POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I have yet to hear one logical explanation as to why the legislation proposed in Michigan and Wisconsin is illegal or unconstitutional. Same as in North Carolina.

who said it was?

 

[Rover]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I have yet to hear one logical explanation as to why the legislation proposed in Michigan and Wisconsin is illegal or unconstitutional. Same as in North Carolina.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/lo...e-duck-bills-violate-constitution/2224333002/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...unconstitutional-laws/?utm_term=.ff7349e0071f

 

[aparch]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Also, what's your defense of the Michigan GOP being Indian givers?

The original version of the minimum wage bill sought to incrementally increase the minimum wage from $9.25 an hour to $12 an hour by 2022. The minimum wage for tipped workers would increase from $3.52 an hour to $12 an hour by 2024.

The gutted version put forth by the legislature, meanwhile, would increase the minimum wage to $12 by 2030 and bring tipped wages to only $4 by 2030.

The chicken sh**s approved the original Bill's just to prevent it going to a referendum for voters to approve.

This isn't "lame duck" legislation. This is an outright "fu** you," from the GOP.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Is this just a deliberately obtuse post, or do you really not get this?

Some of you here, along with a bunch of halfwits in Wisconsin, Michigan and elsewhere don't get that this is lame duck legislation?? Lame duck legislation occurs literally every single time there is a change in power from one party to the other at either the state or federal level. The outgoing party knows "it's now or never" and the incoming party screams "foul" (although admittedly not with the shrillness of some of the D's in Wisconsin).

There is nothing illegal about it. There is nothing evil about it. It's no different than if they had passed the legislation last February. Personally I wouldn't pass a bunch of legislation like Wisconsin's since it's shortsighted -- there will almost certainly come a time when the Wisconsin legislature is controlled by the D's and the Governor is an R, but that's really their problem.

You want me to give you examples of lame duck legislation??

Obamacare was coming down the pumpkin path literally from the day Obama was elected in 2008. It wasn't passed by a bunch of "I'm taking my ball and going home" crybabies who lost an election. And if memory serves wasn't it actually passed in 2010, before the 2010 midterms? If Scott Walker had managed to suppress a few more votes to win another term last month, this legislation would never have been mentioned, let alone considered.

You're right, I was confusing it with other legislation. It was signed into law on March 23, 2010.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

When all I get is name-calling, I tend to think I struck a little closer to home than people like to admit.

Yes, all you got is name calling (so long as you ignore everything except name calling).

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Also, what's your defense of the Michigan GOP being Indian givers?



The chicken sh**s approved the original Bill's just to prevent it going to a referendum for voters to approve.

This isn't "lame duck" legislation. This is an outright "fu** you," from the GOP.

Democracy.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

You’re the one who is obtuse if you think stripping these powers is usual lame duck activity.

They are trying to modify ballot proposals that we, the majority of the voters, voted for as written. In Michigan, They are also trying to strip campaign finance oversight powers from the SecState-elect, and that bill is sponsored by a guy who has been investigated and fined for violations multiple times.

So yeah, nitwit, you can pretty much get the fark outta here with that "both-sides" bullsh*t.

Yes, I remember all those democrats burning the government down when they lost in 1994 and 2010. Oh wait, they didn't happen.

Take that weak arse BSABSVR bullshiat outta here, meat.

If this is just business as usual, you should have no problem finding examples of Democrats weakening the powers of an office they just lost in an election. If you think that is ok, sorry, you're a POS.

This one drank the GOP Kool-Aid.

You may have just passed Drew as the dumbest poster on USCHO

Yes, all you got is name calling (so long as you ignore everything except name calling).

There wasn't a ton of substance in those initial responses.

 

[Rover]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Also, what's your defense of the Michigan GOP being Indian givers?



The chicken sh**s approved the original Bill's just to prevent it going to a referendum for voters to approve.

This isn't "lame duck" legislation. This is an outright "fu** you," from the GOP.

Michigan Goopers are fuked for two reasons. 1) Its entirely possible the state Supreme Court will rule against them. Its closely divided with one swing justice who approved the anti-gerrymandering referendum and who is now persona non grata amongst the state GOP. 2) Regardless what hasn't changed is an independent commission will draw the lines after 2020, which most likely means the end of the GOP's majorities in the state legislature.

