Advertisement
by San Lumen » Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:51 am
by Nouveau Yathrib » Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:12 am
Typically, after losing a presidential election, a political party will undertake an intense intra-party debate over why it didn’t win and how the party needs to change to take back the White House. Democrats did so after losing in 1988, 2000, 2004 and 2016. In fact, even after winning in 2020 — taking control of the White House and U.S. Senate and maintaining control in the U.S. House — Democrats are having an intra-party debate, trying to figure out why they didn’t win more House seats and struggled with Latino voters. Republicans, too, have had such debates, after losses in 1996, 2008 and 2012.
But not this time.
Despite Republicans losing the White House and Senate in 2020, and thus being totally swept out of power in Washington,1 there’s been no official “autopsy” or widespread consideration of appointing new leaders or anything else. In the period after the 1988 presidential election, the Republican Party has lost the popular vote in all but one presidential race (2004). It has lost three of the last four presidential elections and allowed itself to be dominated by former President Donald Trump, who was twice impeached for breaking with democratic values. But it is moving forward like none of that really happened.
Why has there not been such a reckoning among conservatives and Republicans? This is a hard question to answer precisely because the Republican Party isn’t one thing, and the incentives of right-wing media outlets such as Fox News or Newsmax are different from those of elected officials such as Sen. Mitch McConnell. But based on my own reporting and interviews with people who are studying the Republican Party closely, I’d offer five (overlapping) theories.
1. The party’s core activists don’t want to shift gears.
2. Trump is still a force in the party.
3. Republicans almost won in 2020.
4. Republican voters aren’t clamoring for changes.
5. There aren’t real forces within the GOP leading change.
We should note that the Republicans are making some slight shifts. They are trying to describe their identity politics in terms of fighting “woke” people, “cancel culture” and critical race theory, instead of bashing Mexicans and Muslims as Trump did in 2016. The GOP is emphasizing the idea that it is a “working-class party,” even if its economic policy ideas don’t necessarily align with that mantra. And there is a clear effort in the party to promote other Republican politicians like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as presidential candidates — thereby allowing the party to move on from Trump by 2024. We should also emphasize that this story is only capturing where we are in April 2021 — three years from now, Republicans could be on the way to nominating a Romney-type, such as former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. Three years is a long time in American politics.
But right now, Republicans are basically doing a very slight rebrand while not even announcing that rebrand, because the party is both resistant to change and largely resistant to even talking about change. For now, as Glickman described it, the Republicans are in a state of “Nah-topsy.”
by Kowani » Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:32 am
Did you know that today is your last opportunity to sign up for Donald Trump’s new social network?
No?
Well then you must not be receiving the critical, exclusive updates from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). Last week the New York Times dropped a bombshell report detailing the extent to which the Trump campaign had scammed its own supporters into providing them a nine-figure, interest-free loan. The crux of the grift was the Trump campaign’s deceptive email practices which, among other things, chose to make recurring donations the default setting for supporters who were lured in by the campaign’s hyperbolic and conspiratorial fundraising pitches.
As a result, elderly Trump supporters on fixed incomes had their bank accounts depleted, causing their rent and utilities checks to bounce. Altogether the Trump campaign had to refund $122 million in online donations from their own supporters who had been duped.
Score another one for the party of the working man. The NRCC was admirably undeterred by this revelation.
On Tuesday afternoon the committee sent me the following text message:Ominous. But literally every single word in the text is untrue. (Except “Timothy.”)
Let’s break it down:
For starters, Donald Trump has not started a new social media site yet, he’s just talked about it. And if we learned anything from Infrastructure Week, the Trump healthcare plan, The Great, Beautiful Wall That Mexico Paid For, and his sacred landslide re-election victory, it’s that vaporware is Trump’s primary product.
But even if Trump Social does come into existence, the NRCC—which is a Republican party committee not affiliated with Donald Trump—would have no operating control or ability to sign people up for this private enterprise.
Which creates an ontological conundrum: Can an offer that doesn’t exist expire in 10 minutes? And finally: I promise you that the NRCC will in fact ask for my money again with another limited-time offer.
So the NRCC is offering early access to a product that you have to presume there will be a lot of demand for and just pocketing the cash for themselves while the user, who you have to assume was excited about Trump Twitter—not supporting some random House Republican’s re-election campaign—gets nothing but the bill.
Once you click on the link in this text spam, you’re taken to a landing page where you’re asked to make a contribution in order to be “the first to join” this nonexistent social media site—over which the NRCC has no control.Here, the NRCC now claims that it will match the contribution “5x.” Think about that for a moment: The NRCC says that if you give them $1, they’ll add another $5. But if you don’t give them a dollar, what are they going to with their $5? So this is a lie, too (a common one in political fundraising.)
But let’s keep going.
Next up we’re presented with two boxes that are pre-checked. The first makes the donation monthly recurring—the same gimmick that the Times exposed the Trump campaign for running to disastrous results. The second pre-checked box doubles your donation in order to grant you “Trump Patriot Status.”And if you can believe it, there’s an even worse version of this running on the NRCC’s fundraising page, where they threaten to tell Trump that the reader is a “DEFECTOR” if they uncheck the box for recurring donations:
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:33 am
Borderlands of Rojava wrote:Remind me, why are we so concerned about what goes on in the Ukraine?
by Zurkerx » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:04 am
Kowani wrote:The NRCC has decided the smartest thing to do is follow the trump traditionDid you know that today is your last opportunity to sign up for Donald Trump’s new social network?
No?
Well then you must not be receiving the critical, exclusive updates from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). Last week the New York Times dropped a bombshell report detailing the extent to which the Trump campaign had scammed its own supporters into providing them a nine-figure, interest-free loan. The crux of the grift was the Trump campaign’s deceptive email practices which, among other things, chose to make recurring donations the default setting for supporters who were lured in by the campaign’s hyperbolic and conspiratorial fundraising pitches.
As a result, elderly Trump supporters on fixed incomes had their bank accounts depleted, causing their rent and utilities checks to bounce. Altogether the Trump campaign had to refund $122 million in online donations from their own supporters who had been duped.
Score another one for the party of the working man. The NRCC was admirably undeterred by this revelation.
On Tuesday afternoon the committee sent me the following text message:Ominous. But literally every single word in the text is untrue. (Except “Timothy.”)
Let’s break it down:
For starters, Donald Trump has not started a new social media site yet, he’s just talked about it. And if we learned anything from Infrastructure Week, the Trump healthcare plan, The Great, Beautiful Wall That Mexico Paid For, and his sacred landslide re-election victory, it’s that vaporware is Trump’s primary product.
But even if Trump Social does come into existence, the NRCC—which is a Republican party committee not affiliated with Donald Trump—would have no operating control or ability to sign people up for this private enterprise.
Which creates an ontological conundrum: Can an offer that doesn’t exist expire in 10 minutes? And finally: I promise you that the NRCC will in fact ask for my money again with another limited-time offer.
So the NRCC is offering early access to a product that you have to presume there will be a lot of demand for and just pocketing the cash for themselves while the user, who you have to assume was excited about Trump Twitter—not supporting some random House Republican’s re-election campaign—gets nothing but the bill.
Once you click on the link in this text spam, you’re taken to a landing page where you’re asked to make a contribution in order to be “the first to join” this nonexistent social media site—over which the NRCC has no control.Here, the NRCC now claims that it will match the contribution “5x.” Think about that for a moment: The NRCC says that if you give them $1, they’ll add another $5. But if you don’t give them a dollar, what are they going to with their $5? So this is a lie, too (a common one in political fundraising.)
But let’s keep going.
Next up we’re presented with two boxes that are pre-checked. The first makes the donation monthly recurring—the same gimmick that the Times exposed the Trump campaign for running to disastrous results. The second pre-checked box doubles your donation in order to grant you “Trump Patriot Status.”And if you can believe it, there’s an even worse version of this running on the NRCC’s fundraising page, where they threaten to tell Trump that the reader is a “DEFECTOR” if they uncheck the box for recurring donations:
by Kowani » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:06 am
An Idaho House panel on Tuesday approved legislation intended to give lawmakers veto power over federal government actions and federal court decisions.
The House State Affairs Committee on a voice vote sent the bill to the full House for possible amendments after the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Sage Dixon, said it needed several changes.
Political experts say such legislation is popular in conservative states such as Idaho but faces big obstacles in overturning federal actions. The Idaho attorney general’s office in an opinion requested by Democratic Rep. Chris Mathias said the bill could lead to situations that violate the Idaho and U.S. constitutions. After the committee meeting, Dixon said he fully expects court challenges stemming from the legislation if it becomes law. But he said the deliberative process involving committee hearings and the Legislature approving specific actions would give Idaho a better chance of winning those court battles.
“A lot of this will end up in court; I’m sure of that,” he said. “This is us flexing our muscles as a state that we need to do. And it is a growing argument throughout many states in the U.S., so I think we’ll see this popping up more across the country.”
The legislation allows any member of the state House or Senate to make a complaint to the leader of the House, Senate and co-chairmen of the Committee on Federalism concerning executive orders, acts of Congress, federal court rulings and other federal actions.
Dixon co-chairs the federalism committee and would help handle those complaints. He is also chairman of the Federalism and International Relations Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. It’s a group of conservative lawmakers that develops model bills that its members can introduce in their own state capitols.
Within 15 days of receiving a complaint, the Idaho federalism committee’s co-chairmen would survey members to determine whether the complaint has merit.
If the Republican-dominated committee finds the federal action is outside what it considers federal authority, a public hearing would have to be held within 30 days of that decision.
After the hearing, the committee would prepare a report to the Legislature, creating an avenue for lawmakers to create and pass legislation that backers of the bill say would make the federal action or court ruling “null and void.”
Additionally, the legislation says that once the committee convenes, no state agency can take any action guided by the federal action or court decision until the committee makes a determination. The legislation isn’t clear if that prohibition remains if the committee determines the federal government has overstepped its authority. As written, that could last indefinitely even if the full Legislature doesn’t act.
Dixon said one of the amendments he plans would supply an end date and fix that problem.
He said another amendment would prevent complaints about existing federal laws or actions as a way to prevent lawsuits over established law the state could lose. But the federalism committee could still examine them with that ultimate goal in mind. New federal actions could be put on hold should there be a complaint to the committee.
“A lot of my concern is executive orders,” Dixon said. “I think we’ve placed too much attention upon the office of the president, and it shouldn’t be that way.”
The opinion by Idaho Deputy Attorney General Cory M. Carone dated March 19 — the same day the Legislature went into recess due to a COVID-19 outbreak among House members — said the legislation wasn’t necessarily unconstitutional on its face, but lawmakers actions based on it could be.
by Trollzyn the Infinite » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:10 am
Kowani wrote:The ghost of John C. Calhoun lives
Idaho House panel approves legislation to give lawmakers veto power over federal government actions and federal court decisionsAn Idaho House panel on Tuesday approved legislation intended to give lawmakers veto power over federal government actions and federal court decisions.
The House State Affairs Committee on a voice vote sent the bill to the full House for possible amendments after the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Sage Dixon, said it needed several changes.
Political experts say such legislation is popular in conservative states such as Idaho but faces big obstacles in overturning federal actions. The Idaho attorney general’s office in an opinion requested by Democratic Rep. Chris Mathias said the bill could lead to situations that violate the Idaho and U.S. constitutions. After the committee meeting, Dixon said he fully expects court challenges stemming from the legislation if it becomes law. But he said the deliberative process involving committee hearings and the Legislature approving specific actions would give Idaho a better chance of winning those court battles.
“A lot of this will end up in court; I’m sure of that,” he said. “This is us flexing our muscles as a state that we need to do. And it is a growing argument throughout many states in the U.S., so I think we’ll see this popping up more across the country.”
The legislation allows any member of the state House or Senate to make a complaint to the leader of the House, Senate and co-chairmen of the Committee on Federalism concerning executive orders, acts of Congress, federal court rulings and other federal actions.
Dixon co-chairs the federalism committee and would help handle those complaints. He is also chairman of the Federalism and International Relations Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. It’s a group of conservative lawmakers that develops model bills that its members can introduce in their own state capitols.
Within 15 days of receiving a complaint, the Idaho federalism committee’s co-chairmen would survey members to determine whether the complaint has merit.
If the Republican-dominated committee finds the federal action is outside what it considers federal authority, a public hearing would have to be held within 30 days of that decision.
After the hearing, the committee would prepare a report to the Legislature, creating an avenue for lawmakers to create and pass legislation that backers of the bill say would make the federal action or court ruling “null and void.”
Additionally, the legislation says that once the committee convenes, no state agency can take any action guided by the federal action or court decision until the committee makes a determination. The legislation isn’t clear if that prohibition remains if the committee determines the federal government has overstepped its authority. As written, that could last indefinitely even if the full Legislature doesn’t act.
Dixon said one of the amendments he plans would supply an end date and fix that problem.
He said another amendment would prevent complaints about existing federal laws or actions as a way to prevent lawsuits over established law the state could lose. But the federalism committee could still examine them with that ultimate goal in mind. New federal actions could be put on hold should there be a complaint to the committee.
“A lot of my concern is executive orders,” Dixon said. “I think we’ve placed too much attention upon the office of the president, and it shouldn’t be that way.”
The opinion by Idaho Deputy Attorney General Cory M. Carone dated March 19 — the same day the Legislature went into recess due to a COVID-19 outbreak among House members — said the legislation wasn’t necessarily unconstitutional on its face, but lawmakers actions based on it could be.
by Senkaku » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:15 am
Kowani wrote:The ghost of John C. Calhoun lives
Idaho House panel approves legislation to give lawmakers veto power over federal government actions and federal court decisions
by Borderlands of Rojava » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:20 am
San Lumen wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/546863-trump-endorses-brooks-in-alabama-senate-boosting-one-of-his-biggest
Trump endorses Congressman Mo Brooks for next year's senate Primary in Alabama. Brooks spoke at Trump's insurrection rally.
by Borderlands of Rojava » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:21 am
Kowani wrote:The ghost of John C. Calhoun lives
Idaho House panel approves legislation to give lawmakers veto power over federal government actions and federal court decisionsAn Idaho House panel on Tuesday approved legislation intended to give lawmakers veto power over federal government actions and federal court decisions.
The House State Affairs Committee on a voice vote sent the bill to the full House for possible amendments after the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Sage Dixon, said it needed several changes.
Political experts say such legislation is popular in conservative states such as Idaho but faces big obstacles in overturning federal actions. The Idaho attorney general’s office in an opinion requested by Democratic Rep. Chris Mathias said the bill could lead to situations that violate the Idaho and U.S. constitutions. After the committee meeting, Dixon said he fully expects court challenges stemming from the legislation if it becomes law. But he said the deliberative process involving committee hearings and the Legislature approving specific actions would give Idaho a better chance of winning those court battles.
“A lot of this will end up in court; I’m sure of that,” he said. “This is us flexing our muscles as a state that we need to do. And it is a growing argument throughout many states in the U.S., so I think we’ll see this popping up more across the country.”
The legislation allows any member of the state House or Senate to make a complaint to the leader of the House, Senate and co-chairmen of the Committee on Federalism concerning executive orders, acts of Congress, federal court rulings and other federal actions.
Dixon co-chairs the federalism committee and would help handle those complaints. He is also chairman of the Federalism and International Relations Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. It’s a group of conservative lawmakers that develops model bills that its members can introduce in their own state capitols.
Within 15 days of receiving a complaint, the Idaho federalism committee’s co-chairmen would survey members to determine whether the complaint has merit.
If the Republican-dominated committee finds the federal action is outside what it considers federal authority, a public hearing would have to be held within 30 days of that decision.
After the hearing, the committee would prepare a report to the Legislature, creating an avenue for lawmakers to create and pass legislation that backers of the bill say would make the federal action or court ruling “null and void.”
Additionally, the legislation says that once the committee convenes, no state agency can take any action guided by the federal action or court decision until the committee makes a determination. The legislation isn’t clear if that prohibition remains if the committee determines the federal government has overstepped its authority. As written, that could last indefinitely even if the full Legislature doesn’t act.
Dixon said one of the amendments he plans would supply an end date and fix that problem.
He said another amendment would prevent complaints about existing federal laws or actions as a way to prevent lawsuits over established law the state could lose. But the federalism committee could still examine them with that ultimate goal in mind. New federal actions could be put on hold should there be a complaint to the committee.
“A lot of my concern is executive orders,” Dixon said. “I think we’ve placed too much attention upon the office of the president, and it shouldn’t be that way.”
