A Political Thread

[Amiga500]

Eamonn Holmes in trouble after spreading 5G disinformation claiming it is harmful.

The state of people's scientific understanding, or lack of it, is just so painful. You can literally sit these idiots down and explain step by step how 5G is perfectly safe and they don't want to know! They are idiots who want to feel that they are actually smart and somehow the "free thinkers". Apparently the scientific theories of the 40's and 50's were all a pack of lies intended to allow us to roll out 5G in 2020 and yes, they think that is a perfectly reasonable explanation.

If only we could convince them running full speed head first into a brick wall could make you smart.

Neighbour of mine is all up in arms about 5G transmitters going up...

Yet thinks the Coronavirus is much ado about nothing.

Tried explaining how the former is fine and the latter is a massive problem if people aren't careful.
Ignored of course.

:shrugs:

 

[Bada-Bing!]

How a leader should be treating this crisis and answer questions.



Here is what you get when you have a game show host run a country. Bizarre!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52276004

John Sopel's assessment.



Even Fox news can't defend Trump's assertion that he alone will decide when states reopen.

 

[Which Tyler]

Silver linings...
March 2020 is the first month in 18 years without a school shooting in the US

 

[big ginger 8]

Silver linings...
March 2020 is the first month in 18 years without a school shooting in the US

That is absolutely insane and tragic.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

The ******* fact that school shootings are legitimate political discussion in this country . . .

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The ******* fact that school shootings are legitimate political discussion in this country . . .

Your right to swing your fist ends where my barrel begins...

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

People's thoughts on the NZ pm taking a pay cut?

Publicity stunt to win her upcoming election or am I being cynical?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Trump now threatens to adjourn Congress so he can force through his appointments without Senate confirmation. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...ourn-congress-to-push-through-nominees-189120

Staggering really, Republicans held up all of Obama's appointments at all levels so they are just getting a taste of their own medicine. However Obama never threatened to try to adjourn Congress to force it through. The fact Trump can even think to threaten that when he doesn't have the authority (just like he shouldn't have the authority to end WHO funding or to force states to end quarantine) is mindblowing. But remember, it's all just Orange man bad isn't it?

 

[ncurd]

People's thoughts on the NZ pm taking a pay cut?

Publicity stunt to win her upcoming election or am I being cynical?

It is a stunt and is cynical, however being part of company of 100k enployees that cancelled all pay rises and asked all employees to take Voluntary Unpaid Leave of Absences for 10 days (they couldn't furlough us as it's about cash flow not lack of work, plus wobbly stuff about our contracts). It did feel good to know upper management to the top took pay cuts.

So yeah I'd rather MPs did it and set an example.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

It is a stunt and is cynical, however being part of company of 100k enployees that cancelled all pay rises and asked all employees to take Voluntary Unpaid Leave of Absences for 10 days (they couldn't furlough us as it's about cash flow not lack of work, plus wobbly stuff about our contracts). It did feel good to know upper management to the top took pay cuts.

So yeah I'd rather MPs did it and set an example.

Hmm yeah I didn't think about it like that actually.

What I have been struggling with though is that they are doing a very important job at the moment and whilst they aren't front line workers technically, they are pretty integral to the running of the country and if any other group of that description was asked to take a pay cut at the moment it would be a national scandal.

Not sure what to think really

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Obama did try to sneak appointments in while Congress was away once and the Supreme Court ruled that Congress is only adjourned when they say they are adjourned. Congress knows that if the go on recess it would give the president more power so they have shifted how they operate.

Trump does have a tenuous constitutional argument for forcing in his appointments. With the current makeup of the Supreme Court (if he attempts this it WILL go the Supreme Court), that is all he really needs.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Trump now threatens to adjourn Congress so he can force through his appointments without Senate confirmation. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...ourn-congress-to-push-through-nominees-189120

Staggering really, Republicans held up all of Obama's appointments at all levels so they are just getting a taste of their own medicine. However Obama never threatened to try to adjourn Congress to force it through. The fact Trump can even think to threaten that when he doesn't have the authority (just like he shouldn't have the authority to end WHO funding or to force states to end quarantine) is mindblowing. But remember, it's all just Orange man bad isn't it?

President WUMP. It's all BS. Distraction and wind up the media and his opponents to something to chew on. No substance to it and he knows it. It's laughable.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Obama did try to sneak appointments in while Congress was away once and the Supreme Court ruled that Congress is only adjourned when they say they are adjourned. Congress knows that if the go on recess it would give the president more power so they have shifted how they operate.

Trump does have a tenuous constitutional argument for forcing in his appointments. With the current makeup of the Supreme Court (if he attempts this it WILL go the Supreme Court), that is all he really needs.

Obama tried to sneak in his appointments and the Supreme Court ruled against him as you say. Precedent means a lot in the Supreme Court and even with a stacked court now, they would not overturn a ruling a lot of them made only a few years ago. The precedent has been established that what is currently happening counts as Congress being in session. Attempting to change the rules again will do more harm than good for Republicans as it would highlight how they aren't willing to play by their own rules and show them up as a bunch of hypocrites once again.

That ruling removed Trump's argument for forcing appointments. However he hasn't threatened to put appointments through when Congress adjourns, he has threatened to force an adjournment. That is a different issue and the president only has the power to do that under a very specific circumstance; when Congress cannot agree on a date to adjourn. A date has already been agreed so there is absolutely no Constitutional basis the president can have to force an adjournment. Also the ruling against Obama should show Republicans that any stupid games they play can be turned back on them. They let Trump get away with stacking the Judiciary and adjourning Congress on a whim and they better be prepared for a Democrat president to do the same. More than one of the "rules" created by Republicans to allow them to **** about during the Obama era has already come back to haunt them, you would think they would learn.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

The thing about precedent and the Supreme Court is that the conservative justices only care about it when it helps them advance conservative causes. Forcing an adjournment is a constitutional possibility. Article 2 §3 Clause 3. No president has ever attempted to do so, therefore the Supreme Court has never had to make a ruling on it.

he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;

If he goes through with this, it would be up to the Supreme Court to determine what that clause. There is no precedent here, not that the conservative justices care about that.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Attempting to change the rules again will do more harm than good for Republicans as it would highlight how they aren't willing to play by their own rules and show them up as a bunch of hypocrites once again.

When has that ever stopped them? McConnell has been saying that they'd have no problem rushing in a Justice if Ginsburg dies before November. He's called democrats tyrants for doing the same exact thing he would do 8 years later. (On changing filibuster rules.)

Additonally, the opinion that overturned Obama's appointments specifically mentions that the President can force an adjournment "if he has enough allies in Congress". Luckily, it appears that McConnell is reluctant to help out but that could change.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

President WUMP.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The thing about precedent and the Supreme Court is that the conservative justices only care about it when it helps them advance conservative causes. Forcing an adjournment is a constitutional possibility. Article 2 §3 Clause 3. No president has ever attempted to do so, therefore the Supreme Court has never had to make a ruling on it.

If he goes through with this, it would be up to the Supreme Court to determine what that clause. There is no precedent here, not that the conservative justices care about that.

The key bit in that is "he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;"

There is currently no disagreement on the time of adjournment so that immediately nullifies that. He can convene both houses whenever he wants but can only adjourn them when they can't agree on a date. Conservative judges will often rule in favour of conservatives on new issues but even very conservative judges have rarely overturned an existing case. In essence allowing a president to adjourn Congress whenever he chooses to push through appointments would in essence be overturning the previous ruling by providing a ready-made mechanism to overcome it. It is staggering though that the Supreme Court has not had a majority of Democrat selected justices since 1970. That's either phenomenally bad luck or shows just how shamelessly the right wing have been ******* about with the system.

The Republicans can get away round this, most obviously by suddenly changing their agreed date and saying they no longer agree to create the conditions required but ultimately I can't see that benefiting them. It would be just another really blatant way of gaming the system where they once again do something unprecedented to gain some small advantage. For the sake of getting some appointees, they give the Democrats tons of ammo to show they are all in Trumps pocket, paint him as a dictator, show how the system of checks and balances is being undermined and essentially paint the Republicans as undermining the whole system. All for some temporary appointments. Unless the Democrats seriously **** up (which admittedly they have done a lot), the damage of trying to game the system that way outweighs the benefits.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Yeah, essentially he needs McConnell to go in and create disagreement. Currently, McConnell won't do that because he is somewhat self aware. I don't think it will happen, but to say Trump can't do this is incorrect (relative to all the things he says he can do but has legitimately no chance of doing).

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Yeah, essentially he needs McConnell to go in and create disagreement. Currently, McConnell won't do that because he is somewhat self aware. I don't think it will happen, but to say Trump can't do this is incorrect (relative to all the things he says he can do but has legitimately no chance of doing).

Ok more accurately Trump can't do it without McConnell fabricating a situation to allow him to take advantage of that condition in the Constitution.

 

[Reiser99]

People's thoughts on the NZ pm taking a pay cut?

Publicity stunt to win her upcoming election or am I being cynical?

Honestly it's still more than the majority of politicians are doing. Hell ours got 10k each extra to work from home. Also based on data NZ is one of the top countries in the world for dealing with Coronavirus. That will surely do more for her reelection prospects than any pay cut.