(02-03-2020 07:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 03:44 PM)mrbig Wrote:  The idea that McConnell didn't play enough hardball is pretty mesmerizing though. He held open a Supreme Court seat for 11 months (Scalia's death until Trump's inauguration).

You mean the 'Biden Rule', right?

The "Biden Rule" is from a speech Biden gave on 6/25/92 when there was not an open seat waiting to be filled and it was 4.5 months before the election. McConnell invoked (but did not implement) the "Biden Rule" on 3/16/16 when there was an open seat waiting to be filled. As an attorney, I'm sure you can appreciate some pretty significant distinctions: (1) Biden was literally arguing that there should be a senate rule passed (I actually support such a rule if you dig through the Supreme Court thread) while McConnell did not and is not supportive of such a rule that would apply in the future; (2) Biden was speaking hypothetically about a possible open seat while McConnell was implementing the idea to block a seat that had been open for 1 month; (3) compared to the relative upcoming elections, Scalia died 4.5 months before Biden argued in favor of such a rule.

(02-03-2020 07:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:He got rid of blue slips on judicial nominees.

No, not really. He ixnayed blue slips on Court of Appeals nominees when the nominee came from the state trying to blue-slip. The State level blue slip is completely intact.

And when you look at the difference between an Court of Appeals jurisdiction versus that of a District Court, his removing it kind of makes sense. I mean, for example taking the 5th Circuit, why should a LA Senator be able to ixnay the composition of Court that has LA, Texas, and Mississippi in it?

The blue slip for Texas District courts y a Texas Senator makes absolute sense, and it is still in effect.

Grandiose points foul there.

I knew all this. I'm surprised you didn't realize I knew all this. I'm trying to avoid long posts when I am trying to make a short point. McConnell still got rid of blue slips for appellate nominees when they existed for decades, regardless of whether blue slips made sense for appellate nominees. This kind of retort ignores the larger point I was making. No need for either of us to get bogged in this level of minutia unless we are arguing about judicial confirmations or blue slips specifically.

(02-03-2020 07:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:He repeatedly sits on bipartisan legislation. I don't see what more he could have done.

Riddle me this, what bipartisan legislation has the Senate passed that Pelosi blocked?

Riddle me this: do you put in the 231 ayes with 3 Republicans as 'bipartisan' as much as the democrat senate webpage does?

Sure, it passed with votes from both parties. If Manchin or Sinema vote to acquit tomorrow, doesn't that make Trump's acquittal bipartisan? Impeachment would have been bipartisan if Amash had stayed in the republican party a few more months.

I'd be fine with McConnell putting those on the floor and then voting them down. My problem is that he doesn't put them on the floor. Also, during the 2018-19 government shutdown, after the new Congress was sworn in, the House passed the appropriations bill that previously passed the senate unanimously in December 2018. McConnell refused to even bring the bill up for a vote. The House passed the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization with 33 Republicans and McConnell refuses to bring it to the floor of the Senate. The House passed a background check bill with 8 Republicans. McConnell refuses to bring it to the floor. 7 Republicans in the House voted for the DACA fix that McConnell will not bring to the floor for a vote.

(02-04-2020 11:27 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 11:09 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I don't think all your policy viewpoints are Fox News talking points. To the contrary, I realize (and you have done a good job pointing out) areas where you do not agree with mainstream conservative orthodoxy. My comment was limited to your discussions of impeachment, false dossiers, and lying to FISA courts (etc.). I find your comments on political discussions (as opposed to policy discussions) to be very similar to the blurbs I see on Fox News and being screamed at me by Lindsey Graham.

(02-04-2020 11:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I find it interesting to see dismissed, as "Fox News talking points," issue positions that I held long before I ever heard anything about them on Fox News, and in some cases long before there even was a Fox News.
I think Fox had a very interesting business concept. All of the other MSM outlets had a definite left bias, so why not start a niche business based on presenting news with a right-wing slant. As a cable network, they are limited in number of TV sets they can reach, although with the coming of satellite and cable, and now the advent of streaming, there are fewer and fewer people relying on on-air TV so that limitation is disappearing.
I'm still a bit surprised that one of the big four--ABC, CBS, NBC, or CNN--hasn't seen Fox's success and moved to fill the gap between hard-left and hard-right in mews reporting. That is a fairly wide gap, and I would think could be a lucrative one.

I think Big's comment was directed at OO, not at me, so not sure why you are juxtaposing them here.

And I was making a generic observation, not responding to any specific post. That's why I didn't quote any other post. More than once, I've had a comment dismissed as a "Fox News talking point," when I had never heard anything even similar on Fox, perhaps because I don't watch or listen to Fox very much, particularly since it has gone so far into te tank for Trump. I think there is a tendency among many leftists to dismiss as a "Fox News talking point" any statement with which they disagree. I don't think that fits in my case, and frankly not in OO's either.

(02-04-2020 12:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  yes, after all I have done and said to explain my viewpoints, it is frustrating for him to assume that all I do is sit gape-mouthed in from a TV for somebody to tell me what to think.

