Your new Supreme Court nominee is....

[illinilaw08]

They need to get over themselves, just like the Jill Stein voters. Maybe one day there will be a different system, but for now its generally choice a or b, there is no magical c candidate behind the mystery door.

 

This. The far left has never consistently voted D - they have voted Green or stayed home (maybe others have a different definition of the far left than I do). The far Right is one of the most consistent Republican voting blocs in primaries and mid-terms.

[Soxbadger]

Oh and after a lot of thought, I think that the Democrats should force the nuclear option. It may lose this battle, but it could start a war between congress and Trump, and that is really what we need.

[brett05]

Want to make a gentlemen's bet that the Repubs get crushed if Trump keeps this up?

Keeps his campaign promises something that no one really does because he's not a politician? Sure.

[illinilaw08]

I think the public spoke and if the Democrats keep up politics as usual, they are going to be voted out in record numbers.

 

Ummmm... what? The Republicans literally obstructed Obama for 8 years and it did not really seem to impact their viability on election day. But that's been said a bunch of times to you in this thread already. I suspect that this post will also fall upon deaf ears.

[StrangeSox]

*24% of the public

 

and more people voted for Dem Senators than Rep Senators.

 

Yeah, that's the undemocratic system we have, but if you're going to make appeals to "the public" they aren't as strong when you routinely receive fewer actual votes but win through an archaic system.

[brett05]

For whatever extremely stupid reasons they chose, Democrats didn't seem to push this at all and just assumed the electorate would take it into consideration.

And they did. They liked the idea that they could have their voice heard and it was so.

[bmags]

I think the tea party tactics handwringing is overrated. This groundswell isn't to pull party left in policy (though it will) as much as pull it from accommodation politics.

 

The dems wanted to focus on a few appointees to try to spotlight them and use that focus to pull repub support. The base rightly realized that's stupid and won't work and instead was forcing the party to not have their name on any of the bad candidates, to fight against the crazy policies and fight a president they find to be dangerous.

 

If the dems actually tried to prevent a debt limit raising and destroy the country to make Trump look bad I'd be furious. But to play nice and act like this is any other president is wrong. Republican defections need to happen and it won't happen any sooner if you give them bipartisan cover for their initiatives.

[StrangeSox]

Oh and after a lot of thought, I think that the Democrats should force the nuclear option. It may lose this battle, but it could start a war between congress and Trump, and that is really what we need.

 

In the short term, losing the filibuster would obviously suck. But I've said for years that it's another unnecessary veto point in a system full of veto points, is a historical accident rather than something that was intentionally created, and ultimately should be abolished.

[southsider2k5]

I think the public spoke and if the Democrats keep up politics as usual, they are going to be voted out in record numbers.

 

Eh. 46% of the public didn't speak. It takes very little of a move of people off of the sidelines and into the D's camp to remake things in the opposite direction. The one thing I have been blown away with since election day isn't how upset the left wing is, because they are always in meltdown over any Republican. This is the same group that labeled so many candidates as right wingers, they had to come up with a new term for actual right wingers because no one really cared about the term anymore.

 

No, what has amazed me since election day is how pissed off and insulted the middle of the country is right now. In all of the elections I have ever been through, I have never seen anything like this. That is even including Bush/Gore in 2000 where the left squealed about a stolen election ad naseum. Even then the middle just wanted to get past it and move on. That is the opposite case with this election. I have never seen so many pissed off people. If this sentiment lasts in even a fraction of its current form, even Walter Mondale is going to laugh about the electoral slaughter.

[brett05]

Ummmm... what? The Republicans literally obstructed Obama for 8 years and it did not really seem to impact their viability on election day. But that's been said a bunch of times to you in this thread already. I suspect that this post will also fall upon deaf ears.

They literally did not. They bent over backwards and refused to use the power of the purse. The color of the sky in my world is blue, and yours?

[StrangeSox]

I think the tea party tactics handwringing is overrated. This groundswell isn't to pull party left in policy (though it will) as much as pull it from accommodation politics.

 

The dems wanted to focus on a few appointees to try to spotlight them and use that focus to pull repub support. The base rightly realized that's stupid and won't work and instead was forcing the party to not have their name on any of the bad candidates, to fight against the crazy policies and fight a president they find to be dangerous.

 

If the dems actually tried to prevent a debt limit raising and destroy the country to make Trump look bad I'd be furious. But to play nice and act like this is any other president is wrong. Republican defections need to happen and it won't happen any sooner if you give them bipartisan cover for their initiatives.

 

Look how well that same tactic has worked for the GOP and their deliberate strategy to deny Obama even a single Republican vote on the ACA no matter how many outreaches to Snowe and Grassley they made.

[southsider2k5]

*24% of the public

 

and more people voted for Dem Senators than Rep Senators.

 

Yeah, that's the undemocratic system we have, but if you're going to make appeals to "the public" they aren't as strong when you routinely receive fewer actual votes but win through an archaic system.

 

But of course you know that the Senate system isn't supposed to create equal representation.

[StrangeSox]

They literally did not. They bent over backwards and refused to use the power of the purse. The color of the sky in my world is blue, and yours?

 

guys keep in mind that brett has also said in the past that he thinks the Supreme Court has been liberal for years/decades. Anything short of 100% of his policies is not considered conservative, anything short of 100% obstruction is not considered obstruction (when Republicans are doing it).

[Soxbadger]

In the short term, losing the filibuster would obviously suck. But I've said for years that it's another unnecessary veto point in a system full of veto points, is a historical accident rather than something that was intentionally created, and ultimately should be abolished.

 

Even if it was an accident, I think it has provided an interesting mechanism to try and stop the majority. Ultimately this type of stuff is personal opinion. I think that there is some benefit to a govt that has a high threshold to institute change. While sometimes it is frustrating because change may not happen as quickly as we want, but that also slows change we may dislike.

 

At the end of the day the country is better off when it doesnt drastically change course in short periods of time. Instability is bad for everyone, which is why status quo is sometimes okay, even if its not exactly what I want.

[brett05]

Eh. 46% of the public didn't speak. It takes very little of a move of people off of the sidelines and into the D's camp to remake things in the opposite direction. The one thing I have been blown away with since election day isn't how upset the left wing is, because they are always in meltdown over any Republican. This is the same group that labeled so many candidates as right wingers, they had to come up with a new term for actual right wingers because no one really cared about the term anymore.

 

No, what has amazed me since election day is how pissed off and insulted the middle of the country is right now. In all of the elections I have ever been through, I have never seen anything like this. That is even including Bush/Gore in 2000 where the left squealed about a stolen election ad naseum. Even then the middle just wanted to get past it and move on. That is the opposite case with this election. I have never seen so many pissed off people. If this sentiment lasts in even a fraction of its current form, even Walter Mondale is going to laugh about the electoral slaughter.

I have no idea what middle you speak of. The middle of the country, thrilled. The middle class. Happy. At least in my circles.

[StrangeSox]

But of course you know that the Senate system isn't supposed to create equal representation.

 

I know and thought I was acknowledging that there, and I think it's a garbage relic from a political system that predates the industrial revolution, but that's an argument for a different thread.

[southsider2k5]

They literally did not. They bent over backwards and refused to use the power of the purse. The color of the sky in my world is blue, and yours?

 

Thankfully they have this wonderful tool called google in the 21st century.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...hutdown_of_2013

[StrangeSox]

Even if it was an accident, I think it has provided an interesting mechanism to try and stop the majority. Ultimately this type of stuff is personal opinion. I think that there is some benefit to a govt that has a high threshold to institute change. While sometimes it is frustrating because change may not happen as quickly as we want, but that also slows change we may dislike.

 

At the end of the day the country is better off when it doesnt drastically change course in short periods of time. Instability is bad for everyone, which is why status quo is sometimes okay, even if its not exactly what I want.

 

Historically, the biggest uses of the filibuster have been to halt civil rights legislation. It was a pretty rare thing until the 2000's.

[brett05]

guys keep in mind that brett has also said in the past that he thinks the Supreme Court has been liberal for years/decades. Anything short of 100% of his policies is not considered conservative, anything short of 100% obstruction is not considered obstruction (when Republicans are doing it).

Again, keep ignoring your democratic VP Biden.

