nature boy
Member
Surely any DACA EO is off the table after this?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT1| From Russia with Love
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
Carpe Libertatem
Member
...I mean...
There has to be a perfectly acceptable explanation for this, right?
Because the judicial page is also missing from the "Our Government" sub menu...
More_Badass
Member
Ideally, it's because they're announcing the SC judge tomorrow and are editing the page
Why does this feel so intentional? What is the motivation behind doing this?
Do they not know how to keep a page up before an update?
Doesn't have to be an evil scheme, but it could easily be some petty bullshit because a judge went against his Muslim ban. Anything is possible at this point.
Basically. He's a terrible communicator, however, with his awkward statement playing directly into the hands of those who see the Holocaust Remembrance Day release evading history.
And to be clear, the judicial branch had previously been on that page.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170101181142/https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/judicial-branch
https://web.archive.org/web/20170101181142/https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/judicial-branch
EmCeeGramr
Member
It's not new either; if you look at the Wayback Machine, it looks like it's been gone since the website transitioned on the inauguration.
http://web.archive.org/web/20170120161522/https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/judicial-branch
http://web.archive.org/web/20170120172409/https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/judicial-branch
http://web.archive.org/web/20170121012326/https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/judicial-branch
The legislative page appears to be identical to the Obama version in terms of text as well so it's not like they needed to extensively rework it. Unless they've been deciding to save it until the SCOTUS announcement for... some reason.
http://web.archive.org/web/20170120161522/https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/judicial-branch
http://web.archive.org/web/20170120172409/https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/judicial-branch
http://web.archive.org/web/20170121012326/https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/judicial-branch
The legislative page appears to be identical to the Obama version in terms of text as well so it's not like they needed to extensively rework it. Unless they've been deciding to save it until the SCOTUS announcement for... some reason.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
How should Senate Democrats respond to Trump's Supreme Court nominee considering Republicans stole the seat?
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Heritage is not "of the Mercer family," they're just a giant conservative think-tank and the Mercers are one of many, many donors
I really wish people would stop comparing these protests to the roots of the Tea Party movement. That was a racist backlash against Obama that started before he was even elected, based on birtherism and fear of things he never said he'd do, or ever did do. These people today are organizing against actual actions taken by a sitting President, it's disgraceful to compare that to the movement that actually lead to Trump.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
It's a pretty good comparison in one respect. The tea party managed to fuck up Obama pretty badly for a long time. They basically kept the republican party alive during a time the GOP had no business being relevant.
I hope we're as effective as those assholes were getting what they wanted despite being a minority in congress.
I'd refuse to confirm and force McConnell to ditch the filibuster. I think. Crab talk me out of it
(I think McConnell actually needs it because he can use the democrats to conveniently kill Trump's bullshit.)
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
So only the Legislative branch website still exists.
The judicial branch is gone, and so is the executive.
And this is what you used to read at the top of the judicial branch's page:
That's gone.
The judicial branch is gone, and so is the executive.
And this is what you used to read at the top of the judicial branch's page:
That's gone.
Hardiman is our best hope but that's not saying a lot. Pittsburgh represent.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
LOL at McConnell caring at this point. He'll bow to Trump like all the rest.
More_Badass
Member
Can't have the people informing themselves about the government's boundaries and roles
Freeza Under The Shower
Member
figured I'd hang out here for a while.
Regardless of how it's spun: if unreasonable candidate, block it.
The admin is just using as as decay while trying to get the same institution to validate their mess. They should not get both for free.
Also, as for the website, executive and legislative are both there, except the domain name doesn't route directly to it. The judicial isn't there, and the Constitution has only ten amendments for some reason.
Seems they have the best cyber, totally not some script kiddy hack job while trying to redecorate the site. I think the site represents the dumpster fire that is the admin quite well.
Also, on the 'elections' page you're greeted by a picture of Trump, not say, a person voting.
Regardless of how it's spun: if unreasonable candidate, block it.
The admin is just using as as decay while trying to get the same institution to validate their mess. They should not get both for free.
Also, as for the website, executive and legislative are both there, except the domain name doesn't route directly to it. The judicial isn't there, and the Constitution has only ten amendments for some reason.
Seems they have the best cyber, totally not some script kiddy hack job while trying to redecorate the site. I think the site represents the dumpster fire that is the admin quite well.
Also, on the 'elections' page you're greeted by a picture of Trump, not say, a person voting.
If it's who we think it is, then it's an instant filibuster and no one in the House backing him. Anything else is bullshit and should result in a primary challenge. Do the hearings if you want, but only so everyone can see what a fuckface the pick is.
metalslimer
Member
Haha you forget how vindictive he is. He will come down twice as hard on them. And legally, I don't see what stops him from rounding people up
More_Badass
Member
Would the GOP really nuke the filibuster? I've seen that mentioned a few times, but that would also remove that tactic for them as well, right?
shinra-bansho
Member
I wonder if random out of nowhere digital media firm Giles Parscale is still making bank off of Trump, wouldn't surprise with his hackjob of a website.
I honestly have no idea anymore. The guy whose name has been floated is a literal bigot who would criminalize gay sex (and probably straight pre-marital sex as well) if he were given the chance. He's so blatantly bigoted and insane that no one, on either side, should be OK with him.
I think it's all going to come down to whether McConnell is willing to rubber stamp anything that comes from Trump or not.
