One More

@no1marauder said
Not an ideal situation but not the end of US democracy either.

I've never said "end of democracy". I've said he's threat to democracy, which isn't the same thing.

Democracy won't end under Trump but it will be suppressed and weakened, with his influence possibly lasting long after his term ends.

@vivify said
Only in America can betting on government corruption be a thing.

I'll pass on a bet.

How is ending the filibuster (or not ending it, for that matter), corruption?

The filibuster is an arbitrary parliamentary trick. It may or may not be a good idea, but it (or lack of it) is morally neutral.

@sh76 said
How is ending the filibuster (or not ending it, for that matter), corruption?

The filibuster is an arbitrary parliamentary trick. It may or may not be a good idea, but it (or lack of it) is morally neutral.

When it's done for political power rather than democratic principles, that's corruption.

Do you think Trump's call to end the filibuster was because he cares about the integrity of the political process?

@vivify said
I've never said "end of democracy". I've said he's threat to democracy, which isn't the same thing.

Democracy won't end under Trump but it will be suppressed and weakened, with his influence possibly lasting long after his term ends.

I doubt it. Trump has no real ideology and most of the ideas that he belches out are pretty unpopular besides being harebrained.

Someone like Reagan left a lasting, negative, influence on public policy. Trump is too much of a lightweight to do the same.

@vivify said
When it's done for political power rather democratic principles, that's corruption.

Do you think Trump's call to end the filibuster was because he cares about the integrity of the political process?

Obviously, it's because it's better tactically for him. That's the way procedural rules work. You push for them when they help you and don't push for them when they help the other guy. That's politics, not corruption.

This is the transcript from a great dialogue on this subject from The West Wing, when it was still great (i.e., before Sorkin left). The discussion was whether to estimate and count people who can't be reached in the census. Toby, working for a Dem administration, is talking to (new) Senator Willis of Ohio.


TOBY
Mr. Willis?

WILLIS
You can call me Joe.

TOBY
If you don't mind me asking sir, what changed your mind?

WILLIS
What do you mean?

TOBY
Well, I know it wasn't expediency sir. I was wondering what changed your mind?

WILLIS
You did. I thought you made a very strong argument.

TOBY
Well thank you. [laughs] I'm smiling because, well, around here the merits
of a particular argument generally take a back seat to political tactics.

WILLIS
I can imagine.

TOBY
Yeah.

WILLIS
It worked on me.

TOBY
I was taking advantage of you sir.

WILLIS
I know.

TOBY
There are some things I did not mention. First of all, it is partisan. Second
of all, I'm not wild about the precedent.

WILLIS
You mean?

TOBY
What's to stop us from saying we don't need elections, we'll just use polling
data. 1150 people with the sampling error of plus or minus three will decide who
runs the country.

WILLIS
I thought about that.

@sh76 said
Obviously, it's because it's better tactically for him. That's the way procedural rules work. You push for them when they help you and don't push for them when they help the other guy. That's politics, not corruption.

This is the transcript from a great dialogue on this subject from The West Wing, when it was still great (i.e., before Sorkin left). The discussion was whether ...[text shortened]... ing error of plus or minus three will decide who
runs the country.

WILLIS
I thought about that.

If the Republicans end the filibuster (truly end it not some temporary gimmick), I'll support it no matter what it leads to in the short term. The People gave them a legislative majority, let them enact what laws they think the People support. They'll be more elections in two years.

@sh76 said
Obviously, it's because it's better tactically for him. That's the way procedural rules work. You push for them when they help you and don't push for them when they help the other guy. That's politics, not corruption.

By that same logic you can defend tax loopholes or Walmart using sweatshops. They're technically legal, so why not?

Mitch McConnel blocked Obama's SCOTUS pick while allowing Trump to appoint one under the same conditions; it's allowed by the rules but still corruption. Nancy Pelosi defended lawmakers trading stocks; it's legal but still corruption.

I'm for abolishing the filibuster but not as a political bludgeon.

Still, it does need to be abolished, whether for ethical reasons or not.

@no1marauder said
I doubt it. Trump has no real ideology and most of the ideas that he belches out are pretty unpopular besides being harebrained.

Someone like Reagan left a lasting, negative, influence on public policy. Trump is too much of a lightweight to do the same.

Trump having no policy is irrelevant. He still does whatever his base wants, and they indeed to have fervent ideologies. They're the reason his SCOTUS picks helped overturn Roe, which will have lasting consequences for millions of people.

And Trump's policies are unpopular with who exactly?

He received more votes than any other president in history except one. Each election he's gotten more votes than in the last. He won a primary without even showing up to debate. Even groups he's insulted like Hispanics and Muslims increased their support of him.

@vivify said
Trump having no policy is irrelevant. He still does whatever his base wants, and they indeed to have fervent ideologies. They're the reason his SCOTUS picks helped overturn Roe, which will have lasting consequences for millions of people.

And Trump's policies are unpopular with who exactly?

He received more votes than any other president in history except one. Each ...[text shortened]... up to debate. Even groups he's insulted like Hispanics and Muslims increased their support of him.

With the People. Here's an example:

Should most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. be:

Offered a chance to apply for legal status (56% )

Deported to the countries they came from (40% )

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/exit-polls

He accomplished virtually nothing his first term besides getting a tax cut. I have no reason to believe he'll accomplish much this time either; you really think legislative Republicans are going to enact across the board 10 to 20% tariffs? Their big business buddies would have a fit.