Support NeoGAF

[nelsonroyale]

Interesting that 'liberals' is being used by some people in the same derogatory way 'socialism' generally is. The current crop of ideological lables, liberalism in particular seems to be reaching its limit. Democracy obviously needs to evolve...The republicans are trying to evolve it in to corporate authoritarianism at present.

 

[dohdough]

Democrats are convinced they are playing 11th dimension Chess against the GOP. The last 8 years the GOP got tired of the game and refused to play

After the election the GOP got tired of everything and started to burn the house down. The Democrats are still at the table trying to play chess.

notbad.gif

 

[royalan]

and the other option? I'm dying for the badass brogressives to tell us what the other option was rather than handing power to Trump.

Releasing Trump's tax returns.

 

[faisal233]

Releasing Trump's tax returns.

Which would have done what?

 

[Sinfamy]

Releasing Trump's tax returns.

I'm actually curious about this.
The IRS has his returns, couldn't the Obama administration just have ordered the IRS to release Trump's tax returns to an internal investigation group to verify corruption and conflict of interest charges?

 

[Elaugaufein]

I don't think it's that the Democrats are afraid of centre right critiques, it's that being a broad tent is only useful if there's some kind of cohesion, a thing that everyone can agree on. And Center Left parties generally haven't had that since the 80s when they pretty much gave up on economics*. It also means they can't do the kind of concerted messaging you get on Fox News.

They seem to be trying to cobble together a thing based on social progressiveness now but it's kind of an awkward fit because a )Clinton has proved that at least for the moment there's not enough properly distributed numbers in that alone to make up for its losses and b) the broad tent approach means that some of them don't really believe it.

Also if you think running as a populist and then turning to the centre works multiple times in a row , you're wrong. That works once in political memory, twice if you're lucky , people don't magically forget that they got burned the next time around. It also salts the ground if you think a genuine populist approach is appropriate because people won't believe you (see also Clinton on the TPP). If you think you're going to be a clever 11-dimensional chess playing pragmatist do it half-way competently.

* A really good Centre Left party leader can make a case that an appropriately regulated market with good redistribution can lead to benefits for all, the average one sounds like they are saying "What the guys on the other side are saying but with some lube but not much because we don't have that much leverage."

 

[royalan]

Which would have done what?

Is this a serious question?

1) It would have held Trump to the same standard followed by every presidential candidate since Ford.

2) Would have made plain the truth behind Trump's financial entanglements and conflicts of interest.

3) Given Democrats something more concrete to oppose him with.

4) Would have been technically the right thing to do, as even conservative minds have acknowledged the potential threats to national security posed by Trump's financial secrets.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Is this a serious question?

1) It would have held Trump to the same standard followed by every presidential candidate since Ford.

2) Would have made plain the truth behind Trump's financial entanglements and conflicts of interest.

3) Given Democrats something more concrete to oppose him with.

4) Would have been technically the right thing to do, as even conservative minds have acknowledged the potential threats to national security posed by Trump's financial secrets.

But they can't. There is only one (legal) way to forcibly remove a President from power: a successful impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate and these require Super-majorities. All they can do is talk on this and if they do that absolutely shuts down negotiation on everything, the Executive isn't going to play ball while you're publicly trying to impeach them.

 

[royalan]

But they can't. There is only one (legal) way to forcibly remove a President from power: a successful impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate and these require Super-majorities. All they can do is talk on this and if they do that absolutely shuts down negotiation on everything, the Executive isn't going to play ball while you're publicly trying to impeach them.

Where did I say anything about forcibly removing him?

 

[sugarhigh4242]

Interesting that 'liberals' is being used by some people in the same derogatory way 'socialism' generally is. The current crop of ideological lables, liberalism in particular seems to be reaching its limit. Democracy obviously needs to evolve...The republicans are trying to evolve it in to corporate authoritarianism at present.

It's nothing new:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u52Oz-54VYw

Liberals have always sought to hold back Socialist demands for a democratic political economy. And then they take credit for any gains made by socialists.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Where did I say anything about forcibly removing him?

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with 1) , 2) and 3) if not his removal (and the implication is there with 4) ).

 

[Hooligan69]

The democratic party also needs to be smart and strategic about where it focuses its priorities. Take Puerto Rico for instance, I think the Democratic party should come out forcefully in favor of making them a full fledged US state. Keep pounding that drum and force the GOP and Trump to take a stance. If they agree, great you've likely gained seats in Congress (won't happen). If they oppose it, and Trump is his usual racist self, it will be a clear signal to Latino-Americans that the GOP is not on their side.

I like this! If only they were that forward thinking and long-game oriented like the GOP. It's time for them to play 3d chess while Trump is playing 360 no-scope COD.

 

[tbm24]

I like this! If only they were that forward thinking and long-game oriented like the GOP. It's time for them to play 3d chess while Trump is playing 360 no-scope COD.

I know way too many latinos who wouldn't care at all what Puerto Rico's status ends up being. Hell I know many who place Puerto Rico in its own category respective to the rest of US Latinos, same with Cubans for that matter.

 

[royalan]

I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve with 1) , 2) and 3) if not his removal (and the implication is there with 4) ).

No.

Democrats need to oppose Trump, whether or not they can forcibly remove him.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

Former Presidents can hold office in Congress. Obama could do a great job running for the Speaker of the House at some point.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

The democratic party also needs to be smart and strategic about where it focuses its priorities. Take Puerto Rico for instance, I think the Democratic party should come out forcefully in favor of making them a full fledged US state. Keep pounding that drum and force the GOP and Trump to take a stance. If they agree, great you've likely gained seats in Congress (won't happen). If they oppose it, and Trump is his usual racist self, it will be a clear signal to Latino-Americans that the GOP is not on their side.

D.C. And PR need statehood the next D Pres. Easy, reliable seats that at worst would require Republicans to change for them to compete.

 

[royalan]

Even the guys at the Crooked Media podcast (formerly Keepin it 1600) are flabbergasted at Dem senators supporting Trump's cabinet.

 

[Killthee]

Former Presidents can hold office in Congress. Obama could do a great job running for the Speaker of the House at some point.

The same Obama who time after time kept extending olive branches to republicans no matter how many times they spat in his face? That Obama?

 

[User Name Here]

and the other option? I'm dying for the badass brogressives to tell us what the other option was rather than handing power to Trump.

Do what the republicans would do if the situation were in reverse?

 

[tbm24]

Do what the republicans would do if the situation were in reverse?

Republicans could do what they did given their majority in the house and subsequently the senate. Dems have no such luxury.

 

[SlipperyFishes]

The same Obama who time after time kept extending olive branches to republicans no matter how many times they spat in his face? That Obama?

The same one who now doesn't need to act Presedential. He can just tear them apart.

 

[shauntu]

Response to title: Correct, sadly.

 

[Chie Satonaka]

The same one who now doesn't need to act Presedential. He can just tear them apart.

That is not in Barack Obama's nature.

That is not in the Democrats' nature.

That's kinda why we're here discussing this. The Democrats aren't typically known for "tearing anyone apart". They don't do that, and it's hurting the political left right now. We need warriors, not diplomats.

 

[AlimNassor]

Democrats are fucked. They're still holding onto the belief Trump will be stumped in 4 years. With the way things are looking, Trump's gunna win next election hands down. The Dems need to recognize Trump not as the mindless idiot but, as the dangerous power player he really is or else we're handing the entirety of the US over to the right for at least another generation if not more.

 

[aeolist]

Even the guys at the Crooked Media podcast (formerly Keepin it 1600) are flabbergasted at Dem senators supporting Trump's cabinet.

it's sad and fucked up but not surprising in the least. i said this was going to happen as soon as he won.

 

[Ether_Snake]

If the Dems reacted strongly Trump would have his scapegoat, would blame everything on them, and would manage to rally his base and create a conflict on which the law & order agencies would side with him. Bannon is probably trying desperately right now to get a reaction with all the policies we're seeing.

 

[thepotatoman]

Actually if you'd bothered to read the very next sentence you would have seen that I explained why this turned out to be a good strategy for them.

But if the goal is to bring down the president's party at the cost of your own, isn't it still worthwhile to have the symbolic vote showing this to be the most controversial cabinet ever. That still hurts the party in power, even if it's not as much as the absolute stoppage that republicans were able to create.

Especially with people like Ben Carson, where it should be clear to everyone that he is not qualified for the position. These yea votes are instead giving the party in power more legitimacy by giving the power to say people like Carson has bipartisan support.

Treating trump's cabinet with the same voting strategy used for any other cabinet is exactly how Trump becomes normalized.

If the Dems reacted strongly Trump would have his scapegoat, would blame everything on them, and would manage to rally his base and create a conflict on which the law & order agencies would side with him. Bannon is probably trying desperately right now to get a reaction with all the policies we're seeing.

So, ignore them and they will go away?

If I was bannon I'd think I'd be elated at how little attention their appointments and policies are getting.

 

[tbm24]

But if the goal is to bring down the president's party at the cost of your own, isn't it still worthwhile to have the symbolic vote showing this to be the most controversial cabinet ever. That still hurts the party in power, even if it's not as much as the absolute stoppage that republicans were able to create.

Especially with people like Ben Carson, where it should be clear to everyone that he is not qualified for the position. These yea votes are instead giving the party in power more legitimacy by giving the power to say people like Carson has bipartisan support.

Treating trump's cabinet with the same voting strategy used for any other cabinet is exactly how Trump becomes normalized.

By your own admission, if this normalizes a cabinet that is woefully unqualified for their job. What happens when this shows in their inability to perform their duty? Who do you think will be taking the heat? The democrats who voted for them in a situation where they would be confirmed anyway? Or the administration that put them there in the first place? Personally I believe the latter.

 

[LaNaranja]

Tarini Parti @tparti
Asked about how the Merrick Garland experience would affect Dems handling of SCOTUS nom, Schumer: "we're not playing tit for tat here."

So they are playing "roll over and play dead" instead? Schumer has no strategy and no vision.

 

[royalan]

So they are playing "roll over and play dead" instead? Schumer has no strategy and no vision.

The what the hell are you playing!?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

So they are playing "roll over and play dead" instead? Schumer has no strategy and no vision.

Do you really believe it is realistic to block a Supreme Court nominee for 4 years? What about 8?

 

[EdibleKnife]

Even the guys at the Crooked Media podcast (formerly Keepin it 1600) are flabbergasted at Dem senators supporting Trump's cabinet.

That was particularly insane to hear. The dems are battling an unrelenting gorilla and pulling their punches. Does any of this actually matter to these people? Is it actually important that Ben Carson, a truly unqualified individual, doesn't get voted in or is that just what you tell your constituents to placate them? Or is the game you play in politics just that significant that you'll think he's an imbecile at one moment and capitulate when you don't even have to in another? If even just the integrity of the positions matter then it should be a no brainer to take a hardline stance with the opposition.

 

[Kusagari]

Schumer is such a shit leader compared to Reid.

 

[thepotatoman]

By your own admission, if this normalizes a cabinet that is woefully unqualified for their job. What happens when this shows in their inability to perform their duty? Who do you think will be taking the heat? The democrats who voted for them in a situation where they would be confirmed anyway? Or the administration that put them there in the first place? Personally I believe the latter.

There's another problem with democrats, always hoping for the other side to fall on their face, with no back-up plan if they don't.

It's very possible for the administration to be horrible while finding ways to not be damaged by it. See the entire Trump 2016 campaign as an example.

Especially since republican governments failing can simply be used as further evidence of the republican anti-government philosophy.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

I'm actually curious about this.
The IRS has his returns, couldn't the Obama administration just have ordered the IRS to release Trump's tax returns to an internal investigation group to verify corruption and conflict of interest charges?

iirc Obama had that power, to force the release of his tax returns.

 

[tbm24]

So they are playing "roll over and play dead" instead? Schumer has no strategy and no vision.

I'd like to think is they won't obstruct for the sake of obstruction. If an acceptable candidate like Garland is put up they would consider the vote and hear them out. The GOP did not do this, they shafted a nominee they almost all agreed was immensely qualified to hold judicial power in the past.

 

[elrechazado]

Is this a serious question?

1) It would have held Trump to the same standard followed by every presidential candidate since Ford.

2) Would have made plain the truth behind Trump's financial entanglements and conflicts of interest.

3) Given Democrats something more concrete to oppose him with.