I hold onto a sliver of hope on this because I have nothing else to hold onto right now.
God damn it, not in Canada
Unfortunately Canada is going to have to deal with the rise of facism as well, here's hoping they're up for it.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Mitch McConnell will never ditch the filibuster, he's an evil shite, but he's a smart evil shite. He knows this election was a fluke and that demographics will fuck over the gop eventually. Last thing he wants is a democratic president with a democratic congress and no filibuster to stop progress.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I'm pretty sure you can ditch the filibuster for the Supreme Court without ditching it for legislation.
LostMyNarbles
Member
I am not familiar with how the filibuster works. What is stopping the Republicans from getting rid of it for now and then reinstating it before they potentially lose power in 2018/2020?
Carpe Libertatem
Member
The filibuster exists in the Senate rules. Whatever party has a majority can change the rules whenever they want, to my knowledge. So the Democrats could remove it again whenever they got a majority in your scenario.
Once it's gone it will never come back, I personally think.
LostMyNarbles
Member
But if that's the case why even have it? Why not just get rid of it when you come into power and reinstate it before leaving even though the other guys could remove it as well? It sounds like the point of the filibuster is for the party with less power to prevent things they do not agree with from going through, but isn't that counter-productive if the majority party can just strike it down as they please?
metalslimer
Member
The stranger things SAG acceptance speech was awesome. Good to see Hollywood not being quiet
balladofwindfishes
Member
Neither party wants to be the first to blink.
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Did some math and looked at some maps and I think if Kander doesn't plan on running for governor in 2020 he should probably go for MO-2 in 2018. It's the closest of all the MO districts at R+7, while the second closest is R+12. He outperformed Clinton by a decent number of points in all of the counties in the district. If you want to pick up a moderate R-lean district, 2018 will be the year to do it obviously.
Obvious downsides are that I don't know where he lives/if he'd want to move there, congressional races have a hard time breaking out beyond generic ballot preferences, and losing again would probably suck for his future if he wants to go further, but if he isn't going to run for Governor then I think that's his best plan.
He also won some KC suburbs that Clinton lost by a decent margin, but that district is R+12 so ehhhhh I don't think it's the best idea to go for that.
Obvious downsides are that I don't know where he lives/if he'd want to move there, congressional races have a hard time breaking out beyond generic ballot preferences, and losing again would probably suck for his future if he wants to go further, but if he isn't going to run for Governor then I think that's his best plan.
He also won some KC suburbs that Clinton lost by a decent margin, but that district is R+12 so ehhhhh I don't think it's the best idea to go for that.
7DollarHagane
Banned
Maybe it wasn't Russia in trump's ear all along. It was just bannon.
How long before the Republican leadership goes all ceasar on him? They can't see this as anything but a sinking ship.
No one rules alone. This was always my theory about how this administration would go.
How long before the Republican leadership goes all ceasar on him? They can't see this as anything but a sinking ship.
No one rules alone. This was always my theory about how this administration would go.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Just gonna push those two-time Obama voters turned Trump voters further away.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
The historical purpose of the filibuster has been to stop votes and slow progress, yes. The Senate as a body is basically designed to be slow and ineffective.
No major party has ever gotten rid of it until the Democrats did so a few years ago for executive appointments. But the filibuster had been a problem for years and was clearly being abused , so it was inevitable that it would be going away eventually.
He's from Kansas City, so MO-2 isn't for him. But that district is a good target since Ann Wagner will be running for Senate in 2018 - just someone else. Democrats just need a good candidate. I can think of a couple. State Senator Scott Sifton (alliteration!) would be great, IMO. His state senate seat is up in 2020, so he won't be giving up that to run in the first place.
StopMakingSense
Member
omg no one gives a shit about the SAG awards.
metalslimer
Member
Please tell me this a joke
I know a guy who is convinced that the GOP is just going to use him to push through all their wildest bullshit, hang it all around his neck, and give him the boot. All within a year.
I don't really buy it personally, but I've been wrong plenty of times and this could be one of them.
Macron supports opening up to Russia?
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Clint Zweifel hasn't lost an election and looks like he's from St Louis. He didn't run for anything this year (presumably because Kander and Koster took the upgrade elections?) so he might be a good pick. Same with Koster, who still outperformed Clinton by a significant margin and did almost as well as Kander, is he done with politics now or could we use him in 2018?
I think it is incredibly likely that is exactly their plan.
In either event, tying the larger GOP to Trump is fucking essential. I don't see a way they get to have Trump sign off on their wishlist and then try and claim that it was all his idea and that they had nothing to do with it.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Clint Zweifel would be an intriguing choice, but not sure if he's done with politics or not. Also not sure where he's from in St. Louis. I don't think he's from MO-2, but that probably doesn't matter that much in the long run.
I never really considered that Koster would ever be back in politics, but maybe. He's still well-liked and I suspect backlash from Greitens (esp. re: right to work) will have people wishing he had won. He doesn't really have a STL connection, though.
I always thought that Russ Carnahan was the candidate to win in MO-2 since he represented part of the district before redistricting, but he just lost pretty badly in the Lt. Governor's race.
balladofwindfishes
Member
This seems like a terrible idea. An impeached and disgraced GOP president will effect the entire party's image. And Pence isn't exactly popular with Trump's core demographics.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked