Political Roundtable Part XII

[popper]

It's going to be interesting to see how Trump reacts when the D's thwart most of his agenda (needing to meet a 60 vote threshold). Will he pressure the R's in the senate to complete the nuclear option and change the senate rules to include legislation and SC nominations by simple majority? Harry Reid gave them cover when he said he had set up the senate to do just that if HC won. Kaine also speculated that it may very well be necessary if R's filibustered HC's agenda.

Currently there are 3-5 R senators on record opposed to the idea. Will they change their mind when pressure builds to pass legislation that's bottled up in D filibuster? I don't think R's would do well in 2018 and 2020 if they can't point to major reforms that have passed and been enacted. It's going to be interesting.

[nate33]

It's going to be interesting to see how Trump reacts when the D's thwart most of his agenda (needing to meet a 60 vote threshold). Will he pressure the R's in the senate to complete the nuclear option and change the senate rules to include legislation and SC nominations by simple majority? Harry Reid gave them cover when he said he had set up the senate to do just that if HC won. Kaine also speculated that it may very well be necessary if R's filibustered HC's agenda.

Currently there are 3-5 R senators on record opposed to the idea. Will they change their mind when pressure builds to pass legislation that's bottled up in D filibuster? I don't think R's would do well in 2018 and 2020 if they can't point to major reforms that have passed and been enacted. It's going to be interesting.

Trump's agenda has three primary facets: immigration, health care and trade.

Trump doesn't need any congressional help on immigration. All he has to do is enforce existing law. The only way he can be stopped is if Congress actually passes legislation to change the law to allow immigration to be even more permissive. But that's not going to happen because enough Republican congressman paid attention to the election and know that their base wants immigration laws enforced. There isn't a majority in the House who will oppose Trump.

Trump is going to need congressional help on health care. This is why his health care agenda is basically the same as that of mainstream Republicans. It'll be a difficult fight to get reform accomplished, but none of it will be any different than any normal fight to get major legislation approved.

Trump can accomplish much of his trade agenda at the executive level without congressional approval. The interesting thing about trade is that, where congressional approval is necessary, Trump is as likely to draw support from Democrats as Republicans.

[popper]

It's going to be interesting to see how Trump reacts when the D's thwart most of his agenda (needing to meet a 60 vote threshold). Will he pressure the R's in the senate to complete the nuclear option and change the senate rules to include legislation and SC nominations by simple majority? Harry Reid gave them cover when he said he had set up the senate to do just that if HC won. Kaine also speculated that it may very well be necessary if R's filibustered HC's agenda.

Currently there are 3-5 R senators on record opposed to the idea. Will they change their mind when pressure builds to pass legislation that's bottled up in D filibuster? I don't think R's would do well in 2018 and 2020 if they can't point to major reforms that have passed and been enacted. It's going to be interesting.

Trump's agenda has three primary facets: immigration, health care and trade.

Trump doesn't need any congressional help on immigration. All he has to do is enforce existing law. The only way he can be stopped is if Congress actually passes legislation to change the law to allow immigration to be even more permissive. But that's not going to happen because enough Republican congressman paid attention to the election and know that their base wants immigration laws enforced. There isn't a majority in the House who will oppose Trump.

Trump is going to need congressional help on health care. This is why his health care agenda is basically the same as that of mainstream Republicans. It'll be a difficult fight to get reform accomplished, but none of it will be any different than any normal fight to get major legislation approved.

Trump can accomplish much of his trade agenda at the executive level with congressional approval. The interesting thing about trade is that, where necessary, Trump is as likely to draw support from Democrats as Republicans.

Agree except that tax reform and infrastructure may run into problems. D's won't support infrastructure if it primarily entails tax incentives. And tax reform itself is going to be a battle for a host of reasons. We shall see.

[bsilver]

It's going to be interesting to see how Trump reacts when the D's thwart most of his agenda (needing to meet a 60 vote threshold). Will he pressure the R's in the senate to complete the nuclear option and change the senate rules to include legislation and SC nominations by simple majority? Harry Reid gave them cover when he said he had set up the senate to do just that if HC won. Kaine also speculated that it may very well be necessary if R's filibustered HC's agenda.