To reiterate myself because I wasn't trying to insult you, that comment by me was limited to a couple specific things you mentioned, not your entire set of beliefs.

(02-04-2020 12:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I arrive at my opinions without being told, thank you, but his use of the supposedly damning "Fox news talking points' sounds like maybe he gets his opinions from a TV set. That is very much the talk of somebody who is dismissive of what I think.

I don't dismiss his opinions as MSNBC talking points.

I rarely watch cable news. Really the only time I listen is after a debate or the state of the union to see what the talking heads are saying for a few minutes of if there is some big issue like after the Soleimani killing and Iran missile attack. I listen to a couple podcasts but mostly read stuff online.

(02-04-2020 12:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I have not put Big on Ignore.

(02-04-2020 11:39 AM)mrbig Wrote:  I'd be fine with McConnell putting those on the floor and then voting them down. My problem is that he doesn't put them on the floor. Also, during the 2018-19 government shutdown, after the new Congress was sworn in, the House passed the appropriations bill that previously passed the senate unanimously in December 2018. McConnell refused to even bring the bill up for a vote. The House passed the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization with 33 Republicans and McConnell refuses to bring it to the floor of the Senate. The House passed a background check bill with 8 Republicans. McConnell refuses to bring it to the floor. 7 Republicans in the House voted for the DACA fix that McConnell will not bring to the floor for a vote.

Given the size of the house delegation, I wouldn't call anything with 7 or 8, or even 33, republican votes "bipartisan." 33 might be nearing marginal, but I would think something around 50 or more would be the minimum to call anything truly bipartisan.

(02-04-2020 06:07 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

Quote:Riddle me this, what bipartisan legislation has the Senate passed that Pelosi blocked?

What bipartisan legislation--I mean truly bipartisan--has either house, with either party in the majority, passed in years? I mean something truly material, not naming post offices. There just isn't a whole lot.

On 6/27/13, the dem-controlled Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform by a vote of 68-32, which included 14 republican senators (30% of the republican senate caucus). Boehner refused to bring it to the floor for a vote.

(02-04-2020 11:09 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 03:55 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 11:29 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When you can point o investigations and impeachments, false dossiers and lying to FISA courts, call me back.

As for your other Fox News talking points, the FISA stuff isn't really a partisan issue. ...

I find this very insulting. Odd coming from the guy who complained about civility. Well, not really, considering the Democratic Double Standard.
...
On what basis do you think a thoughtful conservative could not come to certain conclusions without listening to Fox News? Many of my ideas were formed long before Fox News existed. Maybe they are parroting me. I do change, when presented with a thoughtful case that changes my thinking.

1Perhaps you have blocked me again, but if you read my comment more carefully, you will note that my "Fox News talking points" comment was only about the remaining things you mentioned in that specific post (which I bolded). That comment was not meant at all to be directed at everything you have posted on politics or policy.

I don't think all your policy viewpoints are Fox News talking points. To the contrary, I realize (and you have done a good job pointing out) areas where you do not agree with mainstream conservative orthodoxy. My comment was limited to your discussions of impeachment, false dossiers, and lying to FISA courts (etc.). I find your comments on political discussions (as opposed to policy discussions) to be very similar to the blurbs I see on Fox News and being screamed at me by Lindsey Graham.

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Yes, I try to set the record straight. I am not a Republican, a word that when you use it, sounds a lot like leper or nazi.

2Really? Maybe you are confusing me with someone else? I'm not very fond of most of the current Republicans in Congress, but my antipathy is largely limited to them and Trump.

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am not a party animal, certainly not to the extent you are.

3I mean, I like beer, but I live a pretty boring existence and am hardly a party animal.

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I wish the Libertarians were mainstream - they would get a lot more of my support.

4Me too! Part of the reason I support ranked choice voting!

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How diverse have your presidential votes been?

[5Gore, Kerry, Obama x2, Clinton. I haven't been thumping my chest about not being a democrat . I will say that my favorite politicians throughout high school and college were Republicans from the northeast like Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow, and Arlen Specter. I felt my beliefs most closely aligned with them, but there haven't been many people like them on ballots in states where I have lived.

Notably, I liked all 4 of them while they were still Republicans in the late 90's and early 00's. Of course, Jeffords, Chaffee, and Specter later transitioned to independents with Jeffords and Chaffee both ultimately landing in the democratic party.

Good morning, Big. No, you are not blocked.
For ease of reference, I have numbered your responses.

1- first, even if only in part, you did accuse me of parroting "Fox News Talking Points", as though I was some mindless village idiot who wouldn't know what to say without their prompting.

Second, WTH are Fox News Talking Points (FNTP) anyway? Where do I find them? Is there a website where they are enumerated so I will will know what to say? If I say the sky is blue, and some Fox anchor says the sky is blue, is that me parroting him?

Third, what is the difference between Fox and the other networks in this regard? Do not other networks present their own opinions, which closely match yours? Does that mean you are presenting their talking points, not your own?

Fourth, "Fox News Talking Points" is one of the phrases used by certain people to diminish the importance of other people's opinions. That is the way you used it on me.

