US Politics/2016 Election Pick Your Poison Master Thread

[skyguy918]

Looks like we are headed nuclear on Gorsuch. My feeling is that the Dems are overplaying their hand over here. They have not been making the case to the public as to why Gorsuch should not be confirmed. Most of what we have been hearing is that the nominee should be blocked no matter who it is in revenge for Garland. Under those circumstances the Rs have a much easier case to nuke since it is not specific to this nominee and they certainly have a right to confirm someone. This would then ensure that future nominees would be confirmed as well even if they will reallly change the ideology of the court and would be an easier case for the fillibuster.

Irony?

[aygart]

Irony?

How so? I think it is simply short sighted of them. Maybe their blind hatred of everything trump

[Yammer]

Big mistake for the R's to take this route just as it was a mistake when the D's did it for lower court nominations.

The Dems ( Shummer ) are the Masters of media. Its pathetic to see that Republicans can't make a case that would've gotten the moderate Dems to go along...

If they couldn't win the Gorsuch PR war ( when there was no war ) they won't win any...

[JTZ]

If they couldn't win the Gorsuch PR war ( when there was no war ) they won't win any...

+1

[Toasted]

The Dems ( Shummer ) are the Masters of media. Its pathetic to see that Republicans can't make a case that would've gotten the moderate Dems to go along...

If they couldn't win the Gorsuch PR war ( when there was no war ) they won't win any...

-306

PR wars are a self serving fantasy of the media who profits off it. DJT lost every PR war during the campaign. Bigly.

[springles]

-306

PR wars are a self serving fantasy of the media who profits off it. DJT lost every PR war during the campaign. Bigly.

agreed, but this isnt just a PR war. Its an actual governing war. And IMO this Gorsuch thing makes everyone look bad

[ExGingi]

Big mistake for the R's to take this route just as it was a mistake when the D's did it for lower court nominations.

Couldn't agree more. The Hebrew/yiddish expression for this is א בכיה לדורות!

The only silver lining that might come out of something like this is if Trump gets to nominate another one or two while the R's still control the Senate.

[aygart]

Big mistake for the R's to take this route just as it was a mistake when the D's did it for lower court nominations.

What is the other option? They will do this for anyone nominated by Trump. This has nothing to do with Gorsuch at all. A different nominee would be the same story.

If they couldn't win the Gorsuch PR war ( when there was no war ) they won't win any...

I am not so sure they lost the PR war. I think that those who care and are not alreaady partisan will place the blame on the Ds for not leaving any other option. The Rs are much better off getting done what would eventually happen anyhow with Gorsuch where it is quite clear that the Ds would never allow a vote on any Trump nominee.

[skyguy918]

What is the other option? They will do this for anyone nominated by Trump. This has nothing to do with Gorsuch at all. A different nominee would be the same story.
I am not so sure they lost the PR war. I think that those who care and are not alreaady partisan will place the blame on the Ds for not leaving any other option. The Rs are much better off getting done what would eventually happen anyhow with Gorsuch where it is quite clear that the Ds would never allow a vote on any Trump nominee.

Please tell me you recognize the irony in your comments. If the non-partisans cared, wouldn't they have made it known when the R's did it to Garland?

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that one way or another, we're gonna end up with Gorsuch instead of Garland. But it's disingenuous to have a discussion about the second half of the story (D's all voting against, R's going nuclear to push Gorsuch through) without the first half (R's refusing to hold hearings on Garland).

[aygart]

Please tell me you recognize the irony in your comments. If the non-partisans cared, wouldn't they have made it known when the R's did it to Garland?

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy that one way or another, we're gonna end up with Gorsuch instead of Garland. But it's disingenuous to have a discussion about the second half of the story (D's all voting against, R's going nuclear to push Gorsuch through) without the first half (R's refusing to hold hearings on Garland).

I think that people consider the 2 to be very different. With Gerland I think the Ds were all upset, the Rs happy and the non-partisans mostly indifferent since it was not an open ended no. It was very clearly a no only until the election. Had H won they would have confirmed Garland immediately before H nominates someone more liberal. They did not filibuster Sotomayor etc. There was no discussion of saying the new president, even if it were H would not be able to nominate anyone at all. The most it was is a delaying tactic and it was viewed as such.

