Political Roundtable Part XXIX

[doclinkin]

Trump talks about having 'plenty of time' to fill that seat. Talking about January 20. Which suggests that he thinks he won't win the election, and is perhaps resigned to the idea and is planning on what damage he can do in the interim. Good and bad. Bad in that I see him stripmining our country, stealing all the office stationery, clogging up the toilets and turning on the faucets on his way out. Yes he will try to foment insurrection in service of his own ego, but maybe only by basking in protests and small pockets of fascist support groups acting out, along with brouhaha on Fox about how unfairly he has been treated etc -- as opposed to seriously following through on the threat of holding onto power by military coup. Otherwise his 'plenty of time' could extend as long as he felt like it.

Good in that he may be overlooking the chance of Mark Kelly defeating Martha McSally and being certified swiftly. Picking up one more vote as early as Nov 30, since it is a special election. Unlikely in that there are many "IF's" attached to the possibility. But still. I'll take whatever hope I can get.

[Ruzious]

If Trump was smart (which means he won't do it), he would've said he'll pick Merrick Garland if elected, so he can say he was willing to do this in order to show he's not a divisive President afterall. Not to mention, Garland's probably the most qualified choice and is in DC still serving with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit - was the Chief Judge until earlier this year. And it'd have the added value of making McConnell look stupid.

[pancakes3]

I also thought that Garland would be a good way for Trump to claw back centrist/independent voters but I think he needs hold-your-nose evangelicals more

[Pointgod]

far left libs aren't proposing abolish ICE and defund police because it's the politically savvy thing to do, but because it's the right thing to do.

ICE was created in 2003 as part of the Bush administration's comprehensive, unfounded, racist reaction to 9/11. It serves no legitimate purpose, and instead is in practice, an authorized, institutional projection of white nationalism.

sorry if these are uncomfortable truths but if you fancy yourself a principled, adult-in-the-room center-left pragmatist, you can do yourself and America a favor by re-examining the "far left" proposals critically instead of dismissing it as outside of what you perceive to be the overton window.

(not necessarily directed at you pointgod but i'm very frustrated by centrists at the moment)

I think Democrats need to get away from the line of thinking of Centrist and far left etc. The party is a very broad coalition of people that is made up of equal parts of people that could fall into different categories depending on the issue. Guess what I support abolishing ICE and defunding the police, but I also closely follow political podcasts, get info from this board, don’t get my news from Facebook and I’ll research a topic if I’m not familiar with it. The problem is the majority of Democrats and the vast majority of American voters don’t. And there are a ton of Independent voters that don’t have any allegiance to either party that don’t want extreme swings one way or another even if an extreme swing to the left is generally a good thing for the country. I don’t think you can blame anyone who hears these slogans if they’re immediately turned off. My point is that mentioning packing the courts now before getting power is another political loser. The focus right now is on Trump and Republicans why remove that focus, especially when the majority of Americans support the Democrat’s position?

If doing the right thing won votes then Republicans would never be in power. Even they’re smart enough to wait until they have power to before attempting their ****. There’s a reason they lie about protecting pre existing conditions in 2016 despite right now being in court trying to remove them. They know that it’s a political loser even though it’s what their base wants. Because they know they can’t win with just their base.

People on the left regardless of where you are on the spectrum want the same thing, they just different approaches and timelines to getting there.

[Pointgod]

If Trump was smart (which means he won't do it), he would've said he'll pick Merrick Garland if elected, so he can say he was willing to do this in order to show he's not a divisive President afterall. Not to mention, Garland's probably the most qualified choice and is in DC still serving with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit - was the Chief Judge until earlier this year. And it'd have the added value of making McConnell look stupid.

Trump is not smart though and he everything he does is performative to his base. He wants to be able to say he’s appointed 3 Conservative Supreme Court justices so continue to vote for me. It’s all ego to him. Nominating Garland has no positive effect for him politically though. The anti-abortion industrial complex would all but abandon him because to them it’s their only chance to entrench their Christian version of Sharia law.

