Both parties have 5 members, so would any vote on punishment for Nunes not be along party lines?
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
Both parties have 5 members, so would any vote on punishment for Nunes not be along party lines?
Written by a Democratic strategist but there's some truth to it.
Jared and Ivanka aren't moderating influences for President Trump — they are his chief enablers
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...ng-trump-enabling-article-1.3024213?cid=bitly
Jared and Ivanka aren't moderating influences for President Trump — they are his chief enablers
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/...ng-trump-enabling-article-1.3024213?cid=bitly
so....Justice Gorsuch...bye bye filibuster
Have I understood the "nuclear option" correctly?
They miss out on the 60 votes needed.
One of them joins the no votes and then has the option to ask for a revote.
The revote is voted to be a majority of 51 instead of 60.
They get enough votes to pass the motion.
However... from then on the bar is set at 51 votes, which means that in the future should there be a Democrat leader trying to push something through it will be a lot harder for the Republicans to block it. For example, Obama might have been able to push through his Gun Legislation under the new rules.
Is that about right or have I got it totally wrong?
Voting is a serious matter with consequences, it's not a fecking "reality" show. You vote for trump, you should be the first one fecked. Blue states can just go about their business and sue the Federal government to bring a halt to these crazy policies. Red states can lap it up with polluted waterways, toxic fumes, poor education and their avalanche of porn browsing history that will now be sold. No sympathy whatsoever for these imbeciles.
Which makes her even more dumb.
Pretty much. That's why it's called the nuclear option, it's equally damaging to both parties.
@Pexbo - McConnell is going to raise a 'point of order' - his order will be refused. He'll then ask the senate to vote to overrule the decision by the chair - all republicans will go along and the rule will be changed.
They'll have a simple up and down vote on Gorsuch - with the Republican majority, it'll end up being a formality.
Republicans are cnuts for doing this...but, they'll say, Harry Reid did it 1st.
Democrats will of course retort - Republicans in their hatred for Obama blocked tens of his nominees in the lower courts and they were forced to invoke the nuclear option and this is merely payback for that and of course Judge Garland who didn't even get a hearing.
Republicans will tell them to go kick rocks
They'll have a simple up and down vote on Gorsuch - with the Republican majority, it'll end up being a formality.
Republicans are cnuts for doing this...but, they'll say, Harry Reid did it 1st.
Democrats will of course retort - Republicans in their hatred for Obama blocked tens of his nominees in the lower courts and they were forced to invoke the nuclear option and this is merely payback for that and of course Judge Garland who didn't even get a hearing.
Republicans will tell them to go kick rocks
The nuclear option is a big deal for future appointments. Really shitty that the Repubs are going down this road and it doesn't bode well for the country in future.
You want to know how badly divided this country is...this is how some of the current judges got voted in -
1986 Alito 98-0
1988 Kennedy 97-0
1993 Ginsburg 96-3
1994 Breyer 87-9
Conservatives and Liberals....but, you can see the trend.
Thomas was different - really partisan vote.
1986 Alito 98-0
1988 Kennedy 97-0
1993 Ginsburg 96-3
1994 Breyer 87-9
Conservatives and Liberals....but, you can see the trend.
Thomas was different - really partisan vote.
Dems would've (justifiably) nuked it too. Now we just have to hope that no more positions come available in the next four years...
I worry about Justice Ginsburg - if Hillary had won, she would have stepped down for sure.
Decent chance she'd have named three, excluding Garland. Emails meme, etc.
That's very fair. For all the supposed 'moderation' of Jared and Ivanka it's all ultimately a bit useless if they're not doing anything to moderate. The fact Jared isn't Bannon is a mild consolation at best but it shouldn't be used as an excuse, or to justify his baffling involvement in the President's running of the country purely because he's sleeping with someone Trump has the hots for.
Hopefully Ginsburg will pull through out of sheer hatred for Trump alone. Doesn't she do push-ups every day or something like that? Tough fecker, certainly.
me too. she's the obvious choice to step down/need replacement.
the repubs could stack the deck for years to come by electing youngish justices.
I honestly believe that Trump is not a crazy republican, but a lot of repubs are and they'll use the power if given it.
Not just push-ups!
A guy from Politico did her program with her personal trainer and wrote it almost broke him. It's an entertaining read:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...nal-trainer-elena-kagan-stephen-breyer-214821
She's battled cancer too, hasn't she? Resilient as feck.
I'm warming to Ivanka and Jared as Trump's primary advisors. On the surface it seems like absurd nepotism by unqualified people. But when you juxtapose it against the likes of Bannon, its easy to see that Kushner, who has much more cosmopolitan and globalist views, would be the best choice. We are never going to see ordinary advisors around Trump - just ones he knows and trusts.
I mean...yeah, I'd rather Kushner to Bannon, but I'm still not sure it's a particularly good thing. Kusher himself has been implicated in some aspects of the Russia scandal (even if nowhere near the worst) and this idea that him and Ivanka are these liberals in disguise allows people to normalise the Trump regime and those around him when such treatment isn't really warranted as such. Except from not being Bannon, what's Kusher actually doing that's positive?
Yes, twice.
Just how much of a Democrat is Kushner? The reason for his "change of heart" is pretty obvious, is he actually likely to advise with a progressive tilt or is he just a businessman with Democrat "friends" and he previously put his eggs in that basket.
Would put money on that being the case. He's from New Jersey, you gotta grease the wheels.
He's a standard thirtysomething New York hipster, so I'm guessing that includes a healthy dose of progressive politics. He gave Cory Booker money recently, which is unusual since Booker isn't his Senator.
Also worth noting that Jumbotron put his dad in jail, so there's history there.
Yeah 86 was Scalia (with that vote too, vomit.)
Twitter is such a bad look for politicians (from both sides) 
@berbatrick @Ubik Of course it wasn't Alito (I remember there being a lot of debate around Alito, and I was only worried about watching cartoons when Scalia was getting sworn in!)....copy/paste error!
@berbatrick @Ubik Of course it wasn't Alito (I remember there being a lot of debate around Alito, and I was only worried about watching cartoons when Scalia was getting sworn in!)....copy/paste error!
The "leading Trump critic" description in the headline is a fair way off these days, but would be interesting still.
I assume that Twitler means further military actions as the US are already engaged. OTOH, it cannot be ruled out he doesn't know the latter.
'Featured by Armani.'
(Buy American!)
WINNING!
Rex
Another Twitler tweet that probably didn't age well.
Intelligence must be really strong for Trump to have reversed his position and now wants Assad removed/punished.
Breitbart/Infowars and others have been peddling this notion/disinformation campaign that it was the rebels who caused this chemical attack to frame Assad, so wonder how they would react if Trump's administration takes this action.
Breitbart/Infowars and others have been peddling this notion/disinformation campaign that it was the rebels who caused this chemical attack to frame Assad, so wonder how they would react if Trump's administration takes this action.
Maybe why Bannon was removed
Well it went from the rebels/ISIS did it...
to
Syrian Govt planes did the bombing...but, it was a warehouse in rebel controlled territory that was full of chemical weapons
to
Syrian Govt planes did the bombing...but, rebels rig/booby trap buildings and establishments with chemical weapons, so when they're bombed...the chemicals are released.
See the progression...
Absolutely no one (well other than Assad) is denying Syrian war planes did the bombing.
"What's everyone else saying?"
"It was assad"
"Then it was someone else to frame him!"
- Status