[Discussion] The New War In Congress

This thread is for the discussion of the restructuring of Congress, to include Republican/Democratic jostling for position as well as (perhaps primarily) internecine Republican conflict to determine control of the Party and define its new policies.

Will the Trumpists rally the Tea Party and take control of the House and Senate majorities? Or will the Empire strike back, in the form of "traditional" Republicans stomping out the fire and uniting to oppose Trump? What will become of the Rebels, the outnumbered Democratic forces, and their desperate rear-guard action?

I certainly think Paul Ryan will see a strong challenge from the freedom caucus over the speakership

Robear wrote:

Will the Trumpists rally the Tea Party and take control of the House and Senate majorities? Or will the Empire strike back, in the form of "traditional" Republicans stomping out the fire and uniting to oppose Trump? What will become of the Rebels, the outnumbered Democratic forces, and their desperate rear-guard action?

Hahahahaha... *wipes eyes* *sigh*

I agree, but it's certainly going to be one topic for the talking heads for the next six months or so... to continue them metaphor, I should have put Trump and the Tea Party into the role of the Sith, I guess.

I'm not sure why you would think that Trumpists need to "take control" of the House and the Senate; it seems fairly well documented that if you have an R after your name, you toe the party line, and the party line is whatever the *shudder* President says it is. I'll be shocked if suddenly GOP elected officials grow spines and oppose Trump in any substantial fashion.

Yeah I don't see that either.

The strongest asset Republicans have is their staying in line. It is also why I can't vote for them anymore. I know that no matter how they feel about an issue they will tow the party line when it comes down to their vote.

You guys are assuming Congress hasn't yet been disbanded by the mid-term elections.

Why disband a group that will do your bidding? It lends a great air of legitimacy to have them but make sure they are puppets.

As an aside: The metaphors and allusions in the OP are clever, but I really wish this thread had a different title.

I honestly think the thrust of power is going to go the other way.

Trump spent a lot of time making sweeping, empty promises about this and that, but given how often he contradicted himself and changed his comments, there's no reason to think he really cares about most of that. Some of the trade stuff? Probably. Everything else? Probably not. He just wanted to win, not to govern. So really, whatever the GOP folks want to push through Congress will likely get approved by Trump.

In a scenario like that, I feel like the more organized, established folks are going to have a field day if they realize what's going on.

Trump will be like the substitute teacher and you can just tell him the regular teacher lets us chew gum, yeah.

Bloo Driver wrote:

I honestly think the thrust of power is going to go the other way.

Trump spent a lot of time making sweeping, empty promises about this and that, but given how often he contradicted himself and changed his comments, there's no reason to think he really cares about most of that. Some of the trade stuff? Probably. Everything else? Probably not. He just wanted to win, not to govern. So really, whatever the GOP folks want to push through Congress will likely get approved by Trump.

In a scenario like that, I feel like the more organized, established folks are going to have a field day if they realize what's going on.

While I agree with much of this, his campaign focused so much on xenophobia that I don't think he can completely ignore his pledge to attack immigration. I think he has to at least try to make good on some of those promises. Whether he'll be successful in doing so we'll just have to see.

Also keep in mind Trump's personality. He will be looking to get back at the Republicans who didn't support him, and in so doing will likely antagonize them enough to oppose him.

It's a sad day when I'm hoping that Paul Ryan remains Speaker and serves as a voice of reason.

Aetius wrote:

Also keep in mind Trump's personality. He will be looking to get back at the Republicans who didn't support him, and in so doing will likely antagonize them enough to oppose him.

This I'm honestly curious about. While I don't disagree that Trump will be petty to a lot of the Congressfolks, is it going to matter? He's been very good about belittling them and calling them nerds or whatever, but he doesn't actually seem to have too much of a difference of opinion (or at least enough to care) where actual policy is concerned.

farley3k wrote:

Why disband a group that will do your bidding? It lends a great air of legitimacy to have them but make sure they are puppets.

No puppet!

No, you're the puppet.

Aetius wrote:

Also keep in mind Trump's personality. He will be looking to get back at the Republicans who didn't support him, and in so doing will likely antagonize them enough to oppose him.

I think this is whistling past the graveyard.

Those Republicans that didn't support him are: 1) vanishingly few, 2) up for re-election in 2 years, and 3) scared fecesless of likely primary challenges.

Unless they have a political kill shot, they will knuckle down and do his bidding.

IMAGE(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/e8/e822ec8161d6ebf884e09f15cee94da7e42ea4f69dea3a0adcad0b54c82af000.jpg)

Chumpy_McChump wrote:

I'm not sure why you would think that Trumpists need to "take control" of the House and the Senate; it seems fairly well documented that if you have an R after your name, you toe the party line, and the party line is whatever the *shudder* President says it is. I'll be shocked if suddenly GOP elected officials grow spines and oppose Trump in any substantial fashion.

