Jump to content

Archived

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

Fragile Bird

US Politics: Flaming the Flamenco Flamingo

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Triskele said:

This whistleblower story that's been hanging out there is really intriguing in the sense that one can easily imagine that what they're trying to get out there is something enormously damaging to Trump.   

On the other hand, how the fuck with an overwhelmingly Dem House can it be so difficult to get to the bottom of this?  

I don't think we've ever truly understood how little power Congress has until now. If the Executive Branch doesn't follow the law, so what? Congress has no mechanism to enforce that and Barr believes completely in the unitary Executive theory which means the Executive Branch can do whatever it wants regardless whether it's violating the law and it will be protected by the DOJ and OLC. So it's not that the House Dems aren't fighting, it's that they have no actual way to enforce any of their Congressional powers (e.g., see disregard for subpoenas, executive privilege for non Executive Branch employees, absolute immunity, executive privilege for the campaign). This is why, whether it's Trump or not, Trump has pushed us very close to an authoritarian regime because you find one person who's not as insane as Trump but wants complete power and it's pretty much over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ice Queen said:

Lewandowski should have been arrested on the spot and tossed into the nearest cell indefinitely. 

Damn right.  But I suppose they were terrified if they ordered the officers of the floor to arrest him and take him to -- where do these people go upon arrest? has anyone ever been arrested on the floor of the House? -- the officers might well refuse to obey the order? as well all the others in the chain of command to execute the arrest?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, in case anyone is interested, this is the letter the Intelligence Community IG sent to Congress stating he disagreed with the Acting DNI and DOJ but is bound by their decision making and is unable to do his job. Remember, this is a Trump appointee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Damn right.  But I suppose they were terrified if they ordered the officers of the floor to arrest him and take him to -- where do these people go upon arrest? has anyone ever been arrested on the floor of the House? -- the officers might well refuse to obey the order? as well all the others in the chain of command to execute the arrest?

 

DC jail would have been nice. Guys like him don't do well there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Raja said:

Fuck this noise

 

If the program is antisemetic I’m not necessarily against this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ants said:

If the program is antisemetic I’m not necessarily against this. 

The letter to the university says nothing like that? Also, the assumption that these programs are antisemitic is a bit nauseating.

Edit: The letter itself doesn't mention antisemitism, but the Republican legislator letter to DeVos does so I'm still not sure why they're doing that, esp as the letter itself mentions very little about antisemitism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raja said:

The letter to the university says nothing like that? Also, the assumption that these programs are antisemitic is a bit nauseating.

The article you linked said it was the reason people originally complained/flagged the course. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raja said:

The letter to the university says nothing like that? Also, the assumption that these programs are antisemitic is a bit nauseating.

Edit: The letter itself doesn't mention antisemitism, but the Republican legislator letter to DeVos does so I'm still not sure why they're doing that, esp as the letter itself mentions very little about antisemitism.

The program teaches languages and culture. By now the stooges that play well with the bedbug's ways lie just as much as he and they do, which everybody should know by now.  It's not in the least antisemitic.  These are the people who also want to get rid of Spanish language classes, along with Latin American and Caribbean studies, because "they teach people to be communists and hate the United States."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, ants said:

The article you linked said it was the reason people originally complained/flagged the course. 

See edit, and it wasn't people, it was one legislator, but if you read the actual letter, their main argument is not the anti-semetic nature of the course, apparently the course does not provide a 'balance of views' and 'does not highlight positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism & other religions'

Sounds like bullshit to me.

Edit: @ants Though I take back my snarky comment to your reply given the story mentions anti-semitism. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2019 at 5:59 PM, The Anti-Targ said:

Does it matter? 2 elements take care of that: $0 payments/ premiums for those below a certain income threshold, and an opt-in system with universal acceptance and coverage of those who choose to opt in.

 

Two different things going on here. Medicaid and Medicare.
Do you think poverty is $7.25 times 40 hours times 52 weeks? $14,580.
The 2019 federal poverty level (FPL) income numbers below are used to calculate eligibility for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). 2018 numbers are slightly lower, and are used to calculate savings on Marketplace insurance plans for 2019.
    $12,490 for individuals
    $16,910 for a family of 2
    $21,330 for a family of 3
    $25,750 for a family of 4
    $30,170 for a family of 5
    $34,590 for a family of 6
    $39,010 for a family of 7
    $43,430 for a family of 8

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/

Back to the $0, that is how the plan was put into place. Shop on healthcare.gov get a deal. Don't by in get a penalty tied to the irs. One of you frekkers need go back in time and look at obama's original health care plan.  $0 with increasing yearly premiums. Never mind that there was a withdrawal of insurance companies from the government pot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Seriously, I know I went on a bit of a sober rant and all last night but what do you people want from Democrats?

Did you get all rusty like Bender from being sober for so long?

1 hour ago, Mexal said:

I don't think we've ever truly understood how little power Congress has until now. If the Executive Branch doesn't follow the law, so what? Congress has no mechanism to enforce that and Barr believes completely in the unitary Executive theory which means the Executive Branch can do whatever it wants regardless whether it's violating the law and it will be protected by the DOJ and OLC.

No, this just isn't true.  Constitutionally, Congress can avail itself of far more enumerated powers than the presidency.  It's simply since the modern presidency (i.e. FDR), they've deferred.  To a grotesque extent.  There was that moment when they passed the War Powers Act, overriding Nixon's veto.  But they've never really enforced even that.  The problem with Congress isn't institutional, it's polarization.

11 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Do you think poverty is $7.25 times 40 hours times 52 weeks? $14,580.

Yep, definitely.  What's your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jace, Basilissa said:

But the polarization has become inextricably part of the institution of congress... there's no way to reconcile the two.

Polarization is ubiquitous.  Congress has a lot to answer for in terms of that becoming the case, sure, but my point was Article 1 provides plenty of mechanisms for Congress to check the presidency.  That's institutional.  Polarization is..a virus or a plague that infests every aspect of American politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, DMC said:

Polarization is ubiquitous.  Congress has a lot to answer for in terms of that becoming the case, sure, but my point was Article 1 provides plenty of mechanisms for Congress to check the presidency.  That's institutional.  Polarization is..a virus or a plague that infests every aspect of American politics.

Fair enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, this just isn't true.  Constitutionally, Congress can avail itself of far more enumerated powers than the presidency.  It's simply since the modern presidency (i.e. FDR), they've deferred.  To a grotesque extent.  There was that moment when they passed the War Powers Act, overriding Nixon's veto.  But they've never really enforced even that.  The problem with Congress isn't institutional, it's polarization.

Not sure how any of this impacts my point. Congress may have powers but they cannot enforce them if the DOJ or Executive Branch says no. Power of subpoena? Great, except Executive Branch has ignored every single one. Power of hearings? Great, except Executive Branch has refused to show and when they have, they haven't answered any questions. Oversight power? Awesome, except when the Executive Branch, including the DOJ, claims powers that had never existed prior to this year like the insane executive privilege overreach that applies to any person who has every had a conversation with Trump or anyone in the Executive Branch, regardless of whether it was during the campaign, during the presidency, applies to a policy decision or not. Congress's response to that? Shrug. Conduct oversight on the Intelligence Community? Sure, but only on the things the Executive Branch wants to discuss with them. Congress has accomplished exactly zero oversight in the past year and half simply because the Executive Branch has refused at all points to participate.

Congress has the power to do things. They have no means to enforce it except to pass another law, that may or may not be interpreted any way the DOJ wants to interpret it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yep, definitely.  What's your point?

I asked

20 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

Do you think poverty is $7.25 times 40 hours times 52 weeks? $14,580.

To your question as to what my point is I will say per individual the government disagrees --- $12,490 for individual.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mexal said:

Congress may have powers but they cannot enforce them if the DOJ or Executive Branch says no.

Yes they can.  The power of the purse is, functionally, more powerful than the power of the sword.  Congress is literally endowed to shut down the executive branch.  It's not the same the other way.  This is a pretty basic point.  If Congress actually united against the Executive, they are far more equipped in such a war.  So, while that's never gonna happen in this day and age, it's inaccurate to say they don't have that capacity.  Madison and co. specifically and explicitly made sure they had that capacity.

2 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

I asked

To your question as to what my point is I will say per individual the government disagrees --- $12,490 for individual.

 

So...I still don't get your point.  You're arguing those between around $12.5k and $14.5k makes much of a difference because.....???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Clegane'sPup said:

 

Two different things going on here. Medicaid and Medicare.
Do you think poverty is $7.25 times 40 hours times 52 weeks? $14,580.
The 2019 federal poverty level (FPL) income numbers below are used to calculate eligibility for Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP). 2018 numbers are slightly lower, and are used to calculate savings on Marketplace insurance plans for 2019.
    $12,490 for individuals
    $16,910 for a family of 2
    $21,330 for a family of 3
    $25,750 for a family of 4
    $30,170 for a family of 5
    $34,590 for a family of 6
    $39,010 for a family of 7
    $43,430 for a family of 8

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/

Back to the $0, that is how the plan was put into place. Shop on healthcare.gov get a deal. Don't by in get a penalty tied to the irs. One of you frekkers need go back in time and look at obama's original health care plan.  $0 with increasing yearly premiums. Never mind that there was a withdrawal of insurance companies from the government pot.

Of course you're not going to get insurance companies to sign up for $0 premiums. That's why it has to be a publicly funded programme.

Where you set the income threshold for $0 payments is important in it's detail, but trivial in it's principle. You agree there should be a $0 threshold  and then you debate where it should be. I would think the fight for $15 people would at least want it to be set at $15/hr full time job for a single person. But others might have different views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DMC said:

So...I still don't get your point.  You're arguing those between around $12.5k and $14.5k makes much of a difference because.....??? 

Sorry you and I are not intellectually connecting via the internet.

@The Anti-Targsaid That's why it has to be a publicly funded programme. 

Programme, is that a uk word?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...