Total posts: 28,020
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I am absolutely for reform #1 and against #2 and #3
The reason why I am against 2 and 3 is because people have a right to assemble and lobby for changes, even at the workplace.
The reason why I am for #1 is because anti-right to work laws essentially creates labor monopolies. When there is no competition for labor, the quality of labor drops dramatically. You can observe the effect of labor monopolies where businesses end up producing shoddier and more expensive products than businesses that have a competitive workforce based on merit, not union membership status.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
Oh thats good in a way I guess, cause I was clearly not mafia so that ensures your survival.
If you really feel suicidal though go hide behind Warren.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
So who did you hide behind? Warren is likely scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Ok, that's fine, I guess the extra vote is only revealed at the end then.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
Yah I'll go with kill all lurkers. Inactive town is as bad as scum.
VTL MHARMAN
we can pressure Warren later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Why don't you have a number by the votes like (2/7)
Isn't that the standard format?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Did the mod tell you this? Honestly this isn't laid out in my PM and I haven't asked Speed yet.pretty sure it isn't revealed until the end of the day, but still
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Of course, but Warren was manufacturing suspicion on my role...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
I know, I know, but it's a damn shame town is wasting verification on me when the role is already easily verifiable with a test vote from Ragnar.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Warren is playing a really good game as scum here. My role is easily verifiable by simply asking Ragnar to do a test vote.
However, Warren has been manufacturing suspicion on me since day 1. Without obviously asking if my role is verifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
You don't have to verify me. Rag will have 2 votes today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
Ugh, did I waste my ability?
I'll wait for Ragnar to explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Wylted
Speed fucked up and is trying to erase the damage by claiming to have not sent him a lit of his team mates.
Lol at wifomming the mod.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
Dis you send Drafter a list of the scum team with Cog's role?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
If Speed sent you cog's role, how do we know he did not also send you a list of the scum?
Created:
Posted in:
Okay just so you guys know I gave Ragnar an extra vote last night because I don't trust the rest of you stinky mofos.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Let's see what falls out of the tree. Trump just started shaking the branches.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I have priorities. Let's tackle the 1.5 billion dollar scandals and millions to Hunter before we go chasing down the 2 scoop of icecream scandals and the corruption of misrepresenting how many people watched the Orangeman's inauguration.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Just the ones that stood to profit, like Hunter Biden.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
They might be. GOP isn't immune to corruption, neither is Biden.
Guess we will find out when the GOP subpoenas Shokin when the Dems finally hold a vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
Exactly. Information on its own is meaningless. It's what you DO with the information that matters to the law.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Joe Biden said, “It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President [George H.W.] Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Did you pay attention to the "Biden Rule?"
Created:
Posted in:
In fact, if Biden were to go in front of a civil court Judge to explain why Trump asking Ukraine for information on corruption violated Biden somehow, the Judge would immediately laugh at him.
I really don't have much more to say about this because Biden will probably drop out of the race as his numbers drop, making all of this moot.
House GOP is now demanding a vote on the floor, which is the last thing the Dems want. So it's not clear there will even be a discussion on this knowing that it will ultimately lead to a vote in the House.
Dems really have no easy way out of this. They can't vote and they also can't allow GOP to push for a vote and be caught resisting a vote.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
You're just a layperson so you probably don't understand how civil law works. You can't go pick up an application from somewhere and then sue a person for asking a certain question on an application. You have to go to court and prove you were harmed or discriminated against. Simply having the question on an application is not sufficient in a civil court.
Created:
Posted in:
Simply asking a person for information is never a crime. If you then use that information to make a decision to hire or not hire a person, then it may or may not be a crime.
We don't know what Trump would or would not have done with the information because he hasn't gotten the info yet.
You're jumping the gun while the House continues to jump the shark.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Did you read the laws? I have. It says you can't ask those questions as a requirement for hiring. Simply asking the questions out of context is never illegal. Nothing like this happened with Ukraine.
Created:
Posted in:
If the employer asks for information they are not legally to permitted to ask for, that is a crime.
Cite this law, please.
From the laws I have seen, employers may not require certain information but there are no laws on simply asking.
Created:
Posted in:
If the employer asks for information they are not legally to permitted to ask for, that is a crime.
Cite law please.
Created:
Posted in:
If the employer asks for information they are not legally to permitted to ask for, that is a crime.
Cite law please.
Created:
Posted in:
What you do with information may or may not be a crime but simply asking for information is NEVER a crime in itself.
You can't conveniently separate national interests to uncover wasteful corruption from Trump's personal political gain from uncovering corruption. The president will always have that obligation as the head of law enforcement, no matter what the political implications may be.
Created:
Posted in:
Information is also not interference, in any legal document.
Created:
Posted in:
if trump had asked the FBI to investigate and they had requested Ukraine to assist, this would not even be an issue.
So the moment Trump decides to inform the FBI then it's no longer a "crime"
Well, that was easy.
Created:
Posted in:
Nobody is prohibited from informing the FBI. Not even the president.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
FBI doesn't do diplomacy.
Created:
Posted in:
No, trump is the head of the justice department so he can order them to investigate. That would be totally normal and legal. Asking a foreign power to specifically target his political rivals is a crime.
The executive executes and enforces law.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok then don't use statistical percentages when stating an opinion. Just say everyone gets screwed.
And you know how people roll their eyes when absolute terms are mixed with opinion like every and all...
Created:
-->
@ResurgetExFavilla
What policy would allow more even ownership of land?
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is just following the rules. In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) used a simple-majority vote to change the Senate’s rules, allowing confirmation of judicial nominees to non-Supreme Court posts by the same simple-majority vote. At that moment, the politics of judicial confirmations entered their end-stage: The Senate’s majority now rules on when and who will get confirmed to the federal courts. When McConnell adopted “the Reid Rule” last year for Supreme Court nominees to break Democrats’ filibuster against the nomination of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, he was merely allowing the majority of the Senate to advise and consent.
And when confronted for the first time in decades by a vacancy on the Supreme Court during a presidential election year McConnell invoked the “Biden Rule.” In a June 1992 speech, then-Judiciary Committee chairman Joe Biden said, “It is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President [George H.W.] Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.”
The “Biden rule” was the Senate equivalent of Supreme Court “dicta,” but McConnell’s “no hearings, no votes” stance in 2016 is an actual precedent. But it is a precedent limited on its facts to vacancies occurring because of a sudden death of a justice in a presidential election year.
The left, clearly hoping for some sort of an upset in the Senate races in the fall, wants to invoke the McConnell precedent to try to generate public opposition to moving forward with a nominee to fill Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s seat this summer and early fall. It won’t work. The president will quickly nominate a Kennedy replacement. Barring some unforeseen miss in the background check, the nominee will be confirmed, and probably with votes to spare given how many Senate Democrats are facing stiff reelection in states carried by President Trump. Some Democrats, facing the certainty of confirmation, will side with the nominee (and their states’ voters) and try to hang on to their jobs.
The process toward “the majority rules” rules began with the “Borking” of Robert Bork in 1987, when politics entered the confirmation process. That process became even more embittered in the Clarence Thomas hearings. In the subsequent two decades, Both parties escalated the use of filibustering and slow-walking nominations. Senate Democrats’ blockade of key nominees in 2001 and 2002 when they held the majority and their serial filibusters of nominees in 2003 and 2004 led to the first threat of the “nuclear option” by then Majority Leader Bill Frist that was averted by the “Gang of 14.” An uneasy peace descended on the Supreme Court nomination process, and though hearings and votes on Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. were particularly heated, the nominations of Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan proceeded peacefully.
Then came “the Reid Rule.” Clearly, Reid was counting on holding the Senate through 2016 at least, and perhaps beyond. But suddenly the sharpest of double-edged swords was in the GOP’s hands when Republicans took back the Senate in 2014 and with that, control of the confirmation process. They paid back Reid with interest, slowing nominations to a crawl and in 2016, when McConnell declared even before President Barack Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland that no nominee, whatever his or her background, would receive a hearing or a vote.
The people voted. Trump won. Justice Gorsuch filled the Scalia seat, and a Trump nominee will fill the Kennedy seat.
Where we have ended up in 2018 is actually where the framers began when they declared in Article II, Section 2 that the president “shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court.” The Senate is a majoritarian body now on all nominations and will likely stay that way. If an originalist majority settles in for a long run on the Supreme Court, everyone can send thank-you notes to Reid.
“We have 52 Republicans who don’t think we need either a hearing or a vote in committee,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Tuesday. “I think it’s safe to say there will not be hearings or votes. I think it is also safe to say the next president, whoever that may be, is going to be the person who chooses the next Supreme Court justice.”
Created:
Cheating? Lol. They are running a country, not playing a game of wiffle ball.
From what I understand, Harry Reid was the person (a Democrat) who set up most of the existing rules regarding appointment confirmations.
Created:
Posted in:
The optics on this are so bad. Telling a President not to look into corruption because it hurts Biden's chances for election doesn't play well with independents, who are already against impeachment for political reasons.
There is nothing illegal about looking into corruption and the quid pro quo is absolutely not conclusive enough for impeachment.
Created:
Posted in:
Also, asking for information on corruption is not election interference.
Election interference is way, way too broadly applied today and with a very biased brush, especially as it applies to information.
It's being used as a tool to create a monopoly on information, which would doom democracy.
Created:
Posted in:
If you want to be literal, Trump is the head of Law enforcement so only he can investigate corruption...hehe.
Created: