There is no reason for a Democrat to go to bat for the AHCA, not ever, and I don't care how fucking red their state is. There are certain lines we don't cross, and a shit-ton of people dying is one of them, or else what is the point?
Some of these Congresspeople need ovarian/testicular transplants, and failing that, to be run out on a rail. This is not the time to be wishy-washy.
Pressure people in our party to oppose this shit, and if it doesn't take, primary them.
Edit: Fortenberry is a Republican, not a Democrat, but my point stands. I'm keeping a very close eye on the Democrats and expect blanket opposition.
I think they understand that this hill, at least, is one they need to die on. I don't think the Democrats are gonna back down on defending Obamacare anymore. It's their singular biggest accomplishment now. And the townhalls have probably helped reinforce how people feel about this shit.
On a never-before-released private October conference call with House Republican members, House Speaker Paul Ryan told his members in the U.S. House of Representatives he was abandoning then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump forever and would never defend him ever again.
In the Oct. 10, 2016 call, from right after the Access Hollywood tape of Trump was leaked in the weeks leading up to the election, Ryan does not specify that he will never defend Trump on just the Access Hollywood tape—he says clearly he is done with Trump altogether.
“I am not going to defend Donald Trump—not now, not in the future,” Ryan says in the audio, obtained by Breitbart News and published here for the first time ever.
Now, Ryan—still the Speaker—has pushed now President Donald Trump to believe his healthcare legislation the American Health Care Act would repeal and replace Obamacare when it does not repeal Obamacare. Ryan has also, according to Trump ally Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), misled President Trump into believing that Ryan’s bill can pass Congress. Paul and others believe the bill is dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate since a number of GOP senators have come out against it, and there are serious questions about whether it can pass the House. This is the first major initiative that Trump has worked on with Ryan—and the fact it is going so poorly calls into question whether Speaker Ryan, the GOP’s failed 2012 vice presidential nominee who barely supported Trump at all in 2016, really understands how Trump won and how to win in general.
On a never-before-released private October conference call with House Republican members, House Speaker Paul Ryan told his members in the U.S. House of Representatives he was abandoning then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump forever and would never defend him ever again.
In the Oct. 10, 2016 call, from right after the Access Hollywood tape of Trump was leaked in the weeks leading up to the election, Ryan does not specify that he will never defend Trump on just the Access Hollywood tape—he says clearly he is done with Trump altogether.
“I am not going to defend Donald Trump—not now, not in the future,” Ryan says in the audio, obtained by Breitbart News and published here for the first time ever.
Now, Ryan—still the Speaker—has pushed now President Donald Trump to believe his healthcare legislation the American Health Care Act would repeal and replace Obamacare when it does not repeal Obamacare. Ryan has also, according to Trump ally Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), misled President Trump into believing that Ryan’s bill can pass Congress. Paul and others believe the bill is dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate since a number of GOP senators have come out against it, and there are serious questions about whether it can pass the House. This is the first major initiative that Trump has worked on with Ryan—and the fact it is going so poorly calls into question whether Speaker Ryan, the GOP’s failed 2012 vice presidential nominee who barely supported Trump at all in 2016, really understands how Trump won and how to win in general.
I wish Ryan had had the courage of his convictions And held that 'no defending trump' policy even after the election win. Hell, if he was a real conservative he would have come out and said he was voting against him.
On a never-before-released private October conference call with House Republican members, House Speaker Paul Ryan told his members in the U.S. House of Representatives he was abandoning then-GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump forever and would never defend him ever again.
In the Oct. 10, 2016 call, from right after the Access Hollywood tape of Trump was leaked in the weeks leading up to the election, Ryan does not specify that he will never defend Trump on just the Access Hollywood tape—he says clearly he is done with Trump altogether.
“I am not going to defend Donald Trump—not now, not in the future,” Ryan says in the audio, obtained by Breitbart News and published here for the first time ever.
Now, Ryan—still the Speaker—has pushed now President Donald Trump to believe his healthcare legislation the American Health Care Act would repeal and replace Obamacare when it does not repeal Obamacare. Ryan has also, according to Trump ally Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), misled President Trump into believing that Ryan’s bill can pass Congress. Paul and others believe the bill is dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate since a number of GOP senators have come out against it, and there are serious questions about whether it can pass the House. This is the first major initiative that Trump has worked on with Ryan—and the fact it is going so poorly calls into question whether Speaker Ryan, the GOP’s failed 2012 vice presidential nominee who barely supported Trump at all in 2016, really understands how Trump won and how to win in general.
I wish Ryan had had the courage of his convictions And held that 'no defending trump' policy even after the election win. Hell, if he was a real conservative he would have come out and said he was voting against him.
You are confusing Conservativism as an actual movement with principles, instead of a hodge-podge of excuses crafted by the Heritage Institute to justify the donor class taking everything from the peasants.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds.2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
+39
Mx. QuillI now prefer "Myr. Quill", actually...{They/Them}Registered Userregular
edited March 2017
Keep infighting, Pubs. The more you do, the less shit you actually get done.
Sure they'll claim the Dems are getting in the way, but there's no convincing them of otherwise. Only thing we can do is hope they continue to eat their own.
When was the last time there was a successful congressional leadership challenge? Ever?
I think a speaker from the far right side of the R party would be bad news for us. Even "Centrist" leaning Rs would not stand up to a unified White House/Leadership. Not that they do now, but it's even less likely.
Also, the resistance to a Trumpist speaker would be extreme. There's a reason the Speakership was a problem when Boehner retired. To become Speaker requires 215 votes (Currently 5 vacancies, and Pence would be able to break a tie). Republicans have 237. Meaning just 23 votes opposing a Trumpist, and a new Speaker can't pass.
