2020 US General Election Thread VIII: Cs, Ds, and Es

[San Lumen]

and at some point the court would be so is insanely large reform of the system would be wanted by many.

Good luck restoring faith in the institution at that point. Tbh if court packing happens I almost expect new nullification crises to start popping up with states just disregarding the Fed and it being chaos.

I very much doubt that.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Your argument amounts to "Democrats shouln't increase the court because Republicans will strike back with excessive force" and it amounts to "don't hurt us or we will destroy everything". I'm inclined to call your bluff.

Then you're a fool. Reid called it a bluff when McConnell said he'd use the new precedent and lost 3 Supreme Court seats because of it. Changes to Congressional rules for short term gain have literally never gone well long term.

It was 2 seats "lost" which the filibuster could have prevented. I'm sure you would have been praising the Democrats for filibustering Trump's appointments. Yeah nothing wrong with that at all?

Invention of cloture (the 3/5 to defeat filibuster instead of 2/3) went very well in my opinion. And the filibuster is total shit which I'll be glad to see the end of. In a system that is too constipated anyway, it's like a cork shoved up the arse. It sometimes stops bad things happened, but it stops good things happening too.

[San Lumen]

Then you're a fool. Reid called it a bluff when McConnell said he'd use the new precedent and lost 3 Supreme Court seats because of it. Changes to Congressional rules for short term gain have literally never gone well long term.

It was 2 seats "lost" which the filibuster could have prevented. I'm sure you would have been praising the Democrats for filibustering Trump's appointments. Yeah nothing wrong with that at all?

Invention of cloture (the 3/5 to defeat filibuster instead of 2/3) went very well in my opinion. And the filibuster is total shit which I'll be glad to see the end of. In a system that is too constipated anyway, it's like a cork shoved up the arse. It sometimes stops bad things happened, but it stops good things happening too.

how about instead of getting rid of the filibuster we go back to the old fashioned way where if you want to stop something you have to actually talk. Like what Southern Democrats did on the Civil Rights Act.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Then you're a fool. Reid called it a bluff when McConnell said he'd use the new precedent and lost 3 Supreme Court seats because of it. Changes to Congressional rules for short term gain have literally never gone well long term.

It was 2 seats "lost" which the filibuster could have prevented. I'm sure you would have been praising the Democrats for filibustering Trump's appointments. Yeah nothing wrong with that at all?

If Reid had never axed the rule yeah I would have zero trouble with that. It would have gone a long way in fighting bitter partisanship over every little thing.

Invention of cloture (the 3/5 to defeat filibuster instead of 2/3) went very well in my opinion. And the filibuster is total shit which I'll be glad to see the end of. In a system that is too constipated anyway, it's like a cork shoved up the arse. It sometimes stops bad things happened, but it stops good things happening too.

Such is life. We have a lot more to lose by removing it than we stand to gain.

[Ngelmish]

Your argument amounts to "Democrats shouln't increase the court because Republicans will strike back with excessive force" and it amounts to "don't hurt us or we will destroy everything". I'm inclined to call your bluff.

Then you're a fool. Reid called it a bluff when McConnell said he'd use the new precedent and lost 3 Supreme Court seats because of it. Changes to Congressional rules for short term gain have literally never gone well long term.

I think that there's a tension between saying Reid made a mistake and speaking admiringly of how McConnell has exploited Reid's choice to gain unassailable political advances for his own side, when, after all, the praise of McConnell's gamesmanship is precisely him doubling down on what is being called Reid's mistake. Either they're both shrewd and ruthless operators for seeing the writing on the wall and trying to exact maximum benefit, or they're both being foolish.

I think you personally are arguing that it's a bad move from both sides.

[Picairn]

how about instead of getting rid of the filibuster we go back to the old fashioned way where if you want to stop something you have to actually talk. Like what Southern Democrats did on the Civil Rights Act.

Strom Thurmond held up that bill for over a day. It was insane.

[San Lumen]

how about instead of getting rid of the filibuster we go back to the old fashioned way where if you want to stop something you have to actually talk. Like what Southern Democrats did on the Civil Rights Act.

Strom Thurmond held up that bill for over a day. It was insane.

i know and instead of getting rid of the fillbuster go back to a real filibuster.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

4 new seats might be more drastic than necessary.
Just 2 would restore the Chief Justice's power of tiebreak, which makes a lot of sense to me even though he does lean to the conservative wing.
Then if Thomas or Alito go, the court can be made more progressive with a regular appointment.

Why would they settle for restoring a tie? By that point we've established the court just exists to rubberstamp your side whenever you're in power. It'd only be logical to always add +2 or +3 for your side whenever you take power to ensure a good majority.

I would be prepared to settle for 7-6 and add a clause that two justices may retire simultaneously making a 9 seat court again.

Why would politicians settle for the minimum necessary? Well to avoid the horror of voters like yourself, and to avoid retribution escalating. Those are my reasons, what are your reasons FOR escalation?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Then you're a fool. Reid called it a bluff when McConnell said he'd use the new precedent and lost 3 Supreme Court seats because of it. Changes to Congressional rules for short term gain have literally never gone well long term.

I think that there's a tension between saying Reid made a mistake and speaking admiringly of how McConnell has exploited Reid's choice to gain unassailable political advances for his own side, when, after all, the praise of McConnell's gamesmanship is precisely him doubling down on what is being called Reid's mistake. Either they're both shrewd and ruthless operators for seeing the writing on the wall and trying to exact maximum benefit, or they're both being foolish.

I think you personally are arguing that it's a bad move from both sides.

You'd be correct. I think it is a bad move from both sides and it's wildly detrimental to the nation. Moreover, the GOP has a history of taking changes the Dems make and then beating the absolute shit out of them with said changes. Maybe stop giving them chances to do that.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I think that there's a tension between saying Reid made a mistake and speaking admiringly of how McConnell has exploited Reid's choice to gain unassailable political advances for his own side, when, after all, the praise of McConnell's gamesmanship is precisely him doubling down on what is being called Reid's mistake. Either they're both shrewd and ruthless operators for seeing the writing on the wall and trying to exact maximum benefit, or they're both being foolish.

I think you personally are arguing that it's a bad move from both sides.

You'd be correct. I think it is a bad move from both sides and it's wildly detrimental to the nation. Moreover, the GOP has a history of taking changes the Dems make and then beating the absolute shit out of them with said changes. Maybe stop giving them chances to do that.

Dems should do it the other way around. Wait for Republicans to throw the first punch, then beat the absolute shit out of them ... when Democrats get out of the hospital.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Why would they settle for restoring a tie? By that point we've established the court just exists to rubberstamp your side whenever you're in power. It'd only be logical to always add +2 or +3 for your side whenever you take power to ensure a good majority.

I would be prepared to settle for 7-6 and add a clause that two justices may retire simultaneously making a 9 seat court again.

Why would politicians settle for the minimum necessary? Well to avoid the horror of voters like yourself, and to avoid retribution escalating. Those are my reasons, what are your reasons FOR escalation?

Because the court has ceased to be anything other than a rubberstamp at that point. There is objectively zero reason for the Republicans not to just add seats and get a majority themselves in 2024 or 2028 if the Dems do it this go around. Much like how people are saying the Dems aren't going to take RBG's seat being stolen laying down, the Republicans aren't going to take court packing laying down. They're gonna fight back and do the same thing, and the nation will suffer for it.

[Picairn]

Dems should do it the other way around. Wait for Republicans to throw the first punch, then beat the absolute shit out of them ... when Democrats get out of the hospital.

How optimistic of you to think that Republicans won't send the Democrats to the coffins when they have the chance.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It was 2 seats "lost" which the filibuster could have prevented. I'm sure you would have been praising the Democrats for filibustering Trump's appointments. Yeah nothing wrong with that at all?

If Reid had never axed the rule yeah I would have zero trouble with that. It would have gone a long way in fighting bitter partisanship over every little thing.

Invention of cloture (the 3/5 to defeat filibuster instead of 2/3) went very well in my opinion. And the filibuster is total shit which I'll be glad to see the end of. In a system that is too constipated anyway, it's like a cork shoved up the arse. It sometimes stops bad things happened, but it stops good things happening too.

Such is life. We have a lot more to lose by removing it than we stand to gain.

You regard everything government manages to do as bad, while I regard some of it as good. So you see Obamacare without the filibuster as bad, because it would probably have involved more spending in the future. Whereas I see Obamacare without the filibuster as good because it would have insured more people and provided a public option which would have driven prices down. Lieberman using the filibuster degraded the bill.

