Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[Flagg]

No. Mitch McConnell was successful in convincing me before the election that we can just keep an open seat for 4-8 years. Only thing I've ever agreed with him on.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its a lovely thought, but we don't have the majority now.

That said, if the Democrats want to try to hold ranks and filibuster for four years, then Godspeed.

[Rogue 9]

I hope they do just for effort's sake, but Trump could then just have McConnell put the Senate in recess and appoint whoever the hell he wants.

[The Romulan Republic]

I hope they do just for effort's sake, but Trump could then just have McConnell put the Senate in recess and appoint whoever the hell he wants.

Anything that makes life difficult for Trump, and makes it clear to everyone that he's trying to rule by executive edict, not democratically.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm going to come down in favor of delay too. It is extremely obvious and blatant that the congressional Republicans were attempting to delay filling a Supreme Court vacancy that was entirely legitimate, in hopes that their man would win the White House. This is literally the exact tactic they've been using for years to create vacancies in the judiciary, and having made that bed they should be forced to lie in it.

[SCRawl]

I'm going to come down in favor of delay too. It is extremely obvious and blatant that the congressional Republicans were attempting to delay filling a Supreme Court vacancy that was entirely legitimate, in hopes that their man would win the White House. This is literally the exact tactic they've been using for years to create vacancies in the judiciary, and having made that bed they should be forced to lie in it.

Of course, that isn't how they're going to spin it. It was (supposedly) unprecedented that a president fill a SCOTUS seat in an election year. It will be unprecedented that the opposition party filibuster a qualified nominee for four years. And when they push the nuclear button, it will be because those darned liberals forced their hand, because it's the president's duty to fill a vacant seat. They will gamble on the painfully short memory of their constituents, and when is the last time a politician lost when making that bet?

[Tribble]

I'm going to come down in favor of delay too. It is extremely obvious and blatant that the congressional Republicans were attempting to delay filling a Supreme Court vacancy that was entirely legitimate, in hopes that their man would win the White House. This is literally the exact tactic they've been using for years to create vacancies in the judiciary, and having made that bed they should be forced to lie in it.

Of course, that isn't how they're going to spin it. It was (supposedly) unprecedented that a president fill a SCOTUS seat in an election year. It will be unprecedented that the opposition party filibuster a qualified nominee for four years. And when they push the nuclear button, it will be because those darned liberals forced their hand, because it's the president's duty to fill a vacant seat. They will gamble on the painfully short memory of their constituents, and when is the last time a politician lost when making that bet?

And this despite the fact that they openly stated their intentions to filibuster any Clinton nominations had she won IIRC. As someone stated in another post all Democrat actions while in office are illegitimate. All Democrat actions while not in office are illegitimate. All Democrat campaigning is illegitimate. All election results where Democrats are elected are illegitimate. All compromises are illegitimate, and must be undone at the earliest opportunity. The Democrat Party and its supporters are themselves illegitimate, and must be removed in one way or another. Anything that is not 100% far right Republican ideology is illegitimate. For Republicans, its' war, and in some respects they view Democrats even worse than groups like ISIS for being "traitors" to "traditional America".

Democrats must accept the fact that they are at war with a party that will never compromise nor stop until either one side or the other is eliminated, and act accordingly.

Not a call to violence btw, just that the Democrats have to get just as dirty as Republicans if they want to survive.

[Simon_Jester]

At the very least, a filibuster should run on long enough to force the Republicans to openly explain, to the entirety of the American people:
1) Why they conspired to steal a Supreme Court seat, and
2) Why they are so much more upset about the filibuster now, when it is being used against them for the first time in about ten years, than they were when using it to obstruct the entire government under these exact circumstances.

The thing is, if they're going to 'go nuclear' and abolish the filibuster, after making so much use of it for six years, they're going to do it sooner or later. If they're willing to kick down the ladder that they climbed into power on, destroy the weapon they wielded so relentlessly for six years against the Democratic Party now that it is no longer useful to them... they'll do it. They'll do it the first time a filibuster would stop them from accomplishing something they actually want. It's inevitable.

