The All Things Political Topic - SNAFU edition

[Malcador]

Saw some one say "We gave the powers of pardon to a mob boss"

[Gromnir]

5 hours ago, Malcador said:

Saw some one say "We gave the powers of pardon to a mob boss"

keep in mind this is worse than it appears 'cause is an attempt to redefine the pardon power so that it applies to state crimes. for the entire history o' the US, it has been understood that a President may only pardon an individual for violations of federal law.  as such, those who would commit crime on behalf o' trump knowing he could pardon them for fed crimes might nevertheless hesitate if they believed they would be subject to the laws of new york or california. 

am suspecting this is another story which gets far less coverage than it deserves. after jan 6 and changpeng zhao, this fells like more o' the same, right? is not more o' the same.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited Tuesday at 03:41 AM by Gromnir

[rjshae]

8 hours ago, Malcador said:

Saw some one say "We gave the powers of pardon to a mob boss"

"There is no rule of law until the Mafia needs lawyers."

--Stephen Holmes

[rjshae]

On 11/10/2025 at 7:03 AM, PK htiw klaw eriF said:

The democrats' ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory is truly amazing. What the hell was the point of extending the shutdown if you were just going to cave anyways?

Even if there is, they just threw out what leverage they had so it's doubtful it would pass. I swear, these clowns would lose a game of chess to a dog.

What I saw was a democratic party engaged in negotiating tactics over health care funding by talking up an extreme position. But what they're facing is a CEO-mentality of DJT being willing to sacrifice people for his own purposes. Remember that C. Schumer dealt with the previous such government funding vote by going along with the Republicans, for which he was heavily criticized. This time he tried a different tactic, which clearly won't work and he still gets criticized. I'm not sure what he's supposed to do about it when he has no leverage. People voted in this clown of a President; they get to live with the consequences.

Like I've said before, the health care situation in the US won't be dealt with until a lot of people start dying. The unaffordability of health care is one way (and perhaps the only way) to achieve that goal here. It's a completely irrational situation.

[uuuhhii]

9 hours ago, rjshae said:

What I saw was a democratic party engaged in negotiating tactics over health care funding by talking up an extreme position. But what they're facing is a CEO-mentality of DJT being willing to sacrifice people for his own purposes. Remember that C. Schumer dealt with the previous such government funding vote by going along with the Republicans, for which he was heavily criticized. This time he tried a different tactic, which clearly won't work and he still gets criticized. I'm not sure what he's supposed to do about it when he has no leverage. People voted in this clown of a President; they get to live with the consequences.

Like I've said before, the health care situation in the US won't be dealt with until a lot of people start dying. The unaffordability of health care is one way (and perhaps the only way) to achieve that goal here. It's a completely irrational situation.

 

if there are no leverage goverment wouldn't be shut down for 40 day

this level of incompetence are entirely expected

people of usa are extra angry because this come at the worst time

but situation will only get worse so there are plenty of worst to come

edit

uk the worst war criminal in history

just accuse usa of war crime and shut off some intel sharing

would be hilarious if not for the war crime

Edited 19 hours ago by uuuhhii

[rjshae]

Here's a contrast in requirements:

White House told to bring back sign-language interpreters even though Trump dislikes ‘sharing a platform,’ judge rules

Quote

The National Association of the Deaf sued President Donald Trump, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt in May, arguing that the administration’s failure to provide ASL interpreters at press briefings violates the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The federal law prohibits discrimination conducted by an “executive agency.”

Arizona's first Chicana representative has been sworn in. She's going to code-switch.

Quote

'Les aseguro que aunque sea la primera, no será la última,' she said in Spanish to a smattering of applause, again withholding a translation to the packed chamber.

Okay, apart from the legal specifics, why is the White House required to provide ASL interpreters but a Chicana representative speaking to Congress in spanish is not required to provide a translator? This seems inconsistent, if not rude.

[Hurlshort]

1 hour ago, rjshae said:

Here's a contrast in requirements:

White House told to bring back sign-language interpreters even though Trump dislikes ‘sharing a platform,’ judge rules

Arizona's first Chicana representative has been sworn in. She's going to code-switch.

Okay, apart from the legal specifics, why is the White House required to provide ASL interpreters but a Chicana representative speaking to Congress in spanish is not required to provide a translator? This seems inconsistent, if not rude.

Because one is the President addressing the entire nation, and the other is a representative addressing a few hundred?

Also it sounds like she was mixing English and Spanish. I'd love to see Trump mix in some sign language in his addresses.