|
MrNemo posted:Likewise if he ordered FBI agents to begin conducting financial audits of all citizens they come into contact with it would be (I believe, happy to be corrected) illegal in conducting audits would be outside the scope of the agencies powers. I think that would might be ok if the EO also made all FBI agents also IRS agents and then ordered them to do that (within the legally defined scope of the IRS's powers). Does the IRS really have the power to do arbitrary financial audits outside of a tax case?
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff/status/826064440898502658 SCOTUS is the place for spite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/826063267760046080Cheesus posted:https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff/status/826064440898502658 This is normally a pretty good fake account, but I don't understand who the spite is supposed to be aimed at here. Number Ten Cocks fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Jan 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/826063267760046080 Remember the president is a pathological narcissist. If his sister had recently convinced him that Hardiman was his idea and the bestest, most conservatist choice, then any disagreement from Bannon would be considered a challenge to his authority and rejected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/826063267760046080 So Pence/Ryan/Priebus is who he would be spiting with his SCOTUS choice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
It seems like Bannon should prefer Gorsuch, though. I think that's were this tweet goes astray.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Cheesus posted:According to the twitter's narrative, Trump is a tug of war between Pence/Ryan/Priebus ("the unholy trinity") and Bannon. Apparently he gets upset being told that he can or cannot do certain actions legally by the unholy trinity. It seems like when they're on the verge of possibly convincing him to do something relatively sane (by the standards since the 20th), Bannon re-asserts his dominance. Odd that there's no mention of Kushner in all this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Odd that there's no mention of Kushner in all this. https://twitter.com/RoguePOTUSStaff/status/824985494480117760
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
You should probably stop acting like unverified twitter accounts that pander to your biases and claim to reveal the inner workings of executive staff decision making are anything but noise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
As I said in the other thread: a group of staff members in the white house that had started calling themselves "the resistance" and were talking about the president being "a tyrant" that needs to be "resisted" would get about 5 minutes of secretly spying on the president's conversations through a locked door before they had a secret service shotgun pushed against their skull and a lockdown of the entire whitehouse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:As I said in the other thread: a group of staff members in the white house that had started calling themselves "the resistance" and were talking about the president being "a tyrant" that needs to be "resisted" would get about 5 minutes of secretly spying on the president's conversations through a locked door before they had a secret service shotgun pushed against their skull and a lockdown of the entire whitehouse. I still think it's Toby Ziegler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/senate-democrats-filibuster-supreme-court-pick-234368quote:Senate Dems will filibuster Trump’s Supreme Court nominee
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
Dems will publicly show off their spine before revealing it's a toy prop found in a high school drama department prop room.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
I have zero confidence in the ability of the Dems to not gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:McConnell is loath to change the rules of the Senate to allow confirmation of Supreme Court nominees by a simple majority Hahaha, suuuure he is. Anyway, not that messaging and PR matters anymore, but Democrats probably should've waited until tomorrow to announce the filibuster to avoid looking like complete hypocrites re: refusal to vote on Garland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:As I said in the other thread: a group of staff members in the white house that had started calling themselves "the resistance" and were talking about the president being "a tyrant" that needs to be "resisted" would get about 5 minutes of secretly spying on the president's conversations through a locked door before they had a secret service shotgun pushed against their skull and a lockdown of the entire whitehouse. Just as in the other thread, you weird assertions that a) secret service carries shotguns around openly in the White House and b) that secret service would put a gun to their head rather than just asking them to come with them is just weird. They're staffers, not terrorists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
The filibuster anyone strategy has to be intended to force the nuclear option. There's no way they expect this seat to be open three years going into the awful 2018 senate electoral map, but think they can't get away with less if they want to maintain base support and money.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 19:41
|
|
|
This is, to be clear, why a portion of Senate Dems were voting for confirmation of Trump's previous, far less offensive appointments- they were keeping their powder dry to maximize coverage of the nuclear option to get someone really odious in. The plan was probably to do it to DeVos. Trump moving so quickly on SCOTUS forced the dems to pull the trigger on this sooner than they'd planned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Everything rests on the balls of Charles "Chuck" Schumer Welp
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This is, to be clear, why a portion of Senate Dems were voting for confirmation of Trump's previous, far less offensive appointments- they were keeping their powder dry to maximize coverage of the nuclear option to get someone really odious in. The plan was probably to do it to DeVos. Trump moving so quickly on SCOTUS forced the dems to pull the trigger on this sooner than they'd planned. Agreed. It seems like Trump's pick is essentially going to be Scalia v2.0 and the better move would be to not make it an easy confirmation by any means, but don't set it up for the nuclear option right now. I would think that given there's a decent chance of one of the liberal justices needing replacement in the next 4 years is fairly high, saving the filibuster for that situation, so that invoking the nuclear option is even that more of a Thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Merkley is going to filibuster the nom no matter who, according to twitter buzz, so that's that i guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:Agreed. It seems like Trump's pick is essentially going to be Scalia v2.0 and the better move would be to not make it an easy confirmation by any means, but don't set it up for the nuclear option right now. I would think that given there's a decent chance of one of the liberal justices