Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info

gtbritishskull

Subscribe to gtbritishskull's blog Subscribe

Menu

Special Features

Comments

I think to most here that depends entirely on who is signing the EOs.

#10 | POSTED BY EBERLY

How can you protect people with pre-existing conditions with an Executive Order? What does it actually do? Does it have any teeth? Does it remain valid if Obamacare is overturned?

My guess is that it is all talk, and no substance. Which is typical for conservatives.

Here is the executive order... www.whitehouse.gov

I challenge you to find ANYTHING in there that is substantive. As far as I can tell, it is just a bunch of unquantifiable BS about "maintain and build upon existing actions". The only thing in there that is potentially worth anything is preventing surprise billing, but I am unsure of what legal authority the Executive Branch has to regulate that.

I look forward to your response.

I'm not sure what sort of hyperpartisan would consider the popularity of a law when trying to determine the Constitutionality of that law. Regardless of how popular the law is, if it's not in accordance with the A non-partisan judge shouldn't really be considering the impact of a law when determining its constitutionality, should they? They were nominated and consented upon to uphold the constitution, not to be lawmakers. We have an entire branch of the government to fill that role.

#2 | POSTED BY AVIGDORE

The reason why Republicans are pushing to install a Supreme Court Justice as quickly as possible is so that they can put another activist judge on the bench.

Conservatives want to overturn Roe v Wade. Which has previously been ruled as the constitutional solution by the Supreme Court. There is no reason for them to revisit it, other than them being "hyperpartisan".

The interpretation of the second amendment has changed DRASTICALLY over time due to conservative activism on the Supreme Court. Again, that sounds like the "hyperpartisan" actions that you talk of.

We are talking about the popularity of laws because Conservatives have insisted of politicizing and weaponizing the Supreme Court. It is obvious to EVERYONE that Conservatives don't care any more about what is constitutional, they only care about pushing their ideology on everyone else. The "constitutionality" is clear, and is not on the side of conservatives. But, because that argument no longer matters to conservatives, we have to defer to the argument about popularity.

I wonder if my Dad is being counted as one of these.

In Georgia, they delayed the primary. He mailed in an absentee ballot way early. And it was AFTER he mailed his ballot in that they decided to delay the primary. But also, because of the delay there were more things on the ballot election day than on the absentee ballot (I guess there was another election a month later that it got joined with? - but it might have just been for his district or municipality). So, he ended up voting absentee AND THEN voting in person as well. But, he said that when he voted he only had the opportunity to vote for items that he had not voted for with his absentee ballot.

So, I wonder if the Republicans in charge are competent enough that they are NOT seeing him as voting twice for the same election (in my experience they are not... remember when Republicans in Texas said they had 50,000 illegal votes, then had to walk it back to saying there was basically no fraud?). But even if the conservatives in charge in Georgia DID (probably by luck) actually count it right, then the situation was so confusing that I can understand people voting twice. If you mail in your absentee ballot, and the election does not happen on the day that it was supposed to, is it clear whether your absentee ballot is still valid or not? It seems an easy point of confusion.

It is typical for conservatives to inflate the numbers of "voter fraud" for political reasons. This situation was so confusing that my guess is that they are just spreading FUD to try to benefit their holy leader, Donald J Trump.

So, are you willing to go ahead and say that he has, and probably will continue to, pressured the FDA to push the vaccine out quicker, and declare that "[you] won't take the vaccine". Or are you going to jump through some convoluted mental gymnastics to say that this isn't ACTUALLY pressure, and really he was just trolling liberals, and that ultimately everything Trump does that is immoral or unethical is Obama's fault so you still think that Trump is the reborn messiah and will believe every word that comes out of his mouth (including words that claim that the vaccine is safe and that it was not rushed)?

#22 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL AT 2020-09-08 01:59 PM

There's a big difference between pressure to accelerate a process that's inherently long and accelerating a process for political reasons that could be unsafe.

#24 | POSTED BY ROCKY_B

Lol... looks like you decided firmly on Option B. Just don't throw your back out doing all those gymnastics.

For example, how do you justify claiming he is just trying to "accelerate a process" when HIS WORDS are "The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is ... Obviously, they are hoping to delay the answer until after November 3rd."

HE has stated that the timing matters to him for political reasons AND has already claimed that his opponents are DELAYING the vaccine for said political reasons (you notice... NOT because it is "a process that's inherently long").

YOU Sir, are a sycophant. Because instead of addressing the words that CAME OUT OF TRUMP'S MOUTH, you vomit out a word salad of obfuscation and FUD. And by arguing "Trump is not doing that because I think it would be stupid". Despite the fact that YOU are apparently the stupid one because your reasons for thinking it is stupid are wrong, but also that just because doing something would be stupid DOES NOT MEAN THAT A PERSON DID NOT OR WILL NOT DO IT.

You know another thing that would be theoretically make Trump "toast" if he did it and that "wouldn't help him"? Downplaying a pandemic even though there were TONS of people telling him that it was going to be bad, and thereby letting hundreds of thousands of Americans die. But, somehow, people like YOU don't, after the fact, think that something so OBVIOUSLY stupid for him to do should now make him "toast". I don't see you calling for his impeachment. So, it makes your whole argument moot. Because you are living proof that as long as Trump has his sycophants, it doesn't matter what bad thing he does, he will never be "toast" because he can rely on the weak will of the conservatives to protect him.

Drudge Retort
 

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable