Political Roundtable Part XI

[bsilver]

By not allowing a vote on Garland for the SC, and filibustering virtually everything Obama was trying to accomplish, the Rs have set a precedent for how a party should vote in the Senate. There is no good reason for the Ds not to filibuster everything put forward by Trump and the Rs, including Trump's SC appointment.
At this point there are several Rs that have gone on record as opposing doing away with the filibuster, so there's not 50 votes there to eliminate the filibuster.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out after a period when the Rs are stymied in all they want to do. There will be lots of pressure on opposing Rs to change their position and eliminate the filibuster.

Yup. There is no question that the Republican Congress played some serious hardball in stymieing Obama's agenda. And payback can be a bitch. The Democrats will block the Republican whenever they can, and will be completely justified in doing so.

I suspect the Republicans will have to eliminate the filibuster on the SC nomination. That might address the Supreme Court issue, but it won't help with getting conventional legislation done.

The country is broken. Secession is the best solution. If that doesn't happen, we will probably have sustained violence whenever our next financial collapse happens.

Only 1 in 4 wants their state to secede. It would need to be nearly 2 of 3 for it to happen. 3 in 4 for it to happen peacefully.

I disagree that the country is broken. We are in agreement on many issues. The country has been misgoverned.

Those that want such a thing to happen should revisit the civil war.

There is no legal right to uni-lateral secession, though there's always some that would argue otherwise. Texas vs White, 1868, was the last Supreme Court ruling.
I agree we are misgoverned, but don't see any way out of this mess. The goal of each party is to obtain power and impose their will on the minority. The term "tyranny of the majority" was used by John Adams in 1788, but the concept goes back to ancient Greece. Our leaders don't seem to get that this tyranny is not a good thing. Maybe we're better off if neither party has sufficient power to impose their will.

[closg00]

Don the Con settles the "Trump University" class action suit for $25 million

[JWizmentality]

Don the Con settles the "Trump University" class action suit for $25 million

I thought only losers settle.

Really disgusting what he did there. Another mistake by the dems not to hammer that.

[dckingsfan]

Yup. There is no question that the Republican Congress played some serious hardball in stymieing Obama's agenda. And payback can be a bitch. The Democrats will block the Republican whenever they can, and will be completely justified in doing so.

I suspect the Republicans will have to eliminate the filibuster on the SC nomination. That might address the Supreme Court issue, but it won't help with getting conventional legislation done.

The country is broken. Secession is the best solution. If that doesn't happen, we will probably have sustained violence whenever our next financial collapse happens.

Only 1 in 4 wants their state to secede. It would need to be nearly 2 of 3 for it to happen. 3 in 4 for it to happen peacefully.

I disagree that the country is broken. We are in agreement on many issues. The country has been misgoverned.

Those that want such a thing to happen should revisit the civil war.

There is no legal right to uni-lateral secession, though there's always some that would argue otherwise. Texas vs White, 1868, was the last Supreme Court ruling.
I agree we are misgoverned, but don't see any way out of this mess. The goal of each party is to obtain power and impose their will on the minority. The term "tyranny of the majority" was used by John Adams in 1788, but the concept goes back to ancient Greece. Our leaders don't seem to get that this tyranny is not a good thing. Maybe we're better off if neither party has sufficient power to impose their will.

I would give a 3rd party a shot first

[bsilver]

Don the Con settles the "Trump University" class action suit for $25 million

I thought only losers settle.

Really disgusting what he did there. Another mistake by the dems not to hammer that.

Do you really think it would have made a difference? Trump University was mentioned, but just tended to get lost among everything else he's done. His negative rating was so high already. His true believers didn't care.
Clinton lost because she lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin - states easily won by Obama. Lots of blue collar swing voters there switched allegiance. I doubt they cared about mail servers, Trump University, groping etc. They were somehow convinced Trump would be better for them economically.

[nate33]

Don the Con settles the "Trump University" class action suit for $25 million

I thought only losers settle.

Really disgusting what he did there. Another mistake by the dems not to hammer that.

Do you really think it would have made a difference? Trump University was mentioned, but just tended to get lost among everything else he's done. His negative rating was so high already. His true believers didn't care.
Clinton lost because she lost Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin - states easily won by Obama. Lots of blue collar swing voters there switched allegiance. I doubt they cared about mail servers, Trump University, groping etc. They were somehow convinced Trump would be better for them economically.

I suspect that the only reason Trump settled was because he won the presidency and didn't need the distraction. If he had lost to Clinton, he would not have settled.

