Random Politics

[brian]

So no surprise but Bernie Sanders lied again. After running for president as a "Democrat" he said he would run in subsequent elections as a Democrat as well. Now says he's run as independent again in 2018.

Good to see that the DNC has already identified its scapegoat for when it fails to re-take the House in 2018. FWIW, the DNC removed a whole bunch of Sanders allies from leadership positions last week, so I can't say this is surprising. Sanders is the most popular national politician in America and yet the Democrats would still rather maintain the status quo -- and keep losing elections -- instead of embracing his ideas.

Think that's a bit of an oversimplification considering how many have come out in support of single payer and a $15 minimum wage. But Saint Bernie has no desire to do anything other than continue to feed his tremendous ego.

[sancarlos]

So no surprise but Bernie Sanders lied again. After running for president as a "Democrat" he said he would run in subsequent elections as a Democrat as well. Now says he's run as independent again in 2018.

Good to see that the DNC has already identified its scapegoat for when it fails to re-take the House in 2018. FWIW, the DNC removed a whole bunch of Sanders allies from leadership positions last week, so I can't say this is surprising. Sanders is the most popular national politician in America and yet the Democrats would still rather maintain the status quo -- and keep losing elections -- instead of embracing his ideas.

Blame whoever you want, but if Bernie runs as an independent, that greatly increases the probability that we get stuck with the narcissistic toddler-in-chief for another four years. If Sanders really is the most popular national politician in America, he'd get the Democratic nomination even without the support of the establishment.

[brian]

Well, to be somewhat fair my reference was to his Senate re-election campaign in 2018, which he'll win in Vermont regardless of what party he runs under.

But Sanders needs to shit of get off the pot and frankly has needed to for many years now. Either he needs to try to change the Democratic Party from within or create a Democratic Socialist Party instead of trying to have it both ways and throwing bombs at the Democrats who are really trying to effect change and move the party to the left.

[Shirley]

Yeah, it's all Bernie's fault. Not Hillary's or the rest of the incompetent Democratic Party.

[brian]

So this is interesting. It's going to be ugly for EVERYONE while it happens, but the GOP is eating itself.

https://twitter.com/azcentral/status/922896989947179008

[Rex]

And his position will be filled by a loyalist I assume.

[brian]

And his position will be filled by a loyalist I assume.

Well, that's the thing. That's going to be a very contested race next November regardless. If the Republicans nominate a Trump-loving moonbat then it could open the door wider for the Democrats.

[brian]

Pretty much this, yeah:

https://twitter.com/david_roy/status/922907313425358848

https://twitter.com/pattymo/status/922904455850483717

[Steve of phpBB]

Pretty much this, yeah:

https://twitter.com/david_roy/status/922907313425358848

I don't agree with that. Sure, it would have been great to have sa bunch of Republicans join together last fall and say that because Trump was such a danger, everyone should vote for Hillary. But that isn't realistic. And while it would be great to see Republican Senators voting down judicial or agency nominees, that isn't realistic either because they want those nominees probably even more than Trump does.

I just saw a tweet from a Democrat suggesting that if Flake wanted to stop Trump, he should vote against the deficit-busting tax plan. But Republicans love deficit-busting tax plans that favor the rich. That's why they are Republicans.

The *only* chance at getting Trump out of office before 2021 is to have Republicans turn on him. So to see Trump go, we need the support of a lot of Representatives and Senators who like deficit-busting tax plans that favor the rich. And it has to start somewhere.

What Flake is doing is very important and admirable, even if Flake himself is still a reactionary asshole. Heaven help me, even fucking Bill Kristol is really important these days. We need more of that from Republicans, not less of that, and we can't poo-poo it by complaining that these guys are still voting for bad tax cuts.

[mister d]

Yeah, hard disagree. The last decade plus has shown that the way republicans react to someone they don't like, let alone claim to fear for the sake of the country, is obstruction over all else. Giving some tough quotes while voting with him across the board accomplishes nothing except getting a mini-McCain label from a certain faction of the attention paying public.

[Joe K]

Yeah, hard disagree. The last decade plus has shown that the way republicans react to someone they don't like, let alone claim to fear for the sake of the country, is obstruction over all else. Giving some tough quotes while voting with him across the board accomplishes nothing except getting a mini-McCain label from a certain faction of the attention paying public.

Also worth adding that Flake was likely going to lose the GOP primary next year to a hard-right Trumpist. (He was way behind in the most recent polls.) So his resignation was probably mostly about avoiding a humiliating defeat that would kill his chances to run for President in 2024.

[The Sybian]

And his position will be filled by a loyalist I assume.

Well, that's the thing. That's going to be a very contested race next November regardless. If the Republicans nominate a Trump-loving moonbat then it could open the door wider for the Democrats.

The danger is we get stuck with horrific Nationalist Trump toadies. If Flake primaried the Trump toadie, more centrist/sane Republicans would be turned against the toadie. Likewise, if Trump pushed hard against Flake, the Trump-supporting Republicans would be less likely to vote for Flake in an election. Trump supporting Luther Strange didn't hurt Roy Moore, because Moore is further off the rails than Trump.

If more Establishment Republicans keep walking because they don't want to deal with Trump and his loyalists, the Winggnuts will rule the party. Do more centrist Republican voters stick with the party, and reluctantly follow them far off the rails, or will they start to vote Democrat? I have no faith in the DNC playing this hand correctly, and it's tricky with so many Liberals and Progressives trying to pull the Party further Left.

[The Sybian]

Yeah, hard disagree. The last decade plus has shown that the way republicans react to someone they don't like, let alone claim to fear for the sake of the country, is obstruction over all else. Giving some tough quotes while voting with him across the board accomplishes nothing except getting a mini-McCain label from a certain faction of the attention paying public.

Also worth adding that Flake was likely going to lose the GOP primary next year to a hard-right Trumpist. (He was way behind in the most recent polls.) So his resignation was probably mostly about avoiding a humiliating defeat that would kill his chances to run for President in 2024.

This will have a chilling effect on other GOP Congressmen speaking out against Trump. Flake spoke out, and got his ass handed to him. Corker said yesterday that he began speaking out after deciding he wasn't going to run, because it was too difficult to speak against a President of the same Party. As much as Trump is fucking the GOP brand and going against a lot of their principles, the establishment refuses to turn on Trump.

[Steve of phpBB]

Yeah, hard disagree. The last decade plus has shown that the way republicans react to someone they don't like, let alone claim to fear for the sake of the country, is obstruction over all else. Giving some tough quotes while voting with him across the board accomplishes nothing except getting a mini-McCain label from a certain faction of the attention paying public.

I guess the question is, who is voting with whom? When someone like Neil Gorsuch is in front of the Senate, does it count as "voting with Trump" for a Republican to vote to confirm him? Or is it a case of Trump voting with the Republicans by nominating him?

What Flake just did goes beyond the typical expression of "concern" we always see. At least, I think so.

Anyway, I curious what you guys would consider a minimally acceptable action from a Republican senator right now and what concrete results you think that action would accomplish.

[Joe K]

Yeah, hard disagree. The last decade plus has shown that the way republicans react to someone they don't like, let alone claim to fear for the sake of the country, is obstruction over all else. Giving some tough quotes while voting with him across the board accomplishes nothing except getting a mini-McCain label from a certain faction of the attention paying public.

Also worth adding that Flake was likely going to lose the GOP primary next year to a hard-right Trumpist. (He was way behind in the most recent polls.) So his resignation was probably mostly about avoiding a humiliating defeat that would kill his chances to run for President in 2024.

This will have a chilling effect on other GOP Congressmen speaking out against Trump. Flake spoke out, and got his ass handed to him. Corker said yesterday that he began speaking out after deciding he wasn't going to run, because it was too difficult to speak against a President of the same Party. As much as Trump is fucking the GOP brand and going against a lot of their principles, the establishment refuses to turn on Trump.

Yup. Trump is still really, really popular with GOP voters, so unless the Trump-opposed candidate is someone like Moore who's also an extreme far-right candidate, Trump is likely to win any intraparty electoral battles.

[sancarlos]

Very good points, Sybian. I tend to line up with Steve’s points, too. I see little reason for optimism, outside of Robert Mueller.

[Steve of phpBB]

Very good points, Sybian. I tend to line up with Steve’s points, too. I see little reason for optimism, outside of Robert Mueller.

And Mueller doesn't have the power to remove Trump. Removal would require about twenty percent of the Republicans in the House and forty percent of the Republicans in the Senate.

[degenerasian]

If Flake were ahead in the polls, would he be making this speech today?

[brian]

If Flake were ahead in the polls, would he be making this speech today?

No, but (and I'm not defending him mind you) he wouldn't be the first politician in the country's history to take a stand based on the opportunity afforded by a political loss. Hell, that's basically how the 13th Amendment got passed in the House.

[mister d]

I guess the question is, who is voting with whom? When someone like Neil Gorsuch is in front of the Senate, does it count as "voting with Trump" for a Republican to vote to confirm him? Or is it a case of Trump voting with the Republicans by nominating him?

Can't divorce the two, can you? If they truly believe its a crisis and sit as some of the very few who might be able to effect change, even if it means roadblocking their own party, isn't there an obligation there?

What Flake just did goes beyond the typical expression of "concern" we always see. At least, I think so.

"You can't fire me, I quit" just doesn't strike me as anything groundbreaking. Corker's antagonism is probably more effective (and fun) anyway.

Anyway, I curious what you guys would consider a minimally acceptable action from a Republican senator right now and what concrete results you think that action would accomplish.

Its pretty drastic. None of the Dems are living up to it either.

[brian]

Charlie Pierce -- as usual -- has the restrained, correct take.

Anyone who thinks this is ultimately going to be a good thing in any way, shape or form is missing the forest for the trees. It is going to get worse before it gets better. It may very well be that Flake's "stand" -- such as it is -- is remembered by history as the first serious salvo against Trump from the establishment right, but it's pretty obvious pro-Trump, pro-Bannon candidates in primaries from Tucson to Presque Isle are going to do well in the next year. It falls on the Democrats to beat those apeshit bananas candidates that are going to be put out there.

I don't have a lot of faith they're going to be able to, but maybe it's better that things get worse before they get better. It might not be enough to have the Trump presidency just be "kinda bad". Even historically bad might not cut it. Something like catastrophically bad might be the death knell for the GOP eventually and especially if there's a viable alternative to the Democrats on the left. You might eventually see (and this will take a couple or three decades) a two-party system where the corporatist, blue dog Democrats are on the "right" and a Democratic Socialist (in spirit if not name) party on the left and the crazy, dingbat faction that is the majority of the GOP now is relegated as a regional party in backwards places like the heartland and some Deep South states.

[Steve of phpBB]

You might eventually see (and this will take a couple or three decades) a two-party system where the corporatist, blue dog Democrats are on the "right" and a Democratic Socialist (in spirit if not name) party on the left and the crazy, dingbat faction that is the majority of the GOP now is relegated as a regional party in backwards places like the heartland and some Deep South states.

This sounds like the UK. I hope you're right, but in the US, the crazy dingbats are something like 30 percent of the electorate.

[brian]

Right. But if your politics are so abhorrent that you’ll never get anyone to join your coalition your 30
percent is essentially useless. The GOP would be like a non-racist Canadian Bloc Québécois Party. A nationalist party dominant in a few areas but essentially meaningless as a national party.

[mister d]

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/923021828444119040

“Well, we were about to leave millions of people without health care and reduce taxes on the highest earners, so we had to play it cautious on the whole Trump issue.”

[tennbengal]

What would be helpful is if corker, McCain and Flake joined the dem senators and got the taxes released. They could do that. That they won’t but are just quitting (corker and Flake) doesn’t make much sense to me. If they are truly concerned about trump, they could actually do something about it...

[BSF21]

Right. But if your politics are so abhorrent that you’ll never get anyone to join your coalition your 30
percent is essentially useless. The GOP would be like a non-racist Canadian Bloc Québécois Party. A nationalist party dominant in a few areas but essentially meaningless as a national party.

Does voter disenfranchisement play into Canadian politics the way it does down here? 30% is a scary number given what you can actually do in the states with the kind of turnout they bring.

[Pruitt]

Right. But if your politics are so abhorrent that you’ll never get anyone to join your coalition your 30
percent is essentially useless. The GOP would be like a non-racist Canadian Bloc Québécois Party. A nationalist party dominant in a few areas but essentially meaningless as a national party.

Does voter disenfranchisement play into Canadian politics the way it does down here? 30% is a scary number given what you can actually do in the states with the kind of turnout they bring.

Not really - there's a lot of apathy. But turnout at the last Federal election was 68%. Typically it's between 60%-65%.

The Bloc Quebecois is a federal party that only exists in Quebec. It's a vehicle for protest, a guardian of Quebec's interests (Francophone variety). At one point it was the official opposition and theoretically could have been part of a coalition government, but yeah, essentially meaningless as a national party. They have won anywhere from 4-54 seats (out of Quebec's 75 seats).

There also used to be the Reform party, much more conservative (I am loathe to use the term "right wing" when discussing Canadian politics as "extremism" here is still very Canadian). They had support in the western provinces and merged with the once mighty Progressive Conservative party in the '90 creating the Conservative party.

At the moment, there are 5 parties represented in parliament. Really, this does help ensure that anything too extreme never gets too powerful.

[BSF21]

Right. But if your politics are so abhorrent that you’ll never get anyone to join your coalition your 30
percent is essentially useless. The GOP would be like a non-racist Canadian Bloc Québécois Party. A nationalist party dominant in a few areas but essentially meaningless as a national party.

Does voter disenfranchisement play into Canadian politics the way it does down here? 30% is a scary number given what you can actually do in the states with the kind of turnout they bring.

Not really - there's a lot of apathy. But turnout at the last Federal election was 68%. Typically it's between 60%-65%.

The Bloc Quebecois is a federal party that only exists in Quebec. It's a vehicle for protest, a guardian of Quebec's interests (Francophone variety). At one point it was the official opposition and theoretically could have been part of a coalition government, but yeah, essentially meaningless as a national party. They have won anywhere from 4-54 seats (out of Quebec's 75 seats).

There also used to be the Reform party, much more conservative (I am loathe to use the term "right wing" when discussing Canadian politics as "extremism" here is still very Canadian). They had support in the western provinces and merged with the once mighty Progressive Conservative party in the '90 creating the Conservative party.

At the moment, there are 5 parties represented in parliament. Really, this does help ensure that anything too extreme never gets too powerful.

I suppose I used the wrong phrase. I was trying to ask about Gerrymandering in general.

[Pruitt]

I suppose I used the wrong phrase. I was trying to ask about Gerrymandering in general.

Not really.

Here's the map of the federal ridings in Toronto and suburbs. Most of the squiggly lines are rivers. The other borders are highways and major roads.



Here's Montreal...

[degenerasian]

The ridings don't change much. The Canadian Parliament was 308 seats for the longest time. The last election the Conversatives re-divided it to 338 to match population trends. For example Ontario got 15 extra seats and Quebec only 2.

It's funny that the Liberals were totally against it since it was thought to favor the Conservatives obviously but ended up getting a majority anyways
https://www.thestar.com/news/federal-el ... aries.html

[degenerasian]

Yeah, hard disagree. The last decade plus has shown that the way republicans react to someone they don't like, let alone claim to fear for the sake of the country, is obstruction over all else. Giving some tough quotes while voting with him across the board accomplishes nothing except getting a mini-McCain label from a certain faction of the attention paying public.

I guess the question is, who is voting with whom? When someone like Neil Gorsuch is in front of the Senate, does it count as "voting with Trump" for a Republican to vote to confirm him? Or is it a case of Trump voting with the Republicans by nominating him?

What Flake just did goes beyond the typical expression of "concern" we always see. At least, I think so.

Anyway, I curious what you guys would consider a minimally acceptable action from a Republican senator right now and what concrete results you think that action would accomplish.

I really like your question of who is voting with whom

Vice President Pence cast a tie-breaking vote late Tuesday to block new regulations allowing U.S. consumers to sue their banks, handing Wall Street and other big financial institutions their biggest victory since President Trump's election.

The rules would have cost the industry billions of dollars, according to some estimates. With the Senate's vote, Wall Street is beginning to reap the benefits of the Trump administration focus on rolling back regulations it says are strangling the economy. The vote is also a major rebuke of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which wrote the rules, and has often found itself at odds of Republicans in Congress and the business community.

So is this voting with Trump or something the GOP would have done anyways. How do we tell?

[Joe K]

FWIW, Flake and Corker both voted with Trump on that CFPB bill. Which is further evidence that their criticisms are solely about his demeanor and not his policies.

[Steve of phpBB]

Yeah, hard disagree. The last decade plus has shown that the way republicans react to someone they don't like, let alone claim to fear for the sake of the country, is obstruction over all else. Giving some tough quotes while voting with him across the board accomplishes nothing except getting a mini-McCain label from a certain faction of the attention paying public.

I guess the question is, who is voting with whom? When someone like Neil Gorsuch is in front of the Senate, does it count as "voting with Trump" for a Republican to vote to confirm him? Or is it a case of Trump voting with the Republicans by nominating him?

What Flake just did goes beyond the typical expression of "concern" we always see. At least, I think so.

Anyway, I curious what you guys would consider a minimally acceptable action from a Republican senator right now and what concrete results you think that action would accomplish.

I really like your question of who is voting with whom

Vice President Pence cast a tie-breaking vote late Tuesday to block new regulations allowing U.S. consumers to sue their banks, handing Wall Street and other big financial institutions their biggest victory since President Trump's election.

The rules would have cost the industry billions of dollars, according to some estimates. With the Senate's vote, Wall Street is beginning to reap the benefits of the Trump administration focus on rolling back regulations it says are strangling the economy. The vote is also a major rebuke of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which wrote the rules, and has often found itself at odds of Republicans in Congress and the business community.

So is this voting with Trump or something the GOP would have done anyways. How do we tell?

This is something the GOP would have done anyways. We can tell because it's consistent with GOP policies and actions that predate Trump by a long, long time. It was Democrats who created the CFPB in the first place, and Democrats who enacted the rule.

(But both parties are the same.)

[degenerasian]

This is something the GOP would have done anyways. We can tell because it's consistent with GOP policies and actions that predate Trump by a long, long time. It was Democrats who created the CFPB in the first place, and Democrats who enacted the rule.

(But both parties are the same.)

yes. I find it interesting that is was Graham and Kennedy against while Corker, Flake and McCain were in favor.
So really, just normal everyday business.

[Steve of phpBB]

FWIW, Flake and Corker both voted with Trump on that CFPB bill. Which is further evidence that their criticisms are solely about his demeanor and not his policies.

Well, yeah. Where Trump has adopted many long-standing Republican policies that Flake and Corker have advocated for decades, they don't disagree with him on those policies. Have they ever claimed otherwise?

Corker and Flake are objecting to Trump's approach to governing. For Corker it seems to be about foreign policy, and for Flake it seems to be about immigration.

They don't object to substantive domestic policies that favor the rich over the poor. In fact, they almost certainly believe that those policies are better for the country. So of course if those policies come up for a vote, they will vote for them.

Trump's unfitness for office is not because he has adopted Republican policies favoring the rich over the poor. I disagree with those, but I don't think my disagreement on policy justifies removing a legitimately-elected President. His unfitness is because of his reckless approach to governing, his incitement of hatred on racial and religious grounds, his intolerance for dissent, etc. The only way Trump is out before four years are up is if people who favor the rich over the poor start publicly opposing him on those issues.

[mister d]

Sure, but "I'll enact policy I like and quit at the end of my term while giving some solid quotes" isn't standing up for anything other than your own personal narrative and legacy. Trump is unfit, they seem to acknowledge he's unfit, but they don't want to put any policy changes at risk or just on hold to rectify things.

[Johnnie]

FWIW, Flake and Corker both voted with Trump on that CFPB bill. Which is further evidence that their criticisms are solely about his demeanor and not his policies.

Which makes the tweet Mister D shared the height of hypocrisy.

I remember thinking when I was a younger dude in history class "Man, how does someone like Hitler rise to power? Is literally no one caring?" I then think "I'm glad that wouldn't happen in America because of our government!" (Because naivete and because rights and laws and government protected by smart people.)

And then you realize when you have the government and make all power structures fall in line, there is no one to stop you. Unless it's some assassin or, eventually, and outside military entity with more firepower and better tactics/strategy.

Then it's like "Well, we have the 2nd amendment that, according to '2nd Amendment Types' is supposed to protect the people from the government, and especially maintain the first amendment."

Then you realize "Well, 2nd Amendment Types are basically gun nuts that align with Republicans and are always paranoid about Lib'ruls takin' mah guns!

When the Republicans are in power the propaganda arm, the NRA, needs to push some narrative that the damn, dirty Lib'ruls are still an omnipresent boogeyman. Anyone with half a brain knows its bullshit because Obama hung around for 8 years and I still have my guns. But we've always been at war with Eastasia. So those '2nd Amendment Types' are basically militias that would immediately fall in line with the government in the most entropic, dystopian timeline imaginable.

In which case I say all that to say, Liberals need to buy guns.

[Steve of phpBB]

Sure, but "I'll enact policy I like and quit at the end of my term while giving some solid quotes" isn't standing up for anything other than your own personal narrative and legacy. Trump is unfit, they seem to acknowledge he's unfit, but they don't want to put any policy changes at risk or just on hold to rectify things.

I guess it really depends on where things go from here and what happens if Trump tries to fire Mueller, or Mueller comes up with some truly damning evidence against Trump personally.

Since Pence would adopt the same policies as Trump, I don't think the resistence to removing Trump is really about policies, at least not in the short term. I think it's about the knowledge that removing Trump would destroy the Republican party for the next several years.

[wlu_lax6]

wtf
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41752488

[degenerasian]

Sure, but "I'll enact policy I like and quit at the end of my term while giving some solid quotes" isn't standing up for anything other than your own personal narrative and legacy. Trump is unfit, they seem to acknowledge he's unfit, but they don't want to put any policy changes at risk or just on hold to rectify things.

Of course. Especially Flake who still has a future. Corker not so much, he's old.
Does Flake have aspirations for a future presidential run? Does he want to lead the revamped moderate republican side maybe in 2024? He can't do that voting against good, normal GOP bills.