Post New

If he puts KellyAnne in charge, and if he goes on a 24/7 "Affordability and Immigration" campaign. ----I believe Trump can win the electoral college. I still believe that. Trouble is I'm not sure that's going to happen.

If Trump loses - I think the GOP civil war begins the next morning, and I suspect it's started behind the scenes already.

I'm curious what you guys think: Do you want a MAGA way forward? OR do you want a return to Establishment Republicanism al la Bush, McCain, Romney etc.

Methinks the Establishment has been quiet, they've bided their time and figured wither Trump wins and MAGA ends in 4 years, OR he fizzles out and MAGA ends within 4 years.

This time around I see a plethora of candidates fighting it out to be MAGA heir apparent.

Oddly - and this is rare for me - in 2028 I feel the Establishment has some quality candidates. Not saying I like their politics just saying they'd be good candidate: GOVERNOR KEMP, GOVERNOR YOUNGKIN and I tell you what - I feel Governor Sununu would be excellent on the campaign trail out of all 3 of them.

So if you could wave a wand - do you want a MAGA GOP, or do you want it back to the Bush-McCain-Romney-Cheney party.

Truth be told, I love MAGA on trade and immigration and foreign policy but the problem is it's only the Trailer Park candidates who would run with that. And there's be fakers pretending. And I'm tired of the Trailer Park having so much influence on the Right. It's like I have to choose between the Trash and the Establishment and I really hate that.

Curious what you prefer.

" Oddly - and this is rare for me - in 2028 I feel the Establishment has some quality candidates. Not saying I like their politics just saying they'd be good candidate: GOVERNOR KEMP, GOVERNOR YOUNGKIN and I tell you what - I feel Governor Sununu would be excellent on the campaign trail out of all 3 of them."

The dream matchup this cycle could have been Wes Moore and Shapiro vs Haley and Youngkin or Sununu but republican voter are strange in their loyalty? IF trump wins, it might play out that way in 2028, if Harris wins, its 8 more years of biden harris, over and out.

It's like I have to choose between the Trash and the Establishment and I really hate that.

Curious what you prefer. - wilton

--------------

I have lost confidence in the republican establishment. While they articulate generally better policies, they have proven ineffective at getting their ideas implemented in the face of impressive democrat cohesion. The swamp needs some serious draining and IMHO that requires an fearless non-conformist to take on.

My first choice in 2020 was Ramaswamy and still is, but in a 2028 primary, others like Youngkin may emerge and change that. I prefer a candidate who takes an analytical approach and can explain solid reasons for policy proposals. I liked Andrew Yang for this same reason.

The swamp needs some serious draining and IMHO that requires an fearless non-conformist to take on.

Does it?

I don't think that prescription matches the reality of how our system of government is structured. Our government was deliberately set up with checks and balances between the legislature and the head of state. Which means that any significant change in the character of the federal government requires a President that can work with and forge a coalition in Congress to further their agenda.

That's especially the case when Presidential tenures are often shorter than the tenure of Congressional leaders. So agencies have a lot of incentives to cultivate strong relationships with Congress independent of their interactions with the President. Again, just a function of the way our system is structured - the President isn't the only one with a lot of power over the agencies, since Congress writes all the substantive laws and budgets for them.

A "non-conformist" may have the desire to try to "drain the swamp" (whatever that means to you), but is unlikely to have the toolset necessary to do anything significant.

I want somebody who:
*Is grounded in common sense
*Is conservative
*Has been a governor
*Has a solid track record of getting things done
*Isn't afraid to tell the media and the democrats both to go to hell

That's a short list, coming down to Glenn Youngkin, Ron DeSantis, Greg Abbot, maybe Kristi Noem, and Nikki Haley. I'd support any of them as the nominee.

I know you worry about a Haley getting us involved in a lot of overseas conflicts but I think the global picture that's arrayed in front of us doesn't support any adventurism: the US' main task for the next 4 years from a military standpoint is to

1. Re-staff the ranks. Recruitment tanked under Biden, the next President needs to de-wokify the military leadership and put butts in seats.
2. Re-build the Navy. US shipbuilding is in a dire state, and we don't have the ability to move troops, guns and gas anywhere in the world on a whim anymore.
3. Speed up NGAD and some of the advanced weapons programs
4. Harden space capabilities

Until 1-4 are addressed our ability to get into a war is compromised.

Do you want a MAGA way forward? OR do you want a return to Establishment Republicanism al la Bush, McCain, Romney etc.

Bush, McCain and Romney all had too much of a "Go along to get along" mentality: at critical moments they would all FOLD and cave to the democrats. We need someone with a great agenda who will unapologetically push it forward. So in that sense I want more MAGA.

I think with the guys you mentioned and my list above we can have a scenario where we Have Our Cake (get MAGA on trade and foreign policy) and Eat it Too (keep the crazies at bay).

A "non-conformist" may have the desire to try to "drain the swamp" (whatever that means to you), but is unlikely to have the toolset necessary to do anything significant.

"Drain the swamp" refers to the regulatory state, which is solely the province of the Executive Branch. It needs to be downsized and the chieftains who run it need to be replaced with non-partisan actors who understand their jobs and who don't harbor illusions of power.