The opinion by Idaho Deputy Attorney General Cory M. Carone dated March 19 — the same day the Legislature went into recess due to a COVID-19 outbreak among House members — said the legislation wasn’t necessarily unconstitutional on its face, but lawmakers actions based on it could be.
by Salus Maior » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:26 am
Zurkerx wrote:Now I'm more convinced than ever that Geatz is trouble: He fought a revenge porn bill in the Florida State Legislature, saying ex-lovers can use photos as they see fit, a sponsor says. Part of the article:
When Florida legislators passed a bill aimed at preventing people from sharing sexually explicit photos of their ex-partners online, then-state Rep. Matt Gaetz cast one of just two House votes against it.
Six years later, with the now-congressman accused of having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl and sharing photographs of nude women with fellow lawmakers, the sponsor of the Florida legislation says Gaetz opposed it because he believed recipients of such images could use them however they wanted.
Tom Goodson, a Republican who retired from the Florida state House in 2018, told the Orlando Sentinel on Monday that Gaetz was the leading opponent of the nonconsensual pornography bill he spent years trying to pass. He described a meeting in which Gaetz said that if a person gives an intimate photo to a romantic partner, the image becomes the property of the recipient.
“Matt was absolutely against it. He thought the picture was his to do with what he wanted,” Goodson said, according to the newspaper. “He thought that any picture was his to use as he wanted to, as an expression of his rights.”
Sick fuck he is.
Of course he would: that's what Trump always does when someone associated with him is politically/criminally in trouble. Can't be hurting the brand, after all.
by Exalted Inquellian State » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:37 am
Borderlands of Rojava wrote:San Lumen wrote:https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/546863-trump-endorses-brooks-in-alabama-senate-boosting-one-of-his-biggest
Trump endorses Congressman Mo Brooks for next year's senate Primary in Alabama. Brooks spoke at Trump's insurrection rally.
Brooks basically incited a riot. He's an extremist and a danger to society.
by Borderlands of Rojava » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:37 am
by San Lumen » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:40 am
Borderlands of Rojava wrote:Exalted Inquellian State wrote:What did he say?
Something about bloodshed being necessary for patriotism.
Here it is: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01 ... peech.html
by San Lumen » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:45 am
by The Alma Mater » Wed Apr 07, 2021 11:56 am
Kowani wrote:The NRCC has decided the smartest thing to do is follow the trump traditionDid you know that today is your last opportunity to sign up for Donald Trump’s new social network?
No?
Well then you must not be receiving the critical, exclusive updates from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). Last week the New York Times dropped a bombshell report detailing the extent to which the Trump campaign had scammed its own supporters into providing them a nine-figure, interest-free loan. The crux of the grift was the Trump campaign’s deceptive email practices which, among other things, chose to make recurring donations the default setting for supporters who were lured in by the campaign’s hyperbolic and conspiratorial fundraising pitches.
As a result, elderly Trump supporters on fixed incomes had their bank accounts depleted, causing their rent and utilities checks to bounce. Altogether the Trump campaign had to refund $122 million in online donations from their own supporters who had been duped.
Score another one for the party of the working man. The NRCC was admirably undeterred by this revelation.
On Tuesday afternoon the committee sent me the following text message:Ominous. But literally every single word in the text is untrue. (Except “Timothy.”)
Let’s break it down:
For starters, Donald Trump has not started a new social media site yet, he’s just talked about it. And if we learned anything from Infrastructure Week, the Trump healthcare plan, The Great, Beautiful Wall That Mexico Paid For, and his sacred landslide re-election victory, it’s that vaporware is Trump’s primary product.
But even if Trump Social does come into existence, the NRCC—which is a Republican party committee not affiliated with Donald Trump—would have no operating control or ability to sign people up for this private enterprise.
Which creates an ontological conundrum: Can an offer that doesn’t exist expire in 10 minutes? And finally: I promise you that the NRCC will in fact ask for my money again with another limited-time offer.
So the NRCC is offering early access to a product that you have to presume there will be a lot of demand for and just pocketing the cash for themselves while the user, who you have to assume was excited about Trump Twitter—not supporting some random House Republican’s re-election campaign—gets nothing but the bill.
