Well, in this particular case, what matters is that they don't get mad when you're trying to make them mad, as Bannon and Donald just don't have any selfcontrol.
Trump's social media manager, Dan Scavino, has specifically called for Justin Amash of the Freedom Caucus to be primaried in 2018.
So, usually that means more extreme, but... how do you out-crazy that group (on that axis I mean)?
I feel like Trumplings kind of outcrazy Teapers nowadays on some levels, because the classic political spectrum is now incoherent. Screaming (lies) loudly and stupidly about a bunch of completely illogical things is what the GOP primary red meat is now, and I imagine little Trumplings to be very good at that
Tea Partiers at least pretend to have a coherent worldview, which I imagine might hurt them in a Trump bully pulpit world
Eddy on
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Look at the official photo on this page. Read the Hatch Act and fire this man NOW. Someone call OSC
OSC is the Office for Special Counsel. The Hatch Act, per Wikipedia:
The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch, from engaging in some forms of political activity.
Trump's social media manager, Dan Scavino, has specifically called for Justin Amash of the Freedom Caucus to be primaried in 2018.
So, usually that means more extreme, but... how do you out-crazy that group (on that axis I mean)?
level of craziness is irrelevant, all that matters is they obey
Given how fixated the administration is on the concepts, I'm actually astonished at how rarely we've heard the words "loyalty" or "betrayal" out of the White House in the last two months.
I wonder if come primary season we're going to see people campaigning in Republican districts explicitly on their fealty to the president.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Look at the official photo on this page. Read the Hatch Act and fire this man NOW. Someone call OSC
OSC is the Office for Special Counsel. The Hatch Act, per Wikipedia:
The Hatch Act of 1939, officially An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, is a United States federal law whose main provision prohibits employees in the executive branch of the federal government, except the president, vice-president, and certain designated high-level officials of that branch, from engaging in some forms of political activity.
I thought comey proved that the hatch act... Doesn't actually matter
Attacking the Freedom Caucus is a pretty stupid move for Trump. His supporters typically side with the Freedom Caucus over Paul Ryan, and Trump siding with Ryan after and during the AHCA debacle and now attacking the FC, is just going to make a lot of people feel betrayed by and furious at Trump.
The whole "tune into this random lady's show, who just so happens to open up with shitting on Ryan" seems to indicate he's picking fights with both Ryan and the Freedom Caucus (and the Democrats, basically anyone who isn't a full blown Trump Supporter).
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
The only side Trump is on is Trump's. He's either praising you for being a bootlicker or condemning you for being an enemy. Often in the course of a single day. All that matters is that you are loyal right now.
The only side Trump is on is Trump's. He's either praising you for being a bootlicker or condemning you for being an enemy. Often in the course of a single day. All that matters is that you are loyal right now.
I'm sure he blames Ryan for not getting the Freedom caucus to fall in line just as much as he blames the freedom caucus for not falling in line.
Yeah, Trump can't really threatened the FC at this point. It's highly debatable if he had much influence over many of them to begin with and his budget proposals aren't helping him either. On that note, expect to see Trump shit tweeting lots, when the budget happens because practically no one from his party is going to allow for any of his proposed cuts to get through, seeing how they seemly to primarily fuck over rural areas that voted for him.
Just don't vote then you old fuck. This is our world, we will have to live with the decisions you make now long after you're gone. Christ I know it sounds stupid but do these people have no honour? Why do they do this? Is it my because it's easy?
If they plan to go nuclear over this, might as well get it over with now.
Love the standard Republican "Yes, this is horrible. What? Oh god no, of course I'm still gonna vote for it."
Still not so sure it'll happen. Really depends how desperately they want this SCOTUS seat.
A lifetime appointment of a 49 year old? That's likely 30 years of a hard core conservative vote. That's power.
They'd be fools not to do whatever they need to in order to get it.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Yeah but if they blow up the filibuster, then they blow up their own ability to stop the government from actually helping people. But maybe they don't realize that.
