It’s beyond worrying to me that an apparent priority of the new administration is “Stop the flow of information.”
Me too. Very, very, very much. But it’s encouraging to see them learn that stopping the flow of information in the digital age is harder than they thought it would be. The rogue twitter accounts are fantastic news. Not nearly enough, but it’s a great start.
What a coincidence, it’s January 20!
Ideally, the President can veto bills passed by Congress, and the Supreme Court can declare unconstitutional laws that are passed and signed. And the Congress doesn’t have to pass laws just because the President doesn’t want them. But when one Party runs all three branches …
The Short-Fingered Vulgarian provides some of his best evidence for (drum roll) an epidemic of (ominious echo effect) voter fraud:
Alas, he could not get anyone to take him seriously:
Trump administration mandates that any studies or data from EPA scientists undergo review by political appointees before they can be released to the public.
Checks and balances work when different parties and points of view are in place. As you correctly observe, at this time the dysfunctional, narrow-minded, destructive* Republicans control the Presidency and both houses of Congress. They will soon control the Supreme Court, too. Bye-bye, checks and balances.
Maybe someone else can give GuanoLad a better answer.
- And IMHO, evil.
To challenge executive orders, someone has to bring up a law suite in federal court. Eventually it may reach the supreme court if the constitution is involved.
It’s the “Perfect Storm” for America. NO checks and balances. None.
Well that’s disappointing.
Well, in fact there is considerable dissension between Trump and many Congressional Republicans. It’s an open question whether Trump might be able to get some of his proposals through Congress. But the practical outcome is likely to be which of two bad results ends up enacted.
No. This is not true. No person named Donald Trump said that, nor could have said that. There is no such person as “Donald Trump,” “Donald J. Trump,” “Mr. Donald John Trump, Sr.,” “The Donald.” nor any variation thereupon. So long as the wall-building program is in operation, his only name is “Schweinficker.”
His sons are “Schweinficker, Jr.” “Eric, son of Schweinficker,” & “Melania’s boy Barron.” His daughters are “Ivanka…Kushner” and “Tiffany really doesn’t deserve this.”
So mote it be.
At best. At worst…? One shudders to think.
Unbelievable. The Ministry of Truth, I suppose.
Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
Get this. I live in the People’s Republic of China. Their view of science isn’t that skewed. Wow.
This is akin to what Dubya did not so long ago in this country, and what Steve Harper did in Canada.
This isn’t really a policy issue, but here’s another jaw-dropper from that interview:
The biggest standing ovation since Peyton Manning won the Super Bowl. Equal to that, in fact. This is not someone with a grasp on reality.
He also went back to crowd size again and took the interviewer to a picture of the inauguration so its exact bigness could be explained in detail.
:dubious:
Communists typically follow the scientific method fairly thoroughly. Weird com[comparison.
I keep reading this or variations on this. The Republicans will not control the Supreme Court in any meaningful way, no matter who fills the vacant seat. That seat belonged to Antonin Scalia, the most reliably and aggressively conservative justice on the court. Replacing him with another conservative will not change the balance of the court - the same court that ruled in favor of marriage quality 18 months ago. With four solidly liberal justices, and three solid conservatives, the court will continue to swing on the votes of Anthony Kennedy and John Roberts. While neither of those men has always voted as I’d “like,” neither are partisan hacks and neither is likely to stand by as the nation is dismantled.
Admittedly, the balance shifts a bit if Ginsburg or one of the other non-conservative justices dies or retires. But right now the Supreme Court is still our best hope.
Not really; consider Lysenkoism, something I’m seeing Trump’s politically mandated “science” compared to.