search results matching tag: lame duck

» channel: weather

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (8)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (0)     Comments (55)   

newtboy (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Uh-oh @bobknight33…Sarah Huckabee Sanders is credibly accused of tampering with FOIA requests by reporters attempting to hide her outrageous spending (like wasting $20000 on a lectern that should be under $200) and pressed the legislature to change the laws so it won’t be illegal for her to hide her spending, travel, or official meeting itineraries like Arkansas law requires because transparency is like sunshine and garlic to you vampires and so is following the law. Being republicans and believing rules aren’t meant for them, they did, again because transparency is an anathema to Republicans…expect them to change the law back during the lame duck session if it looks like a Democrat has won office.

Lawyers for reporters say they have proof of her office tampering with FOIA documents and internal communications discussing the plot to change then hide the FOIA documents and just flatly deny the (now fake) requests for public information.

This isn’t going to go well for her, just like ignoring the laws has not gone well for her ex boss. 😂

It’s fun watching the MAGA party dissolve in criminality and infighting. You’re going to need an entire new group of representatives since those not under indictment have been ravaged by other cons for being too close or not close enough with disgraced Donny. Too bad for you MAGA wrote off any voters under 30 and killed off around 750000 of yourselves by ignoring covid, it really makes it hard to win elections when you keep shrinking the base…but makes it easier for dear leader to win the primary, guaranteeing another Biden win. Remember, Trump has NEVER gotten more votes than his opponent, not even against Clinton, who was despised even by the left.

Let's talk about altering the Supreme Court....

newtboy says...

Democrats are denied even a hearing for even their centrist picks (Garland) outrageously unconstitutionally, then Republicans pick FAR RIGHT politicos to replace moderate leftist judges. That was new, never before seen in our history.
Sotomayor and Karen are centrists, dumb shit. Kavenaugh and Barrett are extremist far right wingers….Barrett is barely even a judge, rushed in by a lame duck traitorous seditionist and his lackeys, directly contradicting their own excuse for not hearing Obama’s nomination. They actually admitted they rammed her through as fast as possible with the barest minimum of examination in order to pack the court in anticipation of them contesting the election results….admitted it before the election.
Kavenaugh and Barrett are both extremist Far right wingers, political activist judges, who lied in their confirmation, one is a multiple rapist, never investigated, the other a religious extremist with zero experience who said she would recuse herself on any issue of faith, but hasn’t recused herself from any.
Throw down the gauntlet?! Opposition to his nomination centered on his perceived willingness to roll back the civil rights rulings of the Warren and Burger courts, and his role in the Saturday Night Massacre during the Watergate scandal. On October 23, 1987, the Senate rejected Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court by a roll call vote of 42—58. Bork's margin of rejection by the Senate remains, by percentage, the third-largest on record and broke a 142-year record for largest defeat of a Supreme Court nomination. A historic immediate bipartisan rejection because he was totally unsuited, and had undeniably tried to help Nixon cover up Watergate as acting AG by firing the special prosecutor at Nixon’s direction (the AG and deputy AG had quit when Nixon insisted)….*.
Absolutely nothing similar to Obama being denied a hearing for his picks for a year until his term ended….*. Holy shit! What stupidity.

There are far fewer “conservatives” today, the Republican Party is 26% of the population, not a majority.

Yes, they are throwing cases to the packed court as fast as possible before their stolen majority evaporates. I support a 15 justice Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment halting any further additions without a 2/3 majority….add 6 hyper liberals…no judicial experience necessary or even preferred…AOC would be great.

Why bring a case you might lose? Because cases are supposed to be heard on their merits, not based on political affiliation you ignorant cow. You think the Supreme Court should be a political wing of the right, choosing and deciding cases based on political affiliation, not the law, science, common sense, ethics, or precedent….but only when it serves you.

So, gun rights should be up to states? That’s the next step if you win that fight…the constitution dies and states decide everything….as civil war erupts. Great plan, so patriotic. Remember, California is big enough that when they require fingerprint scanners on all guns sold in the state, manufacturers will add them to all guns….when semi auto guns are banned, manufacturers will move to single shot guns….just like auto manufacturers changed their cars to meet our requirements. Is that your plan? Had you even considered what individual states being in control means? It means California becomes the leader of America, controlling the other states by means of our size, wealth, and international clout. Enjoy.

Not like this, it hasn’t. Never in American history has the court been politicized and weaponized against the will of the majority to ignore precedent (contrary to their oaths and confirmation statements) in order to overturn established law and constitutional rights as a political act. Never.

bobknight33 said:

To say that Republicans are politicizing the supreme court is nonsense. Democrats pick left leaning and Republicans pick right leaning. This is not new. Where were your complaints of politicizing when Sotomayor or Kagen were appointed?

But if you want to go there it started with Senator Ted Kennedy within minutes of Bork being picked by POTUS Reagen to be appointed took to the floor of the senate and thrown down the gauntlet.


They may be lean more conservative today however Its been leaning left last 50 years.

The fact that cases are now before the court is because some conservatives feel there is a chance to have their cases win.

Why bring these case before the supreme court if you know you would have a high likely to loose. All the cost time and effort.


WRT to the abortion issue .If overturned it just means that the decision goes back to the states.


Overturning a previous opinions has occurred and will occur in the future .

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

newtboy says...

Even Trump knows it's over and started the pardon phase of his lame duck session after supporting the transition beginning. You don't do that, give secret info to a guy you claim is an enemy of the U.S., unless you see no choice.

The amount of mistakes, like slight miscounts and lost ballots, was 1/2 that of the last presidential election according to election officials.
All this fraud talk is just that, talk. The administration has presented no evidence, much less conclusive proof of any mass fraud. Are there even cases still being tried? Not many if any.

We had a fair and clean election, the cleanest this century with no meaningful foreign interference, verified by Trump appointed professionals who's job it is to know.

These idiots you keep listening to are liars, and you know it. The people claiming to have witnessed fraud are liars, not one would testify. The Trump team ensured that would be the case by offering a $1 million bribe to anyone who could testify about proof of cheating, no takers but many tried.

Better send your $8K to the legal defense fund before it gets shut down, Donny's counting on you.

Edit: if it's not over, why aren't you taking that bet? Didn't he offer 100-1 odds? And you won't risk $10, but you'll risk lives and the union over your baseless certitude that democrats cheated and trump will catch them.

bobknight33 said:

Not even close to being over.

Trump may still lose but it was not a clean election. Corruption has occurred.

As an American I would think that you would want a clean / fair election. Maybe not.

Chairman of Joint Chiefs sends subtle message to Trump

newtboy says...

Every appointment by Trump since the election should be removed and every firing during his lame duck term reconsidered on Jan 20.

Don't let the shallow state (trump loyalists who are all unqualified and unfit) survive. That's why Joe needs transition funding and clearance, so he can both hire qualified people and have them ready January 20, and so he can have good cause to fire every Trump appointee and installation, all his acting department heads that couldn't survive a confirmation hearing. Trump is trying to fill the government with his loyalists who's sole mission is to block Biden's administration just like he spent 4 years accusing the Democrats of doing with no evidence.

Notre Dame Faculty Pens Open Letter To Delay Hearings

newtboy says...

I think it was more because Moscow Mitch made it clear was serious that he wasn't holding any confirmation hearings for Obama by not even hearing Merrick Garland, actually a republican pick, that he wasn't going to consider anyone Obama put forth.

The politics of "because I can", not serving the country or even his party, just his own animus.

This precedent is going to backfire big-time if, as appears likely, dems take the Whitehouse and Senate. Adding ten seats to the supreme court and filling them with far left activist judges might happen just because they can, and that's the standard now.

For all intents and purposes his powers are revoked when the Senate is only interested in obstructionism, like today's that won't consider bills and revels in their nickname "the chamber of death, where bills go to die".

The "lame duck" ploy was just pure "because we can"ism. No legal precedent, actually a dereliction of duty by congress ignoring what the constitution says they shall do. I sure as Fuck hope dems grow a spine and ignore all right wing arguments as they have ignored democrats, and play the politics of "because we can" through October 2024, then write an amendment to stop more...like capping the supreme court at 19 forever and other instances where because I can-ism can override patriotism. If they don't exercise their power to the fullest, ignoring any attempt to reach across the aisle or compromising to get some bypartisanism in the next two years at a minimum (assuming they win), they'll deserve to be discarded.

Mordhaus said:

He chose not to. I can only assume because there was a conservative majority in the Senate.

He had the option. If there had been a Democrat majority, the person could have been confirmed even after Trump won the election.

Just because a sitting President is in Lame Duck status, it does not mean his powers are revoked. Some choose not to do anything after the election and that is their option.

Notre Dame Faculty Pens Open Letter To Delay Hearings

Mordhaus says...

He chose not to. I can only assume because there was a conservative majority in the Senate.

He had the option. If there had been a Democrat majority, the person could have been confirmed even after Trump won the election.

Just because a sitting President is in Lame Duck status, it does not mean his powers are revoked. Some choose not to do anything after the election and that is their option.

BSR said:

Why didn't Obama pick a person?

Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is Republican

newtboy says...

Same goes for any other Republican that said the same and now wants a blitzkrieg to install a non judge (before her recent appointment by Trump and a woman who intends to legislate based on the bible) at an accelerated speed not seen in history not the constitution, right? Of course that's right.
So you support immediately impeaching everyone who's followed suit. Cool.

It's going to be a 6-3 supreme court with 3 being sycophants not professionals.

Yes, it's his decision, which patriots make based on national best interest but the right flip flops their thinking based on what's politically expedient, what's best for them, and precedent or their solemn word means nothing if it doesn't help them today, they're willing dishonest, disingenuous hypocrites but you love that.

The court today is heavily conservative now, 5-3, and will stay 5-4 conservative without him filling the slot during an election. Can't you count to 8?

At least when they get the power, democrats are poised to add as many seats as necessary to balance it.

Tell me when it's been a 6-3 liberal court.
Tell me when a lame duck president has confirmed a court pick during an election.
Tell me when the last time you sucked off a 13 year old boy was.
Tell me!

bobknight33 said:

Lets be frank.
Lyndsey Graham is a POS. He a political tool and goes with political wind.

The nicest thing I can say about him is that I hope he joins his friend ( also a POS) John McCain .


WRT of supreme court nomination. My first thought was no, not till after election. Then Democrats ranted and screamed that would pack the court and a few other things.

POTUS job is to nominate, as did Obama. Dems did not control the senate. Mitch McConnell was / is the Senate Majority Leader. It is his decision to or not to advise and consent.

AS to now the court will be conservative if Trumps pick goes through, that implies that it was had a liberal slant.

Sounds like liberals don't want that to happen

This is America it swings to the left for a while then to the right.

Banana Republic - trump threatens to adjourn U.S. Congress

newtboy says...

Such utter bullshit and *lies
There are currently 89 nominees awaiting confirmation or refusals, not 129, and another 15 announced but not formally nominated by Trump so not eligible. He's had 510 confirmed (with many quickly leaving or being removed for cause). He bragged about not filling positions before, leaving most departments leaderless or at best with temporary heads with minimal powers to run their departments. There are over 1200 positions he should have filled in January 2017 but couldn't or wouldn't. So much for having the best people, he has the least complete administration ever in our history....couldn't find enough yes men I suppose.

Contrary to Trump's lies, he does not have the power to adjourn congress either unless the house or the Senate adjourn first and the other refuses to adjourn, or if they can't agree on a date. Adjourning the Senate now is something Moscow Mitch said he's not considering, they've got work to do. There is an agreed upon adjournment date, Jan 3 2021, which means Trump has zero power to force adjournment.

This impeached lame duck president should be barred from any new nominations, he's squandered those he started with and with Moscow Mitch's help already stole one Supreme Court seat that wasn't his and filled an extraordinarily high number of federal judge positions. If designated acting heads were fine until now, they're fine until January.

Liberal Democrat wants To have Confirmation Brett Kavanaugh

Liberal Democrat wants To have Confirmation Brett Kavanaugh

newtboy jokingly says...

"The president is a lame duck president. He shouldn't be allowed to stack the court before he leaves. This appointment belongs to the next president."
-all Republicans during Obama's last court appointment hearings, more apropos today.

Oprah For America! Really?

newtboy says...

48.2% to 46.1%...landslide....for the one with 46.1%?
Keep dreaming. That's winning by technicality at best.
In 10 months, Trump becomes a lame duck president and we can all contain and ignore him. In 2 years and 10 months, we'll tear up his tax scam.
I, like you, hope that's not under president Winfrey.

bobknight33 said:

Popular vote does not mean jack.. keep dreaming

Hillary was to win by a land slide but just the opposite happened

306 VS 232 Electoral college votes . Land slide.

Liberal Redneck - Trumpcare

newtboy says...

<3 years before he's a lame duck and not allowed to submit proposals....and only 1 &1/2 before a new congress ends his rubber stamp legislature.
There's no way he gets reelected after screwing his voters and ruining our standing internationally....Unless they DO try another Clinton nomination.

bobknight33 said:

Wow a leader in news information.. CNN will be picking him up soon.



More BS from the left. Typical -- 8 more years of leftest lies and Chelsea Clinton will be in office and save the day.

Judge Dead, 2016 (RIP(?) Antonin Scalia dead at 79)

newtboy says...

As expected, they are already claiming a 'lame duck' president has no right to select a justice , constitution be damned.
Many have also been calling on their cohorts to not only block any nominee, but to block any vote on the matter at all until after the election.

I think you are right that blocking any confirmation could hand the Dems the white house. It seems they have a decent chance to retake congress as well, and more purely politically motivated Republican governmental stalling is just what it might take to hand them the entire election.

The coming election could be the most important in living memory if all 3 parts of our system are up for grabs at once. That's CRAZY, and more than a bit scary.

VoodooV said:

Taking bets on how long Republicans attempt to drag this out. Longest selection process has been just over 3 months.

This is lose lose for the Republicans. The longer they try to stall, the more they guarantee a Democratic White House. Democrats have a problem voting in midterms, but they don't have that problem with general elections.

Something's Rotten In Iowa-Sanders Won Coin Toss

shang says...

People forget, Hillary scammed tons of money with the Whitewater scandal for decades until it was leaked in 1992, but they protected Hillary by everyone else in the partnership taking the heat but her, then very quickly almost without media catching it Bill Clinton as lame duck end of term pardoned everyone involved in Whitewater, in 1994 Hillary was stealing money "again", her law firm partner "fell on his sword" accepting the blame keeping Hillary safe, 1996 democrat fundraising head "fell on his sword" receiving 17 count indictment for money again.

there's ton of stuff even back to her youth with money scams and always wiggling out of it.


“In 1997, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. Judge Royce C. Lamberth found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded $285,864 to the AAPS for legal costs; Lamberth also harshly criticized the unethical tactics especially as she was a partner in a lawfirm, at least before it was shut down due to her partner "falling on his sword for theft and scamming clients".


“In the weeks before the inauguration, he [Vince Foster] had worked intensively with another Arkansas lawyer to expunge Bill and Hillary’s financial records of a shady land deal – a scandal later known as the Whitewater affair… One of his [Vince Foster’s] first jobs in the White House was to try to make sense of the Clintons’ false tax returns concerning the Whitewater land investment. A note in his hand-writing, found much later, warned that Whitewater was “a can of worms you shouldn’t open.”

Vince Foster was assassinated 1993.

European Debt Crisis Visualized

radx says...

8:18 – "Germany is very financially responsible".

The clip makes a few good points, twists others and omits some central issues. But I want to comment on the quote above most of all, because it forms the basis for all kinds of arguments and recommendations.

The claim that Germany is financially responsible stems from what has been paraded around domestically as the "schwarze Null" (black zero), meaning a balanced budget. Given how focused most economic debates are around the national debt or the current budget deficit, it shouldn't come as a surprise that not running a deficit evokes positive responses in the public. If there has ever been an easy sell, politically, it's this.

However, it's not that simple.

For instance, the sectoral balance rule dictates, by pure accounting identity, that the sum of public balance, private balance and external balance is 0 at all times. In case of Germany, this means that the balanced public budget (no surplus, just a fat zero) requires a current account surplus of the same size as private savings – or an accumulation of private debt. For someone to run a surplus, someone else has to run a deficit. In this case, foreign economies have to run a deficit vis-á-vis Germany, so that neither the German government nor the German private sector have to run a deficit.

The composition of each sector is another topic entirely, but the point remains: no surplus in Germany without a deficit in the periphery. If everyone is to be like Germany, Klingons have to run the respective deficit.

My question: is it financially responsible to depend on other economies' deficits to keep your own house in order? Is it responsible to engage in this kind of behaviour after having locked yourself into a monetary union with less competitive economies who have no way of defending themselves through currency devaluation?

Second point: capital accounts and current accounts are two sides of the same coin. If Germany runs a current account surplus of X%, it also runs a capital account deficit of X%. Doesn't explain anything, but it's the same for the countries at the other side of these trade imbalances. Spain's current account deficit with Germany meant a capital inflow of the same size.

Let's look at EuroStat's dataset for current accounts. Germany had run a minor current account deficit during the late '90s and a small surplus up to 2003. From then on, it went up, up, up. Given the size of Germany's economy within Europe, that jump from 2% to 7.5% is enormous. Pre-GFC, the majority of this surplus went to... yap, PIIGS. Their deficits multiplied.

Subsequently, capital of equals size flowed into these countries, looking for investments. No nation, none, can absorb this amount of capital without it resulting in a massive misallocation, be it stock bubbles, housing bubbles, highways to nowhere or lavish consumption. Michael Pettis wrote a magnificent account (Syriza and the French indemnity of 1871-73) of this and explains how Germany handled a similar inflow of capital after the Franco-Prussian war: it crashed their economy.

As Pettis correctly points out, the question of causality remains. Was the capital flow a pull or a push?

The dataset linked above says it all happened at just about the same time, in all countries. It also happened at the same time as Germany's parliament signed of on "Agenda 2010", which is the cause of massive wage suppression in Germany. Germany intentionally lowered its unit labour costs and undercut the agreed upon inflation target (2%). German employees and retirees were forced to live below their means, so the export sector could gain competitiveness against all the other nations, including those in the same currency union. Beggar-thy-neighbour on steroids.

Greece overshot the inflation target. They lived beyond their means. But due to their size, it's economically negligable. France stayed on point the entire time, has higher productivity than Germany and still gets defamed as the lame duck of Europe. Yet Germany, after more than a decade of financial warfare against its fellow members of the EU/EZ, is hailed as the beacon of financial responsibility.

Mercantilism always comes at the cost of others. And the EU is living proof.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists