Trump Tracker Too (2 Trump 2 Tracker) (2 Viewers)

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

The football board had the very useful Daily Trump Tracker thread, which was a good place to briefly discuss the latest ridiculous thing that might have ended 97% of prior Presidential administrations even if it didn't necessarily justify an entire thread devoted to it in 2017-2019 (because of the sheer volume of these things). Since I don't see anything like that here already, I'll add one myself.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Packing vs. expanding is semantics. As noted it would only lead to packing (or expansion) any time the other party had the opportunity to do so in an endless cycle. D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood are 'safer' moves despite conservative pundits saying 'if you do that we'll just split Texas in two, etc' (also, pundit Mark Levin seems to think American Samoa would be conservative but who is to say?). Problem with that is a state has to be willing to divide itself by way of referendum. As recently as last year, D.C. passed a referendum in favor of statehood. Puerto Rico has had a bit more mixed results but perhaps after the Hurricane Maria fiasco the citizens would view statehood as a path to not being ignored by the federal government. I'm also not entirely clear on how Senators and Congressman from newly minted states would join -- immediate election or interim appointment by the governor and then election? Puerto Rico's current governor is a Republican (although she only just switched in 2019).

 

[coldseat]

I am not sure there's a perfect answer for Dems here. I think they have to make crystal clear to the public that the only appropriate response to this raw power grab is to take drastic counter-action if/when they re-take the majority (expanding court size, etc.). I think they can participate in the vetting process if they communicate this clearly enough, and the optics of that seem slightly better than the alternative of not showing up. As we saw with impeachment, Rs are going to criticize and mock whatever they do and, in the words of Ms. Apple, keep living this day like the next will never come.

For what it's worth, the idea of packing SCOTUS once in power is abhorrent to me, but I don't see what other realistic options Dems have if they retake control of the Senate.

But the Dems aren't even doing that. Biden is refusing to commit to any type of concrete response if the Republicans go through with this. As soon as they participate and ask questions in nomination hearing, the focus is going to switch from whether this process and raw power grab that Republicans are doing is to hypocritical and extreme to whether or not Barrett is qualified. The Dems will question her, and yeah they'll score some points with there base for her religious zealotry, abortion stance and lack of experience, but that won't really connect with people on the right or independents. Those are the same old arguments they make for every republican SC nominee.

In the end, all they will look like is the party the concedes and loses. How is that going to energize anybody to vote for them? There's a point that things come to where you have to take a hard line stance. You can't always be in the middle trying to negotiate with people who have no intention of negotiating. If not now, after all that's happened these last 4 years, then when?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

The better strategy is to not scare moderates (with talk of packing the Court) than to energize the base. If any Democrat who follows the Court and its importance is still reluctant on whether they should go out and vote for Biden after the events of recent days... well... that's on them.

 

[Booker]

"...Your face it was apricot..."

 

[LA - L.A.]

Packing vs. expanding is semantics.

Only if one doesn't understand the contextual difference between the two. Expanding may be necessary if one wants to pack the court, but one can expand the court without "packing" it.

If expanding the Supreme Court is the same as "packing" the Supreme Court, then the precedent for "packing the court" already exists.

If "packing the court" inherently and ultimately leads to a constant retaliatory expansion of the court, then why hasn't that happened since the previous expansions to the court?

The Supreme Court has already been expanded, are as some say "packed", on more than one occasion. That fact logically and empirically undermines the fear of starting off an endless cycle of retaliation and exposes it as irrational.

If one doesn't ever stand up to bullies, bullies keep escalating their bullying. If one doesn't stand up to the corrupt, the corrupt keep escalating their corruption.

McConnell and his ilk will continue to escalate their power grabbing. They've been doing it for over 40 years. The idea that if the rest of us behave decently, then so will they is naive at best. They are going to keep grabbing for power regardless of what anyone else does and they will continue to make up lame, hypocritical excuses for their actions.

It's easy to argue against compensating for ill gotten gains, when one likes the gains that were made, but by not pushing back and for a correction against power grabbing, one is passively endorsing and enabling those power grabs.

