The UK may be keen to do trade deals with other countries post-Brexit, but it seems highly unlikely that Russia will be among those in the near future.
Seems to me the news that Trump was obsessed with the idea of invading Venezuela last summer should be getting a bit more attention. INVADING Venezuela??
The fact they re-elected Maduro demonstrates he is firmly in power. I say if he lost the elections but kept power by force you could have considered it but now it's purely a venezuelan problem. We all should just let them sort their own mess out.
Yes it does but due to the landscape it cannot pump it out faster than it does. It is one of the big three oil producer (Algeria/Russia/Venezuela) which were the hardest hit by the collapse of price in the recent years. Unlike Saudi or Iran (however that one is facing US sanctions) they can't increase their production to keep up and their market share has been steadily decreasing to Saudi and shale gas producers.
Incidentally these three countries relied a lot on oil price for their budget.
^^ Trump is again biased though. The USA do not protect OPEC countries for little money, many of them aren't even aligned with the USA at all, and some who are don't even have US bases on their soil. Only a few are concerned. And those who are protected by the USA aren't cheap about it:
I was wondering why a post of mine got deleted (or if I simply had too much to drink last night and only thought I posted it) but now I see why. Sorry, Mod Team, I didn't see your prior warning.
And yet, only one party has ever denied the President from appointing ANYONE to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. One. Party.
I understand why liberals would be upset about this. If I were in your position, I would say the same thing. Although I think a conservative supreme court is good for the country as a whole, the process needs to be respected or all order breaks down and doing wild things like stacking the court enter the realm of possibility.
I was wondering why a post of mine got deleted (or if I simply had too much to drink last night and only thought I posted it) but now I see why. Sorry, Mod Team, I didn't see your prior warning.
And yet, only one party has ever denied the President from appointing ANYONE to fill a Supreme Court vacancy. One. Party.
I understand why liberals would be upset about this. If I were in your position, I would say the same thing. Although I think a conservative supreme court is good for the country as a whole, the process needs to be respected or all order breaks down and doing wild things like stacking the court enter the realm of possibility.
I honestly wouldn't have a word to say about this if Garland or someone else had been given a hearing and put on the court. I'd raise my objections to the nominee like I did with Roberts and Alito and then accept the inevitable. But the Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. Obama not getting that pick and Trump getting it instead basically shifted the entire dynamic of the court for the next 30 years. I'll be near retirement the next time the ideological balance of the court is up for grabs again. It feels like everyone who voted for Obama in 2012 was robbed of a good portion of their vote.
I understand why liberals would be upset about this. If I were in your position, I would say the same thing. Although I think a conservative supreme court is good for the country as a whole, the process needs to be respected or all order breaks down and doing wild things like stacking the court enter the realm of possibility.
Yeah. I generally agree with this. (Not the conservative supreme court part), but that I think essentially stealing a supreme court seat in either direction is total crap and counter-productive in a healthy democracy.
One of the more unfortunate parts in all of this is: SCOTUS was already a conservative leaning court before Scalia passed away and Kennedy is retiring. Now it's just going to move a big step even further right. How long until Liberals have virtually no say in constitutionality of laws, and how can that ever be a good thing? I dont think it can.
I understand why liberals would be upset about this. If I were in your position, I would say the same thing. Although I think a conservative supreme court is good for the country as a whole, the process needs to be respected or all order breaks down and doing wild things like stacking the court enter the realm of possibility.
Yeah. I generally agree with this. (Not the conservative supreme court part), but that I think essentially stealing a supreme court seat in either direction is total crap and counter-productive in a healthy democracy.
One of the more unfortunate parts in all of this is: SCOTUS was already a conservative leaning court before Scalia passed away and Kennedy is retiring. Now it's just going to move a big step even further right. How long until Liberals have virtually no say in constitutionality of laws, and how can that ever be a good thing? I dont think it can.
How long?? I'd say two years at this point, max. The only thing that can possibly stop it is Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health holding out, and John Roberts deciding that he wants to become the new swing vote to protect the balance of the Court. I just don't see it happening. Every conservative Justice on the court from now til eternity is a member of the same organization, the Federalist Society. They have had very clear views and aims about this for decades.
