Stick a fork in Trump, he's done

by Ben Reilly Thu Oct 20, 2016 6:52 am

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-third-presidential-debate-scorecard/

I can't remember a presidential candidate in my lifetime who was deemed to have lost all three debates. He's an utter embarrassment. And the party that nominated him deserves to be treated as clowns.

I thought the biggest embarrassment to the right wing in the U.S. would be George W. Bush. Dubya looks like a member of Mensa compared to Trump. The Republican Party is a disgrace, and the only thing that could save any shred of their dignity now would be to disband with copious apologies. Maybe.

by eddie Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:21 am

It's all bollocks!

by eddie Thu Oct 20, 2016 7:50 am

Actually in all seriousness, this has been the most entertaining presidential campaign.
I reckon Trump should get a lollipop, at least, for making us laugh.

by 'Wolfie Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:37 am

I reckon after the Repub's implode over the next few months, those who have already disavowed the D'umpster should start courting the Libertarians and other RW moderates, and leave the Tea Baggers and the Trumpettes to wallow in their own collective misery...

They could then form a new conservative 'Liberalism' based party (allying themelves more closely to the Canadian and Aussie Liberals and the Kiwi Nationals..).

After all, we well may easily laugh at the Repub's apparent impending death throes, but those poor mainstream conservative voters still deserve to have somebody to vote for in future elections ! grin angel

by Maddog Wed Oct 28, 2020 10:48 pm

Old threads from 4 years ago are interesting. Cool

by Ben Reilly Thu Oct 29, 2020 9:48 am

Maddog wrote:Old threads from 4 years ago are interesting.

They are! I take it you're hoping we're wrong again?

by Maddog Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:05 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:Old threads from 4 years ago are interesting.

They are! I take it you're hoping we're wrong again?

No, I dont want Trump to win. I want the only same one running to win, but she won't get much above 2 percent.

So realistically I want Biden to win and the Senate stay Republican. That coupled with the SC will keep Biden on a pretty short leash. I think the country will be better off in the long run with Trump and the Republicans being punished with a loss.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:18 pm

Not a chance the Senate will remain Republican (who are they, I forget?). Democrats need only 4 votes, and there are 35 seats up in 2020. They will get at least 10, being conservative.

The Supreme Court will be expanded to 13 justices by March 2021. Significant cases will be reviewed and reversed. Conservatives on Court will be marginalized for the next generation, at least.

Easy-peasy.

by Maddog Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:Not a chance the Senate will remain Republican (who are they, I forget?). Democrats need only 4 votes, and there are 35 seats up in 2020. They will get at least 10, being conservative.

The Supreme Court will be expanded to 13 justices by March 2021. Significant cases will be reviewed and reversed. Conservatives on Court will be marginalized for the next generation, at least.

Easy-peasy.

All that's quite possible too.

Now go back and read the article about hate in the US.

It's not going away if Biden listens to the more obnoxious people in his party.

by Maddog Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:45 pm

On another note, it will be interesting to see if your predictions about the Senate are correct.

Based on your track record, I wouldn't hold my breath.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:26 pm

I think people see that the Republican Senate has been: a) obstructionist and non-productive, even on neutral matters like infrastructure; b) undercutting democracy under Moscow Mitch; c) completely unresponsive to the people in the Covid crisis; and d) sycophantic to a mad man, whom the people hate.

Susan Collins is gone, after voting a serial rapist onto the Supreme Court. Lindsay Graham is senile, even if you believe his flip-flops. Tom Tillis is history. Mitch McConnell hasn't represented Kentucky in 20-years. David Perdue can't sell his chickens. Martha McSally can't stand the heat in Arizona. Joni Ernst's pig is squealin' in Iowa. And Cory Gardner is for sure history in Colorado.

by Maddog Thu Oct 29, 2020 10:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:I think people see that the Republican Senate has been: a) obstructionist and non-productive, even on neutral matters like infrastructure; b) undercutting democracy under Moscow Mitch; c) completely unresponsive to the people in the Covid crisis; and d) sycophantic to a mad man, whom the people hate.

