Jump to content

Donald Trump 2019


Francisco 2.0

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Democrats need to step up and pass legislation to fix this. Senate won’t pass it, but keep painting the GOP as the party of bigotry

"These people want to serve.  They want to fight for the country they love.  First the gay service members got denied; then the immigrant service members ; now the transgender service members.  Why do Republicans hate troops unless they are white straight men? Blood and sacrifice knows no race, religion or sexuality."

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Js1 said:

"These people want to serve.  They want to fight for the country they love.  First the gay service members got denied; then the immigrant service members ; now the transgender service members.  Why do Republicans hate troops unless they are white straight men? Blood and sacrifice knows no race, religion or sexuality."

But blood and soil does.

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That student very much looks like an  arrogant, entitled dipshit.

But, to me anyway, the evidence coming out now shows all this in a different light, right? Sounds like the Indian guy misread the situation. He was on NPR yesterday and he didn't really make much sense, imo. 

Look, call out the assholes but get the facts right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More evidence that Trump's White House sucks at being President:

Quote

An analysis by the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law shows that more than 90 percent of court challenges to major Trump deregulatory actions have been successful so far. By the institute’s count, 30 big rules have been challenged, and the courts have found for the litigants 28 times.

Some of those rulings may change after appeals to higher courts, but administrative law experts said even the string of lower-court rulings was unusual. In a typical administration, the government wins on such challenges around 70 percent of the time, said Richard Revesz, a law professor at N.Y.U. who specializes in environmental law. “This is truly aberrational,” he said.

The law gives federal agencies a lot of latitude to write regulations, but it says that major actions have to follow certain steps. For big changes, agencies are supposed to go through what’s called “notice and comment”: They must issue a proposal, let the public respond with ideas, then incorporate feedback into a final version.

A lot of the losses came because the administration skipped those steps, instead announcing that it would pause or reverse pending rules — or that some emergency conditions justified an instant regulatory change. An earlier version of the contraceptive rule, and several environmental rules, including a suspension of Obama-era methane standards, were attempted without notice and comment.

But even some Trump policies that have followed the usual regulatory steps have been found to run afoul of the law’s standards for administrative process. The law says that the executive branch should be allowed to interpret the law as long as its decisions aren’t “arbitrary” and “capricious.”

...

Quote

The rule-making sloppiness may reflect the president’s enthusiasm for deregulation, and the distrust of agency staff by many of his political appointees.

“It’s hard to understand as anything but a combination of haste and ineptitude,” said Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, who worked in the Obama administration Justice Department defending its regulations.

In many cases, it’s easy enough for regulators to bounce back from a loss on procedural grounds. Trump administration agencies may have better luck with their subsequent efforts, which are now underway in several areas where initial rule making was rejected by courts. Mr. Bagley said he expected the administration would fare better on many rules the second time around.

 

Edited by Rimbo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

"These people want to serve.  They want to fight for the country they love.  First the gay service members got denied; then the immigrant service members ; now the transgender service members.  Why do Republicans hate troops unless they are white straight men? Blood and sacrifice knows no race, religion or sexuality."

u-g-PG9Z8T0.jpg?w=550&h=550&p=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

FWIW

MSNBC reporting that trump and his campaign speechwriters are forming several drafts of the SOTU address, one of which will be crafted for a speech at a rally if they have to give it at that type of venue. 

 

Torbush. 

If he has it at a moron rally, I hope all the networks refuse to show it. We know fox will, keep that drivel there b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

9 minutes ago, Patrick Bateman said:

 

So literally the Democratic position for the last month. Eight hundred thousand people went without paychecks for a month for no reason. And I’m fairly certain the only reason they’re voting on it now is because Trump wants his state of the union in the House.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...