4) Would have been technically the right thing to do, as even conservative minds have acknowledged the potential threats to national security posed by Trump's financial secrets.

That's a neat fantasy world you're living in. In the real world, he was on tape talking about pussy grabbing, how hot underage models were, had tons of financial scandals and bankruptcies, on top of all the other crap like the inflammatory rhetoric, the attacks on honorable veterans, and the list goes on. But yeah, he'd totally go down over people seeing his tax returns.

 

[kirblar]

That was particularly insane to hear. The dems are battling an unrelenting gorilla and pulling their punches. Does any of this actually matter to these people? Is it actually important that Ben Carson, a truly unqualified individual, doesn't get voted in or is that just what you tell your constituents to placate them? Or is the game you play in politics just that significant that you'll think he's an imbecile at one moment and capitulate when you don't even have to in another? If even just the integrity of the positions matter then it should be a no brainer to take a hardline stance with the opposition.

Because they want to kill the Sessions nom and it's going to take a miracle to do so.

They have a hit list. The others aren't on it.

 

[User Name Here]

Republicans could do what they did given their majority in the house and subsequently the senate. Dems have no such luxury.

That's true, unfortunately. I guess Obama really didn't have a choice. Although, I wonder if it was possible for them to reform the whole election process within the first two years of his presidency. And if that would've even mattered.

 

[royalan]

That was particularly insane to hear. The dems are battling an unrelenting gorilla and pulling their punches. Does any of this actually matter to these people? Is it actually important that Ben Carson, a truly unqualified individual, doesn't get voted in or is that just what you tell your constituents to placate them? Or is the game you play in politics just that significant that you'll think he's an imbecile at one moment and capitulate when you don't even have to in another? If even just the integrity of the positions matter then it should be a no brainer to take a hardline stance with the opposition.

It's all fucking talk.

What's surprising me, is that we're seeing it with politicians who have based their candidacies on their integrity.

There is absolutely NO worthwhile reason to vote YES on any of Trump's cabinet if you are a Democrat. You will not win respect with Republicans. You have no actual power so you don't have any chips to actually barter with. THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE is the symbolism of your vote, and to turn your back on your voters to placate the Republican party when you know you will get nothing. It's despicable.

And yes, I'm talking about Bernie AND Elizabeth here. Their playing a game of politics that's long been out of circulation.

EDIT: You're going through a world of trouble if you're seriously thinking that Republicans give a shit if Democrats pull punches on certain cabinet picks. When it's Sessions' turn, Republicans are not going to care that Warren voted YES on fucking Carson for HUD.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I'd like to think is they won't obstruct for the sake of obstruction. If an acceptable candidate like Garland is put up they would consider the vote and hear them out. The GOP did not do this, they shafted a nominee they almost all agreed was immensely qualified to hold judicial power in the past.

This is a good general principle but if the other guy isn't playing by it , you shouldn't continue doing so and hope he changes (he won't, he gains more than he loses). You need to punish them. That doesn't mean obstructing everything (blockjng things you agree on like say Mattis as SoD is stupid) but it does mean you should block things you are neutral on and would generally give the benefit of the doubt, you of course stop doing that too if the other guy changes there behaviour m

 

[EdibleKnife]

There's another problem with democrats, always hoping for the other side to fall on their face, with no back-up plan if they don't.

It's very possible for the administration to be horrible while finding ways to not be damaged by it. See the entire Trump 2016 campaign as an example.

This needs to be cast in gold. If you think you're enemy is going to stumble, you should have a damn powerful follow up. If Trump and his administration explode, if the GOP really does collapse, they'd be center stage and would need to come in swinging particularly by making it clear why they fell and what you'd bring to the table

 

[tbm24]

There's another problem with democrats, always hoping for the other side to fall on their face, with no back-up plan if they don't.

It's very possible for the administration to be horrible while finding ways to not be damaged by it. See the entire Trump 2016 campaign as an example.

Especially since republican governments failing can simply be used as further evidence of the republican anti-government philosophy.

While true I still possibly put too much faith in the American people these days, I can understand how trump floated past all the shit thrown at him during an election. I do not see how Trump is going to escape the very real consequences of even half the shit he's done already. I've been to two protests already here in NYC and I fully expect them to not be the last. He's not going to get a free pass because his base is rabid.