What the Ds are saying now is that Trump should not be entitled to nominate anyone at all for his entire presidency. I don't think the public is ready to accept that.

I am referring to strategy alone. The arguments for and against it are all insincere based on the Barone rule- All process arguments are insincere including this one.

[skyguy918]

I think that people consider the 2 to be very different. With Gerland I think the Ds were all upset, the Rs happy and the non-partisans mostly indifferent since it was not an open ended no. It was very clearly a no only until the election. Had H won they would have confirmed Garland immediately before H nominates someone more liberal. They did not filibuster Sotomayor etc. There was no discussion of saying the new president, even if it were H would not be able to nominate anyone at all. The most it was is a delaying tactic and it was viewed as such.

What the Ds are saying now is that Trump should not be entitled to nominate anyone at all for his entire presidency. I don't think the public is ready to accept that.

Ie a delaying tactic.

ETA: There's no qualitative difference, only a quantitative one. And your assumption about what the R's would've done if HRC won is exactly that - an assumption. One that can't be confirmed, since HRC didn't win.

[aygart]

Ie a delaying tactic.

ETA: There's no qualitative difference, only a quantitative one. And your assumption about what the R's would've done if HRC won is exactly that - an assumption. One that can't be confirmed, since HRC didn't win.

The quantitative difference will be viewed as a big one. The proof regarding HRC is that they did not block earlier O nominees.

[ExGingi]

I think that people consider the 2 to be very different. With Gerland I think the Ds were all upset, the Rs happy and the non-partisans mostly indifferent since it was not an open ended no. It was very clearly a no only until the election. Had H won they would have confirmed Garland immediately before H nominates someone more liberal. They did not filibuster Sotomayor etc. There was no discussion of saying the new president, even if it were H would not be able to nominate anyone at all. The most it was is a delaying tactic and it was viewed as such.

What the Ds are saying now is that Trump should not be entitled to nominate anyone at all for his entire presidency. I don't think the public is ready to accept that.

I am referring to strategy alone. The arguments for and against it are all insincere based on the Barone rule- All process arguments are insincere including this one.

Very well stated.

However, they already managed to get a few D's to say they'll confirm. I don't know if at this stage, more can be won over with time, persuasion or by any other means, but I would have definitely preferred to see this advanced in a smart, rather than forceful way (that strategy failed with their attempt at Obamacare repeal & replace).

[skyguy918]

The quantitative difference will be viewed as a big one. The proof regarding HRC is that they did not block earlier O nominees.

I don't view that as proof of anything - it occurred in a vastly different political environment.

[aygart]

Very well stated.

However, they already managed to get a few D's to say they'll confirm. I don't know if at this stage, more can be won over with time, persuasion or by any other means, but I would have definitely preferred to see this advanced in a smart, rather than forceful way (that strategy failed with their attempt at Obamacare repeal & replace).

I agree and wish it would not have come to this. My original point is that I think it is a foolish move by the Ds since this one is an easy one for the Rs to nuke. Had they let Gorsuch through they would still have the filibuster available next time with the ability to argue that it is due to the nominee and not the president and point to Gorsuch as proof.

[aygart]

I don't view that as proof of anything - it occurred in a vastly different political environment.

how so?

[ExGingi]

I agree and wish it would not have come to this. My original point is that I think it is a foolish move by the Ds since this one is an easy one for the Rs to nuke. Had they let Gorsuch through they would still have the filibuster available next time with the ability to argue that it is due to the nominee and not the president and point to Gorsuch as proof.

The Ds don't have an exclusivity on foolish moves. As a matter of fact, a cursory look at Washington seems to indicate that foolishness might be an entry requirement.

[aygart]

The Ds don't have an exclusivity on foolish moves. As a matter of fact, a cursory look at Washington seems to indicate that foolishness might be an entry requirement.

+10000000000000000 on that

[ExGingi]

+10000000000000000 on that

Next time please use commas, it's a little straining to figure out that number without them, even for those that would be barred from entering the Washington cesspool. 

[zh cohen]

As a matter of fact, a cursory look at Washington seems to indicate that foolishness might be an entry requirement.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/03/31/consider-possibility-we-are-led-idiots/