Trump Part VIII - Page 18 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-03-2017, 04:31 PM   #341
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I am honestly dumbfounded by Senate Democrats right now. They have literally ZERO leverage here. The Republicans are going to pull the nuclear option if they are forced to. This is a dumb show to appeal to a base seems to be close to start primary-ing out people, Tea Party-style. The last thing we need is the left seriously developing that sort of base.
Are you serious?

They should absolutely filibuster. The filibuster is as good as dead. Harry Reid was going to use it himself (if Hillary's SCOTUS nominee was being treated the same way). May as well get rid of it so that you can have governance.
__________________

anitram is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 04:41 PM   #342
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,076
Local Time: 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Are you serious?

They should absolutely filibuster. The filibuster is as good as dead. Harry Reid was going to use it himself (if Hillary's SCOTUS nominee was being treated the same way). May as well get rid of it so that you can have governance.
I really don't understand this logic. If we both agree that the filibuster is dead if Democrats filibuster now, then what is the point of even bothering? Just to show off how angry we are? Democrats do that a lot and it accomplishes nothing.

There are at least some Republicans who are skeptical about pulling the nuclear option lever, because it could come to bite them later. But they'll probably go for it under this circumstance, when Democrats are are filibustering someone who is, while conservative (what else would you expect for a Scalia replacement from a GOP president?), honestly quite intelligent and reasonable.

I get that Garland was mistreated. I don't like it either. But the past is the past, and I'd like to maintain the filibuster for as long as possible. I have no desire to throw it away when it has a 0% chance of being successful. If, before 2020, Trump gets another chance at this, there's at least some chance that Republicans will go along with voting against the nuclear option and force Trump's hand towards a less-ridiculous nominee. You may think it's a low chance, but it's a hell of a lot higher than the chance of the filibuster working in this case.

I want the filibuster to be a tool for the minority to block the most extreme of the other party's nominees, and actions in general. Yeah, the GOP has spent the better part of the last decade abusing it. I get it. But the long-term effects of the Democrats doing the same won't help anyone.
__________________

digitize is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 04:48 PM   #343
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,205
Local Time: 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy Fizz View Post
Biden might have had a better shot than H but is also very flawed. I like JB, but he is a loudmouth and tends to get himself in trouble. Repubs would have used his own history against him, and it would not have been pretty.
Oh, a loud mouth, eh? How terrible that would be for a candidate.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 04-03-2017, 04:49 PM   #344
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Look at the filibuster historically - it has been used/abused almost exclusively by the Republicans. What is it that you think the Democrats are losing by giving it up? Some unicorn off-chance that they'll use it in the future AND that the Republicans won't go nuclear anyway? This is no way to govern.

I am all for tools of the minority but this one has not functioned for a long time. So now you just have it held over your head every time.

Let's save it for the next nominee? Really? You are going to trust that they will put in somebody reasonable and if they don't that they won't just go nuclear then? I mean, I kind of feel like we are living on different planets here.

This isn't about some sort of revenge for me. I wasn't even sold on Garland, he was bland and nothing to get excited about. I just don't understand this living in la-la land as if the filibuster is a magical tool keeping us from Republican obstructionism and oppression. THEY are the ones who love to use the filibuster, what's it to the Dems (who are generally unwilling to use it anyway) if it exists or not?

Get on with governing. Maybe you face pain during Trump, but politics is cyclical.
anitram is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 04:51 PM   #345
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,076
Local Time: 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Look at the filibuster historically - it has been used/abused almost exclusively by the Republicans. What is it that you think the Democrats are losing by giving it up? Some unicorn off-chance that they'll use it in the future AND that the Republicans won't go nuclear anyway? This is no way to govern.

I am all for tools of the minority but this one has not functioned for a long time. So now you just have it held over your head every time.

Let's save it for the next nominee? Really? You are going to trust that they will put in somebody reasonable and if they don't that they won't just go nuclear then? I mean, I kind of feel like we are living on different planets here.

This isn't about some sort of revenge for me. I wasn't even sold on Garland, he was bland and nothing to get excited about. I just don't understand this living in la-la land as if the filibuster is a magical tool keeping us from Republican obstructionism and oppression. THEY are the ones who love to use the filibuster, what's it to the Dems (who are generally unwilling to use it anyway) if it exists or not?

