A Libertarian's view of Trump's SCOTUS pick.

[Warren Dew]

(02-02-2017, 06:06 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 01:55 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I have no issue with Gorsuch.

This was the first thing Trump did right.

I give credit where it is due.

IIRC, he'd be the first Xer on the court. Hopefully he'd be more inclined towards rationalism.

Also toward limited government and indiviidual liberty.  All good things.  Hopefully we get more Xers on the court soon.

[Galen]

(02-04-2017, 01:30 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 06:06 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 01:55 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I have no issue with Gorsuch.

This was the first thing Trump did right.

I give credit where it is due.

IIRC, he'd be the first Xer on the court. Hopefully he'd be more inclined towards rationalism.

Also toward limited government and indiviidual liberty.  All good things.  Hopefully we get more Xers on the court soon.

Eric the Obtuse always has oppose individual liberty but he loves more government.  More Xers on the court should cause his head to explode.

[David Horn]

(02-04-2017, 01:28 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 01:22 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: One of the problems you Lefties have is you don't seem to know how to choose your battles. So you fight many simultaneously and win almost none. While a good portion of the Left are having a conniption fit about Gorsuch, Trump is busy decimating our National Security architecture plus numerous other highly destructive acts which are so heinous, even a good many Centrists and Rightists abhor them.

People for the American Way, the group Eric quoted, would probably consider decimation of the national security architecture an additional benefit.

Your guy is working on that 24/7.  If you want to bitch about it, turn your gaze in that direction.  I've never seen it so chaotic, but the chaos can't be blamed on anyone on the Left.  There is no Left at the moment.

You bought it. Own it!

[David Horn]

(02-04-2017, 02:05 AM)Galen Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 01:30 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 06:06 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 01:55 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: I have no issue with Gorsuch.

This was the first thing Trump did right.

I give credit where it is due.

IIRC, he'd be the first Xer on the court. Hopefully he'd be more inclined towards rationalism.

Also toward limited government and indiviidual liberty.  All good things.  Hopefully we get more Xers on the court soon.

Eric the Obtuse always has oppose individual liberty but he loves more government.  More Xers on the court should cause his head to explode.

General question: if you destroy all the hated institutions, who or what stands between you and the much more powerful private interests you so thoroughly trust?  Private power operates in its own best interest, and has never claimed otherwise.

Are you up for that?

[Eric the Green]

(02-04-2017, 01:28 AM)Warren Dew Wrote:

(02-03-2017, 01:22 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: One of the problems you Lefties have is you don't seem to know how to choose your battles. So you fight many simultaneously and win almost none. While a good portion of the Left are having a conniption fit about Gorsuch, Trump is busy decimating our National Security architecture plus numerous other highly destructive acts which are so heinous, even a good many Centrists and Rightists abhor them.

People for the American Way, the group Eric quoted, would probably consider decimation of the national security architecture an additional benefit.

What David said; and you would need to quote PAW on that.

[Marypoza]

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/news/trumps...cism-club/

[Eric the Green]

We definitely don't need a (former?) fascist or another "movement conservative" on the Court. If Democrats have any spine they will filibuster this nut. This is not just another battle; it is THE battle.

[Marypoza]

(02-04-2017, 02:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We definitely don't need a (former?) fascist or another "movement conservative" on the Court. If Democrats have any spine they will filibuster this nut. This is not just another battle; it is THE battle.

-- not just a spine, they need some guts too, & they need to grow a pair. They doubtless need some other body parts too, but those are the ones l can think of off the  top of my head

[Eric the Green]

Republicans have no brains or heart, and Democrats have no guts and those other body parts. That works.

[Mikebert]

(02-02-2017, 09:54 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: It's good politics on his part, especially if in return for conceding these sorts of issues to traditional Republicans he gets similar concessions on things he actually cares about, like trade, infrastructure, and immigration.

I don't think so.  Why should they?  Trump is president now, not a candidate.  He will only become a liability to the party as time goes on and so his bargaining power will diminish.  But maybe Trump doesn't care to accomplish anything in the reality that people other than his followers acknowledge.  His own reality may be sufficient, in which case he can only succeed.

[Marypoza]

(02-04-2017, 04:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Republicans have no brains or heart, and Democrats have no guts and those other body parts. That works.

-- repugs= scarecrow/tinman Dems= the lion
Works 4 me too

[SomeGuy]

(02-04-2017, 04:55 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 09:54 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: It's good politics on his part, especially if in return for conceding these sorts of issues to traditional Republicans he gets similar concessions on things he actually cares about, like trade, infrastructure, and immigration.

I don't think so.  Why should they?  Trump is president now, not a candidate.  He will only become a liability to the party as time goes on and so his bargaining power will diminish.  But maybe Trump doesn't care to accomplish anything in the reality that people other than his followers acknowledge.  His own reality may be sufficient, in which case he can only succeed.

Still early days, too early to just assume he's not going to bother with any of his campaign promises.  The Presidency is not a completely powerless position.

[David Horn]

(02-04-2017, 04:00 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 02:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We definitely don't need a (former?) fascist or another "movement conservative" on the Court. If Democrats have any spine they will filibuster this nut. This is not just another battle; it is THE battle.

-- not just a spine, they need some guts too, & they need to grow a pair. They doubtless need some other body parts too, but those are the ones l can think of off the  top of my head

Reality check: Gorsuch will be approved one way or another.  Given that, what is the right response to show indignation at the "stolen seat", while minimizing damage?  Of the options available, this guy is at least firmly located on Planet Earth.  But acquiescence shows as weakness with the GOP as it currently exists.  A good option: Schumer allows a few votes less than the number to reach 60, and forces the nuclear option.  McDonnell follows suit, and 2018 is off and running.

The downside: at least one more Justice may decide that now is the right time to retire, giving Trump two young conservative appointments.  Of course, that would happen in any case.  The nuclear option is available for use at any time.

[Warren Dew]

(02-06-2017, 01:14 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 04:00 PM)Marypoza Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 02:28 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: We definitely don't need a (former?) fascist or another "movement conservative" on the Court. If Democrats have any spine they will filibuster this nut. This is not just another battle; it is THE battle.

-- not just a spine, they need some guts too, & they need to grow a pair. They doubtless need some other body parts too, but those are the ones l can think of off the  top of my head

Reality check: Gorsuch will be approved one way or another.  Given that, what is the right response to show indignation at the "stolen seat", while minimizing damage?  Of the options available, this guy is at least firmly located on Planet Earth.  But acquiescence shows as weakness with the GOP as it currently exists.  A good option: Schumer allows a few votes less than the number to reach 60, and forces the nuclear option.  McDonnell follows suit, and 2018 is off and running.

The downside: at least one more Justice may decide that now is the right time to retire, giving Trump two young conservative appointments.  Of course, that would happen in any case.  The nuclear option is available for use at any time.

McConnell is pretty old school; if he's still alive, I question whether he would invoke the nuclear option to replace Ginsberg with someone as conservative as Gorsuch.  Kennedy maybe.

[David Horn]

(02-04-2017, 07:15 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

(02-04-2017, 04:55 PM)Mikebert Wrote:

(02-02-2017, 09:54 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: It's good politics on his part, especially if in return for conceding these sorts of issues to traditional Republicans he gets similar concessions on things he actually cares about, like trade, infrastructure, and immigration.

I don't think so.  Why should they?  Trump is president now, not a candidate.  He will only become a liability to the party as time goes on and so his bargaining power will diminish.  But maybe Trump doesn't care to accomplish anything in the reality that people other than his followers acknowledge.  His own reality may be sufficient, in which case he can only succeed.

Still early days, too early to just assume he's not going to bother with any of his campaign promises.  The Presidency is not a completely powerless position.

I assume that Trump must win 100% of the time.  But if he has to trade one thing for another, he'll opt for unfettered capitalism first and foremost.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:I assume that Trump must win 100% of the time.  But if he has to trade one thing for another, he'll opt for unfettered capitalism first and foremost.

Eh, I don't really think Trump is all that in to what a libertarian would call "unfettered capitalism".  His positions on trade and infrastructure have been the one constant in his positions since he first began flirting with the idea of becoming President in the 80s.

You should also consider that triggering the nuclear option over Gorsuch also clears the way for a much less acceptable choice next time around.  Lotta elderly justices, the Republicans hold the senate, and the 2018 map doesn't look all that great for the Democrats.  Replacing with Scalia with Gorsuch is a fairly status quo move, replacing Ginsberg with Bill Pryor, not so much.

[Eric the Green]

(02-06-2017, 01:23 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:I assume that Trump must win 100% of the time.  But if he has to trade one thing for another, he'll opt for unfettered capitalism first and foremost.

Eh, I don't really think Trump is all that in to what a libertarian would call "unfettered capitalism".  His positions on trade and infrastructure have been the one constant in his positions since he first began flirting with the idea of becoming President in the 80s.

He has yet to demonstrate any results or even any efforts to make better trade deals, and he has yet to demonstrate that he has any proposal to fund intrastructure beyond giving tax breaks to his friends in the construction industry.

Quote:You should also consider that triggering the nuclear option over Gorsuch also clears the way for a much less acceptable choice next time around.  Lotta elderly justices, the Republicans hold the senate, and the 2018 map doesn't look all that great for the Democrats.  Replacing with Scalia with Gorsuch is a fairly status quo move, replacing Ginsberg with Bill Pryor, not so much.

Quite the opposite is the truth. If the Democrats fail to use the filibuster now, then when the next right-wing nut is nominated for the Court, and the Democrats filibuster THAT one, the Repugs will just use the nuclear option THEN. The NEXT right-wing nut after the right-wing nut Gorsuch may be just as "qualified" and "well spoken" as Gorsuch too. Use it or lose it. Go ahead, make their day. Make them pull the trigger.

The Democrats have lost all spine, guts and "a pair" if they don't filibuster Gorsuch. And then they also ratify what the Repugs did with Garland.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:He has yet to demonstrate any results or even any efforts to make better trade deals, and he has yet to demonstrate that he has any proposal to fund intrastructure beyond giving tax breaks to his friends in the construction industry.

He's been in office less than two weeks.  He canceled TPP, that's a start.

Quote:Quite the opposite is the truth. If the Democrats fail to use the filibuster now, then when the next right-wing nut is nominated for the Court, and the Democrats filibuster THAT one, the Repugs will just use the nuclear option THEN. The NEXT right-wing nut after the right-wing nut Gorsuch may be just as "qualified" and "well spoken" as Gorsuch too. Use it or lose it. Go ahead, make their day. Make them pull the trigger.

The Democrats have lost all spine, guts and "a pair" if they don't filibuster Gorsuch. And then they also ratify what the Repugs did with Garland.

*shrugs*

Y'alls funeral.  I don't think McConnell wants to pull the trigger, and if you don't think they could find somebody more objectionable than Gorsuch...

Careful what you wish for.

[Eric the Green]

(02-06-2017, 02:44 PM)SomeGuy Wrote:

Quote:He has yet to demonstrate any results or even any efforts to make better trade deals, and he has yet to demonstrate that he has any proposal to fund intrastructure beyond giving tax breaks to his friends in the construction industry.

He's been in office less than two weeks.  He canceled TPP, that's a start.

Quote:Quite the opposite is the truth. If the Democrats fail to use the filibuster now, then when the next right-wing nut is nominated for the Court, and the Democrats filibuster THAT one, the Repugs will just use the nuclear option THEN. The NEXT right-wing nut after the right-wing nut Gorsuch may be just as "qualified" and "well spoken" as Gorsuch too. Use it or lose it. Go ahead, make their day. Make them pull the trigger.

The Democrats have lost all spine, guts and "a pair" if they don't filibuster Gorsuch. And then they also ratify what the Repugs did with Garland.

*shrugs*

Y'alls funeral.  I don't think McConnell wants to pull the trigger, and if you don't think they could find somebody more objectionable than Gorsuch...

Careful what you wish for.

TPP was dead anyway. There's no-one more objectionable than Gorsuch. Maybe equally objectionable, no doubt.

If Gorsuch is filibustered, then WE'LL SEE if McConnell wants to pull the trigger, won't we?

If you don't complain about Democrats if they don't filibuster Gorsuch, as Bernie wants them to do, then don't complain about Hillary or Warren. Democrats without backbone all, in that case, equally.

[SomeGuy]

Quote:If you don't complain about Democrats if they don't filibuster Gorsuch, as Bernie wants them to do, then don't complain about Hillary or Warren. Democrats without backbone all, in that case, equally.

Eric, Eric, Eric,
I don't complain about Democrats for not standing up to Republicans, I complain about them for being Democrats.  

Quote:TPP was dead anyway.

Because of Trump and Sanders.  If Hillary had had her way it would still be the "gold standard" of trade deals.  I don't know why you keep bringing her up, anyways.  Politically, she's deader than disco.

Quote:There's no-one more objectionable than Gorsuch. Maybe equally objectionable, no doubt.

I'm sure that you think so.

Quote:If Gorsuch is filibustered, then WE'LL SEE if McConnell wants to pull the trigger, won't we?

We will see what happens, to be sure.