What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Eddie Teach]

Who lost?

[jimmy olsen]

I'm glad there's a deal, hope it sticks.  I don't agree with holding the entire federal gov't hijack, regardless of who does it. 

I'm kinda tired of the party of honorable losers.

It's only a loss if you believe the GOP would have passed a bill funding CHIP on their own. I see no reason to believe that. The Dems forced them to fund it for 6 years. That's a win.

[Grinning_Colossus]

I'm glad there's a deal, hope it sticks.  I don't agree with holding the entire federal gov't hijack, regardless of who does it. 

Tit-for-tat defection is an optimal strategy for bringing a defecting party in line.

[DGuller]

I'm glad there's a deal, hope it sticks.  I don't agree with holding the entire federal gov't hijack, regardless of who does it.

I don't agree with being the first one to do it.  Just like I don't agree with being the first one to deny a Supreme Court justice to a president, or any other first moves to break the established norms at the cost of making politics permanently worse for everyone down the road. 

However, when the usual enforcement of established norms fails, and the political party that breaks the norms doesn't pay the political price, you're only left with tit-for-tat.  It's not a tactic you want to fall back on, but sometimes you don't get to choose the world you're living in.  It's on GOP to make the first move towards detoxifying the politics, right now the prime responsibility of Democrats to their constituents is to not be a perennial loser.

[alfred russel]

I've believed for years that the effective supermajority requirement in the senate is terrible. This atmosphere makes it much worse.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm kinda tired of the party of honorable losers.

Dishonorable losers is not an improvement.

Congress has a moral and constitutional responsibility to keep the doors open.  It is the barest minimum requirement of the job.  It's exceedingly dangerous to reinforce the habit of using the functioning of the government as a routine political chip. Playing tit for tat weakens the institutions all around, creates a sense of routine crisis - that's the road to Weimar or one of the crappier French Republics.

With respect to GC, it's not right to view this as a simple, repeated PD game.  In game theory terms there isn't a properly specified payout matrix because every two years the voters get their say and can upend the table.  So far on a limited sample, the Democrats have done OK making their case to the voters despite their own disarray.  That's how political beefs are supposed to handled.

[The Minsky Moment]

I've believed for years that the effective supermajority requirement in the senate is terrible.

I agree, it is contrary to the constitutional setup as well.  It's supposed to be 50%.

[The Minsky Moment]

Just like I don't agree with being the first one to deny a Supreme Court justice to a president

That first happened in the Washington administration.  The Senate is supposed to have a significant role - their consent is required.  It's not empty language - it's by design to prevent one branch from becoming a adjunct of another.   

It's true that the Constitution doesn't contemplate a 40 vote blocking minority.  Trump, broken clock that he is, happened to be right on that by chance.

[grumbler]

Just like I don't agree with being the first one to deny a Supreme Court justice to a president

That first happened in the Washington administration.  The Senate is supposed to have a significant role - their consent is required.  It's not empty language - it's by design to prevent one branch from becoming a adjunct of another.   

It's true that the Constitution doesn't contemplate a 40 vote blocking minority.  Trump, broken clock that he is, happened to be right on that by chance.

Yeah, denying confirmation has happened a bunch of times.  Robert Bork, anyone?

I do oppose the Senate reusing to carry out their constitutional duties in the hope that delay will change the political landscape to one party's advantage.  Voting down a nominee is okay; refusing to even consider confirmation on any candidate is not okay.

There are lots of elements of the operations of both houses of congress that aren't in the constitution.  That's by design. 

[The Brain]

Bork?

[Barrister]

Bork?

I KNEW IT!  I KNEW that's what Swedish sounded like!

[The Minsky Moment]

  Voting down a nominee is okay; refusing to even consider confirmation on any candidate is not okay.

Agreed.  Advice and consent isn't just a Senatorial right, it's a duty.  Refusing consideration of a Presidential nominee was a dereliction of that duty.

[garbon]

I'm kinda tired of the party of honorable losers.

Dishonorable losers is not an improvement.

Congress has a moral and constitutional responsibility to keep the doors open.  It is the barest minimum requirement of the job.  It's exceedingly dangerous to reinforce the habit of using the functioning of the government as a routine political chip. Playing tit for tat weakens the institutions all around, creates a sense of routine crisis - that's the road to Weimar or one of the crappier French Republics.

With respect to GC, it's not right to view this as a simple, repeated PD game.  In game theory terms there isn't a properly specified payout matrix because every two years the voters get their say and can upend the table.  So far on a limited sample, the Democrats have done OK making their case to the voters despite their own disarray.  That's how political beefs are supposed to handled.

I do, of course agree. I am tired of this notion of holding the entire country hostage over single issues - at least of the size of the ones that have been over which the government has been shutdown. I also, don't like how we keep just pushing the lack of funding date and not actually establishing funding for a reasonable amount of time (just a few weeks is not it...).

[mongers]

I'm kinda tired of the party of honorable losers.

Dishonorable losers is not an improvement.

Congress has a moral and constitutional responsibility to keep the doors open.  It is the barest minimum requirement of the job.  It's exceedingly dangerous to reinforce the habit of using the functioning of the government as a routine political chip. Playing tit for tat weakens the institutions all around, creates a sense of routine crisis - that's the road to Weimar or one of the crappier French Republics.

With respect to GC, it's not right to view this as a simple, repeated PD game.  In game theory terms there isn't a properly specified payout matrix because every two years the voters get their say and can upend the table.  So far on a limited sample, the Democrats have done OK making their case to the voters despite their own disarray.  That's how political beefs are supposed to handled.

I do, of course agree. I am tired of this notion of holding the entire country hostage over single issues - at least of the size of the ones that have been over which the government has been shutdown. I also, don't like how we keep just pushing the lack of funding date and not actually establishing funding for a reasonable amount of time (just a few weeks is not it...).

Good job Trumps America doesn't grow bananas*.




*no doubt somewhere in Florida they do.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think bananas grow in Florida.