|
From the other day but I want this to be true https://mobile.twitter.com/Popehat/status/1060904255756726273
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
edit: wrong thread
Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:26
|
|
|
this is probably a long-shot, but it may be interesting https://twitter.com/eorden/status/1062350772652912640 https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1062351536045592576
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:32
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/RVAwonk/status/1062349474687868928
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
Can a federal judge even do this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 15:59
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Can a federal judge even do this? What does your heart tell you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:02
|
|
|
lemonadesweetheart posted:What does your heart tell you. My heart shriveled up and died the night Trump was elected.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:04
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Can a federal judge even do this? federal judges can do a whole lot of poo poo, in theory - this position that Maryland is taking, that a previous, more specific succession regulation controls here and the position would've automatically defaulted to Rosenstein, feels like the weaker argument compared to the constitutional one we've talked about. English v. Trump, the litigation over the CFPB head, works against this claim. It's still being appealed to the DC circuit so there's not binding precedent, but there the administration won at the district level by basically saying "If there's both a normal regulation that governs succession and also the VRA, we can choose which one we want to apply" - which would be almost the exact same position they'd take here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
How does Maryland have standing in that issue?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Thread on CNN's case against the WH about Acosta https://mobile.twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1062359979905204227
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:How does Maryland have standing in that issue? we'll have to see what they go with when they file something, but blue states tend to have a lot of ongoing litigation that involves the DOJ right now where if the current attorney general is appointed illegally, it would definitely matter e: okay here's much more information - the choice of regulations bit isn't the sole argument, looks like they get to the constitutional question as well https://twitter.com/charlie_savage/status/1062313354373615617 quote:The state’s attorney general, Brian E. Frosh, working with the law firm of Goldstein & Russell, brought the litigation. Thomas C. Goldstein, a partner in the firm, said they planned to file the motion on Tuesday morning. eke out fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Can a federal judge even do this? Actually, yes. In practice, probably not. In insane hellworld where up is down and left is right? Who knows. So the reason that it may work is that the state has standing due to their engagement with the Justice department in different aspects, both cooperation in law enforcement and legal actions. So changing policies willie-nillie gives them room to say, "Hey! You can't do that!" And a judge may look at the law and justice department regulations and say, "You gotta follow the rules and not just put your crony in place." Now in the days before Trump this would be unlikely to succeed because a judge is going to say, "The president is the head of the justice department and he's not doing anything corrupt so let him do what he wants here." But this is nakedly corrupt. And possibly a violation of law in a way that no previous president would have attempted. So a judge might not be willing to let Trump have his leeway. Who the gently caress knows at this point?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:37
|
|
|
Does he not realize that Europe building a larger standing army is the end result of him constantly complaining about them not spending enough on NATO? They aren't just gonna mail us a check, they're gonna spend more money on their own army Jfc, he doesn't understand that, does he?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
eke out posted:federal judges can do a whole lot of poo poo, in theory - this position that Maryland is taking, that a previous, more specific succession regulation controls here and the position would've automatically defaulted to Rosenstein, feels like the weaker argument compared to the constitutional one we've talked about. But VRA doesn't apply to Whitaker, as he's not been approved by the Senate, and contrary to what the White House is suggesting, his approval to be AG to the district of Iowa was 12 loving years ago and he's been out of government working for fraudsters during that time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:46
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Does he not realize that Europe building a larger standing army is the end result of him constantly complaining about them not spending enough on NATO? They aren't just gonna mail us a check, they're gonna spend more money on their own army Isn't the whole "pay for NATO" thing a complaint that they don't have enough of a military? My understanding is that as a member nation, you have a commitment to spend x% of your GDP on your armed forces. And this is what most members were failing at. So this is... Exactly what Trump was asking for.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Isn't the whole "pay for NATO" thing a complaint that they don't have enough of a military? My understanding is that as a member nation, you have a commitment to spend x% of your GDP on your armed forces. And this is what most members were failing at. So this is... Exactly what Trump was asking for. That is also my read on this, Trump is such a loving baby.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:50
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Isn't the whole "pay for NATO" thing a complaint that they don't have enough of a military? My understanding is that as a member nation, you have a commitment to spend x% of your GDP on your armed forces. And this is what most members were failing at. So this is... Exactly what Trump was asking for. That is what it is supposed to be, yes. Problem is, Trump thinks NATO is actually a protection racket.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:55
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:Does he not realize that Europe building a larger standing army is the end result of him constantly complaining about them not spending enough on NATO? They aren't just gonna mail us a check, they're gonna spend more money on their own army It's even worse. Trump is not interested in understanding that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:57
|
|
|
So Trump is getting exactly what he wants, one of his very few FP victories while in office, and he's crying because he doesn't understand it at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 16:58
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:So Trump is getting exactly what he wants, one of his very few FP victories while in office, and he's crying because he doesn't understand it at all. No, he wanted the other countries to send a check, payable to him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:00
|
|
|
It's hilarious to me that he's so pissed about it, because wrecking NATO is the only Trump administration policy with which I agree. Well that and his skill at humiliating horrible people who have an unearned media hagiography around them like Romney, McCain, the Bushes, etc
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's hilarious to me that he's so pissed about it, because wrecking NATO is the only Trump administration policy with which I agree. He's too dumb to properly wreck NATO. It looks like he's just strengthening the other member nations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:10
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:No, he wanted the other countries to send a check, payable to him. Yes, suppose that's true. He's getting what he said he wanted, anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:He's too dumb to properly wreck NATO. It looks like he's just strengthening the other member nations. That's fine, less soft power for the US empire
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Isn't the whole "pay for NATO" thing a complaint that they don't have enough of a military? My understanding is that as a member nation, you have a commitment to spend x% of your GDP on your armed forces. And this is what most members were failing at. So this is... Exactly what Trump was asking for. France possibly has the best army among European countries as it is anyway. Of course, making light of their role in WWI two days after armistice day is just an incredibly disgraceful display of ignorance. If he wasn't such a Putin fanboy I would expect him to follow up by making light of the Red Army on VE day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's fine, less soft power for the US empire I agree 100%. Although I'd rather have it be something that was done in a voluntary and considered way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:16
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:I agree 100%. Although I'd rather have it be something that was done in a voluntary and considered way. I mean yeah, it's not like I voted for him or want him to be reelected or anything, so not worth it. I'm just amused that in trying to swing his dick around and shake down our allies for cash he's inadvertently destroying the military alliance that has dominated the postwar world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:20
|
|
|
OddObserver posted:France possibly has the best army among European countries as it is anyway. Outrageous
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:38
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/HotlineJosh/status/1062205110019874817
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:Isn't the whole "pay for NATO" thing a complaint that they don't have enough of a military? My understanding is that as a member nation, you have a commitment to spend x% of your GDP on your armed forces. And this is what most members were failing at. So this is... Exactly what Trump was asking for. It is, but Trump has always worded it as them cutting a check to NATO because A) he's an idiot and B) he's an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
I think the McCain effect probably helped. Did McSally ever condemn Trump for making GBS threads on his grave or did she let it go by the board? Guess the old bastard did two good things in his twilight years--killing the Obamacare repeal and (inadvertently) getting a Democrat elected in Arizona.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
For all of the (justified) "rest in piss" stuff we said about McCain on this board, it's kind of silly to forget how much he was respected by most people and especially in Arizona. I wonder how many of these Republican who voted for Sinema will be Republicans again next time or if they will be like the "Democrats" in the south who voted straight party R for decades.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:But VRA doesn't apply to Whitaker, as he's not been approved by the Senate, and contrary to what the White House is suggesting, his approval to be AG to the district of Iowa was 12 loving years ago and he's been out of government working for fraudsters during that time. This is not correct, the VRA allows you to pick a Senate-confirmed person OR a GS-15 who has been on the job for more than 90 days - the latter is the reason that his appointment is facially legal. The actual question is whether it is constitutional to allow someone who was not in a Senate-confirmed position to be appointed as a principal officer regardless of what the VRA says, because he definitely technically meets its requirements. eke out fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Nov 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Hellblazer187 posted:For all of the (justified) "rest in piss" stuff we said about McCain on this board, it's kind of silly to forget how much he was respected by most people and especially in Arizona. We have to accept that the other AZ senate seat is not likely to flip in 2020 I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AaronMehta/status/1062388954002046976
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
however, it's apparently for the dumbest possible reason lol https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1062387089898172423
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
And Sherrod Brown won 11% of Republicans in Ohio. For all the talk of "people vote the party line and don't sway from it, it's all about turnout amongst your base", it doesn't seem to hold true. The right candidates and picking and choosing your message based on your state can and will get people to cross party lines. At least in these purple states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
eke out posted:however, it's apparently for the dumbest possible reason lol Hmmmmmm: https://twitter.com/JesseRodriguez/status/1062390009179881478
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
Can we just do this already? This one is post-anti-climactic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 23:30 |
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:That is what it is supposed to be, yes. Problem is, Trump thinks NATO is actually a protection racket. Yeah, when you say "Nice store you have here, shame if something happened to it" you're not actually hoping the store owner goes out and gets a security system or insurance (or in this case perhaps a shotgun under the counter).
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2018 18:11
|
|
