic: UNC from Redemption to Redeemed
21
4K
Corrik replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
Top Bottom