Farewell to Lou Dobbs, the most North Korean broadcaster America has ever seen
Joe Biden is now POTUS
- Thread starter Spectrum
- Start date
Nobody is gonna lose any job. The poor people who benefit from the pay
raise will go straight to KFC, Target and Walmart and fuel the US economy.
Ford and the US economy benefitted from Henry Ford deciding to pay his
employees $5 a day. The bullshit that you should work for nothing in order
for the economy thrive is belied by the fact if you are getting nothing, there
will be no one to afford the things you are producing at your job. It is this
simple reason that accounts for the fact that the economy always does better
under Democrats than it does under Republicans. Even the minimal changes
Democracts make, result in a marked economic improvement. Clinton was
better than Bush, Obama was better than Bush, Biden will be better than
Trump, and far much so if he can force that $15/ hr pay raise.
It's crazy how dude switched up. I mean he's always leaned to the right but the he was a reasonable/sensible guy. When he got to Fox the dude lost all of that.
So either he was always like this or he decided to do something strange for some change.
And that's only for a handful of items.
Right! I am looking like, "I ain't even got shit in here."
Go to any business still open in this country and you will see less people working.
It's not bullshit that people will lose their job because even pre covid people were already losing their jobs. More spending doesn't nessarily equal businesses increasing their hiring. No, business are looking to do more with less.
That's why supermarkets have less workers and more self checkouts.
That why fast food restaurants have less workers, but have more ways to order (apps/self checkout kiosks).
Go to any department store and you can barely find anyone to help you.
Warehouses are full of automation. The list goes on and on.
Last edited:
Can you name an example of this?
Pick one of the firings during his four years. There should’ve been a protocol
so you cant name one?
can you name one where the president didnt have power to fire them but still fired them?
That is Republican bullshit. Look at it this way, 70% of the US economy is
retail. Retail drives everything else. For years, the US suppressed the wages
of people and drove them into debt to support the retail sector. Then after
2009, that was no longer feasible as credit was tightened. The economy of
the US has settled at an equilibrium where demand and supply in are in
balance. What needs to happen is that demand must be boosted. Since the
credit card economy is no longer the answer, people must be paid more.
The marginal difference required cannot be made by giving more money
to the top, who will simply pack it in the stock market and drive the Dow
to 40,000. If you give it to the lowly paid, they will go out and buy a bigger
tvs, more sneakers and shoes; they will buy more of everything, and it turn
this will make the US economy heat up. The owners of the places that make
everything will need more workers. The auto manufacturers will increase
their shifts, the people who make car seats will increase their shifts, the
people who make car car tires will increase their shifts, the dealers who sell
cars will hire more salesmen.
Do not listen to the crap that Burger King may lay off its burger makers;
Burger King will hire more people as the low wage people demand more
burgers.
The reason why there are fewer workers is that covid has killed demand.
People are not spending money since they are not working. Businesses
are therefore only retaining the number that their businesses can support.
How can you fewer people are working when Donald Trump was boasting
that the unemployment rate was the lowest in 50 years?
This is funny but the truth is that Schumer would never lose to AOC. AOC hasn't passed any bills, doesn't have an office in her home district she's basically a pretty face with no accomplishments.
It's less about the firing, and more about the replacement process. They have a line of succession that he totally ignored to get people in place who were loyal to him.
Naw, my ninjette.
This dude said Trump fired anyone he wanted to at any time, regardless of the situation.
I need him to name an instance where Trump fired someone when he didnt have to power to do so.
Cause i remember a couple who told Trump to kiss they ass until due process had been met.
He had the authority to fire them, even if he was doing it for unethical reasons and yes there were a couple who fought back, but they were only able to do so because he was trying to leapfrog over the next successor. Normally he proceeded to either bypass the process to replace them and made his own pick, selected acting heads, and/or left the position empty.
No one is going to make 600 bux a week flipping burgers.
How many is it? I thought it was only like three.
EDIT: I see Richard Shelby is packing it in too.
So do you agree that Trump DID NOT just fire anyone at any time?
This guy!!!!
if theyre doing then they may as well vote to convict..
No, he fired anyone he couldn't be talked out of firing, and the ones he got talked out of firing was only because it would make things bad for him. Yes he had the authority to do so and he did not always follow the procedure to replace them. All three can be true at the same time.