Therefore, the threat of abolishing the filibuster cannot be allowed to deter the Democrats from making heavy use of it, any more than it deterred the Republicans. A tool you cannot use for fear that it will be destroyed by your enemy is just as useless as if it had already been destroyed.

And it is an incredibly bad idea, especially at a time like this, to provide your political opponents that they can win anything they want, with little or no struggle, just by having the willpower to reach out and take it. That they can win the game by threatening to break the board. That is exactly how a far-right movement becomes a fascist dictatorship.

It is borderline suicidal, from the point of view of the future of American democracy, for the Republicans to come out of the opening weeks of the Trump administration with the lesson that the opposing party doesn't have the guts to do the exact same things they just did. They do not appear even slightly interested in negotiation or compromise. They're taking their cue from Trump, whose signature tactic is to do insane things and then (sometimes, if he thinks he needs to) graciously offer a 'compromise' position. This is a method of gaining supremacy in negotiations- being the one who gets to decide what happens, and rendering your opponent powerless to do anything other than accede to your wishes.

If we go much farther down that road, we are going to have a one-party non-democracy in this country. Being in power, with an elected opposition still in place, means not getting everything you want. And it is not acceptable or legitimate to change the rules of democracy in order to eliminate your opposition from the poltiical playing field, any more than you can win a chess game by shooting the other player and get away with it.

The Republican Party's current generation of leadership (including Trump and the Tea Republicans) need to be forced to learn this lesson at nearly any cost, not just for short-term reasons but for long-term reasons.

[Simon_Jester]

This is one area where Trump's tendency to say "fuck you I do what I want" MIGHT actually pay off, but being as how he's surrounded by manic homophobes, and how he's probably going to be racking up multiple violations of the Constitution a week to the point where even some of the Republicans will consider impeachment...

Yeah. Not optimistic.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump's word means nothing. He is a basically a pathological liar.

In fact, its been increasingly obvious for some time that he deliberately makes wild and often contradictory statements as a way of playing the media, of getting attention while obfuscating his true agenda.

Trump will do whatever Trump feels like doing at the moment, which is generally going to be whatever he feels benefits him- his money, his power, his ego. But if his advisors have any sway on him, well... like others have said, look at who he's surrounded himself with. This is not a gay-friendly crowd, to put it mildly.

Trump doesn't care, so as long as it doesn't effect him either way, he'll likely rubber-stamp what his far Right allies want.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm going to come down in favor of delay too. It is extremely obvious and blatant that the congressional Republicans were attempting to delay filling a Supreme Court vacancy that was entirely legitimate, in hopes that their man would win the White House. This is literally the exact tactic they've been using for years to create vacancies in the judiciary, and having made that bed they should be forced to lie in it.

Of course, that isn't how they're going to spin it. It was (supposedly) unprecedented that a president fill a SCOTUS seat in an election year. It will be unprecedented that the opposition party filibuster a qualified nominee for four years. And when they push the nuclear button, it will be because those darned liberals forced their hand, because it's the president's duty to fill a vacant seat. They will gamble on the painfully short memory of their constituents, and when is the last time a politician lost when making that bet?

And this despite the fact that they openly stated their intentions to filibuster any Clinton nominations had she won IIRC. As someone stated in another post all Democrat actions while in office are illegitimate. All Democrat actions while not in office are illegitimate. All Democrat campaigning is illegitimate. All election results where Democrats are elected are illegitimate. All compromises are illegitimate, and must be undone at the earliest opportunity. The Democrat Party and its supporters are themselves illegitimate, and must be removed in one way or another. Anything that is not 100% far right Republican ideology is illegitimate. For Republicans, its' war, and in some respects they view Democrats even worse than groups like ISIS for being "traitors" to "traditional America".

Democrats must accept the fact that they are at war with a party that will never compromise nor stop until either one side or the other is eliminated, and act accordingly.

Not a call to violence btw, just that the Democrats have to get just as dirty as Republicans if they want to survive.

Their is a difference between being as relentless as the Republicans, and being as dirty as them.

We should not compromise, and we should not back down, and we should obstruct. Hell, I would even say that non-violent but potentially illegal acts of civil disobedience, such as refusing to pay taxes or protesters obstructing traffic, are justified. But I wouldn't call that being dirty. If we got as dirty as them, well, that would mean, if not actual violence, certainly threat of violence, catering to extremist elements (which for the American Left would be, what? The odd Marxist, Anti-vaccine folks, and eco-terrorists?), combined with voter suppression, espionage, and allying with a foreign despot to win elections. And I don't think that's quite what you had in mind.

Edit: My point is that you don't have to be unprincipled to be strong. The Democratic Party's problem is not and never has been that it has principles- if anything, its lack of principle in nominating (and weighting the scales for) Hillary Clinton came back to bite it hard. Its problem is that its weak, so concerned with (normally admirable) compromise against an opponent that is uninterested in compromise that it ends up surrendering or losing on points that it shouldn't and can't afford to.

[Simon_Jester]

Is it really worth bickering over the usage of the word 'dirty?' Is it not possible that to Tribble, 'dirty' might mean something like "willing to use all ethically acceptable tactics to prevent a worse outcome, even if said tactics are unpleasant?" Whereas to you, it apparently means "do every evil thing I can think of?"

This is not the time for us to engage in purely hypothetical squabbles. Squabbles that are not even about what tactics are acceptable, but about what random rhetorical terms we use to describe the tactics. Let us instead focus our mental and physical resources on things that matter.

The left eats its own, far, far too often. That's a big part of how we got into this mess. Let's not try to get out of the mess with the same kind of self-destructive behavior that got us into it.

We need to be willing to not dig into each other's words and start random arguments over petty points of inconsequential detail. We need to hang together and concentrate on the threat that's coming after us.

[Starglider]

The use of the outdated 'LGBTQ' instead of contemporary 'LGBTQIAPK' is literal violence in its rampant disappearning and invisibilising of intersexed asexuals in polyromantic kink relationships. So no this is highly problematic.

[The Romulan Republic]

I wouldn't call it bickering. I think its a very important distinction. Too often, ruthlessness/unethical behaviour is automatically equated with strength. And I don't want to see the Democrats become just a Left-wing counterpart to the Republican Party, two sides of the same coin.

Not, as I said, that I think that was necessarily Tribble's intent. But its a common enough false equation that some might take it that way, and that I wanted to take the opportunity to address it.

And no, I don't think "dirty" means "do every evil thing you can think of". I was addressing Tribble, who was specifically saying that we need to "get just as dirty as Republicans" (emphasis mine). And I therefore cited specific examples of Republican tactics that would entail if he was actually serious about using Republicans' methods against him.

Yes, we should be united, but that does not mean that no one on the Left can ever disagree, that we cannot ever debate the merits of one position or another, or what it means to form a strong opposition. Those debates are important.

With all due respect (and given the similarity of your response to other points in other threads you've directed at me), I think that you are allowing past exchanges to colour your interpretation of my post, and are reading into it a hostility that isn't their and was not intended.

I might even point out that it is not your job to police my conduct, and that perhaps you should yourself avoid petty "bickering".

[The Romulan Republic]

The use of the outdated 'LGBTQ' instead of contemporary 'LGBTQIAPK' is literal violence in its rampant disappearning and invisibilising of intersexed asexuals in polyromantic kink relationships. So no this is highly problematic.

This is blatant trolling, trying to distract from and belittle the actual issues by mocking a caricature of "SJWs".

[Darth Yan]

Gorusch....isn't the worst choice that could happen. I'll take him over some of Donnie's other picks.

[Starglider]

Democrats must accept the fact that they are at war with a party that will never compromise nor stop until either one side or the other is eliminated, and act accordingly.

Oh I wouldn't say 'eliminated'. A lot of political tactics require a credible opposition to be reviled, and to rally the troops against. Ideally they would like the Democrats to have enough support that could conceivably take power, but not enough that they ever actually do. Of course Democrats would prefer the Republicans to be in that position, and there was a lot of talk last year (pre-election) about how the Republicans were 'finnished' and reduced to exactly that.

Hell, I would even say that non-violent but potentially illegal acts of civil disobedience, such as refusing to pay taxes or protesters obstructing traffic, are justified.

That would be an amusing reversal, liberals refusing to pay taxes. Once that gets normalised the socialist super-state you want would be thoroughly ruled out.

[The Romulan Republic]

I sympathize with anyone who does not wish to pay taxes to fund Trump's wall and deportations. It is not a change in my position on the legitimacy of taxation, any more than refusing to be drafted into an unjust war would automatically mean I rejected the legitimacy of any military or use of military action. Rather, it is recognizing that one can be justified in exceptional circumstances in refusing to follow a despotic law, even if it means taking actions that would otherwise be unthinkable.

As to the need for an opposition- yes. My dream is not a Democratic one-party state. It is a state with a healthy opposition, by which I mean one where both sides respect the rule of law and the norms of democratic government.

Admittedly, I'd prefer it if those two sides were centrist Dems. and Bernie Progressives, but I'd take, say, Dems. vs. principled libertarians over the status quo.

But the Republican Party is vile and broken, and needs to be crushed utterly.

[JLTucker]

I hope they do just for effort's sake, but Trump could then just have McConnell put the Senate in recess and appoint whoever the hell he wants.

Anything that makes life difficult for Trump, and makes it clear to everyone that he's trying to rule by executive edict, not democratically.

There's also this Nuclear Option I heard on NPR last night, where you can confirm with 51 votes instead of 60. McConnell could invoke that.

Edit: SCrawl mentioned this already.

[The Romulan Republic]

Get rid of the filibuster, you mean?

Yes, I suppose they could do that. If so, I hope the Democrats hammer them on the hypocrisy of it.

Mind you, if the filibuster weren't virtually the only tool we have left to oppose rising despotism in Congress, I'd be glad to see it go. Its a fucking bane of functional government, the only real use of which is impeding an already utterly broken government, to limit the damage it can do.

[Simon_Jester]

Well yeah. That's the thing about the filibuster. Everyone thinks it's a bad idea, until suddenly it's the last line of defense for an opposition party convinced that their victorious opponents are about to destroy America. That's why it's lasted so long.

I hope they do just for effort's sake, but Trump could then just have McConnell put the Senate in recess and appoint whoever the hell he wants.

Anything that makes life difficult for Trump, and makes it clear to everyone that he's trying to rule by executive edict, not democratically.

There's also this Nuclear Option I heard on NPR last night, where you can confirm with 51 votes instead of 60. McConnell could invoke that.

Edit: SCrawl mentioned this already.

He might lose; he only has 52 senators. If one flips he can still do it, if two flips it's a tie and Pence can break the tie in his favor. If three Republican senators out of 52 don't agree, and believe that filibusters should be allowed on Supreme Court nominations... he loses.

Of course, we KNOW that there are actually way more than three Republican senators who favor filibustering Supreme Court nominees... as long as the nominee is a Democrat.

I wouldn't call it bickering. I think its a very important distinction. Too often, ruthlessness/unethical behaviour is automatically equated with strength. And I don't want to see the Democrats become just a Left-wing counterpart to the Republican Party, two sides of the same coin.

Not, as I said, that I think that was necessarily Tribble's intent. But its a common enough false equation that some might take it that way, and that I wanted to take the opportunity to address it.

And no, I don't think "dirty" means "do every evil thing you can think of". I was addressing Tribble, who was specifically saying that we need to "get just as dirty as Republicans" (emphasis mine). And I therefore cited specific examples of Republican tactics that would entail if he was actually serious about using Republicans' methods against him.

Yes, we should be united, but that does not mean that no one on the Left can ever disagree, that we cannot ever debate the merits of one position or another, or what it means to form a strong opposition. Those debates are important.

Then let us debate matters of substance, not matters of rhetoric. There is a LOT of substance worth discussing. There is a lot to do, and the stakes are high. Purely hypothetical discussions admonishing people not to use phrases like "as dirty as" if they don't mean "cater to racists" and so on are not a good use of energy.

There's a reason that Monty Python came up with this as a parody of left-wing politics.

I might even point out that it is not your job to police my conduct, and that perhaps you should yourself avoid petty "bickering".

I'm not trying to police your conduct. I'm trying to warn you that in my honest opinion, you're doing something that is damaging a cause we both believe in. Starting tangential arguments about the definition of "dirty" is actively counterproductive, and it's frustrating to watch things like this happen over and over.

Furthermore, if it's not my job to police your conduct, it's not your job to police someone else's use of the phrase "as dirty as."

I'm only bringing this up because I believe that we have very similar goals, and I want to succeed, and not fail. That's not going to happen if the people trying to succeed keep wasting their time.

[The Romulan Republic]

This argument is largely a tangent, and the last thing I want is to get drawn into yet another debate on personality rather than substance. I'll just say again that I think you misread my intent. I am sorry if I seemed to be nitpicking, but Tribble's word choice was ultimately the impetus for discussing what I do believe is a relevant, and substantive topic- that of what tactics the Left should be willing to embrace in order to oppose Trump, and ultimately, what kind of a movement we wish to be.

My point is that I don't want to see Democrats deciding that we need to be like Republicans in order to beat Republicans, either in terms of ideology or tactics, because ultimately what I want is a political establishment which functions in accordance with democracy and the rule of law. And while I know we're not discussing the use of violence here, their is at least one similar peril to beware- that of the revolution which replaces one failed regime with another.

[madd0ct0r]

The use of the outdated 'LGBTQ' instead of contemporary 'LGBTQIAPK' is literal violence in its rampant disappearning and invisibilising of intersexed asexuals in polyromantic kink relationships. So no this is highly problematic.

This is blatant trolling, trying to distract from and belittle the actual issues by mocking a caricature of "SJWs".

Agreed. Mr Glider is clearly out of intelligent fuel.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The use of the outdated 'LGBTQ' instead of contemporary 'LGBTQIAPK' is literal violence in its rampant disappearning and invisibilising of intersexed asexuals in polyromantic kink relationships. So no this is highly problematic.

Starglider, you will shut the fuck up in this thread. Further trolling posts get HOSed.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Legal and political analysis:

Obama's Executive Order only protects LGBT people working for private firms that contract with the federal government (like a firm the EPA hires to do toxic spill cleanup, or a company handling payroll or the logistics of travel vouchers etc).

This was all Obama could do, because congress refused to pass ENDA (again).

Keeping it in place does sweet fuck-all. The republicans are going to nullify it anyway through the passage of the FADA.

Now, that one can be challenged in the supreme court. Neil Gorsuch is basically a Scalia clone, so with him there, Romer V. Evans, Lawrence V. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges are safe. The FADA will also probably fail constitutional muster in that court for the same reason Romer V. Evans was decided the way it was. It singles out LGBT people for discrimination. If that is not sufficient, it elevates the religious to a status above having to follow the laws. Even Gorsuch is unlikely to rule in favor of that on such a large scale. It was one thing for birth control requirements, it will be another to acknowledge the existence of a legal marriage by a government official or hospital, or in the use of a public accomodation. Roberts certainly wont, because he worked on Romer V. Evans on our side pro bono.

The trouble comes when and if someone dies in the next four years.

As soon as RBG, Anthony Kennedy, or one of the other liberal justices (like Breyer) dies. Republicans will try to re-litigate Romer V. Evans, Lawrence V. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges, probably by way of a state trying to enforce its pre-existing bans on gay marriage, or sodomy laws that are on the books.

If that happens, there is a chance that at least Obergefell V. Hodges is in danger, depending on whether Roberts thinks it would be appropriate to overturn a decision of his own court. Lawrence V. Texas has been established long enough that I think only Thomas and someone like William Pryor would try to overturn it. Romer V. Evans is likely also safe for the same reason.

Any challenge of the FADA at this point would likely fail with the balance of the court changed in this way.

If additional liberal justices die however, we are in for a rough time because then Lawrence V. Texas is in play.