If Trump was smart he’d use the nomination to drive out his base for the election and get nauseating praise from the media for “playing fair”. It would also increase Republican chances to keep the Senate, because ramming the nomination through before the election would put Senators like Ernst, Graham, Cornyn, and the two Georgia seats in play and those states in play. If he wins and retains the Senate then perfect, if he loses they can still ram the appointment through in the lame duck session and nobody can do anything about it. I’m sure Mitch realizes this but his hard on for Christian Sharia Law seems to be overriding any type of strategy.

[doclinkin]

If doing the right thing won votes then Republicans would never be in power. Even they’re smart enough to wait until they have power to before attempting their ****. There’s a reason they lie about protecting pre existing conditions in 2016 despite right now being in court trying to remove them. They know that it’s a political loser even though it’s what their base wants. Because they know they can’t win with just their base.

The base of their base actually wants it, but think they don't. They just dislike the name 'Obama'. They do want protections for pre-existing conditions and someone to make sure they have health care. But also no taxes. The government should stay out of their business. And also if they do get sick, somebody should take care of them. Their oughta be a law. And also, why's the gummint taking so much money out of my catdang paycheck. Protection for 'Pre-existing conditions' is a political loser because if they call it that even their base understands that is something they want. But if you call it Obamacare, well now, get rid of that, that's no good for nobody. Whatever it is.

The real base, billionaires and the people that love them, have spent a great deal of money trying to keep people exactly this confused. Either ignorant enough to vote against their own self interest, or checked out enough to not understand a thing and just stay home on election day.

Center vs Left is an argument similarly being stirred up to further distract from the potential progress of history. I have no doubt this is juiced by algorithms that are intended to do so. It creates engagement on pages, increases keystrokes and minutes spent on threads arguing with your friends and acquaintances, injecting dissension, setting the stage for political paralysis later in the game, and on whose software are you arguing? Facebook? Owned by someone who had a private meeting with the rotting pumpkin in the oval office, and who was grilled by the progressive congressfolk who doubt his motives and distrust his monopoly over internet discourse.

[Pointgod]

If doing the right thing won votes then Republicans would never be in power. Even they’re smart enough to wait until they have power to before attempting their ****. There’s a reason they lie about protecting pre existing conditions in 2016 despite right now being in court trying to remove them. They know that it’s a political loser even though it’s what their base wants. Because they know they can’t win with just their base.

The base of their base actually wants it, but think they don't. They just dislike the name 'Obama'. They do want protections for pre-existing conditions and someone to make sure they have health care. But also no taxes. The government should stay out of their business. And also if they do get sick, somebody should take care of them. Their oughta be a law. And also, why's the gummint taking so much money out of my catdang paycheck. Protection for 'Pre-existing conditions' is a political loser because if they call it that even their base understands that is something they want. But if you call it Obamacare, well now, get rid of that, that's no good for nobody. Whatever it is.

The real base, billionaires and the people that love them, have spent a great deal of money trying to keep people exactly this confused. Either ignorant enough to vote against their own self interest, or checked out enough to not understand a thing and just stay home on election day.

Center vs Left is an argument similarly being stirred up to further distract from the potential progress of history. I have no doubt this is juiced by algorithms that are intended to do so. It creates engagement on pages, increases keystrokes and minutes spent on threads arguing with your friends and acquaintances, injecting dissension, setting the stage for political paralysis later in the game, and on whose software are you arguing? Facebook? Owned by someone who had a private meeting with the rotting pumpkin in the oval office, and who was grilled by the progressive congressfolk who doubt his motives and distrust his monopoly over internet discourse.

Look no further than Kentucky to see the relationship between Republican voters and Obamacare. In Kentucky it’s called KYConnect. Ask any Republican, they love KYConnect but hate that godless Obamacare. It’s the same thing! So many people are on the left say that Democrats need to lie, cheat and steal like the Republicans but Republicans know better then to cut off their own legs with poor messaging and breaking the rules only works if you’re already in power.

And don’t get me started on Facebook. It’s an absolute cancer to Democracy and the world in general. Just look up the most retweeted Facebook videos and posts on a weekly or daily basis and you can understand why roughly 40% of the country will happily turn the US into a Facist country.

[Kanyewest]

How many dissenting votes do we need from Republicans to make sure the Trump SC Nominee isn’t confirmed? Is it 4?

Currently, we have...

Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Collins (R-Maine)
Romney (R-Utah)

And if 4 is correct, we need one more defector. Looking particularly at Grassley (who claims to be a constitutionalist and in 2018 said he wouldn’t support a SC appointment the year before an election), Graham (who I felt nauseous simply typing....but he DID forcefully say on camera that he would not support a SC appointment during an election year, even going so far as to say “hold the tape!”), any Republican Senator who is up for re-election in a swing state and needs some Democratic support, and any Republican Senator who is retiring and would like to go out on good terms with Jesus.

Graham already backed down like a bitch. I don’t trust any of these Republicans to keep their word. Remember Jeff Flake? How many retiring Senators voted against ANY witnesses during the impeachment trial? You’d think Cory Gardner would at least grow a conscience or the great norm observer Ben Sasse. They’re all cowards until proven otherwise except Mitt.

Unfortunately, this is probably true until the evidence is provided otherwise. I think if Mitch needs either Murkowski or Collins vote, I could see them flip but perhaps Collins isn't going to because she is facing a tough re-election battle.

[Kanyewest]

Call me crazy but the more I think about it, the best thing politically for Democrats might just be the Republicans jamming though a SC appointee right now.

Why? Because a couple things become more likely....

1. Democratic voters become apoplectic (to borrow a Steve Buckhantz term) and show up to the voting booth in larger numbers than were originally predicted. Biden likely wins (in my opinion).

2. Swing State Republicans probably lose their seat because they made a choice that only resonated with their base and not the general electorate of their state. Democrats take the senate because of this (again, all in my opinion).

3. With a newly elected Biden, a Democratic Senate and maintaining the House of Representatives, Democrats not only have the physical ability but now the public support and political clout to eliminate the filibuster, push through PR and DC into statehood (giving the Dems 4 extra Senators), as well as extending the Supreme Court.

I know what I wrote reads like a liberal fan fiction but I honestly think it could go down that way. Not sure I can see all 3 things coming to fruition if the Republicans DON’T push though the SC appointee.

It's too bad democratic voters didn't sink the "dagger" in 2016 when they had the chance when McConnell blocked Garland.

[Ruzious]

I guess this isn't as sickening as the fact that he and his followers are giddy over the fact that she died. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-doubts-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-dying-wish-claiming-democrats-wrote-it/ar-BB19g9bx?li=BBnb7Kz

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

[Ruzious]

Read on Twitter

?s=19

There are still coloring books with pictures of General Lee, so Trump's version of history can still live on.

I mean, the guy has never read a history book in his life - since 5th grade. Does anyone really believe he gives a bleep about history?

[dobrojim]

If Trump was smart (which means he won't do it), he would've said he'll pick Merrick Garland if elected, so he can say he was willing to do this in order to show he's not a divisive President afterall. Not to mention, Garland's probably the most qualified choice and is in DC still serving with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit - was the Chief Judge until earlier this year. And it'd have the added value of making McConnell look stupid.

I like it but what I really like would be the appointment of Barack Obama to the SC.
Besides, he's probably younger than Garland.

[doclinkin]

If Trump was smart (which means he won't do it), he would've said he'll pick Merrick Garland if elected, so he can say he was willing to do this in order to show he's not a divisive President afterall. Not to mention, Garland's probably the most qualified choice and is in DC still serving with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit - was the Chief Judge until earlier this year. And it'd have the added value of making McConnell look stupid.

I like it but what I really like would be the appointment of Barack Obama to the SC.
Besides, he's probably younger than Garland.

I'm on board for this. Plus it would drive the wingnuts to even more deplorable spasms of nuttery. Suits me fine.

[Pointgod]

Call me crazy but the more I think about it, the best thing politically for Democrats might just be the Republicans jamming though a SC appointee right now.

Why? Because a couple things become more likely....

1. Democratic voters become apoplectic (to borrow a Steve Buckhantz term) and show up to the voting booth in larger numbers than were originally predicted. Biden likely wins (in my opinion).

