The Politics Thread

[Vee]

Mother of God:

 

[Khan]

You know, it pains the hell out of me to see folks on both sides of the aisle say that Neil Gorsuch is a "gift" to the Democrats and they should take it.  Perhaps he IS a gift, but I feel like the Democrats are missing the point.  

 

Trump is handing us this "gift," because he (or Bannon, or whoever) knows the Democrats will have a hard time passing it up.  He isn't trying to appease anyone, not even Republicans.  He's trying to own the Democrats, thereby making it tougher to resist his continued march toward facism.  

 

The Democrats HAVE to fight this.  Even if defeat is guaranteed.  This is more than "just politics."  This is war.  We (meaning, the Democrats) give him THIS without a fight, he'll know how to win us over the next time...and the next...and the next.

 

The F?  I can't tell if that was a tribute to MLK, a brag about WH knick-knacks, another screed against the Liberal Elite Media, or a combinatiom thereof!  Seriously, Trump, you're so stream-of-consciousness that you're putting William Faulkner to shame!

[Vee]

It looks like we may have succeeded in blocking DeVos. But we are fighting, a lot - the three Democrats who went across for Tillerson are typical Blue Dogs/red staters who rarely can be trusted.

 

His statement about Frederick Douglass - he clearly had no idea who he was - is so pitiful.

Edited February 1, 2017 by Vee

[Wales2004]

Oh I will:

 

“I am very proud now that we have a museum on the National Mall where people can learn about Reverend King, so many other things, Frederick Douglass is an example of somebody who’s done an amazing job and is getting recognized more and more, I notice. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, and millions more black Americans who made America what it is today. Big impact.”

 

Maybe he thinks Frederick Douglass is an intern or someone walking around in the hallways--doing a great job and people are like "look at what Frederick D. is doing."

[Juliajms]

I agree with you and this is why I just shake my head when people say Cruz or Rubio would have just as bad. No they wouldn't. True, they abhor the rights of women, minorities and LGBT people, but they weren't going to try to take away the very mechanisms of dissent and muzzle the press the way Bannon and Trump are gearing up to do (at least I believe they are). Disagreeing on social issues is very different from trying to stop people from advocating for themselves or controlling the flow of information to the people.

 

Look how success the gay rights movement has been over the last few decades. Gay rights advocates were able to change hearts and minds, even under Republican rule. That happened because we have an open and free society, which I fully believe Trump is going to slowly try to take from us. This is not a normally administration regardless of party.

[YRBB]

This is some really accurate art that cuts right through the heart:

 

[Vee]

Speaking of Little Marco:

 

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Vee

[Juliajms]

^ The hypocrisy is unbelievable.

Please register in order to view this content

[DRW50]

 

I wouldn't be too sure about Ted Cruz, especially based on his father. 

[DRW50]

 

In this case I'm not sure if Gorsuch is any different as a nominee than someone a less insane President like W would have chosen. He chose, essentially, a Scalia replacement, who seems well-respected enough. W chose someone who was as conservative as Rehnquist, just in a different way, and then chose someone (Alito) significantly to the right of Sandra Day O'Connor.

 

I don't see how Democrats can stop him, and I'm not sure it's worth the battle in this particular case. I'd rather save the filibuster for something worse coming down the line. 

[marceline]

 

This. Having Trump name Scalia's replacement with yet another Scalia sucks, especially after the disrespect of Merrick Garland but having him name a replacement for Kennedy or Ginsburg? That's the hill to die on. That's the time to pull out all the stops. Especially if the resistance can get stronger and more organized in the meantime.

[ReddFoxx]

Republicans stole a SCOTUS vacancy from Obama, so I see nothing wrong with filibustering Trump's pick. It's not like if Ginsburg's seat came open Trump would appoint someone just like her just because Democrats asked him to. Republicans set the precedent for vacancies and any vacancies should be held open until 2021 by their standards.

[DRW50]

 

In this case I think it would be a mistake because they would use it as an opportunity to nuke the filibuster, something McConnell clearly doesn't want to do (likely because he knows Republicans will be in the minority again at some point, especially if Trump continues to cause such chaos). 

[marceline]

 

Payback can't be our primary concern right now. IMO it needs to be planning for the next opening. If they go nuclear now that means the filibuster is no longer an option if/when Trump names replacements for Kennedy and/or Ginsburg. We need to keep the filibuster. That's our only weapon. We need to decide the best time and place to use it. 

 

As for Merrick Garland, he's returned to the head of the DC Circuit Court. That means he will be hearing many of the challenges to Trump's laws including the Muslim ban.

[Vee]

Read this - it is fùcking insane.