BTW, when Republicans tried to repeal/replace Obamacare, they didn't have to worry about the filibuster. They used the Budget Reconciliation method meaning they only needed a majority in the Senate. They still couldn't get it done, showing that even a simple majority is enough to block bad changes, considering incompatibility between House and Senate.

[Washington Resistance Army]

You regard everything government manages to do as bad

I almost certainly support a larger and more expansive government than you but okay.

So you see Obamacare without the filibuster as bad, because it would probably have involved more spending in the future. Whereas I see Obamacare without the filibuster as good because it would have insured more people and provided a public option which would have driven prices down. Lieberman using the filibuster degraded the bill.

In an ideal world we'd should dissolve the insurance industry and Big Pharma on a slew of charges and mandate universal healthcare. The Fed already pays for pretty much all the medical research and whatnot that happens anyways.

BTW, when Republicans tried to repeal/replace Obamacare, they didn't have to worry about the filibuster. They used the Budget Reconciliation method meaning they only needed a majority in the Senate. They still couldn't get it done, showing that even a simple majority is enough to block bad changes, considering incompatibility between House and Senate.

One vote that was cast because the person who did it was terminally ill and didn't have to worry about the repercussions doesn't inspire hope in a system. Quite the opposite, actually.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Dems should do it the other way around. Wait for Republicans to throw the first punch, then beat the absolute shit out of them ... when Democrats get out of the hospital.

How optimistic of you to think that Republicans won't send the Democrats to the coffins when they have the chance.

Let's say Democrats get very lucky in the next 8 years and managed to bring the court to 6-3 Democrat leaning.

"Republicans wouldn't dare pack the court next year, it would start a death spiral" Dems say going into the 2028 election.

"Democrats threatened to pack the court, therefore WE're going to pack the court" says the new Republican government.

Is this a good reason we shouldn't even talk about it? Should be buy into the idea that dirty tricks are OK so long as the other side talked about them first?

At least tell me abolishing the filibuster is on the table? Once it's gone no escalation is possible.

[San Lumen]

How optimistic of you to think that Republicans won't send the Democrats to the coffins when they have the chance.

Let's say Democrats get very lucky in the next 8 years and managed to bring the court to 6-3 Democrat leaning.

"Republicans wouldn't dare pack the court next year, it would start a death spiral" Dems say going into the 2028 election.

"Democrats threatened to pack the court, therefore WE're going to pack the court" says the new Republican government.

Is this a good reason we shouldn't even talk about it? Should be buy into the idea that dirty tricks are OK so long as the other side talked about them first?

At least tell me abolishing the filibuster is on the table? Once it's gone no escalation is possible.

Like i said instead of abolishing the filibuster go back to old fashioned way? It want to do it you have to talk.

[Rusozak]

How optimistic of you to think that Republicans won't send the Democrats to the coffins when they have the chance.

Let's say Democrats get very lucky in the next 8 years and managed to bring the court to 6-3 Democrat leaning.

"Republicans wouldn't dare pack the court next year, it would start a death spiral" Dems say going into the 2028 election.

"Democrats threatened to pack the court, therefore WE're going to pack the court" says the new Republican government.

Is this a good reason we shouldn't even talk about it? Should be buy into the idea that dirty tricks are OK so long as the other side talked about them first?

At least tell me abolishing the filibuster is on the table? Once it's gone no escalation is possible.

You expect either party to have ethics?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You regard everything government manages to do as bad

I almost certainly support a larger and more expansive government than you but okay.

How does the filibuster which only ever causes legislation to fail help in expanding government?

So you see Obamacare without the filibuster as bad, because it would probably have involved more spending in the future. Whereas I see Obamacare without the filibuster as good because it would have insured more people and provided a public option which would have driven prices down. Lieberman using the filibuster degraded the bill.

In an ideal world we'd should dissolve the insurance industry and Big Pharma on a slew of charges and mandate universal healthcare. The Fed already pays for pretty much all the medical research and whatnot that happens anyways.

BTW, when Republicans tried to repeal/replace Obamacare, they didn't have to worry about the filibuster. They used the Budget Reconciliation method meaning they only needed a majority in the Senate. They still couldn't get it done, showing that even a simple majority is enough to block bad changes, considering incompatibility between House and Senate.

