Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

What am I casually accepting? I think Clapper's testimony was a joke. And I think Congress's "oversight" of the NSA is a joke. But the number of people who care could fit comfortably on a cross-town bus.

After removing the political operatives and pundits, the number of people who care about Hillary's emails or Libby's outing Plame could fit in the same bus.

If Congress doesn't care that it's being lied to, no one is going to get prosecuted. If people are upset about NSA abuses, they need to persuade other people to care.

"Congress" didn't care about Plame and it doesn't care about Hillary. The GOP cares about Hillary, and the Democrats cared about Plame. And that's an overstatement, because neither really cared about either issue. Both were opportunistic plays for political gain.

I don't understand why you're drawing equivalences between these various cases, which are all different.

They're not all different. Libby engaged in a tawdry political act, technically exposing himself to prosecution. Hillary did something probably stupid, possibly intentionally aimed at keeping public information private, technically exposing her to possible prosecution.

Clapper, on the other hand, lied to Congress. That he has the cover of perjury being difficult to prove, and that Congress knew it was being duped, doesn't undo his culpability. Of the three, he is most deserving of prosecution, or loss of office, following by Libby, and then Hillary.

Libby intentionally blew Plame's cover, for political reasons. Clinton appears to have complied with governing regulations -- which were no doubt just as sound as all of the other regulations governing how the federal government handles things like email, but there you go. No one was harmed by what she did, but entirely predictable ongoing squabbles about whether specific emails should be classified keep feeding new stories. There is no there there, and there is no Plame, let alone anyone trying to harm her.

Plame was a nobody. There was a bit more there there than there is in Hillary's case, but not much, and certainly nowhere near as much as there was in Clapper's case.

And then there's Clapper. I'm not sure why you think what he did has anything to do with Libby or Clinton. Every part of the government lets the NSA act as if it is above the law, and the only thing that was different about Clapper's testimony is that the rest of us got to see it for once.

You can't give Clapper a pass and say Libby's prosecution was warranted. The selectivity employed there isn't defensible. The fair result would be Libby and Clapper being forced to resign and publicly censured, and Hillary being let off the hook.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

OK, we agree.

I can never figure out how Rs claim this all began because Dems objected to putting a hideous and corrupt asshole on the court and voted for Justice Kennedy instead. (hi Hank!)

Regardless, can we all agree that "but you would do/ have done/ will do/ might do/ would think about doing the same thing" is not a defense to doing the wrong thing, and, when someone does the wrong thing, simply flay them for it?

If that wrong thing is Bork firing Cox, I think it's one wrong thing among many. I'm no Bork expert, but as I recall, the man had a bibliography of noxious articles in which he admitted being a racist, sexist, narrow minded cretin.

Rs can claim anything they like because they live in a post-truth unreality. So too do some of the Dems, but there's is nowhere near as delusional, and if cornered, they can be compelled to compromise.

What most reasonable people fail to grasp about strident Rs is, they aren't having any debates with anyone, at all, ever. They are engaged in 24/7 marketing. It's Edward Bernays/Goebbels stuff. Say a thing enough and it's fact.

I know tons of Rs, smart people. When they say batshit crazy stuff, I'm compelled (usually by drink) to flag them on it. They'll sheepishly admit it's not really true, but in the same breath, almost all of them will concede they're saying it because they believe they're part of a minority that is being forced to lie to save the country. They believe that it's okay to spread falsehoods with abandon because it's in service to a noble cause. "The Dems are stupid, lazy, and they'll drive us to socialism. They have the numbers, because the country is filled with freeloaders and redistributionists, so we have to use whatever means are necessary." There is an elegant logic to it.

I don't buy into any of it. When I vote R, or D, I do it in self interest. And I'll admit that to anyone who asks. This is not a failing on my part. The parties largely serve the same masters in the end, and the only honest man on the stage, Sanders, has an untenable economic plan, and is already doomed by the superdelegates. I'll vote Hillary or Trump holding my nose. If Hillary, it's the long play - better economy over her term. If Trump, it's the cynical short term play - lower taxes. Tough one... A very tough one.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Also, this, which is not at all consistent with what I was saying a few days ago:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...than-they-look

This is an interesting article.

The question I have is: Is this nomination bullshit another sign that the Republican party is actually in its death throes?

They have completely lost the middle/independents. Neither Hillary nor Bernie may be the right person to pick them up, which will make this election much closer than it should be. But if the left was running Biden or someone who people (i) couldn't label a communist or (ii) didn't consider a shape shifting reptile who rose from the depths of darkness (who is also a woman), this election would already be over.

So what's the takeaway? First, the Republicans are absolutely placing all their chips on this election. If they don't win the Presidency, they can only hope to filibuster everything until midterms when they (probably) win back the Senate and then begin obstructing in earnest again. If they lose, they lose the Supreme Court. And the stakes are much higher than 5-4 decisions going forward because Kennedy is 79. If they lose that lean right-swing vote now that Scalia is gone, they're fucked. Now that they're playing these games, there's no way someone as far right as Scalia ever sits on the bench again. Based on the Senate's current behavior, if I were a Senator, my vote wouldn't go to anyone who even leans right. Ever.* Ginsburg and Breyer could also easily be up during the next 4 years. So they absolutely need this.

Second, the problem they have is that, because they've lost the moderates, they absolutely must depend on the right wing crazies who make up their base. They need them to come out in overwhelming numbers, so they need the Supreme Court as the key issue. You don't come out to vote? Kiss your Second Amendment rights good bye. There is no way around it. And it's like a snowball. The more they embrace their lunatic side, the less likely they are to win the general. At this point, I don't think the nominee can even pull a Romney and immediately switch to more reasonable stances on issues after winning the primary. He'll lose too much support.

What is the party going to look like in 4 years given the demographic changes that are looming? What are their options if they lose this election and the Senate? All signs point to: Move further right.

TM

*And it's sad, but that's where we're going. If the next President is a Democrat, the Republicans will vote every single nominee down in hopes that they win the Presidency at some point. So, get used to having an 8 Justice Court.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://thesource.com/2016/02/25/20-p...-proclamation/ Scary, but not surprising. In fact I'd have thought the number might have been higher. Although a decent chunk of the undecided 17% might actually have a view, just not wanting to admit it.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure we're even arguing, but my point is this: The Constitution sets up the current impasse, because it doesn't establish a mechanism that works in this situation. There confirmation process has worked through a series of norms that have been breaking down, as each side accuses the other of departing from them. It goes back to the Bork confirmation hearings, which Republicans see as an unprecedented effort to block a qualified nominee on the basis of his views. Of course, Bork's nomination was a conscious effort by Republicans to remake the Court. In short, the Constitution is not up to the task where you have a zero-sum, political fight over who serves on the Court. Saying that the President and Senate must agree doesn't tell you what to do when they don't.

But that is not at issue. I won't argue that they're not allowed to reject a nominee. I just think the Senate actually has to reject him/her. And that requires a vote.

If you read the words, there needs to be a mechanism which provides for some form of advise and then consent (or not). Yes, there is no fix for when they choose to ignore those words (other than a suit which the Supreme Court would decide, I suppose) and pretend there is no nominee. But it seems to me that if they want a zero-sum political fight over who serves on the Court, they actually need to debate the nominee (advise) and hold a vote (consent). Or maybe you believe that the power to make the decision resting solely with the majority leader is a sufficient mechanism. I don't.

If you sat on the Supreme Court and this issue came before you, would you rule in favor of the Republicans (non-)interpretation of the clause and permit them to not even entertain the Presidents nomination? How would you interpret those words practically?

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I meant this: being intellectually honest with yourselves doesn't seem to matter, on a board where there really is no contrary poster. There is no reason for me to be here. Enjoy!

How in the hell can you be intellectually honest about politics? It's like being intellectually honest about religion.

The cycle so far has been nothing but platitudes. The only two candidates touching the serious issue - trade - are Sanders and Trump. And neither is offering anything tenable. Enhanced tariffs? Not happening. Tax penalties for inversions? Not happening.

What's Hillary peddling? Whatever policy her polling people tell her will win the room. Or, more recently, whatever Bernie's peddling. And those speeches to Goldman, where she speaks candidly and would provide a glimpse into how she'd govern? "No one's interested in that."

Prison and criminal justice reform? Not happening. Why? Prison industry lobbyists/Catering to the "tough on crime" (read: racist) vote > Paul/Booker/Koch Brothers* And if you think Hillary's going to engage in criminal justice reform, you're irretrievably deluded. How she and her husband sell themselves as the best choice for the Black vote is baffling. They sold out the liberal wing of the party and played ball with the GOP on welfare reform, which in part ushered in our current "incarceration bubble."

Trump will govern as a moderate Republican. Hillary will govern as a Reagan Democrat. In either case, you're going to get more of the same. It may be more entertaining to see Trump in office, but that's about the only difference I see.

You see any intellectual honesty in this carnival? It's a fucking joke. Trump has destroyed any last shred of faith the process had dignity left in it.

_____________
* The Kochs only being in it to lessen white collar penalties.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If Trump, it's the cynical short term play - lower taxes. Tough one... A very tough one.

You'd think that Flint would make it obvious that you could pay a little now or a lot later.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You'd think some of the candidates might come out against this frightening trend: http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-poli...ash-1455754850

Why not? Because this sort of removal of liberty enjoys broad bipartisan support. "It's against terrorism! And it'll help the economy, by more easily enabling negative interest rates!"

Idiocracy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You'd think that Flint would make it obvious that you could pay a little now or a lot later.

TM

The Force is strong with some. The time value of money argument is stronger with many more, apparently.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So your "interpretation" is that Biden is saying, "Bush shouldn't nominate until November, cuz lots of us are busy. But come November we will give the nominee full consideration, even if Clinton wins?"

Interpretation? That's literally what he said.

Might he have changed his tune after Clinton won? Maybe, but there wasn't a vacancy so we will never know.

ETA: Transcript

As a result it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of the majority of his predecessors and not... and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed. The Senate too should consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throws of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of presidents Filmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearing on the nomination until ever... until after the political campaign season is over."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

If you sat on the Supreme Court and this issue came before you, would you rule in favor of the Republicans (non-)interpretation of the clause and permit them to not even entertain the Presidents nomination?

I don't think you'd have any choice.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Hillary will govern as a Reagan Democrat.

It's funny how public perception of Hillary has changed, because I remember when she was truly a hippy radical who was merely adopting moderate clothing. Now she's really a republican.

Honestly, I think the former is closer to true.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

ETA: Transcript .... It is my view that if the President goes the way of presidents Filmore and Johnson ....

A reference to Filmore! My opinion of Biden just plunged.

Luckily, when that happens, I can just post this:

[Or I could, but for TM's computer settings]

and all is forgiven.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

This is an interesting article.

The question I have is: Is this nomination bullshit another sign that the Republican party is actually in its death throes?

They have completely lost the middle/independents. Neither Hillary nor Bernie may be the right person to pick them up, which will make this election much closer than it should be. But if the left was running Biden or someone who people (i) couldn't label a communist or (ii) didn't consider a shape shifting reptile who rose from the depths of darkness (who is also a woman), this election would already be over.

So what's the takeaway? First, the Republicans are absolutely placing all their chips on this election. If they don't win the Presidency, they can only hope to filibuster everything until midterms when they (probably) win back the Senate and then begin obstructing in earnest again. If they lose, they lose the Supreme Court. And the stakes are much higher than 5-4 decisions going forward because Kennedy is 79. If they lose that lean right-swing vote now that Scalia is gone, they're fucked. Now that they're playing these games, there's no way someone as far right as Scalia ever sits on the bench again. Based on the Senate's current behavior, if I were a Senator, my vote wouldn't go to anyone who even leans right. Ever.* Ginsburg and Breyer could also easily be up during the next 4 years. So they absolutely need this.

Second, the problem they have is that, because they've lost the moderates, they absolutely must depend on the right wing crazies who make up their base. They need them to come out in overwhelming numbers, so they need the Supreme Court as the key issue. You don't come out to vote? Kiss your Second Amendment rights good bye. There is no way around it. And it's like a snowball. The more they embrace their lunatic side, the less likely they are to win the general. At this point, I don't think the nominee can even pull a Romney and immediately switch to more reasonable stances on issues after winning the primary. He'll lose too much support.

What is the party going to look like in 4 years given the demographic changes that are looming? What are their options if they lose this election and the Senate? All signs point to: Move further right.

TM

*And it's sad, but that's where we're going. If the next President is a Democrat, the Republicans will vote every single nominee down in hopes that they win the Presidency at some point. So, get used to having an 8 Justice Court.

As long as the Republicant's keep their local power in the statehouses, they will have a disproportionate voice in Congress. Dems get more total votes for Congresss, but Republicants still hold the majority because they draw more of the lines.

And as long as the Republican party depends on that dynamic for its power, it will continue to produce maniacs like Trump and Cruz.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Tax penalties for inversions? Not happening.

There are already severe tax penalties for inversions. What are you looking for that isn't there already?

I know what the candidates are looking for - it's always popular to beat up someone for shifting activities abroad, and always popular to tax the foreigners - but as an issue deserving of discussion if you're not scoring political points, what would you do about inversions that hasn't already been done?