US Politics: I Don't Like Mondays

[DMC]

28 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

I would hope that the Dems could engage in something a bit less incompetently executed, but that's the sort of thing Dems are going to have to do more of in order to keep any kind of power. Because the alternate is seeing this done on the other side, it winning, and them not being in power in any meaningful way for the next 10 years. 

The problem is you're arguing Trump/the GOP is more competent in "getting things done" and "securing power," and the examples you're pointing to are (a) his first impeachment where he was so incompetent he got caught red handed and (b) his second impeachment which was a resounding failure in actually securing power.  

The Dems should (and are) much better at digging up dirt than Trump's Hunter Biden obsession with Ukraine, and no, I don't think any president should attempt a self-coup if they lose, regardless of party.

35 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

They left the ambassador of Ukraine open for over a fucking year. They left the position of head of the FDA - the position responsible for managing the vaccine approval - open for over a year.

This is so far afield from your original argument about the competency of Dems vis-a-vis Republicans.  Hell, it's even drastically different than your DeJoy example which was about not willing to fire Republicans (when he actually couldn't).

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

The problem is you're arguing Trump/the GOP is more competent in "getting things done" and "securing power," and the examples you're pointing to are (a) his first impeachment where he was so incompetent he got caught red handed and (b) his second impeachment which was a resounding failure in actually securing power. 

They're more competent in both, yes. The impeachment stuff is some of it, but I also pointed to a bunch of other things that Trump did which are still standing, right now, even though they were done via EO. Republicans are significantly better at the state level, significantly better at the judicial level (most judges appointed as far as I can tell are not remotely partisan or incompetent but loyal; they're good, relatively left-of-center judges), significantly better at appointing people who are willing to bend the rules (thanks, Garland). Biden and dems have so far been big failures here. 

I'll also Yes, And here and say that they need to be using more foreign relationships to help with domestic issues - especially since that's something Biden is good at. 

Also, the second impeachment was a pretty big success in securing future power, or at least it appears to be - in that there are a lot of state systems being set in place to ensure that something like that will succeed in the future. And as far as we can tell, there are no particularly bad political repercussions; more politicians are repeating the big lie, no one is going to jail that matters, nothing is changing legally. So yeah, it is a success, albeit not the slam dunk they wanted. It ain't like Trump tried it first and then lost, after all. 

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

The Dems should (and are) much better at digging up dirt than Trump's Hunter Biden obsession with Ukraine, and no, I don't think any president should attempt a self-coup if they lose, regardless of party. 

Then you'll get Republicans, with the occasional democratic POTUS being able to do nothing.

4 minutes ago, DMC said:

This is so far afield from your original argument about the competency of Dems vis-a-vis Republicans.  Hell, it's even drastically different than your DeJoy example which was about not willing to fire Republicans (when he actually couldn't).

Sorry if you're still having problems not interjecting, but the conversation moved on a little bit. I was pointing out yet another example of incompetence. And yes, not appointing people to important positions while also failing to negotiate within your own party for almost two years is a good example of not getting things done or securing power.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

The impeachment stuff is some of it, but I also pointed to a bunch of other things that Trump did which are still standing, right now, even though they were done via EO.

No, you didn't.  Title 42 is not an EO, and it's a horrible example.  Other than that you provided the DeJoy example, which apparently you didn't realize Biden couldn't fire him.  Then you said other vague things like "covid procedures" and "tariffs," which I really have no basis to respond to.

4 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

It ain't like Trump tried it first and then lost, after all. 

He tried and failed.  That he's going to try again and the GOP is responding and (presumably) getting better at it does not mean this is an example of the GOP being more competent.  If you want the Dems to prepare to try to overtake an election, that's your business, but don't tell me that's about comparative competency.

6 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Sorry if you're still having problems not interjecting, but the conversation moved on a little bit.

No, the conversation has just been you responding to me - which is why you saying I'm "interjecting" is hilarious.  It "moved on" in this case because you realized you had no argument when it came to DeJoy/the USPS, so you flailed to Biden not confirming an FDA commissioner and an ambassador as some weak ass example.  To respond to those, if you want, Janet Woodcock was the acting commissioner of the FDA until Califf was confirmed - and she was perfectly qualified to perform those duties.  As for Biden not confirming ambassadors, this complaint could be leveled at literally every president since WWII.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, you didn't.  Title 42 is not an EO, and it's a horrible example. 

It's effectively the same thing and is effectively controlled by the administration. That they did a bad job of shutting it down is not an indicator that I'm wrong that they're bad about getting things done. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Other than that you provided the DeJoy example, which apparently you didn't realize Biden couldn't fire him. 

I did know they can't fire him. I also know that they slowplayed the election of the folks who can fire him, and I know they could have expedited that if they cared. Here's an article talking about what Biden could have done (and still basically hasn't) and that was from 15 months ago. If Biden wanted to fire any of the board, he could have. He didn't because he feared possible repercussions, but that is exactly the sort of thing Republicans don't fear and do stuff regardless.

