lokisnow Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 22 minutes ago, James Arryn said: Is it true what I hear about AOC being known as ‘Sandy’ back when she was bartending?!!?!??!? Indeed! This is proof of something something something (rambling racist sexist doggerel trails on unendingly) this is the most proof of nefarious something something since (scrambles to find some white dude example) Gary Hart changed his name before running for Office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheKitttenGuard Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 14 minutes ago, DMC said: I think it is more for the RW MRA Incel Men Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 I thought Stockard Channing was pretty appropriate for incels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 25 minutes ago, DMC said: I thought Stockard Channing was pretty appropriate for incels. No kidding. My God, the shit that used to go unnoticed. An entire song devoted to the idea that all girls should...what was the charming phrase, ‘come across’ or similar, and the only reason not to is thinking too highly of yourself. It had to be a song of women singing about other women as written by men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The BlackBear Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 7 hours ago, James Arryn said: Is it true what I hear about AOC being known as ‘Sandy’ back when she was bartending?!!?!??!? Sorry but I had to share this: article You really just need the headline: Quote A Fake Nude of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Was Debunked By Foot Fetishists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Trump reading prepared text tends to be boring and listless, cant imagine this speech changing anyone's minds. Hopefully the Democrats have something prepared in rebuttal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said: Trump reading prepared text tends to be boring and listless, cant imagine this speech changing anyone's minds. Hopefully the Democrats have something prepared in rebuttal. Agreed. Stephen Miller is going to be writing the speech so pretty easy to know what it'll say. NBC (at least) is going to host a Democrat rebuttal so they'll have something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Is it possible this speech is to announce a state of emergency? The president's expansive (virtually limitless) powers under emergency powers really scare me. It is the kind of escalation that seems ideally suited for Trump's preference for a quick fix. We already saw that he has no respect for "Presidents don't do that sort of thing" arguments. I'm really not sure what happens if Trump does this. I have no doubt that Democrats and the press will scream bloody murder, but they've been doing that for two years already. Will Republicans in the Senate actually vote in large numbers to stop it? I doubt it, but it essentially turns Congress into the President's doormat, so maybe they won't like that? Will the Supreme Court agree that a President has unilateral authority to declare an emergency, even when anyone can see that no emergency is present? I have no idea how that kind of court case will go, but even in the best case scenario a Supreme Court decision is months away, and we have an unchecked President with unilateral authority until then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 34 minutes ago, Mexal said: Agreed. Stephen Miller is going to be writing the speech so pretty easy to know what it'll say. NBC (at least) is going to host a Democrat rebuttal so they'll have something. Think I saw CNN is going to carry it too; I wouldn't be surprised if they all did in the end, except Fox. Unfortunately, the rebuttal is going to be delivered jointly by Pelosi and Schumer, and, love them or loath them, I don't think anyone would consider them particularly dynamic public speakers. I understand why it's them, they are the party leaders and probably the only Democrats important enough to get any networks to agree to carry a live response, but there are such better choices in party leadership, even excluding anyone that might want to run for President. Hakeem Jeffries for instance. Or, not that anyone in Democratic leadership would go for it, but AOC would be a good choice too. She's probably the only one that could completely step on Trump's speech by being more talked about afterwards than him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 28 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Is it possible this speech is to announce a state of emergency? The president's expansive (virtually limitless) powers under emergency powers really scare me. It is the kind of escalation that seems ideally suited for Trump's preference for a quick fix. We already saw that he has no respect for "Presidents don't do that sort of thing" arguments. I'm really not sure what happens if Trump does this. I have no doubt that Democrats and the press will scream bloody murder, but they've been doing that for two years already. Will Republicans in the Senate actually vote in large numbers to stop it? I doubt it, but it essentially turns Congress into the President's doormat, so maybe they won't like that? Will the Supreme Court agree that a President has unilateral authority to declare an emergency, even when anyone can see that no emergency is present? I have no idea how that kind of court case will go, but even in the best case scenario a Supreme Court decision is months away, and we have an unchecked President with unilateral authority until then. I think he announces the state of emergency. If he doesn't, it'll come in a few days after he visits the southern border unless a deal is made. Regardless, it's going to happen and as you said, it's kind of scary. This article from the Atlantic basically sums it up. Quote It would be nice to think that America is protected from the worst excesses of Trump’s impulses by its democratic laws and institutions. After all, Trump can do only so much without bumping up against the limits set by the Constitution and Congress and enforced by the courts. Those who see Trump as a threat to democracy comfort themselves with the belief that these limits will hold him in check. But will they? Unknown to most Americans, a parallel legal regime allows the president to sidestep many of the constraints that normally apply. The moment the president declares a “national emergency”—a decision that is entirely within his discretion—more than 100 special provisions become available to him. While many of these tee up reasonable responses to genuine emergencies, some appear dangerously suited to a leader bent on amassing or retaining power. For instance, the president can, with the flick of his pen, activate laws allowing him to shut down many kinds of electronic communications inside the United States or freeze Americans’ bank accounts. Other powers are available even without a declaration of emergency, including laws that allow the president to deploy troops inside the country to subdue domestic unrest. This edifice of extraordinary powers has historically rested on the assumption that the president will act in the country’s best interest when using them. With a handful of noteworthy exceptions, this assumption has held up. But what if a president, backed into a corner and facing electoral defeat or impeachment, were to declare an emergency for the sake of holding on to power? In that scenario, our laws and institutions might not save us from a presidential power grab. They might be what takes us down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 46 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Is it possible this speech is to announce a state of emergency? The president's expansive (virtually limitless) powers under emergency powers really scare me. It is the kind of escalation that seems ideally suited for Trump's preference for a quick fix. We already saw that he has no respect for "Presidents don't do that sort of thing" arguments. I'm really not sure what happens if Trump does this. I have no doubt that Democrats and the press will scream bloody murder, but they've been doing that for two years already. Will Republicans in the Senate actually vote in large numbers to stop it? I doubt it, but it essentially turns Congress into the President's doormat, so maybe they won't like that? Will the Supreme Court agree that a President has unilateral authority to declare an emergency, even when anyone can see that no emergency is present? I have no idea how that kind of court case will go, but even in the best case scenario a Supreme Court decision is months away, and we have an unchecked President with unilateral authority until then. Who knows if he will announce it tonight or not, but he will do it eventually. This is why I immediately brought it up when he floated it at his press conference last week. Trump floats crazy ideas and if they don’t get knocked down by the right wing, he leans in on them. I have not seen any significant push back on the issue from conservatives, be it Eos or in the media, which all but assures that he does it. This has been what Kal and I have been talking about since he won. That Trump would attempt a sweeping power grab and that a feckless Senate would do nothing. Every day we’ve inched closer and closer to it, and tonight Trump might finally cross the Rubicon. And if he does, there’s likely no going back. We must ask ourselves, why would Trump give back power if he’s initially allowed to take it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ice Queen Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 59 minutes ago, Maithanet said: Is it possible this speech is to announce a state of emergency? The president's expansive (virtually limitless) powers under emergency powers really scare me. It is the kind of escalation that seems ideally suited for Trump's preference for a quick fix. We already saw that he has no respect for "Presidents don't do that sort of thing" arguments. I'm really not sure what happens if Trump does this. I have no doubt that Democrats and the press will scream bloody murder, but they've been doing that for two years already. Will Republicans in the Senate actually vote in large numbers to stop it? I doubt it, but it essentially turns Congress into the President's doormat, so maybe they won't like that? Will the Supreme Court agree that a President has unilateral authority to declare an emergency, even when anyone can see that no emergency is present? I have no idea how that kind of court case will go, but even in the best case scenario a Supreme Court decision is months away, and we have an unchecked President with unilateral authority until then. In that case, our only hope is the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 1 hour ago, Maithanet said: I have no idea how that kind of court case will go, but even in the best case scenario a Supreme Court decision is months away, and we have an unchecked President with unilateral authority until then. Of course this all depends on the nature of what provisions he'd be activating, but if it's egregious enough it won't take months for the courts to step in. Remember appellate courts issued stays on the original travel ban within days. The much bigger concern is that the newly constituted SCOTUS backs up whatever power grab he makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Just now, DMC said: Of course this all depends on the nature of what provisions he'd be activating, but if it's egregious enough it won't take months for the courts to step in. Remember appellate courts issued stays on the original travel ban within days. The much bigger concern is that the newly constituted SCOTUS backs up whatever power grab he makes. Yeah, a lower court would probably issue an injunction almost immediately and then we see how the lawsuits play out and what SCOTUS wants to do. If the attempt is egregious enough I'd expect Roberts to vote against it, but the question of Ginsburg's health is looming large; she's missed oral arguments for the first time ever both yesterday and today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 33 minutes ago, Ice Queen said: In that case, our only hope is the military. Then you might be talking about civil war, for all that Trump has pissed off a lot of the top members of the military, former and present, I can see a lot of the military siding with Trump. Army especially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 Looks like everyone is carrying the Democratic response, even the Fox channels. https://apnews.com/c73946deffa54d7db6030e4d906d85e7?utm_medium=AP_Politics&utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=SocialFlow Quote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer say they will make the case themselves. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox broadcasting, Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network and MSNBC all said they would air the rebuttal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 The question is whether Trump is really going to the mattresses on this issue, or if he's just trying to use emergency powers to get out of this corner he's painted himself into with the Wall. If it's the latter, an interminable court battle of Trump vs American Democracy would be just fine with him, he could then say blame the courts and save face. But it could be that Trump is really planning on using emergency powers to get whatever he wants, and he'll use those same powers against anyone who tries to stop him. In which case, America as we know it ends tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DMC Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 6 minutes ago, Maithanet said: But it could be that Trump is really planning on using emergency powers to get whatever he wants, and he'll use those same powers against anyone who tries to stop him. In which case, America as we know it ends tonight. It's always seemed a matter of when not if Trump goes off the deep end and triggers a constitutional crisis. I just thought, ya know, there'd actually be something that provoked him. This would be a very peculiar way to take such a stand, even for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 There’s a good story in the NYT about a small Florida town near the Alabama/Georgia border that relies on federal jobs for it’s existence. There’s a prison there (famous for housing Squeaky Fromme, the Manson acolyte) that was seriously damaged by the hurricane. It will take a year to repair it. The inmates were moved to a facility in Alabama, a 7 hour drive away. Employees have been driving there and spending two week shifts in the town, getting their expenses reimbursed by the government. Now there’s no flow of expense money, and no paycheck coming either. And half the town was damaged, with 10% of employees losing their homes completely. They’re worried about the shutdown and want to see the Democrats and Republicans reach a compromise. The area is heavily Republican. The article closes with a quote from one Trump supporter that is pretty pithy about what seems to be the mentality of the Trump supporters. A pissed off prison nurse says “He’s not hurting the people he’s supposed to hurt”. Imagine, it’s not ‘he’s not helping the people he’s supposed to help’, it’s ‘he’s not hurting people’. I’d link the article but I still haven’t looked up how to link stuff on my phone, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.