All it takes is a President with guts to clean house in many of the 3-letter agencies.

"Drain the swamp" refers to the regulatory state, which is solely the province of the Executive Branch. It needs to be downsized and the chieftains who run it need to be replaced with non-partisan actors who understand their jobs and who don't harbor illusions of power.

It's not solely the province of the Executive Branch. The President has oversight of the regulatory state, and appoints the heads of the agencies and many of their immediate subordinates. But Congress is the one that creates all the agencies, establishes their structure, defines their purposes and the limits of their authority, and approves their budget.

Because Congress has enormous authority and power over the agencies under our system of government, and because Congress has significant checks on Presidential authority, it is almost impossible for an Executive to unilaterally make any material changes to the regulatory state.

The chieftains who run it don't have illusions of power. They have actual political power, formed by years and years and years of working with the corresponding members of Congress in the Committees that set all of the rules for everything that pertains to their agency. Unlike the President, which turns over every four or eight years, members of any given Committee (and especially the chairs and ranking members) can be there for decades. And the agencies work with those members and their staff, day in and day out, and build up enormous political capital with them. The President simply doesn't have the power to make significant changes to the regulatory state without working with Congress, and Congress very much has its own opinions about how the regulatory state should operate.

The President is not like the CEO of a business. In most companies, the CEO is the only and final last word on how things are run. If a new CEO comes in and wants to make drastic changes, then that will happen - there's no other power center within the company that can impede those changes. In the federal government, only part of the authority is vested in the President; a large part of it lies in Congress. Which makes it almost impossible for the President to make broad changes to the federal government without being able to convince Congress to go along with it. Which is why structural reform of the federal government so rarely happens.

Let's finish this thought. It's not enough to merely Drain The Swamp, as the next democrat in the White House will merely fill it back up with more fetid water and even more malaria- and dengue-bearing mosquitos.

So what needs to happen? a) Retribution b) Legislation that enacts penalties for abuse of power

a) Retribution
When your opponent only understands power and making use of it, the only way they'll respect you (and subsequently using their power to abuse you when they have the chance) is to understand what FAFO means. The dems have put their people in all levels of government and have zero problem having these people abuse their positions for political gain. That needs to stop, yesterday: the government cannot function as a trusted entity if one political party is allowed to effectively be in charge even when they're not in charge.

So.

Appoint a series of temporary replacements who sole job it is to dole out punishment. You like political prosecutions? Cool. If you have a [d] behind your name, assume you're going to investigated, audited, indicted, what have you. If you're an Antifa rioter, there's no 2 weeks in jail and a slap on the wrist for felony rioting - nope, you're going to do hard time and have your life ruined (this should be happening already, but since it's not special emphasis needs to be made).

For Swamp Denizens caught engaging in abuses, fire them, cancel their pensions, and in certain fields make sure they never work in those fields again. I'm thinking here of "intelligence" officials caught with doing this stuff - fire them with cause, disrupt their retirements and permanently cancel their security clearances. Go even further and make it known these people are PNG in the private intel community.

Messages need to be sent.

Once the d's understand that there are severe, life altering consequences for abusing the American people then things can go back to normal.

I don't think that prescription matches the reality of how our system of government is structured. Our government was deliberately set up with checks and balances between the legislature and the head of state. - albaby

-----------------

The swampiness operates just fine while remaining within the constitutional boundaries. It is reflected in the day to day decision making and priority setting by certain leadership who let their politics color the performance of their agency. A prime example is the FBI seizing the laptop and propagating the fiction it was a Russian plant until well after the election.

Swampiness is also reflected in responsiveness to congressional requests for data or proposals based on which side of the aisle is doing the asking. Investigations drag out and bog down because every tiny little thing is resisted by the agencies holding the information.

Swampiness is reflected setting up an agency such that processes make decisions and no one individual is responsible for anything. Recent example, the secret service in congressional testimony after the Trump assassination attempt. Congress was demanding accountability but could NOT get an answer to who denied the request for additional resources. The oily director said such decisions are made on conference calls between the local office and HQ. Another, when asked should anybody be fired. The oily one said we first have to see if any agency policies were violated or procedures not followed and if there were, disciplinary actions would be taken. The fact there was an obvious and massive failure was not reason enough, there had to be a specific policy that says, "Don't allow the protectee to get shot".

The swampiness operates just fine while remaining within the constitutional boundaries. It is reflected in the day to day decision making and priority setting by certain leadership who let their politics color the performance of their agency. A prime example is the FBI seizing the laptop and propagating the fiction it was a Russian plant until well after the election.

Swampiness is also reflected in responsiveness to congressional requests for data or proposals based on which side of the aisle is doing the asking. Investigations drag out and bog down because every tiny little thing is resisted by the agencies holding the information.

Barack Obama was a horrid President, and one of the worst things he ever did was to load the federal bureaucracy with partisan. IIRC they set a record at the time for Hatch Act violations.

One of my favorites was how they had the EPA abuse the "Waters of The United States" statutes. If you had so much as a puddle in your back yard they would come down on you.

The swampiness operates just fine while remaining within the constitutional boundaries. It is reflected in the day to day decision making and priority setting by certain leadership who let their politics color the performance of their agency.

Accepting your diagnosis of the problem for discussion purposes, I'm afraid you're still describing an insoluble problem. There's no way to take the politics out of politics.

Remember, the reason we have civil service protections is because the real-world experience of having political and patronage appointees to government positions is that they inevitably make many (most) of their decisions based on political considerations. They end up making their day-to-day decision making and priority setting with politics coloring the performance of their agency and their own actions. The idea behind the civil service is that you end up insulating the people who do the day-to-day decision making and priority setting from political pressures. They can be fired if they're doing a bad job, but not because of politics. You give them the protection to do their jobs to the best of their ability and following the rules that have been set down by Congress and the agency heads - within those boundaries, they are free from being influenced by political considerations.

If you go ahead and label how they perform their jobs once freed from political pressure and patronage as itself being political - following the "politics of the individual" rather than the politics of the group - then there's literally no escaping politics in the performance of agency duty. Judgment can always be interjected into the process by someone. If you allow that judgment to come in from the political appointees, you're back in the pre-civil service world of political favoritism or punishment being exercised from above; if you label the judgment calls made by the protected civil service staff as political, then you have politics there as well.

Swampiness is also reflected in responsiveness to congressional requests for data or proposals based on which side of the aisle is doing the asking. Investigations drag out and bog down because every tiny little thing is resisted by the agencies holding the information.

Again, that's inherent in the separation of powers. The whole idea is that the President can resist Congress. It's the key difference between our system and a Parliamentary system. The President is not like a PM - he isn't appointed by the Legislature, but directly elected in a separate election. So the President can - and frequently does - tell Congress to pound sand on a lot of issues. A "nonconformist" President can't change that. In fact, I expect a "nonconformist" President would be more likely to direct their agencies to resist Congress when they felt like it.

The divisiveness to those saying "clean the swamp" --- and their socioeconomic concerns is why MAGA came about in the first place.

And it's here after Trump - and around the Western World.

If they continue to be ostracized and dismissed - they might find common ground from outsiders......

No further comment.

Yes, we need the insulation of civil service from politics. That's what makes one of the proposals from P2025 so incredibly dangerous. Remove that, and very suddenly you will not have a professional civil service. You will have a bunch of sycophants who don't know what they're doing, basing many decisions on ideology instead of professionalism (knowledge/experience).

We need a professional, insulated, civil service that does their jobs without regard to which way the political wind is blowing. That is NOT "swampiness". That's competent government, as much as we can have competence in government.**




**Like any organization, there are varying degrees of competence. I would guess it follows a normal distribution.

I think with the guys you mentioned and my list above we can have a scenario where we Have Our Cake (get MAGA on trade and foreign policy) and Eat it Too (keep the crazies at bay).

Self awareness dictates that you realize that you’re one of the crazies.

Bush, McCain and Romney all had too much of a "Go along to get along" mentality: at critical moments they would all FOLD and cave to the democrats.

We have a federal government that divides power between the Presidency and a bicameral Congress with a filibuster rule in the Senate. The Republicans haven't had a filibuster-proof trifecta since (checks notes) the 1920's. Most Presidents and Congressbeings want to actually achieve things while in office, and while there are some areas where you can do things without engaging the other party, most anything of consequence requires getting enough votes from the other party to get out of the Senate.

Unlike Parliamentary systems, in our system of government the opposition party almost always has actual, real power in the system. That means it's hard to "unapologetically" push an agenda forward. At some point, you need someone from the opposition party to vote with you. Which means you have to fold and cave to the opposition party. Whether that means losing your public option or passing a clean budget resolution instead of your wish list, you can't get 100% of what you want.

Drain the swamp" refers to the regulatory state, which is solely the province of the Executive Branch. It needs to be downsized and the chieftains who run it need to be replaced with non-partisan actors who understand their jobs and who don't harbor illusions of power.

If you see this as a problem, you should vote for Harris. Trump is corrupt. He brings in cronies, not competent people. He will use the government to benefit himself at every turn.

The idea that Trump/Musk are the ones to 'drain the swamp' is beyond ludicrous.

But you've been given your talking points and you dutifully regurgitate them without reflection.

...the real-world experience of having political and patronage appointees to government positions is that they inevitably make many (most) of their decisions based on political considerations.

This is exactly what Trump is planning to do if he gets the chance, politicize the civil service. It would all be turned to serving Trump's desires and would be a terrible step towards a Putin style oligarchy.

We have a federal government that divides power between the Presidency and a bicameral Congress with a filibuster rule in the Senate. The Republicans haven't had a filibuster-proof trifecta since (checks notes) the 1920's. Most Presidents and Congressbeings want to actually achieve things while in office, and while there are some areas where you can do things without engaging the other party, most anything of consequence requires getting enough votes from the other party to get out of the Senate.

This isn't in dispute, and not at all what I'm referring to.
When democrats are in the White House and have majorities of almost any kind in Congress, they tend to get their policies pushed through. When Congress stalls out, democrat politicians find ways to get things done anyway. Does this quote ring a bell:

I've got a pen and a phone, and if Congress won't act, I will.

Establishment Republicans put collegiality with the democrats above good policy; democrats NEVER put collegiality above the policy they want. That's the difference.

When democrats are in the White House and have majorities of almost any kind in Congress, they tend to get their policies pushed through. When Congress stalls out, democrat politicians find ways to get things done anyway.

Generally not. Which is why the DREAMERs are still illegal, why EFCA is a fever dream, why there were no voting rights bills or Green New Deal or student loan reform or any of a number of passed in Biden's first term, or any of the other myriad disappointments that were hampering Biden's popularity. The list of failures to get things done for Democrats is long and durable.

There are two main differences between the parties. One is that the Democrats have a lot of spending priorities, which can be accomplished through reconciliation and budgeting matters that are immune to the filibuster, which are very noticeable when they pass. The GOP's main budgetary priorities are only tax cuts. Which also pass - both Trump and Bush got their tax cut bills - but they're not as splashy.

The second is that the Democrats had 60 votes in the Senate for about six months in Obama's first term. Which is why Obamacare happened. The GOP hasn't had a filibuster-proof trifecta in a century.

Trump had a pen and a phone, too - he just wasn't very adept at using them.

Generally not.

Really?

Which is why the DREAMERs are still illegal, why EFCA is a fever dream, why there were no voting rights bills or Green New Deal or student loan reform or any of a number of passed in Biden's first term, or any of the other myriad disappointments that were hampering Biden's popularity. The list of failures to get things done for Democrats is long and durable.

Then how come Biden keeps forgiving student loans?
Why are DREAMERS still here if they're illegal?
Etc.

The GOP's main budgetary priorities are only tax cuts. Which also pass - both Trump and Bush got their tax cut bills - but they're not as splashy.

This is the other difference between MAGA and the Establishment: MAGA - at least this part of it *points to Dope1* - wants a fiscally responsible government. What we have now is a looming disaster of debt service that will consume a significant percentage of the federal budget just in interest payments. Which leads to more devaluing of the currency to try to pay it off, which leads to less purchasing power for Americans, so on and so forth.

Establishment Republicans paid lip service to that sort of thing to get elected and then promptly spent like democrats. A lot of us are beyond done with that.

Trump had a pen and a phone, too - he just wasn't very adept at using them.

He wasn't...but Ron DeSantis will be :).

We have a federal government that divides power between the Presidency and a bicameral Congress with a filibuster rule in the Senate. - albaby

-------------

Ahh, the venerable filibuster that assures the minority party a voice.

Schumer and dems want to get rid of it first chance they get. This from the party claiming to be the protectors of democracy... tee hee.

Then how come Biden keeps forgiving student loans?
Why are DREAMERS still here if they're illegal?

Because there are some very limited new things that a President can accomplish within the limits of existing law. But for the most part, Democrats are also stymied in getting what they want.

MAGA - at least this part of it *points to Dope1* - wants a fiscally responsible government.

No, that's what the Tea Party wanted. That's what Paul Ryan wanted. That's what the Koch Brothers wanted. That's not what MAGA is about.

MAGA is part of the vanguard of right wing populism that has been resurgent all throughout Europe. That movement has thrown out the Reagan/Thatcherite, business elite effort to impose austerity and limit government services. Trump very pointedly has rejected the idea that entitlement reform and spending cuts are important to the GOP. He loves entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, because they are very popular among his base. And more than anything else, MAGA is all about moving the priorities to other things - social issues like immigration and culture fights, and more government intervention in the free markets (just on the "right" side instead).

This is not Grover Norquist's GOP any more. MAGA doesn't have a budget hawk wing, and Trump is very much against being the "eat your vegetables" kind of President that a "fiscally responsible" government would require. If Medicare is popular, then Medicare stays; if IVF is popular, then you'll get your IVF for free.

Ahh, the venerable filibuster that assures the minority party a voice.

Schumer and dems want to get rid of it first chance they get.

The first chance they get was in 2017. When they had a huge list of things they wanted to get done (Green New Deal, voting bill of rights, comprehensive immigration reform, policing reform, student loan reform, and a host of other priorities) that were getting killed by the filibuster. And they didn't get rid of it. Because they did not have the votes to do so.

They like to talk about getting rid of it, because it frustrates their base a lot. And if their base thinks that the filibuster might go away, then they might be more energized to vote.

But when push comes to shove, the Dems did not - and don't have - the voters to abolish the filibuster.

Because there are some very limited new things that a President can accomplish within the limits of existing law. But for the most part, Democrats are also stymied in getting what they want.

Until they...get what they want. democrats use the federal bureaucracy to implement their agenda all the time. For example:
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/com...

The EPA has been historically a great place for over-regulating things out of existence.

The Rule Making powers the feds have is far too broad.

But when push comes to shove, the Dems did not - and don't have - the voters to abolish the filibuster.

Pont of order. They have done so in the past and they will in the future.

Remember this?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/senate-poi...

Reid, Democrats trigger ‘nuclear’ option; eliminate most filibusters on nominees


And then there's this
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/...

Nancy Pelosi says in a new interview that her party will take on the Senate’s filibuster rule in some fashion if a Democratic majority returns to the chamber next year.

The California representative and Speaker Emerita spoke to Rolling Stone for a new interview in which she said that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who is expected to continue leading the Democratic Senate caucus come 2025, vowed to her that he would get his party’s landmark piece of voting rights legislation — the For The People Act — past the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold if Democrats win a majority in the chamber this November.

“We have to win the Senate. [Schumer] told me that if they win, they will change the Senate in terms of the filibuster, and we would pass [the] For The People Act, which makes all the difference in the world in terms of our democracy,” the former House speaker said.

Rules are things the democrats apply to other people. When they get in the dems' way, the Rules are changed.

Game theory suggests the Repubs play the same way.

Until they...get what they want. democrats use the federal bureaucracy to implement their agenda all the time.

And sometimes they lose. As Biden did with student loans, as Obama did with DAPA (not DACA).

Pen and a phone. Trump had those, too, and desperately tried to use them. He was just bad at it. It's not because Democrats are more "ruthless" at doing things like that - it's just that Trump was singularly inept at doing it.

And sometimes they lose. As Biden did with student loans, as Obama did with DAPA (not DACA).

Did Biden let a mere court loss stop him? Nope. He brags about giving the Supreme Court the finger. And finds another way.

The point is, if that's how the game is going to be played, then that's how the game is going to be played.

Game theory suggests the Repubs play the same way.

They did. They eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in 2017.

They eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees in 2017.

And this is the One. Single. Instance. where Establishment Republicans actually exacted a price from democrats. Just that one time.

Remember what I said: Republicans will sacrifice policy to maintain collegiality. What McConnell and co. did was punish the democrats for a collegiality infraction.

The underlying problem with the Republican Party is that deep down inside its leaders have accepted their place in the world. That place in the world is to be the Junior Partner that runs this country.

When push comes to shove, nobody cares what the Junior Partner has to say. With that lack of power comes no real actual responsibility or accountability: they're free to wax on about how things need to be better but they're never strong enough or courageous enough to do anything about it. So...the democrat juggernaut rolls on no matter what damage it does to the social fabric or the nation as a whole.

Did Biden let a mere court loss stop him? Nope. He brags about giving the Supreme Court the finger. And finds another way.

As did Trump on several occasions. After his first travel restrictions package was shot down by the courts, he had his staff restructure it in a different way.

But Biden was never able to get the legislation on student loans that he wanted, just as Trump was never able to get the legislation he wanted on immigration. Obama never got the DREAM Act passed (or any of a number of other priorities), and Biden never got most of his legislative agenda passed either.

Again, Democrats don't have any "special sauce" that lets them get all of their policies passed in a way the GOP does not. Nearly all of the Democrats' efforts to adopt non-budgetary legislation die in Congress, just like those of the GOP. The main difference is that the GOP's last President (and the only GOP President in the last 16 years) was both a complete neophyte to government and disdained institutions and institutional competence, which significantly limited his ability to use the tools that were readily available to him.

Republican frustration about this seems very misplaced. They achieve almost all of the 'small ball' wins that can be achieved unilaterally through Congress (McConnell was a master at getting all those things done), and have all the tools to get the 'small ball' wins done on the Executive side that the Democrats have. The Democrats lost all of their efforts to get big things done through Congress when they had the majority, save and except the reconciliation bills. But the GOP got to pass their reconciliation bills, too.

The underlying problem with the Republican Party is that deep down inside its leaders have accepted their place in the world.

No, the underlying problem with the Republican Party is that in our system of government you can't advance your agenda without cutting a deal with the opposition party unless you have a supermajority in the Senate, and the GOP hasn't had a supermajority in the Senate for a century. Combine that with the Hastert Rule (which makes cutting deals with the minority party as part of a larger deal impossible) and the punishing effects of conservative media (first talk radio and Rush, then Fox News), and they've taken themselves out of the game.

. With that lack of power comes no real actual responsibility or accountability: they're free to wax on about how things need to be better but they're never strong enough or courageous enough to do anything about it.

It's not about strength or courage. Strength and courage doesn't get legislation passed - deals get legislation passed. Being willing to compromise, accept half a loaf, structure your party so that the leaders are empowered to reach agreements. That, or win 60 votes in the Senate.

That's how the Democrats did it. Not by being stronger or more courageous - by being willing to cut deals to get things done. And even then, the Democrats also have failed to pass almost all of their legislative priorities when they didn't have 58-60 votes.

Being willing to compromise, accept half a loaf, structure your party so that the leaders are empowered to reach agreements.

Really? Do the words "I won" and "Elections have consequences" ring a bell?

But when push comes to shove, the Dems did not - and don't have - the voters to abolish the filibuster. - albaby

All Schumer needs is 51 votes. 50 with a dem president. I saw an article with him doing the math on the prospect. Here it is as reported by NBC news. It doesn't sound like hollow chit chat.

Schumer, D-N.Y., outlined a path for Democrats to change the Senate rules that require holding 50 of their 51 seats. The party expects to lose Sen. Joe Manchin's seat in West Virginia but hopes to protect incumbents, including Sens. Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, in addition to seeing Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., replace independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema.

Manchin and Sinema, who are both retiring, in 2022 stood in the way of Democrats who wanted to change the filibuster, which requires a majority vote — or 50 senators plus the tiebreaking vice president. But that dynamic could change next year.

Really? Do the words "I won" and "Elections have consequences" ring a bell?

Sure - Obama's rhetorical effort to project political power beyond what he actually had. An echo of George Bush's affirmation that he had political capital and intended to spend it.

But Obama was only able to get done what he did because he briefly had what the GOP hasn't had for a century - a filibuster-proof Senate majority. Outside of that? A list of failed disappointments for his agenda. The DREAM act dead. EFCA dead. ENDA dead. His climate change bill dead.

The GOP seems gripped by the delusion that all that's necessary to achieve significant changes in US federal government policy is "courage" or "strength" or "will," rather than "a filibuster-proof majority" or "cutting a deal with members of the other party."

All Schumer needs is 51 votes. 50 with a dem president. I saw an article with him doing the math on the prospect. Here it is as reported by NBC news. It doesn't sound like hollow chit chat.

Yeah, they could abolish the filibuster if they had 50 or 51 votes. That doesn't mean that they have 50 or 51 votes to eliminate the filibuster.

Sure - Obama's rhetorical effort to project political power beyond what he actually had.

He had 60 votes and rammed through Obamacare with them. He had no interest in making deals with Boehner and McConnell.

A list of failed disappointments for his agenda.

And after that, he started using his rulemaking ability via the bureaucracy to get his agenda through. Ruthless is a trait that Obama has in spades.

The GOP seems gripped by the delusion that all that's necessary to achieve significant changes in US federal government policy is "courage" or "strength" or "will," rather than "a filibuster-proof majority" or "cutting a deal with members of the other party."

Because the democrats are the perfect negotiating partners, aren't they? They always act in good faith to get what they want?

Let's take illegal immigration. How did trusting the democrats work out for Ronald Reagan? Or Trump in 2016?

https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/dealmaking-daily...
Democratic senator Diane Feinstein then made a bold proposal to Trump: “What about a clean DACA bill now, with a commitment that we go into a comprehensive immigration reform procedure?” She was asking for a bill on a single, Democratic-favored issue—protections for Dreamers—with no other issues on which Republicans could negotiate concessions, such as border security.

“I have no problem [with that],” Trump responded. “We’re going to do DACA, and then we can start immediately on the Phase 2, which would be comprehensive [reform].”

“Would you be agreeable to that?” Feinstein said.

“Yeah, I would like to do that,” Trump said.

Yeah, trusting the democrats - who never put politics in front of the national interest - is the way to go.

What about Establishment Republicans? Surely they know how to deal with democrats, don't they? Bush41's "Read my lips" pledge worked out well.

The democrat party - in its current form - isn't to be trusted as far as I can throw the White House into the Potomac. Whether it be abusing their positions as a part of the Deep State (the 51 signees of the Hunter Laptop letter) Harry Reid openly lying about Mitt Romney's taxes, Nancy Pelosi's Star Chamber impeachments of Donald Trump, to "give me amnesty now and I'll give you border security later" backstabbing, to "break your campaign pledge and I won't hold it against you"...

...the Republicans have been playing the duck to the democrats' scorpion for decades. Scorpions are to be squashed, not put into positions where they can drown the duck.

Yeah, they could abolish the filibuster if they had 50 or 51 votes. That doesn't mean that they have 50 or 51 votes to eliminate the filibuster.

Uh, huh.

How close did they come last time? Sinema and Manchin were the only 2 last time to vote NO.

Are either or both of them going to be in the Senate next year?

"It's not about strength or courage. Strength and courage doesn't get legislation passed - deals get legislation passed. Being willing to compromise, accept half a loaf, structure your party so that the leaders are empowered to reach agreements. That, or win 60 votes in the Senate."

-------------------------------------------

dang Al, I don't always like the reality that you lay out, but it is reality, and reality don't care if you like it or not. Thanks for the education.

dang Al, I don't always like the reality that you lay out, but it is reality, and reality don't care if you like it or not. Thanks for the education.

I second this. Thanks Al.

He had 60 votes and rammed through Obamacare with them.

Not when he made that statement. He didn't get 60 votes until Specter switched and Franken's election was certified.

Again, that's one of the two ways you can get your agenda done. Have a filibuster-proof majority. Then you don't need a deal.

Because the democrats are the perfect negotiating partners, aren't they? They always act in good faith to get what they want?

Not really a relevant point. I'm not arguing whether (or if) it would be a good idea to cut a deal with the Democrats, or what the GOP would want/need in legislation to get them comfortable that they would get the benefit of the bargain.

It's that the GOP isn't missing opportunities to unilaterally pass its agenda because it's not being courageous or strong enough. They don't have opportunities to force big changes to the law without a deal, because neither party can force big changes to the law without a deal. The Democrats were only able to do that because they (briefly!) had 60 votes in the Senate. Their other successes came when they were able/willing to trim their sails far enough to cut a deal, to capture some GOP votes for a proposal.