2. Swing State Republicans probably lose their seat because they made a choice that only resonated with their base and not the general electorate of their state. Democrats take the senate because of this (again, all in my opinion).

3. With a newly elected Biden, a Democratic Senate and maintaining the House of Representatives, Democrats not only have the physical ability but now the public support and political clout to eliminate the filibuster, push through PR and DC into statehood (giving the Dems 4 extra Senators), as well as extending the Supreme Court.

I know what I wrote reads like a liberal fan fiction but I honestly think it could go down that way. Not sure I can see all 3 things coming to fruition if the Republicans DON’T push though the SC appointee.

It's too bad democratic voters didn't sink the "dagger" in 2016 when they had the chance when McConnell blocked Garland.

Hillary **** warned them that this would happen. The future of Roe vs Wade was on the table, the ACA was on the table, legalized discrimination was on the table. People of color where screaming and raising the alarm bells in 2016. I’m not going to get into who’s exactly to blame because I’m not going to bring up old grievances but everything that’s happening now and that will happen was predicted.

It’s going to be bad, very bad in fact. Just look at the positions Trump’s top pick has taken in Federal cases.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/amy-coney-barrett-ginsburg-scotus-future.html

Faced with two plausible readings of a law, fact, or precedent, Barrett always seems to choose the harsher, stingier interpretation. Can job applicants sue employers whose policies have a disproportionately deleterious impact on older people? Barrett said no. Should courts halt the deportation of an immigrant who faced torture at home? Barrett said no. Should they protect refugees denied asylum on the basis of xenophobic prejudice? Barrett said no. Should they shield prisoners from unjustified violence by correctional officers? Barrett said no. Should minors be allowed to terminate a pregnancy without telling their parents if a judge has found that they’re mature enough to make the decision? Barrett said no. Should women be permitted to obtain an abortion upon discovering a severe fetal abnormality? Barrett said no.

There is no question that, if confirmed, Barrett would cast the fifth vote to either hollow out Roe v. Wade or overturn it altogether. Similarly, there is no doubt that Barrett would dramatically expand the Second Amendment, invalidating gun control measures around the country. It’s quite possible, perhaps even likely, that within a year of her confirmation, Americans will be forbidden from terminating a pregnancy in 21 states—but permitted to purchase assault weapons and carry firearms in public in every state.

[Ruzious]

If Trump was smart (which means he won't do it), he would've said he'll pick Merrick Garland if elected, so he can say he was willing to do this in order to show he's not a divisive President afterall. Not to mention, Garland's probably the most qualified choice and is in DC still serving with the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit - was the Chief Judge until earlier this year. And it'd have the added value of making McConnell look stupid.

I like it but what I really like would be the appointment of Barack Obama to the SC.
Besides, he's probably younger than Garland.

An even better choice would be... Michelle Obama.

[doclinkin]

I'd go with the first black president of the Harvard Law review who went on to teach Constitutional Law, over the former hospital administrator, no matter how sensible. Unless all you were trying to do was piss people off and thumb your nose at them. Barack would be confirmed by a democratic Senate, I think people would raise reasonable dissent over Michelle. Also, Michelle is too smart to take the job. LOL.

[Ruzious]

I'd go with the first black president of the Harvard Law review who went on to teach Constitutional Law, over the former hospital administrator, no matter how sensible. Unless all you were trying to do was piss people off and thumb your nose at them. Barack would be confirmed by a democratic Senate, I think people would raise reasonable dissent over Michelle. Also, Michelle is too smart to take the job. LOL.

I'll remember to use green font next time. I was talking about who Trump should pick - and he's already committed to picking a woman. Btw, she's also a Harvard Law grad and not exactly just a sensible housewife.

[doclinkin]

You said housewife, I said administrator, since her law degree took her into public policy, not constitutional scholarship. So sexist. SMH.

But yeah, I'm serious about the first Dem appt to the court being Barack. I think he'd do a great deal of good there. And since I'm fine with them packing the courts, you can float Michelle as a possibility for one of the next few spots if you like.

[Pointgod]

https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/court-pack-democratic-party/