bostonbananarama @ bostonbananarama @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

385

Joined

2 yr. ago

Tarrifs must be congressional approved first. That means the bill must be presented, debated on, voted on, then signed.

Unless Congress has already given the president that authority.

In early 2018 President Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This law states that the president can raise tariffs on imports that pose a threat to national security. Section 232 allows the President to implement these tariffs without the approval of Congress, following an investigation by the Department of Commerce. The Commerce Department has noted that threats to national security may include “fostering U.S. dependence on unreliable or unsafe imports” or “fundamentally threatening the ability of U.S. domestic industries to satisfy national security needs.”1

You're talking about a criminal case, what does a month do for you? At every turn, Trump has consistently tried to delay the process. It has nothing to do with the DOJ or AG, they are working the system to intentionally delay everything until now. Why proceed either, he's going to be president in two months.

The only ones so far are her potential tires to Russia.

She's like an all-season radial directly to Moscow.

if she was the one who ultimately succeeded in getting Biden to drop out when he did, then isn’t it reasonable to expect that he would have dropped out earlier if she had pushed him out earlier?

No. His debate performance is what pushed it over the edge. That's when a concerted effort began to get him out.

This is naive. A Democrat isn't going to challenge a sitting president for the nomination. Pelosi is absolutely right about this. Biden never should have run for reelection.

Police: Not aware of anything

Trump: Similarly, not aware of anything, but willing to lie about it.

Seriously it took a criminally long time for Rudy to see this particular, well deserved, consequence to his actions.

Did it though? His actions followed the 2020 election, so they occurred at various times in 2021. Bar discipline isn't occurring while the original cases are pending. Then there is a complaint filed, which has to be investigated, and if they find corroboration, then there needs to be an administrative hearing, akin to a trial.

Please understand that this is a person's livelihood and needs to be carefully considered. He was disbarred in the summer of 2024 in NY. I've had cases, not bar discipline, that take over 5 years to get to trial.

To be clear, I'm absolutely in favor of disbarring shitty attorneys who don't live up to their ethics obligations.

He's an idiot, it's extremely close, go vote!

Have you read the voting rights act & the Supremacy Clause?

Why should it be taxed? Not "Why it shouldn't".

Because income is taxed. We have a progressive tax system, so the first small amount is untaxed, the next is taxed at a low rate, the next is taxed at a slightly higher rate, and so on through the tax brackets.

You're now saying that salary and hourly employees wages should be taxed, but not tipped income. So my question remains, why shouldn't it be taxed? Why create an inequity between different sources of income.

Imo, income tax should only affect the rich, and they aren't working tipped jobs.

Not taxing tipped income doesn't achieve your stated goal. The majority of low and middle income wage earners are still taxed. Altering the tax brackets would be more fair, and come closer to achieving your stated goal. Exempting tips remains a terrible idea.

It being a bad idea makes it a bad idea though. Why would this source of income be exempt from taxation? Why is that a good idea? Why is a salaried or hourly employee less deserving of having their income exempted?

When you take into account those that caucus with Democrats...

So it's the Democrats fault that people who aren't Democrats don't support eliminating the filibuster? And you think my comments are shit? Look inward, you're ignorant of the facts yet absolutely certain you're right. That's pathetic.

Since 2012, the Democrats haven't held more than 48 seats in the Senate. Again, you're uninformed. In fact, so much so that you're a Dunning Kruger wet dream.

The rest of your comment is just your devotion to this one "they don't have 60" excuse.

You vehemently refuse to understand how Congress works, yet you steadfastly blame the party not responsible. There is literally no point in talking to you.

If it makes you feel any better, that house would sell for at least double that price where I live.

Dems haven't shifted right. They advocate and vote for rights for LGBTQ, worker's rights, and a myriad of other causes. The Democrats attempt to pass favorable laws, they are blocked procedurally by the Republicans, and then idiots say that the Democrats don't do anything. It's a tired refrain.

I would love to see Democrats take a harder line against Israel, but if they had how would this election season be going?? How much money has AIPAC spent? Does it make sense to take a hard line against Israel, and then lose the presidential election, lose the house, and lose the Senate? What do you think happens in Israel and Palestine with a republican supermajority and control of the White House?

Take time to understand situations before commenting on them. The Democrats largely haven't had the ability to pass laws through the house and the Senate without the Republicans obstructing it. Only for about 70 days in the last few decades.

They could have protected Roe. They had opportunity to do so. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

They had a majority in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and the Presidency for like 70 days. Why wouldn't SCOTUS have overturned their law when they struck Roe? Matters of health and wellness tend to be the purview of the states. Where does Congress get the power? Interstate Commerce Clause?

They could have passed the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, and curtailed some of Republicans' attempts at election fuckery. They could have applied the brakes. They chose to coast.

And SCOTUS wouldn't gut it just like they already gutted the voting rights act already? They didn't have 60 votes in the Senate, so how were they getting it through the Senate...you know, where it failed?

Coulda codified Obergefell, nope. Coasted. Coulda raised the minimum wage. Coasted.

No they couldn't. None of these things would get through a Republican controlled house, nor would they have 60 votes for cloture in the Senate.

This is what bothers me constantly. The Dems try to do things, Republicans block them, and then idiots say the Dems don't do anything. Republicans currently control the house and the Dems don't have 60 votes in the Senate. They only have a majority due to Independents caucusing with them. There are not the votes to remove the filibuster.

Congress only has the powers expressly given to them, all others are the purview of the states. It is ludicrous to think SCOTUS doesn't overturn these laws that could have been passed in Congress.

Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution explains that the States have the primary authority over election administration, the "times, places, and manner of holding elections". Conversely, the Constitution grants the Congress a purely secondary role to alter or create election laws only in the extreme cases of invasion, legislative neglect, or obstinate refusal to pass election laws.

What actions by Dems do you see as "coasting towards" fascism?

They're both headed to the same destination. One is an express train.

I think we're living in two different realities. If you can't tell the difference I'm not sure how you even wrote this post.

Perot in 1992 is what really drives home the point. He got nearly 20% of the popular vote but ZERO electoral college votes. Voting 3rd party simply isn't reasonable given our current system.

Voting is like public transportation, get on the train going the direction that you want. In the off years work to make changes and organize, most people ignore the second part.