 

[TaylorB]

But the Dems aren't even doing that. Biden is refusing to commit to any type of concrete response if the Republicans go through with this. As soon as they participate and ask questions in nomination hearing, the focus is going to switch from whether this process and raw power grab that Republicans are doing is to hypocritical and extreme to whether or not Barrett is qualified. The Dems will question her, and yeah they'll score some points with there base for her religious zealotry, abortion stance and lack of experience, but that won't really connect with people on the right or independents. Those are the same old arguments they make for every republican SC nominee.

In the end, all they will look like is the party the concedes and loses. How is that going to energize anybody to vote for them? There's a point that things come to where you have to take a hard line stance. You can't always be in the middle trying to negotiate with people who have no intention of negotiating. If not now, after all that's happened these last 4 years, then when?

This is definitely a reasonable point of view. Like I said, I don't know if there's any perfect play for Dems here. I think we agree that it's critical for the Dems to highlight just how egregious this is, and not showing up for the confirmation hearings is certainly one way to get that message across. Surely there'll be polling in the coming days that gives us more information about how the public's reacting to this in general, which in turn could inform decisions on how to play it.

That said, if there isn't anything resembling a consensus among progressives on this board about how to respond, then it's hard to imagine we'll get some concrete guidance from polls on how it should be played. The whole thing is just bad.

 

[MT15]

What we have witnessed from McConnell could certainly be described as court packing, and it extends to the entire federal bench. Why did Trump have a chance to fill so many federal court vacancies? Because McConnell slow rolled confirmation hearings for Obama appointees for years. They also pressured Kennedy to retire, rumor is, and rumor says it wasn’t necessarily done in a polite way.

I don’t care for court packing, but at this point in time the Dems don’t have much choice in the matter. It’s either that or submit to having an entire federal judiciary that is completely out of step with most of the country.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Only if one doesn't understand the contextual difference between the two. Expanding may be necessary if one wants to pack the court, but one can expand the court without "packing" it.

If expanding the Supreme Court is the same as "packing" the Supreme Court, then the precedent for "packing the court" already exists.

If "packing the court" inherently and ultimately leads to a constant retaliatory expansion of the court, then why hasn't that happened since the previous expansions to the court?

The Supreme Court has already been expanded, are as some say "packed", on more than one occasion. That fact logically and empirically undermines the fear of starting off an endless cycle of retaliation and exposes it as irrational.

If one doesn't ever stand up to bullies, bullies keep escalating their bullying. If one doesn't stand up to the corrupt, the corrupt keep escalating their corruption.

McConnell and his ilk will continue to escalate their power grabbing. They've been doing it for over 40 years. The idea that if the rest of us behave decently, then so will they is naive at best. They are going to keep grabbing for power regardless of what anyone else does and they will continue to make up lame, hypocritical excuses for their actions.

It's easy to argue against compensating for ill gotten gains, when one likes the gains that were made, but by not pushing back and for a correction against power grabbing, one is passively endorsing and enabling those power grabs.

To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has been at nine justices since 1869. And a lot of stuff happened during the founding of America and that time -- notably the expansion of the country and the addition of several new states. 'Expanding' for the sole reason to create a new majority of judges of a particular political disposition is the same thing as packing. This isn't a matter of standing up to bullies or putting Mitch McConnell in his place, it's a matter of not plunging this nation deeper and deeper into factional chaos. It will not end well. And there's a more than decent chance the GOP is back in power in 2024 with both the White House and Senate.

Also, to be clear, I do not like the gains that have been made as I am not a social conservative. Nor do I have any doubt that McConnell will continue his tactics. But there are other, less drastic, ways to halt Republican aggrandizement.

 

[superchuck500]

This is excellent:

 

[LA - L.A.]

To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has been at nine justices since 1869. And a lot of stuff happened during the founding of America and that time -- notably the expansion of the country and the addition of several new states. 'Expanding' for the sole reason to create a new majority of judges of a particular political disposition is the same thing as packing.

In my scenario, the court would be expanded to simply balance out the corrupt power grab of McConnell and the Republicans.

Add Garland, to undo the denial of Obama's appointment.
Add a second seat that the winner of the current election would appoint, even if it's Trump.

Even if both of those judges were of a "particular political disposition" in opposition to the "particular political disposition" of McConnell's and the Republicans' judges, the majority would still be of the "particular political disposition" of McConnell's and the Republicans' preference.

There is a way to rectify the corrupt power grab by McConnell and the Republicans without creating a new majority of judges of a "particular political disposition."

There is another way to undo the damage that McConnell has done without changing the makeup of the majority on the Supreme Court. The fact that every objection to expanding the court exclusively assumes the majority would be changed leads me to believe that what's actually being objected to is anything that is perceived as changing the majority makeup of the current court.

I don't find it convincing when someone argues against "packing the court" as an effort to reverse the "packing of the court" that McConnell and the Republicans have done. Like I said before, it's easy to argue that now we need to stop "packing the court" and we shouldn't try to do anything to "unpack" the previous "packing of the court" done by McConnell and the Republicans.

If "packing of the court" is so egregious, how can we let McConnell and the Republicans get away with so brazenly doing it? What do we do to "unpack" the "packing" that McConnell and the Republicans have done?

This isn't a matter of standing up to bullies or putting Mitch McConnell in his place, it's a matter of not plunging this nation deeper and deeper into factional chaos. It will not end well. And there's a more than decent chance the GOP is back in power in 2024 with both the White House and Senate.

Is the belief that if the Democrats don't retaliate, then when the Republicans are back in power them and McConnell will stop their factional power grabs that are the primary engine driving the factional chaos?

Bully is a metaphor for being a corrupt power monger, so yes it most certainly is a matter of standing up to bullies. McConnell does in fact need to be put in his place by being made to suffer some adverse consequence of his actions, otherwise was the disincentive for people not to corruptly keep grabbing for power.

But there are other, less drastic, ways to halt Republican aggrandizement.

Drastic is subjective. I don't see expanding the court by 2 seats in my scenario as drastic.

All I hear is "they can't" or "they shouldn't do that" in regards to expanding the court, because it's too drastic. None of that is followed up with alternative suggestions.

If there are other "less drastic" ways to halt Republican corruption and correct the Republican packing of the Supreme Court, I'd really like to hear them. The nay saying to adding 2 more justices without proposing any alternatives is an uncompelling argument.

Even if adding more justices to the court is less than ideal, if there are no other options on the table, then it's the best option available.

 

[wardorican]

This is excellent:

That's a long list. Is this going to be like an Atlantic article?

p.s. I will read this later.

 

[wardorican]

In my scenario, the court would be expanded to simply balance out the corrupt power grab of McConnell and the Republicans.

Add Garland, to undo the denial of Obama's appointment.
Add a second seat that the winner of the current election would appoint, even if it's Trump.

Even if both of those judges were of a "particular political disposition" in opposition to the "particular political disposition" of McConnell's and the Republicans' judges, the majority would still be of the "particular political disposition" of McConnell's and the Republicans' preference.

There is a way to rectify the corrupt power grab by McConnell and the Republicans without creating a new majority of judges of a "particular political disposition."

There is another way to undo the damage that McConnell has done without changing the makeup of the majority on the Supreme Court. The fact that every objection to expanding the court exclusively assumes the majority would be changed leads me to believe that what's actually being objected to is anything that is perceived as changing the majority makeup of the current court.

I don't find it convincing when someone argues against "packing the court" as an effort to reverse the "packing of the court" that McConnell and the Republicans have done. Like I said before, it's easy to argue that now we need to stop "packing the court" and we shouldn't try to do anything to "unpack" the previous "packing of the court" done by McConnell and the Republicans.

If "packing of the court" is so egregious, how can we let McConnell and the Republicans get away with so brazenly doing it? What do we do to "unpack" the "packing" that McConnell and the Republicans have done?


Is the belief that if the Democrats don't retaliate, then when the Republicans are back in power them and McConnell will stop their factional power grabs that are the primary engine driving the factional chaos?

Bully is a metaphor for being a corrupt power monger, so yes it most certainly is a matter of standing up to bullies. McConnell does in fact need to be put in his place by being made to suffer some adverse consequence of his actions, otherwise was the disincentive for people not to corruptly keep grabbing for power.


