**President Trump 2018 Thread**

[StrangeSox]

15 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

McConnell is behaving here like the annoying kid in your grade school.  He keeps changing the rules to ensure that he wins.  Yes, McConnell says, we can't consider a Supreme Court Justice in an election year - but only if it's a PRESIDENTIAL election.  Obviously he didn't mean the midterms!  

McConnell is the worst of them, but it's not just him. They are having an increasingly hard time of building electoral majorities, so they're retreating to antidemocratic notions like voter suppression, gerrymandering, and of course stacking the courts as much as possible. The SC seat is far from the only judicial appointment that McConnell stole, and they spent years blocking nearly everyone until the Democrats finally got rid of the nominee fillibuster in 2013.

McConnell is behaving like a ruthless politician grabbing power where ever he can. And so far, he's winning, and the legacy of this stolen seat can last a generation.

Edited July 10, 2018 by StrangeSox

[Dick Allen]

6 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

McConnell is the worst of them, but it's not just him. They are having an increasingly hard time of building electoral majorities, so they're retreating to antidemocratic notions like voter suppression, gerrymandering, and of course stacking the courts as much as possible. The SC seat is far from the only judicial appointment that McConnell stole, and they spent years blocking nearly everyone until the Democrats finally got rid of the nominee fillibuster in 2013.

McConnell is behaving like a ruthless politician grabbing power where ever he can. And so far, he's winning, and the legacy of this stolen seat can last a generation.

Trump couldn't believe all the judicial openings he got to fill. He thought, because he doesn't know any better, ,  that Obama was too lazy to fill them.

[NorthSideSox72]

1 hour ago, raBBit said:

Definitely dont defend everything right. I don't even like it the appointment. I just like that a lot of bad people will be angered by it. 

Really? You should re-read this post a few times. Bad people? Who are they?

 

[LittleHurt05]

1 hour ago, illinilaw08 said:

McConnell is behaving here like the annoying kid in your grade school.  He keeps changing the rules to ensure that he wins.  Yes, McConnell says, we can't consider a Supreme Court Justice in an election year - but only if it's a PRESIDENTIAL election.  Obviously he didn't mean the midterms!  

If they did wait until after these midterm elections, Trump still gets to nominate. If the Democrats did gain a majority, could they just keep voting no on every candidate for two straight years until after the next presidential election?

[whitesoxfan99]

Just now, LittleHurt05 said:

If they did wait until after these elections, Trump still gets to nominate. If the Democrats did gain a majority, could they just keep voting no on every candidate for two straight years until after the next presidential election?

Sure, why not. 

[illinilaw08]

Just now, LittleHurt05 said:

If they did wait until after these elections, Trump still gets to nominate. If the Democrats did gain a majority, could they just keep voting no on every candidate for two straight years until after the next presidential election?

If the Democrats took control of the Senate, then they could vote to not confirm a justice who they considered to be too conservative.  That could ultimately lead to a much more moderate judge ultimately being appointed.  So, yeah, that's exactly what they could do...

[GoSox05]

Didn't some Republicans say that if Clinton won they were going to block every candidate for four years?

[StrangeSox]

3 minutes ago, LittleHurt05 said:

If they did wait until after these midterm elections, Trump still gets to nominate. If the Democrats did gain a majority, could they just keep voting no on every candidate for two straight years until after the next presidential election?

They could simply never even hold hearings, let alone a vote. McConnell did it for a Supreme Court seat and numerous federal judicial seats after Republicans took control of the Senate in January 2015.

When it looked like Clinton was going to win in October 2016, many in the GOP were already floating the idea of never confirming any of her nominees, either.

Quote

 

But several Republicans have said if the voters elect Clinton, they’ll block her nominees, effectively abandoning their advice and consent role for her entire term.

“If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court,” North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr said in an audio recording of his meeting with GOP volunteers on Saturday. CNN obtained a copy of the audio.

GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Ted Cruz of Texas have also suggested blocking any Clinton nominees. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said in a debate Monday night that he “can’t imagine” voting for any Clinton nominee though he stopped short of vowing to block a pick from a Democratic president.

McConnell says simply the next president will make the nomination to fill the current vacancy.

The size of the court is set by federal law and has changed over the years, but has been nine justices since 1869.

When vacancies arise, they usually are filled within months, if not weeks. But there have twice been stretches of more than two years where the court was one justice short. Another six vacancies lasted more than a year. The most recent was in 1969 and 1970, when Justice Abe Fortas resigned and the Senate rejected two of President Richard Nixon’s nominees before confirming Justice Harry Blackmun.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm actually all for the Supreme Court confirmation process in the Senate to get a new set of rules that both parties agree on - 51 votes to confirm, committee hearing and normal process to proceed without procedural delays, as long as President makes a nomination more than (say, maybe, 3 months) before a Presidential of US Congressional election, otherwise it waits until after. That way there is a clear-as-day process in place, no games.

 

[Jose Abreu]

Just now, NorthSideSox72 said:

I'm actually all for the Supreme Court confirmation process in the Senate to get a new set of rules that both parties agree on - 51 votes to confirm, committee hearing and normal process to proceed without procedural delays, as long as President makes a nomination more than (say, maybe, 3 months) before a Presidential of US Congressional election, otherwise it waits until after. That way there is a clear-as-day process in place, no games.

  

This makes too much sense to actually happen 

[illinilaw08]

1 minute ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

I'm actually all for the Supreme Court confirmation process in the Senate to get a new set of rules that both parties agree on - 51 votes to confirm, committee hearing and normal process to proceed without procedural delays, as long as President makes a nomination more than (say, maybe, 3 months) before a Presidential of US Congressional election, otherwise it waits until after. That way there is a clear-as-day process in place, no games.

 

The problem with this is that the "game" already took place.  The Republicans stole a seat from President Obama by changing the rules.  Until that seat has been restored, I would be hard pressed to agree to "no games."

[Balta1701]

11 minutes ago, whitesoxfan99 said:

Sure, why not. 

Quote

"I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up," McCain declared.

 

[StrangeSox]

5 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

I'm actually all for the Supreme Court confirmation process in the Senate to get a new set of rules that both parties agree on - 51 votes to confirm, committee hearing and normal process to proceed without procedural delays, as long as President makes a nomination more than (say, maybe, 3 months) before a Presidential of US Congressional election, otherwise it waits until after. That way there is a clear-as-day process in place, no games.

 

The court could use more reforms than that to really tamp down on it's current lottery nature. "Wow, Scalia died during a Democratic presidency! there's a chance the court could shift for decades now!" is not how you build a legitimate and reasonable constitutional court system.

There are numerous ideas out there, like giving every President two appointments per term, that would reduce the potential for such wild swings in the court's ideology that can last decades and even generations.

I think between Bush v. Gore and then McConnell's stealing the seat, more people are waking up to the court being an unelected political branch rather than being some sort of high-minded idealistic and impartial legal branch. That it's getting stuffed full of Federalist Society extremists who will overturn any serious progressive legislation for the next couple of decades will make it all the more obvious.

Edited July 10, 2018 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

here's more on how McConnell also blocked over 100 federal judiciary seats that's allowed Trump to fill them full of young often completely unqualified ideologues who will sit on the courts for the next 40+ years.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-judges-trump-senate-20161231-story.html

Quote

 

President-elect Donald Trump will take office with a chance to fill more than 100 seats on the federal courts, thanks mostly to an extraordinary two-year slowdown in judicial confirmations engineered by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

Since Republicans took control of the Senate at the beginning of the 114th Congress last year, senators have voted to confirm only 22 of President Obama’s judicial nominees. That’s the lowest total since 1951-52, in the final years of Harry Truman’s presidency.

By contrast, when Democrats controlled the Senate in the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, 68 of his judicial nominees were confirmed. 

More than twice as many vacancies, 107, exist on federal benches than when Bush left office.

In total, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts counts 890 slots for full-time federal judges. Federal district courts have 84 vacancies, and the regional circuit courts of appeal have another 14. The specialized appeals courts for international trade and federal claims have eight vacant seats.  The 107th vacancy is the best-known: the Supreme Court seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

The vacancies reflect a long-term goal of McConnell and other leading Republicans to tilt the court system toward conservatives.

 

Even if Democrats win the House, Senate and Presidency, McConnell's legacy of stacking the federal court system with conservatives will long outlive him.

[yoyozuna]

The great thing is that when he wins again in 2020 there is a chance Ginsburg will be gone and he will get to nominate a 3rd!!! Great days ahead!

[NorthSideSox72]

The stolen Garland seat is a sunk cost, it's over. So stick with the new rules McConnell anchored himself to, until you can make something even steven, then go with the new rules like what I suggested. Or do the 2 nominees no matter what like SS suggested. In a way, if the Senate ends up 50-50 after November (which is possible), that might be the best time to make rules like that work. But of course the scumbags in both parties in the Senate who just want to pile up as many short term wins as possible don't have the courage for such a thing.

 

[Balta1701]

8 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

The stolen Garland seat is a sunk cost, it's over. So stick with the new rules McConnell anchored himself to, until you can make something even steven, then go with the new rules like what I suggested. Or do the 2 nominees no matter what like SS suggested. In a way, if the Senate ends up 50-50 after November (which is possible), that might be the best time to make rules like that work. But of course the scumbags in both parties in the Senate who just want to pile up as many short term wins as possible don't have the courage for such a thing.

 

The Republicans come up with a rule to make sure Obama can't appoint a judge, the Republicans rescind that rule once Trump is in office, they get the Supreme Court seat and will use that to overturn one of the biggest decisions of the last 50 years, but we still need to include Democrats in the list of scumbags because that wouldn't be fair to blame only Republicans for things that Republicans did. After all, balance.

[NorthSideSox72]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

The Republicans come up with a rule to make sure Obama can't appoint a judge, the Republicans rescind that rule once Trump is in office, they get the Supreme Court seat and will use that to overturn one of the biggest decisions of the last 50 years, but we still need to include Democrats in the list of scumbags because that wouldn't be fair to blame only Republicans for things that Republicans did. After all, balance.

lol, I don't care about "balance", I am just aware enough of how this works to know that most of the people in the Senate in each party are so tied to money and re-election that they care very little for what is best for the country. If you don't want to face that reality because you are busy rooting for Team Blue, I can't help you.

I think I've made quite clear that the Garland mess was on McConnell and the GOP, and that it was sleezy, Unamerican, and one of the most cynically partisan mistakes made in US government in decades. I blame who is to blame.

 

[Balta1701]

12 minutes ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

lol, I don't care about "balance", I am just aware enough of how this works to know that most of the people in the Senate in each party are so tied to money and re-election that they care very little for what is best for the country. If you don't want to face that reality because you are busy rooting for Team Blue, I can't help you.

I think I've made quite clear that the Garland mess was on McConnell and the GOP, and that it was sleezy, Unamerican, and one of the most cynically partisan mistakes made in US government in decades. I blame who is to blame.

 

This type of complaint is exactly how one party has been able to drag itself all the way to the point of being run by Donald Trump; even when one person is clearly lying or clearly wrong, centrists always have to declare that there is a problem on both sides. You speak of Senators being so tied to money that they care very little for re-election, but you also bash Democrats even though the situation was made worse by the 5-4 Citizens United decision authored by Republicans, and even though the Democrats tried proposing things like the Disclose Act requiring disclosure of who was paying outside campaign groups and were blocked unanimously by a Republican filibuster. 

So, unless Democrats totally stop fighting for money and give the Republicans a huge advantage in elections, they get labeled as scumbags for playing on the field the Republicans constructed. This is how they use centrists to drag everyone into the hole with them, and the end result is that no matter what the next thing the Republicans do is, whether it's accepting criminal aid from a foreign country or stealing a Supreme Court seat, the Democrats have to be labeled as scumbags also. They could be honorable people and lose elections they can't compete in financially, or play on the other team's field and get labeled as scumbags and lose elections.

[Jerksticks]

Ever watch a Maxine Waters, elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders speak man? 

 

 

Just a few examples, but that’s some scary ass shit right there.  That is the opposite of human progress right?  Like a person can’t listen to that stuff and think this is good.  Or that democratic socialist that won.  Holy crap that is scary stuff.  One only has to examine the simplest of economics to realize how stupid that is, and how that would brutally hurt 100s of millions of people.  But people support it over some social issues that get better every year

[caulfield12]

Imagining a better health care system, less defense spending, a more affordable higher education system, a safer/cleaner environment, more protections for workers/wage fairness, job training/vocational tech spending....better infrastructure...and regulations to protect us from investment banks becoming too big to fail.

Crazy socialists/commies!

We should just follow that wise sage, Rep. King of Iowa.

[BigSqwert]

2 hours ago, Jerksticks said:

Ever watch a Maxine Waters, elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders speak man? 

 

 

Just a few examples, but that’s some scary ass shit right there.  That is the opposite of human progress right?  Like a person can’t listen to that stuff and think this is good.  Or that democratic socialist that won.  Holy crap that is scary stuff.  One only has to examine the simplest of economics to realize how stupid that is, and how that would brutally hurt 100s of millions of people.  But people support it over some social issues that get better every year

What exactly is your concern?

[NorthSideSox72]

3 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

This type of complaint is exactly how one party has been able to drag itself all the way to the point of being run by Donald Trump; even when one person is clearly lying or clearly wrong, centrists always have to declare that there is a problem on both sides. You speak of Senators being so tied to money that they care very little for re-election, but you also bash Democrats even though the situation was made worse by the 5-4 Citizens United decision authored by Republicans, and even though the Democrats tried proposing things like the Disclose Act requiring disclosure of who was paying outside campaign groups and were blocked unanimously by a Republican filibuster. 

So, unless Democrats totally stop fighting for money and give the Republicans a huge advantage in elections, they get labeled as scumbags for playing on the field the Republicans constructed. This is how they use centrists to drag everyone into the hole with them, and the end result is that no matter what the next thing the Republicans do is, whether it's accepting criminal aid from a foreign country or stealing a Supreme Court seat, the Democrats have to be labeled as scumbags also. They could be honorable people and lose elections they can't compete in financially, or play on the other team's field and get labeled as scumbags and lose elections.

I guess I don't consider myself a "centrist", but whatever label you want to use, go ahead. Don't care. But if you really think corruption of any kind is somehow only notably present in one party or the other, you are just not willing to see fact.

Right now, today, I have a lot more anger towards the GOP than the Democrats, because the GOP elected the most unqualified moron that either party has even run out for election in modern times. I think I've made that clear, but your focus is now, and always, always, always is, to take offense at the idea that your "side" also has issues. Not the same issues, not necessarily to the same extent in some areas (but maybe others), but still some major issues. This is just reality.

 

[caulfield12]

You can say goodbye to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Our new SCOTUS nominee has deemed it to be unconstitutional.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/07/10/scotus-could-cripple-cfpb-with-brett-kavanaugh-on-the-bench.html

[GoSox05]

12 hours ago, NorthSideSox72 said:

I guess I don't consider myself a "centrist", but whatever label you want to use, go ahead. Don't care. But if you really think corruption of any kind is somehow only notably present in one party or the other, you are just not willing to see fact.

Right now, today, I have a lot more anger towards the GOP than the Democrats, because the GOP elected the most unqualified moron that either party has even run out for election in modern times. I think I've made that clear, but your focus is now, and always, always, always is, to take offense at the idea that your "side" also has issues. Not the same issues, not necessarily to the same extent in some areas (but maybe others), but still some major issues. This is just reality.

 

What issues would you say the Democrats have that are worse than anything the Republican party is doing?

One of the most dangerous things going on right now is the "ahh both parties are bad" thing.  The Democratic party has problems and are generally inept, but the Republican Party is arguably one of the most extreme right wings parties in any democracy in the world.   Not a lot of major parties combine their nationalism and wanting to return to the gilded age. 

It's also not just Trump. 

 

Edited July 11, 2018 by GoSox05