Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound
§ 409.2 also lays out specific appeal procedures and everything with timeframes and notice requirements.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/409.2

Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Nov 13, 2018

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Chilichimp
Oct 24, 2006

TIE Adv xWampa

It wamp, and it stomp

Grimey Drawer

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Oh, I thought they'd go libel/defamation for the assault claim.

Doubt anyone tries for defamation, but that video is absolutely going to kill the white house's defense in court.

Crow Jane
Oct 18, 2012

nothin' wrong with a lady drinkin' alone in her room
I wouldn't put it past Trump, Shucks and Co. to send the aide that was "viciously attacked" by Acosta in to testify with her arm in a sling and hilariously fake bruises

BigBallChunkyTime
Nov 25, 2011

Kyle Schwarber: World Series hero, Beefy Lad, better than you.

Illegal Hen

Kimsemus posted:

woah

that part is binding then

Yeah that seems pretty ironclad.

Chilichimp
Oct 24, 2006

TIE Adv xWampa

It wamp, and it stomp

Grimey Drawer

Ripoff posted:

Not gonna lie, as bummed as I am that Abrams will most likely lose, it makes me giddy as gently caress to know that Handel is out for good.

Secret of State special election coming up either way.

It still grinds my loving gears that it wasn't on the general ballot. Kemp is such a loving disaster.

InsertPotPun
Apr 16, 2018

Pissy Bitch stan
Honestly why is trump still around? I can literally look up newspaper articles that prove he's lying, I can look up publicly reported facts that point to criminal activity. How hard can it possibly be to find something illegal trump did as president?
An entire political party has learned that acting like a child gets you what you want. Holding your breath and taking your ball and going home and just DARING someone to do something to stop them. And there's really no way to stop them??

mcmagic
Jul 1, 2004

If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

InsertPotPun posted:

Honestly why is trump still around? I can literally look up newspaper articles that prove he's lying, I can look up publicly reported facts that point to criminal activity. How hard can it possibly be to find something illegal trump did as president?
An entire political party has learned that acting like a child gets you what you want. Holding your breath and taking your ball and going home and just DARING someone to do something to stop them. And there's really no way to stop them??

The design of the government did a really bad job accounting for the way political parties work. The founders realized this a little too late.

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound

InsertPotPun posted:

Honestly why is trump still around?

Because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOjWnS4cMY

Wistful of Dollars
Aug 25, 2009

InsertPotPun posted:

Honestly why is trump still around? I can literally look up newspaper articles that prove he's lying, I can look up publicly reported facts that point to criminal activity. How hard can it possibly be to find something illegal trump did as president?
An entire political party has learned that acting like a child gets you what you want. Holding your breath and taking your ball and going home and just DARING someone to do something to stop them. And there's really no way to stop them??

Short answer: the GOP considers him a net positive.

Mineaiki
Nov 20, 2013

InsertPotPun posted:

Honestly why is trump still around? I can literally look up newspaper articles that prove he's lying, I can look up publicly reported facts that point to criminal activity. How hard can it possibly be to find something illegal trump did as president?
An entire political party has learned that acting like a child gets you what you want. Holding your breath and taking your ball and going home and just DARING someone to do something to stop them. And there's really no way to stop them??

The people with the power to stop him are deadlocked at best, and in league with him at worst. We need more time, more crimes.

Chilichimp
Oct 24, 2006

TIE Adv xWampa

It wamp, and it stomp

Grimey Drawer

Kimsemus posted:

I don't mean frivolous in the negative way, of course. I think in my mind though I don't see what kind of relief CNN is asking for that can be reasonably granted.

The white house doesn't get to pick the reporters that cover it. They're asking for, and will likely get, his hard pass back. He'll be back in that room asking questions very soon.

BigBallChunkyTime
Nov 25, 2011

Kyle Schwarber: World Series hero, Beefy Lad, better than you.

Illegal Hen

Chilichimp posted:

The white house doesn't get to pick the reporters that cover it. They're asking for, and will likely get, his hard pass back. He'll be back in that room asking questions very soon.

The only problem is I think trump has held more pressers since mid August than ShuckS has.

Mineaiki
Nov 20, 2013

Chilichimp posted:

The white house doesn't get to pick the reporters that cover it. They're asking for, and will likely get, his hard pass back. He'll be back in that room asking questions very soon.

Serious question: does Trump ever have to call on him again?

VitalSigns
Sep 3, 2011

goethe.cx posted:

newly elected senator from a red-leaning state says some lowest-common-denominator bullshit about bipartisanship and john mccain, this makes her worse than manchin and therefore worse than hitler

:hai:

Can we put this in the op

Kimsemus
Dec 4, 2013

by Reene
Toilet Rascal

Chilichimp posted:

The white house doesn't get to pick the reporters that cover it. They're asking for, and will likely get, his hard pass back. He'll be back in that room asking questions very soon.