[nate33]

There is no legal right to uni-lateral secession, though there's always some that would argue otherwise. Texas vs White, 1868, was the last Supreme Court ruling.

Times are different. If California, Oregon and Washington decide to secede, I don't see the rest of the nation going to war to stop them, so the legality becomes moot. I suspect there would be some negotiations on land and natural resources. Specifically, the remainder of the nation would insist on keeping at least one Pacific port for commerce and national defense. San Diego would have to stay.

I agree we are misgoverned, but don't see any way out of this mess. The goal of each party is to obtain power and impose their will on the minority. The term "tyranny of the majority" was used by John Adams in 1788, but the concept goes back to ancient Greece. Our leaders don't seem to get that this tyranny is not a good thing. Maybe we're better off if neither party has sufficient power to impose their will.

I think this became inevitable as the power of the Federal government continued to overwhelm the authority of the states. If we were functioning in a true Republic, like-minded people would move away from people at the opposite end of the spectrum and defuse these tensions. But now, we're split 50/50 in a winner-take-all contest for dominant Federal power. The Democrats got their way, and this is the result.

[Wizardspride]

Out of curiosity, is anyone concerned about the folks President-elect Trump is surrounding himself with?

I mean in terms of the neo-con element.

Personally, I don't think he's one but some of these guys....ugh.

That's one of dangers of being the outsider. Because you know very little about how things run it's very easy to fall prey to "nefarious" people.

[nate33]

Out of curiosity, is anyone concerned about the folks President-elect Trump is surrounding himself with?

I mean in terms of the neo-con element.

Personally, I don't think he's one but some of these guys....ugh.

That's one of dangers of being the outsider. Because you know very little about how things run it's very easy to fall prey to "nefarious" people.

Bannon is no neo-con. Sessions isn't. Flynn isn't either. He's hawkish on ISIS, but seems willing to work peacefully with Russia.

I'm not too thrilled about Mike Pompeo though. He seems quite hawkish to me.

[dckingsfan]

There is no legal right to uni-lateral secession, though there's always some that would argue otherwise. Texas vs White, 1868, was the last Supreme Court ruling.

Times are different. If California, Oregon and Washington decide to secede, I don't see the rest of the nation going to war to stop them, so the legality becomes moot. I suspect there would be some negotiations on land and natural resources. Specifically, the remainder of the nation would insist on keeping at least one Pacific port for commerce and national defense. San Diego would have to stay.

Why. What President in his right mind is going to say - yeah, you can leave. I think you have this one wrong.

I agree we are misgoverned, but don't see any way out of this mess. The goal of each party is to obtain power and impose their will on the minority. The term "tyranny of the majority" was used by John Adams in 1788, but the concept goes back to ancient Greece. Our leaders don't seem to get that this tyranny is not a good thing. Maybe we're better off if neither party has sufficient power to impose their will.

I think this became inevitable as the power of the Federal government continued to overwhelm the authority of the states. If we were functioning in a true Republic, like-minded people would move away from people at the opposite end of the spectrum and defuse these tensions. But now, we're split 50/50 in a winner-take-all contest for dominant Federal power. The Democrats got their way, and this is the result.

Eh, this conversation has been happening for 200 odd years now right through the civil war. Some will continue to bring it up for the next 200 years. And just look at how the parties have morphed in the last 120 years. They will continue to do so...

[DCZards]

Times are different. If California, Oregon and Washington decide to secede, I don't see the rest of the nation going to war to stop them, so the legality becomes moot. I suspect there would be some negotiations on land and natural resources. Specifically, the remainder of the nation would insist on keeping at least one Pacific port for commerce and national defense. San Diego would have to stay.

I'm curious. Why would San Diego have to stay? Isn't San Diego part of California? If Calif. secedes, wouldn't San Diego be included?

Not that I think that this secession idea is a good one...or has any chance of happening. Not to mention that it would be impossible to execute and manage since most states consist of folks of various political stripes who have no desire to move elsewhere---or give up trying to coexist with Americans they don't look like, worship like or who they disagree with.

[nate33]

There is no legal right to uni-lateral secession, though there's always some that would argue otherwise. Texas vs White, 1868, was the last Supreme Court ruling.

Times are different. If California, Oregon and Washington decide to secede, I don't see the rest of the nation going to war to stop them, so the legality becomes moot. I suspect there would be some negotiations on land and natural resources. Specifically, the remainder of the nation would insist on keeping at least one Pacific port for commerce and national defense. San Diego would have to stay.