While a moderate Republican (is there such a thing in the House?) might get some Democratic support if the alternative is a Trumpist, a Trumpist is going to get NO support from Democrats.
Simply put, that might be what the Trump Administration is TRYING to do, but getting universal support from within the party as to who will lead them going for, I really can't see happening, given Trump's approval rating, and the fact that a term in the House is two years, and Congresspeople would have to defend it in their districts. Even with gerrymandering, if they lose just a handful of seats (and/or pick up some of the vacant ones), then they lose control of the House. But more than that, given the craven nature of the Legislature, a Republican who could retain the seat as a moderate is going to break party ranks if it means he'd lose re-election, unless he knows he'd also lose a Trumpist primary challenge too.
And I think the RNC know that going all-in on Trump has a potential for not just losing power, but getting absolutely crushed electorally.
+2
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
Senate Democrats acknowledge the pressure from their base. But key influential players in the Gorsuch fight say it’s not their role to automatically reject the nominee.
“Our job is to put together the hearing,” said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “Why have a hearing if everybody is going to take a position? … So to be talking about whether I’m for or against at this stage makes no sense at all to me because it’s uninformed.”
North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a red-state Democrat up for reelection who’s under heavy pressure from conservatives and liberals on the Supreme Court decision, stressed that “we should be open to supporting any nominee.” As for liberals calling on her to oppose Gorsuch, she said: “I get pressure from the left all the time. I wasn’t sent here to respond to pressure.”
Senate Democrats acknowledge the pressure from their base. But key influential players in the Gorsuch fight say it’s not their role to automatically reject the nominee.
“Our job is to put together the hearing,” said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “Why have a hearing if everybody is going to take a position? … So to be talking about whether I’m for or against at this stage makes no sense at all to me because it’s uninformed.”
North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a red-state Democrat up for reelection who’s under heavy pressure from conservatives and liberals on the Supreme Court decision, stressed that “we should be open to supporting any nominee.” As for liberals calling on her to oppose Gorsuch, she said: “I get pressure from the left all the time. I wasn’t sent here to respond to pressure.”
Nope.
Fuck that.
You rubber stamp a Republican nominee for a position that should have been a Democratic appointment, you aren't really a Democrat.
Senate Democrats acknowledge the pressure from their base. But key influential players in the Gorsuch fight say it’s not their role to automatically reject the nominee.
“Our job is to put together the hearing,” said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “Why have a hearing if everybody is going to take a position? … So to be talking about whether I’m for or against at this stage makes no sense at all to me because it’s uninformed.”
North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a red-state Democrat up for reelection who’s under heavy pressure from conservatives and liberals on the Supreme Court decision, stressed that “we should be open to supporting any nominee.” As for liberals calling on her to oppose Gorsuch, she said: “I get pressure from the left all the time. I wasn’t sent here to respond to pressure.”
Nope.
Fuck that.
You rubber stamp a Republican nominee for a position that should have been a Democratic appointment, you aren't really a Democrat.
So, here's a random thought: say that the extremely unlikely happens and the Democrats take back the Senate in 2018. Since Garland was never actually removed from consideration (IIRC), could the Democrats put him onto the court if there's a vacancy?
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
There'll need to be 60 votes, and the GOP will have to fight to get them, likely the 8 most vulnerable Democrats in 2018. I still say Gorsuch isn't the hill to die on. Shitty as it is, it just puts everything back to where it was January 2016.
The precedent to remember is that now you need a sympathetic Senate to even get a vote on your Supreme Court nominee. That's what the GOP will have to live with going forward. But realistically there's nothing more that can be done.
Also what the fuck, the hell you weren't sent there to respond to pressure
You represent real people, and if those people are pressuring you to do a thing or not do a thing, you are beholden to them because they got you elected and they can take your job away
At the very least the committee hearing better be great. Questions about the constitutional obligations of the Senate and what happens when they refuse to take them up.
There'll need to be 60 votes, and the GOP will have to fight to get them, likely the 8 most vulnerable Democrats in 2018. I still say Gorsuch isn't the hill to die on. Shitty as it is, it just puts everything back to where it was January 2016.
The precedent to remember is that now you need a sympathetic Senate to even get a vote on your Supreme Court nominee. That's what the GOP will have to live with going forward. But realistically there's nothing more that can be done.
I think at least they should force the republicans to do away with the filibuster for supreme court nods. Given this is the logical end game we are at make them take that hit so when eventually the wheel comes back around with dems having control they don't have to.
Also what the fuck, the hell you weren't sent there to respond to pressure
You represent real people, and if those people are pressuring you to do a thing or not do a thing, you are beholden to them because they got you elected and they can take your job away
This was my own kneejerk thought too, but in fairness: she was sent there by people in North Dakota, to represent them - not all liberals, or all Democrats, everywhere. Ideally, IMO, she should try to act in their best interests ... which means balancing what she hears from them against what she believes, based on the information she has access to, their best interests actually are. If she's getting pressure from, e.g., people in California, why should she listen?
I'm glad my own representatives in DC seem to be leading the charge (and I've called their offices to let them know I approve and support). I have no lever, no standing, no means to compel or influence anyone from any other state.
Commander Zoom on
+2
FakefauxCóiste BodharDriving John McCain to meet some Iraqis who'd very much like to make his acquaintanceRegistered Userregular
There'll need to be 60 votes, and the GOP will have to fight to get them, likely the 8 most vulnerable Democrats in 2018. I still say Gorsuch isn't the hill to die on. Shitty as it is, it just puts everything back to where it was January 2016.
The precedent to remember is that now you need a sympathetic Senate to even get a vote on your Supreme Court nominee. That's what the GOP will have to live with going forward. But realistically there's nothing more that can be done.
