What would Mitch do?

[theprestige]

I can't really say, I don't share your abiding love for arguing by analogy.

You're really broken up about the passing of Justice Ginsburg. I apologize for intruding on your grief.

 

[TragicMonkey]

You're really broken up about the passing of Justice Ginsburg. I apologize for intruding on your grief.

Am I? What gives you that idea? Because I didn't admire your hasty rush to assure everyone you are unsurprised by politics?

 

[theprestige]

Please accept my condolences.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Please accept my condolences.

Hardly necessary, I never met the woman.

 

[Trebuchet]

You're really broken up about the passing of Justice Ginsburg. I apologize for intruding on your grief.

I'm really broken up by the destruction of a once-great country by Trump and your party.

 

[Stacyhs]

This isn't a deathbed. This is a political circus.

It's been a circus since Trump came riding down his gold escalator to the faux cheers of his paid actors audience.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It's been a circus since Trump came riding down his gold escalator to the faux cheers of his paid actors audience.

It's been a circus since Ug beat Grug over the question of larger caves for the elderly, and then Grug beat Ug over the head with a rock. By this point we should be better than that, but we're not.

 

[Elagabalus]

It's been a circus since Ug beat Grug over the question of larger caves for the elderly, and then Grug beat Ug over the head with a rock. By this point we should be better than that, but we're not.

Most historians believe that Ug v. Grug was ostensibly about the brunette tribe wanting to covet some of the blond tribes assets.

 

[Horatius]

I guess it's just there's all this wailing and gnashing of teeth, and nobody saying, "this sucks, but I knew it was coming, and I've already made up my mind how to handle it."

The problem is, the Republicans have been showing the Democrats that "how to handle it" is nothing more than naked displays of power.

Sure, Trump and Moscow Mitch can certainly push through another Drunky McRapeface nomination, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

For now.

But what happens if (when?) the Democrats re-take the Senate, and the Presidency? Why shouldn't they immediately adopt the "Because I can, **** you!" policies that the Republicans have clearly adopted?

Day 1, morning, the Democrat House impeaches every Trump nominated judge, and Day 1, afternoon, the Democrat Senate convicts them. The Charges? Blatantly being a Trump Nominee. The evidence? Well, just look at him! The verdict? Guilty! The justification? Because **** You, That's Why.

I'm pretty sure this isn't what you wanted, but it's what you've voted for, and supported, time and again, in the face of repeated Republican hypocrisy and ********.

It might not be this election (although I hope it is), but someday, you'll come to regret supporting this Because **** You policy. And my response will be, Well, **** You, That's Why.

You reap what you sow, jerks.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Republicans have taken for granted that Dems will operate within the norms, so they don't have to.

Stealing Supreme Court Seats will be a step too far.

If Mitch fills this post, the Dem Base will call for breaking norms to cripple Republicans, starting with a strip-search investigation og the Trump-GOP-Russia connection.

 

[Mader Levap]

At some point, escalation is inevitable.

But what happens if (when?) the Democrats re-take the Senate, and the Presidency?

You are optimistically assuming they will be able to do that for long time.

Why shouldn't they immediately adopt the "Because I can, **** you!" policies that the Republicans have clearly adopted?

It is okay when republicans do that.

I'm pretty sure this isn't what you wanted, but it's what you've voted for, and supported, time and again, in the face of repeated Republican hypocrisy and ********.

White rich republicans think they won't be affected by future changes (that will very negatively affect life of many, many people) exactly because they are white rich republicans. Moral assessment of this kind of position and finding historical analogues is left to reader.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I don't think US creditors would accept another four years of Mitch &Trump.

 

[thaiboxerken]

But what happens if (when?) the Democrats re-take the Senate, and the Presidency?

Appointing a loyalist to SCOTUS is just another piece of their strategy to ensure one party rule. They don't care about "if Democrats re-take the Senate or Presidency" because they're making sure it doesn't happen. They will control the referees in this election, they will declare Trump the victor, they will maintain power. They've murdered democracy.

 

[rockysmith76]

The problem is, the Republicans have been showing the Democrats that "how to handle it" is nothing more than naked displays of power.

Sure, Trump and Moscow Mitch can certainly push through another Drunky McRapeface nomination, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

For now.

But what happens if (when?) the Democrats re-take the Senate, and the Presidency? Why shouldn't they immediately adopt the "Because I can, **** you!" policies that the Republicans have clearly adopted?

Day 1, morning, the Democrat House impeaches every Trump nominated judge, and Day 1, afternoon, the Democrat Senate convicts them. The Charges? Blatantly being a Trump Nominee. The evidence? Well, just look at him! The verdict? Guilty! The justification? Because **** You, That's Why.

I'm pretty sure this isn't what you wanted, but it's what you've voted for, and supported, time and again, in the face of repeated Republican hypocrisy and ********.

It might not be this election (although I hope it is), but someday, you'll come to regret supporting this Because **** You policy. And my response will be, Well, **** You, That's Why.

You reap what you sow, jerks.

Thats all partisanship and nothing about anything democratic.

 

[Venom]

Thats all partisanship and nothing about anything democratic.

You're right, and I hope it doesn't happen to that extent. But I fear one day it might if Republicans and their enabling rural voters insist on beating the libs at all costs.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think US creditors would accept another four years of Mitch &Trump.

This, at least, seems like a testable prediction.

Are there specific lenders you think we could watch? In the event of a Trump reelection, could we determine whether they're willing to extend credit on similar terms as before?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

This, at least, seems like a testable prediction.

Are there specific lenders you think we could watch? In the event of a Trump reelection, could we determine whether they're willing to extend credit on similar terms as before?

If trust in US solvency wanes, it will manifest as higher interest rates or more QE and other methods by the Fed, compared to other countries with similar economies.

But if Trump continues is feud with China, it's quite possible that they will use their US bonds as a weapon.

 

[CORed]

The problem is, the Republicans have been showing the Democrats that "how to handle it" is nothing more than naked displays of power.

Sure, Trump and Moscow Mitch can certainly push through another Drunky McRapeface nomination, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

For now.

But what happens if (when?) the Democrats re-take the Senate, and the Presidency? Why shouldn't they immediately adopt the "Because I can, **** you!" policies that the Republicans have clearly adopted?

Day 1, morning, the Democrat House impeaches every Trump nominated judge, and Day 1, afternoon, the Democrat Senate convicts them. The Charges? Blatantly being a Trump Nominee. The evidence? Well, just look at him! The verdict? Guilty! The justification? Because **** You, That's Why.

I'm pretty sure this isn't what you wanted, but it's what you've voted for, and supported, time and again, in the face of repeated Republican hypocrisy and ********.

It might not be this election (although I hope it is), but someday, you'll come to regret supporting this Because **** You policy. And my response will be, Well, **** You, That's Why.

You reap what you sow, jerks.

The one difficulty with the impeachment scenario you are sugesting is that removing a judge, just like removing a president, requires 2/3 of the Senate. What I suspect will happen is that the Democrats will decide to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court, as that is something they can do with a simple majority of both houses (the number is set by statute, not by the Constitution). The problem with this is that, in all likellyhood, the Republicans will do the same the next time they have the majorities, and before we know it, we will have 2,593 Supreme Court justices.

 

[theprestige]

If trust in US solvency wanes, it will manifest as higher interest rates or more QE and other methods by the Fed, compared to other countries with similar economies.

But if Trump continues is feud with China, it's quite possible that they will use their US bonds as a weapon.

Is that your prediction? That China ("US Creditors") will not accept another four years of Trump, and will weaponize their US bonds if he's re-elected?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Is that your prediction? That China ("US Creditors") will not accept another four years of Trump, and will weaponize their US bonds if he's re-elected?

I predict that China will use its share of US bonds as leverage, should Trump in his next term persist with his anti-China trade policies, yes.