Why. What President in his right mind is going to say - yeah, you can leave. I think you have this one wrong.

The President's personal feelings are irrelevant. It all depends on whether a President would ask his armed forces to attack fellow Americans and whether the army would obey.

[nate33]

Times are different. If California, Oregon and Washington decide to secede, I don't see the rest of the nation going to war to stop them, so the legality becomes moot. I suspect there would be some negotiations on land and natural resources. Specifically, the remainder of the nation would insist on keeping at least one Pacific port for commerce and national defense. San Diego would have to stay.

I'm curious. Why would San Diego have to stay? Isn't San Diego part of California? If Calif. secedes, wouldn't San Diego be included?

Not that I think that this secession idea is a good one...or has any chance of happening. Not to mention that it would be impossible to execute and manage since most states consist of folks of various political stripes who have no desire to move elsewhere---or give up trying to coexist with Americans they don't look like, worship like or who they disagree with.

I think it's possible that the rest of America would go to war to protect the commerce and national defense that a Pacific harbor provides. There are 3 good ports on the west coast: Seattle, San Francisco, and San Diego. I figure San Diego and the regions around are the least "blue" of those 3 ports. The U.S. would annex a strip of Southern California to include San Diego, and let the rest of the West secede.

I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow or anything. I just think it's likely in the next 30 years or so. There are huge political divisions in this country being appeased by a welfare system propped up by unsustainable deficit spending. When debt bubble bursts, those political strains will manifest big time.

[Induveca]

Secession is pretty much a legal impossibility. There are political differences currently due to a continued recession Politicians refuse to acknowledge. Obviously the media wishes to make it racial, but it isnt. The majority of the population, regardless of race have lost their earning power.

I think the infrastructure rebuilding is a great idea, I-95 from Boston to DC looks like Fallout in many areas compared to the 90s. It gets millions back to work, require materials to be US made and even more jobs are created.

2003 this country was the least "racially" motivated than I've seen in my 20 years here. Finger pointing over race/class etc is at its height when people don't have a solid wage, jobs or free credit.

This really was time for a chance. I've been sick of seeing family and friends live in housing projects for nearly a decade abusing food stamps, welfare, unemployment etc. Admittedly finance and tech are off limits, and they don't want to work at fast food places. They make more money staying home currently.

Infrastructure is a step in the right direction, combined with strong arming US corporations repatriate money at a far lower tax and it's a great start.

Not sure why people refuse to give it a chance. The current systems over the past 15 years have essentially left much of my family a generation behind, completely dependent on government handouts.

I know most of them would be happy to work road crews making 20 bucks an hour. It's a respectable job.

[Wizardspride]

Secession is pretty much a legal impossibility. There are political differences currently due to a continued recession Politicians refuse to acknowledge. Obviously the media wishes to make it racial, but it isnt. The majority of the population, regardless of race have lost their earning power.

I think the infrastructure rebuilding is a great idea, I-95 from Boston to DC looks like Fallout in many areas compared to the 90s. It gets millions back to work, require materials to be US made and even more jobs are created.

2003 this country was the least "racially" motivated than I've seen in my 20 years here. Finger pointing over race/class etc is at its height when people don't have a solid wage, jobs or free credit.

This really was time for a chance. I've been sick of seeing family and friends live in housing projects for nearly a decade abusing food stamps, welfare, unemployment etc. Admittedly finance and tech are off limits, and they don't want to work at fast food places. They make more money staying home currently.

Infrastructure is a step in the right direction, combined with strong arming US corporations repatriate money at a far lower tax and it's a great start.

Not sure why people refuse to give it a chance. The current systems over the past 15 years have essentially left much of my family a generation behind, completely dependent on government handouts.

I know most of them would be happy to work road crews making 20 bucks an hour. It's a respectable job.

I definitely agree with you about rebuilding the infrastructure.

Supposedly, the GOP isn't that keen on that particular Trump proposal.

Hell, President Obama has a infrastructure bill that's been languishing in the House for years now.

We'll see what happens...

[nate33]

Secession is pretty much a legal impossibility. There are political differences currently due to a continued recession Politicians refuse to acknowledge. Obviously the media wishes to make it racial, but it isnt. The majority of the population, regardless of race have lost their earning power.

I think the infrastructure rebuilding is a great idea, I-95 from Boston to DC looks like Fallout in many areas compared to the 90s. It gets millions back to work, require materials to be US made and even more jobs are created.

2003 this country was the least "racially" motivated than I've seen in my 20 years here. Finger pointing over race/class etc is at its height when people don't have a solid wage, jobs or free credit.

This really was time for a chance. I've been sick of seeing family and friends live in housing projects for nearly a decade abusing food stamps, welfare, unemployment etc. Admittedly finance and tech are off limits, and they don't want to work at fast food places. They make more money staying home currently.

Infrastructure is a step in the right direction, combined with strong arming US corporations repatriate money at a far lower tax and it's a great start.

Not sure why people refuse to give it a chance. The current systems over the past 15 years have essentially left much of my family a generation behind, completely dependent on government handouts.

I know most of them would be happy to work road crews making 20 bucks an hour. It's a respectable job.

Fair point. If people are employed with good-paying jobs, secession has zero chance of happening.

[dckingsfan]

Times are different. If California, Oregon and Washington decide to secede, I don't see the rest of the nation going to war to stop them, so the legality becomes moot. I suspect there would be some negotiations on land and natural resources. Specifically, the remainder of the nation would insist on keeping at least one Pacific port for commerce and national defense. San Diego would have to stay.

Why. What President in his right mind is going to say - yeah, you can leave. I think you have this one wrong.

The President's personal feelings are irrelevant. It all depends on whether a President would ask his armed forces to attack fellow Americans and whether the army would obey.

That is irrelevant - would the President uphold the constitution. Would they let an individual state leave and set a precedent. Would the supreme court uphold the decision of the specific state. I think the answer would be yes, no and no.

[dckingsfan]

3 in 4 want to stay together even in these most contentious of times...

[verbal8]

By not allowing a vote on Garland for the SC, and filibustering virtually everything Obama was trying to accomplish, the Rs have set a precedent for how a party should vote in the Senate. There is no good reason for the Ds not to filibuster everything put forward by Trump and the Rs, including Trump's SC appointment.
At this point there are several Rs that have gone on record as opposing doing away with the filibuster, so there's not 50 votes there to eliminate the filibuster.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out after a period when the Rs are stymied in all they want to do. There will be lots of pressure on opposing Rs to change their position and eliminate the filibuster.

There are a lot of elected Dem leaders and Dem voters who are already very seriously saying that the Dems in Congress should block everything Trump wants to do like the Repubs did to Obama. Should be interesting.

While it is tempting to return the favor I think doing so will be counter-productive.

I think infrastructure is an area where it would be really wise for the Dems to work with Trump. If they let the republicans work it out amongst themselves it will be either a corporate give-away or it won't happen.

I think corporate tax reform is another area where a compromise again could be a good approach.

Other topics that are in conflict with the democratic platform like the Stupid A%$ Wall, the democrats would be wise to fight tooth and nail.

I don't think the Democrats shouldn't worry too much about making Trump look bad. I am sure he and his cronies will do plenty of that on his own.

[nate33]

By not allowing a vote on Garland for the SC, and filibustering virtually everything Obama was trying to accomplish, the Rs have set a precedent for how a party should vote in the Senate. There is no good reason for the Ds not to filibuster everything put forward by Trump and the Rs, including Trump's SC appointment.
At this point there are several Rs that have gone on record as opposing doing away with the filibuster, so there's not 50 votes there to eliminate the filibuster.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out after a period when the Rs are stymied in all they want to do. There will be lots of pressure on opposing Rs to change their position and eliminate the filibuster.

There are a lot of elected Dem leaders and Dem voters who are already very seriously saying that the Dems in Congress should block everything Trump wants to do like the Repubs did to Obama. Should be interesting.

While it is tempting to return the favor I think doing so will be counter-productive.

I think infrastructure is an area where it would be really wise for the Dems to work with Trump. If they let the republicans work it out amongst themselves it will be either a corporate give-away or it won't happen.

I think corporate tax reform is another area where a compromise again could be a good approach.

Other topics that are in conflict with the democratic platform like the Stupid A%$ Wall, the democrats would be wise to fight tooth and nail.

I don't think the Democrats shouldn't worry too much about making Trump look bad. I am sure he and his cronies will do plenty of that on his own.

I think the Wall is more likely to be a high-grade fence for 90% of the border. It will only be a wall in population centers. Trump is a master of rhetoric. "Wall" is rhetorical persuasion. It sounds stronger and more permanent than "fence". But, practically speaking, there is no need for a 30-foot concrete wall in the middle of the New Mexico desert and I'm sure Trump understands this.