"Will you shut up, man?" US Politics October 2020

Milo throwing cold water over everything all the fucking time

Maybe redirect your ire at Kyrsten Sinema?

TS: Actually Throwing Cold Water vs. Predicting It

My forlorn hope is that the Republicans have gamed the system so hard, to the obvious detriment of the country, that it provokes a series of constitutional amendments that revise the system to make it far more democratic and responsive. The problem with that solution is the state legislatures which have to pass the amendments.

I hope Kyrsten Sinema changes her mind.

If I were Milo I'd do a sock stint to verify that a good half of my posts get smacked down on account of my signature

Just the practicalities of it are hard to fathom. How many more justices do you appoint? And what happens further down the road, does the GOP just start appointing justices? How many?

You appoint two. Four would probably cause a backlash. If the Dems can hold on to the Senate for the next 4-6 years, they'll get a chance to appoint more justices when Breyer and Thomas retire. Further down the road is not worth worrying about, because there are so many things in the immediate future that could radically change the political landscape. If Biden wins and the Dems get the House and Senate, removing the filibuster would be huge, because it would mean they could actually pass legislation. As would statehood for DC, which helps the Dems hang on to the Senate. And in the event of a landslide victory for Biden, we don't know what will happen to the Republican party.

I don't see it as throwing cold water when pointing out that centrist shitheads like Coons like are lying to you and already have their excuses lined up and out in the open.

Breyer needs to retire the minute Joe takes the oath. Seriously. Dude is 83 next year. Go The Fuck Away.

1. The president does not determine the size of the court; congress does.

2. Biden's least risky move is to say that "it's not up to me, it's up to the congress and the people they represent. I will bow to the will of the American people."

3. He can signal that he would likely sign a bill if it came to him with widespread popular support. That's not the same as advocacy.

4. The Biden campaign's main task right now is "don't fuck this up." So making the least risky move would probably be sensible.

5. Unfortunately he's already boxed himself in by saying he'll announce a position before Nov. 3. That may be a tactical mistake, because now he can't NOT come out as pro v. con.

6. Seriously can't we agree to call it court expansion or reform, not "packing"? "Packing" has mostly unpleasant connotations.

7. ...unless it's the Trump clan packing up their shit and leaving (rimshot).

7. Leaving the court as is - but making some other comparatively sweeping change (DC statehood, changing the apportionment rules, ending filibuster, legalizing weed at the Federal level) may bring Mitch to the table. Or maybe not, I don't fuckin know.

Oops, two 7s

I don't see it as throwing cold water when pointing out that centrist shitheads like Coons like are lying to you

Gee, thank you milo. Literally no one on ilx would think this was possible without you.

milo's schtick isn't tiresome because of the content, it's because of the implicit message that we are morons and he is the one tru head.

I'm more worried about a Democratic Senate that doesn't remove the filibuster than the Supreme Court balance, because if they win the Senate and don't kill the filibuster, the Democratic Party will achieve nothing legislatively for the next two years and then lose both Houses of Congress in 2022.

Manchin and Sinema are also expressly opposed to ending the filibuster.

*mind explodes*

By all means pack the court and do it urgently if necessary but there’s an obvious and politically easy response the republicans will make to that next time they have the chance.

Adding states that do not currently exist is a better move. It’s politically harder to fight since it’s so obviously fair, and the alleged republican response (split existing states hahaha) is logistically and politically difficult. Adding states is the thing they fear and for good reason.

Melt democrat senators are not going to oppose adding states on grounds of performative propriety for one thing.

Wouldn't be so sure about that, the prominent melts are the only Democrats in the Senate who haven't signed on for Puerto Rican statehood.

Haven’t signed on (PR) is better than explicitly oppose (court packing)

Lol btw

This is going to be a tricky Pulitzer nomination. https://t.co/i3fr04Wspy pic.twitter.com/539HKZY5Tq

— Matt Ford (@fordm) October 18, 2020

"but then what about when Repubicans are in control?" is the classic stepping-on-a-rake self-restraint that makes Democrats such adorable shitheels

Also never applicable when curtailing rights and freedoms, somehow.

Also we laugh at biden saying he’s going to work with republicans but murkowski is on the record as broadly sympathetic to both DC and PR fwiw.

Not saying adding states is easy or the only thing that needs to happen but it’s an easier (more popular) and better (less reversible) option than court packing so it should be one of the things they treat as a priority. They can court pack too if they want.

What controversial figure could they land to redesign the flag?

dril

as a compromise, introduce two states but make the new flag the thin blue line flag

Or change all the colors to blue and yellow for cops and POWs

https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Pgv-nerovAc3N2NtdJ4PTgHaEE&pid=Api

Fun fact DC would be the only majority black state, but Tom cotton says it wouldn’t be a working class state like Wyoming so no deal.

Was thinking/talking about this over dinner: unless Biden wins and the Democrats take the Senate, there will be no further COVID stimulus money.

1) too late to pass anything/bribe voters before the election
2) if Trump loses, he's gonna grudge-fuck the country as hard as he can between November and January, and steal everything possible on his way out the door
3) if Trump wins, he's gonna rule unfettered and focus all his energy on throwing brown people out of the country, raping the environment for his petro buddies, and stealing everything possible for four years; with no need to earn votes anymore, he will do exactly zero for non-plutocrats
4) if Biden wins but McConnell holds the Senate, nothing will pass, period, for the next four years

Trump/McConnell would do another huge stimulus to help in 2022 - it would be crooked as hell again but they'd force Pelosi to either agree with some peanuts thrown to unemployment or stimulus checks, else House Dems would be the villain.

The possibility of going through the holidays to Jan. 22nd with no stimulus was Ro Kanna/etc.'s argument for Pelosi to cut a deal with Trump now and force McConnell to agree or be the bad guy. Even if Dems take the Senate, the holiday retail season without stimulus along with the decimation of fun spending on travel/etc. is going to make ever recovering difficult.

argument for Pelosi to cut a deal with Trump now and force McConnell to agree or be the bad guy.

As a counterpoint, with such a deal Trump would win points and votes as "the good guy" even if the deal didn't go through and there's no upside to letting Trump win points with voters. Whereas McConnell has no problem being "the bad guy" because he only has to win in Kentucky, which he will regardless, so he can hand Trump a PR victory and not lose anything he values.

I think Pelosi has it right, that the deal has to include guaranteed passage in the Senate and signature by the president and obvious concessions to the House Democrats. Otherwise, it is just a free lunch for Trump and McConnell.

Whereas McConnell has no problem being "the bad guy" because he only has to win in Kentucky

This is like saying Pelosi's only concern is winning her district.

Nope. Because McConnell's caucus doesn't want what Trump wants, so Mitch would lose no skin off his nose by refusing to play along with a Trump-Pelosi deal. If he were to back up a Trump-Pelosi deal for a BIG stimulus, he'd have to twist arms and piss off his caucus.

McConnell would lose skin off his nose by not being the Senate Majority Leader anymore.

Ok but once he's lost the majority (or accepted that he's going to), then he has no incentive to do anything than what's best for Mitch

(generally agree tho that he has no problem being seen as the bad guy - cf. Garland vs. Barrett)

Sure, but what does that have to do with negotiations and positioning right now? If he loses in November he won't do anything, sure.

If Trump and Pelosi agree on a stimulus now, though, that puts the ball in his court to actively thwart what the President with 94% in-party approval wants and what the public at large desperately wants, two weeks before the election that decides if he gets to keep being the second most powerful person in Washington.

don't see that there is going to be a stimulus bill before the election

Mitch could cut his own deal with Pelosi if he viewed it in the terms that milo thinks apply here. Trump has already announced he wants to "go big" on a stimulus, so we can already see Mitch actively thwarting what the President with 94% in-party approval wants and what the public at large desperately wants, two weeks before the election that decides if he gets to keep being the second most powerful person in Washington. He acts like he dgaf.

Mitch and his caucus doesn't want a stimulus in any form that would be agreeable to Democrats at this point. I think he'd rather have nothing happen and be able to immediately start griping about deficits come January (which he will do anyway).

Yep.

It's just "own the libs" but in a nice suit.

This story is absolutely insane

Dr. Birx.

Dr. Atlas.

Vice President Pence.

Read the story.

Your government revealed. https://t.co/LBBKGoQQLF

— Robert Costa (@costareports) October 19, 2020

Needs more demon sperm imo.

Any kind soul c&p that WaPo article, if it's not too lengthy?

It's very very long. But here's a core nugget:

Discord on the coronavirus task force has worsened since the arrival in late summer of Atlas, whom colleagues said they regard as ill-informed, manipulative and at times dishonest. As the White House coronavirus response coordinator, Deborah Birx is tasked with collecting and analyzing infection data and compiling charts detailing upticks and other trends. But Atlas routinely has challenged Birx’s analysis and those of other doctors, including Anthony S. Fauci, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Robert Redfield, and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn, with what the other doctors considered junk science, according to three senior administration officials.

Birx recently confronted the office of Vice President Pence, who chairs the task force, about the acrimony, according to two people familiar with the meeting. Birx, whose profile and influence has eroded considerably since Atlas’s arrival, told Pence’s office that she does not trust Atlas, does not believe he is giving Trump sound advice and wants him removed from the task force, the two people said.

In one recent encounter, Pence did not take sides between Atlas and Birx, but rather told them to bring data bolstering their perspectives to the task force and to work out their disagreements themselves, according to two senior administration officials.
The result has been a U.S. response increasingly plagued by distrust, infighting and lethargy, just as experts predict coronavirus cases could surge this winter and deaths could reach 400,000 by year’s end.
This assessment is based on interviews with 41 administration officials, advisers to the president, public health leaders and other people with knowledge of internal government deliberations, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity to provide candid assessments or confidential information.

The result has been a U.S. response increasingly plagued ...

It's not just the response that's been plagued!