Currently there are 3-5 R senators on record opposed to the idea. Will they change their mind when pressure builds to pass legislation that's bottled up in D filibuster? I don't think R's would do well in 2018 and 2020 if they can't point to major reforms that have passed and been enacted. It's going to be interesting.

Harry Reid brought up the subject of ending the filibuster, but I doubt the claim of "he had set up the senate to do just that". He retired, and so would have no say on the subject with the new Senate.
It's too early to predict what the R's will do about filibuster. Some that oppose a filibuster change, like Orrin Hatch, don't seem to be susceptible to pressure.
I'm not sure what the Republican's agenda actually is. There's seems to be a lot of spending involved - Defense, The Wall, Infrastructure, along with big tax cuts. With all the past talk about the horror of the nation debt, can this agenda be agreed on by the R's?

[popper]

It's going to be interesting to see how Trump reacts when the D's thwart most of his agenda (needing to meet a 60 vote threshold). Will he pressure the R's in the senate to complete the nuclear option and change the senate rules to include legislation and SC nominations by simple majority? Harry Reid gave them cover when he said he had set up the senate to do just that if HC won. Kaine also speculated that it may very well be necessary if R's filibustered HC's agenda.

Currently there are 3-5 R senators on record opposed to the idea. Will they change their mind when pressure builds to pass legislation that's bottled up in D filibuster? I don't think R's would do well in 2018 and 2020 if they can't point to major reforms that have passed and been enacted. It's going to be interesting.

Harry Reid brought up the subject of ending the filibuster, but I doubt the claim of "he had set up the senate to do just that". He retired, and so would have no say on the subject with the new Senate.
It's too early to predict what the R's will do about filibuster. Some that oppose a filibuster change, like Orrin Hatch, don't seem to be susceptible to pressure.
I'm not sure what the Republican's agenda actually is. There's seems to be a lot of spending involved - Defense, The Wall, Infrastructure, along with big tax cuts. With all the past talk about the horror of the nation debt, can this agenda be agreed on by the R's?

As you say, spending is going to be a problem for some R's. Here's the quote from Reid.

Sen. Harry Reid, the chamber's minority leader who will soon be retired, told Talking Points Memo he has "set the Senate" to fight back against any Republican protests regarding a Supreme Court nominee.

"I really do believe that I have set the Senate, so when I leave, we're going to be able to get judges done with a majority," Reid said.
Under current rules, Supreme Court nominees must be approved by a 60 percent Senate vote.

"It's clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I've told 'em how and I've done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. It'll have to be done again."

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/senate-supreme-court-Hillary-Clinton/2016/10/24/id/755095/

[Ruzious]

Basically, I think he's "intellectually uncurious" (is that a word )

That's just elitist code for "idiot".

You and the liberals can go on thinking that if you want. Trump will continue to outflank you if you do.

Stop with the you against us thinking. We're all on the same team. But that doesn't mean Trump isn't a moron in obvious ways. In some ways, he's undoubtedly a clever guy, but he's clearly a gdf moron for a US President - not just a garden variety moron - in other ways, and people on both sides of the aisle have the capacity to understand that. It's something some people have chosen to work around, but it's always there.

[AFM]

He's either the world's smartest dumb guy or the world's dumbest smart guy. I think the former.

[nate33]

It's going to be interesting to see how Trump reacts when the D's thwart most of his agenda (needing to meet a 60 vote threshold). Will he pressure the R's in the senate to complete the nuclear option and change the senate rules to include legislation and SC nominations by simple majority? Harry Reid gave them cover when he said he had set up the senate to do just that if HC won. Kaine also speculated that it may very well be necessary if R's filibustered HC's agenda.

Currently there are 3-5 R senators on record opposed to the idea. Will they change their mind when pressure builds to pass legislation that's bottled up in D filibuster? I don't think R's would do well in 2018 and 2020 if they can't point to major reforms that have passed and been enacted. It's going to be interesting.

Trump's agenda has three primary facets: immigration, health care and trade.

Trump doesn't need any congressional help on immigration. All he has to do is enforce existing law. The only way he can be stopped is if Congress actually passes legislation to change the law to allow immigration to be even more permissive. But that's not going to happen because enough Republican congressman paid attention to the election and know that their base wants immigration laws enforced. There isn't a majority in the House who will oppose Trump.