 

[thepotatoman]

I'd like to think is they won't obstruct for the sake of obstruction. If an acceptable candidate like Garland is put up they would consider the vote and hear them out. The GOP did not do this, they shafted a nominee they almost all agreed was immensely qualified to hold judicial power in the past.

And even this isn't asking for obstruction for the sake of obstruction. Would there be any other administration where Carson wouldn't be blocked as obviously unfit for the position?

The fact that nearly all of the cabinet is exceptionally terrible means it isn't being obstructionist to vote against it.

 

[Kusagari]

Because they want to kill the Sessions nom and it's going to take a miracle to do so.

They have a hit list. The others aren't on it.

Sessions seems absolutely impossible considering Manchin has already said he will vote for him.

DeVos and Price, Manchin has at least expressed concern about.

 

[shinra-bansho]

They can't block the seat for four years.
You're being completely irrational if you think this viable.
Trump will get a Supreme Court pick.

 

[kirblar]

It's all fucking talk.

What's surprising me, is that we're seeing it with politicians who have based their candidacies on their integrity.

There is absolutely NO worthwhile reason to vote YES on any of Trump's cabinet if you are a Democrat. You will not win respect with Republicans. You have no actual power so you don't have any chips to actually barter with. THE ONLY THING YOU HAVE is the symbolism of your vote, and to turn your back on your voters to placate the Republican party when you know you will get nothing. It's despicable.

And yes, I'm talking about Bernie AND Elizabeth here. Their playing a game of politics that's long been out of circulation.

Because they have limited media access to blow something up.

The whining on social media along the lines of "WHY ARE DEMS FOCUSING ON DEVOS" when she got blown up hard in her hearing was especially inane- she was the one scheduled for that day! They didn't have the luxury of picking which candidate would melt down spectacularly under pressure.

This isn't about the GOP. They're not sucking up to them. It's about media awarenss and the bully pulpit. Sessions is the big target, and they are preparing a salvo for him. Carson is an idiot- but that means he's not going to know what to do to be dangerous. Sessions is not, and we know exactly what his agenda will be. He is by far the most dangerous person to let through, and they know it. They need as much media pressure as humanly possible to spotlight that piece of crap. And even if it doesn't work, they need to get as much information out there to people about him as possible, because he has the potential to do incredible amounts of damage to the country.

 

[tbm24]

But even this isn't asking for obstruction for the sake of obstruction. Would there be any other administration where Carson wouldn't be blocked as obviously unfit for the position?

The fact that nearly all of the cabinet is exceptionally terrible means it isn't being obstructionist to vote against it.

I don't see any situation where Carson is blocked without Republican defection. I don't know why people like Warren gave them a pass but all I can realistically point to is picking your battles. We will see what occurs with Tillerson and how that fight is going to go. So far having tuned in to most of the hearings that I could, Dems have not rolled over in finding different ways to put statements on record to hold over someone like say Carson. Will it be effective we'll have to see, but I can't imagine they are not being strategic. The the DeVos, Tillerson, Price, and Mnuchin hearings will be the most telling, not the Carson one. I'm missing another awful pick but can't remember his name.

 

[kirblar]

I don't see any situation where Carson is blocked without Republican defection. I don't know why people like Warren gave them a pass but all I can realistically point to is picking your battles. We will see what occurs with Tillerson and how that fight is going to go. So far having tuned in to most of the hearings that I could, Dems have not rolled over in finding different ways to put statements on record to hold over someone like say Carson. Will it be effective we'll have to see, but I can't imagine they are not being strategic. The the DeVos, Tillerson, Price, and Mnuchin hearings will be the most telling, not the Carson one. I'm missing another awful pick but can't remember his name.

Tillerson's going through because he was getting pushed by at least one NeoCon (Condi) and something's being said to reassure the Hawks behind closed doors.

The feedback on the Mnuchin hearing was actually positive, since he appears to be at least mainstream POV and not a crazy populist.

 

[faisal233]

Do what the republicans would do if the situation were in reverse?

What republicans have always done after losing a presidential election? Hand power off to the other party, allow most of the cabinet to get through confirmation, then fight the legislative agenda.