2- Your antipathy is limited to Republicans in Congress and Trump? _ So, to be clear, largely people I would support, since every one of them is running against a Democrat who likely would have a platform I could not support. They may all be evil, but they are pretty much all the lesser evil.

3 - nice way to doge by intentionally misunderstanding the statement. (And so people say I am obtuse at times!!) But no, what I meant is that you hew to the Democratic party lines a lot more than I hew to the Republican party lines. Both in what you support and what you choose to ignore or explain away.

4- By mainsteam, I meant actual factors in elections, not symbolic alternatives. Since they would only come into play as a second choice if a
Democrat or Republican was outvoted by a splinter party, pretty much a nonhappening.

5- In those same five elections, I voted Bush, write in of a Democrat not nominated, McCain, Romney, and nobody.

Which of us is the bigger party animal?

I tend to like the middle/moderates better - Manchin, Collins, etc. One reason why in 2016 I never supported Trump. But in the Presidential election, I usually have a binary choice between so-so and bad. If it makes you happy, call me a Republican. Sure would surprise the local county Republican chairman to hear that.

So, if it comes down to Trump V. Sanders, who will you vote for and why? I have explained many times why I will vote for Trump. Why will you vote for the Socialist? Because he would be the Dem candidate? To beat Trump? Because you support Socialist policies over Capitalist policies?

So nice to talk with you without Fountains in the middle.

(02-04-2020 12:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 11:09 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  1Perhaps you have blocked me again, but if you read my comment more carefully, you will note that my "Fox News talking points" comment was only about the remaining things you mentioned in that specific post (which I bolded). That comment was not meant at all to be directed at everything you have posted on politics or policy.

I don't think all your policy viewpoints are Fox News talking points. To the contrary, I realize (and you have done a good job pointing out) areas where you do not agree with mainstream conservative orthodoxy. My comment was limited to your discussions of impeachment, false dossiers, and lying to FISA courts (etc.). I find your comments on political discussions (as opposed to policy discussions) to be very similar to the blurbs I see on Fox News and being screamed at me by Lindsey Graham.

[quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='16651671' dateline='1580772651']
I am not a party animal, certainly not to the extent you are.

3I mean, I like beer, but I live a pretty boring existence and am hardly a party animal.

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How diverse have your presidential votes been?

[5Gore, Kerry, Obama x2, Clinton. I haven't been thumping my chest about not being a democrat . I will say that my favorite politicians throughout high school and college were Republicans from the northeast like Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow, and Arlen Specter. I felt my beliefs most closely aligned with them, but there haven't been many people like them on ballots in states where I have lived.

Notably, I liked all 4 of them while they were still Republicans in the late 90's and early 00's. Of course, Jeffords, Chaffee, and Specter later transitioned to independents with Jeffords and Chaffee both ultimately landing in the democratic party.

Good morning, Big. No, you are not blocked.
For ease of reference, I have numbered your responses.

1- first, even if only in part, you did accuse me of parroting "Fox News Talking Points", as though I was some mindless village idiot who wouldn't know what to say with their prompting.

Second, WTH are Fox News Talking Points (FNTP) anyway? Where do I fins them? Is there a website where they are enumerated so I will will know what to say? If I say the sky is blue, and some Fox anchor says the sky is blue, is that me parroting him?

Third, what is the difference between Fox and the other networks in this regard? Do not other networks present their own opinions, which closely match yours? Does that mean you are presenting their talking points, not your own?

Fourth, "Fox News Talking Points" is one of the phrases used by certain people to diminish the importance of other people's opinions. That is the way you used it on me.
...
3 - nice way to doge by intentionally misunderstanding the statement. (And so people say I am obtuse at times!!) But no, what I meant is that you hew to the Democratic party lines a lot more than I hew to the Republican party lines. Both in what you support and what you choose to ignore or explain away.

1 - honestly, as I think about it, Fox News talking points is not as accurate as "congressional republican talking points". My bad. I don't listen to Fox News at all so I really don't know what their hosts and talking heads are saying. But I do see almost every Republican saying the same thing on some of these political issues and some of what you have said on impeachment/Ukraine and Mueller/Russia issues sounds like it has been straight from the mouth of the most ardent Trump supporting republican congresspersons.

3 - I was making a joke. I agree that I am pretty close to the democratic party generally on policy matters. I disagree with you on me choosing to ignore or explain things away like the average democratic politician. I think Bill Clinton should have been impeached and removed from office for lying under oath. I think a lot of the rules/procedures in Congress should be formalized into law so that the parties can't mess with the rules/procedures every time a different party swings into power. That's why I don't really care if Reid/Schumer started it or McConnell started it, I just want to see "it" fixed. Get rid of the pocket filibuster. Get rid of the majority leader and speaker's ability to sit on legislation passed by the other part of congress. Set formalized deadlines for how judicial nominees are handled, increase the number of votes required for "advice and consent", and get rid of filibusters for appointees. I'm basically for anything that can stop politicians on both sides from being hypocrites.

