|
Tir McDohl posted:What are the pros/cons of Chuck Schumer as the representative of Senate Democrats? I don't know much about him but saw a lot of negativity over the last few months. I did like his interview on Maddow last week though and I appreciate moves like this. The overarching fear is Schumer will try to make a deal with Trump and it will cost Dems everything, and Republicans little. It is a better route to try and prevent the complete destruction of the last 45 years of incremental progress. There is no reason to give them anything. Will it cost Democrats in later elections 2018,2020, with this electorate? yes, but whatever saves healthcare and Planned Parenthood is worth stalling white dreams for better highways
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Tir McDohl posted:What are the pros/cons of Chuck Schumer as the representative of Senate Democrats? I don't know much about him but saw a lot of negativity over the last few months. I did like his interview on Maddow last week though and I appreciate moves like this. Cons: politically quite moderate, politically inconvenient ties to finance and industry, not anointed by Bernie Sanders Pros: good at clowning, pretty experienced in Senate procedure, adept at seeing which way wind blowing (see: endorsing Ellison for DNC chair) The main fear is as mentioned that he's said some boilerplate stuff about working with Trump on some stuff, but everyone did, the question is when balls connect with the wall how defiant they're willing to be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
He's a Hillary loving, deal-making, Grand Bargain loving chump. He's a NY Democrat of the maybe Republicans aren't poo poo subspecies. Hopefully he's found some balls and isn't itching to give the Republicans bipartisan cover for every hosed up thing they want to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:The overarching fear is Schumer will try to make a deal with Trump
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
In other words, be prepared for disappointment or pleasant surprise when he continues to resist, but regardless not going to be the shining star we need in 2020.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Tir McDohl posted:What are the pros/cons of Chuck Schumer as the representative of Senate Democrats? I don't know much about him but saw a lot of negativity over the last few months. I did like his interview on Maddow last week though and I appreciate moves like this. In addition to what has already been mentioned, he is very, very pro-Israel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:32
|
|
|
When was the last time someone went directly from senate minority leader to presidential nominee? And before you say Dole or LBJ, I said directly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Pop-o-Matic Trouble posted:In addition to what has already been mentioned, he is very, very pro-Israel. Who in American politics isn't?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Who in American politics isn't? Bernie Sanders is merely very pro Israel
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Like, Israel hardliners are baying for Keith Ellison's blood, but even he denounced those views and is pro-Israel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Considering we have entered the era of governance via hot takes and twitter burns, this is a good move and I thoroughly approve. We won't be there until Trump creates a poll on his latest tweet about a given bill that can only be voted on by verified Twitter accounts belonging to Congressmen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 00:44
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
LOL Twitter is going to semi-responsible for a nuclear strike.Fulchrum posted:Who in American politics isn't? Obama and every non Regressive. They're literally nazis.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Yeah Obama occupies approximately the most radical extreme of the US Overton window on the Israel issue, that being, Israel is a good thing to exist, but its ruling party generally and Netanyahu in particular should really cut it out with the human rights abuses, please?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Does the nuclear option only apply to appointments, or could Republicans remove the filibuster on all issues?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Does the nuclear option only apply to appointments, or could Republicans remove the filibuster on all issues? The filibuster only exists as a Senate rule. When the Senate goes into session one is the first things they do is vote on the rules. A change to the rules is a simple majority vote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 05:11
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:The filibuster only exists as a Senate rule. When the Senate goes into session one is the first things they do is vote on the rules. A change to the rules is a simple majority vote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
...what? If it's a simple majority decision to uphold or take away the means by the minority to block the majority, why does it even exist at all? What does a supermajority even matter?
Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Jan 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:...what? If it's a simple majority decision to uphold or take away the means by the minority to block the majority, why does it even exist at all? What does a supermajority even matter? There's a reason it's called the "nuclear option," and that's because until now both parties thought it was useful to have around. Once it starts getting used for everything, and one party is convinced they have enough power to ram through every single element of their agenda and face no consequences, and that party had zero respect for institutions, why keep it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:...what? If it's a simple majority decision to uphold or take away the means by the minority to block the majority, why does it even exist at all? What does a supermajority even matter? A lot of the Senate rules are based in tradition. Put simply, the reason there's a filibuster is because there's always been a filibuster. It sounds stupid, but it's worked so far because the majority party wants to have the filibuster as an option in case they're the minority in the future, and they know that if they abolish it then there's no way their opponents will put it back - once any party abolishes the filibuster once, it's gone forever, because no one's going to bother to put it back once it's been removed once.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
The senate was founded as a place where the elite could make sure that their voice wasn't drowned out by the rabble, hence undemocratic stuff like direct appointment of senators, long terms, 2/state no matter the population, and rules that allow one person to prevent anything from getting done if they choose to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:What does a supermajority even matter? So generally they don't rock the boat too much and rely on supermajority or majority rule to get their poo poo passed in normal sessions. Just so they won't get their poo poo pushed in if the tide goes the other way. The filibuster itself is just a procedural loophole, a byproduct of the whole idea that they respect the wizened gallery of senators enough that they have control of the floor while speaking. Hell, ending a filibuster through cloture used to involve a 2 day wait, gathering signatures, then a 2 day wait to vote.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Like, Israel hardliners are baying for Keith Ellison's blood, but even he denounced those views and is pro-Israel. My favorite part of that was him going "huh, I never actually read much into the details on Nation of Islam's actual (current) beliefs. Those people are weird." (Albeit dramatically less weird since
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 14:10 |
|
|
Tir McDohl posted:What are the pros/cons of Chuck Schumer as the representative of Senate Democrats? I don't know much about him but saw a lot of negativity over the last few months. I did like his interview on Maddow last week though and I appreciate moves like this. quote:Slightly less catchy but pretty funny is this bon mot, which former senator Jon Corzine reportedly used at a roast: “Sharing a media market with Chuck Schumer is like sharing a banana with a monkey . . . take a little bite of it and he will throw his own feces at you.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2017 18:07
|
|
