Trump Tracker Too (2 Trump 2 Tracker) (3 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    EmBeeFiveOhFour

    EmBeeFiveOhFour

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 1, 2019
    Messages
    636
    Reaction score
    1,952
    Location
    Near a River's Bend
    Offline
    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.
     
    Senate democrats are stopping everything in the Senate right now as a protest move over Republican hypocrisy. Republicans haven’t done anything for years anyway, and they especially haven’t done anything to stop Russian interference in our country and they haven’t done anything to improve healthcare.

    [mod-edit: referring to a deleted section from a previous post]
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    MT15 said:
    Senate democrats are stopping everything in the Senate right now as a protest move over Republican hypocrisy. Republicans haven’t done anything for years anyway, and they especially haven’t done anything to stop Russian interference in our country and they haven’t done anything to improve healthcare.

    SFL please explain what BlueAnon means, where did you see it?
    Click to expand...

    Do SCOTUS votes require a quorum?
     
    insidejob said:
    Add this to the list of things that depresses me and/or cheeses me off.
    Click to expand...

    Dems shouldn't show up for any of this. Whether it's the committee meeting or the floor vote. It doesn't matter if they're there or not. Republicans will get her confirmed regardless. But they should make clear, in very stark terms, just how partisan this exercise is.
     
    coldseat said:
    Dems shouldn't show up for any of this. Whether it's the committee meeting or the floor vote. It doesn't matter if they're there or not. Republicans will get her confirmed regardless. But they should make clear, in very stark terms, just how partisan this exercise is.
    Click to expand...

    I disagree. They should use any opportunity at debate, especially Senator Harris, to cast their own platform against the Republican agenda.
     
    coldseat said:
    Dems shouldn't show up for any of this. Whether it's the committee meeting or the floor vote. It doesn't matter if they're there or not. Republicans will get her confirmed regardless. But they should make clear, in very stark terms, just how partisan this exercise is.
    Click to expand...
    While I understand the sentiment of making a point to show how forked up this is, I agree with those who posted in reply that they should take every opportunity to hopefully find something so egregious that they'd have to yank his nomination.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    I disagree. They should use any opportunity at debate, especially Senator Harris, to cast their own platform against the Republican agenda.
    Click to expand...

    I don't what that would accomplish. Their argument isn't that Barrett isn't qualified. It's that this process, the rank hypocrisy and the republican power grab is to extreme to support and go along with. By showing up for votes and questioning the SC nominee, they're invaladating their own argument by participating in the process and going along with it.

    They can easily argue and debate on news shows.
     
    coldseat said:
    I don't what that would accomplish. Their argument isn't that Barrett isn't qualified. It's that this process, the rank hypocrisy and the republican power grab is to extreme to support and go along with. By showing up for votes and questioning the SC nominee, they're invaladating their own argument by participating in the process and going along with it.

    They can easily argue and debate on news shows.
    Click to expand...

    I think there will be an argument that Barrett isn't qualified. I don't think she's qualified.

    I'm just saying that a judiciary committee hearing on a weak nominee is potentially a platform for someone like Senator Harris. She's good in that environment and she's running for vice president. Not showing up will seem childish to some independent voters who might be looking for professional competence right now more than anything.
     
    coldseat said:
    I don't what that would accomplish. Their argument isn't that Barrett isn't qualified. It's that this process, the rank hypocrisy and the republican power grab is to extreme to support and go along with. By showing up for votes and questioning the SC nominee, they're invaladating their own argument by participating in the process and going along with it.

    They can easily argue and debate on news shows.
    Click to expand...
    They would have to make it about abortion rights, the ACA, and ultimately, whether most Americans would want a theocrat on the Supreme Court. There's actually a fairly decent argument that Barrett is objectively under-qualified. She's only been on the appeals bench for three years and prior to that she was a law professor. That said, being an appellate or supreme court level judge does not really take a lot of practical 'lawyering' know-how. Lagoa, at least, was a federal prosecutor and a state court judge for about a decade or so.
     
    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.
     
    TaylorB said:
    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.
    Click to expand...
    If the Democratic party wins enough control of Congress to expand the number of justices, it doesn't have to done in a "packing the court" way. It could be done in a sincere re-balancing way.

    Add 2 more seats to the Supreme Court to counterbalance what McConnell has done since Garland.

