It’s just the gratuitous pandering. She is saying in African American street parlance that she is experiencing / witnessing things same as everyday folk. They are trying to get foolish black people to support Biden because his VP, is like “us”, unlike the vaguely alluded to “they”. It’s trying. It’s trying too hard to be clever and “black”.
For me, it’s grating and insulting. But I’m not African American. Perhaps they can associate.
FEBravo that’s the thing right. If she had half a brain cell she would let them know they would have to kill her first before getting her lips to utter those words, or talk like that. She has zero authenticity and zero personality, and worst of all zero self awareness. It’s unbelievable how she made it so far in life.
If one wants "just" a black woman, I'm quite convinced there are better candidates out there. Kind of an insult to black women to think Kamala is the pick of the litter.
i find it insulting that people think there has been an "overreaction" to the last batch of SCOTUS cases. they have basically laid the groundwork to dismantle the federal government. my girlfriend is a lawyer who works closely on agency related projects, and her entire organization is basically assuming their group won't exist at all in 6 months.
The GOP’s triumphant attitude is neither premature nor overconfident. Four months out from November, the party has abruptly prevailed in many of its most important political battles, albeit in the cold, technical prose—you might even call it “bloodless”—of judicial opinions. The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has, in recent weeks, restructured American democracy in the Republican Party’s preferred image, fundamentally altering the balance of power between the branches and the citizens themselves. As the GOP became the party of coup denialism and unreconstructed Trump cultists, so too, finally, have the sober movement conservatives at the high court.
In the course of its most recent term that conservative supermajority has created a monarchical presidency, awarding the chief executive near-insurmountable immunity from accountability for any and all crimes committed during a term in office. It has seized power from Congress, strictly limiting lawmakers’ ability to write broad laws that tackle the major crises of the moment. And it has hobbled federal agencies’ authority to apply existing statutes to problems on the ground, substituting the expert opinions of civil servants with the (often partisan) preferences of unelected judges. All the while, the court has placed itself at the apex of the state, agreeing to share power only with a strongman president who seeks to govern in line with the conservative justices’ vision
///
To grasp the gobsmacking scope of this shift, start with Monday’s decision on presidential immunity and work backwards. In Trump v. U.S., the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority invented a new rule out of whole cloth, unmoored from any known constitutional text or principle, handing the president almost total immunity from criminal charges for his actions in office. Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion purported to distinguish between “official acts,” which can’t be punished, and “unofficial acts,” which can. But Roberts also stacked the deck in favor of the president at every turn: He barred prosecutors from introducing evidence of “official acts” to prove culpability for “unofficial acts” and prohibited any inquiry into the president’s motives when “dividing official and unofficial conduct.” The result is a vast shield against prosecution that will hamstring prosecutors at every turn even if they decide that it’s somehow worth it to try to surmount the hurdle of immunity and attempt to reach the trial stage. Under this new dynamic, most prosecutors likely won’t even bother, no matter how horrific a president’s criminal actions may be.
///
Shortly before handing down Trump v. U.S., the court issued Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, overturning a four-decade-old ruling that served as the basis for some 18,000 lower court decisions. Loper Bright abolished Chevron deference, the rule that federal courts should defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws. By doing so, it seriously curbed Congress’ latitude to enact laws that address a serious problem then allow agencies to fill in the details and gaps. The ruling does not, as its defenders on the right like to insist, simply force Congress to “do its job.” Rather, it overrides lawmakers’ prerogative to exercise legislative power in a way they believe is necessary to protect the people from harms. It enshrines into law a specific conservative conception of proper government, overriding Congress’ choices without any constitutional mandate. And, of course, it replaces the opinions of agency experts with the political proclivities of life-tenured judges who may lack the most basic grasp of the facts. For good measure, the same conservative supermajority then erased a statute of limitations that might have staunched the coming tsunami of challenges to federal regulations.
Loper Bright boils down to a straightforward proposition: The Supreme Court’s Republican appointees are sympathetic to wealthy individuals and corporations, so they will contort the law to help them. That’s the story of other key decisions this term. In SEC v. Jarkesy, the conservative justices sabotaged agencies’ ability to bring civil penalties against lawbreakers, devastating their enforcement powers across the board. In Ohio v. EPA, they let polluters block vital environmental protections by second-guessing regulators’ scientific judgment. In Snyder v. U.S., they let local officials accept bribes from wealthy benefactors in the form of (wink-wink) “gratuities.” In Moore v. U.S., they deployed gratuitous rhetoric to preemptively stack the deck against a future wealth tax. In Garland v. Cargill, they let the gun industry continue making bank off de facto machine guns. Meanwhile, the court declared open season on the rights of everyone else: racial minorities, immigrants and their families, the homeless and disabled, women in need of emergency abortions—all were denied legal protections bestowed by the Constitution and Congress this term.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/07/supreme-court-maga-john-roberts-trump-handmaiden.html
mdgoonah41 they have basically laid the groundwork to dismantle the federal government
The corporatists did that long ago. Democrats laid the groundwork so that they could run against the boogeyman, and now we will all reap what they've sown. Why didn't they codify any of these judicial rulings? Why didn't they do their fucking jobs and write and pass actual laws to make these interpretations moot? Because they are knowingly complicit in the corporations' war against people. They thrive on it. They get rich off it. MAGA was created by democrats masquerading as the left.
It really does feel like the end of the US empire. Funny how quickly systems can self destruct.
Would be quite fitting really. US bullshit politics (in the Harry Frankfurt sense) as a function of the bullshit machine or ulterior text generator.
Well it seems the very checks and balances that made the US political system an efficient force once are being obliterated by corrupted folks who are primarily focused on waging a culture war.
Gurgen Well it seems the very checks and balances that made the US political system an efficient force once are being obliterated by corrupted folks who are primarily focused on waging a culture war.
True, I think sometimes people need to get these shit people in, which then brings about hard times and then they come to their senses and normality returns. As they say it's just a phase!
What both sides of the political spectrum don't get is they are both as bad as each other.
both sides
JazzG i think the democratic party sucks in so many ways, and both parties are captured by corporate elites. that said, democrats arent proposing rounding up every non-citizen and deporting them, dissolving the federal government/the social safety net, and trying women who have an abortion for murder.
That quote will never not crack me up.
mdgoonah41 democrats arent proposing rounding up every non-citizen and deporting them, dissolving the federal government/the social safety net, and trying women who have an abortion for murder.
By non citizen do you mean those who have illegally entered the country? I don't know too much about dissolving federal government but haven't Republicans always been much more about smaller government and giving more rights to people?
The abortion thing is interesting, Trump has clearly positioned himself more in line with Democrats on that point. Said repeatedly there will be no Federal ban on abortions and it is up to the state to decide. Whereas more right/Christian leaning Republicans have their own ideological views. For all of Trumps faults he knows which battles can and can't be won.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/01/politics/trump-immigration-what-matters/index.html
The topic on which Trump had the most concrete details is his plan to deport many millions of undocumented immigrants.
While he did not employ an Eisenhower-like effort the first time he was president, Trump is bringing the pledge back. Trump told Time he would target between 15 million and 20 million people who he said are undocumented in the US. The exact number of undocumented immigrants is not clear. It is probably smaller than Trump says.
Pew Research Center estimated the number of undocumented migrants in the US was around 10.5 million in 2021. Pew’s estimate acknowledges the population may have grown as more people have tried to enter the US. As of 2021, it estimated about 3% of the US population and about 22% of the foreign-born population were undocumented.
There are clearly more people trying to enter the US. In the 2023 fiscal year, which lasts from October 2022 through September 2023, there were nearly 2.5 million “encounters” at the border. President Joe Biden has completely changed his rhetoric on immigration, in part to discourage migrants from traveling to the US and also as he seeks to work with Republicans on the issue.
Rather than work with Democrats, Trump wants to militarize the issue, but he would start by using local police forces and focusing on any migrants with a criminal record.
“It would,” Trump said, adding, “when we talk military, generally speaking, I talk National Guard.”
He added that he would “have no problem using the military, per se,” although he thinks the National Guard would suffice.
He does not think that laws meant to prevent the use of the military against civilians inside the US without congressional approval would apply to his effort.
“These aren’t civilians,” Trump said of migrants. “These are people that aren’t legally in our country. This is an invasion of our country.”
He also repeated the conspiracy theory, for which there is no evidence, that “fighting age” males from China are somehow embedding themselves in the US.
“You have to do what you have to do to stop crime and to stop what’s taking place at the border,” he said.
On abortion
Trump insisted he would leave the issue of abortion rights up to states, even if it meant allowing them to jail women who seek abortions.
“You’ll have to speak to the individual states,” he said.
trump has also hinted at enforcing comstock, which he could do via executive order, which would make it a crime to send birth control or abortion related drugs through the mail, which would be essentially a national abortion ban, since the majority of abortions are still done via drugs and not a surgery/medical procedure. SCOTUS has already hinted they are coming after birth control in the next one to two years
SCOTUS overruling chevron was the first big step toward dissolving the federal government. trump supports imposing schedule F, which would turn thousands of civil service govt jobs currently held by non-poltiical subject matter experts into politically appointed positions for people with no actual expertise.
In October 2020, the Trump Administration issued an executive order that would have stripped protections from civil servants perceived as disloyal to the president and encouraged expressions of allegiance to the president when hiring. This effort is referred to as “Schedule F” because that was the name of the new employment category that the executive order created.
The administration claimed the authority to create Schedule F based on statutory language that exempted certain positions “of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character” from employment protections. Previous administrations and Congress always understood the language to apply only to a smaller number of positions traditionally filled by political appointees.
Because Trump did not remain in office, it is unknown how many federal employees his administration would have swept into Schedule F, or how many would have been fired and replaced. Experts have put the possible numbers in the tens or hundreds of thousands. The Trump official credited with the idea to create Schedule F estimated that it could apply to as many as 50,000 federal workers. Some Trump allies told Axios it would not be necessary to fire that many workers because firing fewer would produce the desired “behavior change.”
Other comments and actions by former Trump officials led one professor who studies public administration to conclude that the 50,000 figure “is probably a floor rather than a ceiling.”
Ultimately, the executive order calling for a new Schedule F was not implemented; the Biden Administration rescinded it before it could go into effect. On April 4, 2024, the Biden administration finalized a rule that aims to clarify and strengthen existing protections for civil servants, and to slow any future effort to undermine those protections.
Trump has announced his intention to reissue Schedule F “on day one” of his next administration. During his first term, government employees were frequent targets of public insults, threats, and retaliation. Echoing Trump, other elected officials have advocated “fir[ing] every single mid-level bureaucrat” and made campaign promises to begin “slitting [bureaucrats’] throats on day one.”
Scholars at the American Enterprise Institute have stated, “[Trump] has made it clear in countless ways that, if he were to win the presidency again, he would expect total loyalty — from cabinet secretaries down to the most junior agency employees.”
To assist him, the Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative policy organization, has organized a coalition of over 100 conservative organizations under the banner of “Project 2025,” an effort to prepare policy and personnel for “the next conservative president.” The organization’s policy agenda advocates for a revival of Schedule F as part of a larger crackdown on the civil service, and the architects of Project 2025 have plainly said that their aim is “to bend or break the bureaucracy to the presidential will.”
https://protectdemocracy.org/work/trumps-schedule-f-plan-explained/
mdgoonah41 the goal is unpick and roll back anything perceived as an 'overreach of federal power' since the Republic began. depends on what your values are as to what you perceive as 'overreach', but I think it's becoming clearer and clearer what kind of issues the right are targeting.
@JazzG as for republicans being about small government, I think that gimmick has run its course. small government, low tax republicans aren't in charge anymore. the current republican party wants to aggressively expand the power and reach of the executive branch, not diminish it.
the supreme court and the republican party want whats best for the republican party. when republicans control the white house, the executive branch has an almost blank check to do as it pleases. when dems control the executive branch, its a parade of lawsuits and injunctions through the courts to put a stop to any kind of progress. and because dems are too petrified to try and overhaul the district/appelate courts, let alone SCOTUS, nothing will change. obama didnt take the courts seriously in his first term, he ended up with a ton of vacancies, and then mcconnell held up a ton of the appointments so trump could come in and appoint 150+ judges. democrats are allergic to pulling the same levers of power that republicans dont even blink on. when republicans win back the house and senate, assuming trump also wins, i honestly would not be shocked if senate republicans nuke the filibuster. and boy oh boy will you see a lot of angry tweets from democrats when that happens
