What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[LaCroix]

that conclusion makes the giant assumption that the republicans doing well was caused by their obstructionism. it's been mentioned here before with no supporting evidence. it doesn't even make sense

(edit) post was in response to valmy

[Valmy]

that conclusion makes the giant assumption that the republicans doing well was caused by their obstructionism. it's been mentioned here before with no supporting evidence. it doesn't even make sense

How does it not make sense? It has explicitly been their strategy for victory multiple times and victory has been won. So unless Republican strategy makes no sense...

It seems obvious to me in this case. Block all of Trump's endeavors as much as possible and force him to take unusual measures. Then denounce him as a tyrant.

As far as evidence goes, what sort of evidence are you looking for?

[Zoupa]

Democrats will filibuster. McConnell, with a heavy heart, will have to change the rules and remove the filibuster.

Not much you can do with 48 seats, guys.

[Admiral Yi]

The only power Democrats have is the filibuster, which could be eliminated any time Republicans choose.

[Valmy]

Democrats will filibuster. McConnell, with a heavy heart, will have to change the rules and remove the filibuster.

Not much you can do with 48 seats, guys.

Forcing the Republicans to destroy a two hundred year old institution is pretty big.

They are tyrants, they are fascists, they are removing all checks on their power blah blah.

[Valmy]

The only power Democrats have is the filibuster, which could be eliminated any time Republicans choose.

You have to admit a filibuster that can be removed at anytime the majority wants is not really worth shit.

[alfred russel]

the democrats shouldn't waste the public's goodwill on bs pettiness. the republicans at least could afford it because they win in local elections. now the democrats are just losers

So the way to win elections is to bend over and play by a different set of rules than your opponents that give them a permanent advantage? You are not really making your point here very well LaCroix. If the other party is beating you by using a different set of tactics it would seem wise to adopt those tactics. Letting them win to 'earn good will' makes no sense.

I was thinking of the good of the country here. But I guess you have convinced me to see the wisdom in Seedy's words.

The good of the country would probably involve getting rid of the filibuster.

It is too hard to get things done if you need a majority in the house, a super majority in the senate, and the presidency to pass a law. The result is that you get what we have had since Bush II--significant increase in executive orders, and a tolerance of it as the only way to get things done.

Getting rid of the filibuster definitely doesn't fix the problem, but it is a step.

[CountDeMoney]

And yay, we get to be buried with more bullshit on "textualism."  Bullshit made-up word.

[alfred russel]

Democrats will filibuster. McConnell, with a heavy heart, will have to change the rules and remove the filibuster.

Not much you can do with 48 seats, guys.

Forcing the Republicans to destroy a two hundred year old institution is pretty big.

They are tyrants, they are fascists, they are removing all checks on their power blah blah.

The filibuster requiring 60 votes to shut down isn't a 200 year institution. I don't remember the history but the current version of it is relatively new.

[LaCroix]

How does it not make sense? It has explicitly been their strategy for victory multiple times and victory has been won. So unless Republican strategy makes no sense...

It seems obvious to me in this case. Block all of Trump's endeavors as much as possible and force him to take unusual measures. Then denounce him as a tyrant.

As far as evidence goes, what sort of evidence are you looking for?

maybe I misunderstood you.

by obstructionism strategy, I thought you referred to an obstructionism strategy where it somehow leads to the democrats regaining ground across the states, and maybe regaining the senate or the house or both

if by obstructionism strategy, you mean a strategy of obstructionism to try to keep republicans from doing things here and there -- to delay -- then that makes only marginally better sense than the above. you delay if you know or figure you're going to win, you don't delay for the sake of delaying. the problem with this is that (1) it doesn't help the problem the democrats have with losing ground locally + in congress; and (2) it could hurt the democrats' public image. the democrats might not be able to get away with it as easily, and it could make their ground rebuilding game harder

the republicans could afford to delay for the sake of delaying because they've got the senate and house, so fuck it why not try it. the democrats need to regroup, and obstructionism makes them look nasty.

[Fate]

Democrats will filibuster. McConnell, with a heavy heart, will have to change the rules and remove the filibuster.

Not much you can do with 48 seats, guys.

Forcing the Republicans to destroy a two hundred year old institution is pretty big.

They are tyrants, they are fascists, they are removing all checks on their power blah blah.

The filibuster requiring 60 votes to shut down isn't a 200 year institution. I don't remember the history but the current version of it is relatively new.

Cloture as we know it started in the early 1900s. Before that you couldn't end debate by a vote. The first filibuster ever was in 1837.

[Valmy]

Getting rid of the filibuster definitely doesn't fix the problem, but it is a step.

And see? Not only do you achieve this patriotic goal, and one that might help your party out in he future, but you can make the Republicans look monstrous and authoritarian in the process. Win-win.

I am not necessarily saying the Democrats should go to the barricades like this I am just conducting a little thought experiment figuring out why they shouldn't.

[Valmy]

the republicans could afford to delay for the sake of delaying because they've got the senate and house, so fuck it why not try it. the democrats need to regroup, and obstructionism makes them look nasty.

They did it when they did not have either as well. That also had value for them.

Looking nasty might be what they need. I mean you just called them 'losers'. How is meekly going along with whatever Trump wants going to help them regroup from that label?

[Valmy]

The filibuster requiring 60 votes to shut down isn't a 200 year institution. I don't remember the history but the current version of it is relatively new.

1900 is still a pretty long time ago.

[LaCroix]

They did it when they did not have either as well. That also had value for them.

Looking nasty might be what they need. I mean you just called them 'losers'. How is meekly going along with whatever Trump wants going to help them regroup from that label?

yes, and it wasn't smart of them. do think "looking nasty" is a good strategy to regain support in areas the democrats have lost?