Examples of GOP Leadership

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
There need to be political changes before foxnews can be dealt with, elections need to be won before laws can be made and regulations enacted. There is a problem here and it is destroying America with lies and news spun into an alternate reality, broadcasters should serve their viewers, not victimize, abuse and kill them. The FCC needs to go back to basic principles, they have a moral and ethical obligation and are captured by those they regulate, just like the banking and other sectors. The purpose of the division that foxnews promotes is to grid lock government and throw more power to a packed SCOTUS than it should have, the motive is greed, they don't want to pay taxes. The republicans con the base with culture wars and racism promoted and often created by foxnews, they serve the interests of the super-rich, while tossing out red meat to the white trash suckers.
 

Roger A. Shrubber

Well-Known Member
loud punting noise

usually a serial liar is either pathological or compulsive.
Patholigical liars are usually cunning, manipulative, and narcissistic, and lie with a specific goal in mind.
Compulsive liars just can't control themselves, and make up stories on the spot that won't hold up to more than cursory examination.
santos, and trump, as well, seem to be a combination of both, telling specific lies to achieve goals and cover their own asses, but at the same time, spewing irrelevant, immaterial, insignificant lies as well.
I can't find a description of a condition that encompasses both behaviors, perhaps it's a republican malady? decades of lies and hiding crimes has turned an increasing number of them into...what the fuck ever you would call such a person? pathopulsive liars? comological liars?
repulsive fuckfaces?....which ever, they all seem to adequately describe those with the condition.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
loud punting noise

Of course they did, do you expect republicans to know right from wrong?
They apparently need assistance in this basic right from wrong issue that most young children can figure out.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Of course they did, do you expect republicans to know right from wrong?
They apparently need assistance in this basic right from wrong issue that most young children can figure out.
I don’t think that necessarily follows. They surely know right from wrong, but reliably take the bad choice when it benefits them, but not just then. Often they take it for no net benefit, but to mess with the opposition.
 
Last edited:

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
I don’t think that necessarily follows. They surely know right from wrong, but teliably take the bad choice when it benefits them, but not just then. Often they take it for no net benefit, but to mess with the opposition.
My comment was "tongue in cheek", they are immoral, not amoral.
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
Making a moral argument is what I was gently addressing. It is unnecessary and not productive in this instance. It doesn’t advance the program of what to do about their intrigues.
Un electing them is the only way to deal with fascists, but that takes changing hearts and minds, at least among those who have them. The quality of our decisions is only as good as the quality of the information we have to base our choices on. That is why in a liberal democracy the quality of public information needs to be ensured, when public means (the airwaves or wires) are used to convey it to a mass audience.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Un electing them is the only way to deal with fascists, but that takes changing hearts and minds, at least among those who have them. The quality of our decisions is only as good as the quality of the information we have to base our choices on. That is why in a liberal democracy the quality of public information needs to be ensured, when public means (the airwaves or wires) are used to convey it to a mass audience.
That is only part of the story, and imo not the most important. I am wary of reductionist approaches to complex and dynamic problems.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Appeals court shows openness to rolling back abortion pill access
A federal appeals court panel on Wednesday seemed skeptical of the Biden administration’s arguments to keep the widely used abortion pill mifepristone on the market in its current form.

During oral arguments, a three-judge panel on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — all appointed by Republican presidents — grilled attorneys from the Department of Justice and Danco, the manufacturer of the brand name mifepristone, who are attempting to keep the drug available.

Just seconds into Deputy Assistant Attorney General Sarah Harrington’s argument, she was interrupted by Judge James Ho, who challenged her assertion that a lower court’s ruling was an unprecedented intrusion upon the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) authority.
“I hate to cut you off so early, but you’ve said ‘unprecedented.’ We had a challenge to the FDA just yesterday,” said Ho, an appointee of former President Trump.

Ho’s questioning set the tone for the nearly two hours that followed.

The panel appeared sympathetic to arguments by the plaintiffs, a group of anti-abortion physicians and physician groups, that the FDA failed to consider a myriad of safety issues as it made policy changes to make the drugs more widely available.

But two of the three judges seemed more hesitant toward arguments that the court should suspend the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone in 2000. A lower court had blocked all of the agency’s actions.

The ruling won’t come for weeks or months, but it is unlikely to have an immediate impact.

The justices last month preserved the status quo, pausing rulings in the case that threaten access to mifepristone until the appeals process is resolved. The losing party is widely expected to bring the case back to the Supreme Court.

The case marks the highest-stakes legal battle on abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. Any ruling by the panel that restricts the availability of mifepristone would mark a major blow to the Biden administration in its attempt to preserve access to abortion.
 

printer

Well-Known Member
Texas passes bill stripping authority from cities
A sweeping Texas bill stripping authority from cities passed the state Senate on Tuesday and is now headed to the governor’s desk.
House Bill 2127 takes large domains of municipal governing — from payday lending laws to regulations on rest breaks for construction workers to laws determining whether women can be discriminated against based on their hair — out of the hands of the state’s largely Democratic-run cities and shifts them to its Republican-controlled legislature.

According to the Austin American Statesman, Gov. Greg Abbott (R) has been a vocal supporter of the bill.
Progressive critics argue the legislation — which one lawyer for Texas cities called “the Death Star” for local control — represents a new phase in the campaign by conservative state legislatures to curtail the power of blue-leaning cities.

Opponents of the bill include civil society groups like the AFL-CIO — and representatives of every major urban area in Texas, along with several minor ones.

They argue the shift in power it would enable would hamstring cities’ abilities to make policies to fit their unique circumstances.
“Where the state is silent, and it is silent on a lot — local governments step into that breach, to act on behalf of our shared constituents,” state Sen. Sarah Eckhardt (D) told the Senate on Tuesday.

“We should be doing our job rather than micromanaging theirs.”

But the bill’s Senate sponsor, state Sen. Brandon Creighton (R), said it was necessary to protect “job creators” from “cities and counties acting as lawmakers outside of their jurisdiction.”

Both the legislation’s sponsors and the principal trade group that backed it — the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) — have argued local regulation poses an existential threat to Texas businesses.

“As prices escalate, property taxes increase, and workers remain in short supply, small business owners are continuing to struggle in this economic environment,” said Annie Spilman, state director of the NFIB, in a statement earlier this month. “Arduous local ordinances, no matter how well-intended, exacerbate these challenges.”

The NFIB’s solution to that problem: one set of rules governing business across the state, which it says will cut costs by preventing the “patchwork” of local and county regulations that govern Texas’s sprawling cities.

While the NFIB and the legislation are officially nonpartisan, support for the bill has been overwhelmingly Republican.
The bill passed the state Senate 18-13 on a nearly party-line vote after passing the House in April with the votes of just eight out of 65 Democrats.

If enacted, the legislation would have a wide reach, banning — technically “preempting” — broad swaths of the state code.
It would nullify many existing ordinances, like Austin and Dallas’s heat protections for construction workers.
It would also ban new restrictions on payday lending or puppy mills, although — after a long fight — existing city laws will be preserved.

Urban advocates say other specific local laws without state or federal analogs — like an Austin law banning discrimination based on hair texture or style — would also likely be struck down.

The bill failed to pass in the 2019 or 2021 sessions — in part because it was seen as too broad, Austin City Councilor Ryan Alter told The Hill.
But with every failed passage, Alter said, “The bill has only gotten broader.”

Alter listed the state preemption of the Property and Business and Commerce codes as two domains that would lead to unforeseen consequences for cities.
“We do a lot of things as the city as relates to property, land use and issues concerning land, and we make a lot of decisions that impact business and commerce,” Alter added.

The bill also preempts city and county ordinances relating to the Agriculture Code, Finance Code, Insurance Code, Labor Code, Natural Resources Code and Occupations Code.

One worry among the legislation’s opponents is procedural.
The state legislature only meets every two years, making each session a logjam of potential bills, most of which never go anywhere. In 2022, for example, the Legislature passed about 38 percent of the nearly 10,000 bills introduced.
That low frequency of meetings and state-level focus make the Legislature a body opponents argue is ill-suited to managing the day-to-day affairs of cities.

Under the new law, “cities and counties across Texas will have to rely on the state’s part-time Legislature, which meets for only 140 days every two years, to address various issues and problems of local concern,” Adrian Shelley, Texas director for public interest advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement.

Spilman of the NFIB has argued the law was necessary to rein in out-of-control municipal governments.
The long campaign for the legislation that became H.B. 2127 began in 2018, when Dallas, Austin and San Antonio passed ordinances requiring employers to offer paid sick leave.

Those laws were later shot down by state and federal courts as a violation of state bans on raising the minimum wage above the federal standard.
But the ordinances would have given city governments subpoena power to investigate potential violations — powers which worried the NFIB, Spilman said in an April statement.

“I just don’t know why a city ordinance would have something in there like that. That’s very frightening to a small business owner, with no compliance officers.”

The need for the legislation was urgent, she added at the time. “You go another two years without this protection — we just don’t know what cities might propose next.”

Opponents, meanwhile, argue the bill would present challenges to businesses because its scope is so broad as to make it impossible to say how far it will reach.

“If there is one thing businesses hate it is uncertainty,” Houston city attorney Collyn Peddie wrote in an April statement.
“Because 2127 barely attempts to define the fields that it purports to preempt, [self-governing] cities will not know what laws to enforce and, more important, businesses will not know what laws to obey,” Peddie continued.

Another source of concern for bill opponents is the method of enforcement, which — as in the case of the state’s “bounty” abortion ban — would occur through lawsuits.

The bill would authorize “any person who has sustained an injury in fact, actual or treated” to sue cities and counties for passing ordinances in areas now officially under the domain of the state.
Winners of such suits would get damages and attorney’s fees covered.

Whenever cities pass big ordinances, “people get clever in their lawsuits to challenge anything they don’t like,” said Alter, the Austin councilor.
“And because the bill is so broad there are a lot of opportunities for people to poke holes in any bills the city passes.”
The NFIB’s position is that the newly preempted powers aren’t being taken away from cities: They’re ones the cities never had to start with, as Spilman explained to The Hill.

The legislation’s GOP sponsors agree. “It’s a ‘stay in your lane’ bill,” Rep. Dustin Burrows (R) said at a February event hosted by the NFIB. “If you’re a city, do your core functions. If you’re a county, do your core functions.”
Burrows has dismissed critics of the bill as “taxpayer-funded lobbyists” who he told the Texas Tribune in March were “out in full force trying to undermine this effort.”

In those remarks, Burrows took a tack familiar from statehouse Republican messaging nationwide.
Groups opposing the bills, he added, “are beholden to special interest groups who cannot get their liberal agenda through at the statehouse, so they go to city halls across the State, creating a patchwork of unnecessary and anti-business ordinances.”
But bill opponents argued that local laws are a patchwork because local conditions are, too.

“Lawmakers who voted for this must explain to their constituents why they gave away local authority to lawmakers hundreds of miles away in Austin who may have never even set foot in their community,” said Adrian Shelley, Texas director of advocacy group Public Citizen.

Eckhardt, the state senator from Bastrop, argued the legislation “obliterates the local balancing of interests that creates the distinct local flavor from Lubbock to Houston, Laredo to Texarkana.”

Bills like House Bill 2127 “excuse the Texas legislature from leading,” she added.
“We are wasting our precious 140 days — when we could be doing statewide health, education, justice and prosperity policies — barging into bedrooms, locker rooms, boardrooms examining rooms and now city council meetings.”
 

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
That is only part of the story, and imo not the most important. I am wary of reductionist approaches to complex and dynamic problems.
There is nothing complex about the foxnews/republican party conspiracy, it is really simple and so is the solution, blunt force. The democrats won't lose a single vote over destroying them and making their business model problematic, if they do it early enough in the cycle, they might even gain votes as the brainwashing wears off some. Empower the FCC and get moving on making a better country with fewer assholes being created daily. They are kept on cable by government gridlock and are one of many problems that must be addressed if the democrats should be lucky enough to gain the power to do it. Once you gain advantage over these treasonous fascist assholes, press the advantage and destroy them, the constitution demands it, they have gone mad and have become a real and present danger to the country and constitution.
 

CunningCanuk

Well-Known Member
Texas, Florida laws have Latinos rethinking where they live
I’m in The Dominion Republic right now and spent yesterday on a tour of Santo Domingo. Seeing the amount of poverty was staggering but all things being relative, neighbouring Haiti is much worse. The tour guide explained that people from The Dominican Republic resent people from Haiti coming into their country illegally, even though these illegals are only doing jobs people from the Dominican won’t do.

Sound familiar?
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
I’m in The Dominion Republic right now and spent yesterday on a tour of Santo Domingo. Seeing the amount of poverty was staggering but all things being relative, neighbouring Haiti is much worse. The tour guide explained that people from The Dominican Republic resent people from Haiti coming into their country illegally, even though these illegals are only doing jobs people from the Dominican won’t do.

Sound familiar?
very......
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
Texas, Florida laws have Latinos rethinking where they live
guess Abbott forgot Texas history and historical ties we have to Mexico....fucking grand stander......

and this: Border Protection Unit

is all bullshit, they actually no power what so ever, just like Operation Lone Star........a fucking joke
 
Top