Ever since the Tea Party came up, the Republicans have been split in Congress. Don't you remember the internal debates about whether to shut down government or not over the budget and such? The opposition to the mainstream by the bloc of Tea Party types? What I'm referring to is the after-effects of the conflict between Trump's supporters in the Party, and the Party mainstream who tried to stop him. I'm anticipating purges and a re-orientation of power, one way or another.

Garion333 wrote:

As an aside: The metaphors and allusions in the OP are clever, but I really wish this thread had a different title.

Why? It's pretty usual to use war as a metaphor for sweeping, serious conflict in politics...

Robear wrote:
Garion333 wrote:

As an aside: The metaphors and allusions in the OP are clever, but I really wish this thread had a different title.

Why? It's pretty usual to use war as a metaphor for sweeping, serious conflict in politics...

I'm tired of the extreme language and whatnot.

It's a conflict for the soul of one of the two US parties, in a way that has not been seen since the 1960's. I didn't say it was a slaughter, or use phrases like "bloody massacre", or sensationalize it in any way. I'm not discussing actual violence or slyly hinting at it, nor am I directing it at any particular person.

But I do want to get across the seriousness of it. Maybe "New Civil War" would be better?

Robear wrote:

It's a conflict for the soul of one of the two US parties, in a way that has not been seen since the 1960's. I didn't say it was a slaughter, or use phrases like "bloody massacre", or sensationalize it in any way. I'm not discussing actual violence or slyly hinting at it, nor am I directing it at any particular person.

But I do want to get across the seriousness of it. Maybe "New Civil War" would be better?

Maybe "The new Civil, Reasoned and Respectful Discourse in Congress"?

Docjoe wrote:
Robear wrote:

It's a conflict for the soul of one of the two US parties, in a way that has not been seen since the 1960's. I didn't say it was a slaughter, or use phrases like "bloody massacre", or sensationalize it in any way. I'm not discussing actual violence or slyly hinting at it, nor am I directing it at any particular person.

But I do want to get across the seriousness of it. Maybe "New Civil War" would be better?

Maybe "The new Civil, Reasoned and Respectful Discourse in Congress"?

Civil, reasoned and respectful discourse in Congress would certainly be new, yes.

Robear wrote:

It's a conflict for the soul of one of the two US parties, in a way that has not been seen since the 1960's. I didn't say it was a slaughter, or use phrases like "bloody massacre", or sensationalize it in any way. I'm not discussing actual violence or slyly hinting at it, nor am I directing it at any particular person.

I wasn't attempting to insinuate any sort attack by you, just that "War on Drugs, " etc., has soured me on that terminology for things that aren't actually war.

When Michael Brown was killed we were discussing it in the Police State thread but felt that was not the proper thread to house that particular discussion, so I created a thread titled "Ferguson, Missouri" which I thought simply stated the intent. Dry? Sure, but also not charged or loaded.

With so much discussion about the divide in this country I'm left a little cold that we're beginning to discuss the new Congressional session as a "war". Maybe we can be a little better than Washington.

Honestly, I'm sorry it has that association for you but it conveys the meaning and overtones I intended for the OP.

Paleocon wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Also keep in mind Trump's personality. He will be looking to get back at the Republicans who didn't support him, and in so doing will likely antagonize them enough to oppose him.

I think this is whistling past the graveyard.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politi...

Of course, the campaign immediately denied it, but ... yeah.

Aetius wrote:
Paleocon wrote:
Aetius wrote:

Also keep in mind Trump's personality. He will be looking to get back at the Republicans who didn't support him, and in so doing will likely antagonize them enough to oppose him.

I think this is whistling past the graveyard.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politi...

Of course, the campaign immediately denied it, but ... yeah.

If you see how Ryan acted this morning, it looks like he has them all cowed. The congress will do his bidding.

For now. I suspect it may be easy to dupe him or manipulate him or present a non-existent boogie man for him to rail against.

Paleocon wrote:

If you see how Ryan acted this morning, it looks like he has them all cowed. The congress will do his bidding.

I saw it, and it was a shaky performance at best ... and the rubber hasn't even met the road yet. If there's one thing politicians can't handle it's being mocked, belittled, and denigrated - and that's precisely how Trump responds to challenges.

I saw reference to an interview with a Russian official who said they had had regular contact with people in "Trump's entourage" during his run. The official also stated they had offered such meetings to Clinton as well, but her team declined.

I am a bit amazed that everyone in the punditry accepts that Republicans in Congress will fall in line for Trump's proposals. He's got a lot of ideas that mainstream Republicans would not willingly sign on for, and many that would make Tea Party types choke on their McVities. I have the feeling that once the honeymoon is over, and the easy stuff is done, the split will recur.

After all, Republicans can't just paper over the last few years of internecine acrimony and pretend it didn't happen. There will be change in the Party, and it will be more Stalinist than Robert's Rules of Succession.

Personally I have seen many, many republicans fall into lock step over the years. Too many for me not to believe they will do that for trump.