Trump Dump: Internal Policy (Thread I)

[madd0ct0r]

Ducks sake trr. Start a thread on legitimate tactics and keep it UN one place instead of humming up every thread with the same stuff.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Ducks sake trr. Start a thread on legitimate tactics and keep it UN one place instead of humming up every thread with the same stuff.

The forum mod concurs with this sentiment.

[The Romulan Republic]

Ducks sake trr. Start a thread on legitimate tactics and keep it UN one place instead of humming up every thread with the same stuff.

While the subject is going to be relevant to a lot of threads, and if I don't bring it up a guarantee others will, creating a dedicated thread for the topic is actually not a bad idea at all.

Anyway, back to the Supreme Court, as bad as this is I do think that its not quite as dire as some might believe. While their would be five ostensibly conservative judges, or four/four and a swing vote, their are at least a couple who aren't rigid party line votes.

I'm not saying the Dems. shouldn't fight this one tooth and nail. Neo-Scalia is young and would be on the court a lot longer, which sucks. And allowing this nomination means allowing the Republicans to effectively steal a Supreme Court nominee via obstruction, which really sucks and should not be rewarded.

That, if anything, is the biggest reason for blocking this guy no matter what- as I've said before, I'd support filibustering even if they nominated Bernie Sanders, because the Republicans should not be allowed to steal a Supreme Court nominee. Scalia's seat should stay empty until a Democrat fills it, because that's what should have happened to begin with if the Republicans did their fucking job.

[SCRawl]

There is a logically consistent way out of this for the Democrats: filibuster any nominee until and unless Merrick Garland gets an up or down vote. He wouldn't be my first choice either, but he is the legitimate nominee of the previous president, and until he gets a fair hearing it can be reasonably argued that no Trump nominee has any legitimacy.

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

[LaCroix]

FADA will circumvent it cleanly - they get fired on religious grounds instead of sexual orientation. Good luck trying to get the current SCOTUS (or the revised new version once the new pick is confirmed) slap that legal nitpicking down.

[Gaidin]

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.

And then they can still filibuster. They'll just have to be less...lazy about it. This isn't the same thing as the Civil Rights Act of 1957 where it could've possibly led to changes but didn't. All they're doing is delaying a vote. Bring in the sleeping bags and start talking.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

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.

I'd rather they didn't. Gum up the works and slow-walk things to make a point, sure. Completely block the appointment, not so much. That'd just force McConnell to invoke the "nuclear option" and ram through the confirmation over the bleeding corpse of the filibuster. Remember that the Democrats are in an exceptionally poor position in the Senate in 2018. They're not only unlikely to retake it, but the map of seats they have to defend give them better-than-even odds of becoming an ineffective rump of a party.

Although one could argue that the map look much better for them in 2020, and they should have the backbone to sacrifice seats in 2018 to avoid compromising principles and angering their base. But the Republicans could do a lot of damage with a Senate supermajority in the intervening years.

[Flagg]

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.

Sure, but that can only last for a year. I mean making President Pussygrabber keep recess appointing jurists is its own reward since they will all be booted if a Democrat takes the office in 4 or (Allah forbid) 8 years. It's just pissing in his cereal and worth it.

[Flagg]

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.

And not just that, but obliterating any progress from being made in congress will make it more likely that we end up with a Democratic majority in one or both houses because the obtuse and generally ignorant voters (even in the midterms, known for their abysmal turnout) who aren't going in voting with a mission to flip congress (as I guarantee most Democratic voters who follow politics will be doing) will just blame the party in charge and vote for the challenger. I mean I'm not really expecting a Democratic avalanche (hate the term "<Insert party here> Tsunami) like in 2006, but it would be nice.

[Gaidin]

Sure, but that can only last for a year. I mean making President Pussygrabber keep recess appointing jurists is its own reward since they will all be booted if a Democrat takes the office in 4 or (Allah forbid) 8 years. It's just pissing in his cereal and worth it.

"...which shall expire at the end of their next session."
On average it's a two year appointment, these absentee appointments. If you can duck and weave your way around the three day dances they do in DC to keep themselves in session(which, mind you, Obama tried to do and failed as SCOTUS determined Congress defined their sessions).