The White House absolutely does get to pick who sits in that press pool.

TulliusCicero
Jul 29, 2017



InsertPotPun posted:

Honestly why is trump still around? I can literally look up newspaper articles that prove he's lying, I can look up publicly reported facts that point to criminal activity. How hard can it possibly be to find something illegal trump did as president?
An entire political party has learned that acting like a child gets you what you want. Holding your breath and taking your ball and going home and just DARING someone to do something to stop them. And there's really no way to stop them??

Those who have the ability and power to stop him have given up completely or are in league with him because he controls their absolutely stupid and rabid voting base, because they have no sense of morals or ethics, or decency.

An entire party has decided that shame does not matter

That's about it

Cactrot
Jan 11, 2001

Go Go Cactus Galactus





Mineaiki posted:

Serious question: does Trump ever have to call on him again?

I don't think so, but he will be unable to resist doing so.

corn in the bible
Jun 5, 2004

Oh no oh god it's all true!

InsertPotPun posted:

Honestly why is trump still around? I can literally look up newspaper articles that prove he's lying, I can look up publicly reported facts that point to criminal activity. How hard can it possibly be to find something illegal trump did as president?
An entire political party has learned that acting like a child gets you what you want. Holding your breath and taking your ball and going home and just DARING someone to do something to stop them. And there's really no way to stop them??

the only people he is accountable to are the senators who get everything they've ever wanted because he's president

mcmagic
Jul 1, 2004

If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

Wistful of Dollars posted:

Short answer: the GOP considers him a net positive.

Their voters still love Dear Leader. They can't cut him loose without enraging their base.

ought ten
Feb 6, 2004

Crow Jane posted:

I wouldn't put it past Trump, Shucks and Co. to send the aide that was "viciously attacked" by Acosta in to testify with her arm in a sling and hilariously fake bruises

They’ve moved on. Now the problem is he was hogging the mic.

https://twitter.com/yamiche/status/1062371518649393152?s=21

Alkydere
Jun 7, 2010
Capitol: A building or complex of buildings in which any legislature meets.
Capital: A city designated as a legislative seat by the government or some other authority, often the city in which the government is located; otherwise the most important city within a country or a subdivision of it.



Crow Jane posted:

I wouldn't put it past Trump, Shucks and Co. to send the aide that was "viciously attacked" by Acosta in to testify with her arm in a sling and hilariously fake bruises

While that seems like something they would feel would totally work, I feel it's something they wouldn't actually do for one reason: it would require real (if stupid/half-assed) effort on their part. And we all know how that crew feels about effort.

FlamingLiberal
Jan 18, 2009

Would you like to play a game?



mcmagic posted:

Their voters still love Dear Leader. They can't cut him loose without enraging their base.
That’s what it really boils down to. Even if they wanted the headaches gone, their base would revolt.

Ginette Reno
Nov 18, 2006

How Doers get more done
Fun Shoe
Senate looks a whole lot better now than it did on election night. Nelson probably still loses on the recount I'd assume, but with Sinema winning that means the absolute worst case scenario is losing 2 seats. Best would be gaining a seat, but that seems unlikely unless Florida recount somehow comes up roses.

Winning the run-off seems a more realistic hope though and that would mean a net loss of one seat assuming Scott wins Florida.

2020 and 2022 both have many more Republican seats up for grabs than Democrat seats as well. So there's that.

Hieronymous Alloy
Jan 30, 2009


Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!




Morbid Hound

Chilichimp posted:

The white house doesn't get to pick the reporters that cover it. They're asking for, and will likely get, his hard pass back. He'll be back in that room asking questions very soon.

I'm not sure I'd go that far

My guess as to how this goes down:

1) CNN wins the initial motion fight unless it's kicked out on separation of powers. There may be appeals and relief may be granted in meanwhile

2) the alternative relief CNN requested gets granted and it all gets kicked over to the formal process (notice of denial, time for appeal, etc.) and Acosta is run through a kangaroo court for a few months as everyone in the white house gets ordered to make sure Acosta doesn't step foot back through the door.

3) That fight eventually goes to the federal courts and Trump's WH / DOJ changes its position five or ten more times until they find a better argument that isn't farcical (see: how they handled the muslim ban)


4) The overall process ends up taking longer than Trump's term in office

Like I said, from the face of the complaint Acosta should win, but this poo poo won't be quick.

FizFashizzle
Mar 30, 2005







ought ten posted:

They’ve moved on. Now the problem is he was hogging the mic.

https://twitter.com/yamiche/status/1062371518649393152?s=21

"Physically" refused.