(02-04-2020 12:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, if it comes down to Trump V. Sanders, who will you vote for and why? I have explained many times why I will vote for Trump. Why will you vote for the Socialist? Because he would be the Dem candidate? To beat Trump? Because you support Socialist policies over Capitalist policies?

Hold my nose and vote for Sanders, for the same (but mirror image) reasons you held your nose and voted Trump in 2016. But most of Sanders' socialist policies will never pass through Congress so he will either compromise to positions I can largely support or at least not fear. Plus, I think Bernie is a decent human being even if I disagree with him on some stuff.

(02-04-2020 12:43 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 12:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 11:09 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  1Perhaps you have blocked me again, but if you read my comment more carefully, you will note that my "Fox News talking points" comment was only about the remaining things you mentioned in that specific post (which I bolded). That comment was not meant at all to be directed at everything you have posted on politics or policy.

I don't think all your policy viewpoints are Fox News talking points. To the contrary, I realize (and you have done a good job pointing out) areas where you do not agree with mainstream conservative orthodoxy. My comment was limited to your discussions of impeachment, false dossiers, and lying to FISA courts (etc.). I find your comments on political discussions (as opposed to policy discussions) to be very similar to the blurbs I see on Fox News and being screamed at me by Lindsey Graham.

[quote='OptimisticOwl' pid='16651671' dateline='1580772651']
I am not a party animal, certainly not to the extent you are.

3I mean, I like beer, but I live a pretty boring existence and am hardly a party animal.

(02-03-2020 06:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  How diverse have your presidential votes been?

[5Gore, Kerry, Obama x2, Clinton. I haven't been thumping my chest about not being a democrat . I will say that my favorite politicians throughout high school and college were Republicans from the northeast like Jim Jeffords, Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snow, and Arlen Specter. I felt my beliefs most closely aligned with them, but there haven't been many people like them on ballots in states where I have lived.

Notably, I liked all 4 of them while they were still Republicans in the late 90's and early 00's. Of course, Jeffords, Chaffee, and Specter later transitioned to independents with Jeffords and Chaffee both ultimately landing in the democratic party.

Good morning, Big. No, you are not blocked.
For ease of reference, I have numbered your responses.

1- first, even if only in part, you did accuse me of parroting "Fox News Talking Points", as though I was some mindless village idiot who wouldn't know what to say with their prompting.

Second, WTH are Fox News Talking Points (FNTP) anyway? Where do I fins them? Is there a website where they are enumerated so I will will know what to say? If I say the sky is blue, and some Fox anchor says the sky is blue, is that me parroting him?

Third, what is the difference between Fox and the other networks in this regard? Do not other networks present their own opinions, which closely match yours? Does that mean you are presenting their talking points, not your own?

Fourth, "Fox News Talking Points" is one of the phrases used by certain people to diminish the importance of other people's opinions. That is the way you used it on me.
...
3 - nice way to doge by intentionally misunderstanding the statement. (And so people say I am obtuse at times!!) But no, what I meant is that you hew to the Democratic party lines a lot more than I hew to the Republican party lines. Both in what you support and what you choose to ignore or explain away.

1 - honestly, as I think about it, Fox News talking points is not as accurate as "congressional republican talking points". My bad. I don't listen to Fox News at all so I really don't know what their hosts and talking heads are saying. But I do see almost every Republican saying the same thing on some of these political issues and some of what you have said on impeachment/Ukraine and Mueller/Russia issues sounds like it has been straight from the mouth of the most ardent Trump supporting republican congresspersons.

3 - I was making a joke. I agree that I am pretty close to the democratic party generally on policy matters. I disagree with you on me choosing to ignore or explain things away like the average democratic politician. I think Bill Clinton should have been impeached and removed from office for lying under oath. I think a lot of the rules/procedures in Congress should be formalized into law so that the parties can't mess with the rules/procedures every time a different party swings into power. That's why I don't really care if Reid/Schumer started it or McConnell started it, I just want to see "it" fixed. Get rid of the pocket filibuster. Get rid of the majority leader and speaker's ability to sit on legislation passed by the other part of congress. Set formalized deadlines for how judicial nominees are handled, increase the number of votes required for "advice and consent", and get rid of filibusters for appointees. I'm basically for anything that can stop politicians on both sides from being hypocrites.

(02-04-2020 12:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, if it comes down to Trump V. Sanders, who will you vote for and why? I have explained many times why I will vote for Trump. Why will you vote for the Socialist? Because he would be the Dem candidate? To beat Trump? Because you support Socialist policies over Capitalist policies?

Hold my nose and vote for Sanders, for the same (but mirror image) reasons you held your nose and voted Trump in 2016. But most of Sanders' socialist policies will never pass through Congress so he will either compromise to positions I can largely support or at least not fear. Plus, I think Bernie is a decent human being even if I disagree with him on some stuff.

Last first. Have you not been listening all the 2,279 times I explained I did not vote for Trump in 2016?

Yes I think Sanders is a decent but misguided man. I did not think Hillary was a decent person.

But I am not going to rely on congress to slow him down. What if you are wrong, and Congress passes it all?