Keep believing that anything that isn't 100% liberal is conservative.

 

[brett05]

Thankfully they have this wonderful tool called google in the 21st century.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States...hutdown_of_2013

Way to ignore all the times they passed on that idea.

 

Are there any intellectually honest liberals? Any?

[illinilaw08]

I think the tea party tactics handwringing is overrated. This groundswell isn't to pull party left in policy (though it will) as much as pull it from accommodation politics.

 

The dems wanted to focus on a few appointees to try to spotlight them and use that focus to pull repub support. The base rightly realized that's stupid and won't work and instead was forcing the party to not have their name on any of the bad candidates, to fight against the crazy policies and fight a president they find to be dangerous.

 

If the dems actually tried to prevent a debt limit raising and destroy the country to make Trump look bad I'd be furious. But to play nice and act like this is any other president is wrong. Republican defections need to happen and it won't happen any sooner if you give them bipartisan cover for their initiatives.

 

Well, and that was basically my point. If the far left is mad about the way the Democrats have acted over the last 2 weeks, as Reddy stated, then they have two options - get involved with the Democrats to try to pull them left, or continue to make the road easier for Trump and the Republicans (third party, staying home).

 

I'm not sure the second paragraph is right, however. We saw 2 Republicans defections on Devos. And there's a chance that somebody else will follow suit. Even if the Dems just succeed in knocking out Devos, they have accomplished something.

[southsider2k5]

I have no idea what middle you speak of. The middle of the country, thrilled. The middle class. Happy. At least in my circles.

 

Which is why Donald Trump was inaugurated with the lowest approval ratings in HISTORY.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/203198/presiden...nald-trump.aspx

 

Donald Trump's Presidential Job Approval Ratings

Approval rating Dates

%

Most recent weekly average 45 Jan 20-29, 2017 Term average to date 45 Jan 20, 2017-present High point, weekly average 45 Jan 20-29, 2017 Low point, weekly average 45 Jan 20-29, 2017 High point, three-day average 46 twice; last on Jan 23-25, 2017 Low point, three-day average 42 twice; last on Jan 26-28, 2017 Gallup

 

Donald Trump's Presidential Job Approval Ratings -- Historical Comparisons Average for U.S. presidents

53 1938-2017 Average for elected presidents' first quarter

63 various Other presidents in February of first year Barack Obama 64 Feb 2009

George W. Bush 59 Feb 2001

Bill Clinton 55 Feb 1993

George H.W. Bush 63 Feb 1989

Ronald Reagan 53 Feb 1981

Jimmy Carter 69 Feb 1977

Richard Nixon 60 Feb 1969

John Kennedy 72 Feb 1961

Dwight Eisenhower 68 Feb 1953

[illinilaw08]

Way to ignore all the times they passed on that idea.

 

Are there any intellectually honest liberals? Any?

 

I think my favorite thing about Brett as a poster is that he keeps calling SS2K a liberal.

Edited February 2, 2017 by illinilaw08

[southsider2k5]

Way to ignore all the times they passed on that idea.

 

Are there any intellectually honest liberals? Any?

 

Way to ignore all of the times they didn't.

 

You are literally posting in a thread that is here because the GOP engaged in the longest single obstruction of a Supreme Court candidate in the entire 241 year history of the United States of America.

 

You can't be anymore dishonest to say otherwise.

[bmags]

Even if it was an accident, I think it has provided an interesting mechanism to try and stop the majority. Ultimately this type of stuff is personal opinion. I think that there is some benefit to a govt that has a high threshold to institute change. While sometimes it is frustrating because change may not happen as quickly as we want, but that also slows change we may dislike.

 

At the end of the day the country is better off when it doesnt drastically change course in short periods of time. Instability is bad for everyone, which is why status quo is sometimes okay, even if its not exactly what I want.

 

I agree with this. I want dems to obstruct everything they can during trump, but long term realistically the party that wins electoins should get a chance to implement policy. This whole "party wins on CHANGE" but then can't institute much, then gets voted out so that a group can actually do something, only they can't, is getting old.

 

but that's in normal world. We are in Trump world now, so anything that makes him ineffective is good, because when he is effective we end up with mass chaos in airports and grandmothers dying away from their families.