Susan Collins is gone, after voting a serial rapist onto the Supreme Court. Lindsay Graham is senile, even if you believe his flip-flops. Tom Tillis is history. Mitch McConnell hasn't represented Kentucky in 20-years. David Perdue can't sell his chickens. Martha McSally can't stand the heat in Arizona. Joni Ernst's pig is squealin' in Iowa. And Cory Gardner is for sure history in Colorado.

They will get at least 10, being conservative.

Want to make a wager?

by Original Quill Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:35 am

You want to wager me that Democrats will get at least 10 more? I'm betting they will too. What's to wager?

Besides, it's against my religion to wager.

by Ben Reilly Fri Oct 30, 2020 8:50 am

Everything I'm seeing is pointing to total Democratic control over the Senate, House and executive branch. The Republicans must be thanking God they pulled so many stunts with their Supreme Court nominees.

by Original Quill Fri Oct 30, 2020 2:55 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Everything I'm seeing is pointing to total Democratic control over the Senate, House and executive branch. The Republicans must be thanking God they pulled so many stunts with their Supreme Court nominees.

Also, consider this: an elective-branch trifecta (one party dominance of House, Senate and Executive) comes around only infrequently. White House and Congressional Records reveal both Trump and Obama had it for two years each, and before:

* Between 2001 and 2007, Republicans controlled at certain points all three branches while President George W. Bush occupied the White House. GOP control was interrupted between 2001 and 2003, as the Senate majority flipped to the Democrats as one senator switched his party affiliation, one senator died, and when the 2002 midterm elections shifted control of the upper chamber.

* From 1961-1969, Democrats controlled all three branches during the administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.

* The 83rd Congress (1953-1955), during the presidency of Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, saw the deaths of nine senators and the resignation of one. These changes shifted the balance of power in the Senate with each new replacement, according to the U.S. Senate website. When Republicans held the Senate majority during those years, all branches of government were under Republican-control, as the party also held the White House and Supreme Court.

* From 1937-1945, Democrats controlled all three branches of government during the administrations of Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.

* And from 1927-1933, Republicans controlled all three branches of the government when Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover occupied the White House.

It’s difficult, if not impossible for a government to restructure itself without an elective-branch trifecta. If Democrats achieve this, it may be the only occasion in the next half-century in which they can restructure the court, and merge the Department of Defense with a Department of Health for purposes of universal healthcare.

by Maddog Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:04 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Everything I'm seeing is pointing to total Democratic control over the Senate, House and executive branch. The Republicans must be thanking God they pulled so many stunts with their Supreme Court nominees.

I think that's why they did it. They knew that Trump would lose and they need to load the courts with as many if their folks as they could, because it was going to be 4 years before they had another chance.

by Maddog Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:Everything I'm seeing is pointing to total Democratic control over the Senate, House and executive branch. The Republicans must be thanking God they pulled so many stunts with their Supreme Court nominees.

Also, consider this: an elective-branch trifecta (one party dominance of House, Senate and Executive) comes around only infrequently. White House and Congressional Records reveal both Trump and Obama had it for two years each, and before:

* Between 2001 and 2007, Republicans controlled at certain points all three branches while President George W. Bush occupied the White House. GOP control was interrupted between 2001 and 2003, as the Senate majority flipped to the Democrats as one senator switched his party affiliation, one senator died, and when the 2002 midterm elections shifted control of the upper chamber.

* From 1961-1969, Democrats controlled all three branches during the administrations of Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson.

* The 83rd Congress (1953-1955), during the presidency of Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, saw the deaths of nine senators and the resignation of one. These changes shifted the balance of power in the Senate with each new replacement, according to the U.S. Senate website. When Republicans held the Senate majority during those years, all branches of government were under Republican-control, as the party also held the White House and Supreme Court.

* From 1937-1945, Democrats controlled all three branches of government during the administrations of Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.

* And from 1927-1933, Republicans controlled all three branches of the government when Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover occupied the White House.

It’s difficult, if not impossible for a government to restructure itself without an elective-branch trifecta. If Democrats achieve this, it may be the only occasion in the next half-century in which they can restructure the court, and merge the Department of Defense with a Department of Health for purposes of universal healthcare.

Will Defense and Health merge before or after the Pacific States of America are formed?

by Original Quill Fri Oct 30, 2020 3:16 pm

Maddog wrote:Will Defense and Health merge before or after the Pacific States of America are formed?

Donno. They are completely different programs. My guess is that the latter is a longer-term solution. Cultural incompatibility, after all, is a much greater problem.

by Maddog Fri Oct 30, 2020 5:16 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:Will Defense and Health merge before or after the Pacific States of America are formed?

Donno. They are completely different programs. My guess is that the latter is a longer-term solution. Cultural incompatibility, after all, is a much greater problem.

You don't know?

These are your delusions. If you don't know, who would?

by Original Quill Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:11 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Donno. They are completely different programs. My guess is that the latter is a longer-term solution. Cultural incompatibility, after all, is a much greater problem.

You don't know?

These are your delusions. If you don't know, who would?

The two ideas are separate, and unrelated. So, why should you expect any coordination between them?

The connective part is your own delusion. You tell us.

by Maddog Fri Oct 30, 2020 9:02 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

You don't know?

These are your delusions. If you don't know, who would?

The two ideas are separate, and unrelated. So, why should you expect any coordination between them?

The connective part is your own delusion. You tell us.

The two ideas are the product of a man suffering from some sort of delusions.

Neither are a part of reality outside of his imagination.

by eddie Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:33 pm

Trump has to go. He’s a car crash every time he speaks.

by Ben Reilly Fri Oct 30, 2020 11:55 pm

Eddie and I watched an Amanda Knox documentary tonight, and there was one part where, suddenly, there was Trump, saying that Obama should have gotten personally involved on Foxy Knoxy's behalf. He said we should all boycott Italy, too.

We just looked at each other, confused, and started laughing. He really is just that guy who blurts out shit without thinking it through at all.

by Original Quill Sat Oct 31, 2020 3:41 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

The two ideas are separate, and unrelated. So, why should you expect any coordination between them?

The connective part is your own delusion. You tell us.

The two ideas are the product of a man suffering from some sort of delusions.

Neither are a part of reality outside of his imagination.

Only in your evil mind. You have such hatred in your soul, that you can't separate the message from the messenger. It's small wonder you broke up your own family. Such personal vitriol drives people away.

If you thought more about proposals, and less about hating the proponents, you might contribute to discussions, even from your stultifying RW perch. Now, separate the two ideas. They are two different plans, for two different problems.

Each plan will have its day, when the proper time ripens. Right now, the plan is to maximize the advantage that Democrats have when they hold the House, take the Senate and the Executive.

by Original Quill Sat Oct 31, 2020 4:30 am

Ben Reilly wrote:Eddie and I watched an Amanda Knox documentary tonight, and there was one part where, suddenly, there was Trump, saying that Obama should have gotten personally involved on Foxy Knoxy's behalf. He said we should all boycott Italy, too.

We just looked at each other, confused, and started laughing. He really is just that guy who blurts out shit without thinking it through at all.

Even a broken clock is right two times a day. I don't know why Trump took the stand that he did on Amanda Knox, but that doesn't put him in my camp.

The Italian criminal justice system is as bad as any 3d-world country. They attach too much emphasis to form, over the content of the investigation techniques. For example, they will propound great crime-scene test results, only to find that their collection and preservation (ie, chain-of-custody) techniques were woefully deficient...garbage in, garbage out.

I feel very sorry for murder victim Meredith Kercher, a British girl, but just because she was British doesn't mean that Amanda and Raffaele Sollecito were murderers.

Rudy Guede, of Ivory Coast, was tried separately in a fast-track procedure and in October 2008, and was found guilty of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher. Guede, a known drug dealer, was known to have been intimate with Kercher. When police identified Guede’s DNA at the crime scene, they tried to contact him. Guede had fled to Germany, though, and was stopped trying to board a train without a ticket, at which point he was extradited to Germany.

