The biggest mistake Obama made as president was trying to work with Republicans..

[Themius]

It's never a mistake to act like an adult and seek compromise.

it is when you always compromise while the other side never does.

[smityx]

Agreed. I think when 2024 rolls around and we've got the White House and Congress, we should ram through everything possible. I sincerely weep for the future of american politics.

Why wait till 2024. If Trump/Pence are eventually taken down by one of the many scandels the next in line would be Speaker of the House. If the Dems take the house in Nov you could have a Dem president as early as 2019. (Pelosi? if she wins re-election and made speaker again)

[Lenonis]

Why wait till 2024.

The only realistic scenario to get this sort of broad control is in 2020 when a Dem president beats Trump and the nasty 2020 senate map for the GOP allows the Dems to get control. They'd just need to hold or flip the house (depending on how 2018 goes).

I think we all need to realize that barring some unforeseen event Trump has enough GOP loyalty that the Senate will not get enough votes for impeachment even if the House does.

I know there is a lot of hope around impeachment but given that the GOP no longer cares about anything other than power, there is no path to getting enough Dem control of congress to do something before 2020.

[Fahrenheit]

In New Jersey?

His biggest mistake was supporting and endorsing Hillary and commenting Trump would not get elected.

Even in NJ it happens.
Just having one or two or the right sort around you makes it seems like you're surrounded by the shear idiocy sloughing off them at times. My father is like that, it sometimes seems like the man cannot go 5 fucking mins without embarrassing himself in some way with his Trumpiness.

[cubby]

With the justice, I would say a 10 year term limit, I would like to allow for re-election but then you have to worry about them basing their judgements less on their merits and more about trying to get re-elected so I couldn't do it. Most I could really allow would be 15 years. Otherwise we have justices in their so old they are out of touch with the public much anymore. Also don't want re-elections due to how incumbents usually have it easier to get re-elected, even if they are trash. Would also make it where they are retired for life and can only work in government after that if they wanted to continue to prevent them from being bought up with another job when they left, same as I would do with other representatives. Hate how running a nation is seen as a stepping stone to consulting jobs when it should be seen as an endgame..

I would prefer a 15 or 20 years "term", but without any re-nomination possibility. There is also a lot of scholarly reasoning on why we should keep SCOTUS as lifetime appointments. I'm starting to rethink this portion of our discussion. Not trying to mess with you, just my own internal [and insane] dialogue.

For the review and removal of Trump stuff, it would definitely be complicated but would review everything they did with those who threw us under the bus forced to eat crow the entire time watching it being rolled back. Feel a little bad for those who thought they were elected to help being informed they were only elected because their views damaged us but still better than having the damage done.

Definitely complicated, I don't think anyone could argue otherwise. There might be a couple of avenues to take, however. The most obvious would be to unilaterally impeach all Trump nominees because of his collusion with Russia (and other high crimes). Impeachment really doesn't take a lot to get through once you decide to do it, the issue is that none of the judges/justices themselves would have done anything to warrant it. The "impeachment" would be based off their nominator, not their own actions.

We could also declare the nominations "corrupt" and require them to be renominated. No law that I'm aware of exists for that action, and we aren't allowed to retroactively punish people for new laws, if we decided to pass one to get it done in this manner.

Other ideas?

[mvaliz]

You are on the wrong forum. You are correct that this is an echo chamber, and anything remotely outside what they throw in to their circle jerk will not be tolerated or even given a chance. You will always be wrong because you do not support them. No one on here has an open mind, you can not show them anything different because they will look past it and ignore it. This is like a written version of the tv show The View, with most of them playing the Joy Behar character. Your best bet is to troll people and make them more mad.

Please give us any example in your posting history of you ever showing any form of being "open minded" towards anything somebody with an opposing view has said, and not dismissing anything because it doesn't fit your view.

Because your posting history has showcased you as being quite possibly the most intolerant closed-minded Bigot on this site, somewhere between Sula and SuperTony. Even your name choice showcases how completely closed-minded you are.

[cubby]

Why wait till 2024. If Trump/Pence are eventually taken down by one of the many scandels the next in line would be Speaker of the House. If the Dems take the house in Nov you could have a Dem president as early as 2019. (Pelosi? if she wins re-election and made speaker again)

It won't play out that way, much as I would like.

