What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Berkut]

Mitch is please with your work. Keep it up.

Its not the GOPs fault, golly no! It's those dumb Dems! Vote for us again! We went on record saying this was unconstitutional, so heck, it must be so! I mean, we would not GO ON THE RECORD otherwise!

[crazy canuck]

OK, so some background on why I went off an AR so hard. Probably unfairly hard, but I think this is important.

Here is why you are a fucking idiot.

And just when Berkut, DG and Grumbler were doing their best to de-escalate.

[alfred russel]

Mitch is please with your work. Keep it up.

Its not the GOPs fault, golly no! It's those dumb Dems! Vote for us again! We went on record saying this was unconstitutional, so heck, it must be so! I mean, we would not GO ON THE RECORD otherwise!

McConnell: a senate trial should never be held and violates the constitution.
Me: holding the trial in February is counterproductive and a bad idea, because time sensitive priorities will be delayed and putting them on pause will cause the trial to be rushed.

Berkut: The story Mitch is selling is the story AR is repeating word for word. AR should wear a brown star on his shirt!

[Berkut]

Mitch is please with your work. Keep it up.

Its not the GOPs fault, golly no! It's those dumb Dems! Vote for us again! We went on record saying this was unconstitutional, so heck, it must be so! I mean, we would not GO ON THE RECORD otherwise!

McConnell: a senate trial should never be held and violates the constitution.
Me: holding the trial in February is counterproductive and a bad idea, because time sensitive priorities will be delayed and putting them on pause will cause the trial to be rushed.

Berkut: The story Mitch is selling is the story AR is repeating word for word. AR should wear a brown star on his shirt!

But nobody, even Mitch, believes that it is unconstitutional. Well - you might.

That is NOT the story Mitch is selling, of course. That is his excuse for acquiting Trump, which you seem to accept as being the "real" reason. Which is funny - since not even Mitch thinks that is true, and neither does even his most ardent sycophants.

The story he is selling is that the trial is a waste of time, and the Dems are dumb dumb dumb for even making him go through with it, since the outcome was pre-ordained, and there was all this super duper critical things that can only possibly be done if they do NOT have a trial.

Of look - that is exactly what you are telling us.

But we know, and you have admitted in fact, that the trial could have been held AND they could have gotten through those nominations, with adequate basic cooperation - or even just not taking off for a week.

And it's all good - it's not like the story you are so fond of actually has to make any sense, you just have to keep repeating it as if it does. Well done.

[alfred russel]

Berkut, he literally went on the floor of the US Senate and cast a vote that it was unconstitutional.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=117&session=1&vote=00057

I really have no idea regarding the laundry list of arguments McConnell stated at various points in time, but he went on record that the trial should not be held because it was unconstitutional. That isn't a timing or practicality argument, and if he made those as well, it would seem they were ancillary to this point.

[Berkut]

Wow, so as long as McConnell voted a certain way, the that is all the evidence you need that he believes it to be true?

I don't even think YOU believe that, but I guess it reinforces your narrative, so you don't really care whether it is true or not. Funny how that works.

[alfred russel]

But we know, and you have admitted in fact, that the trial could have been held AND they could have gotten through those nominations, with adequate basic cooperation - or even just not taking off for a week.

I have not admitted that under current rules they could have gotten through very many more nominations with adequate basic cooperation--which I think they have been getting in any event. It would have helped not taking off a week, but the minority leader doesn't get to send the senate into recess.

It looks like they are going to take tomorrow off as well. I realize getting the Secretary of Commerce confirmed a day later is not a crisis of government, and but I was focused on this because I had $1700 riding on her getting confirmed by Monday midnight. Based on the order they are to be processed it looks like that could have been Monday if they worked Friday, but will now likely be Tuesday (or Wednesday if they are less diligent, or much later if they take up covid relief before they get to her). It is indicative of the lack of urgency.

[alfred russel]

Wow, so as long as McConnell voted a certain way, the that is all the evidence you need that he believes it to be true?

I don't even think YOU believe that, but I guess it reinforces your narrative, so you don't really care whether it is true or not. Funny how that works.

No I don't think that McConnell really thinks the trial is unconstitutional. I think that if the shoe was on the other foot he would try to convict a democratic president, if he believed that was to his advantage.

But by the same measure, if he ever made the arguments I've been making, I don't think he believes them either. I think he is the ultimate partisan, doing whatever it takes to get every narrow advantage for the GOP.

His ultimate argument was that the trial was illegitimate and unconstitutional. I don't think that is the case. If McConnell didn't believe that, I'm not sure why are you are saying I'm somehow I'm following his party line by arguing something he may have secondarily argued, but likely didn't believe either.

[Berkut]

Because McConnell doesn't care if it is true or not, he just counts on there being people out there who will reinforce his overall narrative to justify their obstruction in general: The Dems are all dumb, and this is really their fault, and if only they were willing to cooperate and compromise, why, surely these kinds of things would not happen.

At the end of the day, your claim is that somehow getting some nominations done is so critical that the Dems should have gone along with McConnells demand to back burner the trial.