The case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito was apparently 'forced' by police to cover up the many errors they had made in Guede's case.

by Tommy Monk Mon Nov 02, 2020 9:49 am

The reason Knox was in trouble with the Italian legal system is because she admitted she was there when Meredith was murdered, and said she "heard her screams"

Also there was DNA evidence... Plus there was an attempt to make it look like a break in by smashing a window... And other evidence showed attempt at tampering with the scene...

by Original Quill Mon Nov 02, 2020 1:44 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

The reason Knox was in trouble with the Italian legal system is because she admitted she was there when Meredith was murdered, and said she "heard her screams"

Also there was DNA evidence... Plus there was an attempt to make it look like a break in by smashing a window... And other evidence showed attempt at tampering with the scene...

Evidence?

by Maddog Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:04 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

The two ideas are the product of a man suffering from some sort of delusions.

Neither are a part of reality outside of his imagination.

Only in your evil mind. You have such hatred in your soul, that you can't separate the message from the messenger. It's small wonder you broke up your own family. Such personal vitriol drives people away.

If you thought more about proposals, and less about hating the proponents, you might contribute to discussions, even from your stultifying RW perch. Now, separate the two ideas. They are two different plans, for two different problems.

Each plan will have its day, when the proper time ripens. Right now, the plan is to maximize the advantage that Democrats have when they hold the House, take the Senate and the Executive.

Nobody is listening to your stupid little plans.

Get over yourself Walter.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:20 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Only in your evil mind. You have such hatred in your soul, that you can't separate the message from the messenger. It's small wonder you broke up your own family. Such personal vitriol drives people away.

If you thought more about proposals, and less about hating the proponents, you might contribute to discussions, even from your stultifying RW perch. Now, separate the two ideas. They are two different plans, for two different problems.

Each plan will have its day, when the proper time ripens. Right now, the plan is to maximize the advantage that Democrats have when they hold the House, take the Senate and the Executive.

Nobody is listening to your stupid little plans.

Only because you have organized your own little profa gang, and they are following your perverted attitude toward debate. I don't worry about that.

Truth has an entity of its own. As long as there is someone to speak out, truth will prevail regardless of gangs.

by Maddog Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Nobody is listening to your stupid little plans.

Only because you have organized your own little profa gang, and they are following your perverted attitude toward debate. I don't worry about that.

Truth has an entity of its own. As long as there is someone to speak out, truth will prevail regardless of gangs.

Defense and Health will never merge.

There will never be the Pacific States of America.

Just stop you fucking weirdo.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:37 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Only because you have organized your own little profa gang, and they are following your perverted attitude toward debate. I don't worry about that.

Truth has an entity of its own. As long as there is someone to speak out, truth will prevail regardless of gangs.

Defense and Health will never merge.

There will never be the Pacific States of America.

Just stop you fucking weirdo.

Other than to call people names, what is your point? Do you have any links or evidence?

by Maddog Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Defense and Health will never merge.

There will never be the Pacific States of America.

Just stop you fucking weirdo.

Other than to call people names, what is your point? Do you have any links or evidence?

You want me.to prove something you dreamed up won't happen?

It's your fucking dream you weirdo.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:31 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Other than to call people names, what is your point? Do you have any links or evidence?

You want me.to prove something you dreamed up won't happen?

It's your fucking dream you weirdo.

So, don't make the claim. Stick a fork in Trump, he's done 2190311264

by Maddog Tue Nov 03, 2020 1:02 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

You want me.to prove something you dreamed up won't happen?

It's your fucking dream you weirdo.

So, don't make the claim.

I am also going to claim you wont be elected president in your lifetime.

But I cant prove it.

by Original Quill Tue Nov 03, 2020 3:32 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So, don't make the claim.

I am also going to claim you wont be elected president in your lifetime.

But I cant prove it.

You're a useless tit, aren't you?

by Maddog Wed Nov 04, 2020 11:40 pm

Quill wrote:Not a chance the Senate will remain Republican (who are they, I forget?). Democrats need only 4 votes, and there are 35 seats up in 2020. They will get at least 10, being conservative.

I love reminding Walter about how wrong he usually is.

by Original Quill Thu Nov 05, 2020 4:35 am

Maddog wrote:
Quill wrote:Not a chance the Senate will remain Republican (who are they, I forget?). Democrats need only 4 votes, and there are 35 seats up in 2020. They will get at least 10, being conservative.

I love reminding Walter about how wrong he usually is.

It's not about me Red, remember? It's about the Senate.

There are several key seats up, and not all the votes are in. Even if the Republicans retake the Senate, which I doubt, there is now precedent for simply bypassing a legislative chamber and issuing an EO.

Or do you just want to give in now? Twisted Evil

by Maddog Thu Nov 05, 2020 2:00 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I love reminding Walter about how wrong he usually is.

It's not about me Red, remember? It's about the Senate.

There are several key seats up, and not all the votes are in. Even if the Republicans retake the Senate, which I doubt, there is now precedent for simply bypassing a legislative chamber and issuing an EO.

Or do you just want to give in now?

It's about your bold prediction. It was wrong again.

by Original Quill Thu Nov 05, 2020 4:22 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It's not about me Red, remember? It's about the Senate.

There are several key seats up, and not all the votes are in. Even if the Republicans retake the Senate, which I doubt, there is now precedent for simply bypassing a legislative chamber and issuing an EO.

Or do you just want to give in now?

It's about your bold prediction. It was wrong again.

...the lead is by a one vote margin. It's best to wait and see.

But if the Republicans retake the Senate, all we have to do is cut the Senate out of the loop. Make them irrelevant by taking away their veto ('advice and consent') power.

Make all appointments 'provisional'...permanently. Trump has established the precedent for this. Follow his lead. It eliminates the Senate's veto power, which the Senate has abused by leaving in limbo the Merrick Garland appointment indefinitely. It's all in the spirit of getting things moving again.

Further, if the present Court refuses to seat provisional justices, move them to a military warehouse at Andrews, take over the Supreme Court building and seat your own guys. Then, announce the US will only follow the pronouncements of the provisional justices.

Simple and concise. Stick a fork in Trump, he's done 1716015268

Stick a fork in Trump, he's done 1716015268

by Maddog Thu Nov 05, 2020 6:03 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

It's about your bold prediction. It was wrong again.

...the lead is by a one vote margin. It's best to wait and see.

But if the Republicans retake the Senate, all we have to do is cut the Senate out of the loop. Make them irrelevant by taking away their veto ('advice and consent') power.

Make all appointments 'provisional'...permanently. Trump has established the precedent for this. Follow his lead. It eliminates the Senate's veto power, which the Senate has abused by leaving in limbo the Merrick Garland appointment indefinitely. It's all in the spirit of getting things moving again.

Further, if the present Court refuses to seat provisional justices, move them to a military warehouse at Andrews, take over the Supreme Court building and seat your own guys. Then, announce the US will only follow the pronouncements of the provisional justices.

Simple and concise.

Quill wrote:
Not a chance the Senate will remain Republican (who are they, I forget?). Democrats need only 4 votes, and there are 35 seats up in 2020. They will get at least 10, being conservative.

by Maddog Thu Nov 05, 2020 6:04 pm

They will get at least 10

One more time.

by Original Quill Thu Nov 05, 2020 6:33 pm

Maddog wrote:They will get at least 10

One more time.

So what? The polls were wrong. Get over it.

I've given everyone a clear path on how to neutralize the Senate.

Original Quill wrote:...all we have to do is cut the Senate out of the loop. Make them irrelevant by taking away their veto ('advice and consent') power.

Make all appointments 'provisional'...permanently. Trump has established the precedent for this. Follow his lead. It eliminates the Senate's veto power, which the Senate has abused by leaving in limbo the Merrick Garland appointment indefinitely. It's all in the spirit of getting things moving again.

Further, if the present Court refuses to seat provisional justices, move them to a military warehouse at Andrews, take over the Supreme Court building and seat your own guys. Then, announce the US will only follow the pronouncements of the provisional justices.

Consider it plan B...you can thank me later. Wink

by Maddog Thu Nov 05, 2020 11:34 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:They will get at least 10

One more time.

So what? The polls were wrong. Get over it.

I've given everyone a clear path on how to neutralize the Senate.

Original Quill wrote:...all we have to do is cut the Senate out of the loop. Make them irrelevant by taking away their veto ('advice and consent') power.

Make all appointments 'provisional'...permanently. Trump has established the precedent for this. Follow his lead. It eliminates the Senate's veto power, which the Senate has abused by leaving in limbo the Merrick Garland appointment indefinitely. It's all in the spirit of getting things moving again.

Further, if the present Court refuses to seat provisional justices, move them to a military warehouse at Andrews, take over the Supreme Court building and seat your own guys. Then, announce the US will only follow the pronouncements of the provisional justices.

Consider it plan B...you can thank me later.

The polls didn't say that, you did you dementia afflicted old man.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 06, 2020 12:06 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So what? The polls were wrong. Get over it.

I've given everyone a clear path on how to neutralize the Senate.

Consider it plan B...you can thank me later.

The polls didn't say that, you did you dementia afflicted old man.

Who is talking about polls? Apparently, you can't follow a train of thought...probably too busy waging personal wars and grudges.

We are talking about tactics to marginalize the Senate from abusing its veto power, that's all. At the same time, we want to restructure the Supreme Court. Using provisional appointment powers serves both purposes.

No more waiting around for advice and consent, while they dilly-dally for years on end. Let the Senate come to us, and if they are nice, we might throw them some bread crumbs (haha, or paper towels).

by Maddog Fri Nov 06, 2020 2:21 am

Quill wrote:They will get at least 10

by Original Quill Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:20 am

Maddog wrote:
Quill wrote:They will get at least 10

Gotta move on to Plan B. Twisted Evil

by Maddog Fri Nov 06, 2020 3:44 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Gotta move on to Plan B.

Says who? The guy who said Dems would pick up 10 seats?

Does plan B include the Pacific States of America?

by Original Quill Fri Nov 06, 2020 6:25 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Gotta move on to Plan B.

Says who? The guy who said Dems would pick up 10 seats?

Does plan B include the Pacific States of America?

Again with the personalities? Who cares who develops a good idea? A good idea is a good idea.

Plan B is outlined above. It involves using provisional appointments, pioneered by Trump to by-pass the senatorial veto created by the 'advise and consent' clause. With an appointee already in place, there is nothing for the Senate to consent to...it's a done deal before the matter gets to the Senate desk.

Moreover, given the appointee is already seated, Art. 3, section 1 of the Constitution says s/he has a lifetime appointment, so move on...

No more using the 'consent' power of the Senate as a veto to bare appointment power...with no hearing or debate. No more unilateral action by a single party.

by Maddog Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Says who? The guy who said Dems would pick up 10 seats?

Does plan B include the Pacific States of America?

Again with the personalities? Who cares who develops a good idea? A good idea is a good idea.

Plan B is outlined above. It involves using provisional appointments, pioneered by Trump to by-pass the senatorial veto created by the 'advise and consent' clause. With an appointee already in place, there is nothing for the Senate to consent to...it's a done deal before the matter gets to the Senate desk.

Moreover, given the appointee is already seated, Art. 3, section 1 of the Constitution says s/he has a lifetime appointment, so move on...

No more using the 'consent' power of the Senate as a veto to bare appointment power...with no hearing or debate. No more unilateral action by a single party.

Who says it's a good idea?

Besides you?

I think free beer is a good idea.

Doesn't make it very likely.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:28 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Again with the personalities? Who cares who develops a good idea? A good idea is a good idea.

Plan B is outlined above. It involves using provisional appointments, pioneered by Trump to by-pass the senatorial veto created by the 'advise and consent' clause. With an appointee already in place, there is nothing for the Senate to consent to...it's a done deal before the matter gets to the Senate desk.

Moreover, given the appointee is already seated, Art. 3, section 1 of the Constitution says s/he has a lifetime appointment, so move on...

No more using the 'consent' power of the Senate as a veto to bare appointment power...with no hearing or debate. No more unilateral action by a single party.

Who says it's a good idea?

Besides you?

I think free beer is a good idea.

Doesn't make it very likely.

There may be some crooks who don't think it's a good idea. But most, if not all law-abiding people realize that disempowering government can be dangerous.

Plan B simply ends the logjam that Republicans have created by withholding consent ... effectively creating a veto on everything, without specific and stated reason. A 'provisional appointment' allows government to continue without interruption, while politicians sort out their philosophical differences.

by Sponsored content