Trump is going to need congressional help on health care. This is why his health care agenda is basically the same as that of mainstream Republicans. It'll be a difficult fight to get reform accomplished, but none of it will be any different than any normal fight to get major legislation approved.

Trump can accomplish much of his trade agenda at the executive level with congressional approval. The interesting thing about trade is that, where necessary, Trump is as likely to draw support from Democrats as Republicans.

Agree except that tax reform and infrastructure may run into problems. D's won't support infrastructure if it primarily entails tax incentives. And tax reform itself is going to be a battle for a host of reasons. We shall see.

I don't think tax reform is a priority. Yeah, it would be nice if they can get it done, but if they can't, they'll just use it to paint the Democrats as standing in the way of economic growth. (This isn't a criticism of Democrats, tax debates are always like that, for both sides.) Nobody ever takes much political heat for failing to get tax reform done because they can always credibly blame the other side for obstructionism.

[popper]

This is kind of interesting. Oxfam is reporting that eight men hold the same wealth as half of the world’s population. Six of the eight are American. All six, I believe, are D’s and donated to Hillary or her PACs (Bloomberg’s party affiliation is debatable I guess). I was expecting to see that R’s were the one’s hording the world’s wealth and exacerbating the income inequality gap.

Gates, Buffet, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Ellison and Bloomberg

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_DAVOS_INEQUALITY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-15-19-02-51

[closg00]

Bob Woodward: That dossier is a "garbage document. It never should have been presented as part of an intelligence briefing".

Watch on YouTube

Since when did Bob Woodward become supreme overseer of intelligence materials? BW is not an intelligence analyst. It would have been irresponsible for the CIA to NOT have informed Trump about this material. Now the fact that it was leaked is another matter. Trump quite enjoyed when things were leaked about Clinton.

[DCZards]

This is kind of interesting. Oxfam is reporting that eight men hold the same wealth as half of the world’s population. Six of the eight are American. All six, I believe, are D’s and donated to Hillary or her PACs (Bloomberg’s party affiliation is debatable I guess). I was expecting to see that R’s were the one’s hording the world’s wealth and exacerbating the income inequality gap.

Gates, Buffet, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Ellison and Bloomberg

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_DAVOS_INEQUALITY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-15-19-02-51

I'm guessing that these wealthy Ds have given far more to charity and paid far more in federal taxes than say...Donald Trump.

[gtn130]

Basically, I think he's "intellectually uncurious" (is that a word )

That's just elitist code for "idiot".

You and the liberals can go on thinking that if you want. Trump will continue to outflank you if you do.

Thinking that Trump is a deranged moron means you're an elitist? Ok, bro. He has a 37% approval rating.

And lol at thinking Trump is a some master tactician outsmarting everyone. He was insanely lucky to win the election with help from the FBI, Russian hacking and an historically weak Dem candidate who had a ton of baggage herself. Trump loses vs any average candidate - by a lot.

Trump was able to own the media coverage by making daily idiotic/wrong/sensational proclamations that captured everyone's attention. I guess openly presenting yourself as a blundering idiot with zero shame is tactical brilliance in your mind.

[gtn130]

Trump lost the popular vote by ~3 million. Majority of Americans are elitists I guess.

[montestewart]

This is kind of interesting. Oxfam is reporting that eight men hold the same wealth as half of the world’s population. Six of the eight are American. All six, I believe, are D’s and donated to Hillary or her PACs (Bloomberg’s party affiliation is debatable I guess). I was expecting to see that R’s were the one’s hording the world’s wealth and exacerbating the income inequality gap.

Gates, Buffet, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Ellison and Bloomberg

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_DAVOS_INEQUALITY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-15-19-02-51

Republican Party used to be the party of rich pigs, but the Democratic Party's Rainbow Coalition found there was room in their big tent for everyone.

There are plenty of traditionally Republican billionaires, including Adelson, the Kochs, the Waltons, Meg Whitman, The Mars family, etc. Some may have supported Clinton because they like to back a winner and thought she would win, but others clearly backed Trump. Larry Ellison is nominally conservative and backed Rubio (don't know where he stood on Trump/Clinton). Buffet backed Clinton, but said the market would be fine regardless of the winner.

