A Deeply Fractured US

PuckChaser

Army.ca Fixture
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
95
Points
630
Both criteria having been met, has there been another change in the DS posture on election threads that was not communicated us? With the election now completely concluded, is that same prohibition being extended to discussions on the post-election “lame duck’ or transition period? I just want to clarify if parameters have changed again or if the (purportedly) intended reversion to ‘big boy rules’ on this topic will be permitted subject to the usual site guidelines. Thanks.
We haven't had that discussion yet, thanks for bringing it up and we'll put our heads together to figure out a way forward.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
263
Points
830
We haven't had that discussion yet, thanks for bringing it up and we'll put our heads together to figure out a way forward.
Thanks, I’m aiming to respect your guys
intent on this. I’m hoping that with the actual election behind now, some of the emotions will simmer down and the discussions can stay productive.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
188
Points
680
People who went up the Capitol steps should have been immediately arrested, and there should have been reinforcements ready to help, Ryan said.

“There were clearly enormous strategic and planning failures by the Capitol Police, by the sergeant at arms, and anybody else who was a part of coordinating this effort here,” Ryan said.

Crowd control 101.

Someone put police officers in a very precarious and stupid position, pretty lucky more people weren't hurt and killed.
 

X Royal

Sr. Member
Reaction score
8
Points
230
Crowd control 101.

Someone put police officers in a very precarious and stupid position, pretty lucky more people weren't hurt and killed.
But the size of the protest overwhelmed the resources of the locals and very little help was sent in by the Federal government. In fact extra help would have been counterproductive to Trumps agenda.
But BLM protests got far more Federal resources.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
43
Points
530
They control Washington for two years.

Yep. By much narrower margins than they held in 2008, after which their own internal squabbling made even getting the ACA out the door a difficult lift, and precluded much else. I think people exaggerate the risk that any of the major transformative reforms on some honey-do lists will see daylight, but politicians often have a habit of claiming "mandate" and swinging for the fences even when they win narrowly.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
188
Points
680
But the size of the protest overwhelmed the resources of the locals and very little help was sent in by the Federal government. In fact extra help would have been counterproductive to Trumps agenda.
You might be exactly right and Trump was the reason why there was an underwhelming lack of police and preparation. I never considered that to be honest.
What do you think Trump's agenda was? To stop the transfer of power? That seems like an unrealistic expectation, even for Trump. No?
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
43
Points
530
I suspect that, on at least one level, President-elect Biden might have preferred that the GOP retained a razor-thin majority in the Senate.

Probably correct. For the president, dealing with the opposition party in the House or Senate means dealing with one person - the leader - who in turn is responsible for negotiating with the rest of the party. When the president deals with his own party, typically the members all feel and act as if they have a right of direct access, so the negotiations are more burdensome.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
79
Points
530
Probably correct. For the president, dealing with the opposition party in the House or Senate means dealing with one person - the leader - who in turn is responsible for negotiating with the rest of the party. When the president deals with his own party, typically the members all feel and act as if they have a right of direct access, so the negotiations are more burdensome.
I really doubt that.

The GOP senate has proven in the past that they will handcuff a president well past what is considered normal.

The ability to name his own cabinet and pass stimulus and judges without needing to go begging to the GOP senate will probably be considered a godsent.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
43
Points
530
I really doubt that.

The experienced political operative who wrote the article I read didn't doubt it at all. The Democrats have just about the bare minimum to get anything through in the House, and only the bare minimum in the Senate. I can guess that virtually every member is going to be demanding to bend the president's ear in exchange for votes.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
79
Points
530
The experienced political operative who wrote the article I read didn't doubt it at all. The Democrats have just about the bare minimum to get anything through in the House, and only the bare minimum in the Senate. I can guess that virtually every member is going to be demanding to bend the president's ear in exchange for votes.
I kind of remember a Democrat president trying to get the senate to even hold a vote on a Supreme Court Justice and that same senate saying no because it was a election year.

Followed by voting on a Supreme Court Justice weeks before this most current election.

Dealing with each individual senator on their side has to be infinitely better than never getting anything done at all nomatter what they tried.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
100
Points
630
It won’t be smooth sailing. There are plenty of Democrat senators that are not keen on a social agenda that goes too far left.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
79
Points
530
It won’t be smooth sailing. There are plenty of Democrat senators that are not keen on a social agenda that goes too far left.
Smooth sailing? No, I agree there.

But at least the boat would be able to get into the water.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
77
Points
530
I kind of remember a Democrat president trying to get the senate to even hold a vote on a Supreme Court Justice and that same senate saying no because it was a election year.

And that stalled nominee to the Supreme Court is now the President Elect's choice to be the Attorney General.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
43
Points
530
I kind of remember a Democrat president trying to get the senate to even hold a vote on a Supreme Court Justice

Did he withdraw the first nomination and resubmit one more appealing to the Senate majority? No? Then he wasn't trying to deal. If Obama wanted to fill that nomination, all he had to do was sit down with McConnell and negotiate a short list, and leave it to McConnell to find the handful of votes necessary. Reagan got Kennedy rather than Bork or Ginsburg (Douglas). Who might Obama have gotten? We'll never know; he didn't try.

Did Obama ever go to the Republican leaders and say, "Here is legislation I want passed; what do you want to pass it"? I can't recall any notable instance of him doing so. His schtick was more, "Why don't you awful Republicans set aside your awfulness for a little while and join us noble Democrats in passing our noble Democratic legislation"? He wanted votes, but was never willing to trade away anything of consequence to get them.

I've passed along a bit of conventional American political wisdom, written by someone in a position to know because those were the circles he moved in. I can't recall who it was. Blow it off if you wish.
 

Altair

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
79
Points
530
Did he withdraw the first nomination and resubmit one more appealing to the Senate majority? No? Then he wasn't trying to deal. If Obama wanted to fill that nomination, all he had to do was sit down with McConnell and negotiate a short list, and leave it to McConnell to find the handful of votes necessary. Reagan got Kennedy rather than Bork or Ginsburg (Douglas). Who might Obama have gotten? We'll never know; he didn't try.

Did Obama ever go to the Republican leaders and say, "Here is legislation I want passed; what do you want to pass it"? I can't recall any notable instance of him doing so. His schtick was more, "Why don't you awful Republicans set aside your awfulness for a little while and join us noble Democrats in passing our noble Democratic legislation"? He wanted votes, but was never willing to trade away anything of consequence to get them.

I've passed along a bit of conventional American political wisdom, written by someone in a position to know because those were the circles he moved in. I can't recall who it was. Blow it off if you wish.
If I remember correctly, and forgive me because some time has passed, scallia died. One hour later the senate majority leader said that there would be no vote until after the November election.

And then he never once moved from said position. Granted, Obama could have withdrawn his nominee and tried yet another. But seeing as the senate majority leader kept saying that there would be no vote on a replacement until after the November election I am of the belief that it would have been a exercise in futility.

So with that experience fresh in mind, I can say with the upmost confidence that Biden is probably ecstatic to not have to deal with the senator from Kentucky.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
43
Points
530
Granted, Obama could have withdrawn his nominee and tried yet another.

Yep. A person can't know the true price if he won't even try to bargain. And even supposing that McConnell was stuck in on that one issue doesn't negate the general idea. It's empirically obvious that other presidents managed to strike deals with opposing parties in Congress. And the author's point is that it's easier to do that with one person than with 52 or 240.
 
Top