North Carolina has a similar issue. State supreme court is 5-2 Dems. They will most likely find the lines to be unconstitutional sorta like Pennsylvania did and then draw the lines themselves. That means NC Goopers are also in deep doo-doo.

Problem in Wisconsin is that the Dems need to retain and then pick up one more seat over the next couple of years to grab court majority. If they lose one of those they're out of luck since GOP is a cult.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

There wasn't a ton of substance in those initial responses.

There seems to be a lot of implying that there aren't, in fact, examples of Democrats using lame duck sessions to weaken offices that they just lost. Instead of refuting that (because you can't...or weren't confident that you could), you deluded yourself into thinking two things. One, that there was nothing but name calling in the responses. And two, that people were suggesting Democrats have never passed any sort of lame duck legislation.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

There wasn't a ton of substance in those initial responses.

I love it when idiot posters so readily reveal their idiocy. In 4 of the 7 posts you quoted, the posters clearly offered a very substantive -- if brief -- argument against your "both sides are bad" garbage. And we're still waiting by the way. Find us some examples of democrats losing the governor's office to a republican and then the democratic legislature in that state looking to strip power from the incoming governor before he or she takes office.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

The Deep State has gotten to Trump, now that he's nominating a Bush crony for Attorney General.

Exactly what I predicted in 2016, and why I did not vote Republican for President.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

I have yet to hear one logical explanation as to why the legislation proposed in Michigan and Wisconsin is illegal or unconstitutional. Same as in North Carolina.

There is actually a decent argument to be made that some of what is being attempted in Michigan should not pass state Constitutional muster.

https://amp.freep.com/amp/2224333002?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&__twitter_impression=true

But yeah, "politics as usual", Mr. Fark Independent.

 

[burd]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Walker had a history of divisive and "low road" politics going back to his days as a MU student and the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors. His recent move doesn't surprise many here in WI. He and his fellow Republicans (not all, but many) will do everything they can to make sure Evert fails. What we fear is that Evert is a consensus-building type and may not be tooled to deal with the hooking, holding, tripping and spearing that goes on in the corners.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

So, based on what I see here and based on what I read all the independents have drifted right, right along with all our politics. Center in '70 was Nixon and today Nixon is a Democrat.

 

[BassAle]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

The Deep State has gotten to Trump, now that he's nominating a Bush crony for Attorney General.

Exactly what I predicted in 2016, and why I did not vote Republican for President.

oh ****, Trump's lost nuts like Flaggy. He's doomed now!

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

So, based on what I see here and based on what I read all the independents have drifted right, right along with all our politics. Center in '70 was Nixon and today Nixon is a Democrat.

I'm not sure this is an example of political rightward drift of moderates (though that is definitely reality). I think this just demonstrates that even politically moderate righties are not moderate in their contempt for the left. Same as the true nutjobs, they will rationalize anything that pwns the libt@rds.

 

[alfablue]

There wasn't a ton of substance in those initial responses.

At some point, you need to prove your theory that Ds stripped power just like is happening in Wisconsin and Michigan.

Until then, you have no standing to really complain of lack of substance. That’s just whining about the response.

Once you do that, we can have a real debate about the good/bad of each party. As at this point, it’s only the Rs that are being anti-democratic.

 

[jerphisch]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

When all I get is name-calling, I tend to think I struck a little closer to home than people like to admit.

So when you call someone obtuse, you're just asking a legit polite question. When you get called obtuse all the big meanie D's are hurting your precious fragile feefees?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I'm not sure this is an example of political rightward drift of moderates (though that is definitely reality). I think this just demonstrates that even politically moderate righties are not moderate in their contempt for the left. Same as the true nutjobs, they will rationalize anything that pwns the libt@rds.

I think it does. Cause I think the entire country that isn't automatically voting Democrat has lost their ****ing minds.

 

[Rover]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

So, based on what I see here and based on what I read all the independents have drifted right, right along with all our politics. Center in '70 was Nixon and today Nixon is a Democrat.

Yes I'm sure Nixon was in favor of gay marriage, campaign finance reform , and civil rights.

Are we talking about Richard Nixon or Cynthia Nixon here?