I think at least they should force the republicans to do away with the filibuster for supreme court nods. Given this is the logical end game we are at make them take that hit so when eventually the wheel comes back around with dems having control they don't have to.
Well, their plan is to never let anyone else have control ever again. Between the things Bannon has said and the goose that McTurtleFace continues to spout I'm not entirely certain that should the Senate or House flip that either institution would ever hold a session again. These are not reasonable people. These are people who have a single drive right now; To consolidate power. Granted they seem to be treading all over each other in pursuit of this, giving anyone and everyone around them plenty of ammunition to work with.
However.
Whatever Biblical plague that has infected their minds either come from or spread to the general public and until some cooler heads prevail there, I don't know that the national legislature is going to be functional. Our government is a reflection of ourselves and if we are being honest, we are deep in our own internal conflicts. Racism, bigotry, sexism have been pushed to the fore in ways that haven't been acknowledged in decades. Technological progress is accelerating economic and financial changes without anyone seemingly at the wheel. Global changes happen in a matter of days instead of months or years. How we've dealt with these changes in the past don't seem to be working.
History would have us look to our political leaders for a shepherding hand during all of this. Yet our own fractured world have them scrambling just as much as we are. Is there any wonder as to why chaos reigns as much as it does right now?
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
Senate Democrats acknowledge the pressure from their base. But key influential players in the Gorsuch fight say it’s not their role to automatically reject the nominee.
“Our job is to put together the hearing,” said California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. “Why have a hearing if everybody is going to take a position? … So to be talking about whether I’m for or against at this stage makes no sense at all to me because it’s uninformed.”
North Dakota Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a red-state Democrat up for reelection who’s under heavy pressure from conservatives and liberals on the Supreme Court decision, stressed that “we should be open to supporting any nominee.” As for liberals calling on her to oppose Gorsuch, she said: “I get pressure from the left all the time. I wasn’t sent here to respond to pressure.”
Nope.
Fuck that.
You rubber stamp a Republican nominee for a position that should have been a Democratic appointment, you aren't really a Democrat.
So, here's a random thought: say that the extremely unlikely happens and the Democrats take back the Senate in 2018. Since Garland was never actually removed from consideration (IIRC), could the Democrats put him onto the court if there's a vacancy?
It expired when the new Congress was sworn in. No formal action is needed to withdraw the candidate if the session ends without them being confirmed.
Using Feinstein and Heitkamp as representative of the whole caucus is exactly the kind of bullshit you'd expect from Politico.
Are you seeing some sign that the rest of the democrats are putting forward some sort of unified front or coherent response? Because I'm sure not.
WASHINGTON — Corporate tool. Enemy of disabled people. Deferential to the privileged, including the man who chose him.
One week before Judge Neil M. Gorsuch is to sit for his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Democrats have zeroed in on their most prominent planned line of attack: Judge Gorsuch’s rulings have favored the powerful and well connected. And he has done little, they will say, to demonstrate independence from a president whose combative relationship with the judiciary has already clouded the nominating process.
The strategy includes two events this week aimed at emphasizing Judge Gorsuch’s record on workers’ rights and big money in politics — an attempt to break through the din in President Trump’s Washington, where the nomination fight so far has been largely overshadowed by administration infighting, Russia-tinged scandals and legislation to overhaul the nation’s health care system.
But after weeks spent poring over his rulings, their attention in the coming days will be trained largely on Judge Gorsuch’s paper trail on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
Democrats are expected to point out several instances they say highlight his tendency to side against the little guy. In one case, Judge Gorsuch argued in a dissent that a company was permitted to fire a truck driver for abandoning his cargo for his own safety in subzero temperatures.
In another, he ruled against a family seeking reimbursement under a federal disabilities law for the cost of sending a child with severe autism to a specialized school. Then there was the professor who lost her job after taking time off to recover from cancer: Judge Gorsuch denied her federal discrimination claim, saying that while the predicament was “in no way of her own making,” it was “a problem other forms of social security aim to address.”
“You can find example after example of Judge Gorsuch siding against workers even in the most dire circumstances,” Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the No. 3 ranking Senate Democrat, said last week at an event with union and disability rights representatives.
Using Feinstein and Heitkamp as representative of the whole caucus is exactly the kind of bullshit you'd expect from Politico.
Are you seeing some sign that the rest of the democrats are putting forward some sort of unified front or coherent response? Because I'm sure not.
WASHINGTON — Corporate tool. Enemy of disabled people. Deferential to the privileged, including the man who chose him.
One week before Judge Neil M. Gorsuch is to sit for his Supreme Court confirmation hearing, Democrats have zeroed in on their most prominent planned line of attack: Judge Gorsuch’s rulings have favored the powerful and well connected. And he has done little, they will say, to demonstrate independence from a president whose combative relationship with the judiciary has already clouded the nominating process.
The strategy includes two events this week aimed at emphasizing Judge Gorsuch’s record on workers’ rights and big money in politics — an attempt to break through the din in President Trump’s Washington, where the nomination fight so far has been largely overshadowed by administration infighting, Russia-tinged scandals and legislation to overhaul the nation’s health care system.
But after weeks spent poring over his rulings, their attention in the coming days will be trained largely on Judge Gorsuch’s paper trail on the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
Democrats are expected to point out several instances they say highlight his tendency to side against the little guy. In one case, Judge Gorsuch argued in a dissent that a company was permitted to fire a truck driver for abandoning his cargo for his own safety in subzero temperatures.
In another, he ruled against a family seeking reimbursement under a federal disabilities law for the cost of sending a child with severe autism to a specialized school. Then there was the professor who lost her job after taking time off to recover from cancer: Judge Gorsuch denied her federal discrimination claim, saying that while the predicament was “in no way of her own making,” it was “a problem other forms of social security aim to address.”