Drastic is subjective. I don't see expanding the court by 2 seats in my scenario as drastic.

All I hear is "they can't" or "they shouldn't do that" in regards to expanding the court, because it's too drastic. None of that is followed up with alternative suggestions.

If there are other "less drastic" ways to halt Republican corruption and correct the Republican packing of the Supreme Court, I'd really like to hear them. The nay saying to adding 2 more justices without proposing any alternatives is an uncompelling argument.

Even if adding more justices to the court is less than ideal, if there are no other options on the table, then it's the best option available.

I'm mostly staying out of this one, but I do know that Mayor Pete was talking about this about a year ago. So, it has been a discussion point for a while, not just a reaction to RBG.

and I know you're not saying that. I'm just springboarding of your post.

I also believe that we already have a conservative majority and the votes haven't played out how we'd all think. I hate what the Republicans did and what they're going to force. But my stance hasn't changed. A sitting president has the right to appoint a vacant seat. And I agree with Chuck that Obama should have made it a real fight, by pushing it as a recess appointment due to dereliction of duty of Congress to have a hearing.

I wonder if this will be one of his biggest legacy regrets.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

A reminder of why Trump very carefully chooses what rare public events to attend unless his campaign controls who the audience is:

 

[efil4]

A reminder of why Trump very carefully chooses what rare public events to attend unless his campaign controls who the audience is:

just as the crowd reached crescendo, he turned and walked off.

 

[Booker]

I'm mostly staying out of this one, but I do know that Mayor Pete was talking about this about a year ago. So, it has been a discussion point for a while, not just a reaction to RBG.

and I know you're not saying that. I'm just springboarding of your post.

I also believe that we already have a conservative majority and the votes haven't played out how we'd all think. I hate what the Republicans did and what they're going to force. But my stance hasn't changed. A sitting president has the right to appoint a vacant seat. And I agree with Chuck that Obama should have made it a real fight, by pushing it as a recess appointment due to dereliction of duty of Congress to have a hearing.

I wonder if this will be one of his biggest legacy regrets.

I think so. I think he had too much faith that the electorate that had twice elected him would not put someone like Trump in office, so there was no need to do anything that might put off any voters. Turned out to be a horrible calculation.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I think so. I think he had too much faith that the electorate that had twice elected him would not put someone like Trump in office, so there was no need to do anything that might put off any voters. Turned out to be a horrible calculation.

Trump would have just undid the recess appointments and Republicans would have made up the excuse that the real tyranny is a runaway president not respecting the voice of the people(or some nonsense).

And a lot of the people that are trying to excuse the current Republican party’s illiberal/tyrannical governance, or at a minimum effectively normalize it by encouraging Democrats to do nothing, would be bending over backwards to criticize Obama for it.

The cat is out of the bag, I’m not sure what people think is going to magically happen if Democrats just do nothing? Republicans will simply continue to engage in this behavior when they have the capacity, which they do, because they are learning over and over again that if they break the rules, no one will stop them and no one will punish them. The net effect of which is that you have one party ruling illiberally and the other party promising to pass reform after the fact, but locking in their harms and leaving them unpunished. Eroding public confidence in the institutions while we are at it. Try for reform, if reform is unachievable, I have no problem with adding seats to balance out the harm. If the new norm is the ruling party gets to pack the court in their favor, so be it. The system is already broken, maybe a magnifying glass will also serve to force people to take its reform seriously, and much more swiftly. It at least let’s the Republicans know they are not able to act with impunity and their transgressions will not provide the benefit they think. It’s at least a more honest version of what is already happening and people can be more in touch with the costs of their vote. These are real people that will be affected in life and death ways by this shirt, for them this is not some abstract theoretical game some of us are lucky enough to engage in so dispassionately because we are unlikely to ever face where those harms are likely to manifest.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Not surprised

Actually, I am a little surprised

I’m sure they’d have no problem finding supporters to say that Trump is the greatest human being to ever live including George Washington and Jesus

Why do this at all?
=================================

President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign is currently running Facebook ads with “real people” who support the president. And while it’s accurate to say these people are “real” in the sense that they’re human beings and not robots from the TV show Westworld, they’re not just average people off the street. Many are political operatives.

