|
Post by Kzach on Mar 22, 2020 4:54:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Mar 22, 2020 16:53:41 GMT
It won't fly.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Mar 22, 2020 19:11:01 GMT
Is there anyone of repute actually reporting this? So far all I see are Rolling Stone, Political, and Hillreporter. Those are junk as far as news sources are concerned. I shouldn't be surprised, though, that you two jumped on the bandwagon before it is verified as real news.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Mar 22, 2020 21:20:32 GMT
Is there anyone of repute actually reporting this? No. Which means its probably fake news.
|
|
|
Post by kirinke on Mar 26, 2020 17:14:06 GMT
I didn't take it seriously. Jeeze. Even if the DOJ requested it, it'd never pass through congress.
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Apr 16, 2020 0:32:49 GMT
Seems you guys are moving toward a dictatorship, as predicted. Trump wants to ajourne Congress.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Apr 16, 2020 1:08:35 GMT
Seems you guys are moving toward a dictatorship, as predicted. Trump wants to ajourne Congress. 1. he has the power to adjourn Congress. 2. It just doesn't work the way he thinks it does apparently, because he has no power over this particular problem. 3. The Supreme Court already ruled against him, or more specifically, Obama when Obama had issues with appointments. This won't go well for him if he tries it.
|
|
|
Post by Algolei with a capital A on Apr 16, 2020 6:30:50 GMT
Is there anyone of repute actually reporting this? So far all I see are Rolling Stone, Political, and Hillreporter. Those are junk as far as news sources are concerned. I shouldn't be surprised, though, that you two jumped on the bandwagon before it is verified as real news. Does Snopes count?
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Apr 16, 2020 14:21:50 GMT
Seems you guys are moving toward a dictatorship, as predicted. Trump wants to ajourne Congress. 1. he has the power to adjourn Congress. 2. It just doesn't work the way he thinks it does apparently, because he has no power over this particular problem. 3. The Supreme Court already ruled against him, or more specifically, Obama when Obama had issues with appointments. This won't go well for him if he tries it. This isn't quite right. 1. He has the power to adjourn Congress only if Congress can't agree on if to adjourn. This means he cannot force Congress to close, but can cast the deciding vote if one house adjourns and the other does not. In this case, both the Senate and the House are holding pro forma sessions. If this continues, then Trump cannot adjourn Congress. If the Senate stops holding pro forma sessions and moves to adjourn, but the House refuses to adjourn, then, and only then, can Trump move to adjourn Congress. He's the tie-breaker, essentially. 2. He'll have power if the Senate adjourns, but, yes, currently, with both houses in session, he cannot adjourn Congress. 3. SCOTUS slapped down Obama for making recess appointments while Congress was in pro forma sessions. That's not what Trump wants to do. He wants the Senate to adjourn so he can then adjourn the House, which will put Congress in recess. Then he's free to make recess appointments and not run afoul of that SCOTUS ruling. I agree it wouldn't go well, if only because it looks heavy handed. Right now there's little reporting about how many vacancies there are and how the minority party in the Senate is blocking confirming appointments to those vacancies. Having been unable to get Trump directly, they're starving his administration, hoping this leads to failures they can exploit for the upcoming election. It's not bad politics, but only survives by not being reported (not likely there). If Trump tries to run over this in this way, that will be reported widely, and the particulars take way too much time to explore for the simple narrative of OrangeManBad to not win out easily. It probably won't stop him, though.
|
|
|
Post by Ovinomancer on Apr 16, 2020 14:22:46 GMT
Is there anyone of repute actually reporting this? So far all I see are Rolling Stone, Political, and Hillreporter. Those are junk as far as news sources are concerned. I shouldn't be surprised, though, that you two jumped on the bandwagon before it is verified as real news. Does Snopes count? That Snopes article is pretty awful. Not that it's not right, just that, as a fact check, it's thin on facts and long on assumption and spin.
|
|
|
Post by Maxperson on Apr 16, 2020 14:56:47 GMT
1. he has the power to adjourn Congress. 2. It just doesn't work the way he thinks it does apparently, because he has no power over this particular problem. 3. The Supreme Court already ruled against him, or more specifically, Obama when Obama had issues with appointments. This won't go well for him if he tries it. This isn't quite right. 1. He has the power to adjourn Congress only if Congress can't agree on if to adjourn. This means he cannot force Congress to close, but can cast the deciding vote if one house adjourns and the other does not. In this case, both the Senate and the House are holding pro forma sessions. If this continues, then Trump cannot adjourn Congress. If the Senate stops holding pro forma sessions and moves to adjourn, but the House refuses to adjourn, then, and only then, can Trump move to adjourn Congress. He's the tie-breaker, essentially. 2. He'll have power if the Senate adjourns, but, yes, currently, with both houses in session, he cannot adjourn Congress. 3. SCOTUS slapped down Obama for making recess appointments while Congress was in pro forma sessions. That's not what Trump wants to do. He wants the Senate to adjourn so he can then adjourn the House, which will put Congress in recess. Then he's free to make recess appointments and not run afoul of that SCOTUS ruling. I agree it wouldn't go well, if only because it looks heavy handed. Right now there's little reporting about how many vacancies there are and how the minority party in the Senate is blocking confirming appointments to those vacancies. Having been unable to get Trump directly, they're starving his administration, hoping this leads to failures they can exploit for the upcoming election. It's not bad politics, but only survives by not being reported (not likely there). If Trump tries to run over this in this way, that will be reported widely, and the particulars take way too much time to explore for the simple narrative of OrangeManBad to not win out easily. It probably won't stop him, though. It was correct about #1. I said he does have the power, and he does. Then I said it doesn't work the way he is claiming, and it doesn't, so #2 was correct. That's because it works like like #1. #3 I was off on. I don't understand how they are blocking him. He has been getting his appointments through with a slight majority for years and if the minority party could have stopped them, it would have. I wonder if a few Republicans have stopped supporting his nominations.
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Apr 17, 2020 4:13:44 GMT
That Snopes article is pretty awful. Not that it's not right, just that, as a fact check, it's thin on facts and long on assumption and spin. It's Snopes. They've had to stoop to calling out comedy sites as "fake news" to ensure easy 'wins'.
|
|
|
Post by Algolei with a capital A on Apr 18, 2020 10:06:13 GMT
That Snopes article is pretty awful. Not that it's not right, just that, as a fact check, it's thin on facts and long on assumption and spin. It's Snopes. They've had to stoop to calling out comedy sites as "fake news" to ensure easy 'wins'. I've only seen them call comedy sites "parody sites".
|
|
|
Post by evileeyore on Apr 18, 2020 14:38:40 GMT
I've only seen them call comedy sites "parody sites". You've probably missed their fight with Babylon Bee on Facebook... for about 6 months they label every Bee post as "Fake". They still use their connection as Facebook's fact checker to call out Bee articles as "inaccurate parody". Like, wut? How can a parody be "inaccurate"?
|
|
|
Post by Kzach on Apr 19, 2020 11:06:39 GMT
I've only seen them call comedy sites "parody sites". You've probably missed their fight with Babylon Bee on Facebook... for about 6 months they label every Bee post as "Fake". They still use their connection as Facebook's fact checker to call out Bee articles as "inaccurate parody". Like, wut? How can a parody be "inaccurate"? When your parody targets strawmen made by fascists to spread propaganda.
|
|