As opposed to, what, metaphysically?

Mineaiki
Nov 20, 2013

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

I'm not sure I'd go that far

My guess as to how this goes down:

1) CNN wins the initial motion fight unless it's kicked out on separation of powers. There may be appeals and relief may be granted in meanwhile

2) the alternative relief CNN requested gets granted and it all gets kicked over to the formal process (notice of denial, time for appeal, etc.) and Acosta is run through a kangaroo court for a few months as everyone in the white house gets ordered to make sure Acosta doesn't step foot back through the door.

3) That fight eventually goes to the federal courts and Trump's WH / DOJ changes its position five or ten more times until they find a better argument that isn't farcical (see: how they handled the muslim ban)


4) The overall process ends up taking longer than Trump's term in office

Like I said, from the face of the complaint Acosta should win, but this poo poo won't be quick.

It’s amazing how chaotic incompetence can be so predictable. I’ve thought this about jobs I’ve had before, but never about the presidency.

The Glumslinger
Sep 24, 2008

Coach Nagy, you want me to throw to WHAT side of the field?


Hair Elf
https://twitter.com/JordanUhl/status/1062373814481416193

CuddleCryptid
Jan 11, 2013

Things could be going better

FizFashizzle posted:

"Physically" refused.

As opposed to, what, metaphysically?

Spiritually, he resisted through the power of Christ.

Burning_Monk
Jan 11, 2005
Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to know

FizFashizzle posted:

"Physically" refused.

As opposed to, what, metaphysically?

Verbal?

Punk da Bundo
Dec 29, 2006

by FactsAreUseless
AOC for speaker of the house, none of the other vichy dem plutocrats speak for us.

Shimrra Jamaane
Aug 10, 2007

Obscure to all except those well-versed in Yuuzhan Vong lore.
So when the hell do we get a definitive answer as to whether the Florida undervote was a user or machine error? It shouldn’t be that difficult, just take a look at a handful of the undervote ballots and see if there is a mark or not.

yronic heroism
Oct 31, 2008

Would the WH be able to just exclude CNN as a whole from press briefings instead? Now I’m now very curious how this gets handled as a policy matter. Can news agencies be guaranteed a spot? Does Breitbart or High Times or whoever have to be let in to a press conference if they are first in line? (I personally think the answer should be yes, but WH could claim “At the end of the day this is just a meeting and we meet with who we want” though that’s a different question than whether CFR was followed and it’s harder politically to ban an entire network than just one guy.)

Blorange
Jan 31, 2007

A wizard did it

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

So when the hell do we get a definitive answer as to whether the Florida undervote was a user or machine error? It shouldn’t be that difficult, just take a look at a handful of the undervote ballots and see if there is a mark or not.

There's no chance that those undervoting ballots are separated in any special way from the rest of the lot, so the only way forward is to count all of them. There's good reason to believe it's a machine error, because the under voting didn't occur on ballots counted after Tuesday that had the same layout.

yronic heroism
Oct 31, 2008

Shimrra Jamaane posted:

So when the hell do we get a definitive answer as to whether the Florida undervote was a user or machine error? It shouldn’t be that difficult, just take a look at a handful of the undervote ballots and see if there is a mark or not.

It’s almost certainly a case of “we’re hosed by poor ballot design” rather than machine error, but they can’t really say that definitively until a hand recount is complete.

mcmagic
Jul 1, 2004

If you see this avatar while scrolling the succ zone, you have been visited by the mcmagic of shitty lib takes! Good luck and prosperity will come to you, but only if you reply "shut the fuck up mcmagic" to this post!

I can't wait till she primaries Schumer.

yronic heroism
Oct 31, 2008

Blorange posted:

There's no chance that those undervoting ballots are separated in any special way from the rest of the lot, so the only way forward is to count all of them. There's good reason to believe it's a machine error, because the under voting didn't occur on ballots counted after Tuesday that had the same layout.

Interesting if true, but if those are absentee ballots we’re talking about, wouldn’t be too surprising that the voters had more time to figure them out.

ReidRansom
Oct 25, 2004


Peter Daou Bundy posted:

AOC for speaker of the house, none of the other vichy dem plutocrats speak for us.

Great as her policy positions might be, she'd be a terrible cat herder right now. She lacks the power and influence to bind others to her will.

Chilichimp
Oct 24, 2006

TIE Adv xWampa

It wamp, and it stomp

Grimey Drawer

Kimsemus posted:

The White House absolutely does get to pick who sits in that press pool.

They have to give them security clearances, sure.

They invited brietbart and other lovely right wing news sites to that room.

But CNN sends a reporter, and the White House doesn't get to pick who that is. They can deny them security clearance, sure, but there's a process for that and it's got nothing to do with the personal preference of the President.

Willa Rogers
Mar 11, 2005

McCloud posted:

You got a source for this part?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html:

quote:

Kirkpatrick also reported in his original New York Times article that White House was standing behind the deal with the for-profit hospitals: “Not to worry, Jim Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, told the hospital lobbyists, according to White House officials and lobbyists briefed on the call. The White House was standing behind the deal”.

This should be big news. Even while President Obama was saying that he thought a public option was a good idea and encouraging supporters to believe his healthcare plan would include one, he had promised for-profit hospital lobbyists that there would be no public option in the final bill.

***

More deeply, there are serious questions about the extent to which Obama, with the help of Rahm Emanuel, used a K Street strategy to pursue health care reform. The strategy seems to have been to make backroom deals to protect the interests of the likes of the drug industry and the for-profit hospital industry in exchange for campaign cash, even if this meant reversing campaign promises to include a public option to put competitive pressure on private insurance premiums, and to allow Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices and Americans to buy cheaper drugs from Canada. The result is a health care bill that is generally unpopular with voters. Questions need to be asked, too, about the extent to which the White House is following a similar K Street strategy with Wall Street financiers when it comes to shaping financial reform and new regulations to rein in the banks who brought the economy to its knees.

Voters viscerally sense that the White House and Congressional Democrats may be as concerned with protecting special interests — whether it’s drug companies, private hospitals, or Wall Street bank — than they are with protecting the people, and this is feeding a populist backlash against Democrats that resulted in Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts and is making a Democratic bloodbath in the fall elections increasingly likely.

https://www.salon.com/2010/10/05/public_option_24/:

quote:

As Igor Volsky of ThinkProgress expertly documents -- both by citing to Daschle's book and by interviewing him -- the White House had negotiated away the public option very early in the process (July, 2009), even though Obama and the administration spent months after that assuring their supporters that they were doing everything they could do have a public option in the bill:

quote:

In his book, Daschle reveals that after the Senate Finance Committee and the White House convinced hospitals to to accept $155 billion in payment reductions over ten years on July 8, the hospitals and Democrats operated under two "working assumptions." "One was that the Senate would aim for health coverage of at least 94 percent of Americans," Daschle writes. "The other was that it would contain no public health plan," which would have reimbursed hospitals at a lower rate than private insurers.

I asked Daschle if the White House had taken the option off the table in July 2009 and if all future efforts to resuscitate the provision were destined to fail:

DASCHLE: I don’t think it was taken off the table completely. It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others. I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders' active support rather than active opposition, it’s almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and this was the price some thought they had to pay. Now, it's debatable about whether all of these assertions and promises are accurate, but that was the calculation. I think there is probably a good deal of truth to it. You look at past efforts and the doctors and the hospitals, and the insurance companies all opposed health care reform. This time, in various degrees of enthusiasm, they supported it. And if I had to point out some of the key differences between then and now, it would be the most important examples of the difference.

[VOLSKY]: Despite being "taken off the table" as a result of the "understanding," the White House continued to publicly deny claims that it was backing away from the provision even as it tried to focus on other aspects of the bill. "Nothing has changed," said Linda Douglass, then communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform in August of 2009 and many times thereafter. "The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals."
What Daschle said here -- in his interview with Volsky and, apparently, in his new book -- is crystal clear, and is consistent with what has long been clear: despite its stream of public statements to the contrary, the Obama White House made no efforts to have a public option in the bill because their secret, early agreement with "stakeholders" was that no public option (and thus no real mechanism of competition with private industry) would be created.

One can reasonably argue that entering into secret, backroom deals to please industry interests was a "pragmatic" thing to do, notwithstanding how often Obama railed against exactly such transactions during his campaign (remember the I'll-put-all-health-care-negotiations-on-C-SPAN pledge?). One can also argue that the public option would never have gotten 60 votes even if Obama and the White House had pushed for it. But one cannot argue that the White House did push for it, or even that they wanted it, since it was part of their deal with industry and its lobbyists from the start that it would not be in the final bill.

It's pretty slick to be able to convince your supporters that they just aren't calling Congress or doing activisms hard enough months after you've made secret deals to shut out what those voters want.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

CmdrRiker
Apr 8, 2016

You dismally untalented little creep!

https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1062375284391825408

He lied when he said he watches her. She's not on FOX news.

e: I also like how his aggressive masculinity doesn't seem to phase her at all in the moment. I would possibly have my feelings hurt or lose my poo poo on a lying sack of poo poo telling me my legitimate question is stupid.

CmdrRiker fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Nov 13, 2018

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply