Trump’s Lame Duck Bingo: Who Had Violent Coup?

Bogart

So, Georgia, huh?

Don't do the liberals/leftists screaming match thing.

Jokerman

I'm so proud to be from Georgia for once in my life 🍑

South Carolina, you're next.

Henroid

Seeing the Georgia results so far was a nice treat to wake up to. Mitch McConnell losing control of the country is critical. It isn't going to solve all our problems but holy shit it helps so much.

Bogart

Republican senators are a pretty repellent bunch at the best of times but the two GOP candidates in Georgia were real shitheads.

RMS Oceanic

Stacey Abrams deserves an OBE for that.

Jokerman

Future Governor Stacey Abrams

Unknown

This content has been removed.

TheBigEasy

So, McConnell can get fucked? Great! Congratulations, guys. Good to hear you didn't only boot out the orange menace, but evil incarnate as well.

RMS Oceanic

TheBigEasy wrote: »

So, McConnell can get fucked? Great! Congratulations, guys. Good to hear you didn't only boot out the orange menace, but evil incarnate as well.

McConnell is in remission, not fully booted. Constant vigilance and all that.

Henroid

I'd be very surprised if McConnell immediately accepts the results and thus admits to losing his position. I know he turned on Trump's crybaby shit by acknowledging reality, but now it's his turn to lose power.

RMS Oceanic

Henroid wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if McConnell immediately accepts the results and thus admits to losing his position. I know he turned on Trump's crybaby shit by acknowledging reality, but now it's his turn to lose power.

Yes, I expect Al Franken 2: Electoral Boogaloo

Raiju

I love the ouroboros of backstabbing and betrayal that Trump has inflicted upon the Republican Party. If he's going down, he's taking POSs like McConnell, Loeffler, and Perdue with him. It's a GOP circular firing squad. Who knew that there was no honor among thieves?

Gaddez

I really, really didn't expect the dems to go 50-50 in the senate; I assumed they'd lose both seats or take one or such because I was so without hope for the better part of a year.

I know this isn't going to be perfect; the republicans have become more concentrated horseshit, the dems have senators who won't do the things that need to be done because "bipartisanship needs to be a thing and we must be magnanimous in victory", the filibuster won't be dead... but for once I can actually feel something akin to hope for America.

WiseManTobes

So , I'm an outsider, but did all their ratfucking and pushing actually lose them stuff?

Brainleech

Bogart wrote: »

Republican senators are a pretty repellent bunch at the best of times but the two GOP candidates in Georgia were real shitheads.

There is only one Republican senator I will respect
Al Simpson formerly Us senator of Wyoming even though he is a part of the landed gentry of Wyoming oddly what is is favor of is at odds with much of the republican ideals

Henroid

Did the turnout for the runoff election actually increase over the general from November?

Atlas in Chains

Bloods End wrote:

Atlas in Chains wrote:

I want to get a Georgia peach tattoo, what a wonderful gift they've given us!

People are just gonna assume you are into butt stuff!

This is what we call a win/win in politics.

RedTide

Henroid wrote: »

Did the turnout for the runoff election actually increase over the general from November?

From the looks of it no, but the drop off was extremely low for a special election like this

Blackhawk1313

Yeah General was something in the range of 5 mil vs this looking like 4.5 mil for turnout. In either case, in a state of 6 million people it’s really damn good especially given that runoffs are notoriously low turnout typically.

OremLK

To be honest, I had pretty much been operating under the assumption that we lost the Senate ever since election day. This is a really pleasant surprise. It wasn't fun having to squeak it out, but if you told me the evening of November 3rd we'd end up with the Presidency and 50/50 in the Senate, I'd damn well have taken it.

daveNYC

Jokerman wrote: »

Future Governor Stacey Abrams

Future whatever the hell job she wants to have because we freaking owe her big time Stacey Abrams.

Schrodinger

Is the title implying that Trump will stop committing crimes when he's no longer president?

Because he won't.

Bogart

The thread title is perfect and has always been perfect.

Schrodinger

Can we take a moment to congratulate the hardcore Georgian Trump base for successfully boycotting the electoral process?

You did it, guys.

Gaddez

WiseManTobes wrote: »

So , I'm an outsider, but did all their ratfucking and pushing actually lose them stuff?

It seems to be a case of the incumbents being really shitty, dems being really organized and trump refusing to put the party ahead of himself that have all come together to bring about the current balance of power.

That last one is honestly the most cathartic part of this; trump's incessant whining combined with his shitty behavior regarding the last minute covid cash and NDAA were basically a pair of cement shoes for the candidates.

klemming

So when is the next dumb and futile attempt to derail things? It's today, right?

Taramoor

So, the filibuster probably stays, since the GOP will probably stall on seating Warnock and Ossoff until after the rules vote.

Which means the next couple years become a messenging battle as the media will strive to print “Congress fails to pass X” or “Dems can’t get support for X” rather than “GOP filibusters ‘Eating Babies is Bad’ act”

Marathon

klemming wrote: »

So when is the next dumb and futile attempt to derail things? It's today, right?

Yep, it’s today. I wonder if Trump will try to fire Pence after he can’t/won’t steal the election for him.

Marathon

Taramoor wrote: »

So, the filibuster probably stays, since the GOP will probably stall on seating Warnock and Ossoff until after the rules vote.

Which means the next couple years become a messenging battle as the media will strive to print “Congress fails to pass X” or “Dems can’t get support for X” rather than “GOP filibusters ‘Eating Babies is Bad’ act”

Can’t the Senate change the rules any time they want?

RMS Oceanic

Marathon wrote: »

Taramoor wrote: »

So, the filibuster probably stays, since the GOP will probably stall on seating Warnock and Ossoff until after the rules vote.

Which means the next couple years become a messenging battle as the media will strive to print “Congress fails to pass X” or “Dems can’t get support for X” rather than “GOP filibusters ‘Eating Babies is Bad’ act”

Can’t the Senate change the rules any time they want?

I seem to recall them doing this when Gorusch was being confirmed, nuking the SCOTUS filibuster when Dems hinted at using it.

Quid

We won?

Genuinely wasn’t expecting this. Stacy Abrams you are amazing.

Schrodinger

Taramoor wrote: »

So, the filibuster probably stays, since the GOP will probably stall on seating Warnock and Ossoff until after the rules vote.

Which means the next couple years become a messenging battle as the media will strive to print “Congress fails to pass X” or “Dems can’t get support for X” rather than “GOP filibusters ‘Eating Babies is Bad’ act”

I believe Manchin already says he's against it, and since he represents a state that went 70% for Trump in this election, that's unlikely to change. It's basically the second most Trumpiest state in the nation.

Kaputa

Taramoor wrote: »

So, the filibuster probably stays, since the GOP will probably stall on seating Warnock and Ossoff until after the rules vote.

Which means the next couple years become a messenging battle as the media will strive to print “Congress fails to pass X” or “Dems can’t get support for X” rather than “GOP filibusters ‘Eating Babies is Bad’ act”

Was it ever likely that it was going to be removed in the first? I had thought it firmly in pipe dream territory, like court packing.

daveNYC

Senate rules only take 50+1 to change, and I don't see a whole lot of advantage for McConnell in delaying the new GA Senators. If the Republicans had the House, sure, because then they could try to pass some Burn It All Down legislation in the next two weeks. As is though, any dickishness on his part right now makes it that much more likely that the Democrats will remove the filibuster immediately. Play nice and he might get one or two of the dumber Senators back on the norms and comity train.

Taramoor

RMS Oceanic wrote: »

Marathon wrote: »

Taramoor wrote: »

So, the filibuster probably stays, since the GOP will probably stall on seating Warnock and Ossoff until after the rules vote.

Which means the next couple years become a messenging battle as the media will strive to print “Congress fails to pass X” or “Dems can’t get support for X” rather than “GOP filibusters ‘Eating Babies is Bad’ act”

Can’t the Senate change the rules any time they want?

I seem to recall them doing this when Gorusch was being confirmed, nuking the SCOTUS filibuster when Dems hinted at using it.

The nuclear option of overruling the presiding officer is slightly different than just changing the rules at initial adoption, and I wouldn’t put it past McConnell to have employed any number of power gamer types to go over the Rules of the Senate hunting for every edgecase and loophole they can find to challenge or slow down the Dem side. Like when he invoked some amended subsection rule from 1803 to kick Warren off the floor during Jeff Sessions’ confirmation.

Sum up: You are correct, they can amend the rules mid-session, but I don’t trust McConnell to not find a way to fuck things up regardless.

Viskod

The turnout actually did increase in that we had hundreds of thousands of new voters who came out to vote in this special election but did not vote in the general election.

Marathon

Taramoor wrote: »

RMS Oceanic wrote: »

Marathon wrote: »

Taramoor wrote: »

So, the filibuster probably stays, since the GOP will probably stall on seating Warnock and Ossoff until after the rules vote.

Which means the next couple years become a messenging battle as the media will strive to print “Congress fails to pass X” or “Dems can’t get support for X” rather than “GOP filibusters ‘Eating Babies is Bad’ act”

Can’t the Senate change the rules any time they want?

I seem to recall them doing this when Gorusch was being confirmed, nuking the SCOTUS filibuster when Dems hinted at using it.

The nuclear option of overruling the presiding officer is slightly different than just changing the rules at initial adoption, and I wouldn’t put it past McConnell to have employed any number of power gamer types to go over the Rules of the Senate hunting for every edgecase and loophole they can find to challenge or slow down the Dem side. Like when he invoked some amended subsection rule from 1803 to kick Warren off the floor during Jeff Sessions’ confirmation.

Sum up: You are correct, they can amend the rules mid-session, but I don’t trust McConnell to not find a way to fuck things up regardless.

But that was when he was in charge. The Senate isn’t bound by the rules or precedent of the previous Senate unless the majority wants it to be.

Schrodinger

I doubt they'll get rid of the fillibuster, but maybe they can amend the process to make it more ______ to use?

Not sure how to fill in that blank. "Shameful" would be the right word if republicans had any shame left.

Rhesus Positive

Make them actually filibuster rather than just declaring it like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy?

Quid

Romney is getting harassed at the airport

Trumpers are clashing with police

I have woken up in a very different America

daveNYC

Changing the filibuster from open-ended to a one-off action that extends debate by X number of days might be sellable. Removing it entirely would be preferred, but any change that would allow legislation to pass on a simple majority vote would be an improvement.