Get on with governing. Maybe you face pain during Trump, but politics is cyclical.
I'm just trying to think in probabilities here. I think you and I can both agree that the filibuster has literally zero chance of actually working against Gorsuch, right? So, unless it has a downright negative chance of working against the (potentially much worse, and much more impactful) Trump nominee, what possible incentive do we have to use the filibuster now, other than senseless projection of anger?
digitize is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 04:59 PM   #346
ONE
love, blood, life
 
digitize's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: New York / Dallas / Austin
Posts: 14,076
Local Time: 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Oh, a loud mouth, eh? How terrible that would be for a candidate.
Lol.
digitize is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:03 PM   #347
War Child
 
Iggy Fizz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: A planet far, far away
Posts: 718
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
Oh, a loud mouth, eh? How terrible that would be for a candidate.
agree but that is beside the point.

If the Dems had fielded a better candidate, instead of defaulting to the all powerful (and vindictive) Clinton machine, we would likely not have this total asshole in the WH today.
Iggy Fizz is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:07 PM   #348
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 09:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
with a 36% approval rating? after only like 6 weeks in office?
Yes, because the GOP voters will still turn out for their candidate, no matter how shitty or bad. Dubya didn't have great approval ratings in 2004, and he beat Kerry.

There's still time for the Dems to come up with someone who can satisfy progressive/centrist in the party, but considering how quick those on the left turned on someone like Booker....I don't see how this party comes together.

Even in 2020, there will still be cries of "DNC is crooked!!!" Maybe I'll be surprised, but I will not be surprised that Trump could drop to 20% approval rating and still pull in the same voting numbers he did in 2016
BEAL is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:08 PM   #349
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
At this point, Trump wins again in 2020.

Until the Dems show they can unite as a party, and their base can actually get out and vote....there's no chance.


You have 36% approval. You find someone who can run in the middle states that Dems have won in the past.

There's no hatred driving the right to get out this time. Honestly, unless Trump competently does a 180, it's an easy recipe for a win.
BVS is online now  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:09 PM   #350
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,724
Local Time: 03:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
with a 36% approval rating? after only like 6 weeks in office?
On one hand, I agree with your point here, but on the other hand, I hesitate to completely underestimate Trump. People did that in the past, and evidently, it didn't work well for them.

Now, if we're lucky enough to see him impeached in the near future, however, then obviously that would spare us this 2020 worry. Which would be one thing to look forward to.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:12 PM   #351
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 04:55 PM
Or you can implement a test that eliminates all votes from voters susceptible to actual fake news. You'll never have a Republican president ever again
BVS is online now  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:12 PM   #352
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,471
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
Yes, because the GOP voters will still turn out for their candidate, no matter how shitty or bad. Dubya didn't have great approval ratings in 2004, and he beat Kerry.



There's still time for the Dems to come up with someone who can satisfy progressive/centrist in the party, but considering how quick those on the left turned on someone like Booker....I don't see how this party comes together.



Even in 2020, there will still be cries of "DNC is crooked!!!" Maybe I'll be surprised, but I will not be surprised that Trump could drop to 20% approval rating and still pull in the same voting numbers he did in 2016



I'm sure the Russians will be hard at work playing the leftist base as unwitting tools in yet another disinformation campaign.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:27 PM   #353
War Child
 
Iggy Fizz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: A planet far, far away
Posts: 718
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
"lousy" -- define how
How about >40% of eligible voters did not turn out. That lousy enough?

Or the fact that Dem voters were in particular not highly motivated to vote for Hillary.

Over 90 Million Eligible Voters Didn’t Vote in 2016 | Heavy.com

What does voter turnout tell us about the 2016 election? | PBS NewsHour

Democratic Voter Turnout Is Down 26 Percent | The Daily Caller
Iggy Fizz is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:29 PM   #354
Blue Crack Distributor
 
bono_212's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 83,672
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy Fizz View Post
agree but that is beside the point.

If the Dems had fielded a better candidate, instead of defaulting to the all powerful (and vindictive) Clinton machine, we would likely not have this total asshole in the WH today.
Oh yay, another one of these posters.
__________________
bono_212 is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:34 PM   #355
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,471
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iggy Fizz View Post
How about >40% of eligible voters did not turn out. That lousy enough?

Or the fact that Dem voters were in particular not highly motivated to vote for Hillary.

Over 90 Million Eligible Voters Didn’t Vote in 2016 | Heavy.com

What does voter turnout tell us about the 2016 election? | PBS NewsHour

Democratic Voter Turnout Is Down 26 Percent | The Daily Caller



I'd warn against Daily Caller articles of any sort, but I'm not sure this can qualify as "lousy" turnout, especially if you compare turnout to other elections, and especially elections that don't have Barack Obama on the ticket.