One vote that was cast because the person who did it was terminally ill and didn't have to worry about the repercussions doesn't inspire hope in a system. Quite the opposite, actually.

It was only a majority vote because Budget Reconciliation was used. That's a Senate rule (with a counterpart in the House) which allows bills crafted that way to get an up/down vote in the Senate.

Budget Reconciliation dates to the 1990's. Is that one of the Senate rules that shouldn't be changed or else the results will be disastrous ... or is it a rule that very nearly had a disastrous result?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Let's say Democrats get very lucky in the next 8 years and managed to bring the court to 6-3 Democrat leaning.

"Republicans wouldn't dare pack the court next year, it would start a death spiral" Dems say going into the 2028 election.

"Democrats threatened to pack the court, therefore WE're going to pack the court" says the new Republican government.

Is this a good reason we shouldn't even talk about it? Should be buy into the idea that dirty tricks are OK so long as the other side talked about them first?

At least tell me abolishing the filibuster is on the table? Once it's gone no escalation is possible.

You expect either party to have ethics?

No, I expect Democrats to stop being pussies. They're going to get blamed for "doing it first", or "trying to do it first", or "setting a precedent by talking about doing it first" ...

So why not be the aggressor for once? Republicans will use it back, but we four or eight years of benefit, which we wouldn't otherwise get, just by DOING IT FIRST.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I almost certainly support a larger and more expansive government than you but okay.

How does the filibuster which only ever causes legislation to fail help in expanding government?

This brings us full circle back to the "not a mindless ideologue" statement. Just because I support a generally larger government doesn't mean I'll support it in every instance possible solely for that reason alone. Plenty of legislation deserves to fail if it can't secure a solid bipartisan foundation. That's not a flaw in a democracy, it's a feature.

It was only a majority vote because Budget Reconciliation was used. That's a Senate rule (with a counterpart in the House) which allows bills crafted that way to get an up/down vote in the Senate.

Budget Reconciliation dates to the 1990's. Is that one of the Senate rules that shouldn't be changed or else the results will be disastrous ... or is it a rule that very nearly had a disastrous result?

It's a rule that never should have been implemented in the first place because it was clearly only going to be used to circumvent the normal procedures. Alas our predecessors had remarkably little foresight after the wall came down, hence why their golden age ended almost immediately.

[Rusozak]

You expect either party to have ethics?

No, I expect Democrats to stop being pussies. They're going to get blamed for "doing it first", or "trying to do it first", or "setting a precedent by talking about doing it first" ...

So why not be the aggressor for once? Republicans will use it back, but we four or eight years of benefit, which we wouldn't otherwise get, just by DOING IT FIRST.

A logical if depressing point. Both sides past the point of even pretending the tactics they both employ are scumbaggy.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Like i said instead of abolishing the filibuster go back to old fashioned way? It want to do it you have to talk.

As I understand it, that holds up all other business of the Senate. Ideally the bill gets shelved when the pro tem sees the list of names to speak and realizes they're all going to filibuster, but I don't like the alternative: the Senate can't do anything else.

The minimal filibuster now is based on the idea that 1/3 can talk for ever if they're determined enough, and the pro tem will always pull the bill.

Maybe you like the idea that ONE Senator can filibuster all by themselves? I think they still can, but my approval of the Cloture rule should tell you what I think of minorities LESS than one third filibustering. I think that is madness.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

US political hot take: Every territory that is sending a representative to Congress should become a state.

This means that Guam, DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands should all become states. If these places are all sending representatives to the US, why should we deny them full statehood and make them effectively second class citizens?

Not a hot take, but an incredibly based and red, white and blue pilled take.

[Shrillland]

Now the conservative press is talking about us launching a colour revolution like the Ukrainians, Georgians, and Kyrgyz did: https://www.yahoo.com/news/conservatives-claim-trump-is-target-of-color-revolution-174508994.html

[Rusozak]

Now the conservative press is talking about us launching a colour revolution like the Ukrainians, Georgians, and Kyrgyz did: https://www.yahoo.com/news/conservatives-claim-trump-is-target-of-color-revolution-174508994.html

Time to pick a color.