What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[11B4V]

I fear  Alfred has lost it.

[Syt]

I can vouch for him being much more lucid in person.

[Razgovory]

I think you guys need a chill out a bit.

[The Minsky Moment]

While the Democrats can win any vote in the Senate IF they maintain 100% discipline and IF everyone is healthy and present, they can't drag in the VP to force things every time they want to schedule a hearing or a committee meeting.  Even without the Manchin issue, as a practical matter they need some degree of cooperation from the GOP to operate, even if it is passive.

[alfred russel]

No capability is not the same as result.

It's clear that the slow pace on appointments has nothing to do with the impeachment trial, which as you correctly point out, was carried out very quickly - because that was in the interest of all factions.

That is indefensible. In the first 4 full weeks since the inauguration we had 7 confirmations. Why?

One week was designated for recess, leaving 3 weeks. The trial lasted 5 days, and that doesn't include floor time used for pre trial activities. Without a trial you would have an almost 50% increase in available floor time. There were only 7 confirmations before the trial in part because the priority was covid relief, which may have actually used most of the time (since they stayed until almost 6 in the morning one day).

Under current senate rules it is probably difficult to process more than 1 nominee a day on average - if you are focused on nominees. Schumer setting a schedule of a week for impeachment with a week of recess already scheduled after predetermined that we would enter this week with very few confirmed nominees. That was his play. You can argue the rules of the Senate suck, but they command a majority support of Senators.

You are totally spinning the Senate trial being fast "because it was in the interest of all factions." Republicans wanted a fast trial because it was politically damaging and humiliating for them. Democrats wanted a fast trial because -- as I was saying before the trial was scheduled -- Senate rules meant pressing work for covid relief and cabinet nominations would be delayed for the duration of the trial. Politically, they couldn't run a legitimate trial with witnesses if the cost was delaying covid relief and putting in place the Biden administration for a month. You disagreed with that back then, and yet now seem to be agreeing with the argument without admitting I was right!

[Berkut]

Your dedication to the GOP is admirable, really. You should get a little Brown star for your shirt.

It is "difficult" to process nominations because the GOP has decided to make it difficult. It could be trivially easy of they wanted it to be, but they don't. Schumer knows that perfectly well.

The trial took 5 days. They could have confirmed nominees before or during it, but the GOP would not let that happen, they would use the standard delaying tactics to do so, and that was understood.

And it was understood by your boy McConnell, hence the attempt to use the nominees as hostage to get the trial delayed.

I think the right move was made to tell you and McConnell that no, the GOP doesn't get to mandate the Senate schedule when they are not in power, and don't get to try to shovel the impeachment trial onto a back burner.

You are so proud that you successfully predicted that the GOP would act in exactly the same way they have acted for the last 10 years, and so happy that your team was able to hold up some nominations as the price for having the impeachment trial.

The GOP has the ability under Senate rules to make sure everything takes a long time, and they are going to use it as a chip to try to force Schumer to act as if they are still the ones in the majority. McConnell is, if nothing else, incredibly competent at just that. That is the reality, but we don't have to pretend that it is some great thing and all the GOPTards who get all swole with pride at their leaders are some prescient wizards for predicting that douchebags actually are douchebags.

But you keep on patting yourself on the back for predicting the obvious.

[crazy canuck]

AR, did you watch any of the confirmation hearing for the AG yesterday?  If so, did you detect just a hint of the Republicans dragging it out as long as possible?

[alfred russel]

The US is increasingly run as a gerontocracy. Trump is 74, Biden is 78, Schumer is 70, McConnell is 79, Pelosi is 80.

Of 100 Senators, 26 are older than 70. Another 24 are 65 or older. Literally half of the Senate is at or beyond retirement age.

It isn't hard to see why: we increasingly don't expect those in charge to deliver results. People like Diane Fienstein and Chuck Grassley are 87, may be senile, and increasingly frail, but its cool to leave them in some of the most important leadership roles of the country because they vote against the right people. 74 million people voted for Trump whose main activity as president seemed to be shit tweeting at 3am.