Once you click on the link in this text spam, you’re taken to a landing page where you’re asked to make a contribution in order to be “the first to join” this nonexistent social media site—over which the NRCC has no control.Here, the NRCC now claims that it will match the contribution “5x.” Think about that for a moment: The NRCC says that if you give them $1, they’ll add another $5. But if you don’t give them a dollar, what are they going to with their $5? So this is a lie, too (a common one in political fundraising.)
But let’s keep going.
Next up we’re presented with two boxes that are pre-checked. The first makes the donation monthly recurring—the same gimmick that the Times exposed the Trump campaign for running to disastrous results. The second pre-checked box doubles your donation in order to grant you “Trump Patriot Status.”And if you can believe it, there’s an even worse version of this running on the NRCC’s fundraising page, where they threaten to tell Trump that the reader is a “DEFECTOR” if they uncheck the box for recurring donations:
by Celritannia » Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:00 pm
by The Greater Ohio Valley » Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:04 pm
Kowani wrote:The ghost of John C. Calhoun lives
Idaho House panel approves legislation to give lawmakers veto power over federal government actions and federal court decisionsAn Idaho House panel on Tuesday approved legislation intended to give lawmakers veto power over federal government actions and federal court decisions.
The House State Affairs Committee on a voice vote sent the bill to the full House for possible amendments after the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Sage Dixon, said it needed several changes.
Political experts say such legislation is popular in conservative states such as Idaho but faces big obstacles in overturning federal actions. The Idaho attorney general’s office in an opinion requested by Democratic Rep. Chris Mathias said the bill could lead to situations that violate the Idaho and U.S. constitutions. After the committee meeting, Dixon said he fully expects court challenges stemming from the legislation if it becomes law. But he said the deliberative process involving committee hearings and the Legislature approving specific actions would give Idaho a better chance of winning those court battles.
“A lot of this will end up in court; I’m sure of that,” he said. “This is us flexing our muscles as a state that we need to do. And it is a growing argument throughout many states in the U.S., so I think we’ll see this popping up more across the country.”
The legislation allows any member of the state House or Senate to make a complaint to the leader of the House, Senate and co-chairmen of the Committee on Federalism concerning executive orders, acts of Congress, federal court rulings and other federal actions.
Dixon co-chairs the federalism committee and would help handle those complaints. He is also chairman of the Federalism and International Relations Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. It’s a group of conservative lawmakers that develops model bills that its members can introduce in their own state capitols.
Within 15 days of receiving a complaint, the Idaho federalism committee’s co-chairmen would survey members to determine whether the complaint has merit.
If the Republican-dominated committee finds the federal action is outside what it considers federal authority, a public hearing would have to be held within 30 days of that decision.
After the hearing, the committee would prepare a report to the Legislature, creating an avenue for lawmakers to create and pass legislation that backers of the bill say would make the federal action or court ruling “null and void.”
Additionally, the legislation says that once the committee convenes, no state agency can take any action guided by the federal action or court decision until the committee makes a determination. The legislation isn’t clear if that prohibition remains if the committee determines the federal government has overstepped its authority. As written, that could last indefinitely even if the full Legislature doesn’t act.
Dixon said one of the amendments he plans would supply an end date and fix that problem.
He said another amendment would prevent complaints about existing federal laws or actions as a way to prevent lawsuits over established law the state could lose. But the federalism committee could still examine them with that ultimate goal in mind. New federal actions could be put on hold should there be a complaint to the committee.
“A lot of my concern is executive orders,” Dixon said. “I think we’ve placed too much attention upon the office of the president, and it shouldn’t be that way.”
The opinion by Idaho Deputy Attorney General Cory M. Carone dated March 19 — the same day the Legislature went into recess due to a COVID-19 outbreak among House members — said the legislation wasn’t necessarily unconstitutional on its face, but lawmakers actions based on it could be.
by San Lumen » Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:05 pm
Celritannia wrote:Have we still not received any *ahem* "sources" from GMS that the *laughs* "leftist" media of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc. are biased?
I mean, sure, all media is biased in some way, but some more so than others. One only needs to look at independent watchdog and fact checked information to know this.
by Kowani » Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:12 pm
by The Alma Mater » Wed Apr 07, 2021 12:15 pm
Users browsing this forum: Big Eyed Animation, East Nivosea, Jome Sponsors, Picairn, Roman Khilafa Al Cordoba, Senkaku, Shrillland, The United Penguin Commonwealth, Umeria