1. They aren't that critical, and certainly nowhere near as critical as holding the POTUS to account directly for an actual attack on the Capitol, and
2. The idea that if Schumer had gone along with McConnell, he could then trust McConnell to cooperate is completely stupid. Schumer should assume that nothing McConnell ever says is true, that he will always renege on his word the moment it is convenient to do so, and in general, if McConnell/GOP want something, barring some extraordinary evidence otherwise, he should assume that he should oppose it.

This is exactly like playing a multiplayer wargame with someone who has shown that they are willing to make a deal, get their side of the deal, and then immediately simply refuse to honor their own side. The moment that happens, you have to then continue playing the game assuming that they will always break their word, and deal with them appropriately.

[alfred russel]

Because McConnell doesn't care if it is true or not, he just counts on there being people out there who will reinforce his overall narrative to justify their obstruction in general: The Dems are all dumb, and this is really their fault, and if only they were willing to cooperate and compromise, why, surely these kinds of things would not happen.

At the end of the day, your claim is that somehow getting some nominations done is so critical that the Dems should have gone along with McConnells demand to back burner the trial.

His demand wasn't to back burner the trial, it was to not hold it at all, which he considered illegitimate / unconstitutional.

But I guess no one can question democratic strategy at any point in time, because that plays into McConnell's narrative somehow?

You have McConnell derangement syndrome. You see McConnell acolytes under every rock, and seem to think McConnell has some sort of magical control of the senate. Schumer is the majority leader, and could set the timetable of the trial and nomination approvals without the agreement of McConnell. Neither the trial nor nominations would be subject to a filibuster. Schumer is still constrained by Senate rules, which have the support of the majority of Senators, and limit the pace of proceedings so it is very difficult to process many things at the start of a new administration quickly.

[Berkut]

Schumer is the majority leader of a Senate that is split, and would need to call on the VP every time they needed to break a tie without some basic cooperation from the "minority".

Mitch is going to exploit that of course, and he will do so in the same manner he did when he was the previous minority leader, and when he was the majority leader - in whatever manner is necessary to allow him as much control as possible.

I notice you keep just cutting out my posts that are talking about WHY this is a problem, and why we should not be just rolling over for Mitch, even if we did bet heavily on him.

[alfred russel]

Schumer is the majority leader of a Senate that is split, and would need to call on the VP every time they needed to break a tie without some basic cooperation from the "minority".

Mitch is going to exploit that of course, and he will do so in the same manner he did when he was the previous minority leader, and when he was the majority leader - in whatever manner is necessary to allow him as much control as possible.

I notice you keep just cutting out my posts that are talking about WHY this is a problem, and why we should not be just rolling over for Mitch, even if we did bet heavily on him.

I didn't bet heavily on Mitch. If you think that Mitch somehow kept the democrats from approving many nominees, which I don't, I bet against Mitch. Which just highlights what a dumbass you are.

Mitch can not command 50 votes on most issues in any event--there haven't been any nominations that went through with less than 56 votes. People like Romney and Murkowski have voted for every nominee. Murkowski dropped some hints that she is open to leaving the party. It is the same as Schumer, who can't dictate the votes of all 50 democrats--and thus it looks like the Tanden nomination will fail (she seems to be the first candidate with unified republican opposition and Manchin is opposed).

[viper37]

OK, so some background on why I went off an AR so hard. Probably unfairly hard, but I think this is important.

Oh, I agree with everything you said about the GOP.

What does this have to do with AR?

He is *exactly* supporting *exactly* the narrative Mitch wants to send. He could not support McConnell any better if AR was a McConnell sock puppet. The story Mitch is selling is the story AR is repeating word for word. Don't have the trial of the President! Lets do that later, when surely there won't be anything important going on! And if you DO have the trial, why, it will just fail anyway. And golly, wouldn't it be a shame if we just could not possibly vote on those nominations in the meantime! And this is because the Dems are so dumb dumb dumb!


I am absolutely positive that if they waited three months, there would be some other "critical" business that would gee, cannot possibly get done if you want to have a trial! Which we are telling you ahead of time we won't convict on btw, so how about we just do it later maybe? I mean, Trump is out of office, so how important can it be? Don't you want a vote on those judges? And that new climate treaty? Is this really important? Oh, we aren't going to vote for that climate treaty anyway, but maybe if we pretend like maybe we will...lets unite and come together on this! <SUCKER>


And back to my earlier point - this is all in service to two possible outcomes:


1. The eventual destruction of the GOP when their minority finally implodes, or
2. The eventual destruction of what remains of democracy in America if it does not.


Obviously I prefer option #1. I think Mitch doesn't care at this point, he figures he will be gone before either happens, or that is what he is playing for - to hang onto power, as much as he can, for as long as he can, and the consequences be damned.


So yeah, I think non-fucking crazy ass Trumper/Mitch sycophants have only 1 real option, and that is to try to make #1 happen before #2. That is not a "Dem" thing, that is a not-modern GOP thing.


And I think #1 won't happen until at least some of the people willing to buy into this "story" that Mitch and the GOP has sold that when nothing gets done, why, its the Dems fault for not going along with whatever THEY want! rejects that narrative completely. Because that is the only way we will see the GOP pay the *political* cost for their actions, and that political cost is them being voted out of office in large enough numbers to destroy the modern GOP and force a new moderate party to emerge.