I've reviewed the reasons for this, and I have determined it is the fault of Berkut. People like him just reflexively blame the other side for a lack of results. Senate procedure is complicated, but if in the first month of Biden's administration, Trump is acquitted in effectively a show trial, very little movement on nominations has happened, and the Senate took a week's recess, it must be McConnell's doing!

[Berkut]

A show trial. That is how you characterize it. Well done. You are doing good work for the right people.

[Syt]

It wasn't a show trial. In show trials, innocent people are found guilty. This one was the other way around.

[Sheilbh]

It wasn't a show trial. In show trials, innocent people are found guilty. This one was the other way around.

In a way, wasn't it?

In show trials the verdict is pre-determined and the trial makes no impact. It's for communicating outside of the court. That feels like what happened here and it was important that it did happen. But it was never going to produce another result.

[Syt]

It wasn't a show trial. In show trials, innocent people are found guilty. This one was the other way around.

In a way, wasn't it?

In show trials the verdict is pre-determined and the trial makes no impact. It's for communicating outside of the court. That feels like what happened here and it was important that it did happen. But it was never going to produce another result.

I just wanted to make a flippant remark and didn't think it through.

[alfred russel]

AR, did you watch any of the confirmation hearing for the AG yesterday?  If so, did you detect just a hint of the Republicans dragging it out as long as possible?

I didn't, but while the hearings have been delayed for a number of reasons they can be blamed for, I don't think they are delaying it as long as possible under the rules. Why their motives for allowing the process to be expedited a bit can be debated (I'm sure it isn't out of kindness), they aren't dragging it out as long as possible.

For example, a committee vote is going to happen next monday. They could have delayed that vote longer (I think a week after written responses are received, which are expected Friday), but agreed to an accelerated vote.

[DGuller]

Your dedication to the GOP is admirable, really. You should get a little Brown star for your shirt.

It is "difficult" to process nominations because the GOP has decided to make it difficult. It could be trivially easy of they wanted it to be, but they don't. Schumer knows that perfectly well.

The trial took 5 days. They could have confirmed nominees before or during it, but the GOP would not let that happen, they would use the standard delaying tactics to do so, and that was understood.

And it was understood by your boy McConnell, hence the attempt to use the nominees as hostage to get the trial delayed.

I think the right move was made to tell you and McConnell that no, the GOP doesn't get to mandate the Senate schedule when they are not in power, and don't get to try to shovel the impeachment trial onto a back burner.

You are so proud that you successfully predicted that the GOP would act in exactly the same way they have acted for the last 10 years, and so happy that your team was able to hold up some nominations as the price for having the impeachment trial.

The GOP has the ability under Senate rules to make sure everything takes a long time, and they are going to use it as a chip to try to force Schumer to act as if they are still the ones in the majority. McConnell is, if nothing else, incredibly competent at just that. That is the reality, but we don't have to pretend that it is some great thing and all the GOPTards who get all swole with pride at their leaders are some prescient wizards for predicting that douchebags actually are douchebags.

But you keep on patting yourself on the back for predicting the obvious.

Since when is AR dedicated to GOP?  Did I miss some update?

[alfred russel]

A show trial. That is how you characterize it. Well done. You are doing good work for the right people.

"It is hard to imagine a trial without documents and witnesses," Schumer said. "If it doesn't have documents and witnesses, it is going to seem to the American people that it is a sham trial, a show trial."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/12/26/chuck_schumer_if_senate_impeachment_trial_doesnt_have_witnesses_it_will_be_seen_as_a_sham_trial_a_show_trial.html

That is what Schumer said about the first trial.

There easily could have been witnesses--but it is very tough to do with the calendar the way it is. There was no compelling reason to hold the trial now except Valmy's argument "to rip the bandaid" and get this behind us asap. Well guess what? That didn't happen because the trial was not thorough and now there is going to a deeper congressional inquiry. That didn't need to be the case if the trial was held a few months from now.

I mean, when Trump was actually still president, the trial lasted 3 weeks and was considered superficial--the fastest in history. The house inquiry started in September and ended with a verdict in February. There wasn't a need to run this fast.