The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated

[fcbforever]

State rights go both ways and the main reason for this pick is for social conservatives. He delivers their promise to get a pro life judge and also a firm believer in state rights so that they can go back to do writing own laws on killing abortion and gay marriage legalization.

Oh, for sure. But he won't tip the balance on those matters, as Kennedy will most likely vote with the Dems again on such matters. Thus, he won't have any actual influence unless there will be another SCOTUS death during Trumps tenure.
So right now, a judge which is hard on state rights and executive powers is not good for Trumps agenda, as he's facing legal actions regarding such issues since week one of his presidency.

 

[Raoul]

This makes no sense. According to your own logic, the GOP will just nuke it next time round instead, and will have still got everything they want. Where is the tactical nuance here?

The GOP can make every vote an up or down simple majority (50 votes needed) vote. They're looking at things from a short term perspective of getting all the nominees through the process, not what may or may not happen regarding the filibuster many years into the future if the Dems are back in charge.

 

[Ubik]

The GOP can make every vote an up or down simple majority (50 votes needed) vote. They're looking at things from a short term perspective of getting all the nominees through the process, not what may or may not happen regarding the filibuster many years into the future if the Dems are back in charge.

You're missing my point. You're saying the GOP aren't afraid of using the nuclear option against the filibuster, so why would the Dems be bothered about saving it anymore? Whether they use it now or use it at a later SCOTUS appointment makes zero difference.

 

[Borden]

They don't care. They are in the majority and can do as they please, including amend the rules.

Then force them to. When the Democrats get back to power it will apply to them as well, and they might actually get something done.

It should be a majority vote anyway.

 

[Ubik]

Got a question.

Lets say the dems do filibuster and the gop use the nuclear option. Does that mean the dems wont be able to use the filibuster again?

If so would the filibuster ban be temporary?

It'll likely be done so it just extends the current rules on judicial nominees (50 votes to pass) to the Supreme Court, rather than stopping the filibuster altogether.

 

[Raoul]

You're missing my point. You're saying the GOP aren't afraid of using the nuclear option against the filibuster, so why would the Dems be bothered about saving it anymore? Whether they use it now or use it at a later SCOTUS appointment makes zero difference.

Its not really just about Scotus, its about all nominees. The GOP are going to want to lay down the law to set the pace for the next few years.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Its not really just about Scotus, its about all nominees. The GOP are going to want to lay down the law to set the pace for the next few years.

Only SCOTUS nominees need 60 votes. All other positions can be confirmed with a simple majority as the Dems abolished the filibuster for all other appointments under Obama, when the Republicans were refusing to confirm anyone.

 

[PedroMendez]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/walls-wont-make-america-great-ever-19243

Walls Won’t Make America Great. Ever.

 

[langster]

Wills Won’t Make America Great. Ever

@Will Absolute

 

[Ubik]

Only SCOTUS nominees need 60 votes. All other positions can be confirmed with a simple majority as the Dems abolished the filibuster for all other appointments under Obama, when the Republicans were refusing to confirm anyone.

And it still wouldn't make any difference to the overall point. You get two identical outcomes, in one of them you actually fought and forced the other side to take action, in the other you just stood aside and let them do what they wanted, and once you got back into power they'd then block you to hell all over again.

 

[Fergies Gum]

It'll likely be done so it just extends the current rules on judicial nominees (50 votes to pass) to the Supreme Court, rather than stopping the filibuster altogether.

Okay.

So if another seat comes up they would need just the 50 votes? Could the dems use the filibuster again further down the line, when another person is nominated?

 

[MikeUpNorth]

And it still wouldn't make any difference to the overall point. You get two identical outcomes, in one of them you actually fought and forced the other side to take action, in the other you just stood aside and let them do what they wanted, and once you got back into power they'd then block you to hell all over again.

I agree with you, was just pointing out the filibuster doesn't apply to other appointments.

 

[berbatrick]

Then force them to. When the Democrats get back to power it will apply to them as well, and they might actually get something done.

It should be a majority vote anyway.

When the GOP lost the governor's chair in NC, they reduced the powers of the governor before the new one took office. They also added an extra court below the state Supremem Court when they lost the conservative majority there.

 

[Neutral]

When the GOP lost the governor's chair in NC, they reduced the powers of the governor before the new one took office. They also added an extra court below the state Supremem Court when they lost the conservative majority there.

It is beyond mental what went on in North Carolina - and it's like absolutely no one gave a damn. Dems have always been weak and will continue to be.

'When they go low...we go high' - doesn't work when those who judge high/low - don't give a fcuk!

 

[senorgregster]

Which other SCOTUS seats may come up near term where it matters? There is only 1 I can see if the old dear can't hang in there for 3 more years.

 

[afrocentricity]

@McUnited What do you think of Bannon being on the national security council, a man who has professed his aim is to destroy the state?

Good luck....

It appears to be a feature of online forums that some posters, emboldened by anonymity, communicate in a way that would be entirely unacceptable away from the computer screen. Unfortunately, the tone they take is one that is counterproductive to discussion, since antagonising someone with an opposing view steels their mind to any valid points one may be making.

They are fed up mate, bear in mind they are having the same back and forth with you that they have had with every other trump sympathizer. It never progresses... You haven't even answered the Bannon question...

What about de Vos for secretary of education who's never seen the inside of a public school? Or Tillerson... Does anyone think he has America's best interests at heart? Trumps cabinet picks are crazier than I thought possible.

Or this one...

I bother because they bother me. I bother because politics isn't some game, I bother because their actions affect my life, possibly my future children's lives, and the lives of billions around the world. America is one of the birthplaces of the modern free world, and if that completes it's collapse into a totalitarian state I will not leave it uncommentated. But reason doesn't work with people who feel other's "stole their job", as if a job was a god given right dependent on ones place of birth. Reason doesn't work with people who choose to simplify everything into monocausal relationships in which their hardships are caused by someone else's lack of character. Reason doesn't work with those who think a difference in perception changes the nature of that which is perceived or even creates an alternate version of the perceived as valid as the original. (The truth is philosophically speaking that which we all can agree on that it is. Currently we're having trouble agreeing... They now claim that this disagreement means there is no truth anymore, or rather 2 versions, there's and everyone else's, which is beyond bizarre).

Believe me, if I thought I could change their minds,i'd be working my behind off trying to do so. I've given up on it, so at the very least I want them to know what I perceive them to be. If i'm having a better day I might attempt reason with them yet again. But today is not the day.

This...

We could tip toe around you, trying not upset you. Ignoring the fact that all you guys seem to do is; pick and choose what you will respond to, give wishy washy answers, moaning about not being listened to, revert to hit and run posting...

[shrugs]

 

[Ubik]

Okay.

So if another seat comes up they would need just the 50 votes? Could the dems use the filibuster again further down the line, when another person is nominated?

I'm actually unsure on whether it can also be brought back by similar means, but unless that's possible and the GOP did so, it would be gone.

I agree with you, was just pointing out the filibuster doesn't apply to other appointments.

I know, was just supplementing your point.

 

[Raoul]

Which other SCOTUS seats may come up near term where it matters? There is only 1 I can see if the old dear can't hang in there for 3 more years.

Any of them really - but mainly Ginsburg or Breyer retiring (or dying) as it would result in Trump putting a young-ish right leaning replacement on the court, which would skew the court to the right for decades.

 

[Neutral]

Which other SCOTUS seats may come up near term where it matters? There is only 1 I can see if the old dear can't hang in there for 3 more years.

Rumors that Justice Kennedy might have stepped down - he is 80 and of course Justice Ginsberg is looking more and more frail - 83 In fact all the liberal justices other than the latest appointment are getting on in age.

 

[afrocentricity]

Which reminds me, I need a 'what trump supporters say' bingo card...

 

[langster]

This...
We could tip toe around you, trying not upset you. Ignoring the fact that all you guys seem to do is; pick and choose what you will respond to, give wishy washy answers, moaning about not being listened to, revert to hit and run posting...

I agree completely. I have given up now, it's pretty pointless just being ignored all the time, and I get fed up reading the typical "Liberal this, Liberal that" replies that are almost never ending, yet there is never a coherent answer or solution backing anything up. Even more frustrating is half the time the questions are pretty straight forward and simple too. All are guilty of it, and all as bad as each other. And it's funny how they all seem to take it in turns popping in and out, I notice mcunited is back today, he hasn't been around for a while. Only a few days ago it was barros, in and out several times posting uninformed nonsense he heard somewhere or read on some right wing loon site. Those posts ended up provoking answers going back his way with questions on top, only for him to ignore and leave then pop back a few hours later and rinse/repeat. I don't like the echo chamber feel this place has at times, and I would absolutely love someone to come and actually argue the other side of the coin, but it seems nobody is prepared to do that, rather just throw around "fake news" or "liberal" names and blame it all on Obama then buggering off again. It's really not hard to see why people lose their patience when faced with that style of posting 24/7.

 

[langster]

Which reminds me, I need a 'what trump supporters say' bingo card...

Spoiler: Trump Bingo Card

 

[Crossie]

It's a small world .....

 

[Silva]

I read they're expecting about 1200 protestors at the Mar-A-Lago when he goes there this weekend, can't help but think they're going to be unprepared.

 

[Raoul]

An interesting thought experiment: What are the three things Trump could realistically do to from a policy perspective to make you believe he may yet turn into decent President ?

Things you can't bring up : Release his taxes, divest from his business etc. We are talking just policy and personnel here.

 

[Silva]

An interesting thought experiment: What are the three things Trump could realistically do to from a policy perspective to make you believe he may yet turn into decent President ?

Things you can't bring up : Release his taxes, divest from his business etc. We are talking just policy and personnel here.

Fire Steve Bannon and stop shit stiring.

 

[Neutral]

I read they're expecting about 1200 protestors at the Mar-A-Lago when he goes there this weekend, can't help but think they're going to be unprepared.

nah...protests are well and good - but, with Trump in the house - SS will ensure security is sorted.

 

[fcbforever]

An interesting thought experiment: What are the three things Trump could realistically do to from a policy perspective to make you believe he may yet turn into decent President ?

Things you can't bring up : Release his taxes, divest from his business etc. We are talking just policy and personnel here.

Radical revamp of the US health system. None of the things which are on his agenda apart from that have any potential for me.

 

[Neutral]

An interesting thought experiment: What are the three things Trump could realistically do to from a policy perspective to make you believe he may yet turn into decent President ?

Things you can't bring up : Release his taxes, divest from his business etc. We are talking just policy and personnel here.

- go beyond soundbites with regards to ACA replacement (give us a clear plan)
- go beyond euphemisms when it comes to the economy/jobs/trade agreements
- Hand Bannon and Skeletor over to ISIS (this IS a realistic demand)

I don't give a toss about his foreign policy or war against terror

 

[Ubik]

Declare that he was a liberal NY Republican all along and just used rightwing talking points to get into power.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

An interesting thought experiment: What are the three things Trump could realistically do to from a policy perspective to make you believe he may yet turn into decent President ?

Things you can't bring up : Release his taxes, divest from his business etc. We are talking just policy and personnel here.

1. Scrap the real loonies in his close circle: Bannon, Flynn, Sessions, Miller etc
2. Fully implement the Paris climate change agreement
3. Actually improve Obamacare, without blowing up the federal budget or denying millions of people coverage

EDIT: Bonus - reform campaign finance and money in politics

 

[Raoul]

- go beyond soundbites with regards to ACA replacement (give us a clear plan)
- go beyond euphemisms when it comes to the economy/jobs/trade agreements
- Hand Bannon and Skeletor over to ISIS (this IS a realistic demand)

I don't give a toss about his foreign policy or war against terror

Not a bad selection, apart from the third.

 

[GiddyUp]

Our Representatives - both democrats and republicans

I would love to eat his face while high on bath salts.

 

[langster]

I read they're expecting about 1200 protestors at the Mar-A-Lago when he goes there this weekend, can't help but think they're going to be unprepared.

You can guarantee that will be about 5,000 then. They have seriously underestimated protest numbers over the last couple of weeks. They did the same in the UK too.

An interesting thought experiment: What are the three things Trump could realistically do to from a policy perspective to make you believe he may yet turn into decent President ?

Provide a decent alternative for ObamaCare and give the insurance companies real shit over their tactics. Ensure all pre-existing conditions are covered and also ensure there is little room for the insurance providers to wriggle out of paying for care. Also to stand up for women's reproductive rights, at the very least for rape and incest victims or for those carrying deformed or seriously ill foetuses/babies.