People with money and power want a president who will help them maintain/increase their money and power, but they generally will support and cut deals with whomever is the winner. Hard for the Mafia to make money when there's a war going on. Unless it's the war they wanted (see Iraq I and II).

[nate33]

Trump lost the popular vote by ~3 million. Majority of Americans are elitists I guess.

Scoreboard.

[gtn130]

Trump lost the popular vote by ~3 million. Majority of Americans are elitists I guess.

Scoreboard.

Believe it or not there people who care about politics for reasons other than their team winning.

[popper]

Very glad to see the Washington Post editorial board accurately describe civil rights giant and American hero MLK Jr. as a true conservative.


The Post's View
Martin Luther King Jr. was a true conservative

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR., conservative. ….

…But in his way, Dr. King did a lot to preserve, protect and defend the best of our principles and values.…

…..Dr. King worked to turn back extremism, violence and racial nationalism at the height of the civil rights movement, and to keep the cause of essential and long-overdue change in the American mainstream…..

….This is a part of American “exceptionalism,” but through much of our history, a greater part of it could be found in the kind of biblical message that Dr. King carried to the pulpit and the nation. “There is something wrong with our world, something fundamentally and basically wrong,” he told a Detroit congregation in 1954. “The great problem facing modern man,” he said, “is that . . . the means by which we live have outdistanced the spiritual ends for which we live. . . . The problem is with man himself and man’s soul.”……

…“My friends,” Dr. King said in his Detroit sermon, “all I’m trying to say is that if we are to go forward today, we’ve got to go back and rediscover some mighty precious values that we’ve left behind. That’s the only way that we would be able to make of our world a better world, and to make of this world what God wants it to be. . . .”

Spoken like a true conservative, and a truly great one.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/martin-luther-king-jr-was-a-true-conservative/2017/01/15/b0f465e4-d9c6-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.0cf7c20f077f

[bsilver]

It's going to be interesting to see how Trump reacts when the D's thwart most of his agenda (needing to meet a 60 vote threshold). Will he pressure the R's in the senate to complete the nuclear option and change the senate rules to include legislation and SC nominations by simple majority? Harry Reid gave them cover when he said he had set up the senate to do just that if HC won. Kaine also speculated that it may very well be necessary if R's filibustered HC's agenda.

Currently there are 3-5 R senators on record opposed to the idea. Will they change their mind when pressure builds to pass legislation that's bottled up in D filibuster? I don't think R's would do well in 2018 and 2020 if they can't point to major reforms that have passed and been enacted. It's going to be interesting.

Harry Reid brought up the subject of ending the filibuster, but I doubt the claim of "he had set up the senate to do just that". He retired, and so would have no say on the subject with the new Senate.
It's too early to predict what the R's will do about filibuster. Some that oppose a filibuster change, like Orrin Hatch, don't seem to be susceptible to pressure.
I'm not sure what the Republican's agenda actually is. There's seems to be a lot of spending involved - Defense, The Wall, Infrastructure, along with big tax cuts. With all the past talk about the horror of the nation debt, can this agenda be agreed on by the R's?

As you say, spending is going to be a problem for some R's. Here's the quote from Reid.

Sen. Harry Reid, the chamber's minority leader who will soon be retired, told Talking Points Memo he has "set the Senate" to fight back against any Republican protests regarding a Supreme Court nominee.

"I really do believe that I have set the Senate, so when I leave, we're going to be able to get judges done with a majority," Reid said.
Under current rules, Supreme Court nominees must be approved by a 60 percent Senate vote.

"It's clear to me that if the Republicans try to filibuster another circuit court judge, but especially a Supreme Court justice, I've told 'em how and I've done it, not just talking about it. I did it in changing the rules of the Senate. It'll have to be done again."

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/senate-supreme-court-Hillary-Clinton/2016/10/24/id/755095/

As you can tell from the quote, he's talking about the Supreme Court. It's a big leap from eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, to eliminating it for legislation. It's more likely to be eliminated for the SC first, especially if the D's filibuster Trump's pick.

[Ruzious]

This country is one team - the USA. When we forget that or choose not to care about that, everyone loses.

[dckingsfan]

This country is one team - the USA. When we forget that or choose not to care about that, everyone loses.

Cosign...