Chad Wolf Was Illegally Appointed DHS Secretary | Law & Crime
The judge invalidated Wolf’s controversial DACA directives and also granted certification for program recipients adversely affected by Wolf’s directive to file a class action lawsuit.
lawandcrime.com
The board formatted the above link as a media link. Cut and paste below and remove the space after https://www.npr.org/2020/03/09/ to see the print article.
https://www.npr.org/2020/03/09/ 813577462/how-trump-has-filled-high-level-jobs-without-senate-confirmation
The Horrible Politics of $1,400 Checks
Why on earth would Democrats not pass $2,000 checks as promised?
filed 05 February 2021 in POLITICS
Last month, Data for Progress released the results of a poll showing that nearly two-thirds of American voters believed the government ought to give out universal relief payments of $2,000 per month for the duration of the coronavirus pandemic. Given that, after winning both Senate elections in Georgia, the Democratic Party now controls the House, the Senate, and the White House, you might think that the party would be pushing exactly this kind of policy.
We know it’s popular—the Democrats put $2,000 relief checks at the center of their pitch to Georgia voters, and they won in a state that isn’t easy electoral territory for Democrats. Joe Biden promised that if the Democrats won in Georgia, a third round of stimulus checks for $2,000 would “go out the door immediately.”Now that they are in power, what is happening? Biden and congressional Democrats are currently pushing through a new $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief plan. But the plan does not include the monthly $2,000 checks favored by the public. Nor does it even include the $2,000 checks Biden promised would “go out the door” if Democrats won the senate. Instead, it includes checks for $1,400, and the Biden administration has indicated that it may well narrow the group of people who receive the checks, so that far fewer people get them than received the last relief payments. (The previous $600 and $1200 checks already missed large numbers of people who needed them.)
Defenders of Biden and the congressional Democrats argue that the party never promised it would send out $2,000 checks, despite Georgia campaign ads like this:
Instead, they say, the phrase “$2,000 checks” actually meant that $1,400 would be added to the $600 sent out two months ago by the Trump administration, to provide what Biden now calls “a total of $2,000 in cash relief to people who need it the most.” There are no actual checks—like the one depicted above—for $2,000, but those who insist Biden hasn’t broken a promise say that the public should never have interpreted “$2,000 checks” to mean “checks for $2,000.” Rather, they should’ve understood it to mean “a sum total of relief money over time that adds up to $2,000.” The Biden administration also does not believe it is reversing itself by giving the new money to fewer people than the Trump administration did, because after all, Biden didn’t explicitly say who would get the money.
All of this is utterly maddening. Even if one accepts the argument that nobody ever intended for the Biden administration to send people new $2,000 checks, but merely to supplement a previous Trump-era check, Biden and the Democrats are at the very least guilty of horrible misleading messaging. If what would “go out the door” under Biden was $1,400, that’s what they should have said.
If by “immediately” they did not mean “immediately” but “a number of months later” they should not have said “immediately.” Now they face headlines like this:
Under no theory of politics does this count as a P.R. success. It is exactly the sort of thing a new administration wants to avoid. “WELL ACTUALLY, what we meant was different, and you simply do not understand math” is not a winning message.
The most frustrating part of this is that Democrats have lost a fantastic opportunity to get unqualified public support, and gotten mired in a debate they didn’t need to have. Why on Earth would Democrats even feel the need to drop the payments from $2,000 to $1,400? Maybe they intended $1,400 when they said $2,000, but if the public is behind $2,000, then why cling to $1,400? Just push for $2,000! Democrats are not supposed to be the party of austerity, constantly trying to get government to do as little as possible for people without creating a populist uprising. That’s what the Republican Party is for. You’re the party of FDR. You’re supposed to do as much as you can.
We know that even new $2,000 checks fall short of the relief people need—in May of last year, Democrats were starting to get behind monthly $2,000 payments, and all we’ve had so far is a measly trickle of two checks in a year (and millions of people didn’t even get those). So they should be trying to do as much as possible, rather than explaining why what seems like less than they promised is actually not less than they promised, because their promise was deliberately misleading. I cannot understand why you would do this. The economic arguments against the checks have been transparently flimsy, and tend to boil down to “that seems like a lot of money,” with little consideration given to the incredible boon that generous payments would be for people during a time of crisis.
So there was no reason to be stingy on the payments. But adding new income caps, which the Biden administration has said it is open to doing, is even worse. As Matt Bruenig of the People’s Policy Project explains, this is going to end up hurting a lot of people who have lost income recently. The government will assume, based on old data, that they earn more than they currently do, and they’ll be deprived of their stimulus payment. Everyone in that category will be pissed at the Democratic Party for lying to them. Is it a good idea to make needless enemies among voters like this?
I am very troubled by the fact that Democrats are screwing up an early opportunity for a big political win. They can point to all the other good parts of their stimulus package, and hopefully Biden will finally give up his ridiculous never-ending yearning for bipartisan support. Early signs are good that Democrats are not going to make the mistake that Obama made of seriously considering the absurd Republican counterproposals. But it is an easy way to get people to trust you if you say the phrase “$2,000 checks” and then they get a $2,000 check. It shows them, in a way that is real and that they can feel, that their government is working for them and means what it says. It will be one of the most direct ways in which the stimulus hits them personally. Explaining why they should never have expected $2,000 checks sounds a lot like the same old political B.S. that people despise. Do not be surprised to see party supporters saying things like this:
(Of course the replies contain Democrats helpfully telling the user she cannot do math and misunderstood the campaign promise, which I am sure is likely to get her jazzed up about helping the party out in future.)
The Democrats need to work hard to get people real relief, because if the Biden presidency becomes unpopular, the right will sweep into power in 2022 and 2024 (and they'll blame ADOS for it). And the American right is more extreme and terrifying than ever. The stakes are extremely high and it’s a very bad sign to see, right at the start, a clear promise getting watered down and compromised for no good reason. The Democrats should not be giving in despite being in control of Congress and the presidency. They can’t afford to screw this up.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/02/the-horrible-politics-of-1400-checks
Funny how BGOL's Blue MAGA was just excoriating me for saying this!! @Supersav @KingTaharqa @gene cisco @xfactor @Tito_Jackson
Last edited:
Will the former president be indicted today by the state of New York?
It’s beyond sad at this point - “how many times has Biden lied?” will be trending on Twitter by the end of the week. The deaf, dumb and blind will be stupid enough to say “well he has an excuse, he has dementia” without noticing it.The Horrible Politics of $1,400 Checks
Why on earth would Democrats not pass $2,000 checks as promised?
filed 05 February 2021 in POLITICS
Last month, Data for Progress released the results of a poll showing that nearly two-thirds of American voters believed the government ought to give out universal relief payments of $2,000 per month for the duration of the coronavirus pandemic. Given that, after winning both Senate elections in Georgia, the Democratic Party now controls the House, the Senate, and the White House, you might think that the party would be pushing exactly this kind of policy.
Now that they are in power, what is happening? Biden and congressional Democrats are currently pushing through a new $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief plan. But the plan does not include the monthly $2,000 checks favored by the public. Nor does it even include the $2,000 checks Biden promised would “go out the door” if Democrats won the senate. Instead, it includes checks for $1,400, and the Biden administration has indicated that it may well narrow the group of people who receive the checks, so that far fewer people get them than received the last relief payments. (The previous $600 and $1200 checks already missed large numbers of people who needed them.)
Defenders of Biden and the congressional Democrats argue that the party never promised it would send out $2,000 checks, despite Georgia campaign ads like this:
Instead, they say, the phrase “$2,000 checks” actually meant that $1,400 would be added to the $600 sent out two months ago by the Trump administration, to provide what Biden now calls “a total of $2,000 in cash relief to people who need it the most.” There are no actual checks—like the one depicted above—for $2,000, but those who insist Biden hasn’t broken a promise say that the public should never have interpreted “$2,000 checks” to mean “checks for $2,000.” Rather, they should’ve understood it to mean “a sum total of relief money over time that adds up to $2,000.” The Biden administration also does not believe it is reversing itself by giving the new money to fewer people than the Trump administration did, because after all, Biden didn’t explicitly say who would get the money.
All of this is utterly maddening. Even if one accepts the argument that nobody ever intended for the Biden administration to send people new $2,000 checks, but merely to supplement a previous Trump-era check, Biden and the Democrats are at the very least guilty of horrible misleading messaging. If what would “go out the door” under Biden was $1,400, that’s what they should have said.
Under no theory of politics does this count as a P.R. success. It is exactly the sort of thing a new administration wants to avoid. “WELL ACTUALLY, what we meant was different, and you simply do not understand math” is not a winning message.
The most frustrating part of this is that Democrats have lost a fantastic opportunity to get unqualified public support, and gotten mired in a debate they didn’t need to have. Why on Earth would Democrats even feel the need to drop the payments from $2,000 to $1,400? Maybe they intended $1,400 when they said $2,000, but if the public is behind $2,000, then why cling to $1,400? Just push for $2,000! Democrats are not supposed to be the party of austerity, constantly trying to get government to do as little as possible for people without creating a populist uprising. That’s what the Republican Party is for. You’re the party of FDR. You’re supposed to do as much as you can.
We know that even new $2,000 checks fall short of the relief people need—in May of last year, Democrats were starting to get behind monthly $2,000 payments, and all we’ve had so far is a measly trickle of two checks in a year (and millions of people didn’t even get those). So they should be trying to do as much as possible, rather than explaining why what seems like less than they promised is actually not less than they promised, because their promise was deliberately misleading. I cannot understand why you would do this. The economic arguments against the checks have been transparently flimsy, and tend to boil down to “that seems like a lot of money,” with little consideration given to the incredible boon that generous payments would be for people during a time of crisis.
So there was no reason to be stingy on the payments. But adding new income caps, which the Biden administration has said it is open to doing, is even worse. As Matt Bruenig of the People’s Policy Project explains, this is going to end up hurting a lot of people who have lost income recently. The government will assume, based on old data, that they earn more than they currently do, and they’ll be deprived of their stimulus payment. Everyone in that category will be pissed at the Democratic Party for lying to them. Is it a good idea to make needless enemies among voters like this?
I am very troubled by the fact that Democrats are screwing up an early opportunity for a big political win. They can point to all the other good parts of their stimulus package, and hopefully Biden will finally give up his ridiculous never-ending yearning for bipartisan support. Early signs are good that Democrats are not going to make the mistake that Obama made of seriously considering the absurd Republican counterproposals. But it is an easy way to get people to trust you if you say the phrase “$2,000 checks” and then they get a $2,000 check. It shows them, in a way that is real and that they can feel, that their government is working for them and means what it says. It will be one of the most direct ways in which the stimulus hits them personally. Explaining why they should never have expected $2,000 checks sounds a lot like the same old political B.S. that people despise. Do not be surprised to see party supporters saying things like this:
(Of course the replies contain Democrats helpfully telling the user she cannot do math and misunderstood the campaign promise, which I am sure is likely to get her jazzed up about helping the party out in future.)
The Democrats need to work hard to get people real relief, because if the Biden presidency becomes unpopular, the right will sweep into power in 2022 and 2024 (and they'll blame ADOS for it). And the American right is more extreme and terrifying than ever. The stakes are extremely high and it’s a very bad sign to see, right at the start, a clear promise getting watered down and compromised for no good reason. The Democrats should not be giving in despite being in control of Congress and the presidency. They can’t afford to screw this up.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/02/the-horrible-politics-of-1400-checks
Funny how BGOL's Blue MAGA was just excoriating me for saying this!! @Supersav @KingTaharqa @gene cisco @xfactor @Tito_Jackson
no difference between the RED hat MAGAs...except worse because they are pro-white sellouts
I have a proposition. I will send my children back to school when you allow Q Anon back into the capital.
I guess the police union is enough for the democrats to spite. They want to add the teachers union too.
or maybe Biden wants to kill the black people that the former president neglected. What a fucking moron.
I guess the police union is enough for the democrats to spite. They want to add the teachers union too.
or maybe Biden wants to kill the black people that the former president neglected. What a fucking moron.
Manafort Can’t Be Prosecuted in New York After Trump Pardon, Court Rules
The Court of Appeals let stand a lower-court ruling that the Manhattan district attorney’s prosecution of Paul Manafort was barred by the double jeopardy rule.
Mr. Manafort was serving a sentence of seven and a half years in federal prison after being convicted at a 2018 financial fraud trial.Credit...Jefferson Siegel for The New York Times
By Jonah E. Bromwich
The court’s decision brings to an end the district attorney’s quest to ensure that the campaign chairman, Paul J. Manafort, will face state charges for mortgage fraud and other state felonies, crimes similar to those for which he was convicted in federal court and then pardoned by Mr. Trump.
When the district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a Democrat, first brought charges against Mr. Manafort in March 2019, it was widely understood that he was doing so to make sure that Mr. Manafort would face prosecution even if Mr. Trump decided to pardon him.
At the time, Mr. Manafort was serving a sentence of seven and a half years in a Pennsylvania federal prison after being convicted at a 2018 financial fraud trial by prosecutors working for the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
Then, in December, Mr. Trump did pardon Mr. Manafort, 71, who had been released to home confinement in Northern Virginia, after his lawyers argued that he was at risk of contracting the coronavirus.
A lawyer for Mr. Manafort, Todd Blanche, said that he had received the high court’s one-paragraph decision Monday and that he was happy with the ruling. “Mr. Manafort is similarly pleased with the result,” he said.
A spokesman for Mr. Vance’s office declined to comment.
The charges that Mr. Vance brought against Mr. Manafort were the result of an investigation, started in 2017, into loans the campaign chairman had received. Mr. Vance ultimately accused Mr. Manafort of having falsified business records in order to obtain the loans.
At the time, Mr. Vance said that Mr. Manafort had not “been held accountable” for the charges at hand. But in a ruling in December 2019, a judge threw out the charges, finding that they violated the double jeopardy law, which says a defendant cannot be tried twice for the same offense.
The judge, Justice Maxwell Wiley, said at the time that “the law of double jeopardy in New York State provides a very narrow window for prosecution.”
Mr. Vance’s office has taken action against other associates of Mr. Trump whom the former president has pardoned in federal cases. Last week, The New York Times reported that Manhattan prosecutors had opened an investigation against Stephen K. Bannon, a former White House strategist who was pardoned by Mr. Trump during the president’s final hours in office.
But the double jeopardy defense is unlikely to help Mr. Bannon in the same way it helped Mr. Manafort, because Mr. Bannon had not yet been tried, let alone convicted.
“The basis for the prosecution being improper doesn’t in any way apply to Mr. Bannon as far as I can tell,” Mr. Blanche said.
While the U.S. Constitution bars being tried twice for the same crime, the Supreme Court has long held that there is one exception: Federal and state prosecutions for the same conduct are allowed because the federal government and states are understood to be independent sovereigns. In 2019, the court affirmed that exception.
That year, the state legislature in New York passed a measure that lawmakers argued was necessary in order to check Mr. Trump’s pardon power and to ensure that his associates were not permitted to escape justice. The law, signed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in October 2019, allows state prosecutors to pursue charges against individuals who have been granted presidential pardons for similar crimes.
State Senator Todd Kaminsky, a Democrat and former federal prosecutor who sponsored the bill, said that the Manafort case drove home the need for the legislation.
“It really underscored why we had to take legislative action that we did so that states can pursue their own path even if there is a federal pardon,” he said. The law would make it easier for state prosecutors to pursue those on Mr. Trump’s pardon list.
The law passed too late to apply to Mr. Manafort’s case. The result, Mr. Kaminsky said, was that Mr. Vance’s office had to contort itself to try to show that the acts that Mr. Manafort had been charged with in federal court were not the same as those they were pursuing.
It is possible, though unlikely, that Mr. Manafort may still face federal charges. Last month, Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor from the special counsel’s office, argued that the wording of Mr. Trump’s pardons had been “oddly” drafted.
Rather than relieving those who had been pardoned from all potential liability for their actions, Mr. Weissmann argued, the language only narrowly covered their convictions.
In Mr. Manafort’s case, that might leave the door open to new charges, including on crimes that Mr. Manafort admitted he was guilty of as part of a plea deal. Those include 10 counts of financial crimes, as well as other offenses.
The Court of Appeals let stand a lower-court ruling that the Manhattan district attorney’s prosecution of Paul Manafort was barred by the double jeopardy rule.
Mr. Manafort was serving a sentence of seven and a half years in federal prison after being convicted at a 2018 financial fraud trial.Credit...Jefferson Siegel for The New York Times
By Jonah E. Bromwich
- Feb. 8, 2021
The court’s decision brings to an end the district attorney’s quest to ensure that the campaign chairman, Paul J. Manafort, will face state charges for mortgage fraud and other state felonies, crimes similar to those for which he was convicted in federal court and then pardoned by Mr. Trump.
When the district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a Democrat, first brought charges against Mr. Manafort in March 2019, it was widely understood that he was doing so to make sure that Mr. Manafort would face prosecution even if Mr. Trump decided to pardon him.
At the time, Mr. Manafort was serving a sentence of seven and a half years in a Pennsylvania federal prison after being convicted at a 2018 financial fraud trial by prosecutors working for the special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.
Then, in December, Mr. Trump did pardon Mr. Manafort, 71, who had been released to home confinement in Northern Virginia, after his lawyers argued that he was at risk of contracting the coronavirus.
A lawyer for Mr. Manafort, Todd Blanche, said that he had received the high court’s one-paragraph decision Monday and that he was happy with the ruling. “Mr. Manafort is similarly pleased with the result,” he said.
A spokesman for Mr. Vance’s office declined to comment.
The charges that Mr. Vance brought against Mr. Manafort were the result of an investigation, started in 2017, into loans the campaign chairman had received. Mr. Vance ultimately accused Mr. Manafort of having falsified business records in order to obtain the loans.
At the time, Mr. Vance said that Mr. Manafort had not “been held accountable” for the charges at hand. But in a ruling in December 2019, a judge threw out the charges, finding that they violated the double jeopardy law, which says a defendant cannot be tried twice for the same offense.
The judge, Justice Maxwell Wiley, said at the time that “the law of double jeopardy in New York State provides a very narrow window for prosecution.”
Mr. Vance’s office has taken action against other associates of Mr. Trump whom the former president has pardoned in federal cases. Last week, The New York Times reported that Manhattan prosecutors had opened an investigation against Stephen K. Bannon, a former White House strategist who was pardoned by Mr. Trump during the president’s final hours in office.
But the double jeopardy defense is unlikely to help Mr. Bannon in the same way it helped Mr. Manafort, because Mr. Bannon had not yet been tried, let alone convicted.
“The basis for the prosecution being improper doesn’t in any way apply to Mr. Bannon as far as I can tell,” Mr. Blanche said.
While the U.S. Constitution bars being tried twice for the same crime, the Supreme Court has long held that there is one exception: Federal and state prosecutions for the same conduct are allowed because the federal government and states are understood to be independent sovereigns. In 2019, the court affirmed that exception.
That year, the state legislature in New York passed a measure that lawmakers argued was necessary in order to check Mr. Trump’s pardon power and to ensure that his associates were not permitted to escape justice. The law, signed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo in October 2019, allows state prosecutors to pursue charges against individuals who have been granted presidential pardons for similar crimes.
State Senator Todd Kaminsky, a Democrat and former federal prosecutor who sponsored the bill, said that the Manafort case drove home the need for the legislation.
“It really underscored why we had to take legislative action that we did so that states can pursue their own path even if there is a federal pardon,” he said. The law would make it easier for state prosecutors to pursue those on Mr. Trump’s pardon list.
The law passed too late to apply to Mr. Manafort’s case. The result, Mr. Kaminsky said, was that Mr. Vance’s office had to contort itself to try to show that the acts that Mr. Manafort had been charged with in federal court were not the same as those they were pursuing.
It is possible, though unlikely, that Mr. Manafort may still face federal charges. Last month, Andrew Weissmann, a former prosecutor from the special counsel’s office, argued that the wording of Mr. Trump’s pardons had been “oddly” drafted.
Rather than relieving those who had been pardoned from all potential liability for their actions, Mr. Weissmann argued, the language only narrowly covered their convictions.
In Mr. Manafort’s case, that might leave the door open to new charges, including on crimes that Mr. Manafort admitted he was guilty of as part of a plea deal. Those include 10 counts of financial crimes, as well as other offenses.