The Federalist Society in its own words. However, since people and organizations typically put their best face forward (almost no one airs their own dirty laundry for others to see), a more generic article about the group may be found here. Right now, 4 of the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court are members, making this one of the most powerful organizations in existence (at least in the United States).
The Federalist Society in its own words. However, since people and organizations typically put their best face forward (almost no one airs their own dirty laundry for others to see), a more generic article about the group may be found here. Right now, 4 of the 9 Justices on the Supreme Court are members, making this one of the most powerful organizations in existence (at least in the United States).
They're going to have 5, giving them basically total control over any case that comes before the court. If Trump gets another pick after this, it will be 6. I don't believe any Republican President would nominate anyone who ISN'T a member. Membership is basically a pre-requisite to even being considered. You can be 100% sure every name on Trump's list has been signed off on.
I don't disagree. Once the fifth member becomes confirmed we might as well conclude "being a member of the Federalist Society is a prerequisite for being a Supreme Court justice".
*************
re: abolish ICE.... Congress cannot abolish ICE. It is a subset of the Department of Justice and therefore is subject only to the Executive Branch. Congress may try to starve that department of money when it sets its budget but they cannot pass a law that says "ICE is formally dissolved an a Federal agency". People running for Congress on a platform of "I will abolish ICE" are lying to their likely voters.
Also, the "C" in "ICE" stands for customs. If ICE were to be abolished, then who would inspect ships coming in to port, looking to make certain that weapons, equipment/materials used to make weapons, or invasive species like kudzu are not present? Who would look for animal smuggling or, even worse, human smuggling?
I don't disagree. Once the fifth member becomes confirmed we might as well conclude "being a member of the Federalist Society is a prerequisite for being a Supreme Court justice".
*************
re: abolish ICE.... Congress cannot abolish ICE. It is a subset of the Department of Justice and therefore is subject only to the Executive Branch. Congress may try to starve that department of money when it sets its budget but they cannot pass a law that says "ICE is formally dissolved an a Federal agency". People running for Congress on a platform of "I will abolish ICE" are lying to their likely voters.
Also, the "C" in "ICE" stands for customs. If ICE were to be abolished, then who would inspect ships coming in to port, looking to make certain that weapons, equipment/materials used to make weapons, or invasive species like kudzu are not present? Who would look for animal smuggling or, even worse, human smuggling?
It didn't exist til 2003, so somehow we got by up til that point.
Sure, some departments got consolidated but I know for a fact that "customs enforcement" existed before then. People who advocate for the dissolving of a law enforcement agency are either trying to engage in criminal activity or enabling others to engage in criminal activity. No one would argue to abolish the SEC, or the FBI, or BATFE, and so on. No, the actions of those agencies are not as "over the top" as what ICE has been doing lately--except for the FBI, which has a history of shooting people holding children on their own front porch--but the fact remains that Congress cannot get rid of the agency.
In light of what is happening in Poland, Trump's insistence this morning that we remove "judges" (the quotation marks are his) from the situation at the border is ominous to say the least.
I don't disagree. Once the fifth member becomes confirmed we might as well conclude "being a member of the Federalist Society is a prerequisite for being a Supreme Court justice".
*************
re: abolish ICE.... Congress cannot abolish ICE. It is a subset of the Department of Justice and therefore is subject only to the Executive Branch. Congress may try to starve that department of money when it sets its budget but they cannot pass a law that says "ICE is formally dissolved an a Federal agency". People running for Congress on a platform of "I will abolish ICE" are lying to their likely voters.
Also, the "C" in "ICE" stands for customs. If ICE were to be abolished, then who would inspect ships coming in to port, looking to make certain that weapons, equipment/materials used to make weapons, or invasive species like kudzu are not present? Who would look for animal smuggling or, even worse, human smuggling?
It didn't exist til 2003, so somehow we got by up til that point.
We got by, but terribly. The 90's and early 2000's saw the massive rise in illegal migration that created a more or less permanently settled illegal population of roughly 11 million, a permanent underclass ripe for exploitation. Thus the need for a branch of law enforcement to make this one of their primary focuses.
We got by, but terribly. The 90's and early 2000's saw the massive rise in illegal migration that created a more or less permanently settled illegal population of roughly 11 million, a permanent underclass ripe for exploitation. Thus the need for a branch of law enforcement to make this one of their primary focuses.
So in one logical extreme, we end up with this situation, and at the other logical extreme we end up with family separations because of a zero-tolerance policy designed to dencentive entry into the country - even legally (Asylum).
Maybe there should be a middleground? I think most realistic politicians know the "Abolish ICE" idea is less about open borders and more about preventing the latter from ever happening again through careful regulation.
Though possibly not a big-known name to everyone, radio and television personality Ed Schultz has died. The only reason I bring this up is because, in the area I grew up, everyone knew him as anything but a political commentator. My earliest memories of sports besides the Twins in the '91 World Series and Michael Jordan's championship runs with the Bulls were Ed Schulz calling the local District High School Basketball Tournament on TV, where he honestly made everyone of those games seem like the Miracle on Ice (and for whatever reason every year that tournament did have an uncanny knack for dramatic moments). He would go on to become a conservative firebrand on local radio, until his 2nd wife took him to volunteer at a soup kitchen and he changed his political beliefs (that was always his story anyway). He then became a liberal firebrand, holding down the fort on MSNBC for alot of the Obama Administration. In the last few years, he disappeared from view, ending up on RT and pushing the kind of Jill Stein narrative that helped get Trump elected. In the end, I could never honestly tell whether his political opinions were real or whether they were just the best business move he could make at any given moment, but I do believe he was focused in his later years on being a champion for the working class, especially against attacks on the unions in Wisconsin. I always found it a bit weird that a guy who used to sit a couple seats down on the broadcast bench from where my dad was seated as an assistant coach come tournament time became such a national figure.
I understand why liberals would be upset about this. If I were in your position, I would say the same thing. Although I think a conservative supreme court is good for the country as a whole, the process needs to be respected or all order breaks down and doing wild things like stacking the court enter the realm of possibility.
Yeah. I generally agree with this. (Not the conservative supreme court part), but that I think essentially stealing a supreme court seat in either direction is total crap and counter-productive in a healthy democracy.
One of the more unfortunate parts in all of this is: SCOTUS was already a conservative leaning court before Scalia passed away and Kennedy is retiring. Now it's just going to move a big step even further right. How long until Liberals have virtually no say in constitutionality of laws, and how can that ever be a good thing? I dont think it can.
The Court just this last year has been legislating from the bench. Several (all?) decisions have been a 5-4 vote. Basically the 5 regressive judges have been getting together and dictating whatever they want. This will continue once Trump seats another flunky on the bench.
We can expect more decisions that are anti-tolerance, pro-corporate and anti-worker. After all Gorsuch ruled the ice road trucker should have froze to death in his truck rather than save his life which cost the company a few bucks. Conservatives also gave us Citizens United allowing Corporations to buy elections. Paradoxically, they have a problem with workers uniting for their own good in the Janus decision but it's just fine when the owners of the corporation use their "political speech".
Trumps next pick will be expected to legislate from the bench away a women's right to choose. And to support Trump's xenophobic agenda. Basically things won't be much different than they have been this last year with Gorsuch sitting in Merrick Garlands stolen seat.
If liberals are able to overcome Conservative propaganda and lies, future Trump approved Russian hacking, activist judges, Republican judge approved partisan gerrymanding, electoral college disenfranchisement, state sponsored voter suppression, and other dirty tricks then they will have their work cut out.
One of the first things to do is reform the Supreme Court. Another top item is to pass national voting rights legislation which is clearly a power the legislature has in the Constitution. Conservatives will cry and sue because they don't want people voting but it's got to be done. We must approve statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Then we might be on our way to a functional representative democracy again.
Admittedly overcoming the Conservative election rigging machine won't be easy. And we may need more drastic measures if Trump refuses to leave office after impeachment, losing re-election, or just deciding he wants to be President For Life if he somehow completes two terms.
I understand why liberals would be upset about this. If I were in your position, I would say the same thing. Although I think a conservative supreme court is good for the country as a whole, the process needs to be respected or all order breaks down and doing wild things like stacking the court enter the realm of possibility.
Yeah. I generally agree with this. (Not the conservative supreme court part), but that I think essentially stealing a supreme court seat in either direction is total crap and counter-productive in a healthy democracy.
One of the more unfortunate parts in all of this is: SCOTUS was already a conservative leaning court before Scalia passed away and Kennedy is retiring. Now it's just going to move a big step even further right. How long until Liberals have virtually no say in constitutionality of laws, and how can that ever be a good thing? I dont think it can.
The Court just this last year has been legislating from the bench. Several (all?) decisions have been a 5-4 vote. Basically the 5 regressive judges have been getting together and dictating whatever they want. This will continue once Trump seats another flunky on the bench.
We can expect more decisions that are anti-tolerance, pro-corporate and anti-worker. After all Gorsuch ruled the ice road trucker should have froze to death in his truck rather than save his life which cost the company a few bucks. Conservatives also gave us Citizens United allowing Corporations to buy elections. Paradoxically, they have a problem with workers uniting for their own good in the Janus decision but it's just fine when the owners of the corporation use their "political speech".
Trumps next pick will be expected to legislate from the bench away a women's right to choose. And to support Trump's xenophobic agenda. Basically things won't be much different than they have been this last year with Gorsuch sitting in Merrick Garlands stolen seat.
If liberals are able to overcome Conservative propaganda and lies, future Trump approved Russian hacking, activist judges, Republican judge approved partisan gerrymanding, electoral college disenfranchisement, state sponsored voter suppression, and other dirty tricks then they will have their work cut out.
One of the first things to do is reform the Supreme Court. Another top item is to pass national voting rights legislation which is clearly a power the legislature has in the Constitution. Conservatives will cry and sue because they don't want people voting but it's got to be done. We must approve statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Then we might be on our way to a functional representative democracy again.
Admittedly overcoming the Conservative election rigging machine won't be easy. And we may need more drastic measures if Trump refuses to leave office after impeachment, losing re-election, or just deciding he wants to be President For Life if he somehow completes two terms.
So basically you're saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? I guess that's because the function of government is to move money around and make sure life is 'fair'. So lets bring in P.R. (can't pay their bills), D.C. (ditto - but they do vote for President - I'd also argue that they should be incorporated into Maryland or Virginia, not become a separate entity), make illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either...
Talking about the need for appointments, the list just got a little longer - Scott Pruitt has resigned as head of the EPA.
He is by far the most transparently corrupt Cabinet official I have ever seen. If he survived this long, I'm not even sure what could have been the final straw. There was at least a story a week about Pruitt that would have ended the tenure of any other Cabinet member in previous Administrations. My guess is the latest of him ordering aides to falsify his calendars may have broken the law in such an obvious way that they are simply getting ahead of the story:
I understand why liberals would be upset about this. If I were in your position, I would say the same thing. Although I think a conservative supreme court is good for the country as a whole, the process needs to be respected or all order breaks down and doing wild things like stacking the court enter the realm of possibility.
Yeah. I generally agree with this. (Not the conservative supreme court part), but that I think essentially stealing a supreme court seat in either direction is total crap and counter-productive in a healthy democracy.
One of the more unfortunate parts in all of this is: SCOTUS was already a conservative leaning court before Scalia passed away and Kennedy is retiring. Now it's just going to move a big step even further right. How long until Liberals have virtually no say in constitutionality of laws, and how can that ever be a good thing? I dont think it can.
The Court just this last year has been legislating from the bench. Several (all?) decisions have been a 5-4 vote. Basically the 5 regressive judges have been getting together and dictating whatever they want. This will continue once Trump seats another flunky on the bench.
We can expect more decisions that are anti-tolerance, pro-corporate and anti-worker. After all Gorsuch ruled the ice road trucker should have froze to death in his truck rather than save his life which cost the company a few bucks. Conservatives also gave us Citizens United allowing Corporations to buy elections. Paradoxically, they have a problem with workers uniting for their own good in the Janus decision but it's just fine when the owners of the corporation use their "political speech".
Trumps next pick will be expected to legislate from the bench away a women's right to choose. And to support Trump's xenophobic agenda. Basically things won't be much different than they have been this last year with Gorsuch sitting in Merrick Garlands stolen seat.
If liberals are able to overcome Conservative propaganda and lies, future Trump approved Russian hacking, activist judges, Republican judge approved partisan gerrymanding, electoral college disenfranchisement, state sponsored voter suppression, and other dirty tricks then they will have their work cut out.
One of the first things to do is reform the Supreme Court. Another top item is to pass national voting rights legislation which is clearly a power the legislature has in the Constitution. Conservatives will cry and sue because they don't want people voting but it's got to be done. We must approve statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Then we might be on our way to a functional representative democracy again.
Admittedly overcoming the Conservative election rigging machine won't be easy. And we may need more drastic measures if Trump refuses to leave office after impeachment, losing re-election, or just deciding he wants to be President For Life if he somehow completes two terms.
So basically you're saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? I guess that's because the function of government is to move money around and make sure life is 'fair'. So lets bring in P.R. (can't pay their bills), D.C. (ditto - but they do vote for President - I'd also argue that they should be incorporated into Maryland or Virginia, not become a separate entity), make illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either...
No I didn't say any of that. You are arguing with a strawman.
PR can't pay it's bills maybe something to do with the Jones act over which they have no control. DC no idea there maybe they are in debt but a lot of states are too. The Federal Government is in debt also, why is it only a problem for DC and Puerto Rico? Can we kick out states that are in debt? Come on, they are Americans.
"saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? " - nobody said that eitger. Democrats just need more people to vote, Republicans can only win through gerrymandering and voter suppression they don't want people to vote. They are constantly inventing ways to suppress votes and rig the game, folks.
We all need something from the government, roads, military, law enforcement, you name it. Do you think the government is bad? I'm a patriot, I like my government of the USA just not the bozos running it into the ground. Scott Pruitt bye good riddance.
"illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either..."
No one said that except your Conservatives (regressives) fear mongerers. Illegals voting? Ooen borders? No of course not. Does that shock you?
Incarcerated felons? I'd say no but once people have completed their debt to society then full rights need to be restored - which is often a problem in red States. There might even be an argument for incarcerated felons voting like they have some small say in their situation as Americans, I'm fine if they don't without more information.
I understand why liberals would be upset about this. If I were in your position, I would say the same thing. Although I think a conservative supreme court is good for the country as a whole, the process needs to be respected or all order breaks down and doing wild things like stacking the court enter the realm of possibility.
Yeah. I generally agree with this. (Not the conservative supreme court part), but that I think essentially stealing a supreme court seat in either direction is total crap and counter-productive in a healthy democracy.
One of the more unfortunate parts in all of this is: SCOTUS was already a conservative leaning court before Scalia passed away and Kennedy is retiring. Now it's just going to move a big step even further right. How long until Liberals have virtually no say in constitutionality of laws, and how can that ever be a good thing? I dont think it can.
The Court just this last year has been legislating from the bench. Several (all?) decisions have been a 5-4 vote. Basically the 5 regressive judges have been getting together and dictating whatever they want. This will continue once Trump seats another flunky on the bench.
We can expect more decisions that are anti-tolerance, pro-corporate and anti-worker. After all Gorsuch ruled the ice road trucker should have froze to death in his truck rather than save his life which cost the company a few bucks. Conservatives also gave us Citizens United allowing Corporations to buy elections. Paradoxically, they have a problem with workers uniting for their own good in the Janus decision but it's just fine when the owners of the corporation use their "political speech".
Trumps next pick will be expected to legislate from the bench away a women's right to choose. And to support Trump's xenophobic agenda. Basically things won't be much different than they have been this last year with Gorsuch sitting in Merrick Garlands stolen seat.
If liberals are able to overcome Conservative propaganda and lies, future Trump approved Russian hacking, activist judges, Republican judge approved partisan gerrymanding, electoral college disenfranchisement, state sponsored voter suppression, and other dirty tricks then they will have their work cut out.
One of the first things to do is reform the Supreme Court. Another top item is to pass national voting rights legislation which is clearly a power the legislature has in the Constitution. Conservatives will cry and sue because they don't want people voting but it's got to be done. We must approve statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Then we might be on our way to a functional representative democracy again.
Admittedly overcoming the Conservative election rigging machine won't be easy. And we may need more drastic measures if Trump refuses to leave office after impeachment, losing re-election, or just deciding he wants to be President For Life if he somehow completes two terms.
So basically you're saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? I guess that's because the function of government is to move money around and make sure life is 'fair'. So lets bring in P.R. (can't pay their bills), D.C. (ditto - but they do vote for President - I'd also argue that they should be incorporated into Maryland or Virginia, not become a separate entity), make illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either...
No I didn't say any of that. You are arguing with a strawman.
PR can't pay it's bills maybe something to do with the Jones act over which they have no control. DC no idea there maybe they are in debt but a lot of states are too. The Federal Government is in debt also, why is it only a problem for DC and Puerto Rico? Can we kick out states that are in debt? Come on, they are Americans.
"saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? " - nobody said that eitger. Democrats just need more people to vote, Republicans can only win through gerrymandering and voter suppression they don't want people to vote. They are constantly inventing ways to suppress votes and rig the game, folks.
We all need something from the government, roads, military, law enforcement, you name it. Do you think the government is bad? I'm a patriot, I like my government of the USA just not the bozos running it into the ground. Scott Pruitt bye good riddance.
"illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either..."
No one said that except your Conservatives (regressives) fear mongerers. Illegals voting? Ooen borders? No of course not. Does that shock you?
Incarcerated felons? I'd say no but once people have completed their debt to society then full rights need to be restored - which is often a problem in red States. There might even be an argument for incarcerated felons voting like they have some small say in their situation as Americans, I'm fine if they don't without more information.
I didn't say illegals voting, I said make them legal and THEN they vote Democrat. Do you deny that they'd overwhelmingly vote Democrat?
Comments
Incidentally these three countries relied a lot on oil price for their budget.
http://www.businessinsider.com/venezuelas-oil-criss-cant-be-stopped-2018-3?IR=T
Didn't know the situation was so dire for Venezuela.
And for Algeria:
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2017/10/232288/oil-crisis-inflation-algeria-bankruptcy/
Russia is much more documented so I won't bother.
^^ Talking of oil:
^^ Trump is again biased though. The USA do not protect OPEC countries for little money, many of them aren't even aligned with the USA at all, and some who are don't even have US bases on their soil. Only a few are concerned. And those who are protected by the USA aren't cheap about it:
https://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/29/world/meast/u-s--saudi-fighter-sale/index.html
^^
$30 billions from Saudi without even a competition or a tender.
This video is pure comedy gold! - a gift that keeps on giving from start to finish:
Yeah. I generally agree with this. (Not the conservative supreme court part), but that I think essentially stealing a supreme court seat in either direction is total crap and counter-productive in a healthy democracy.
One of the more unfortunate parts in all of this is: SCOTUS was already a conservative leaning court before Scalia passed away and Kennedy is retiring. Now it's just going to move a big step even further right. How long until Liberals have virtually no say in constitutionality of laws, and how can that ever be a good thing? I dont think it can.
*************
re: abolish ICE.... Congress cannot abolish ICE. It is a subset of the Department of Justice and therefore is subject only to the Executive Branch. Congress may try to starve that department of money when it sets its budget but they cannot pass a law that says "ICE is formally dissolved an a Federal agency". People running for Congress on a platform of "I will abolish ICE" are lying to their likely voters.
Also, the "C" in "ICE" stands for customs. If ICE were to be abolished, then who would inspect ships coming in to port, looking to make certain that weapons, equipment/materials used to make weapons, or invasive species like kudzu are not present? Who would look for animal smuggling or, even worse, human smuggling?
saw the massive rise in illegal migration that created a more or less permanently settled illegal population of roughly 11 million, a permanent underclass ripe for exploitation. Thus the need for a branch of law enforcement to make this one of their primary focuses.
So in one logical extreme, we end up with this situation, and at the other logical extreme we end up with family separations because of a zero-tolerance policy designed to dencentive entry into the country - even legally (Asylum).
Maybe there should be a middleground? I think most realistic politicians know the "Abolish ICE" idea is less about open borders and more about preventing the latter from ever happening again through careful regulation.
The Court just this last year has been legislating from the bench. Several (all?) decisions have been a 5-4 vote. Basically the 5 regressive judges have been getting together and dictating whatever they want. This will continue once Trump seats another flunky on the bench.
We can expect more decisions that are anti-tolerance, pro-corporate and anti-worker. After all Gorsuch ruled the ice road trucker should have froze to death in his truck rather than save his life which cost the company a few bucks. Conservatives also gave us Citizens United allowing Corporations to buy elections. Paradoxically, they have a problem with workers uniting for their own good in the Janus decision but it's just fine when the owners of the corporation use their "political speech".
Trumps next pick will be expected to legislate from the bench away a women's right to choose. And to support Trump's xenophobic agenda. Basically things won't be much different than they have been this last year with Gorsuch sitting in Merrick Garlands stolen seat.
If liberals are able to overcome Conservative propaganda and lies, future Trump approved Russian hacking, activist judges, Republican judge approved partisan gerrymanding, electoral college disenfranchisement, state sponsored voter suppression, and other dirty tricks then they will have their work cut out.
One of the first things to do is reform the Supreme Court. Another top item is to pass national voting rights legislation which is clearly a power the legislature has in the Constitution. Conservatives will cry and sue because they don't want people voting but it's got to be done. We must approve statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Then we might be on our way to a functional representative democracy again.
Admittedly overcoming the Conservative election rigging machine won't be easy. And we may need more drastic measures if Trump refuses to leave office after impeachment, losing re-election, or just deciding he wants to be President For Life if he somehow completes two terms.
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either...
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/07/05/climate/pruitt-epa-calendar-morris.html
PR can't pay it's bills maybe something to do with the Jones act over which they have no control. DC no idea there maybe they are in debt but a lot of states are too. The Federal Government is in debt also, why is it only a problem for DC and Puerto Rico? Can we kick out states that are in debt? Come on, they are Americans.
"saying that the Democrats need more people that need shit from the government in order to survive? " - nobody said that eitger. Democrats just need more people to vote, Republicans can only win through gerrymandering and voter suppression they don't want people to vote. They are constantly inventing ways to suppress votes and rig the game, folks.
We all need something from the government, roads, military, law enforcement, you name it. Do you think the government is bad? I'm a patriot, I like my government of the USA just not the bozos running it into the ground. Scott Pruitt bye good riddance.
"illegals full voting citizens (because, why not? They'll vote Democrat!), and open the borders for more mouths to feed (because, why stop at illegals when we can just feed everybody for their vote!). Does that sound about right? Pretty much sounds exactly like what the conservatives are accusing you of doing anyway. Time to do it right out in the open?
Edit: Oops, forgot incarcerated felons. They shouldn't be denied the chance to vote for a Democrat either..."
No one said that except your Conservatives (regressives) fear mongerers. Illegals voting? Ooen borders? No of course not. Does that shock you?
Incarcerated felons? I'd say no but once people have completed their debt to society then full rights need to be restored - which is often a problem in red States. There might even be an argument for incarcerated felons voting like they have some small say in their situation as Americans, I'm fine if they don't without more information.