2020 Democratic Candidates Tracker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
Until McConnell pulled his very undemocratic stunt, I don't believe any previous Senate had refused to vote on a SCOTUS judge. It was assumed Congress was an honorable body.

Now we have both a POTUS and the Senate Majority Leader making power grabs, including dealing with each other in doing it.
Click to expand...
The Constitution was written based on the assumption that the main conflicts in the Federal government would be between branches. It's turned out to be between parties instead.
 
theprestige said:
If 8 people on the bench isn't a problem, then choosing to leave the bench at 8 people can't be much of a problem either.
Click to expand...

Did you not read the post you were replying to, where I explained that the problem is the motivation?

If Obama had nominated a conservative justice, guaranteed to fire up McConnell's base, and took to the bully pulpit urging Americans to tell their Senators what's what, would you have supported the justices confirmation?
Click to expand...

I have zero idea what you're saying here.

Refusing to do your job is not doing your job. That's the whole point.
 
Delvo said:
The Constitution was written based on the assumption that the main conflicts in the Federal government would be between branches. It's turned out to be between parties instead.
Click to expand...

That doesn't even make any sense. The conflicts are conflicts of opinion about policy. Control of policy is checked and balanced between the three branches to ensure functioning government in the face of partisan disputes over policy.
 
theprestige said:
As we all know, politics wasn't invented before at least 1887.
Click to expand...

So you think societies and political bodies never evolve and the Constitution writers could foresee the 21st century?

That must have been frustratingly complicated to imagine so many details of the future.

:rolleyes:
 
dudalb said:
Bernie Sanders seems to be drifint even farther to the left with his recent statements.
GUaranteed, Sanders gets the Democratic Nod, Trump is in for another four years. A lot of people will feel it's a choice between two terrible candiates and sit it out.
Click to expand...

Guaranteed if Sanders gets the nod, he wins.
 
theprestige said:
Exhibit A: The ACA. Healthcare reform is badly needed in this country. But forcing it through on a bare majority and pissing off half the country in the process was absolutely the worst way to go about it.
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, there were no other options. The GOP had vowed not to work with the Obama administration on anything, including a health care plan previously championed by conservatives. They might as well have passed single-payer UHC; either was going to be completely unsupported by Republicans. Now it's become politically untenable to go back to the status quo, which was that insurance coverage could be denied to anyone with a pre-existing condition. If nothing else comes out of the ACA, that's progress, IMO.

ETA: as for that last sentence: It's the only way things can happen in this country in recent years. Dems didn't start that.

ETA2: The thread title? Why have we been dragged back to stuff that happened 10 years ago?
 
Last edited:
If no laws get passed, none can get tested.
How can we tell if something works or not unless is is actually allowed to run for a while?
 
theprestige said:
I like legislative bottlenecks. I'd rather a government be bogged down because it can't get enough broad consensus to move forward, than a government that can move forward on contentious policies with a bare majority. Exhibit A: The ACA. Healthcare reform is badly needed in this country. But forcing it through on a bare majority and pissing off half the country in the process was absolutely the worst way to go about it. They virtually guaranteed that it would be crippled from the start, and gutted by the opposition the moment they got a bare majority to work with.
Click to expand...

Err, if you count 60 votes for and 40 against to be a "bare majority," instead of the normal meaning where it would be more like 51 to 49. To be clear, though, this example is terrible. The "pissing off" was nearly entirely manufactured political propaganda that was made reality. The GOP wanted to make Obama and the Democrats look bad, to the point that McConnell outright and immediately stated that he was going to do all he could to make Obama a one-term President, so that's what they did their best to do. The Democratic Party's priority was to make things better on the healthcare front and they bent over backwards to work with and make it palatable for the Republicans. Republicans who, incidentally, had previously been openly for making things better on the healthcare front until the Democrats actually took action. The only "guarantee" for it being crippled was the result of Republicans taking advantage of Democrats trying to work with them to sabotage it gratuitously as part of a larger political ploy. A ploy that worked unfortunately well despite its base and deceitful nature.