0
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Yeah but if they blow up the filibuster, then they blow up their own ability to stop the government from actually helping people. But maybe they don't realize that.
Norms and rules have degraded so much that it's just a matter of time before someone kills it. This way they actually get to use the flexibility it gives them towards their own ends.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Yeah but if they blow up the filibuster, then they blow up their own ability to stop the government from actually helping people. But maybe they don't realize that.
Well, they've demonstrated they have no ability to plan ahead (even with a 7 year headstart), so this wouldn't surprise me.
how can they primary this guy anyway. can't he just say he wanted a full repeal and trump wouldn't go far enough?
During the debate for the health care bill, Trump hinted that Mark Meadows might not be there after midterms. Mark Meadows has a handpicked, gerrymandered district that he is extremely popular in, and could probably beat Trump in a straight up and down election for the seat. I don't even know if they could find another republican to even run against him.
If Trump really tries to primary these people he is going to start a Republican civil war. Where does that end, with a Freedom Party ticket for president in 2020? Don't know, but it is batshit crazy for him to do.
The loss of the filibuster in Congress is not some democracy destroying event. It only became a popular tool in the early years of the Clinton presidency. The Senate shouldn't need a supermajority to function. It's in the Democrats long term interest if the filibuster doesn't exist, they'll be able to get a lot more done when majorities shift back their way. The ability of Congress to get shit done might finally claw some power back from the executive.
I think the Democrats are making a strategic mistake in choosing Gorsuch to be the hill to die on as well. Trump will nominate odious appointments, and the threat of a filibuster would carry more weight with someone who didn't have the same level of general support he has.
If they nuke it now I guarantee next time the dems are in charge they will demand the filibuster be reinstated reinstate the filibuster rules before the dems are sworn in
If they nuke it now I guarantee next time the dems are in charge they will demand the filibuster be reinstated reinstate the filibuster rules before the dems are sworn in
Can't. No Congress can bind a future Congress, and with the filibuster gone, there's no incentive for a future Dem-controlled Senate to restore it.
If they nuke it now I guarantee next time the dems are in charge they will demand the filibuster be reinstated reinstate the filibuster rules before the dems are sworn in
Can't. No Congress can bind a future Congress, and with the filibuster gone, there's no incentive for a future Dem-controlled Senate to restore it.
The loss of the filibuster in Congress is not some democracy destroying event. It only became a popular tool in the early years of the Clinton presidency. The Senate shouldn't need a supermajority to function. It's in the Democrats long term interest if the filibuster doesn't exist, they'll be able to get a lot more done when majorities shift back their way. The ability of Congress to get shit done might finally claw some power back from the executive.
I think the Democrats are making a strategic mistake in choosing Gorsuch to be the hill to die on as well. Trump will nominate odious appointments, and the threat of a filibuster would carry more weight with someone who didn't have the same level of general support he has.
Non-supreme court appointments are already filibuster proof.
No real reason not to stick to your guns now, as soon as the republicans are sincerely willing to toss the filibuster it may as well not exist, it is basically a gentlemans agreement.
The only possible way to preserve the filibuster is for the Republicans to back off. Even if the Democrats cave from a game theory standpoint the filibuster is dead.
In our current situation, there are three possibilities:
1. The democrats filibuster, republicans back down. The republicans sacrifice a nomination to preserve the filibuster, the dems call their bluff essentially.
2. The democrats filibuster, republicans nuke the filibuster, the filibuster is dead.
3. The republicans threaten to nuke filibuster, dems back down, filibuster is dead.
Now, it is not immediately obvious why 3 kills the filibuster, but it does. Once the precedent becomes that the democrats are not willing to use a filibuster if the republicans threaten to kill it, the filibuster effectively becomes a dead rule. Why? Because from that point on that becomes the strategy whenever a filibuster is used. So on any remotely important issue, the republicans will just threaten to nuke the filibuster until either the dems get tired of it, at which point we just go to option 2, or it becomes so routine that the democrats just don't ever bother to filibuster again because they know it is useless. Eventually the dems get in power, threaten to nuke themselves, and we are back to 2 or 3 with the roles reversed.
Republicans will kill the filibuster when it gets in their way. The logical play is to make them kill it sooner rather than later. At that point make them own all of their terrible decisions as there's no longer a scapegoat for them to complain about.
There's no point in holding onto the filibuster for the "right moment", because there won't be one. Republicans have to ability to kill the filibuster at any point, so if they decide to do so, it won't matter whether it was in response to Gorsuch or something else.
And if they're bluffing? Call the bluff now and make them fold.
The loss of the filibuster in Congress is not some democracy destroying event. It only became a popular tool in the early years of the Clinton presidency. The Senate shouldn't need a supermajority to function. It's in the Democrats long term interest if the filibuster doesn't exist, they'll be able to get a lot more done when majorities shift back their way. The ability of Congress to get shit done might finally claw some power back from the executive.
I think the Democrats are making a strategic mistake in choosing Gorsuch to be the hill to die on as well. Trump will nominate odious appointments, and the threat of a filibuster would carry more weight with someone who didn't have the same level of general support he has.
This argument makes zero sense and always has. There is no difference between "let them do X and then stand your ground on Y later and have them nuke the filibuster over Y instead" and "stand your ground over X and have them nuke the filibuster now and then pass Y later". In both cases both X and Y are gonna go through.
If they are willing to nuke the filibuster, they are gonna do it when it's convenient for them. Mitch fucking McConnell gives no shits and never has. He is not gonna say "Well, you let Gorsuch through so I guess I won't nuke the filibuster over this next odious appointment". He'll shove through whatever he wants and if he's willing to nuke the filibuster it'll be gone the minute the Dems take a stand, at whatever point that is.
In fact, the only difference between standing your ground now and in the future is the longer you wait, the more it fucks over the Democrats my pissing off their base.
Posts
No way am I letting Bester near any authority...
pleasepaypreacher.net
He's just trying to save your butts. Next time, show a little respect
So, usually that means more extreme, but... how do you out-crazy that group (on that axis I mean)?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
level of craziness is irrelevant, all that matters is they obey
I feel like Trumplings kind of outcrazy Teapers nowadays on some levels, because the classic political spectrum is now incoherent. Screaming (lies) loudly and stupidly about a bunch of completely illogical things is what the GOP primary red meat is now, and I imagine little Trumplings to be very good at that
Tea Partiers at least pretend to have a coherent worldview, which I imagine might hurt them in a Trump bully pulpit world
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Remember that Trump is not good at this.
This is actually illegal, apparently.
Ethics lawyer for George W. Bush here:
OSC is the Office for Special Counsel. The Hatch Act, per Wikipedia:
My God, that poor man.
Given how fixated the administration is on the concepts, I'm actually astonished at how rarely we've heard the words "loyalty" or "betrayal" out of the White House in the last two months.
I wonder if come primary season we're going to see people campaigning in Republican districts explicitly on their fealty to the president.
I thought comey proved that the hatch act... Doesn't actually matter
He's just digging his hole deeper.
The whole "tune into this random lady's show, who just so happens to open up with shitting on Ryan" seems to indicate he's picking fights with both Ryan and the Freedom Caucus (and the Democrats, basically anyone who isn't a full blown Trump Supporter).
I'm sure he blames Ryan for not getting the Freedom caucus to fall in line just as much as he blames the freedom caucus for not falling in line.
Everything is everyone's fault but his.
As long as the OSC is in any way reliant on Trump he will gut it the second it inconveniences him.
Funnily enough, the OSC has a website about how to file a complaint about an alleged Hatch Act violation.
https://osc.gov/Pages/HatchAct-HowToFile.aspx
It's almost popcorn worthy if it wasn't frightening how many times the story changes after each failure.
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
I'm not quite convinced it'll go that way, but it's certainly plausible. If it does, what happens next? Short term, long term?
Do we still have a democracy in 4 years? Do we get Democratic policies that actually get through and can do some good?
Love the standard Republican "Yes, this is horrible. What? Oh god no, of course I'm still gonna vote for it."
Still not so sure it'll happen. Really depends how desperately they want this SCOTUS seat.
A lifetime appointment of a 49 year old? That's likely 30 years of a hard core conservative vote. That's power.
They'd be fools not to do whatever they need to in order to get it.
Norms and rules have degraded so much that it's just a matter of time before someone kills it. This way they actually get to use the flexibility it gives them towards their own ends.
Well, they've demonstrated they have no ability to plan ahead (even with a 7 year headstart), so this wouldn't surprise me.
During the debate for the health care bill, Trump hinted that Mark Meadows might not be there after midterms. Mark Meadows has a handpicked, gerrymandered district that he is extremely popular in, and could probably beat Trump in a straight up and down election for the seat. I don't even know if they could find another republican to even run against him.
If Trump really tries to primary these people he is going to start a Republican civil war. Where does that end, with a Freedom Party ticket for president in 2020? Don't know, but it is batshit crazy for him to do.
I think the Democrats are making a strategic mistake in choosing Gorsuch to be the hill to die on as well. Trump will nominate odious appointments, and the threat of a filibuster would carry more weight with someone who didn't have the same level of general support he has.
Can't. No Congress can bind a future Congress, and with the filibuster gone, there's no incentive for a future Dem-controlled Senate to restore it.
Precedent and fair play, obviously.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Non-supreme court appointments are already filibuster proof.
No real reason not to stick to your guns now, as soon as the republicans are sincerely willing to toss the filibuster it may as well not exist, it is basically a gentlemans agreement.
The only possible way to preserve the filibuster is for the Republicans to back off. Even if the Democrats cave from a game theory standpoint the filibuster is dead.
In our current situation, there are three possibilities:
1. The democrats filibuster, republicans back down. The republicans sacrifice a nomination to preserve the filibuster, the dems call their bluff essentially.
2. The democrats filibuster, republicans nuke the filibuster, the filibuster is dead.
3. The republicans threaten to nuke filibuster, dems back down, filibuster is dead.
Now, it is not immediately obvious why 3 kills the filibuster, but it does. Once the precedent becomes that the democrats are not willing to use a filibuster if the republicans threaten to kill it, the filibuster effectively becomes a dead rule. Why? Because from that point on that becomes the strategy whenever a filibuster is used. So on any remotely important issue, the republicans will just threaten to nuke the filibuster until either the dems get tired of it, at which point we just go to option 2, or it becomes so routine that the democrats just don't ever bother to filibuster again because they know it is useless. Eventually the dems get in power, threaten to nuke themselves, and we are back to 2 or 3 with the roles reversed.
There's no point in holding onto the filibuster for the "right moment", because there won't be one. Republicans have to ability to kill the filibuster at any point, so if they decide to do so, it won't matter whether it was in response to Gorsuch or something else.
And if they're bluffing? Call the bluff now and make them fold.
This argument makes zero sense and always has. There is no difference between "let them do X and then stand your ground on Y later and have them nuke the filibuster over Y instead" and "stand your ground over X and have them nuke the filibuster now and then pass Y later". In both cases both X and Y are gonna go through.
If they are willing to nuke the filibuster, they are gonna do it when it's convenient for them. Mitch fucking McConnell gives no shits and never has. He is not gonna say "Well, you let Gorsuch through so I guess I won't nuke the filibuster over this next odious appointment". He'll shove through whatever he wants and if he's willing to nuke the filibuster it'll be gone the minute the Dems take a stand, at whatever point that is.
In fact, the only difference between standing your ground now and in the future is the longer you wait, the more it fucks over the Democrats my pissing off their base.