First last -

You just cannot give me any credit for thinking for myself, can you? You do realize that everything you say about me could just as easily be said about you.

I will just quote the old saying: Great minds run in the same path. Just because somebody in Congress or on TV has the same ideas as me or you does not mean we got the idea there.

For example, my thinking on illegal immigration has been shaped by 70 years of intimate involvement with immigrants, both legal and illegal. It was not some Congressman's speech. But maybe, we can to similar conclusions. When you come to a similar conclusion as some Democrat in Congress, is it because they have told you what to think? That is the insulting part - that you think I am so stupid that I have to find my opinions from somebody else. I do not return the implication that you are stupid because your issues, solutions, and even words mirror those of somebody else.

I think your opinion of me is demeaning. But it is not unusual for people on the left to consider right-wingers as mindless fools who just follow the leader. Remember "Deplorables"? Remember the cheering when Hillary said that?

Whatever. You think I am a mindless bot. Let's just move on.

(02-04-2020 11:39 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 07:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:He got rid of blue slips on judicial nominees.

No, not really. He ixnayed blue slips on Court of Appeals nominees when the nominee came from the state trying to blue-slip. The State level blue slip is completely intact.

And when you look at the difference between an Court of Appeals jurisdiction versus that of a District Court, his removing it kind of makes sense. I mean, for example taking the 5th Circuit, why should a LA Senator be able to ixnay the composition of Court that has LA, Texas, and Mississippi in it?

The blue slip for Texas District courts y a Texas Senator makes absolute sense, and it is still in effect.

Grandiose points foul there.

I knew all this. I'm surprised you didn't realize I knew all this. I'm trying to avoid long posts when I am trying to make a short point. McConnell still got rid of blue slips for appellate nominees when they existed for decades, regardless of whether blue slips made sense for appellate nominees. This kind of retort ignores the larger point I was making. No need for either of us to get bogged in this level of minutia unless we are arguing about judicial confirmations or blue slips specifically.

He got rid of a really inane rule that allowed blue slips on some judicial nominees which allowed any Senator from any particular state to veto a choice over an appellate circuit and not just that state.

Does that sound accurate?

I am just saying that your 9 words: first, makes it look like he blew out *all* blue slips which isnt the case; second, the decision to remove it there actually made sense on light of the very targeted jurisdiction that was at question. The second point ostensibly glossed over in a rush to castigate on a broad scheme.

(02-04-2020 11:39 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-03-2020 07:35 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:He repeatedly sits on bipartisan legislation. I don't see what more he could have done.

Riddle me this, what bipartisan legislation has the Senate passed that Pelosi blocked?

Riddle me this: do you put in the 231 ayes with 3 Republicans as 'bipartisan' as much as the democrat senate webpage does?

Sure, it passed with votes from both parties. If Manchin or Sinema vote to acquit tomorrow, doesn't that make Trump's acquittal bipartisan?

Not at all. I dont consider 10% of an opposition voting against their party a bipartisan support in the slightest.

I dont consider the nomination votes on Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Kagan, or Alito to be bipartisan either. Sotomayor just barely.

But then again, I am of the age where stuff actually happened with 70-95 votes in the Senate.

Quote:[quote]
Impeachment would have been bipartisan if Amash had stayed in the republican party a few more months.

Wow, that is a stretch.

By your weird as hell definition the stance of opposing the impeachment was bipartisan. On both counts.

tanq - I understand what you are saying. I'm just using a more technical definition of bipartisan. I don't think senate or house leadership should block as many bills or nominations as they have in the last decade. Full stop. That's really my only point. In this day of hyper-partisanship, I'd rather have up-or-down votes on legislation if at least a few people from each party in either the house or senate vote in favor of it. That would probably work against my policy desires in some instances (forcing dems to vote on bills pushed with majority republican support). But so be it. Right now there are too many ways to gum up the works. If people want to filibuster, make them talk and talk and talk like the old days. If the House or Senate passes a bill, make the other half of the legislative branch at least vote on the legislation or amend and vote on the legislation. Make the president (whomever he or she is) veto more legislation if that is the way it goes.

OO - my bad, you have said you did not vote for Trump on numerous occasions! I knew that too, no good excuse from me.

OO - I give you full credit for free thinking on many policy issues. To be fair, you are correct that I have no idea whether you opinions on impeachment/Ukraine or Mueller/Russia were formed through thoughtful reflection or having it directly injected into your brain (please note use of hyperbole) by Fox News or the volume of Lindsey Graham's bellows (please note use of hyperbole). So I concede the point and I really was not trying to be insulting. I apologize it came off that way, I will be more careful with my language.

OO (and others) - What I don't get is how someone who thinks as independently as you do on some things comes to the exact same position on impeachment/Ukraine and Mueller/Russia as Fox News and Lindsey Graham. And it isn't just you. As far as I can tell you, 69/70/75, and tanq all think impeachment/Ukraine and Mueller/Russia are much ado about nothing and/or a hoax and/or partisan politics run amok. I am horrified by Trump's actions and I would be equally horrified if a democrat was doing the same thing. It boggles my mind that the 3 of you shrug. I mean, multiple Republican senators have now said they think Trump acted inappropriately, even if they will not remove him from office. Many, many, many former Republicans (including former congresspeople) agree. Why would they do that if it was some Democratic fever-dream?