What you're frustrated with is not a problem that can be solved by having more forceful or courageous leaders. It's a problem that can only be solved by winning 60 seats or by finding a way to get enough Democratic votes for a proposal to pass a cloture vote. Neither of which is likely to happen by demanding rigorous ideological fidelity.

How close did they come last time? Sinema and Manchin were the only 2 last time to vote NO.

Are either or both of them going to be in the Senate next year?

Everyone else was able to vote "yes" because those two were willing to vote "no." I don't think they get Tester to abolish the filibuster, for example - even a few years ago, when he was under considerable pressure, he only went so far as to support going back to the talking filibuster. And if he wins his election, I'm not sure he goes even that far.

It's interesting...with a very few exceptions (like Obamacare), the Dems -in my view- have been very ineffective at getting any of their legislative priorities accomplished. They seem to be good at fixing the nuts and bolts of government, and getting a good economy. But signature initiatives? Not so much.

The Reps are terrible at the economy, but manage to get a lot of their initiatives passed. Tax cuts most notably. They seem to be good at whipping their people to march in formation. Dems are like herding cats.

It’s exactly the opposite. The progressive agenda is constantly on the march and the democrat party is in lockstep behind it.

The only disagreements I side the democrat party is…how fast do go. There is never any serious opposition to anything.

Nope. Reps have been in lockstep for decades. Dems are like herding cats, as I said. More recently (maybe the past 15 years or so), they are guilty of a sort of purity test. If you aren't -for example- progressive enough, you're no better than the Rep candidate. We saw that in 2016, and even a bit in 2020. Sanders and Warren supporters in particular engaged in that.

Which makes some sense. Dems have a larger diversity of demographics than Reps. Reps are, mostly, straight white people born in the US. Dems have blacks, whites, latinos, asians, LBGTQ, and pretty much any other group you care to list, mostly US born, but some naturalized. And that diversity creates a lot of different priorities within the party, sometimes in conflict with one another.

Even now, with the move from "classic" republicanism (budget hawks, strong defense, hawkish foreign policy) to populism (where they don't care about any of that anymore), they still fall in line behind anyone with an (R) after their name.

So Dope1....

If Harris wins the Presidency....

Would you like a GOP Senate to keep her in check?

OR would you like a full Dem Senate and House and let her have full control?

(And I don't mean her. She doesn't control shit -- it's her leash holders who would decide what all happens)

<i<>Reps have been in lockstep for decades.

Because guys like Rand Paul and reps like Marjorie Taylor Greene always toe the party line, hahahahahahaha.

Dems are like herding cats,

Hardly. The only policy disagreements democrats have are how fast to move the country left.
On every. major. point. democrats are in 100% agreement.

Dems have blacks, whites, latinos, asians, LBGTQ, and pretty much any other group you care to list, mostly US born, but some naturalized. And that diversity creates a lot of different priorities within the party, sometimes in conflict with one another.

Okay, I see your confusion. I'm talking about democrat politicians. You're talking about the Obama coalition of victims that the dems are trying to stitch together.

It's funny you mention voting for anybody with an [R] after their name...you really need to move to a deep blue area. You'll switch parties so fast your head would spin. No matter how bad things get the local brainwashed will keep pulling the lever for [d].

OR would you like a full Dem Senate and House and let her have full control?

(And I don't mean her. She doesn't control shit -- it's her leash holders who would decide what all happens)

Tough question, honestly.

Harris is a bumbling fool, and you're 100% right that she's not in charge and won't be. If this was say, 8 years ago I'd be all for democrats having full control. They'd pass all sorts of stupid legislation that makes the country worse and there'd be plenty of time for a sane Republican to step in and fix it.

But now? The stakes are too high. 8 years ago we had Obama's terrorist armies causing trouble but now the trouble is coming in the form of old adversaries (Russia) and nascent superpowers (China), the latter, thanks to us offshoring too many critical needs to them and paying them for the privilege, represents an existential threat to the country.

Having a Harris in charge at this moment in time - with a cadre of Squad-curious morons in both chambers of Congress - scares me to my bones. A weak American President in charge of a strong national defense apparatus is one thing...a weak American President in charge of an inadequate national defense apparatus is quite another.

I don't think we can afford a President whose main takeaway from intelligence briefings is the gender language used in the meeting. (Harris really did that).

And by the way, this is what life is like in Blue America:

https://x.com/KassyAkiva/status/183442697555488388...

A pro-Hamas heckler showed up to a pro-Israel rally. He exchanges words from across the street with a woman. At some point, the Hamasnik charges the pro-Israeli side and tackles a guy, driving him to the ground. The guy had said nothing to him.

During the scuffle, the Hamasnik gets shot in the stomach by the man he tackled, an Iraq War vet and licensed gun owner. After that the vet tends to his wounds and asks others to call 911.

But in true Blue Massachusetts: Scott Hayes - the man who was tackled - was arrested and charged with

-Assault and battery with a dangerous weapon
-Violation of a constitutional right causing injury

Let's recap.
You go to a protest, get heckled, then violently attacked by a leftist. You defend yourself.
Then the local cops show up and charge YOU with violating someone's Constitutional rights.

This is what you support. You should move to place like this to enjoy the fruits of it.

On every. major. point. democrats are in 100% agreement.

Trust me, Will Rogers was smarter and a lot funnier than you.

“I am not a member of any organized political party — I am a Democrat.”


It's funny you mention voting for anybody with an [R] after their name...you really need to move to a deep blue area. You'll switch parties so fast your head would spin.

My dad was a Dem (I still have his dual image flashing “Vote Adlai” campaign button in my collection), but became a Rep after he bought his first house. As a young man I was a Dem and my dad said I would become a Rep after I bought my first home. He passed away disappointed.

I live in a deep blue area and I love it. But I vote on issues, which is why I vote Blue.

However, even a deep Blue Meanie like me has voted for a Republican; Jacob Javits.

And by the way, this is what life is like in Blue America:

Dope, wait till the investigation is concluded, and see if the protestor dies from the life threatening injuries.

Dope, wait till the investigation is concluded, and see if the protestor dies from the life threatening injuries.

So in Blue America, if you're a rightie you're supposed to stand there and allow some lib to beat you up.

you really need to move to a deep blue area. You'll switch parties so fast your head would spin.

I too live in a Deep Blue State and I love it. Best food, music, culture, museums and....

Blue States have higher Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita.

And...
Blue States are less dependent on federal government assistance. States with higher per capita GDP (often blue states) tend to be less reliant on federal funding.
I.E. Blue States contribute more in federal taxes than they receive back in federal spending, effectively subsidizing red states. (Liberals financially supporting MAGAs)

And...
Blue States have lower rates of poverty compared to red states.

And...
Blue States invest more in infrastructure, leading to better roads and public transportation systems.

And...
Blue States have expanded Medicaid coverage (Obamacare) and implemented policies to increase healthcare access.
Folks in Blue States live longer...
"A growing mortality gap between Republican and Democratic areas may largely stem from policy choices."
"People in Republican Counties Have Higher Death Rates Than Those in Democratic Counties."
"It joins an already existing, pretty robust literature showing that politics do have life-and-death consequences."
"The U.S. mortality rate has decreased since 2001. But the improvement for those living in Republican counties was half that of those in Democratic counties 11 percent lower versus 22 percent lower.

And...
Murder rates are consistently higher in Red States compared to Blue States.
In 2021 and 2022, murder rates in Red States were 33% higher than in Blue States.
Contributing factors: Higher gun ownership rates in red states, Higher poverty rates in red states, Lower educational attainment in Red States.

And...
Folks in Blue States are better educated...
"Blue states outpace red states by 5.3 percentage points in 4-year college degree attainment."
"All of the top 15 most college-educated states are blue, while only 3 of the bottom 15 are blue."

Why would anyone live in a Red State?...#uneducated,poor,more-likely-to-be-shot,no-healthcare,poor-infrastructure,no-freedom-if-you're-a-woman,shorter-lifespan,sad,angry,MAGA

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ariannajohnson/2023/0...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/07/07...

https://www.chadaldeman.com/p/red-state-education-...

I live in very deep red Utah, where the Republicans control all House and Senate seats in the national congress and have a huge majority in the state's legislature.

Fortunately I live in one of the areas that is about 50/50 left/right, but I have previously lived in areas in the state that were 80 to 90 percent Republican. Not bad places to live if you don't mind not having much of a social life and if you avoid talking politics and religion.

But one party rule is not healthy and Utah has some ****** up politics. It didn't used to be this way. When I moved here in the 70s there were some Democratic congressmen and a Dem governor. It was a much more moderate political environment then. The last couple of decades has taken the Republican Party ever farther to the right.

So in Blue America, if you're a rightie you're supposed to stand there and allow some lib to beat you up.

How can he beat you up when he's in the hospital with life threatening injuries that you gave him?

>>Dope, wait till the investigation is concluded, and see if the protestor dies from the life threatening injuries.<<

So in Blue America, if you're a rightie you're supposed to stand there and allow some lib to beat you up. - Dope

-----------

C'mon Dope, the liberals have told us what the victim should do. As the criminal beats you, try to remain conscious long enough to call 911 and have them send a social worker to de-escalate the situation.

How can he beat you up when he's in the hospital with life threatening injuries that you gave him?

He jumped on the dude's back and started beating him...and it's on video.
They arrested the wrong person, but that's Blue America for you.

Review:

Dope:"And by the way, this is what life is like in Blue America:

Lambo: Dope, wait till the investigation is concluded, and see if the protestor dies from the life threatening injuries.

Dope response: So in Blue America, if you're a rightie you're supposed to stand there and allow some lib to beat you up.

Lambo: How can he beat you up when he's in the hospital with life threatening injuries that you gave him?

Dope: He jumped on the dude's back and started beating him...and it's on video.
They arrested the wrong person, but that's Blue America for you.

Are you responding to someone else? Because your responses don't follow my posts.

I watched a video, saw him tackled and then just wrestling holds, with two fellows trying to pull him off - never saw any beating, but there may be a longer video. It's early, the investigation wasn't concluded, so again:

Dope, wait till the investigation is concluded, and see if the protestor dies from the life threatening injuries.


adios

Dope, wait till the investigation is concluded, and see if the protestor dies from the life threatening injuries.

There was no need to arrest the guy.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.