[Tribble]

@ TRR

Sorry if my word choice of "dirty" was too ambiguous for you (although my very next line should have made it clear that things like promoting violence are not acceptable tactics ). Allow me to elaborate: The Democrats should be willing to use all ethically acceptable tactics to prevent a worse outcome, even if said tactics are unpleasant and "dirty" from their perspective. The time for pretending that it's possible to negotiate for some kind of compromise with the Republicans has now past.

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.

While that may have been true in the past... I think things are different now. The traditional Republican Party no longer exists, it's the Tea Party / Fascist Party now with Republican branding. And I believe that their long term goals are to replace as much of the US Constitution with their own ideology as possible and establish a one-party state (namely their party). IMO assuming that these "Republicans" want Democrats around for opposition is wishful thinking at best. There are plenty of countries around the world that would continue to do the job nicely if they manage to eliminate internal opposition to their plans.

[Flagg]

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?

The Democrats just cannot win with the vast majority of Republican voters, and pretty much the entirety of their base, so who cares how they spin it? I remember the chucklefucks saying that the ACA wasn't "legitimate" because it was passed by a filibuster proof majority with no Republican votes.

[Flagg]

Sure, but that can only last for a year. I mean making President Pussygrabber keep recess appointing jurists is its own reward since they will all be booted if a Democrat takes the office in 4 or (Allah forbid) 8 years. It's just pissing in his cereal and worth it.

"...which shall expire at the end of their next session."
On average it's a two year appointment, these absentee appointments. If you can duck and weave your way around the three day dances they do in DC to keep themselves in session(which, mind you, Obama tried to do and failed as SCOTUS determined Congress defined their sessions).

Yeah, but to fill new vacancies they'd have to go back into recess. This also assumes Republican majorities in both houses after the 2018 midterms.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Ah to be so optimistic as to believe that the GOP wouldn't destroy the filibuster and bank on voter suppression laws to keep the Democrats permanently in the minority.

If the GOP stacks the deck in the Supreme Court, they end up being able to effectively give unlimited power to Republican state governments to enact the most draconian voter ID laws (or maybe even bring back literacy tests!) you could possibly imagine.

Remember, kids. Checks and balances only work if the checks and balances aren't conspiring against you.

[Simon_Jester]

Ah to be so optimistic as to believe that the GOP wouldn't destroy the filibuster and bank on voter suppression laws to keep the Democrats permanently in the minority.

Oh, they might. They very well might do so. But it's a strategy that has limits and triggers pushback, and voter suppression laws don't actually stop people from organizing large groups of voters if they start far enough in advance and plan ahead.

If the GOP stacks the deck in the Supreme Court, they end up being able to effectively give unlimited power to Republican state governments to enact the most draconian voter ID laws (or maybe even bring back literacy tests!) you could possibly imagine.

Remember, kids. Checks and balances only work if the checks and balances aren't conspiring against you.

This is not untrue.

Basically, even with their current majorities, the Republican Party politicians have edge cases and individuals who continue to believe in democratic structures even when those structures inconvenience them. The Republican voter base, likewise. Simply saying "this will happen" in such a pat way brushes aside all the practical issues.

I'm not even saying the Republicans won't try, or won't succeed in partially implementing this kind of institutional block intended to keep themselves permanently in power. But, well. Suffice to say, " 'tis many a slip 'twixt cup and lip."

[Flagg]

Ah to be so optimistic as to believe that the GOP wouldn't destroy the filibuster and bank on voter suppression laws to keep the Democrats permanently in the minority.

If the GOP stacks the deck in the Supreme Court, they end up being able to effectively give unlimited power to Republican state governments to enact the most draconian voter ID laws (or maybe even bring back literacy tests!) you could possibly imagine.

Remember, kids. Checks and balances only work if the checks and balances aren't conspiring against you.

Demographics mean the Republican Party as it currently exists just won't be able to continue on. If they get rid of the filibuster they do it for when the Democrats inevitably regain control of the senate.
The US can't function as a race/class-based minority rules apartheid state barring suspending elections or doing a bunch of Constitutional Amendments that legalize the disenfranchisement or strip citizenship from certain groups. We're not Israel, where there is already an almost 50/50 split between the enfranchised and the oppressed, with the numbers of the oppressed growing and expected to eventually become the majority.

[Simon_Jester]

This is doubly true because even the oppressor groups can't all agree on oppressing the targets of the oppression. There are a lot of middle-class and rich people willing to support candidates who would be good for poor people. There are a lot of white people who will happily vote for presidential candidates who are totally in favor of making life better for black people, there are a lot of men who will vote for candidates that want to make life better for women.

Although this is partially offset by (for example) women who vote for candidates that want to make life worse for women, poor people who vote for millionaires to cut taxes on other millionaires, and so on.

[Flagg]

This is doubly true because even the oppressor groups can't all agree on oppressing the targets of the oppression. There are a lot of middle-class and rich people willing to support candidates who would be good for poor people. There are a lot of white people who will happily vote for presidential candidates who are totally in favor of making life better for black people, there are a lot of men who will vote for candidates that want to make life better for women.

Although this is partially offset by (for example) women who vote for candidates that want to make life worse for women, poor people who vote for millionaires to cut taxes on other millionaires, and so on.

I honestly think that if the denizens of every redneck trailer park were abducted by aliens, never to return, a Republican (well we've been over this, a pretend Republican) would never be elected POTUS again, barring a switcharoo like the Dixiecrats in the '60's. And the number of drunk driving deaths would plummet while the average IQ would soar.

[Flagg]

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.

Can you set yourself on fire so I can hear you beg me to pee on you to put you out while I laugh at the fact that I wouldn't waste my waste on you? That would be awesome you walking, talking humanoid piece of shit.

[MKSheppard]

The US can't function as a race/class-based minority rules apartheid state barring suspending elections or doing a bunch of Constitutional Amendments that legalize the disenfranchisement or strip citizenship from certain groups.

Explain.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, it's a pretty straightforward statement of fact.

We can imagine a group that wants to establish a permanent one-party government run by white men who think the free market is good and BIG GUBMINT is bad and so on. Permanent Tea Party Majority, in other words.

And we look at the demographics, and we see that this is not a thing that can happen. That's not stable in the long term as long as it's legal for blacks, Hispanics, people below the age of fifty, etc., to vote. "Suppressing" minority votes and so on wouldn't be enough, they'd have to be effectively legally barred from voting. As was the case in apartheid-era South Africa (where blacks didn't get to vote on the government), or in Israel (where Palestinians don't get to vote on the Israeli government).

The kind of 'soft power' racism and sexism and classism the US now has survives because it does not require the oppressive system to win elections. It just requires the people on the top of the heap to keep being assholes. Trying to legally impose this forever with Permanent Tea Party Majority that could never lose an election again... That would require legally stripping large numbers of American citizens of the votes, not just in the sense of "we make it hard for you to vote," but in the sense of "we make it actively illegal for you to vote. Constitutional amendment territory and shit.

That is Flagg's point.

If you think it's kind of obvious, fine, it arguably is, but it's worth bearing in mind because we're currently facing a Tea Party government that thinks it should be Permanent Tea Party Majority.

[SpottedKitty]

There is a logically consistent way out of this for the Democrats: filibuster any nominee until and unless Merrick Garland gets an up or down vote. He wouldn't be my first choice either, but he is the legitimate nominee of the previous president, and until he gets a fair hearing it can be reasonably argued that no Trump nominee has any legitimacy.

Way back when his name was first announced, I'm sure I remember coming across a report that Garland had been approved in his current position, only a few years before, by a large majority... including many Republicans.

About the announcement — anyone else get the feeling the Ferret-Haired One sounded like he was keeping the suspense going over the advert break in an episode of The Apprentice...?

[The Romulan Republic]

Doesn't surprise me. Trump is, in his crude, hateful way, good at exactly one thing: being a con man/showman. No wonder he's trying to use one of the very few talents he has, even when its entirely inappropriate to do so.

[SpottedKitty]

Come to think of it, isn't he doing the same with his signing of all those executive orders? I've seen a few on news reports, and he always seems to finish by holding the document folder up to the camera with his usual smirk™, as if he's saying "look how clever I am". Argleblargle...