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Then you said other vague things like "covid procedures" and "tariffs," which I really have no basis to respond to. 

You're okay with Biden just continuing all tariffs that Trump put into place? Or fucking around with Covid rules and mask mandates and vaccine mandates? I'm happy to iterate all the things that they haven't done if you really want, but I thought you were better informed. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

He tried and failed.  That he's going to try again and the GOP is responding and (presumably) getting better at it does not mean this is an example of the GOP being more competent.  If you want the Dems to prepare to try to overtake an election, that's your business, but don't tell me that's about comparative competency. 

When one group is trying, didn't succeed, and instead of giving up tries harder that's a pretty big difference than doing nothing at all, and in my business that absolutely is comparative competency. That's a growth mindset, son!

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

No, the conversation has just been you responding to me - which is why you saying I'm "interjecting" is hilarious.  It "moved on" in this case because you realized you had no argument when it came to DeJoy/the USPS,

I still have that argument. If Biden wanted to get rid of DeJoy he could have focused on getting that board removed and replaced. He didn't. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

so you flailed to Biden not confirming an FDA commissioner and an ambassador as some weak ass example.

Replacing the FDA head during a pandemic  is not a weak-ass example. Replacing the ambassador to Ukraine when that had a buildup to a war is not a weak-ass example. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

  To respond to those, if you want, Janet Woodcock was the acting commissioner of the FDA until Califf was confirmed - and she was perfectly qualified to perform those duties.  As for Biden not confirming ambassadors, this complaint could be leveled at literally every president since WWII.

Pretty sure we've not had open positions to ambassadors when that country was directly involved in the impeachment of the former POTUS and was about to go into a major war. If we have, wow, we've been SUPER incompetent. But this ain't like an open position to the Bahamas. 

And Woodcock was fine, but having an acting director gives them less power and less authority and also makes it look less important in the eyes of the admin, undermining that authority even more. It's not a good move. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, KalVsWade said:

It's effectively the same thing

It's really, really not.  Title 42 is a law, part of the US code.  That is fundamentally different than an EO.  Anyway I already addressed why that is a bad example, see above.

3 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

I also know that they slowplayed the election of the folks who can fire him, and I know they could have expedited that if they cared.

No, you don't know this because it's wrong.  Biden didn't "slowplay" the last two nominees - the vacancies just simply didn't open up yet.  And even if they had, he still doesn't have a majority of appointees on the board in order to fire DeJoy.  He will - and always would have - have to wait until this December when two more vacancies open up in order to get a majority of the board.

8 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

If Biden wanted to fire any of the board, he could have.

Without cause it obviously would have been blocked by the courts, so what's the point?  To lose in court in order to show whiny leftists you're "trying"?

11 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

You're okay with Biden just continuing all tariffs that Trump put into place? Or fucking around with Covid rules and mask mandates and vaccine mandates? I'm happy to iterate all the things that they haven't done if you really want, but I thought you were better informed. 

LOL!!!!  

13 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

When one group is trying, didn't succeed, and instead of giving up tries harder that's a pretty big difference than doing nothing at all, and in my business that absolutely is comparative competency.

Yeah I don't think anyone that would say that extends to the comparative competency of executing coups, but YMMV.

14 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Replacing the FDA head during a pandemic  is not a weak-ass example.

It certainly is when Biden replaced Trump's FDA commissioner on his first day in office with an acting commissioner who has spent the last 36 years at the FDA.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

It's really, really not.  Title 42 is a law, part of the US code.  That is fundamentally different than an EO.  Anyway I already addressed why that is a bad example, see above.

Because it's popular with some dems? Repealing bad laws because they're popular with racists is not super great as an argument goes, but okay. If that's your counter - that Biden shouldn't change things when some moderate dems like it, even if it's a shitty rule - you do you.

1 minute ago, DMC said:

No, you don't know this because it's wrong.  Biden didn't "slowplay" the last two nominees - the vacancies just simply didn't open up yet.  And even if they had, he still doesn't have a majority of appointees on the board in order to fire DeJoy.  He will - and always would have - have to wait until this December when two more vacancies open up in order to get a majority of the board.

Without cause it obviously would have been blocked by the courts, so what's the point?  To lose in court in order to show whiny leftists you're "trying"?

He had cause, or at least enough to try. He did not have to wait until now. It is entirely dependent on how much he wanted to push it. And as in most cases, the answer is 'not very much'.

And it's not obvious it would have been blocked by the courts. And if it was, that has value in its own - in showing why courts need reform, or showing Biden is doing what he can, or maybe getting lucky and actually using power. 

And it ain't exactly leftists that hated DeJoy. It was a pretty big deal, especially given how much he fucked up mail-in balloting. Do you think Leftists are the only ones who care about voting, or getting insulin on time?

1 minute ago, DMC said:

LOL!!!!  

I know, right? I should have known you weren't. 

1 minute ago, DMC said:

Yeah I don't think anyone that would say that extends to the comparative competency of executing coups, but YMMV. 

When the only response to the coup is thoughts and prayers by one side and learning and doing better by the other, yes?

1 minute ago, DMC said:

It certainly is when Biden replaced Trump's FDA commissioner on his first day in office with an acting commissioner who has spent the last 36 years at the FDA.

So why set them up for acting? When multiple people in and outside of the administration said that this was a mistake and made it harder for the FDA to act with authority? Hell, why appoint Woodcock who was mired in some controversy with Oxy? 

Keep in mind he didn't even name a nominee until fairly recently, and largely because per regulations he couldn't keep Woodcock as acting for more than 280 days. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Because it's popular with some dems? Repealing bad laws because they're popular with racists is not super great as an argument goes, but okay. If that's your counter - that Biden shouldn't change things when some moderate dems like it, even if it's a shitty rule - you do you.

LOL!!!

15 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

And it's not obvious it would have been blocked by the courts. And if it was, that has value in its own - in showing why courts need reform, or showing Biden is doing what he can, or maybe getting lucky and actually using power. 

Yes it is.  Indeed, your entire argument seems to ignore the fact the courts have blocked a lot of what Biden has tried to do unilaterally, particularly on immigration and including Title 42.

16 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

When the only response to the coup is thoughts and prayers by one side and learning and doing better by the other, yes?

As I said yesterday, the Dems are responding by advancing voter access in states they control.  Your observation that they can't do anything about red states doing the opposite is entirely banal and has nothing to do with competency.

19 minutes ago, KalVsWade said:

Keep in mind he didn't even name a nominee until fairly recently

I don't think of last November as "fairly recently," but you do you.  

Anyway, sorry you're right, I can't keep up with this absurd goalpost moving and incoherent whining about random things like the FDA and ambassadorships as some proof that the Biden administration isn't as competent at "getting things done" and "securing power" compared to the Trump administration.

[cock_merchant]

Kavanaugh incident shows Schumer should be impeached under Democrats' standards: https://t.co/mgY7oLPh2b

[A Horse Named Stranger]

<xxxx<<

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

6 hours ago, cock_merchant said:

Kavanaugh incident shows Schumer should be impeached under Democrats' standards: https://t.co/mgY7oLPh2b

Or maybe the drunk hack shouldn't have ever been appointed. I mean the guy was in debt over baseball tickets IIRC. Not exactly the best or brightest. 

[Morpheus]

Thoughts and prayers, but it is too soon. They should pray more and harder.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Hum, so a guy was arrested outside Kavanaugh's home, carrying a gun.

I thought he was pro second amendment.

[Luzifer's right hand]

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

Thoughts and prayers, but it is too soon. They should pray more and harder.

Murdering a supreme court justice is already illegal just like child murder.

I suggest he and his family should arm themselves. No need to get politics involved.

/s

[cock_merchant]

1 hour ago, Morpheus said:

Thoughts and prayers, but it is too soon. They should pray more and harder.

Long over due, hopefully the bill passes. Murdering the SC and school children is illegal and disgusting but only the former is being actively incited by the Democrat's establishment. 

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions." - Sen. Chuck Schumer, 4 March 2020.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

<xxxx<<

[Morpheus]

29 minutes ago, cock_merchant said:

Long over due, hopefully the bill passes. Murdering the SC and school children is illegal and disgusting but only the former is being actively incited by the Democrat's establishment. 

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions." - Sen. Chuck Schumer, 4 March 2020.

Pigpoopballs.jpeg

[DMC]

The reason House Dems are holding up the bill is because they want the security to extend to the justices' clerks and staff.  Bastards!

[Morpheus]

It is still a bad look that this bill is an urgent priority in the face of repeated inaction after mass shootings. They (meaning the wider politcal elite, regardless of party) will always look out for each other before doing fuck all for the rest of us. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

The reason House Dems are holding up the bill is because they want the security to extend to the justices' clerks and staff.  Bastards!

So they want to protect the next generation of Ted Cruzes. 

[Martell Spy]

Former Trump Education Secretary DeVos says she had 25th Amendment discussions with Pence and Cabinet members

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/09/politics/betsy-devos-trump-january-6/index.html

Quote

 

Before she left, she told USA Today in a new interview on Thursday, she explored whether using the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office was a viable option before departing the administration.

She said Pence told her he would not support using the 25th Amendment and that his backing would be necessary for such an effort to be successful.

"I spoke with the vice president and just let him know I was there to do whatever he wanted and needed me to do or help with, and he made it very clear that he was not going to go in that direction or that path," DeVos told USA Today. "I spoke with colleagues. I wanted to get a better understanding of the law itself and see if it was applicable in this case. There were more than a few people who had those conversations internally."