I'll end with this, something I have asked similar questions a few times now (with no responses). Pretend Elizabeth Warren wins the nomination.
(1) Is it OK for her to get on stage at the democratic convention and say, "China, if you can dig up some dirt on the Trump family then my administration will give you more favorable treatment on trade and human rights issues."? If it is not OK and she is subsequently elected, what should happen?
(2) If Warren is elected (without the hypo in #1) and Trump immediately announces that he is running against her in 2024. Can President Warren call Putin and say, "Vlad, I think the Trump family is corrupt and corruption is a big problem. If you can give me evidence of their corruption or announce investigations into them, the USA will stop sending financial support to Ukraine for 2 years." If it is not OK, what should happen?

I think both are bad, bad, bad. Both should result in her removal from office via impeachment. I'll take President Pence over Trump in a heartbeat.

(02-04-2020 03:58 PM)mrbig Wrote:  tanq - I understand what you are saying. I'm just using a more technical definition of bipartisan. I don't think senate or house leadership should block as many bills or nominations as they have in the last decade. Full stop. That's really my only point. In this day of hyper-partisanship, I'd rather have up-or-down votes on legislation if at least a few people from each party in either the house or senate vote in favor of it. That would probably work against my policy desires in some instances (forcing dems to vote on bills pushed with majority republican support). But so be it. Right now there are too many ways to gum up the works. If people want to filibuster, make them talk and talk and talk like the old days. If the House or Senate passes a bill, make the other half of the legislative branch at least vote on the legislation or amend and vote on the legislation. Make the president (whomever he or she is) veto more legislation if that is the way it goes.

OO - my bad, you have said you did not vote for Trump on numerous occasions! I knew that too, no good excuse from me.

OO - I give you full credit for free thinking on many policy issues. To be fair, you are correct that I have no idea whether you opinions on impeachment/Ukraine or Mueller/Russia were formed through thoughtful reflection or having it directly injected into your brain (please note use of hyperbole) by Fox News or the volume of Lindsey Graham's bellows (please note use of hyperbole). So I concede the point and I really was not trying to be insulting. I apologize it came off that way, I will be more careful with my language.

OO (and others) - What I don't get is how someone who thinks as independently as you do on some things comes to the exact same position on impeachment/Ukraine and Mueller/Russia as Fox News and Lindsey Graham. And it isn't just you. As far as I can tell you, 69/70/75, and tanq all think impeachment/Ukraine and Mueller/Russia are much ado about nothing and/or a hoax and/or partisan politics run amok. I am horrified by Trump's actions and I would be equally horrified if a democrat was doing the same thing. It boggles my mind that the 3 of you shrug. I mean, multiple Republican senators have now said they think Trump acted inappropriately, even if they will not remove him from office. Many, many, many former Republicans (including former congresspeople) agree. Why would they do that if it was some Democratic fever-dream?

I'll end with this, something I have asked similar questions a few times now (with no responses). Pretend Elizabeth Warren wins the nomination.
(1) Is it OK for her to get on stage at the democratic convention and say, "China, if you can dig up some dirt on the Trump family then my administration will give you more favorable treatment on trade and human rights issues."? If it is not OK and she is subsequently elected, what should happen?
(2) If Warren is elected (without the hypo in #1) and Trump immediately announces that he is running against her in 2024. Can President Warren call Putin and say, "Vlad, I think the Trump family is corrupt and corruption is a big problem. If you can give me evidence of their corruption or announce investigations into them, the USA will stop sending financial support to Ukraine for 2 years." If it is not OK, what should happen?

I think both are bad, bad, bad. Both should result in her removal from office via impeachment. I'll take President Pence over Trump in a heartbeat.

Last first - I think your examples in your two questions are flawed and biased. Straighten them out and I will respond.

Middle second - Long before you got here I was asking Lad and others what they thought the narrative of Trump/Russia could be. Best I ever got back was a “if there is smoke, there may be fire and so it must be investigated” from Lad, which is why I reference smoke so much to him. He seems to be unimpressed with the smoke around the Biden’s and the FBI, the people blowing the smoke about Trump he wanted investigated.

But the whole idea of Russia/trump collusion did not make any logical sense. I always thought it was hysteria born of being butt hurt over Hillary losing. Mueller’s long investigation found no collusion. If you want, go back to the 2017 posts and catch up.

first last. Ukraine/trump. I am just not as horrified by this as you think I should be. Maybe I am jaded by the incessant shrill cries of Adam Schiff that the evidence is in plain sight on the table, or the incessant shrill cries of Tlaib that we are going to impeach the ************, or the incessant shrill cries that he must be ousted for any reason ASAP. Maybe I think he is good for America in many ways, and we should not rush to get rid of him, especially when thenDemocratic alternatives are so lacking in direction and substance. Maybe it is a combination. But I am a firm believer in knowing where I will land before I leap of the cliff. I see nothing in any of thenDemocrats that makes me think we can land in a better place than where we are. I cannot see what it is about a good economy, good jobs, oil independence, and a strong foreign policy that makes Democrats think we need a change.

He is not perfect - but he is a damn sight better than anything you guys are offering up.

Obviously, this is not what I thought of him in 2016, else I would have voted for him. But his results and record have brought me over.

(02-04-2020 03:58 PM)mrbig Wrote:  (2) If Warren is elected (without the hypo in #1) and Trump immediately announces that he is running against her in 2024. Can President Warren call Putin and say, "Vlad, I think the Trump family is corrupt and corruption is a big problem. If you can give me evidence of their corruption or announce investigations into them, the USA will stop sending financial support to Ukraine for 2 years." If it is not OK, what should happen?

We'll finally get the pee tape!

(02-04-2020 04:59 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 03:58 PM)mrbig Wrote:  (2) If Warren is elected (without the hypo in #1) and Trump immediately announces that he is running against her in 2024. Can President Warren call Putin and say, "Vlad, I think the Trump family is corrupt and corruption is a big problem. If you can give me evidence of their corruption or announce investigations into them, the USA will stop sending financial support to Ukraine for 2 years." If it is not OK, what should happen?

We'll finally get the pee tape!

That would interesting, if it is real.

It would also be interesting if it turns out to be not real.

But isn’t Putin the original source of the tape?

new polls

Quote:Is it OK for her to get on stage at the democratic convention and say, "China, if you can dig up some dirt on the Trump family then my administration will give you more favorable treatment on trade and human rights issues."? If it is not OK and she is subsequently elected, what should happen?

Please note where Trump was on a stage and said "[pick your country], if you can dig up some dirt on the [whomever] family then my administration will give you more favorable treatment on [whatnot] issues."

If Warren stood on stage and said "China, send us some hacked documents that you may or may not have from Trump's uber-secret computer", I dont think I would be as appalled as you would be. If Trump happened to be embroiled in a 'running an offsite server that had scads of top secret info in it' that had just been released, then it might actually be appropriate to jokingly refer to that absolute inability to perform a basic duty in that manner. And I would take that comment as such a truthful, yet sharp, jab at that utter inability to safeguard US secrets.

I have zero issue with truthful information being added to the discourse, and really dont care whether the source is Russia, a pissed of Trump ex. If the information is truthful, I dont even mind some shitter law firm paying some shitter ex-spook who would pay some shitter ex-bad spook for that information. At least in that respect, according to some here, that is the 'legal' way to involve such non-US nationals. And, according to one House Impeachment Manager as well.

Quote:If Warren is elected (without the hypo in #1) and Trump immediately announces that he is running against her in 2024. Can President Warren call Putin and say, "Vlad, I think the Trump family is corrupt and corruption is a big problem. If you can give me evidence of their corruption or announce investigations into them, the USA will stop sending financial support to Ukraine for 2 years." If it is not OK, what should happen?

If there is a rational basis, even in the slightest, that the Trump family corrupted themselves in his tenure in office, I think there would exist at least a prima facie obligation for the chief law enforcement officer to root that out. I dont believe that an announcement to run should be a shield to an investigation, as lad has stated.

This one boils down to intent -- something I have stated very clearly all along. If there is zero intent on an investigation for real reasons (i.e. the *only* intent is to self-help), then absolutely there is a problem. The issue then goes to if there was even a smidgeon of any rational basis, then the effort should, by definition and by definition of the office and its duties, fai
This Congress wanted to make the intent the opposite polarity -- that is, if there is any smidgeon of self-help, then the effort should be impeachable. But the problem there, as Dershowitz so clearly explained, just about *everything* a chief executive does or says has at *least* an iota of self-help embedded in it.

I mean, if that is the tack you want to take, then Obama's plea to the Russian ambassador on the live mic in asking for time — “particularly with missile defense” — until he is in a better position politically to resolve such issues, then followed with the infamous "After my election I have more flexibility” is *also* an impeachable act.

I will absolutely state that I found the Obama statement kowtowing and defeatist, and grotesque, but never in a million years could I find that impeachable.

If one can show that Trump had *zero* intent on *anything but* self-help, then I might join you. But, you and I know that that is an impossible standard. And back to your question, I think the provable intent of Warren would be at the absolute crux of whether that should be impeachable or not.

But, from my point of view, the Democrats in the absolute *zeal* of removing and obviating the election of 2016 have walked us well into the realm of banana republic impeachments.

In all honesty, there was a video today of Murkowski that really seemed to hit it for me. I have never liked her much, but in this one instance she hit it out of the park on the spectre of where we have come to.

Murkowski speech referenced above:

(02-04-2020 04:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Middle second - Long before you got here I was asking Lad and others what they thought the narrative of Trump/Russia could be. Best I ever got back was a “if there is smoke, there may be fire and so it must be investigated” from Lad, which is why I reference smoke so much to him. He seems to be unimpressed with the smoke around the Biden’s and the FBI, the people blowing the smoke about Trump he wanted investigated.

