|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The democratic process that voted in Obama also voted in the GOP members of Congress to block him at every turn.
True, though the GOP still received a minority of the votes for most of that period. In the Senate they were able to block Obama with a minority because it takes 60 votes to get most things past a filibuster... and in the House they were able to leverage their lower vote total into a majority of seats via gerrymandering.
It is only the last two years that they've 'legitimately' received more votes... though even that is a bit of a joke with the coordinated voter suppression and propaganda efforts they have undertaken to get there.
The democratic process that voted in Obama also voted in the GOP members of Congress to block him at every turn.True, though the GOP still received a minority of the votes for most of that period. In the Senate they were able to block Obama with a minority because it takes 60 votes to get most things past a filibuster... and in the House they were able to leverage their lower vote total into a majority of seats via gerrymandering.
It is only the last two years that they've 'legitimately' received more votes... though even that is a bit of a joke with the coordinated voter suppression and propaganda efforts they have undertaken to get there.
That's part of the games of power, using legal means to checkmate your opponent.
Republicans need to confirm someone to the Supreme Court not because democracy demands it but because having a functioning government is in the national interest. If voters don't punish them for putting the party's interests ahead of the national interest then the voters deserve the dysfunctional government they get.
The optimistic view would be that McCain is bluffing as a negotiating tactic, Congress will confirm *someone*, they just hope that by threatening obstruction they'll get someone more in line with their preferences. I quite understand if one is reluctant to be optimistic about the GOP's ability to get its act together...
The Republicans will counter that they are serving the national interest by holding out for someone who will continue the EXACT same path as the Late Justice Scalia. That they are serving the country by preventingan appointment by the AntiChrists Obama. Presumably, if Clinton gets elected the Anti-Christ title will be shifted to her.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope for a long line of Anti-Christs then.
It has become so. It's a problem though. The US (and many other democracies) has long run basically on gentlemen's agreements to not sabotage everything. The Senate filibuster has long been a tool to oppose occasional laws a group was vehemently against. It's only recently become a tool to wrong partisan advantage out of every vote - requiring a 60 vote majority for nearly everything the Senate does.
The Republican Senate may be able to legally choose to never vote on a Democratic nomination again, but that's not been part of the "games of power" before. It's unprecedented.
And it's breaking. One of the worst things about it is that if they pull it off, the other party needs to reciprocate - should the parallel situation follow. You can't let them block every opening for a whole term, creating more vacancies and then happily go along with letting them fill them if they come back to power. The advantage is too huge. So obstruction switches from the exception to the rule and government stops working at all.If blocking Justices is just part of the games of power, a legal means to checkmate your opponent, how about blocking all judges? How about not allowing any cabinet or other executive nominees through? Or at least specific positions, to cripple those departments.
Be careful of what you suggest? Actually they have been doing much of this. The Supreme Court isn't the only one with a vacancy caused by Republican obstructionism. they've been blocking a lot of appointments lately.
The point IS to make government stop working as long as the Democrats can get the blame for producing unsuitable candidates.
Gentleman's agreements are almost totally a thing of the past. With the polarisation of members in both parties, it's pretty much whoever has the upper hand is the one who's foot is stepping on the neck of the other.
THAT is the future of our government... for the forseeable future.
|
True, though the GOP still received a minority of the votes for most of that period. In the Senate they were able to block Obama with a minority because it takes 60 votes to get most things past a filibuster... and in the House they were able to leverage their lower vote total into a majority of seats via gerrymandering.It is only the last two years that they've 'legitimately' received more votes... though even that is a bit of a joke with the coordinated voter suppression and propaganda efforts they have undertaken to get there.
So Trump is right and the system is rigged?
How many times does socialism have to fail, bringing misery and death to millions each time, before the left gives up on it?Once would be nice. The Scandiavian countries do quite well out of it -- their standard of living is better than ours.
Of course, if you don't know the difference between "socialism" and "communism," you might be confused. But in that case, I would hope you'd have the good grace not to post about things you don't understand.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Heh.
Bwaaaaahahahahahahaaaahahahahaha...
Oh, I'm well aware, but it's not sustainable. Government not working isn't sustainable.
If we can't work on the old gentleman's agreements, then we have to change the actual rules, because we need government to work. How we do that I don't know.
I do take exception to "the polarisation of members in both parties". There is one party preaching and benefiting from the idea that government can't and doesn't work. That's probably the single most toxic thing driving the modern Republican party. It means they can break the government and still benefit from it..
I presume the Republican plan is to elect the Next Reagan. A figure which will break the Democrat's spine the way the original one did. Some no doubt believe that the Next Reagan is Trump.
Even the real Reagan wasn't the icon St. Raygun that they all want to worship.
And while Trump is the golden calf pig smelted by the GOP, he's really only pyrite-plated lead at best and radioactive orangite at worst.
I presume the Republican plan is to elect the Next Reagan. A figure which will break the Democrat's spine the way the original one did. Some no doubt believe that the Next Reagan is Trump.Oh, I'm well aware, but it's not sustainable. Government not working isn't sustainable.
If we can't work on the old gentleman's agreements, then we have to change the actual rules, because we need government to work. How we do that I don't know.
I do take exception to "the polarisation of members in both parties". There is one party preaching and benefiting from the idea that government can't and doesn't work. That's probably the single most toxic thing driving the modern Republican party. It means they can break the government and still benefit from it..Well, I suppose it's great they have a plan, even a completely inane one.
But the Sainted Next Reagan will still have to govern. Which he won't be able to do if they've broken the government. Contrary to modern Republican opinion, government actually needs to do stuff.
As the Libertarians and Constitutionalists will tell you, government is doing far more than it's supposed to do. So if they break the present one down, the new one can be built to their liking. They'll get rid of all those nasty regulatory agencies, and privatise what they want to keep.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Trump is right and the system is rigged?
There are many efforts to influence the outcome which could reasonably be described as 'rigging'. However, none of these are foolproof and indeed they still fall short in most cases. Thus, it would be inaccurate to describe the entire system as 'rigged'.
Rather, the GOP has been trying to rig the system for decades now, but they have had only partial success. Nothing compared to the days before the Voting Rights Act... though with SCOTUS having struck much of that down last year the path would've been clear for full scale rigging had Scalia not gone and died on them. Hence the need for the appointment fillibuster should Clinton win. Without voter suppression and other constitutional violations the GOP really couldn't function as a national party any more. Thus, they need to keep the Supreme Court from striking down laws that disenfranchise voters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Props to some of the CNN coverage i'm seeing where the anchors are calling the trump campaign on their BS instead of letting them say imply or hint at total BS: this election may have prompted them to grow a spine.
|
|
So if I understand you correctly (and I may not), if Hillary becomes President, baring shenanigans with the Supreme Court appointments (not just Scalia, but likely Ginsburg and Kennedy in the next 4 years) voter suppression will practically end and the Republicans will never win on the national (presidential) level again?
Also what was done to the Voting Rights Act last year. Shelby County v Holder was issued in 2013, was there something after it?
So if I understand you correctly (and I may not), if Hillary becomes President, baring shenanigans with the Supreme Court appointments (not just Scalia, but likely Ginsburg and Kennedy in the next 4 years) voter suppression will practically end and the Republicans will never win on the national (presidential) level again?
Also what was done to the Voting Rights Act last year. Shelby County v Holder was issued in 2013, was there something after it?
They can overturn decisions you know...
Voter suppression will be harder and Republicans will not be able to rely on just white votes to win nationally, which means they'll either stop courting the racist vote and find a way to appeal to African Americans and Latinos or die and be replaced by someone who will.So if I understand you correctly (and I may not), if Hillary becomes President, baring shenanigans with the Supreme Court appointments (not just Scalia, but likely Ginsburg and Kennedy in the next 4 years) voter suppression will practically end and the Republicans will never win on the national (presidential) level again?
Also what was done to the Voting Rights Act last year. Shelby County v Holder was issued in 2013, was there something after it?
More likely the second outcome. The problem is that most Republicans are pretty much esconced in gerrymandered districts, so they're not going away any time soon. Or they'll be replaced by equally hardline clones even if they do die.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, Obama's only got 3 months to become the anti Christ and destroy America. He better hurry...
|
|
So if I understand you correctly (and I may not), if Hillary becomes President, baring shenanigans with the Supreme Court appointments (not just Scalia, but likely Ginsburg and Kennedy in the next 4 years) voter suppression will practically end
Not right away. It will likely take years to stomp out all the voter suppression efforts the GOP has been pushing the past decade or so. Maybe if Clinton gets majorities in the House and Senate they can push through a new 'voting rights act' and clean things up in one fell swoop. Making election day a holiday, requiring states to allow early voting, requiring wait times no greater than 30 minutes, et cetera... there are several different ways to make it easier for people to vote.
and the Republicans will never win on the national (presidential) level again?
Bush has publicly worried that he may be the last GOP president... and that was before Trump soiled the brand. That said, the only way there is NEVER another GOP president is if the party ceases to exist. Otherwise, they'll likely change enough to get back in after a decade or two.
Also what was done to the Voting Rights Act last year. Shelby County v Holder was issued in 2013, was there something after it?
Right, sorry. Shelby was 2013. Last year was the Alabama legislature case (which actually went the right way).
More Wikifun:
Trump's son-in-law's paper on Clinton campaign staffers' efforts to create a narrative where Hillary doesn't look like a flip-flopping bigot.
WikiLeaks Exposes Clinton’s LGBT Support as Scripted Political Expediency
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
More Wikifun:
Trump's son-in-law's paper on Clinton campaign staffers' efforts to create a narrative where Hillary doesn't look like a flip-flopping bigot.
WikiLeaks Exposes Clinton’s LGBT Support as Scripted Political Expediency
as long as the law gets passed or the judge gets appointed i don't care.
Whoa man, Trump has been for LGBT rights all his life, okay? He's not a flip flopper like HRC
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know - how horrible it is that somebody decided to change their position and support civil rights instead of remaining properly obstructionist.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whoa man, Trump has been for LGBT rights all his life, okay? He's not a flip flopper like HRC
Donald Trump supports LGBT rights? Then why did he pick a Vice President who supports gay conversion therapy?
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Donald Trump supports LGBT rights? Then why did he pick a Vice President who supports gay conversion therapy?
They have the right to be tortured.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whoa man, Trump has been for LGBT rights all his life, okay? He's not a flip flopper like HRC
I take it his supporters didn't get the memo then...
Bush has publicly worried that he may be the last GOP president... and that was before Trump soiled the brand. That said, the only way there is NEVER another GOP president is if the party ceases to exist. Otherwise, they'll likely change enough to get back in after a decade or two.
Perhaps, but he probably won't be alive that long to see it. But anyone who thinks that Clinton has it sewn up forgets that we still have some time before Election Day and Wikkileak drops are a daily thing now... and presumably Julian Assange is saving the best for last.
They can overturn decisions you know...So if I understand you correctly (and I may not), if Hillary becomes President, baring shenanigans with the Supreme Court appointments (not just Scalia, but likely Ginsburg and Kennedy in the next 4 years) voter suppression will practically end and the Republicans will never win on the national (presidential) level again?
Also what was done to the Voting Rights Act last year. Shelby County v Holder was issued in 2013, was there something after it?
Not on an evenly split vote which is probably what we would get if the question were to come up now.
and presumably Julian Assange is saving the best for last.
Then he's an idiot. Early voting (which heavily favors Democratic candidates) is already underway. If he is saving "the best for last" then he leaves less time to substantiate the leaks. Which will come into play because many of his "leaks" have been found to be altered.
If he really had something damaging it would already be in play. The fact that nothing substantive is known implies that he is just blowing smoke. I seriously doubt Julian Assange will really play a major role in this election.
and presumably Julian Assange is saving the best for last.Then he's an idiot. Early voting (which heavily favors Democratic candidates) is already underway. If he is saving "the best for last" then he leaves less time to substantiate the leaks. Which will come into play because many of his "leaks" have been found to be altered.
If he really had something damaging it would already be in play. The fact that nothing substantive is known implies that he is just blowing smoke. I seriously doubt Julian Assange will really play a major role in this election.
Substantian isn't a major requirement with the Trump crowd. Every accusation is new fuel for them, things like evidence, and proof, are needless luxuries because they are convinced that she is guilty of more crimes than they can imagine. So even if she isn't guilty of what the leaks purport, she should be punished for it anyway as she's getting away with something worse they don't know about.
Presumably saving the best for last is meant to give the Clinton team less time to defend against it.
Oh.. and speaking of Early Voting... you know that Republican office that got firebombed, and the local Democrats chipped in to rebuild? Turns out that they were hanging on to the local early voting ballots for the district.
Perhaps, but he probably won't be alive that long to see it. But anyone who thinks that Clinton has it sewn up forgets that we still have some time before Election Day and Wikkileak drops are a daily thing now... and presumably Julian Assange is saving the best for last.
Bush has publicly worried that he may be the last GOP president... and that was before Trump soiled the brand. That said, the only way there is NEVER another GOP president is if the party ceases to exist. Otherwise, they'll likely change enough to get back in after a decade or two.Assange's wikileaks drops are making everyone I've spoken to them about support Hillary more not less. So far they've been pretty full of things that make me think she'll be a great president.
I also do not understand the hate for changing positions in politics. Flip-flopping should mean changing your position based on who is listening or changing often, not changing your position once. Yes Hilary was anti-LGBT, then was pro-LGBT. So far that's one change, and one I support as I went through it myself growing up in the Deep South.
Also pretty onboard with Big Norse Wolf above. I don't really care what her private beliefs are if she fights for her campaign promises.
If you're determined to put someone in a bad light no matter which position you support, then you highlight their change of heart as an example of opportunism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yup.
If you change your mind on something, you're a flip-flopping opportunist who can't be trusted to hold a position and is therefore unelectable, and should be replaced by someone who's "truer" to the party's values.
If you hold fast to your position, you're too stubborn to compromise and unable to come to an agreement like a reasonable person, which makes you unelectable and someone who should be replaced by somebody who can negotiate with others and get stuff done.
If you're a member of the opposing party, anyway, 'cuz hey - lack of seniority by constantly having new congressmen does interesting things to the committees (when they're actually doing stuff, as opposed to taking off early to fundraise)...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really is a shame there aren't any nationally prominent politicians who've been staunch LGBTQ supporters for 25+ years.
Depends what you mean by 'prominent'.
Bernie Sanders probably wouldn't have been considered 'prominent' two years ago, but I'd say he qualifies now... and he's been a LGBTQ supporter since at least 1983.
|
I only (lol) want congress and the house dismantled and remade so they have term limits and no life-time paycheck. Who is gonna do that? No one. If I go over budget I have to not eat or pay certain bills until I get more cash, why doesn't the government need to meet their budget and be balanced? Who is gonna change that? Honestly I know some say they would, but the real answer is no one. Our system is broken, the majority's opinion is not being acted on and our representatives all work for corporate best interests and not our own. Our FDA is corrupt, our CDC is corrupt, our EPA is corrupt, and every place we could turn to change the existing corruption is corrupt. Our system is broken. I can't see a way to fix it, can't even fathom how to start. We need to remove money from politics and remove corporate ownership of political figures, but what politician would want to remove wads of cash from his pockets.
and presumably Julian Assange is saving the best for last.Then he's an idiot. Early voting (which heavily favors Democratic candidates) is already underway. If he is saving "the best for last" then he leaves less time to substantiate the leaks. Which will come into play because many of his "leaks" have been found to be altered.
If he really had something damaging it would already be in play. The fact that nothing substantive is known implies that he is just blowing smoke. I seriously doubt Julian Assange will really play a major role in this election.
Substantian isn't a major requirement with the Trump crowd. Every accusation is new fuel for them, things like evidence, and proof, are needless luxuries because they are convinced that she is guilty of more crimes than they can imagine. So even if she isn't guilty of what the leaks purport, she should be punished for it anyway as she's getting away with something worse they don't know about.
Presumably saving the best for last is meant to give the Clinton team less time to defend against it.
Oh.. and speaking of Early Voting... you know that Republican office that got firebombed, and the local Democrats chipped in to rebuild? Turns out that they were hanging on to the local early voting ballots for the district.
The Trump crowd is the Trump crowd. They aren't in play anyway. It doesn't matter what they think about wikileaks. There is absolutely no chance they were going to switch to a Clinton vote.
So that leaves "true" undecided voters. These unicorns are so fleeting that it is unlikely they will come into major play at this point anyway. But even if they do at least some of them will be looking for actual information not the tainted rantings of Assange.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Over the course of this election cycle I've decided that indecisive voters is a better description than undecided voters.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Heh.
Bwaaaaahahahahahahaaaahahahahaha...
This is why I don't listen to you anymore.
Well, one of the reasons why.
Hopefully that is useful information to you.
Pray tell, what are the other reasons?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pray tell, what are the other reasons?Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Heh.
Bwaaaaahahahahahahaaaahahahahaha...
This is why I don't listen to you anymore.
Well, one of the reasons why.
Hopefully that is useful information to you.
Uh, maybe that's a conversation that should be conducted in PM, just so the thread isn't locked?
If I go over budget I have to not eat or pay certain bills until I get more cash, why doesn't the government need to meet their budget and be balanced?
Because the government, broadly speaking, creates money. It's one of their jobs. There's no need for them to make sure that they bring in as much money as they spend, because they can always conjure more into existence. (And, in fact, it's very good for the economy for them to be continually conjuring more money, because it means that money keeps moving.)
Or, more tersely, because macroeconomics is different in a lot of nonintuitive ways from microeconomics. Running a government is not very similar to running a household.
Are you familiar with the baby-sitting co-op model of macroeconomics? You might want to look at that before you start ranting about macroeconomics.
Uh, maybe that's a conversation that should be conducted in PM, just so the thread isn't locked?Pray tell, what are the other reasons?Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Heh.
Bwaaaaahahahahahahaaaahahahahaha...
This is why I don't listen to you anymore.
Well, one of the reasons why.
Hopefully that is useful information to you.
Fine by me, but this REALLY should be adressed to TOZ first, since he brought it up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whoa man, Trump has been for LGBT rights all his life, okay? He's not a flip flopper like HRCAlso.
Ah crap, Poe's Law.
I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to grill people who are over 50 (or even older at all) for being anti-lgbt at some point and then changing their stance. It sucks but a great deal of Americans were not for LGBT rights even 20 years ago. However, what matters is where they stand now.