To end his war with the media and to stop being so petty all the time.

To fire Steve Bannon

I would have said relinquish his Twitter account but it's too amusing and I honestly think I would miss it.

 

[Crossie]

Didn't Raol ask for realistic actions?

There's none. Anything I can think of isn't realistic at all.

 

[Raoul]

1. Scrap the real loonies in his close circle: Bannon, Flynn, Sessions, Miller etc
2. Fully implement the Paris climate change agreement
3. Actually improve Obamacare, without blowing up the federal budget or denying millions of people coverage

I agree with one and think it may happen over time. Apparently Trump is pissed about the way the "Muslim Ban" was carried out by Bannon and Miller, whereas he seems pleased by how Priebus managed the SCOTUS presentation last night. Over time, I think he will see that he is getting more political props for what Priebus is doing and give him progressively more power.

2 and 3 are probably not realistic given who he has nominated for EPA and HHS.

 

[afrocentricity]

I agree completely. I have given up now, it's pretty pointless just being ignored all the time, and I get fed up reading the typical "Liberal this, Liberal that" replies that are almost never ending, yet there is never a coherent answer or solution backing anything up. Even more frustrating is half the time the questions are pretty straight forward and simple too. All are guilty of it, and all as bad as each other. And it's funny how they all seem to take it in turns popping in and out, I notice mcunited is back today, he hasn't been around for a while. Only a few days ago it was barros, in and out several times posting uninformed nonsense he heard somewhere or read on some right wing loon site. Those posts ended up provoking answers going back his way with questions on top, only for him to ignore and leave then pop back a few hours later and rinse/repeat. I don't like the echo chamber feel this place has at times, and I would absolutely love someone to come and actually argue the other side of the coin, but it seems nobody is prepared to do that, rather just throw around "fake news" or "liberal" names and blame it all on Obama then buggering off again. It's really not hard to see why people lose their patience when faced with that style of posting 24/7.

And it's a shame, in the absence of that we aren't really having our views challenged.... which is my preferred way of understanding and being sure of where I stand.

Spoiler: Trump Bingo Card

This will have to do until I find one... prob have to make one myself.

-Left-wing/Liberal/Biased media
-Alternate facts
-Fake news
-He's one of us
-Drain the swamp
-I'm no racist
-They take our jobs
-Dont take things so seriously
-You snowflake
-MAGA
-We won accept it
...

Give me some more lads?

 

[Neutral]

Betsy DeVos is messed up - but, we really do need a shake up in the school system. I'm not saying get rid of the Department of Education or turn all schools into charter schools...but, our schools really are struggling. I don't care what the test numbers say - there are schools and administrators afraid of looking bad, that basically gear school curriculum around standardized tests.

Compared to most of the western world - our schools suck (I get a nation with 300mil people can't be compared to Sweden or something....but, we are falling behind).

Bush tried to mix things up - but it didn't work...Obama didn't have much success either. So, I'm all for something radical. People complain about DeVos changing the landscape and there being a divide in terms of good/bad schools - and who has access to what.

Hell - that's already happened!

 

[GiddyUp]

An interesting thought experiment: What are the three things Trump could realistically do to from a policy perspective to make you believe he may yet turn into decent President ?

Things you can't bring up : Release his taxes, divest from his business etc. We are talking just policy and personnel here.

• Remove the arse hair from his head then resign
• Apologize then resign
• Admit he drinks Russian piss then resign

 

[afrocentricity]

Betsy DeVos is messed up - but, we really do need a shake up in the school system. I'm not saying get rid of the Department of Education or turn all schools into charter schools...but, our schools really are struggling. I don't care what the test numbers say - there are schools and administrators afraid of looking bad, that basically gear school curriculum around standardized tests.

Compared to most of the western world - our schools suck (I get a nation with 300mil people can't be compared to Sweden or something....but, we are falling behind).

Bush tried to mix things up - but it didn't work...Obama didn't have much success either. So, I'm all for something radical. People complain about DeVos changing the landscape and there being a divide in terms of good/bad schools - and who has access to what.

Hell - that's already happened!

There's a concerted effort to de-fund public education. Why? Generally an undereducated population is easier to mislead, bully, etc... I cant see much improvement in the short term if I'm being honest. Trump has the balls to make that kind of play but he is definitely not entertaining it...