• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump's Second Term

Andy_Ross said:
In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS allows Trump to dismiss the last Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, signaling a potential overturn of a 90-year-old ruling protecting independent agencies from executive control.
Click to expand...
Link:
Supreme Court issues ruling on Trump’s power to fire FTC commissioner without cause

The Supreme Court has backed President Donald Trump’s power to fire the lone Democrat on the Federal Trade Commission without cause, agreeing at the same time to consider overturning a longstanding precedent that has protected independent agencies.

The high court’s three Democratic appointees dissented from the decision Monday to lift a lower court order that sided with the commissioner, Rebecca Slaughter, while litigation proceeds. The high court’s order said the justices will hear oral argument in the case in December.
Click to expand...
 
Regnad Kcin said:
Why, why, WHY do reporters ask moronic questions or, in this case, reasonable questions in a moronic manner?!
Click to expand...

I didn't think it was moronically asked. (The reporter didn't just say isn't this against the rules? but rather used Trump's own words against him didn't he promise not to do this? ) I thought that was well enough done.

The problem is Leavitt gets away with giving moronic answers. You'll notice she spells out the "isn't this against the rules ?" point the journalist didn't expressly say ("it's not weaponising the DOJ...") but then she lurches into the most monumental piece of smoke and mirrors.

Which boils down to her saying: If you simply assume that your political opponents illegally directed the DOJ against you, and then you illegally set the DOJ on them in what you think is revenge, and then you publicly demand that there ought to be accountability for how people misuse the DOJ, then that very last bit, the bit where you say there ought to be accountability, that little bit, is not in itself an illegal misuse of the DOJ. Even if the rest of what you did blatantly is.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Fox News: “Cory Booker and Alex Padilla…want to require CBP and ICE officers to have legible IDs, and they don’t want CBP or ICE officers covering their faces.

Trump: “Well, they wouldn’t be saying that if they didn’t hate our country.”
Click to expand...
Well they wouldn't be saying that if they didn't hate to see their country being turned into a totalitarian police state.

I am having increasing difficulty in remembering this is real and not some new, bleak, dystopian drama from Charlie Brooker.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes -AUTISM. Many such cases!
Click to expand...
Ladies and Gentlemen, The POSOTUS.

I just thought of another nickname for him -- The Chutes and Ladders President. Except there are no ladders.
(I believe in other parts of the world it's called Snakes and Ladders -- same concept.)
 
Andy_Ross said:
In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS allows Trump to dismiss the last Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, signaling a potential overturn of a 90-year-old ruling protecting independent agencies from executive control.
Click to expand...

It's the Bonfire of the Checks and Balances.

A body that is specifically intended to operate beyond any direct presidential influence, for very sensible reasons, is now entirely under his hand, because the SC says "this is fine". I am genuinely alarmed at the instability that's being ushered in here. What happens when the financial world decides the US is just not a serious country any more? When everyone notices the ship of state has become a clown car, how suddenly can the wheels fall off? It could make Liz Truss look like she wasn't even trying.
 
I wouldn't want to be the manufacturer of tylenol, the mass action lawsuits are just going to come rolling in.

ETA
Johnson&Johnson apparently spun tylenol off in a company called kenvue, so they (J&J) are protected. Kenvue will probably fold under the weight of potential legal liability. Be interesting to know if anyone shorted their stock.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
I wouldn't want to be the manufacturer of tylenol, the mass action lawsuits are just going to come rolling in.

ETA
Johnson&Johnson apparently spun tylenol off in a company called kenvue, so they (J&J) are protected. Kenvue will probably fold under the weight of potential legal liability. Be interesting to know if anyone shorted their stock.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall the enthusiasm for lawsuits and the scale of their payouts is one reason medicines are so expensive in the US in the first place.
 
Planigale said:
I wouldn't want to be the manufacturer of tylenol, the mass action lawsuits are just going to come rolling in.

ETA
Johnson&Johnson apparently spun tylenol off in a company called kenvue, so they (J&J) are protected. Kenvue will probably fold under the weight of potential legal liability. Be interesting to know if anyone shorted their stock.
Click to expand...
Alternatively, the administration specifically identifying and blaming the brand 'Tylenol', rather than the drug acetaminophen/paracetamol could give Kenvue very good grounds to sue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom