bmags

QUOTE (Reddy @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 02:35 PM) Social media makes it a whole different ballgame IMO. But yeah, we'll see. My opinion is that this is just what happens when there is an actual threat in power, the left and conservative left suddenly find themselves always arguing together because the focus is on an opposition pushing policy that is certainly opposed to the whole group. In this case, add to that an absolute maniac as president. But remove that, have a president in power that has policies that largely agree with one swath, and not with the other, and suddenly the fighting is about who gets to have the power base. Remove that president, they both realize that either option is better than an insane person. And this is just 10 days in. Imagine when we are on the verge of war over a tweet. We are relying on the sensibilities of the Iranians and North Koreans to not escalate when being provoked. Not a great situation.

Isn't La Confora a pretty big hack?

Reddy 2006 was only 10 years ago, some of the more conservative dems ever won in 2006/2008. The "both parties are the saammmmee, MAAAN" far left crowd suddenly seems to be a lot more realistic when it's actually a republican in office. Remember Nader's vote tank in 04? I am pretty confidnt that while we will see a bunch of primaries, it is not going to be kamikaze missions.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 02:13 PM) Well, and that was basically my point. If the far left is mad about the way the Democrats have acted over the last 2 weeks, as Reddy stated, then they have two options - get involved with the Democrats to try to pull them left, or continue to make the road easier for Trump and the Republicans (third party, staying home). I'm not sure the second paragraph is right, however. We saw 2 Republicans defections on Devos. And there's a chance that somebody else will follow suit. Even if the Dems just succeed in knocking out Devos, they have accomplished something. Well, I think they were right in that withholding support on all didn't matter. It didn't matter if they voted in the rest while trying to "single out" the egregiously underqualified candidates to put pressure on republicans to vote against. That happened anyway. It really isn't the left alone that is mobilized, not the left we are used to marching. There were straight up middle aged parents driving to Ohare on a saturday to be heard. This isn't a NATO protest crowd. It's not a minority pulling things around in the party. It's the whole shebang.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/07/opinion/...hopes.html?_r=1 brett were you really proud when Tom Cotton obstructed Cassandra Butts from getting her nominated position of ambassador to the Carribean to honor her as she battled leukemia, and Cotton put a hold on the nomination once he learned that Butts was friends with Obama and it would inflict personal pain on him? Butts died and was never appointed. Or did they not go far enough there?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 02:08 PM) Even if it was an accident, I think it has provided an interesting mechanism to try and stop the majority. Ultimately this type of stuff is personal opinion. I think that there is some benefit to a govt that has a high threshold to institute change. While sometimes it is frustrating because change may not happen as quickly as we want, but that also slows change we may dislike. At the end of the day the country is better off when it doesnt drastically change course in short periods of time. Instability is bad for everyone, which is why status quo is sometimes okay, even if its not exactly what I want. I agree with this. I want dems to obstruct everything they can during trump, but long term realistically the party that wins electoins should get a chance to implement policy. This whole "party wins on CHANGE" but then can't institute much, then gets voted out so that a group can actually do something, only they can't, is getting old. but that's in normal world. We are in Trump world now, so anything that makes him ineffective is good, because when he is effective we end up with mass chaos in airports and grandmothers dying away from their families.

I think the tea party tactics handwringing is overrated. This groundswell isn't to pull party left in policy (though it will) as much as pull it from accommodation politics. The dems wanted to focus on a few appointees to try to spotlight them and use that focus to pull repub support. The base rightly realized that's stupid and won't work and instead was forcing the party to not have their name on any of the bad candidates, to fight against the crazy policies and fight a president they find to be dangerous. If the dems actually tried to prevent a debt limit raising and destroy the country to make Trump look bad I'd be furious. But to play nice and act like this is any other president is wrong. Republican defections need to happen and it won't happen any sooner if you give them bipartisan cover for their initiatives.

While its hard not to laugh about the absurdity of the American president dressing down the Australian PM, one of our best allies, in basically an introductory call, it is really scary and reenforces that we will have to be incredibly lucky to avoid unneccessary military action due to Trumps temper/ego. Remember when we heard he offered Kasich the VP and that he would have great power to run the country? I was hoping like hell that would be the case, that he would just be some weird chearleader and he let competent people run things. But if he gave up reigns it's going to Gen. Flynn.

QUOTE (shipps @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 09:26 AM) I dont know unfortunately. I think it was Washington. I remember looking at my twitter feed and seeing their symbol but I was desperately trying to look and see who it was for but I had to finish something before I could. This is making me anxious just reading about it. What a nightmare.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 09:19 AM) From the NYT front page. Not sure how Trump (or Obama) are to blame for this. At some point some general had to tell either or both of them, "this is the plan, it's going to work." It wouldn't look good on anyone its just strange to see leaks like that come out. The article lays out that Obama admin did not sign off on raid while it waited for better ground intel, its unknown whether Trump was presented with improvements.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 2, 2017 -> 09:10 AM) The legal justification way that Al-Awlaki himself was killed is pretty questionable as well. It's a blackeye it was never legislated or defined. At this point the policy is entire family is fair game, which is exactly what we accused Russia of and pressured them to stop doing in Chechnya.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 08:54 PM) I'm pretty sure if he turned around and shot Paul Ryan in the face during the SOTU he'd be impeached. The line is somewhere between "saying extremely stupid and probably dangerous things" and "murdering the speaker of the house on live television," but definitely a lot closer to the latter. What if he shot him in the foot?

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 08:05 PM) What was Hostetler asked about Beer? Basically what do you think about drafting him, there's only so much hostetler can say but first jokingly asked who Beer was. The mentioned the 14 yo thing, that they were excited about draft and that they'd do what ever they can so if Beer is on board they'd have thoroughly scouted.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 06:27 PM) Hostetler specifically mentioned Beer at SoxFest and said they've had scouting reports on him since he was 14. I wouldn't downplay their interest in him. To clarify, he was specifically asked about Beer, he didn't bring him up out of blue.

Doesn't Nightengale get tired of being our false rumormonger? At some point we gotta give that guy the goods. Its been a while I feel like. Weren't we feeding him the garbage robin justifications in sept too?

Holding out for packages from the dodgers results in not trading with the dodgers. Dodgers at this point seem like a team that doesn't ever feel like their trading partners are the ones in the drivers seat.

*Spits out same arguments that people did 60 years ago, 100 years ago, 150 years ago* "But NOW it's different!"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 1, 2017 -> 09:13 AM) Replacing Scalia with a 49 year old Scalia rather than a 49 year old RBG still really sucks, though. I don't want dems to roll over on either, but I'm not going to freak out until the actual court dynamic shifts.

QUOTE (New Era on South Side @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 06:57 PM) So, I didn't realize that quite a few of the Supreme Court Justices were rather old and that Kennedy and Bader Ginsburg were that old. I had heard an opinion that Democrats shouldn't disrupt the confirmation of the new Supreme Court Justice - but it doesn't seem like there's much they can do. It's too bad Obama didn't get to confirm his and the potential picks Trump may have over the course of his term or terms may shift the balance of the court for decades to come. Hopefully they don't overturn too many established social issues. Yes, frankly it's not replacing Scalia that worries me it's replacing RBG.

We should have super delegates.

Reads a lot like Curbelo.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 02:23 PM) Executive orders are necessary for administrative agencies to function when there is obstructionism in Congress - vacancies need to be filled, the agencies need to be run. You can't make them go away. You can only challenge the constitutionality of the Order when it goes too far (something the Rs actually did successfully with at least one of Obama's EOs. And you ultimately have to hope that the power of the executive is being wielded by someone who is an adult. Ultimately, if you want to get the hardliners out, there has to be greater participation in elections that happen in non-Presidential years and, more importantly, in the primaries. The hardline voters come out at the primaries, forcing politicians to run to the right or the left respectively. I don't think executive orders need to go away, I think executive orders as replacement for governing need to go away. I'm glad that DACA was done in 2012, but policy is so much more tenuous when done this way. It's bad for all.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 31, 2017 -> 01:46 PM) I disagree. You cant make "rules" to fix people. Just because hardliners were voted in 6 years ago, doesnt mean today people arent fed up with it. If those people who are already in power cant learn how to "play nice", then its time for different people. The rules have been the same since the beginning, but the whole "I cant work with the other side" is seemingly a relatively new phenomenon. I am not saying that every person in congress cant play nice, just that if they continue to believe "This is what their constituents want" they wont change their behavior. If there is a real threat that they will lose power all of a sudden maybe theyll "play nice again." I hate to use this analogy, but Congress is like a child who is fighting over a toy. At some point we as the parents, have to tell them if they cant share, no one gets to play. But I that's a reflection of the electorate. They are not out of step with their electorate. They are in a big cycle where less ideological parties are required for the senate to run, the parties are more ideological, and the senate cannot run, and then the public votes in fresh lambs for the slaughter who say they can fix the unfixable. If we survive this debacle from Trump, the only way out I see is curtailing executive power. But exec power make it easier for congress to rule, and right now it isn't possible with super majorities required.

Looks like the people of colorado will just need to show up in person and give a piece of their mind.

Regardless of where we go, some institutional norms should be thought about becoming law rather than house rules. Some house rules should be removed. I don't think it's a people problem. Dems courted Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe like crazy wanting bipartisan support for the ACA. They basically admitted to everything in the bill but then still voted no. There is still going to be a time where bipartisanship is courted but it's ebbed right now. If bipartisanship is not possible, it is not going to be resolved by different people, imo, it's going to be resolved by different rules of procedure.