5 ms·

GOP does not do anything you mentioned. Democrats are filibustering pretty much all they can do - with no shame (and kudos to them for the lack of shame). Abou

by dh2022 1y ago

GOP does not do anything you mentioned. Democrats are filibustering pretty much all they can do - with no shame (and kudos to them for the lack of shame). About detaining ICE agents and not sending withheld federal taxes to Washington - this will happen only if the Democrat states would separate from the Union. Which I really wish would happen. Unfortunately the Union will not break because both separating parties would have to split national debt and nuclear arsenal. So we (Democratic states) are stuck with the deplorables....

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> GOP does not do anything you mentioned The GOP shut down the government in the name of repealing the ACA. Texas’s governor took immigration--a federal prerogative--into his own hands [1]. They stopped when the courts told them to. I’m not suggesting Democrats ignore the courts. But push them, like the GOP has. > detaining ICE agents and not sending withheld federal taxes to Washington - this will happen only if the Democrat states would separate from the Union Not at all. The point would be to trigger court cases and gum up the works. Not to permanently detain or freeze funds. [1] https://gov.texas.gov/operationlonestar https://gov.texas.gov/operationlonestar
- mrguyorama 1y ago
  The Trump admin has already demonstrated that court cases don't effectively gum up the works. Courts are eventually effective, but turns out you can ship a lot of people to a lot of places in the time it takes for "eventually". Court cases did not stop DOGE from destroying significant parts of our government. How the heck are Democrats supposed to stop us from bombing Venezuela? Trump is the rightfully elected commander in chief
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Trump admin has already demonstrated that court cases don't effectively gum up the works Okay, then the Democrat governor wins. I’m not seeing the problem. > How the heck are Democrats supposed to stop us from bombing Venezuela? They’re not. Step one is Democrats need to stop overfocusing on foreign policy. Nobody cares about foreign policy except for comfortable wonks.
    - mrguyorama 1y ago
      >Nobody cares about foreign policy except for comfortable wonks. Except for all the people who insisted that trump wouldn't get us into foreign wars and demonstrably haven't turned on him now that he bombed Iran, helps Israel do pretty awful things with the explicit goal of turning Gaza into a resort, and possibly has turned to helping Ukraine in it's war, which was literally a point that Democrat politicians pushing for that exact same outcome took serious heat for. The voters want aggression and pain and harm to those they dislike, especially if Trump tells them to dislike someone. The democrats cannot cater to that desire without just abandoning all the things that make them not republican politicians. Even if they literally adopt republican policy wholesale, they still will not be elected. The problem starts with what American voters want. As long as they want "Not democrat" and "Big strong man", democrats will not have power. I mean sure, they should probably stop putting up black woman for the presidency if they want even a chance of winning something, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Democrats are demonstrably better for the economy, and have been for a very long time, but republicans are still voted in on the back of "Better for the economy" The exact Americans who claimed they wanted to vote for "Free speech" are pretty happy that Trump will be compelling speech on American college campuses. If the Supreme court strikes this down, they will not turn on Trump, they will turn on the Court. >Okay, then the Democrat governor wins. I’m not seeing the problem. Then Trump does it anyway, and the republicans in congress do not impeach him for doing crime, which the Supreme court has said is fine. The democrat governor "wins" on paper, as people continue to be deported and silenced and oppressed. ICE still roams like the SS, with no identification. Next election, Trump says "look how the left tried to stop me" and gets more votes. Reality doesn't matter. Rhetoric does. Democrats don't have to be "Right" to get into power and fix things, they have to be popular, really really popular because of gerrymandering, and significant portions of the country make "democrat bad" significant parts of their identity.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Except for all the people who insisted that trump wouldn't get us into foreign wars and demonstrably haven't turned on him now that he bombed Iran, helps Israel do pretty awful things with the explicit goal of turning Gaza into a resort, and possibly has turned to helping Ukraine in it's war Yes. That's my point. American voters don't care about foreign policy. Pretty much no federal election in peacetime (i.e. absent a draft) is decided based on any foreign policy. > democrat governor "wins" on paper You're describing Democrats reacting to Trump. I'm describing them taking initiative. If the Democrat governor is taking initiative and they ignore the court, their initiative stands.
- dh2022 1y ago
  The mode of operation of this administration is to do things first and deal with push back from the courts later. Court cases do not "gum up the works" effectively. The two items you mentioned (detaining ICE agents and not sending federal tax money to Washington DC) are against federal law. States can do these things only if states refuse to obey federal laws. This would work only if states would secede from the Union.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > mode of operation of this administration is to do things first and deal with push back from the courts later When they take the initiative. That's the point. The current political environment strongly favours taking the initiative over reacting. > The two items you mentioned (detaining ICE agents and not sending federal tax money to Washington DC) are against federal law Yes. So are the things Trump has been doing. As you say, one can "do things first and deal with push back from the courts later." That's what the GOP is doing. I'm saying Democrats need to do the same (or concede the game). We can remake the judiciary to have more teeth later, when everyone is in compromise mode or one side has won.
    - dh2022 1y ago
      I finally understand what you mean. So Democrats should not send tax money to Washington and arrest ICE agents for whatever reason. And then deal with the courts later. I think I finally understand your point. It will be interesting to see if this causes a war between the US Federal forces and whatever local armed forces the states could muster.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > will be interesting to see if this causes a war between the US Federal forces and whatever local armed forces the states could muster It wouldn't. It would provoke Trump into an overreaction. But war takes two to tango, and Democrats aren't--and shouldn't be--ready for civil war. (If Trump spent the next three years fighting Gavin Newsom for jailing his ICE agents, that's a win. It means he has less time to do something else.)
Hizonner 1y ago
> GOP does not do anything you mentioned. I must have hallucinated, say, that long period during Mitch McConnell openly stated he was going to prevent votes on any of Biden's judicial nominees (and followed through on that). Or the business with Tommy Tuberville trying to prevent any military officers from getting confirmed (and, after he failed to totally prevent it, to slow it down and waste Senate time) until he got unrelated concessions on abortion. Those are off the top of my head...
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > that long period during Mitch McConnell openly stated he was going to prevent votes on any of Biden's judicial nominees (and followed through on that) Not relevant—they held the Senate. > the business with Tommy Tuberville trying to prevent any military officers from getting confirmed Yup! Do this. Do this constantly.
  - Hizonner 1y ago
    > Not relevant—they held the Senate. Sort of. McConnell found it necessary to prevent some of the nominations from coming to a vote, because he didn't have the votes to stop them. So, yeah, they held enough of the Senate to dick around procedurally, but not enough to win an up or down vote. Which is kind of not that different from a filibuster, which is also a procedural move you use when you'd lose an up or down vote. And it's one thing to vote down a single nomination, and a different thing to categorically state that you're going to torpedo all of a President's nominations. If there's a Constitutional requirement for "advice and consent", then the Senate has a duty to engage with that.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Sort of McConnell had a majority in the Senate. That's a huge difference from Democrats today. The relevant examples should come from when Democrats had a federal trifecta. The GOP still managed to fuck things up. That should be the inspiration. (But not limit.)

by dh2022 1y ago

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> GOP does not do anything you mentioned The GOP shut down the government in the name of repealing the ACA. Texas’s governor took immigration--a federal prerogative--into his own hands [1]. They stopped when the courts told them to. I’m not suggesting Democrats ignore the courts. But push them, like the GOP has. > detaining ICE agents and not sending withheld federal taxes to Washington - this will happen only if the Democrat states would separate from the Union Not at all. The point would be to trigger court cases and gum up the works. Not to permanently detain or freeze funds. [1] https://gov.texas.gov/operationlonestar https://gov.texas.gov/operationlonestar

mrguyorama 1y ago
The Trump admin has already demonstrated that court cases don't effectively gum up the works. Courts are eventually effective, but turns out you can ship a lot of people to a lot of places in the time it takes for "eventually". Court cases did not stop DOGE from destroying significant parts of our government. How the heck are Democrats supposed to stop us from bombing Venezuela? Trump is the rightfully elected commander in chief
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > Trump admin has already demonstrated that court cases don't effectively gum up the works Okay, then the Democrat governor wins. I’m not seeing the problem. > How the heck are Democrats supposed to stop us from bombing Venezuela? They’re not. Step one is Democrats need to stop overfocusing on foreign policy. Nobody cares about foreign policy except for comfortable wonks.
  - mrguyorama 1y ago
    >Nobody cares about foreign policy except for comfortable wonks. Except for all the people who insisted that trump wouldn't get us into foreign wars and demonstrably haven't turned on him now that he bombed Iran, helps Israel do pretty awful things with the explicit goal of turning Gaza into a resort, and possibly has turned to helping Ukraine in it's war, which was literally a point that Democrat politicians pushing for that exact same outcome took serious heat for. The voters want aggression and pain and harm to those they dislike, especially if Trump tells them to dislike someone. The democrats cannot cater to that desire without just abandoning all the things that make them not republican politicians. Even if they literally adopt republican policy wholesale, they still will not be elected. The problem starts with what American voters want. As long as they want "Not democrat" and "Big strong man", democrats will not have power. I mean sure, they should probably stop putting up black woman for the presidency if they want even a chance of winning something, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Democrats are demonstrably better for the economy, and have been for a very long time, but republicans are still voted in on the back of "Better for the economy" The exact Americans who claimed they wanted to vote for "Free speech" are pretty happy that Trump will be compelling speech on American college campuses. If the Supreme court strikes this down, they will not turn on Trump, they will turn on the Court. >Okay, then the Democrat governor wins. I’m not seeing the problem. Then Trump does it anyway, and the republicans in congress do not impeach him for doing crime, which the Supreme court has said is fine. The democrat governor "wins" on paper, as people continue to be deported and silenced and oppressed. ICE still roams like the SS, with no identification. Next election, Trump says "look how the left tried to stop me" and gets more votes. Reality doesn't matter. Rhetoric does. Democrats don't have to be "Right" to get into power and fix things, they have to be popular, really really popular because of gerrymandering, and significant portions of the country make "democrat bad" significant parts of their identity.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Except for all the people who insisted that trump wouldn't get us into foreign wars and demonstrably haven't turned on him now that he bombed Iran, helps Israel do pretty awful things with the explicit goal of turning Gaza into a resort, and possibly has turned to helping Ukraine in it's war Yes. That's my point. American voters don't care about foreign policy. Pretty much no federal election in peacetime (i.e. absent a draft) is decided based on any foreign policy. > democrat governor "wins" on paper You're describing Democrats reacting to Trump. I'm describing them taking initiative. If the Democrat governor is taking initiative and they ignore the court, their initiative stands.
dh2022 1y ago
The mode of operation of this administration is to do things first and deal with push back from the courts later. Court cases do not "gum up the works" effectively. The two items you mentioned (detaining ICE agents and not sending federal tax money to Washington DC) are against federal law. States can do these things only if states refuse to obey federal laws. This would work only if states would secede from the Union.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > mode of operation of this administration is to do things first and deal with push back from the courts later When they take the initiative. That's the point. The current political environment strongly favours taking the initiative over reacting. > The two items you mentioned (detaining ICE agents and not sending federal tax money to Washington DC) are against federal law Yes. So are the things Trump has been doing. As you say, one can "do things first and deal with push back from the courts later." That's what the GOP is doing. I'm saying Democrats need to do the same (or concede the game). We can remake the judiciary to have more teeth later, when everyone is in compromise mode or one side has won.
  - dh2022 1y ago
    I finally understand what you mean. So Democrats should not send tax money to Washington and arrest ICE agents for whatever reason. And then deal with the courts later. I think I finally understand your point. It will be interesting to see if this causes a war between the US Federal forces and whatever local armed forces the states could muster.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > will be interesting to see if this causes a war between the US Federal forces and whatever local armed forces the states could muster It wouldn't. It would provoke Trump into an overreaction. But war takes two to tango, and Democrats aren't--and shouldn't be--ready for civil war. (If Trump spent the next three years fighting Gavin Newsom for jailing his ICE agents, that's a win. It means he has less time to do something else.)

Hizonner 1y ago

> GOP does not do anything you mentioned. I must have hallucinated, say, that long period during Mitch McConnell openly stated he was going to prevent votes on any of Biden's judicial nominees (and followed through on that). Or the business with Tommy Tuberville trying to prevent any military officers from getting confirmed (and, after he failed to totally prevent it, to slow it down and waste Senate time) until he got unrelated concessions on abortion. Those are off the top of my head...

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> that long period during Mitch McConnell openly stated he was going to prevent votes on any of Biden's judicial nominees (and followed through on that) Not relevant—they held the Senate. > the business with Tommy Tuberville trying to prevent any military officers from getting confirmed Yup! Do this. Do this constantly.
- Hizonner 1y ago
  > Not relevant—they held the Senate. Sort of. McConnell found it necessary to prevent some of the nominations from coming to a vote, because he didn't have the votes to stop them. So, yeah, they held enough of the Senate to dick around procedurally, but not enough to win an up or down vote. Which is kind of not that different from a filibuster, which is also a procedural move you use when you'd lose an up or down vote. And it's one thing to vote down a single nomination, and a different thing to categorically state that you're going to torpedo all of a President's nominations. If there's a Constitutional requirement for "advice and consent", then the Senate has a duty to engage with that.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > Sort of McConnell had a majority in the Senate. That's a huge difference from Democrats today. The relevant examples should come from when Democrats had a federal trifecta. The GOP still managed to fuck things up. That should be the inspiration. (But not limit.)