#JAILTOTHECHIEF- Shit Just Got Real

[Jolene Benoir]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/14/trump-again-nods-toward-violence-by-his-supporters-maybe-something-bigger/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a288d810f591
"Trump again nods toward violence by his supporters — and maybe something bigger"

Trump-friendly Breitbart News...I have another name for it, Daily Stormer Redux, financed by people like the Mercers. He's careful to couch it in a way of plausible deniability, but he always comes back to the idea that certain groups of people will defend him (with guns, if necessary). It's not dissimilar from his 2nd Amendment people comment back during the campaign. So...do we believe there will be a peaceful transition should he face consequences for his actions or not be re-elected?

In an interview with Trump-friendly Breitbart News this week, Trump talked about how “tough” the left was getting, relative to his supporters. His quote meanders a little bit, but stick with it and focus on the text in bold:

It’s so terrible what’s happening. You know, the left plays a tougher game, it’s very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don’t play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you, I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad. But the left plays it cuter and tougher.​

 

[Cristiano]

Senate passes resolution to overturn Trump's national emergency declaration

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Senate passes resolution to overturn Trump's national emergency declaration

It'll get vetoed, of course. But still, it's a slap in Trump's face, and he won't take it well at all.

 

[danielravennest]

It'll get vetoed, of course. But still, it's a slap in Trump's face, and he won't take it well at all.

It wasn't just barely enough Republicans to lose, it was 59-41. By coincidence 41% happens to be the same as Trump's approval rating.

 

[Kara Spengler]

The reason she doesn't want to Impeach is because the Senate is fully Republican and will never vote to Impeach him. And they are kind of required for the process. Doing so would be a waste of time and only shore up the already-existing idea that this is just a thing that the opposing party does when they are in control of part of the legislature. See: the GOP during Obama's time.

She's not an idiot. If she does something it's because it will have an effect. There's literally no reason to go to that level right now.

We cannot get rid of Donald before 2020. It just won't ever happen.

Umm, when did the opposing party doing oh, opposing, become a Bad Thing?

You would think they will start using the phrase The Loyal Opposition now. Who would ever DO such a thing?

 

[Lianne Marten]

Umm, when did the opposing party doing oh, opposing, become a Bad Thing?

You would think they will start using the phrase The Loyal Opposition now. Who would ever DO such a thing?

They are opposing. They're passing bills and holding hearings and constantly talking about how awful everything is. Certain procedural actions though can be a step too far when they will accomplish nothing in practice while weakening your position. A moral victory now that causes a functional loss later isn't worth it.

 

[Da5id Weatherwax]

It'll get vetoed, of course. But still, it's a slap in Trump's face, and he won't take it well at all.

It wasn't just barely enough Republicans to lose, it was 59-41. By coincidence 41% happens to be the same as Trump's approval rating.

And by another coincidence, only one senator shy of enough to override the veto anyway. Now that would be a meltdown worth watching (from a bunker in the middle of the Australian outback)

 

[Porsupah Ree]

And by another coincidence, only one senator shy of enough to override the veto anyway. Now that would be a meltdown worth watching (from a bunker in the middle of the Australian outback)

Eight senators short, shirley, for a two thirds majority?

 

[Khamon]

Y U call Da5id Shirley?

 

[Da5id Weatherwax]

Eight senators short, shirley, for a two thirds majority?

You're right of course. For some reason my brain was going down the "60:40" path while still thinking "two thirds"




(BTW, Shirley is my Aunt, a formidable lady and a retired bioscience professor so while I don't mind being compared to her...... )

 

[danielravennest]

You're right of course. For some reason my brain was going down the "60:40" path while still thinking "two thirds"

60 is the number in the Senate to end debate. That's probably what you were thinking of.

Unlike the House of Representatives, there is no time limit on speaking in the Senate. So a bill can be "fillibustered" by one or more opponents speaking ad-nauseum, until the other side gives up, or they need to move on to other business and drop the bill. But with 60 people on your side, you can end debate and kill a fillibuster. Under normal politics, the 60 vote rule tends to ensure bills have bipartisan support, which is a good thing. Current politics are not normal.

The reason the House has limited debate is because they have 435 members, vs. 100 in the Senate. That's just too many people to allow unlimited debate, they would never get done. So instead they decide on a total time to debate a bill, and the two sides each get half. Then they have to allocate that time to individual speakers. Being mostly lawyers, they have a loophole. They can suspend the time limit if they vote to do that.

 

[Da5id Weatherwax]

60 is the number in the Senate to end debate. That's probably what you were thinking of.

Unlike the House of Representatives, there is no time limit on speaking in the Senate. So a bill can be "fillibustered" by one or more opponents speaking ad-nauseum, until the other side gives up, or they need to move on to other business and drop the bill. But with 60 people on your side, you can end debate and kill a fillibuster. Under normal politics, the 60 vote rule tends to ensure bills have bipartisan support, which is a good thing. Current politics are not normal.

The reason the House has limited debate is because they have 435 members, vs. 100 in the Senate. That's just too many people to allow unlimited debate, they would never get done. So instead they decide on a total time to debate a bill, and the two sides each get half. Then they have to allocate that time to individual speakers. Being mostly lawyers, they have a loophole. They can suspend the time limit if they vote to do that.

I'm almost certain that was it - and it was a total brainfart because I do know the difference and the history having studied up on civics and US history since before life circumstances forced me to relocate back across the pond I fully intended to become a US citizen in due course, which is also why I'm still as invested and concerned about the situation in the US as I am about the dogs dinner Theresa is making of British politics. There's a lot of folks I care about getting the shitty end of the stick on both sides of the pond!

 

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

 

[Dakota Tebaldi]

Seems right to me. If a refugee gives birth on American soil, that's an "anchor baby", right? Something we already know the Trump party is extremely paranoid about. So no surprise they'd be keeping tabs on pregnancies; there were probably contingency plans for expediting deportation if a pregnancy was nearing term.

 

[Katheryne Helendale]

Trump was on a royal Twitter rant earlier today:

 

[Shiloh Lyric]

Ummmm...

Yeah, so Idiot-In-Chief wants us to forget that that's what "criminal investigations" DO. THEY UNCOVER CRIME! And Mueller's is doing just that. Which is why Panicky One is freaking out.

 

[Aribeth Zelin]

Seems right to me. If a refugee gives birth on American soil, that's an "anchor baby", right? Something we already know the Trump party is extremely paranoid about. So no surprise they'd be keeping tabs on pregnancies; there were probably contingency plans for expediting deportation if a pregnancy was nearing term.

You're misunderstanding the situation, I think.

These poor girls aren't being allowed to get abortions; abortions which, as young as most of these girls are, would probably keep them from dying in childbirth.

It has nothing to do with not having anchor babies - it has to do with them being forced into sexual slavery by the so-called family values party, or at least a portion of it.

If it were to keep them from having anchor babies, sure, it'd make sense, but its not.

 

[Free]

Seems right to me. If a refugee gives birth on American soil, that's an "anchor baby", right?

The term you're looking for is 'United States Citizen.'

 

[Ava Glasgow]

Pretty sure when he says this, he's assuming he'll be president for life.