Trump Post Election News.

[Airedale260]

Yeah HR 1 is a total disaster. They can’t push this through without nuking the filibuster, though, and while they may be riding high (in more ways than one) after their win, this would be the sort of thing that results in massive blowback.

 

[Cherico]

Yeah HR 1 is a total disaster. They can’t push this through without nuking the filibuster, though, and while they may be riding high (in more ways than one) after their win, this would be the sort of thing that results in massive blowback.

oh I firmly expect them to get rid of the filibuster entirely.

Because lets face facts the democratic parties ability to think long term is not all that great and their actions over the last 4 years more or less prove it.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

oh I firmly expect them to get rid of the filibuster entirely.

Because lets face facts the democratic parties ability to think long term is not all that great and their actions over the last 4 years more or less prove it.

What is the fillibuster anyway? From what I heard, it's politicans denying a vote on something by letting an appointed speaker talk and talk until the timer runs out.

 

[Bigking321]

It's a way to give the minority some power.

It's supposed to be rarely used, only when the majority is trying to pass something the minority considered very objectionable.

It would force the majority to compromise till they got enough of the minority on board to get 60 votes and stop the filibuster and then vote on the compromise legislation.

Needless to say it has been abused all to hell. You pretty much have to have over 60 votes to pass anything without using legislative loopholes and tricks.

The filibuster is basically always on now for any major legislation no matter how reasonable or common sense it is.

It definitely needs some kinda reform.

It's still better to have it than not. Other wise if the majority gets 51 votes they could do anything they want and screw the other 49 senators.

 

[Rocinante]

It's a way to give the minority some power.

It's supposed to be rarely used, only when the majority is trying to pass something the minority considered very objectionable.

It would force the majority to compromise till they got enough of the minority on board to get 60 votes and stop the filibuster and then vote on the compromise legislation.

Needless to say it has been abused all to hell. You pretty much have to have over 60 votes to pass anything without using legislative loopholes and tricks.

The filibuster is basically always on now for any major legislation no matter how reasonable or common sense it is.

It definitely needs some kinda reform.

It's still better to have it than not. Other wise if the majority gets 51 votes they could do anything they want and screw the other 49 senators.

How does one bust it without 60 votes anyways?

I thought they busted it years ago.

This is one part of the government that confuses me.

 

[Bigking321]

How does one bust it without 60 votes anyways?

I thought they busted it years ago.

This is one part of the government that confuses me.

The democrats changed the rules so you only needed 51 votes to break filibusters for federal judges so they could ram through as many judges as they could while Obama was president. Republicans then changed the same rule for Supreme Court judges because the democrats refused to move forward with any debate and the fact that the democrats had already violated the norms giving them justification.

Other than that using tricks like putting things into the budget to get them passed because budgets are done differently than normal laws.

There are a few other ways to get by the filibuster without the votes but they are all pretty scummy. The way they passed Obamacare being a example.

What the democrats are trying to do now is getting rid of the filibuster entirely. Striping the minority of any influence and letting them pass anything they want as long as they can get 50 votes with the vice president as the tie breaker.

 

[Rocinante]

The democrats changed the rules so you only needed 51 votes to break filibusters for federal judges so they could ram through as many judges as they could while Obama was president. Republicans then changed the same rule for Supreme Court judges because the democrats refused to move forward with any debate and the fact that the democrats had already violated the norms giving them justification.

Other than that using tricks like putting things into the budget to get them passed because budgets are done differently than normal laws.

There are a few other ways to get by the filibuster without the votes but they are all pretty scummy. The way they passed Obamacare being a example.

What the democrats are trying to do now is getting rid of the filibuster entirely. Striping the minority of any influence and letting them pass anything they want as long as they can get 50 votes with the vice president as the tie breaker.

But what do they need to do to break it? How would they break it without the 60 votes?

 

[Bigking321]

But what do they need to do to break it? How would they break it without the 60 votes?

You mean how would they get rid of it?

I believe they just need 51 votes to pass rule changes on their procedures, the filibuster being part of those procedures.

They wouldn't have to change a law or anything. Just declare that they have changed the rules, you only need 51 votes to break a filibuster now. And then the filibusters dead.

 

[Airedale260]

But what do they need to do to break it? How would they break it without the 60 votes?

They only need 51 votes to make a rule change. Hence they’re putting massive pressure on Manchin and Sinema (who are both Democrats but notably understand both the long term view and are in swing states) to cave.

Basically, if they succeed, it sets off a raft of leftist legislation to change voting rules (because they’re the Democrats’ only hope of retaining power in the wake of what will be massively unpopular laws), and then, assuming the GOP gets a trifecta, they’ll be able to make all sorts of changes the Democrats won’t be able to block.

@Cherico is right that the Democrats can’t think long term besides “suppressing opposition” which is why, should they do this, it’ll only make matters worse, especially when (not if) it blows up in their faces (assuming they repeal it).

So, we shall see. Manchin is one vote, but so is Sinema and either one can throw a wrench into this. Not guaranteed it’ll happen, but who knows.

 

[Rocinante]

You mean how would they get rid of it?

I believe they just need 51 votes to pass rule changes on their procedures, the filibuster being part of those procedures.

They wouldn't have to change a law or anything. Just declare that they have changed the rules, you only need 51 votes to break a filibuster now. And then the filibusters dead.

They only need 51 votes to make a rule change. Hence they’re putting massive pressure on Manchin and Sinema (who are both Democrats but notably understand both the long term view and are in swing states) to cave.

Basically, if they succeed, it sets off a raft of leftist legislation to change voting rules (because they’re the Democrats’ only hope of retaining power in the wake of what will be massively unpopular laws), and then, assuming the GOP gets a trifecta, they’ll be able to make all sorts of changes the Democrats won’t be able to block.

@Cherico is right that the Democrats can’t think long term besides “suppressing opposition” which is why, should they do this, it’ll only make matters worse, especially when (not if) it blows up in their faces (assuming they repeal it).

So, we shall see. Manchin is one vote, but so is Sinema and either one can throw a wrench into this. Not guaranteed it’ll happen, but who knows.

Thanks guys, this makes sense now, I appreciate it.

 

[Doomsought]

It would force the majority to compromise till they got enough of the minority on board to get 60 votes and stop the filibuster and then vote on the compromise legislation.

Needless to say it has been abused all to hell. You pretty much have to have over 60 votes to pass anything without using legislative loopholes and tricks.

The filibuster is basically always on now for any major legislation no matter how reasonable or common sense it is.

No. The reason the filabuster exists is because the government taking the wrong action is always worse than the government taking no action at all. The US government is designed to stall, sized up, and shutdown as a safety mechanism.

You are like a person sawing off the safety clutch on an elevator. You are so upset about it getting stuck that you forget that it is designed to get stuck in order to save your life.

 

[Urabrask Revealed]

assuming the GOP gets a trifecta, they’ll be able to make all sorts of changes the Democrats won’t be able to block.

It also assumes that the Cuckservatives and RINOs won't pussy out at these moments and instead continue their retarded policy of "Show respect towards their political opponents" rather than, y'know, do the right thing and fucking crush the Left as a functioning entity when it's time.

 

[Airedale260]

It also assumes that the Cuckservatives and RINOs won't pussy out at these moments and instead continue their retarded policy of "Show respect towards their political opponents" rather than, y'know, do the right thing and fucking crush the Left as a functioning entity when it's time.

They won't. McConnell warned them he'd fuck them over with judicial nominations if they nuked it, and when they ignored him and the shoe wound up on the other foot, he did exactly what he said he'd do.

The problem is, in order for the GOP to do that, Trump needs to knock it off with the circular firing squad. The Senate retirements he's cheering in 2022 are in states where his brand (to say nothing of him personally) are *deeply* unpopular among the general public. Oh, sure, anyone he backs will win a *primary* (if they're even opposed), but a general election? Completely different ballgame.

What's really sad is that 2022 should go in favor of the GOP, but if Trump doesn't shut his pie hole, he has a very good chance of casting away what should be a very winnable election.

 

[Rocinante]

They won't. McConnell warned them he'd fuck them over with judicial nominations if they nuked it, and when they ignored him and the shoe wound up on the other foot, he did exactly what he said he'd do.

The problem is, in order for the GOP to do that, Trump needs to knock it off with the circular firing squad. The Senate retirements he's cheering in 2022 are in states where his brand (to say nothing of him personally) are *deeply* unpopular among the general public. Oh, sure, anyone he backs will win a *primary* (if they're even opposed), but a general election? Completely different ballgame.

What's really sad is that 2022 should go in favor of the GOP, but if Trump doesn't shut his pie hole, he has a very good chance of casting away what should be a very winnable election.

Trump's endorsement right now is the single most ratings booster for any GOP candidates

Trump as a kingmaker is probably pretty effective.

 

[LordsFire]

They won't. McConnell warned them he'd fuck them over with judicial nominations if they nuked it, and when they ignored him and the shoe wound up on the other foot, he did exactly what he said he'd do.

The problem is, in order for the GOP to do that, Trump needs to knock it off with the circular firing squad. The Senate retirements he's cheering in 2022 are in states where his brand (to say nothing of him personally) are *deeply* unpopular among the general public. Oh, sure, anyone he backs will win a *primary* (if they're even opposed), but a general election? Completely different ballgame.

What's really sad is that 2022 should go in favor of the GOP, but if Trump doesn't shut his pie hole, he has a very good chance of casting away what should be a very winnable election.

Interesting theory.

Can you tell me what the success/failure rate has been for people who Trump endorsed has been? And how does that compare to those who he has not endorsed?

 

[Airedale260]

Trump's endorsement right now is the single most ratings booster for any GOP candidates

Trump as a kingmaker is probably pretty effective.

Within the party, yes, you are correct. But in the general, not so much. There were incumbents who got voted out even though they were liked and good at their jobs because the voters hated Trump and wanted to send him a message. That doesn't bode well when you need to get those people to vote for you in order to win.

Interesting theory.

Can you tell me what the success/failure rate has been for people who Trump endorsed has been? And how does that compare to those who he has not endorsed?

Primary or general? Because the results are going to be very different. Also, all districts or just swing ones, because that too makes a difference.

 

[Wargamer08]

Within the party, yes, you are correct. But in the general, not so much. There were incumbents who got voted out even though they were liked and good at their jobs because the voters hated Trump and wanted to send him a message. That doesn't bode well when you need to get those people to vote for you in order to win.



Primary or general? Because the results are going to be very different. Also, all districts or just swing ones, because that too makes a difference.

Whatever data you think is relevant.

 

[Rocinante]

Within the party, yes, you are correct. But in the general, not so much. There were incumbents who got voted out even though they were liked and good at their jobs because the voters hated Trump and wanted to send him a message. That doesn't bode well when you need to get those people to vote for you in order to win.



Primary or general? Because the results are going to be very different. Also, all districts or just swing ones, because that too makes a difference.

Who were those people who lost for having a Trump endorsement?

 

[Bacle]

Who were those people who lost for having a Trump endorsement?

I think Gardner in CO might count, as he was unseated by Hickenlooper.

However, the GOP gains in the House were because of Trump's help and excellent GOP candidates.

Trump does spell the end of the old GOP, which I think is where some of the 'Trump is killing the GOPs chances in 2022' come from, because old school country club Republicans would prefer to lose gracefully than win via 'incivility' as Trump did.

 

[Cherico]

I think Gardner in CO might count, as he was unseated by Hickenlooper.

However, the GOP gains in the House were because of Trump's help and excellent GOP candidates.

Trump does spell the end of the old GOP, which I think is where some of the 'Trump is killing the GOPs chances in 2022' come from, because old school country club Republicans would prefer to lose gracefully than win via 'incivility' as Trump did.

the country club republicans need to accept that the 80s are over and that we are no longer dealing with hippies. the world changed and they can either adapt to this meaner world or they can get the fuck out.