“You can find example after example of Judge Gorsuch siding against workers even in the most dire circumstances,” Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the No. 3 ranking Senate Democrat, said last week at an event with union and disability rights representatives.
And of course, this is all idiocy. They should refuse to even talk about Gorsuch as a judge and focus entirely on how he has been given the appearance and inevitable perception of bias and corruption by the Republicans failure to vote on Garland. That there is NO candidate Trump can nominate who doesn't degrade and shame the supreme court for their entire term unless at least a complete debate and vote are held on Merrick Garland. And even then, only his nomination will cleanse the blight from our government.
There is NOONE trump can nominate who is OK. This is not Gorsuch's fault. This is not even Trumps fault. This is McConnell and the senate republicans fault. Even Obama himself would be a blighted candidate if Trump nominated him instead. Every Trump justice nomination for Scalia's seat is fruit of the poisonous tree, and cannot be consumed regardless of how appealing it may or may not be.
Stop playing snakes and ladders Democrats and start playing the actual game. The Gorsuch you oppose is not Gorsuch the justice, or Gorsuch the man. He is the 'thing' that he embodies. The corrupt and sneaking cancer at the heart of our democracy.
Also what the fuck, the hell you weren't sent there to respond to pressure
You represent real people, and if those people are pressuring you to do a thing or not do a thing, you are beholden to them because they got you elected and they can take your job away
This was my own kneejerk thought too, but in fairness: she was sent there by people in North Dakota, to represent them - not all liberals, or all Democrats, everywhere. Ideally, IMO, she should try to act in their best interests ... which means balancing what she hears from them against what she believes, based on the information she has access to, their best interests actually are. If she's getting pressure from, e.g., people in California, why should she listen?
I'm glad my own representatives in DC seem to be leading the charge (and I've called their offices to let them know I approve and support). I have no lever, no standing, no means to compel or influence anyone from any other state.
If she is elected as a Democrat then, no, she is supposed to represent Democrats everywhere. That's what political parties are supposed to be: they tell you how the representative will vote once in the legislature.
If you are not willing to vote the party line, then you have no right seeking candidature for that party. If there's no party line, then what you have is not a political party, but a recipe for failure to accomplish anything.
Also what the fuck, the hell you weren't sent there to respond to pressure
You represent real people, and if those people are pressuring you to do a thing or not do a thing, you are beholden to them because they got you elected and they can take your job away
This was my own kneejerk thought too, but in fairness: she was sent there by people in North Dakota, to represent them - not all liberals, or all Democrats, everywhere. Ideally, IMO, she should try to act in their best interests ... which means balancing what she hears from them against what she believes, based on the information she has access to, their best interests actually are. If she's getting pressure from, e.g., people in California, why should she listen?
I'm glad my own representatives in DC seem to be leading the charge (and I've called their offices to let them know I approve and support). I have no lever, no standing, no means to compel or influence anyone from any other state.
If she is elected as a Democrat then, no, she is supposed to represent Democrats everywhere. That's what political parties are supposed to be: they tell you how the representative will vote once in the legislature.
If you are not willing to vote the party line, then you have no right seeking candidature for that party. If there's no party line, then what you have is not a political party, but a recipe for failure to accomplish anything.
I hate that's what this country has become. They are supposed to represent the whole state, and not just their party. That's the issue with the GOP, and their hardline against every dem plan even when it benefits their constituents.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Also what the fuck, the hell you weren't sent there to respond to pressure
You represent real people, and if those people are pressuring you to do a thing or not do a thing, you are beholden to them because they got you elected and they can take your job away
This was my own kneejerk thought too, but in fairness: she was sent there by people in North Dakota, to represent them - not all liberals, or all Democrats, everywhere. Ideally, IMO, she should try to act in their best interests ... which means balancing what she hears from them against what she believes, based on the information she has access to, their best interests actually are. If she's getting pressure from, e.g., people in California, why should she listen?
I'm glad my own representatives in DC seem to be leading the charge (and I've called their offices to let them know I approve and support). I have no lever, no standing, no means to compel or influence anyone from any other state.
If she is elected as a Democrat then, no, she is supposed to represent Democrats everywhere. That's what political parties are supposed to be: they tell you how the representative will vote once in the legislature.
If you are not willing to vote the party line, then you have no right seeking candidature for that party. If there's no party line, then what you have is not a political party, but a recipe for failure to accomplish anything.
I don't agree with this. You should campaign based on your beliefs, and goals, providing a party affiliation if you wish to make those beliefs and goals more clear. Then, once in congress you should listen to your constituents but vote your conscience for your term in office and then at the end of your term be able to present a complete picture of your work to the people and have them make a decision.
Government is supposed to have a time lag in its implementation and response. Removing that gives you Brexit. You elect the person, not the party. Yes, thats not how it has often worked because our parties are far too powerful, but I can't complain about someone talking about how government should work.
Also what the fuck, the hell you weren't sent there to respond to pressure
You represent real people, and if those people are pressuring you to do a thing or not do a thing, you are beholden to them because they got you elected and they can take your job away
This was my own kneejerk thought too, but in fairness: she was sent there by people in North Dakota, to represent them - not all liberals, or all Democrats, everywhere. Ideally, IMO, she should try to act in their best interests ... which means balancing what she hears from them against what she believes, based on the information she has access to, their best interests actually are. If she's getting pressure from, e.g., people in California, why should she listen?
I'm glad my own representatives in DC seem to be leading the charge (and I've called their offices to let them know I approve and support). I have no lever, no standing, no means to compel or influence anyone from any other state.
If she is elected as a Democrat then, no, she is supposed to represent Democrats everywhere. That's what political parties are supposed to be: they tell you how the representative will vote once in the legislature.
If you are not willing to vote the party line, then you have no right seeking candidature for that party. If there's no party line, then what you have is not a political party, but a recipe for failure to accomplish anything.
Pretty sure we call this "purity testing" and we mock the shit out of the GOP when they go fucking bonkers with it.
And no, man. Just no. The political party you belong to is a helpful shorthand to communicate how you will most likely vote. It is not a damned suicide pact. If a Senator's constituents call him or her up and say "hey, I know we're trying to pass Bill ABC, but this is really bad for the state because XYZ" then the Senator should be listening to his constituents. Not going "nah, fuck you, I'm obligated to vote as my party leaders tell me because I'm a member of the Party". There are times too when they shouldn't be listening to constituents, they should instead stand up and Do the Right Thing (I'm thinking civil-rights stuff).
Also, the resistance to a Trumpist speaker would be extreme. There's a reason the Speakership was a problem when Boehner retired. To become Speaker requires 215 votes (Currently 5 vacancies, and Pence would be able to break a tie). Republicans have 237. Meaning just 23 votes opposing a Trumpist, and a new Speaker can't pass.
While a moderate Republican (is there such a thing in the House?) might get some Democratic support if the alternative is a Trumpist, a Trumpist is going to get NO support from Democrats.
Simply put, that might be what the Trump Administration is TRYING to do, but getting universal support from within the party as to who will lead them going for, I really can't see happening, given Trump's approval rating, and the fact that a term in the House is two years, and Congresspeople would have to defend it in their districts. Even with gerrymandering, if they lose just a handful of seats (and/or pick up some of the vacant ones), then they lose control of the House. But more than that, given the craven nature of the Legislature, a Republican who could retain the seat as a moderate is going to break party ranks if it means he'd lose re-election, unless he knows he'd also lose a Trumpist primary challenge too.
And I think the RNC know that going all-in on Trump has a potential for not just losing power, but getting absolutely crushed electorally.
The Vice President has no role in the House. The Speaker needs a clear majority of sitting Members and a roll will be called until they manage to get the votes.
Also what the fuck, the hell you weren't sent there to respond to pressure
You represent real people, and if those people are pressuring you to do a thing or not do a thing, you are beholden to them because they got you elected and they can take your job away
This was my own kneejerk thought too, but in fairness: she was sent there by people in North Dakota, to represent them - not all liberals, or all Democrats, everywhere. Ideally, IMO, she should try to act in their best interests ... which means balancing what she hears from them against what she believes, based on the information she has access to, their best interests actually are. If she's getting pressure from, e.g., people in California, why should she listen?
I'm glad my own representatives in DC seem to be leading the charge (and I've called their offices to let them know I approve and support). I have no lever, no standing, no means to compel or influence anyone from any other state.
If she is elected as a Democrat then, no, she is supposed to represent Democrats everywhere. That's what political parties are supposed to be: they tell you how the representative will vote once in the legislature.
If you are not willing to vote the party line, then you have no right seeking candidature for that party. If there's no party line, then what you have is not a political party, but a recipe for failure to accomplish anything.
I don't agree with this. You should campaign based on your beliefs, and goals, providing a party affiliation if you wish to make those beliefs and goals more clear. Then, once in congress you should listen to your constituents but vote your conscience for your term in office and then at the end of your term be able to present a complete picture of your work to the people and have them make a decision.
Government is supposed to have a time lag in its implementation and response. Removing that gives you Brexit. You elect the person, not the party. Yes, thats not how it has often worked because our parties are far too powerful, but I can't complain about someone talking about how government should work.
Here, if people want the policies of the Conservative party, they vote for the Conservative candidate. When it blows up and everything suck, they know exactly whose policies sucked. So they vote for someone else.
That's the whole point: simple feedback to guide decision, pre-internal negotiation within the party so you don't get Liebermaned. If a party campaigns on something, they should not have to fight internally within their own caucus to pass it.
Individual representatives should not be able to block their own party's policies, since this destroy the whole feedback loop.
It works quite well here. We knew who to blame for Mulroney's, Martin's and Harper's policies. The solution was as simple as it was obvious.
Brexit is not a good example of having actual parties: the English voted for self destruction in a referendum. There's not much a democracy can do against collective suicide.
Also, the resistance to a Trumpist speaker would be extreme. There's a reason the Speakership was a problem when Boehner retired. To become Speaker requires 215 votes (Currently 5 vacancies, and Pence would be able to break a tie). Republicans have 237. Meaning just 23 votes opposing a Trumpist, and a new Speaker can't pass.
While a moderate Republican (is there such a thing in the House?) might get some Democratic support if the alternative is a Trumpist, a Trumpist is going to get NO support from Democrats.
Simply put, that might be what the Trump Administration is TRYING to do, but getting universal support from within the party as to who will lead them going for, I really can't see happening, given Trump's approval rating, and the fact that a term in the House is two years, and Congresspeople would have to defend it in their districts. Even with gerrymandering, if they lose just a handful of seats (and/or pick up some of the vacant ones), then they lose control of the House. But more than that, given the craven nature of the Legislature, a Republican who could retain the seat as a moderate is going to break party ranks if it means he'd lose re-election, unless he knows he'd also lose a Trumpist primary challenge too.
And I think the RNC know that going all-in on Trump has a potential for not just losing power, but getting absolutely crushed electorally.
The Vice President has no role in the House. The Speaker needs a clear majority of sitting Members and a roll will be called until they manage to get the votes.
And if there are two candidates, one from the Democratic Party and one from the Republican Party, the Republicans will vote for the one from their party, no matter how much they may disagree with them or dislike them.
The exotic idea being floated after Boehner resigned was that the constitution doesn't designate that the Speaker has to be a sitting member, so if they can't find a consensus candidate from within their ranks, they can find one from one of the other 300 million people in this country.
Also, the resistance to a Trumpist speaker would be extreme. There's a reason the Speakership was a problem when Boehner retired. To become Speaker requires 215 votes (Currently 5 vacancies, and Pence would be able to break a tie). Republicans have 237. Meaning just 23 votes opposing a Trumpist, and a new Speaker can't pass.
While a moderate Republican (is there such a thing in the House?) might get some Democratic support if the alternative is a Trumpist, a Trumpist is going to get NO support from Democrats.
Simply put, that might be what the Trump Administration is TRYING to do, but getting universal support from within the party as to who will lead them going for, I really can't see happening, given Trump's approval rating, and the fact that a term in the House is two years, and Congresspeople would have to defend it in their districts. Even with gerrymandering, if they lose just a handful of seats (and/or pick up some of the vacant ones), then they lose control of the House. But more than that, given the craven nature of the Legislature, a Republican who could retain the seat as a moderate is going to break party ranks if it means he'd lose re-election, unless he knows he'd also lose a Trumpist primary challenge too.
And I think the RNC know that going all-in on Trump has a potential for not just losing power, but getting absolutely crushed electorally.
The Vice President has no role in the House. The Speaker needs a clear majority of sitting Members and a roll will be called until they manage to get the votes.
Whoops. You are indeed correct. Vice President has no role, and a tie counts as a loss. Don't know where my head was at.
The rest of my argument stands though. I do not see an ousting of Paul Ryan (and for the record, screw that guy) leading to a more Trumpist Speaker.
However, that comes with one caveat. Wiki says with regards the election of the Speaker, "Although no rule exists, based on tradition and practice from the earliest days of the nation, to be elected speaker a candidate must receive an absolute majority of all votes cast for individuals,", and any time I now see a rule or law is actually a tradition, custom, or norm, I get antsy.
Because I wouldn't put it past this Administration wanting to appoint a Speaker, and as there's no actual rule in place, why not? Especially if it runs a three-way race for several weeks of ballots (Trumpian, Moderate Republican, Democrat), and the ability to legislate stalls without a presiding officer. I can absolutely see them trying to force it through with the argument that it needs to be done to have government run again, and they'll keep running the Trumpian until they either get their way (government shutdowns are a feature, not a bug, for these people), with Trump ruling by EO, or until the Judiciary step in and make a ruling. And the best I can see them doing, is "It's up to the House to figure it out". Which leaves Trump again, ruling by executive fiat.
When Democrats finally take back the House and/or Senate, they need to fight for codifying this crap. Leaving it up to "tradition" when one side is shown to wilfully ignore it if it's an inconvenience, is just asking for it to be ignored.
Also what the fuck, the hell you weren't sent there to respond to pressure
You represent real people, and if those people are pressuring you to do a thing or not do a thing, you are beholden to them because they got you elected and they can take your job away
This was my own kneejerk thought too, but in fairness: she was sent there by people in North Dakota, to represent them - not all liberals, or all Democrats, everywhere. Ideally, IMO, she should try to act in their best interests ... which means balancing what she hears from them against what she believes, based on the information she has access to, their best interests actually are. If she's getting pressure from, e.g., people in California, why should she listen?
I'm glad my own representatives in DC seem to be leading the charge (and I've called their offices to let them know I approve and support). I have no lever, no standing, no means to compel or influence anyone from any other state.
If she is elected as a Democrat then, no, she is supposed to represent Democrats everywhere. That's what political parties are supposed to be: they tell you how the representative will vote once in the legislature.
If you are not willing to vote the party line, then you have no right seeking candidature for that party. If there's no party line, then what you have is not a political party, but a recipe for failure to accomplish anything.
I don't agree with this. You should campaign based on your beliefs, and goals, providing a party affiliation if you wish to make those beliefs and goals more clear. Then, once in congress you should listen to your constituents but vote your conscience for your term in office and then at the end of your term be able to present a complete picture of your work to the people and have them make a decision.
Government is supposed to have a time lag in its implementation and response. Removing that gives you Brexit. You elect the person, not the party. Yes, thats not how it has often worked because our parties are far too powerful, but I can't complain about someone talking about how government should work.
Here, if people want the policies of the Conservative party, they vote for the Conservative candidate. When it blows up and everything suck, they know exactly whose policies sucked. So they vote for someone else.
That's the whole point: simple feedback to guide decision, pre-internal negotiation within the party so you don't get Liebermaned. If a party campaigns on something, they should not have to fight internally within their own caucus to pass it.
Individual representatives should not be able to block their own party's policies, since this destroy the whole feedback loop.
It works quite well here. We knew who to blame for Mulroney's, Martin's and Harper's policies. The solution was as simple as it was obvious.
Brexit is not a good example of having actual parties: the English voted for self destruction in a referendum. There's not much a democracy can do against collective suicide.
Also, your political parties are way too weak.
No, Brexit is what happens when you remove the 'representative' aspect of Democracy. Life is complex. Voting directly on a single issue like Brexit and then acting on that vote is what happens when you just 'do what the people say'. Sometimes the people are wrong, or can't understand what they are voting on. Parties are supposed to help people understand that. Another good example is say, prop 13 in California.
Your understanding of the feedback loop is wrong.
Politican seeks office
Politician communicates with the people
Politician joins political party to facilitate that communication
Political party helps politician communicate
People make decision
Politician wins office
Politician acts according to their beliefs while in office 4-6 years elapse
At the end of the term, the party judges whether the politicians actions have reflected their faith in them
At the end of the term, the people judge whether the politicians actions have reflected their vote for or against them
Politician communicates with the people
Political party communicates their pleasure or displeasure with the candidate
People make decision
When was the last time there was a successful congressional leadership challenge? Ever?
...2015
He resigned, after his challenger pulled out. And he was replaced by someone from roughly the same wing of the party.
So, I'm at least technically right. And my the larger point, that a hostile takeover of House leadership by the Freedom Caucus is unlikely, I think stands.
When was the last time there was a successful congressional leadership challenge? Ever?
...2015
He resigned, after his challenger pulled out. And he was replaced by someone from roughly the same wing of the party.
So, I'm at least technically right. And my the larger point, that a hostile takeover of House leadership by the Freedom Caucus is unlikely, I think stands.
The Freedom Caucus aren't the Trumpkins, that's the more populist end of the party. Trump himself will get a lot of pushback from the Freedom Caucus since his ideas are pretty spendthrift (albeit in a very back-scratching way).
Posts
I think they understand that this hill, at least, is one they need to die on. I don't think the Democrats are gonna back down on defending Obamacare anymore. It's their singular biggest accomplishment now. And the townhalls have probably helped reinforce how people feel about this shit.
I wish Ryan had had the courage of his convictions And held that 'no defending trump' policy even after the election win. Hell, if he was a real conservative he would have come out and said he was voting against him.
You are confusing Conservativism as an actual movement with principles, instead of a hodge-podge of excuses crafted by the Heritage Institute to justify the donor class taking everything from the peasants.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Sure they'll claim the Dems are getting in the way, but there's no convincing them of otherwise. Only thing we can do is hope they continue to eat their own.
Who would that be though. Scalise? Steve King? Gohmert?
I think a speaker from the far right side of the R party would be bad news for us. Even "Centrist" leaning Rs would not stand up to a unified White House/Leadership. Not that they do now, but it's even less likely.
While a moderate Republican (is there such a thing in the House?) might get some Democratic support if the alternative is a Trumpist, a Trumpist is going to get NO support from Democrats.
Simply put, that might be what the Trump Administration is TRYING to do, but getting universal support from within the party as to who will lead them going for, I really can't see happening, given Trump's approval rating, and the fact that a term in the House is two years, and Congresspeople would have to defend it in their districts. Even with gerrymandering, if they lose just a handful of seats (and/or pick up some of the vacant ones), then they lose control of the House. But more than that, given the craven nature of the Legislature, a Republican who could retain the seat as a moderate is going to break party ranks if it means he'd lose re-election, unless he knows he'd also lose a Trumpist primary challenge too.
And I think the RNC know that going all-in on Trump has a potential for not just losing power, but getting absolutely crushed electorally.
Nope.
Fuck that.
You rubber stamp a Republican nominee for a position that should have been a Democratic appointment, you aren't really a Democrat.
So, here's a random thought: say that the extremely unlikely happens and the Democrats take back the Senate in 2018. Since Garland was never actually removed from consideration (IIRC), could the Democrats put him onto the court if there's a vacancy?
The precedent to remember is that now you need a sympathetic Senate to even get a vote on your Supreme Court nominee. That's what the GOP will have to live with going forward. But realistically there's nothing more that can be done.
You represent real people, and if those people are pressuring you to do a thing or not do a thing, you are beholden to them because they got you elected and they can take your job away
make them go all in on their hypocrisy at very least.
No real good answer to that for him.
I think at least they should force the republicans to do away with the filibuster for supreme court nods. Given this is the logical end game we are at make them take that hit so when eventually the wheel comes back around with dems having control they don't have to.
This was my own kneejerk thought too, but in fairness: she was sent there by people in North Dakota, to represent them - not all liberals, or all Democrats, everywhere. Ideally, IMO, she should try to act in their best interests ... which means balancing what she hears from them against what she believes, based on the information she has access to, their best interests actually are. If she's getting pressure from, e.g., people in California, why should she listen?
I'm glad my own representatives in DC seem to be leading the charge (and I've called their offices to let them know I approve and support). I have no lever, no standing, no means to compel or influence anyone from any other state.
Are you seeing some sign that the rest of the democrats are putting forward some sort of unified front or coherent response? Because I'm sure not.
Well, their plan is to never let anyone else have control ever again. Between the things Bannon has said and the goose that McTurtleFace continues to spout I'm not entirely certain that should the Senate or House flip that either institution would ever hold a session again. These are not reasonable people. These are people who have a single drive right now; To consolidate power. Granted they seem to be treading all over each other in pursuit of this, giving anyone and everyone around them plenty of ammunition to work with.
However.
Whatever Biblical plague that has infected their minds either come from or spread to the general public and until some cooler heads prevail there, I don't know that the national legislature is going to be functional. Our government is a reflection of ourselves and if we are being honest, we are deep in our own internal conflicts. Racism, bigotry, sexism have been pushed to the fore in ways that haven't been acknowledged in decades. Technological progress is accelerating economic and financial changes without anyone seemingly at the wheel. Global changes happen in a matter of days instead of months or years. How we've dealt with these changes in the past don't seem to be working.
History would have us look to our political leaders for a shepherding hand during all of this. Yet our own fractured world have them scrambling just as much as we are. Is there any wonder as to why chaos reigns as much as it does right now?
It expired when the new Congress was sworn in. No formal action is needed to withdraw the candidate if the session ends without them being confirmed.
Article.
And of course, this is all idiocy. They should refuse to even talk about Gorsuch as a judge and focus entirely on how he has been given the appearance and inevitable perception of bias and corruption by the Republicans failure to vote on Garland. That there is NO candidate Trump can nominate who doesn't degrade and shame the supreme court for their entire term unless at least a complete debate and vote are held on Merrick Garland. And even then, only his nomination will cleanse the blight from our government.
There is NOONE trump can nominate who is OK. This is not Gorsuch's fault. This is not even Trumps fault. This is McConnell and the senate republicans fault. Even Obama himself would be a blighted candidate if Trump nominated him instead. Every Trump justice nomination for Scalia's seat is fruit of the poisonous tree, and cannot be consumed regardless of how appealing it may or may not be.
Stop playing snakes and ladders Democrats and start playing the actual game. The Gorsuch you oppose is not Gorsuch the justice, or Gorsuch the man. He is the 'thing' that he embodies. The corrupt and sneaking cancer at the heart of our democracy.
If she is elected as a Democrat then, no, she is supposed to represent Democrats everywhere. That's what political parties are supposed to be: they tell you how the representative will vote once in the legislature.
If you are not willing to vote the party line, then you have no right seeking candidature for that party. If there's no party line, then what you have is not a political party, but a recipe for failure to accomplish anything.
I hate that's what this country has become. They are supposed to represent the whole state, and not just their party. That's the issue with the GOP, and their hardline against every dem plan even when it benefits their constituents.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't agree with this. You should campaign based on your beliefs, and goals, providing a party affiliation if you wish to make those beliefs and goals more clear. Then, once in congress you should listen to your constituents but vote your conscience for your term in office and then at the end of your term be able to present a complete picture of your work to the people and have them make a decision.
Government is supposed to have a time lag in its implementation and response. Removing that gives you Brexit. You elect the person, not the party. Yes, thats not how it has often worked because our parties are far too powerful, but I can't complain about someone talking about how government should work.
Pretty sure we call this "purity testing" and we mock the shit out of the GOP when they go fucking bonkers with it.
And no, man. Just no. The political party you belong to is a helpful shorthand to communicate how you will most likely vote. It is not a damned suicide pact. If a Senator's constituents call him or her up and say "hey, I know we're trying to pass Bill ABC, but this is really bad for the state because XYZ" then the Senator should be listening to his constituents. Not going "nah, fuck you, I'm obligated to vote as my party leaders tell me because I'm a member of the Party". There are times too when they shouldn't be listening to constituents, they should instead stand up and Do the Right Thing (I'm thinking civil-rights stuff).
...2015
The Vice President has no role in the House. The Speaker needs a clear majority of sitting Members and a roll will be called until they manage to get the votes.
Here, if people want the policies of the Conservative party, they vote for the Conservative candidate. When it blows up and everything suck, they know exactly whose policies sucked. So they vote for someone else.
That's the whole point: simple feedback to guide decision, pre-internal negotiation within the party so you don't get Liebermaned. If a party campaigns on something, they should not have to fight internally within their own caucus to pass it.
Individual representatives should not be able to block their own party's policies, since this destroy the whole feedback loop.
It works quite well here. We knew who to blame for Mulroney's, Martin's and Harper's policies. The solution was as simple as it was obvious.
Brexit is not a good example of having actual parties: the English voted for self destruction in a referendum. There's not much a democracy can do against collective suicide.
Also, your political parties are way too weak.
And if there are two candidates, one from the Democratic Party and one from the Republican Party, the Republicans will vote for the one from their party, no matter how much they may disagree with them or dislike them.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Whoops. You are indeed correct. Vice President has no role, and a tie counts as a loss. Don't know where my head was at.
The rest of my argument stands though. I do not see an ousting of Paul Ryan (and for the record, screw that guy) leading to a more Trumpist Speaker.
However, that comes with one caveat. Wiki says with regards the election of the Speaker, "Although no rule exists, based on tradition and practice from the earliest days of the nation, to be elected speaker a candidate must receive an absolute majority of all votes cast for individuals,", and any time I now see a rule or law is actually a tradition, custom, or norm, I get antsy.
Because I wouldn't put it past this Administration wanting to appoint a Speaker, and as there's no actual rule in place, why not? Especially if it runs a three-way race for several weeks of ballots (Trumpian, Moderate Republican, Democrat), and the ability to legislate stalls without a presiding officer. I can absolutely see them trying to force it through with the argument that it needs to be done to have government run again, and they'll keep running the Trumpian until they either get their way (government shutdowns are a feature, not a bug, for these people), with Trump ruling by EO, or until the Judiciary step in and make a ruling. And the best I can see them doing, is "It's up to the House to figure it out". Which leaves Trump again, ruling by executive fiat.
When Democrats finally take back the House and/or Senate, they need to fight for codifying this crap. Leaving it up to "tradition" when one side is shown to wilfully ignore it if it's an inconvenience, is just asking for it to be ignored.
No, Brexit is what happens when you remove the 'representative' aspect of Democracy. Life is complex. Voting directly on a single issue like Brexit and then acting on that vote is what happens when you just 'do what the people say'. Sometimes the people are wrong, or can't understand what they are voting on. Parties are supposed to help people understand that. Another good example is say, prop 13 in California.
Your understanding of the feedback loop is wrong.
Politican seeks office
Politician communicates with the people
Politician joins political party to facilitate that communication
Political party helps politician communicate
People make decision
Politician wins office
Politician acts according to their beliefs while in office
4-6 years elapse
At the end of the term, the party judges whether the politicians actions have reflected their faith in them
At the end of the term, the people judge whether the politicians actions have reflected their vote for or against them
Politician communicates with the people
Political party communicates their pleasure or displeasure with the candidate
People make decision
And repeat
He resigned, after his challenger pulled out. And he was replaced by someone from roughly the same wing of the party.
So, I'm at least technically right. And my the larger point, that a hostile takeover of House leadership by the Freedom Caucus is unlikely, I think stands.
The Freedom Caucus aren't the Trumpkins, that's the more populist end of the party. Trump himself will get a lot of pushback from the Freedom Caucus since his ideas are pretty spendthrift (albeit in a very back-scratching way).