AR, and people like AR, are a huge part of why Mitch and the GOP are succeeding at what they are doing. They are selling the narrative Mitch wants them to sell.

Here is where I think you are a bit unfair toward him, re: Impeachment.
The Dems could control the agenda.  They knew the GOP would not vote to impeach.  That wasn't a certainty, but a near-certainty.  Imho, the best strategy was to expose that level of corruption with a long hearing, dragging witnessess and exposing Trump's corruption and manipulation of the crazies AND pointing how all of that was made possible by the Republican enablers.  That was the goal, imho.
Now, what did we have?  An expedited trial were the Dems rushed through the process because they were in a hurry to get their nominations passed.
There was a good reason to not delay the trial, because the longer they wait, the more the GOP's spin could work: it was the work of Antifa.  And Antifa = Democratic Party = AOC = The Squad whatever boogeywoman they can use at the time. Of course McConnell wanted to drag things along.  But just agreeing that right now, before the nominations are confirmed is too soon does not mean is an enabler.  It's too early to tell.

Now, the result of the impeachment process... Tt was, at best, a draw.  The GOP is solidly rallying behind Trump and Taylor-Greene is exhonorated by her party, free to keep up with her harassment bullshit.  The Dems are solidly convinced Trump and Trumpism are a moral stain on your country and will keep doing business as usual, playing by the rules, hoping the GOP will somehow self-clean its act, all on its own.  AR did say something like that would happen, and he criticized the Dems strategy for it.  This is how I see his position.

Won't happen, of course.  And I doubt the 2022 mid-terms are going to radically change the portrait of the Congress.  The Dems did lose seats in the House and made moderate gains in the Senate.  Shouting victory and going on a triumph over flipping 2 seats in Georgia is premature.  I sincerely doubt Georgia is now a solid blue State with 2 guaranteed seats to the Dems for the next senate elections over there.  And I doubt these Senate gains will automatically translate into house gains in the mid-terms.  The Republicans are fighting back all over the country by trying to change electoral laws to suppress votes.  Lots of things are in movement in Georgia and Pennsylvania to deter absentee mail vote, for example. 

Hearing Stacey Abrams claim she has the recipe to turn a State from Red to Blue makes me cringe, because I fear a repeat of 2016.  And I don't think anyone criticizing the democratic strategy in the US is an enabler of Moscow Mitch

[Berkut]

I did not say anyone criticizing Dem strategy is an enabler, I said parroting the GOP narrative is enabling them.

It is a very specific kind of criticism, that excuses the GOP for anything they do (by never criticizing them, or doing so only in passing as you move along to how dumby dumb dumb those Dems are) while criticizing the Dems for not doing what the GOP oh so reasonably demanded that they do.

That is the key here - that AR's critique is not in general, it is very specific - that the Dems refused the GOPs demand that they set the schedule. He is claiming not that the Dems made a mistake, but that their specific mistake was to not go along with exactly what Moscow Mitch said, and casting that as the Dems being their normal, dumb Dem selves. If only they would just listen to Mitch Fucking McConnell, why, THAT would clearly be the strategically smart move and then we would all be saying "Gee, look at that Schumer! He is a bright guy, letting McConnell tell him how and when to schedule things!"

Not buying it.

[alfred russel]

I did not say anyone criticizing Dem strategy is an enabler, I said parroting the GOP narrative is enabling them.

It is a very specific kind of criticism, that excuses the GOP for anything they do (by never criticizing them, or doing so only in passing as you move along to how dumby dumb dumb those Dems are) while criticizing the Dems for not doing what the GOP oh so reasonably demanded that they do.

That is the key here - that AR's critique is not in general, it is very specific - that the Dems refused the GOPs demand that they set the schedule. He is claiming not that the Dems made a mistake, but that their specific mistake was to not go along with exactly what Moscow Mitch said, and casting that as the Dems being their normal, dumb Dem selves. If only they would just listen to Mitch Fucking McConnell, why, THAT would clearly be the strategically smart move and then we would all be saying "Gee, look at that Schumer! He is a bright guy, letting McConnell tell him how and when to schedule things!"

Not buying it.

You are a worthless piece of shit.

I can't find anything indicating I'm parroting the requests of McConnell. I've seen:

-McConnell requesting the trial be held mid February so that Trump's team had more time to prep for the trial, which in fact happened, and
-McConnell saying the entire thing shouldn't be held at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/us/politics/trump-impeachment-trial-mcconnell-senate.html#:~:text=Senator%20Mitch%20McConnell%E2%80%99s%20call%20to%20delay%20former%20President,to%20the%20request%20to%20delay%20the%20impeachment%20trial.

The link above is the first point, I've already linked to the actual vote he cast on the senate floor for the second.

Maybe at a certain point he commented that the trial should be delayed until after covid relief and the biden administration put into place...but at that point he would have argued for basically for a timing from mid February to not at all so any point I raised would have been in line with some McConnell argument at some point.