Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

Democratic Nebraskans found themselves in the surprising position of nodding their heads to what Ben Sasse was saying, for once.

True, but I think Democrats have largely lost their patience with folks like Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Ben Sasse and Lindsey Graham that say they're opposed to things that Trump does, but then vote in lockstep with him.

At least Murkowski and Romney (and former Sens. Corker, McCain and Flake) did actually vote against him on some issues.

I think the coming weeks will see more Republicans suddenly "rediscovering their courage" if the polls continue to show Trump headed for electoral annhilation. These folks have their own careers to think about, and want a future in the post-Trump America. Which gets back, again, to #GOPDelendaEst. No mercy, not even for the "change of heart" Republicans. They had four years to find their moral courage and are only finding it now that they see the writing on the wall.

I voted against our Republican Sec. of Agriculture, despite really liking the guy and having voted for him for the last 16 years. He's a reasonable, moderate Republican. He even took flack and a primary challenge for the crazy liberal Marxist stance of banning weapons at the State Fair. (I mean, who doesn't want to carry a gun on the Tilt-A-Whirl??) But he's STILL, after everything that has happened, a Republican. If he had changed his affiliation to Independent (or hell, even Constitution or Libertarian), I'd happily be voting for him. But he's stuck with the brand and the brand is poisoned now, imho.

[sluissa]

Let's consider the future.

Assuming the Republican party is gutted of all but the most extreme red state examples. What does it look like afterwards?

There ends up being a power vacuum there. There ends up being few, if any people who need to say "Wait a second, we need to pivot to the center or else I lose my job next election."

Come 2022-2028, who fills in those spots? And will they have the clout in order to pivot the party as a whole back towards the middle?

I have a hard time believing the party disintegrates. But I also am not sure I see a path that comes back from this that goes anywhere good either.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We're going into wild times no matter what happens, of that I am certain. Trump was first. There will be no hegemonic normalcy again.

[Dostoevsky]

Personally, my current fears/expectations/hopes?/godknowswhat are:

1) Democratic trifecta in the 2020 election
2) Democrats proceed to nuke the filibuster, enact democracy reforms, pack the courts, etc. etc.
3) At least a few heavily-Republican states secede in response to potentially losing federal political power
4)

Yeah, probably wild times one way or another.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That would honestly be one of the better scenarios, since it would completely gut the GOP for being open traitors instead of closet traitors like they are now. DNC would suck ass at one-party rule and hopefully be overtaken by socdems.

[delphonso]

2) Democrats proceed to nuke the filibuster, enact democracy reforms, pack the courts, etc. etc.

You don't have to worry about this.

Real plan should be - drum up anti-Biden hate by doing things Republicans hate like taking care of people or properly managing crises. Then, bribe a Republican to put forward a presidential power limiting bill, also kills filibuster, generally slows the government. That's how you avoid a Trump who is competent in the future.

[Frumple]

Democracy reform would actually be incredibly likely with a dem trifecta at the moment, for what it's worth. Don't think major media's made much noise about it, but the dems have been pretty vocal about pushing HR1 in the event of taking a full majority. It wouldn't be a silver bullet fixing everything but it'd be a damn good step in the right direction... as well as something that would cripple the GOP federally

[hector13]

Never knew it was a thing; read a brief summary of some bits from it; this needs to be made law.

[Rolan7]

That would honestly be one of the better scenarios, since it would completely gut the GOP for being open traitors instead of closet traitors like they are now. DNC would suck ass at one-party rule and hopefully be overtaken by socdems.

This.

[sluissa]

Am I alone in thinking the filibuster serves a purpose, it's just been corrupted in the modern era? As it is now, they can just say "I object" and that's it, need 60 votes to break it.* In the somewhat distant past though they've actually required someone with the stamina and the determination to actually stand up there and hold the floor for the entire time.

I feel like that is actually part of the Senate's defined purpose. To allow lengthy and detailed debate over proposed laws. To keep the most extreme examples from moving forward. To be a moderating influence rather than simply a roadblock or a rubber stamp for whoever has 51 votes.

It's frustrating, because I see the benefit, but I also see how as it currently stands it's basically not serving its purpose and might as well be removed from the equation.

Also a big YES PLEASE on HR1. Assuming it actually does what's advertised.

*It's a little more complicated and essentially requires party support or else they might have to actually stand up there and speak themselves. So it can't be used for ANY crazy thing, just any crazy thing the party as a whole wants quashed.

[delphonso]

If the Texas splits into five, do they become states 51-55? How will they decide who gets to keep Texas number?

Bringing this topic back, I just want 4 new Texases to compete over a more Texan name than Texas. Welcome to Longhorn, next state over is Lone Star.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We can't withstand that kind of stasis anymore. Our government is too slow for the age of computerized thought, and everyone knows it. That's why the US keeps bullshitting its way into armed conflict but never declares a war, and so never fully faces the laws we have about war in turn. It's why we rely on the cancer prospects of 9 ancient boomers to make the law swing between Christian fascism and twisted-logic liberalism. It's why it has been ten years since the legislature wasn't obstructionist by nature, and even then it was barely churning along.

The filibuster is too big of an obstacle to be tolerated in the world of the boomer death drive. It's a no so huge there's only six Senate seats between overcoming it and being able to just change the Constitution outright. The Senate is already this mythical obstacle against Action that people want it to be by virtue of six year terms and whole states voting on the members, but 60 seats is a impossible hindrance at this level of partisanship.

The government can still struggle its way out of the big La-Z Boy chair and jump around a bit, but it can only do that once the crisis is already upon us and the bodies already litter the ground. Anything less than that and they punt out of ever passing laws about it, anything more and they collapse just like the diabetic boomers who run the joint.

We are not going to survive this shit much longer. Even if the Dems smash the joint up and kill the filibuster, the basic problem is still there waiting to become possible. All you need is a couple fuckups to lose their seats or a couple Yellow Dog LARPers to beg off for their boomer constituents and we're right back where we fucking started. And that's the upper limit of what the Dems can accomplish as is. The Republicans couldn't even pass their "kill everyone" laws during 17'-18', when they had the trifecta!

We need to reacquire the ability for long-term planning and short-term flexibility to have any chance of surviving the coming crisis. Personally, I'd just delete the Senate and have 30k people a Rep, along with finally putting an end to SCOTUS' bullshit and the President's overreach, but regardless we need to do a lot more than kill a couple parts of the filibuster.

[wierd]

Pivoting back to the current state of the election--

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/19/presidential-debate-commission-adopts-rules-to-mute-microphones

Looks like the debate framework is getting some mic muting powers to prevent endless interruptions, such as plagued the first debate. 


How long until I see a Trump tweet asserting that this is some radical conspiracy by the left to silence him?  Place your bets ladies and gentlemen--

[JoshuaFH]

-

[Frumple]

How long until I see a Trump tweet asserting that this is some radical conspiracy by the left to silence him?  Place your bets ladies and gentlemen--

-

The amount of time it takes to make a dash in morse code, eh? A bold wager!