Take this ad that’s currently running on Facebook. It shows Kim Sherk, who’s not identified by name in the ad, and yet is the president of the Georgia Federation of Republican Women.

A Georgia newspaper, the Marietta Daily Journal recognized Sherk, which might be why these ads are running in states like California, Illinois, and Mississippi, according to the Facebook ad library, rather than her home state of Georgia.........

Another ad currently being run by the Trump campaign on Facebook shows viewers a group of people sitting in a circle and talking about the dangers of a potential Biden presidency. While it might look like a typical focus group, featuring average people off the street, the video is anything but.

Some of the people in the video are former and aspiring politicians, including one woman who’s currently running for the U.S. House in Minnesota and a man who was a delegate at the Republican National Convention in both 2016 and 2020.......

Trump Facebook Ads With 'Real People' Actually Feature GOP Political Operatives

President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign is currently running Facebook ads with “real people” who support the president. And while it’s accurate to say these people are “real” in the sense that they’re human beings and not robots from the TV show Westworld, they’re not just average people...

gizmodo.com

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

In my scenario, the court would be expanded to simply balance out the corrupt power grab of McConnell and the Republicans.

Add Garland, to undo the denial of Obama's appointment.
Add a second seat that the winner of the current election would appoint, even if it's Trump.

Even if both of those judges were of a "particular political disposition" in opposition to the "particular political disposition" of McConnell's and the Republicans' judges, the majority would still be of the "particular political disposition" of McConnell's and the Republicans' preference.

There is a way to rectify the corrupt power grab by McConnell and the Republicans without creating a new majority of judges of a "particular political disposition."

There is another way to undo the damage that McConnell has done without changing the makeup of the majority on the Supreme Court. The fact that every objection to expanding the court exclusively assumes the majority would be changed leads me to believe that what's actually being objected to is anything that is perceived as changing the majority makeup of the current court.

I don't find it convincing when someone argues against "packing the court" as an effort to reverse the "packing of the court" that McConnell and the Republicans have done. Like I said before, it's easy to argue that now we need to stop "packing the court" and we shouldn't try to do anything to "unpack" the previous "packing of the court" done by McConnell and the Republicans.

If "packing of the court" is so egregious, how can we let McConnell and the Republicans get away with so brazenly doing it? What do we do to "unpack" the "packing" that McConnell and the Republicans have done?


Is the belief that if the Democrats don't retaliate, then when the Republicans are back in power them and McConnell will stop their factional power grabs that are the primary engine driving the factional chaos?

Bully is a metaphor for being a corrupt power monger, so yes it most certainly is a matter of standing up to bullies. McConnell does in fact need to be put in his place by being made to suffer some adverse consequence of his actions, otherwise was the disincentive for people not to corruptly keep grabbing for power.


Drastic is subjective. I don't see expanding the court by 2 seats in my scenario as drastic.

All I hear is "they can't" or "they shouldn't do that" in regards to expanding the court, because it's too drastic. None of that is followed up with alternative suggestions.

If there are other "less drastic" ways to halt Republican corruption and correct the Republican packing of the Supreme Court, I'd really like to hear them. The nay saying to adding 2 more justices without proposing any alternatives is an uncompelling argument.

Even if adding more justices to the court is less than ideal, if there are no other options on the table, then it's the best option available.

This will just lead to a never-ending cycle of Court 'expansion.' As far as the less drastic ways, I previously mentioned the push for D.C. and Puerto Rico statehood. These are moves that cannot easily be countered. D.C. and Puerto Rico are almost certain to pass the requisite statewide ballot initiatives in favor of statehood, Texas and other states mentioned by conservative pundits are far less likely to pass initiative dividing themselves into smaller states.

All of that aside, there is the practical matter that if the Democrats embrace Court 'expansion,' they risk losing in November. And all of these plans would be for nought. Fighting tribalism with tribalism isn't guaranteed to be a winning strategy in the long term. It is better to live with a conservative majority in the short term and play the long game. Democrats need to focus on economic issues and make their case why they are the party who will address those issues. Trump won in 2016 precisely because of that -- albeit in a shallow way. Demographic trends in this country favor Democrats, they just need better messaging.