I think Hillary was a solid candidate, with a few glaring weaknesses. I'm not sure any D candidate would have done substantially better, although we'll never know. She had many weaknesses, and strengths that now no one talks about because she lost.

I just don't think the loss (by winning by 3m votes) can be attributed to only her failures. And when we do that ("she should have campaigned in Wisconsin") we seem to agree that, yes, she kind of did win, and we also overlook things like the GOP suppression of the black vote, especially in WI, NC, and PA.

The big point, though, is that the D's can't sit around and wait for another BHO to materialize. He's a once-in-a-generation politician. They need a deeper bench, and that may be a more solidly Left candidate.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:35 PM   #356
War Child
 
Iggy Fizz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: A planet far, far away
Posts: 718
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bono_212 View Post
Oh yay, another one of these posters.
yay, another one who cannot abide an opinion that runs counter to their own...

let's demonize them.

Pitchforks? Check. Torches? Check....

hilarious.
Iggy Fizz is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:38 PM   #357
War Child
 
Iggy Fizz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: A planet far, far away
Posts: 718
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I'd warn against Daily Caller articles of any sort, but I'm not sure this can qualify as "lousy" turnout, especially if you compare turnout to other elections, and especially elections that don't have Barack Obama on the ticket.

I think Hillary was a solid candidate, with a few glaring weaknesses. I'm not sure any D candidate would have done substantially better, although we'll never know. She had many weaknesses, and strengths that now no one talks about because she lost.

I just don't think the loss (by winning by 3m votes) can be attributed to only her failures. And when we do that ("she should have campaigned in Wisconsin") we seem to agree that, yes, she kind of did win, and we also overlook things like the GOP suppression of the black vote, especially in WI, NC, and PA.

The big point, though, is that the D's can't sit around and wait for another BHO to materialize. He's a once-in-a-generation politician. They need a deeper bench, and that may be a more solidly Left candidate.
I partly agree with you, except on the assessment of Hillary.

I think this quote (PBS) addresses your points actually...

While Clinton is leading the popular vote by more than 1.5 million over Trump as of Sunday, she trails President Obama’s 2012 totals by more than 2 million ballots — a chasm that may have cost her the election, said David Becker, co-founder of the Center for Election and Innovation and Research.


“Several million voters didn’t come out to vote,” Becker said. “Which is telling me that this idea of the Trump wave, a huge number of voters shifting over to Trump, is certainly not the story.”
Nationally, the number of people who voted for Trump were only slightly ahead of those who supported the last Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, in 2012.


But Becker said that while turnout in purple states like Florida and Pennsylvania had a slight uptick this year, at least 19 other states saw lower turnout rates compared with 2012, a scenario that is antithetical to presidential-year voting that tends to increase each cycle when an incumbent is not a part of the race.
Iggy Fizz is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:43 PM   #358
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,471
Local Time: 05:55 PM
Trump Part VIII

I wonder why Dems were less enthusiastic. Certainly, there's missing Obama magic. But there's also voter suppression, misogyny, the Comey letter, and a group of people who were convinced by a few Russian-leaked emails that their preferred candidate was screwed over by the DNC.

I also think the nations R turnout is misleading to look at. In states like VA and CA, many traditionally R voters voted for Hillary. But I believe turnout in rural white areas was higher and more monolithic -- white voters voted like an ethnic minority.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 05:54 PM   #359
War Child
 
Iggy Fizz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: A planet far, far away
Posts: 718
Local Time: 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
I wonder why Dems were less enthusiastic. Certainly, there's Obama magic. But there's also voter suppression, misogyny, the Comey letter, and a group of people who were convinced by a few Russian-leaked emails that their preferred candidate was screwed over by the DNC.
I hear you, but honestly the blame rests on the candidate. If you look at the Democratic turnout numbers, they were in decline during the primaries as well. All due to lack of enthusiasm for the presumptive nominee. The numbers rebounded somewhat but that was only because of the pro-Bernie/anti-Hillary factions who infused all the energy into the process. Those same people then stayed home on November 8.

Cant blame that on Comey, or the Russians, etc.
Iggy Fizz is offline  
Old 04-03-2017, 06:05 PM   #360
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
voter suppression, misogyny,

These two.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
__________________

martha is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×