But the whole idea of Russia/trump collusion did not make any logical sense. I always thought it was hysteria born of being butt hurt over Hillary losing. Mueller’s long investigation found no collusion. If you want, go back to the 2017 posts and catch up.

The Trump/Russia collusion did make some logical sense, given Trump's on-stage, on-camera "joke" asking Russia to find HRC's missing emails and the trump tower meeting. In the end, the evidence wasn't there to prove a conspiracy (remember that collusion is not a legal term and Mueller didn't investigate "collusion"). But the obstruction of justice parts of the Mueller investigation bother me even more. Those things happened while Trump was President and were intended to reduce the ability to investigate the collusion/conspiracy part.

(02-04-2020 04:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  first last. Ukraine/trump. I am just not as horrified by this as you think I should be. Maybe I am jaded by the incessant shrill cries of Adam Schiff that the evidence is in plain sight on the table, or the incessant shrill cries of Tlaib that we are going to impeach the ************, or the incessant shrill cries that he must be ousted for any reason ASAP. Maybe I think he is good for America in many ways, and we should not rush to get rid of him, especially when thenDemocratic alternatives are so lacking in direction and substance. Maybe it is a combination. But I am a firm believer in knowing where I will land before I leap of the cliff. I see nothing in any of thenDemocrats that makes me think we can land in a better place than where we are. I cannot see what it is about a good economy, good jobs, oil independence, and a strong foreign policy that makes Democrats think we need a change.

He is not perfect - but he is a damn sight better than anything you guys are offering up.

Responding to the bold first, if Trump is removed, we have President Pence. So the choice right now isn't Trump/Democrat, it is Trump/Pence. Responding to your larger point, if you would not want to see a democratic president removed for similar reasons, then I accept that you and I just draw the line in different places. No problem with that.

(02-04-2020 05:50 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(02-04-2020 04:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Middle second - Long before you got here I was asking Lad and others what they thought the narrative of Trump/Russia could be. Best I ever got back was a “if there is smoke, there may be fire and so it must be investigated” from Lad, which is why I reference smoke so much to him. He seems to be unimpressed with the smoke around the Biden’s and the FBI, the people blowing the smoke about Trump he wanted investigated.

But the whole idea of Russia/trump collusion did not make any logical sense. I always thought it was hysteria born of being butt hurt over Hillary losing. Mueller’s long investigation found no collusion. If you want, go back to the 2017 posts and catch up.

The Trump/Russia collusion did make some logical sense, given Trump's on-stage, on-camera "joke" asking Russia to find HRC's missing emails and the trump tower meeting. In the end, the evidence wasn't there to prove a conspiracy (remember that collusion is not a legal term and Mueller didn't investigate "collusion"). But the obstruction of justice parts of the Mueller investigation bother me even more. Those things happened while Trump was President and were intended to reduce the ability to investigate the collusion/conspiracy part.

(02-04-2020 04:41 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  first last. Ukraine/trump. I am just not as horrified by this as you think I should be. Maybe I am jaded by the incessant shrill cries of Adam Schiff that the evidence is in plain sight on the table, or the incessant shrill cries of Tlaib that we are going to impeach the ************, or the incessant shrill cries that he must be ousted for any reason ASAP. Maybe I think he is good for America in many ways, and we should not rush to get rid of him, especially when thenDemocratic alternatives are so lacking in direction and substance. Maybe it is a combination. But I am a firm believer in knowing where I will land before I leap of the cliff. I see nothing in any of thenDemocrats that makes me think we can land in a better place than where we are. I cannot see what it is about a good economy, good jobs, oil independence, and a strong foreign policy that makes Democrats think we need a change.

He is not perfect - but he is a damn sight better than anything you guys are offering up.

Responding to the bold first, if Trump is removed, we have President Pence. So the choice right now isn't Trump/Democrat, it is Trump/Pence. Responding to your larger point, if you would not want to see a democratic president removed for similar reasons, then I accept that you and I just draw the line in different places. No problem with that.

Well, I doubt I would want to see a President Buttigieg removed if Stacy Abrams was the VP. But I also doubt we would see Republicans scurrying around trying to make up stuff about Pete.

so let me ask you what the narrative is. Near as I can tell, one day in 2015 oe so, Trump was analyzing his plans to take over the US for personal profit, and realized that to get Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, he would need somebody to steal Hillary’s and Tom’s personal emails and publish them without changing a word. To get this done, he called Putin and promised him...nothing.

Is that the narrative you think justified the Mueller investigation? I find it a stretch.

As for OOJ, if it happened why was it not alleged in the impeach,met?

as for the joke, it clearly was a joke and not a super public secret message. Unless of course, people wanted it to be. I joke a lot, and I would hate for them to be taken seriously. Do you ever joke?

(02-04-2020 05:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Murkowski speech referenced above:

I think Murkowski and Manchin are probably the most independent senators. Both perfectly willing to buck their party and likely strong enough to survive electorally. Ironic of course since Murkowski lost a primary and then defeated both the D and the R as a write-in.