If Trump and Pence go down, it won't be at the same time. The Senate will still be controlled by the GOP post-2018 elections (barring a miracle). Which ever of the two top dogs go down first, the other remains (even for a day), and then nominate a new VP, who is immediately confirmed by the GOP Senate. So the Speaker won't matter.

[mvaliz]

it is when you always compromise while the other side never does.

That's where I'm standing right now.

I make it a point that I was having these discussions and debates on these forums since the Bush Jr era and tried the whole " lets work together" approach. I even tried to engage (with some degree of what I thought was success) with SuperTony on that level. All I discovered is he simply shifted his ire to attack other people instead of me for a brief time. He had no interest in trying any new ideas, he - like the other ALt-Righters - just wanted somebody to "respect" them via being "wrong".

I've let them have their chance. They decided it was better to burn the entire house down than to compromise on how to wash the dishes and to mow the lawn. It's time to divorce them, to get out of this abusive relationship, and to start a better relationship with real people who do wish to build a better home together.

[Fugus]

I would prefer a 15 or 20 years "term", but without any re-nomination possibility. There is also a lot of scholarly reasoning on why we should keep SCOTUS as lifetime appointments. I'm starting to rethink this portion of our discussion. Not trying to mess with you, just my own internal [and insane] dialogue.

No worries, I honestly think 20 years is a bit too much but can understand the logic behind it when it was started. The problem with the lifetime stuff is you get people too set in their ways and not changing with the times over the years and the parties willing to screw extra hard for that appointment like they did last time. With it being much shorter, much less temptation to screw us like that.

Definitely complicated, I don't think anyone could argue otherwise. There might be a couple of avenues to take, however. The most obvious would be to unilaterally impeach all Trump nominees because of his collusion with Russia (and other high crimes). Impeachment really doesn't take a lot to get through once you decide to do it, the issue is that none of the judges/justices themselves would have done anything to warrant it. The "impeachment" would be based off their nominator, not their own actions.

We could also declare the nominations "corrupt" and require them to be renominated. No law that I'm aware of exists for that action, and we aren't allowed to retroactively punish people for new laws, if we decided to pass one to get it done in this manner.

Other ideas?

I would personally use his motivation for choosing them to damage us as a nation and a traitor to nullify the nomination entirely. Where they are removed, not because they are impeached but because their very nomination wasn't valid due to the actions and motivations that got them nominated in the first place.

Would be removing them due to no fault of their own but due to the process that got them there.

Got to AFK and take kids to the dentist, won't be able to respond for a while but will read when I get back.

[NED funded]

it is when you always compromise while the other side never does.

Even then, you shouldn't compromise if you don't have to its stupid otherwise.

[cubby]

Even then, you shouldn't compromise if you don't have to its stupid otherwise.

But good governance is all about compromise.

[NED funded]

But good governance is all about compromise.

Good governance is when there is parity between parties where compromise is necessary. We make trade-offs when we are constrained, making trade-offs when you aren't constrained is stupid.

[Zaydin]

Besides the ACA and dropping hundreds of bombs what did he do that was "great" in your opinion.

Fix the mess Republicans left the economy in, for one.

[cubby]

No worries, I honestly think 20 years is a bit too much but can understand the logic behind it when it was started. The problem with the lifetime stuff is you get people too set in their ways and not changing with the times over the years and the parties willing to screw extra hard for that appointment like they did last time. With it being much shorter, much less temptation to screw us like that.

I think I'm leaning back towards lifetime appointments. But long-term one-time appointments still seem attractive as well. Damn.

I would personally use his motivation for choosing them to damage us as a nation and a traitor to nullify the nomination entirely. Where they are removed, not because they are impeached but because their very nomination wasn't valid due to the actions and motivations that got them nominated in the first place.

Would be removing them due to no fault of their own but due to the process that got them there.

Got to AFK and take kids to the dentist, won't be able to respond for a while but will read when I get back.

I could see that possibly working. Saying the entire process was tainted, uniquely so, would be a method of requiring a kind of "re-do" for all those that were appointed by him.

[Fugus]

I think I'm leaning back towards lifetime appointments. But long-term one-time appointments still seem attractive as well. Damn.

Can handle long time appoint's just not lifetime ones. The level of abuse the parties might go through to appoint them is pretty bad knowing they got a 30+ year appointment.

Just look what Mitch did to prevent Democrats from flipping the house and I remember during the election that had one official talking about leaving the seat vacant for another 4 years if Clinton had won saying they had no requirement to fill it.

Honestly, I would like to extend it further and force nominations not to come from the president but from a non-partisan commission made up of members from all parties in office with equal representation regardless of who is in power. But that might be too much to setup but watching these guys who put their party before the best interests of this nation like they do really sucks.

Especially after I read that case where the stolen seat was the deciding vote along party lines that screwed this nation as a whole effectively banning from employees suing their employers.

I could see that possibly working. Saying the entire process was tainted, uniquely so, would be a method of requiring a kind of "re-do" for all those that were appointed by him.

I hope it happens to undo all this. I know a lot of pissed off Trump supporters over it, but if it is proven that Trump was a traitor and was doing his actions for the benefit of a foreign adversary, then his picks were also made with that in mind and must be undone. Won't lie, on a personal level I would love it just to watch them after all the bitching and moaning they did over Trump winning and claiming he was the second coming of Jesus and that Sanders was a communist trying to destroy this nation. To find out and have it proven that their second Jesus was put there to hurt them, their children, and this nation before the benefit of an enemy and their views were seen as just that destructive. While they would never admit it, I would still like to see it. And the fact it would help redeem this nation to the globe to an extent and roll back much of the damage and prevent much of the future damage they would cause is a huge deal.

If Trump elected someone to destroy something and Trump was removed while he remained, he is still there to do damage, even if he doesn't see it that way.

[Louisa Bannon]

The Overton Window...

It's interesting how different people keep getting credit for shit a lot of us have been talking about for literally years, now there's some new descriptor for it. I guess I can add this to my arsenal of named concepts alongside the Dunning-Kruger effect, also which a lot of us understood intuitively to be true for decades if not longer before it had a fucking name.

[Endus]

It's interesting how different people keep getting credit for shit a lot of us have been talking about for literally years, now there's some new descriptor for it. I guess I can add this to my arsenal of named concepts alongside the Dunning-Kruger effect, also which a lot of us understood intuitively to be true for decades if not longer before it had a fucking name.

These things were always a factor, they just didn't become a problematic enough factor to A> be broadly noticed and B> to start shaping the path of society.

It doesn't matter if some nutcase is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It does matter when enough of the voting public exhibits that kind of behaviour that it affects elections.

[DarkTZeratul]

Just look what Mitch did to prevent Democrats from flipping the house and I remember during the election that had one official talking about leaving the seat vacant for another 4 years if Clinton had won saying they had no requirement to fill it.

Honestly, I would like to extend it further and force nominations not to come from the president but from a non-partisan commission made up of members from all parties in office with equal representation regardless of who is in power. But that might be too much to setup but watching these guys who put their party before the best interests of this nation like they do really sucks.

Frankly a simpler fix would be to require the Senate to vote on a president's nomination, and to automatically confirm them after a period of time if no vote is held.

[Fugus]

Frankly a simpler fix would be to require the Senate to vote on a president's nomination, and to automatically confirm them after a period of time if no vote is held.

Too easy to abuse. If the speaker knows he doesn't have enough to confirm someone they wanted, he would just not allow the vote to happen till they automatically confirmed.

Having a non-partisan commission being the ones nominating them would be superior.

And if we aren't going to have a commission do it, would require that they must having hearings in the order they were nominated, so even if they pushed it off, they would still have to hear them the first person first. Still dislike it because it is too based on which side has power but still better than the BS that just happened landing us with an illegitimate justice who has already screwed us on at least one case as a nation along party lines.

Edit: And if make it where if they wait more than 3 months to have hearings, by their own rules, no other business may take place after the 3rd month till the nomination is taken care of and an investigation with potential fines and charges for "Dereliction of Duty" for the speaker for refusing to call them.

[breadisfunny]

Compromising with concentration camps. lol. The left doesn't have the guts to win.

wtf are you on about?