needing replacement in the next 4 years is fairly high, saving the filibuster for that situation, so that invoking the nuclear option is even that more of a Thing. gently caress that, republicans refused to confirm Obama's appointment, refuse to confirm Trump's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:I have zero confidence in the ability of the Dems to not gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:Agreed. It seems like Trump's pick is essentially going to be Scalia v2.0 and the better move would be to not make it an easy confirmation by any means, but don't set it up for the nuclear option right now. I would think that given there's a decent chance of one of the liberal justices needing replacement in the next 4 years is fairly high, saving the filibuster for that situation, so that invoking the nuclear option is even that more of a Thing. The reason they're doing it now is that they can point to the fact that this seat was opened during Obama's term as a source of legitimacy. Notice that they're not saying "we'll filibuster anyone who's not moderate", they're saying "we'll filibuster anyone who's not Garland". That's not something they can just save for later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:Merkley is going to filibuster the nom no matter who, according to twitter buzz, so that's that i guess. He's been very good on SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The reason they're doing it now is that they can point to the fact that this seat was opened during Obama's term as a source of legitimacy. Notice that they're not saying "we'll filibuster anyone who's not moderate", they're saying "we'll filibuster anyone who's not Garland". That's not something they can just save for later. Alright, that makes a lot more sense
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:They're staffers, not terrorists. They aren't staffers or terrorists, they are some teen's fan fiction twitter role play thing. But do you get how serious a deal it'd be if there was an actual group in the whitehouse calling themselves "the resistance" and talking about the need to "resist" a "tyrant" while spying and leaking private conversations the president was having? Do you get how big a deal that would be in real life?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
duz posted:gently caress that, republicans refused to confirm Obama's appointment, refuse to confirm Trump's. That only works if you have the biggest gun in the room, so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 21:09
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:They aren't staffers or terrorists, they are some teen's fan fiction twitter role play thing. Yes that would be serious, but stuff gets leaked out of the White House and every other government all the time. The secret service still would not be roaming around with shot guns, still would not be putting guns to foreheads and still would not be executing people extrajudicially.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
The GOP will use the nuclear option on something dumb like the farm bill, and the media and public won’t care because it’s arcane procedural bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The GOP will use the nuclear option on something dumb like the farm bill, and the media and public won’t care because it’s arcane procedural bullshit. At least make them do it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Kloaked00 posted:I would think that given there's a decent chance of one of the liberal justices needing replacement in the next 4 years is fairly high, saving the filibuster for that situation, so that invoking the nuclear option is even that more of a Thing. The alternative is going with McConnell doctrine and accepting a reasonable Scalia replacement and hoping RBG lasts 3 years. Doing so would likely not be any better and shows an acceptance of Republican bullshit but it may actually be more impactful. Nah I'm kidding. No one would understand why the Republicans appointing Scalia 2.0 and then filling RBG's vacant seat in December 14th 2020 with Scalia 3.0 was even worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Any "strategy" that depends on senate Rs being equitable or reasonable or what the gently caress ever is completely delusional. I'm glad Merkley is willing to go down swinging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The reason they're doing it now is that they can point to the fact that this seat was opened during Obama's term as a source of legitimacy. Notice that they're not saying "we'll filibuster anyone who's not moderate", they're saying "we'll filibuster anyone who's not Garland". That's not something they can just save for later. All the ships regarding comity on SCOTUS sailed when the Republicans didn't even give a nominee a hearing for a year. It's FYGM now and if you don't get on with the program you'll be played like a chump. Edit: Remember that before the election the Republicans were falling over themselves to pre-emptively block Clinton's nominees. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Jan 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The reason they're doing it now is that they can point to the fact that this seat was opened during Obama's term as a source of legitimacy. Notice that they're not saying "we'll filibuster anyone who's not moderate", they're saying "we'll filibuster anyone who's not Garland". That's not something they can just save for later. They're saying both. The sudden short-notice confirmation decision was a strategic move by Trump's people with ties to Congressional Rs that has created a split in Dem messaging on the nomination decision. The Dems have no ability to ration their procedural ammunition, because they have one shot. They can create something resembling an obstacle to a Trump nominee once. Then the Republicans can change the rules, and the Senate dems have no practical or procedural power on anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Re: the fake rogue POTUS staff account. https://twitter.com/cateia97/status/826166932122509312
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Re: the fake rogue POTUS staff account. It’s not exactly a smoking gun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Re: the fake rogue POTUS staff account. I don't really believe the account is true, but basing your claim on the idea that Russians mistranslated a slang word and esque is a bit of a stretch. I'm sure a lot of people have written it vakay before, and prolly half of America couldn't tell you how to spell -esque (it also shows up incorrect on iOS and ms word). Esk could be a shortening for char limits as well Interesting theory, but more likely that if it was Russians, they'd just stay away from words they weren't sure about and write vacation (or google a shorter way to say it)
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
Even if English is a second language to the tweeter, so what? Russian isn’t the only language that would lead to errors like that, and not all native Russian speakers are disinfo agents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:02 |
|
|
Wow, you SA Russian disinformation guys are a lot less subtle. That sort of performance won't earn you a promotion to Twitter. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 00:16
|
|