    Appoint Garland to the first new seat to balance out Gorsuch and correct the blocking of Obama's appointment.

    Let the next president, Biden or Trump, nominate the person for the second new seat. Even if it's Trump, he'll have to appoint someone that the Senate would be willing to confirm.

    In that scenario, things would be restored to how they would have been without McConnell's depraved power grab and the Republicans' enabling.

    The "conservatives" would still also hold a one seat advantage even if both newly appointed justices were "liberal."
     
    LA - L.A. said:
    If the Democratic party wins enough control of Congress to expand the number of justices, it doesn't have to done in a "packing the court" way. It could be done in a sincere re-balancing way.

    Add 2 more seats to the Supreme Court to counterbalance what McConnell has done since Garland.

    Appoint Garland to the first new seat to balance out Gorsuch and correct the blocking of Obama's appointment.

    Let the next president, Biden or Trump, nominate the person for the second new seat. Even if it's Trump, he'll have to appoint someone that the Senate would be willing to confirm.

    In that scenario, things would be restored to how they would have been without McConnell's depraved power grab and the Republicans' enabling.

    The "conservatives" would still also hold a one seat advantage even if both newly appointed justices were "liberal."
    Click to expand...
    All I meant by "packing the court" was adding two seats to counter-balance the power grab, but the framing of your proposal seems (more) reasonable. I did not favor Dems adding SCOTUS seats until it became clear that Rs would not abide by their own made-up Garland rule, and I still (certainly naively) hope there is a way to enact countermeasures that fairly address the egregious hypocrisy of Rs but that do not lead to further escalation of the current problem in the Senate. And I'm not taking for granted that Ds win the Senate or the White House, but currently they're more-likely-than-not to win both.
     
    TaylorB said:
    All I meant by "packing the court" was adding two seats to counter-balance the power grab, but the framing of your proposal seems (more) reasonable. I did not favor Dems adding SCOTUS seats until it became clear that Rs would not abide by their own made-up Garland rule, and I still (certainly naively) hope there is a way to enact countermeasures that fairly address the egregious hypocrisy of Rs but that do not lead to further escalation of the current problem in the Senate.
    Click to expand...
    My quoting of packing the court was in regards to the general usage and critique of it. It wasn't directed specifically at you. My point is that I think the phrase "packing the court" is hyperbolic and therefore both inaccurate and useless in this discussion.

    I don't think it's possible that there is any countermeasure that wouldn't be seen as an escalation. Anything done to right McConnell's and the Republicans' wrong is going to be seen as wrong itself by them and those who support their actions.

    That's the inherent problem with an election system that only allows us to make zero-sum game decisions when we vote (first past the post ballot).

    It turns governing into a competitive game of either winning or losing, when governing should be a cooperative, community building process of compromise and meeting each other half-way.
     
    LA - L.A. said:
    My quoting of packing the court was in regards to the general usage and critique of it. It wasn't directed specifically at you. My point is that I think the phrase "packing the court" is hyperbolic and therefore both inaccurate and useless in this discussion.

    I don't think it's possible that there is any countermeasure that wouldn't be seen as an escalation. Anything done to right McConnell's and the Republicans' wrong is going to be seen as wrong itself by them and those who support their actions.

    That's the inherent problem with an election system that only allows us to make zero-sum game decisions when we vote (first past the post ballot).

    It turns governing into a competitive game of either winning or losing, when governing should be a cooperative, community building process of compromise and meeting each other half-way.
    Click to expand...

    While we're on the topic of the inherent problems of the status quo, I regretted the wording of my post in the libertarian thread. I should have stuck to simply explaining my own position, and instead came off as mocking the idea of voting third party (it certainly wasn't directed at you). I'm not voting 3P under the current system for the reasons stated in my post, but I like some of the proposed alternatives to FPTP voting, and am open to other outside-the-box solutions to the obvious problems we're facing.

    And most importantly, I understand not everyone shares my opinions, and above all else, I respect people's right to come to their own conclusions and vote how they want to vote. I really do, and that certainly includes people who plan to vote Republican, too. Nearly all of my friends are Republicans, and we'll still be friends in 2021, despite how awful I think their political party is.

    With respect to the topic at hand, I think all of what you said is likely (and unfortunately) correct.
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.

    Share this page

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom