The End of the World: A Political Thread. A New Hope coming soon!
- Thread starter Plainview
- Start date
- Status
The sad part is, this is exactly what the gun lobbies want. They want any discussion shut down immediately.
If Rubio stood there and grew a spine at all, not only would he lose his NRA money, but tons more money would funnel into his opponents next election.
Rubio isn't a total moron, he knew exactly how that was going to go. Standing up there like that is exactly what his donors and voters want.
If Rubio stood there and grew a spine at all, not only would he lose his NRA money, but tons more money would funnel into his opponents next election.
Rubio isn't a total moron, he knew exactly how that was going to go. Standing up there like that is exactly what his donors and voters want.
The NRA is flailing now. The last three senatorial candidates they have backed all lost their perspective elections . Plus most of their members actually do support sensible gun control laws. LaPierre's "Teh European Socialists are coming for your guns!" is getting a little old and people are starting to sense that. The NRA doesn't represent their majority anymore. I think Rubio senses that. and Kudos to him for showing up to the Townhall, while the governor stayed home. We'll see if he actually puts his "money where his mouth is" because he sure isnt getting kickbacks from the NRA any longer.
I hope so, but I thought the NRA was at the end when they showed up in Colombine... but yet here we are.
The problem with the gun lobbies is they don't necessarily put money in, but if a race gets close and guns are an issue, they'll pump in money which for a lot of congressional races is enough to make a difference. Boots on the ground kind of campaigning still works great even today (ask Hillary).
Everyone says it is different this time. I hope everyone is right.
More indictments came down on Manafort and Gates for money laundering and bank fraud. Gates has agreed to a plea deal, which means now Mueller has access to someone who was active not only in the campaign, but on Trump's actual transition team as well.
Just read the indictment. Manafort is f***'t.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4385690/2-22-18-Manafort-Gates-Indictment-EDVA.pdf
Wait. Hold on. Are there people who think these shooting are faked?
Please don’t link anything either because, you know what, I already know the answer to that.
There's some that think that the students coming out who survived the attack are not really ones who were there.
But yeah, Alex Jones (who's a kook but who has 5mil+ listeners) thinks Sandy Hook was a false flag
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/po...tely-fake-sandy-hook-claims-article-1.2878305
Anything to distract and deflect from the real issue: guns.
Been living in the same apartment now for just about 7 years and had my rates raised $15 a month due to "increases operating costs." Thanks Trump.
Another anchor store in our mall is having a Going Out of Business sale in our great economy.
Though I can imagine the parent company of that store will actually get a Stock Price bump from unloading a bad asset.
Last edited:
Yep, when wages stay very stagnant, the economy isn't doing well, at least for the middle class. Wage growth has been terrible since before the recession.
One thing economic indicators don't show is underemployment. People can have jobs, but too many are making far less than they should be. So many still haven't fully recovered from the recession.
So, the stock market might be ok and unemployment low, but that doesn't mean things are going well.
One thing economic indicators don't show is underemployment. People can have jobs, but too many are making far less than they should be. So many still haven't fully recovered from the recession.
So, the stock market might be ok and unemployment low, but that doesn't mean things are going well.
A conservative booed off the stage at CPAC.
A good read. This is the danger of the alt right. A former speech writer for the Reagans has to be escorted out by security. This is how the alt right has ripped the Republican party apart and made a joke of actual conservatives.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/opinion/im-glad-i-got-booed-at-cpac.html
A good read. This is the danger of the alt right. A former speech writer for the Reagans has to be escorted out by security. This is how the alt right has ripped the Republican party apart and made a joke of actual conservatives.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/25/opinion/im-glad-i-got-booed-at-cpac.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/justices-turn-down-trump’s-appeal-in-‘dreamers’-case/ar-BBJCv0R
Justices Turn Down Trump’s Appeal in ‘Dreamers’ Case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an unusual request from the Trump administration to decide whether it was entitled to shut down a program that shields some 700,000 young, undocumented immigrants from deportation.
The court’s decision not to hear the administration’s appeal was expected, as no appeals court has yet ruled on the issue.
The court’s move came amid a complex political battle over immigration generally, and the program at issue in the case, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in particular.
The program shields people who were brought into the United States as children from deportation and allows them to work. The status lasts for two years but is renewable.
In September, the Trump administration announced that it would shut down the program on March 5. But two federal judges have ordered the administration to maintain major pieces of the program while legal challenges move forward, notably by requiring the administration to allow people enrolled in it to renew their protected status.
The administration did not seek stays of those court orders, and they will remain in place for the time being, allowing much of the program to survive beyond the March 5 deadline.
The case at the Supreme Court was brought in California by five sets of plaintiffs. They included four states — California, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota — and Janet Napolitano, the president of the University of California. As secretary of homeland security in the Obama administration, Ms. Napolitano signed the document that established the program in 2012.
In January, Judge William H. Alsup of Federal District Court in San Francisco ruled that the administration had abused its discretion and had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in rescinding the program. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of Federal District Court in Brooklyn issued a similar ruling this month.
The judges acknowledged that presidents have broad powers to alter the policies of earlier administrations. But they said the Trump administration’s justifications for rescinding the program did not withstand scrutiny.
The administration had argued that the program was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch, relying on a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, concerning a related program. The Supreme Court deadlocked, 4 to 4, in an appeal of that ruling.
The judges said the two programs differed in important ways, undermining the administration’s legal analysis. They noted, too, that Mr. Trump had issued conflicting statements about the DACA program.
Both judges issued nationwide injunctions ordering the administration to retain major elements of the program while the cases moved forward. Such nationwide injunctions from judges in individual cases, which have been used to block executive actions in both the Obama and Trump administrations, have been the subject of much commentary and criticism.
The judges required the administration to accept renewal applications but not new ones, and they said the administration need not allow existing participants to return to the United States after traveling abroad. And they noted that the administration retained broad powers to make individualized decisions based on national security, public safety and other factors.
The administration appealed Judge Alsup’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, and that court put the appeal on a fast track. In an unusual move, the administration also asked the Supreme Court to grant immediate review, leapfrogging the appeals court.
That procedure, called “certiorari before judgment,” is used rarely, typically in cases involving national crises like President Harry S. Truman’s seizure of the steel industry and President Richard M. Nixon’s refusal to turn over tape recordings to a special prosecutor.
In a brief urging the Supreme Court to deny review, lawyers for the University of California wrote that “it has been nearly 30 years since the court granted certiorari before judgment without the benefit of a court of appeals ruling on the question presented.”
In a second brief, lawyers for the four states wrote that no national emergency warranted use of the unusual procedure.
“Since 2012, the DACA program has allowed hundreds of thousands of young people to receive deferred action, work authorization and other benefits,” they wrote. “The district court’s preliminary injunction only partially and temporarily restores the situation that existed before petitioners’ abrupt decision to terminate the program — and only for individuals who had already received deferred action under DACA.”
“Petitioners are entitled to a prompt appeal,” the brief said, “but there is no imminent deadline posing a critical threat to the public interest of the sort that might justify bypassing the normal channels for that review.”
In the administration’s brief, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco told the justices that “an ongoing violation of federal law being committed by some 700,000 aliens” required the Supreme Court to act. But he did not ask the court to stay Judge Alsup’s injunction while the case moved forward. Mr. Francisco wrote that an immediate stay would interfere with the administration’s goal of an “orderly wind-down” of the program.
Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter: @adamliptak.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an unusual request from the Trump administration to decide whether it was entitled to shut down a program that shields some 700,000 young, undocumented immigrants from deportation.
The court’s decision not to hear the administration’s appeal was expected, as no appeals court has yet ruled on the issue.
The court’s move came amid a complex political battle over immigration generally, and the program at issue in the case, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, in particular.
The program shields people who were brought into the United States as children from deportation and allows them to work. The status lasts for two years but is renewable.
In September, the Trump administration announced that it would shut down the program on March 5. But two federal judges have ordered the administration to maintain major pieces of the program while legal challenges move forward, notably by requiring the administration to allow people enrolled in it to renew their protected status.
The administration did not seek stays of those court orders, and they will remain in place for the time being, allowing much of the program to survive beyond the March 5 deadline.
The case at the Supreme Court was brought in California by five sets of plaintiffs. They included four states — California, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota — and Janet Napolitano, the president of the University of California. As secretary of homeland security in the Obama administration, Ms. Napolitano signed the document that established the program in 2012.
In January, Judge William H. Alsup of Federal District Court in San Francisco ruled that the administration had abused its discretion and had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in rescinding the program. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of Federal District Court in Brooklyn issued a similar ruling this month.
The judges acknowledged that presidents have broad powers to alter the policies of earlier administrations. But they said the Trump administration’s justifications for rescinding the program did not withstand scrutiny.
The administration had argued that the program was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch, relying on a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, concerning a related program. The Supreme Court deadlocked, 4 to 4, in an appeal of that ruling.
The judges said the two programs differed in important ways, undermining the administration’s legal analysis. They noted, too, that Mr. Trump had issued conflicting statements about the DACA program.
Both judges issued nationwide injunctions ordering the administration to retain major elements of the program while the cases moved forward. Such nationwide injunctions from judges in individual cases, which have been used to block executive actions in both the Obama and Trump administrations, have been the subject of much commentary and criticism.
The judges required the administration to accept renewal applications but not new ones, and they said the administration need not allow existing participants to return to the United States after traveling abroad. And they noted that the administration retained broad powers to make individualized decisions based on national security, public safety and other factors.
The administration appealed Judge Alsup’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, and that court put the appeal on a fast track. In an unusual move, the administration also asked the Supreme Court to grant immediate review, leapfrogging the appeals court.
That procedure, called “certiorari before judgment,” is used rarely, typically in cases involving national crises like President Harry S. Truman’s seizure of the steel industry and President Richard M. Nixon’s refusal to turn over tape recordings to a special prosecutor.
In a brief urging the Supreme Court to deny review, lawyers for the University of California wrote that “it has been nearly 30 years since the court granted certiorari before judgment without the benefit of a court of appeals ruling on the question presented.”
In a second brief, lawyers for the four states wrote that no national emergency warranted use of the unusual procedure.
“Since 2012, the DACA program has allowed hundreds of thousands of young people to receive deferred action, work authorization and other benefits,” they wrote. “The district court’s preliminary injunction only partially and temporarily restores the situation that existed before petitioners’ abrupt decision to terminate the program — and only for individuals who had already received deferred action under DACA.”
“Petitioners are entitled to a prompt appeal,” the brief said, “but there is no imminent deadline posing a critical threat to the public interest of the sort that might justify bypassing the normal channels for that review.”
In the administration’s brief, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco told the justices that “an ongoing violation of federal law being committed by some 700,000 aliens” required the Supreme Court to act. But he did not ask the court to stay Judge Alsup’s injunction while the case moved forward. Mr. Francisco wrote that an immediate stay would interfere with the administration’s goal of an “orderly wind-down” of the program.
Follow Adam Liptak on Twitter: @adamliptak.
I still remember him talking about he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and people would still vote for him while campaigning.
I was thinking of this the second I read what he said about running in there, I'm glad you posted it lol.
- Status