Jump to content

US Elections: Groper in Chief


Martell Spy

Recommended Posts

There are enough horrible people around him lining up for posts.

Giuliani Attorney General.

Flynn secretary of Defense. If he can make time between his Russia today appearences.

Gingrich secreatary of state. 

Oh the horror.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Folks the SCOTUS with Scalia ruled in favor of marriage equality.  Trump will not, even with multiple SCOTUS appointments, find rolling back marriage equality easy.

As Martell Spy noted, I don't think Trump gives a flying fuck about this issue. I posted that Twitter comment mostly because I thought the joke was well constructed. Basically insinuating in Trump's ear that folks are calling him a pussy in order to get him to adopt an issue. It could've been any issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Folks the SCOTUS with Scalia ruled in favor of marriage equality.  Trump will not, even with multiple SCOTUS appointments find rolling back marriage equality easy.

I'm honestly having a hard time coming up with a case that would allow the SCOTUS to reverse their position on Marriage Equality (which is a good thing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-teams-revenge-231222

Trump team's revenge
Some of the president-elect’s allies are seeking payback against Republicans who didn’t support his campaign.

What exactly did they expect? That they'd get plum assignments simply on the strength of their resumes even after they opposed him? To the victor go the spoils -- I fully expect the people who helped his campaign to get first picks.

In other news, Warren is not the only liberal Senator offering Trump a deal:

Quote

 

He promised to work with Trump on several issues that unite them -- a more protectionist trade policy, fixing America's tax code and enacting campaign-finance reform. Sanders said Americans upset with Trump's election have a right to be angry, but called for that anger to be channeled in a positive way.

"I hope that on those areas where Trump talked about the needs -- where he was right, the middle class is hurting -- let's work together to improve lives for millions of people who are living in despair and who have the right to do better than they are today," Sanders said. "Trump talked about his concerns about outsourcing, about a bad trade policy. If he is serious about reforming our trade policies and creating jobs, let us work with him."

 

This could get pretty interesting. Trump can try to act with Republican support only, but he would need the Senate to eliminate the filibuster which McConnell might not be willing to do for all legislation. Trump would also need near-unanimous support from the 52 Senators: if 3 of them oppose a policy, it doesn't go through. If Sanders and Warren can round up 6 more left-wing Senators willing to work with Trump (shouldn't be that hard), they will have something non-trivial to offer in that there's no need to mess with the filibuster. If they can find 10-15 left-wing Senators, then they also provide some insurance against dissenters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. "The. Biden. Rule."

Seriously, if you follow McConnell's logic then anytime anyone ever does anything it's a rule. That's a far cry from something like The Hastert Rule The Pedophile's Rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Tywin et al. said:

There. Is. No. Such. Thing. As. "The. Biden. Rule."

Seriously, if you follow McConnell's logic then anytime anyone ever does anything it's a rule. That's a far cry from something like The Hastert Rule The Pedophile's Rule.

Yeah, let's pretend that awarding obstructionism (which this Scotus appointment clearly does) is a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Folks the SCOTUS with Scalia ruled in favor of marriage equality.  Trump will not, even with multiple SCOTUS appointments, find rolling back marriage equality easy.

Well let's be clear Trump probably is perfectly fine with same sex marriage. But it's quite possible he will eventually have a court that could rule 5-4 to strike it down. The three oldest justices all supported Obergefell. And the scary part about that is we might end up with a conservative court for a generation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I'm honestly having a hard time coming up with a case that would allow the SCOTUS to reverse their position on Marriage Equality (which is a good thing).

I don't think this is likely to happen either. But IF Trump were to get two appointments to the Supreme Court, and IF he chooses persons who disagree with the marriage equality ruling, why couldn't a state like Alabama try to pass a new law denying marriage certificates to same sex couples and with the express purpose of having a case brought against that law end up before the Supreme Court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, let's pretend that awarding obstructionism (which this Scotus appointment clearly does) is a good thing.

Oh the Republicans are about to be rewarded big time now because of their obstructionism. They're going to pass a lot of infrastructure spending, which is a good thing, and try and take all the credit even though they've spent the last decade fighting against infrastructure spending. And that will be the first in a long line of things that Republicans will pass, which they normally have supported in the past, but refused to give as many victories as possible to Obama.

And with a stroke of a pen they'll eviscerate pieces of legislation that my former colleagues and I spent years of our lives working on.

Obama's legacy is about to be erased. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well let's be clear Trump probably is perfectly fine with same sex marriage. But it's quite possible he will eventually have a court that could rule 5-4 to strike it down. The three oldest justices all supported Obergefell. And the scary part about that is we might end up with a conservative court for a generation. 

Haven't we already had a conservative court for well over a generation? Does anyone here remember what a liberal court was like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

And with a stroke of a pen they'll eviscerate pieces of legislation that my former colleagues and I spent years of our lives working on.

Obama's legacy is about to be erased. 

 

 

 

I'm worried about this, but I'm far more worried about how far back in time towards 1890 they are going to take us. I'm thinking of the Civil Rights Act, Bankruptcy laws, criminal justice reform (which is dead now, but they may do something just the opposite), minimum wage laws, child labor laws, more union destruction, 

Hell, why should non land owners get to vote?

This all gets more depressing the more I think of it. But I do think we need to fight the Obamacare repeal tooth and nail, even if we're going to lose. I'm going to look into that campaign. The Dems did stop Social Security privitization.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...