Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

That's not saying he actually has six days to file the appeal - that appears to be the Hill being intentionally misleading - but that in six days the circuit court intends to kick the case back to the trial court unless a higher court tells them not to (likely because Trump files for emergency relief).

[Maximum™]

Yeah, if he doesn't get a stay from the full circuit (ain't gonna happen) then the supreme court has to pick it up by the 12th or it goes back to the trial courts, and honestly after how thoroughly the panel smashed his case they have given even the stupid pieces of shit sitting on stolen seats on the supreme court an excuse to kick this stupid orange turd to the curb on this stupid fucking case.

[anewaname]

In Congress, GOP failed a vote, 214 to 216, to impeach Mayorkas.

And, Gaetz & Stefanik are pushing a resolution which would "declare trump didn't engage in an insurrection". (article). I am hoping the same republicans who refused to vote for the Mayorkas impeachment also refuse to vote for the Trump talking point.

And, in Oregon, most of "the Republican state senators are prohibited from running for re-election as a result of their repeated boycotts of legislative sessions last year".

[Telgin]

Uh... what would passing such a resolution even mean?

[hector13]

And, in Oregon, most of "the Republican state senators are prohibited from running for re-election as a result of their repeated boycotts of legislative sessions last year".

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Uh... what would passing such a resolution even mean?

According to the article, not a whole lot.

[Schmaven]

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians just focused on how they could make the lives of everyone in their ward better?  - rather than all this 1 party fighting against the other party bullsh!t that seems to take up 97% of their activities...

[EuchreJack]

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians just focused on how they could make the lives of everyone in their ward better?  - rather than all this 1 party fighting against the other party bullsh!t that seems to take up 97% of their activities...

See, that is how politicians trick their constituents, for it only takes up 20% of their activities.

[Duuvian]

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians just focused on how they could make the lives of everyone in their ward better?  - rather than all this 1 party fighting against the other party bullsh!t that seems to take up 97% of their activities...

Whatever went wrong to inspire such a dramatic change in opinion so very suddenly?

[Frumple]

There's... nothing dramatic or sudden about what's been going on? The GOP's been like this most of my life, they've just been somewhat quieter about it, sometimes, and folks were less willing to point out or acknowledge their behavior. You might be side eying the obvious trigger to them getting louder (i.e. obama getting elected), but... '09 was over a decade ago, heh.

With them acting like a collective pile of shit there's only so much everyone else can do, though.

[Schmaven]

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians just focused on how they could make the lives of everyone in their ward better?  - rather than all this 1 party fighting against the other party bullsh!t that seems to take up 97% of their activities...

Whatever went wrong to inspire such a dramatic change in opinion so very suddenly?

It's not really a change in opinion at all.  Politicians have pretty much always been this way.  Every so often though, I pine for positive change, and again see none. 

Edit: For example; They seem to prefer to find excuses and something to blame for the current problems rather than actually work on solutions.  And more often than not, the scape goat is "the other party".

[hector13]

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians just focused on how they could make the lives of everyone in their ward better?  - rather than all this 1 party fighting against the other party bullsh!t that seems to take up 97% of their activities...

Whatever went wrong to inspire such a dramatic change in opinion so very suddenly?

It's not really a change in opinion at all.  Politicians have pretty much always been this way.  Every so often though, I pine for positive change, and again see none. 

Edit: For example; They seem to prefer to find excuses and something to blame for the current problems rather than actually work on solutions.  And more often than not, the scape goat is "the other party".

Of course.

Like when the Republicans negotiated for a few months in the border/foreign aid bill, and Donald Trump then tells them not to vote for it, so they don’t, and that’s somehow the Democrats’ fault.

[Duuvian]

Wouldn't it be nice if politicians just focused on how they could make the lives of everyone in their ward better?  - rather than all this 1 party fighting against the other party bullsh!t that seems to take up 97% of their activities...

Whatever went wrong to inspire such a dramatic change in opinion so very suddenly?

It's not really a change in opinion at all.  Politicians have pretty much always been this way.  Every so often though, I pine for positive change, and again see none. 

Edit: For example; They seem to prefer to find excuses and something to blame for the current problems rather than actually work on solutions.  And more often than not, the scape goat is "the other party".

Of course.

Like when the Republicans negotiated for a few months in the border/foreign aid bill, and Donald Trump then tells them not to vote for it, so they don’t, and that’s somehow the Democrats’ fault.

Hey waitaminnit, didn't that happen last time too?

[Bumber]

Like when the Republicans negotiated for a few months in the border/foreign aid bill, and Donald Trump then tells them not to vote for it, so they don’t, and that’s somehow the Democrats’ fault.

What's actually worthwhile in the Senate bill, though? The current crisis is caused by changes via Executive Order and enforcement. The WH doesn't gain any additional powers from the bill, nor are they compelled to do anything.

There's a thing where 5000 encounters a day (1.8M / year) requires asylum seekers to apply at ports of entry, unless it's an "emergency". Pretty sure they're already supposed to be using ports of entry, and an emergency is whatever. IIRC, 8500 / day triggers another meaningless thing.

What the bill seems to do is just give billions more to groups that are incentivizing even more people coming. Funding for sanctuary cities regarding the obvious results of their policies. There's also allocation for ~3 day's worth of detainee beds? Futile.

There's no point in legislation that doesn't legally compel or require as condition that the WH take steps to resolve the issue. In lieu of that, only a change in policy or leadership can fix things. Meanwhile, HR 2 passed the House last May, and has been sitting DOA in the Senate ever since. GOP already passed a border bill that Dems won't bring to vote.

Also, TIL: Cloward–Piven strategy

[da_nang]

Colorado disqualification oral arguments in SCOTUS have begun.

TL;DR: Eight justices favored arguments made by the defendant (Trump), little interest in arguing about the Colorado factual determination of insurrection (punt from the looks of it) and more about the questions of law. Law-interested redditors are predicting 8-1 or 7-2 in favor of the defendant, and also criticizing the plaintiff (Colorado) for poor arguments.

A first glance at Reddit suggests SCOTUS seems likely to rule that a federal pre-emption exists in a similar vein to the 14A§5 argument I've made in this thread before: that although the §5 power is a concurrent power, the existing federal process implicitly pre-empts (by conflict or occupying the field) a parallel state process (analogous to the Commerce Clause). Arguments based on the Civil War and Reconstruction can be explained with the Confiscation Act of 1862, the Enforcement Act of 1870, and—ignoring any gentleman's agreements—the numerous pardons issued by Lincoln (64) and Johnson (thousands prior to adoption of 14A, and everyone else unconditionally a few months after the adoption of 14A) and current SCOTUS dicta that pardons carry an imputation of guilt (though they constitutionally cannot override the disqualification, which is reserved by Congress per 14A§3).

I don't think SCOTUS will touch the factual determination (other than maybe deem it improperly made due to pre-emption), nor do I think they will touch any question on a conviction requirement.

[Starver]

In "everyone's favourite interviewer" news (FCVO 'everybody'), and about the little statement he made about nobody else having been previously interested in tonight's scoop, even the Kremlin says "Mr Carlson is not correct, but he couldn't have known that. We receive a lot of requests for interviews with the president."

In fact, let us just say "He couldn't have known that we receive a lot of requests for interviews with the president." Because that's of course far from being a totally obvious conclusion that a veteren interviewer could make... Well, I'm certainly convinced.