And, because it's pertinent to this...

Mumbles said:
Worth note: McConnell once took to the senate floor to rail against a bill that he had coauthored, the day after Obama said that he would sign it. And this is because he is fundamentally dishonest, corrupt, and antidemocratic.

And this is all I will say to you in this thread.
Click to expand...

That an even better example than how the 2016 Republican Party Platform clearly states the Party's support of Puerto Rico's statehood, but in practice, the GOP's been firmly against it and insulting the very idea.



theprestige said:
I wouldn't call it stealing the powers of the Executive branch.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. What it specifically was, after all, was McConnell outright refusing to let the Senate do its constitutionally mandated job. It was just another case of the Republican Party sabotaging the normal operation of government in their attempts to win political points.

theprestige said:
And that's the heart of our disagreement on this point. I don't agree that the Senate stopped the President from doing what he's supposed to do. The President is supposed to nominate. The President did that.

The President is not entitled to a Senate vote. He's entitled only to whatever process the Senate itself decides to use, within the limits set on the Senate by the constitution. The process the President got is within those limits, so nobody got stopped from doing anything they were supposed to do.

The outcome wasn't what you wanted, but it was a legitimate outcome.
Click to expand...

Mmm. Only if you accept logic that was forwarded to justify a thoroughly partisan power grab.

he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the supreme Court...
Click to expand...

If they had reviewed and voted the nominee down, that would be one thing. Completely refusing to even review the nominee and justifying it with brazen and obvious lies? No, just no. That's politics at its worst and should very much be rejected by anyone who claims to be at all patriotic or interested in either making or keeping the US great.

But then... that last bit may be key here to understanding why our opinions differ. To go deeper, I suspect that we would have distinctly different opinions on the question of "What's the actual job of a politician?"

theprestige said:
If 8 people on the bench isn't a problem, then choosing to leave the bench at 8 people can't be much of a problem either.

---

If Obama had nominated a conservative justice, guaranteed to fire up McConnell's base, and took to the bully pulpit urging Americans to tell their Senators what's what, would you have supported the justices confirmation? Would you have urged McConnnell to stop obstructing and fill the seat?

Or would you have crossed your fingers and hoped McConnell would be too stupid or too partisan to take the opportunity, and let things ride until after the election?
Click to expand...

I would very much want the nominee to get a fair hearing, even if I opposed the actual appointment. For a pertinent example, I opposed and oppose Kavanaugh on evaluation of his merits and demerits, but at no point have I been in any way discontented about him getting a hearing in the first place... and would be furious if the Democrats tried to pull a similar stunt, albeit a little less than I would have been if they did so before McConnell.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
Err, if you count 60 votes for and 40 against to be a "bare majority," instead of the normal meaning where it would be more like 51 to 49. To be clear, though, this example is terrible. The "pissing off" was nearly entirely manufactured political propaganda that was made reality. The GOP wanted to make Obama and the Democrats look bad, to the point that McConnell outright and immediately stated that he was going to do all he could to make Obama a one-term President, so that's what they did their best to do. The Democratic Party's priority was to make things better on the healthcare front and they bent over backwards to work with and make it palatable for the Republicans.
Click to expand...
And not to forget, an urgent matter when Dems took control was financial stimulus. Another issue that again, Republicans weren't going to contribute to no matter what. Of course it was flawed; what else could it be? Whether too much, too little, too late or too early, the GOP was going to oppose it. What choice did Dems have except move forward? Republicans could safely claim it wasn't perfect, while ignoring their duty to make it better. IIRC at the time there was bipartisan agreement that federal intervention was needed; the arguments involved details.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
And not to forget, an urgent matter when Dems took control was financial stimulus. Another issue that again, Republicans weren't going to contribute to no matter what. Of course it was flawed; what else could it be? Whether too much, too little, too late or too early, the GOP was going to oppose it. What choice did Dems have except move forward? Republicans could safely claim it wasn't perfect, while ignoring their duty to make it better. IIRC at the time there was bipartisan intervention was badly needed.
Click to expand...

Worth note: When GWB alum and columnist David Frum said that republicans should work with democrats on health care, so that they could get more of their own ideas into the final bill and thus claim credit for the good while assigning blame for the bad, the response was essentially to chase him out of the GOP entirely. End result - republicans are now the party that has no idea what to do that apart from stripping health care access from tens of millions of people in order to give more money to the ultra-wealthy. Just one example of why the GOP has nothing that aids the great majority of the US to show for their 2 years of controlling the legislative and executive branches of government.
 
Just to try to drag this thread back to the topic, I saw a Beto O'Rourke ad, shot at Yosemite, where he announces a plan to cut carbon emissions. He seemed earnest and appealing; however IMO he did not do a great job. I think he has a role to play, but probably not as the Democratic nominee.
 
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d09ac63e4b0f7b74428e4c6

That’s “not a joke,” he said. “I mean, we may not want to demonize anybody who has made money.”

Appearing to suggest that his tax plan would not include excessive taxes on the rich, Biden said “no one’s standard of living change” if he’s elected.

“The truth of the matter is, you all, you all know, you all know in your gut what has to be done. We can disagree in the margins but the truth of the matter is it’s all within our wheelhouse and nobody has to be punished. No one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change,” he said.
Click to expand...

If you elect me president, nothing will fundamentally change!

Biden added that though income inequality is a considerable problem that plagues the United States, the rich are not the enemy that’s to blame for the wealth gap.
Click to expand...

The rich taking greater and greater portions of the wealth have nothing to do with the increasing wealth gap!


https://www.newsweek.com/biden-repub...sensus-trump-1
Bloomberg News reporter Sahil Kapur tweeted that "in New Hampshire, Joe Biden predicts that once President Trump is out of office, Republicans will have 'an epiphany' and work with Democrats toward consensus."
Click to expand...

Those last ten spoonfuls of dirt tasted awful but the next one will transform into sugar!

Status Quo Corporate Joe is delusional. We are so screwed.
 
The_Animus said:
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d09ac63e4b0f7b74428e4c6

If you elect me president, nothing will fundamentally change!

The rich taking greater and greater portions of the wealth have nothing to do with the increasing wealth gap!

https://www.newsweek.com/biden-repub...sensus-trump-1

Those last ten spoonfuls of dirt tasted awful but the next one will transform into sugar!

Status Quo Corporate Joe is delusional. We are so screwed.
Click to expand...
He knows who his donors are. Clinton had a similar problem but hers was amplified by negative campaigns against her like Sanders harping over and over about her paid speeches to Goldman Sachs.

I'm telling you, Biden is not going to win the primary.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
If no laws get passed, none can get tested.
How can we tell if something works or not unless is is actually allowed to run for a while?
Click to expand...

That is a very good question.

Show me a bill that starts by saying, "we're not sure if this will work, but we want to try it, and here's why", and then goes on to say, "here's the success condition we're trying to meet, here's how we're going to measure it, and here's how we're going to automatically sunset and repeal the law if it doesn't measure up", and I'll show you a bill we should probably consider signing into law.

---

You know what's funny? There is one government activity that is almost always aggressively means-tested, measured against declared goals, and sunsetted once the goals are met or cannot be met by those means.

War.
 
The_Animus said:
Status Quo Corporate Joe is delusional. We are so screwed.
Click to expand...

Completely delusional about the GOP.

Poor Obama thought that too. We saw what happened.

It's amazing how the Republicans make no bones about their disdain of Democrat policies, as center-left as they often are and status quo Democrats constantly want to meet Republicans in the middle, wherever that middle happens to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom