|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 19 2022 06:06 plasmidghost wrote:
Holy fuck. So if I'm reading this ruling correctly, the Fifth Circuit pretty much just not only abolished the SEC, it abolished any federal agency from enforcing regulations. Genuinely one of the darkest times in the US for as long as I've been alive. I fully believe that the Supreme Court will uphold this.
The opinion is much more limited that. The Slate writer is exaggerating. The case just means that when the SEC wants to enforce the laws prohibiting securities fraud, it needs to do so via the regular court system rather than via its internal judges. But the Supreme court will probably have the final say here.
|
On May 19 2022 07:45 Doc.Rivers wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 06:06 plasmidghost wrote:Holy fuck. So if I'm reading this ruling correctly, the Fifth Circuit pretty much just not only abolished the SEC, it abolished any federal agency from enforcing regulations. Genuinely one of the darkest times in the US for as long as I've been alive. I fully believe that the Supreme Court will uphold this. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1527009488301170688 The opinion is much more limited that. The Slate writer is exaggerating. The case just means that when the SEC wants to enforce the laws prohibiting securities fraud, it needs to do so via the regular court system rather than via its internal judges. But the Supreme court will probably have the final say here. yes that's point 1.
The other issue is point 2.
|
On May 19 2022 07:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2022 07:45 Doc.Rivers wrote:On May 19 2022 06:06 plasmidghost wrote:Holy fuck. So if I'm reading this ruling correctly, the Fifth Circuit pretty much just not only abolished the SEC, it abolished any federal agency from enforcing regulations. Genuinely one of the darkest times in the US for as long as I've been alive. I fully believe that the Supreme Court will uphold this. https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1527009488301170688 The opinion is much more limited that. The Slate writer is exaggerating. The case just means that when the SEC wants to enforce the laws prohibiting securities fraud, it needs to do so via the regular court system rather than via its internal judges. But the Supreme court will probably have the final say here. yes that's point 1. The other issue is point 2.
I assume that by "point 2" you are referring to the holding about congress delegating legislative power to the SEC. That holding applies only to where the SEC can enforce securities fraud laws (regular courts or SEC internal judges). It's not a holding that "Congress can never delegate legislative power to executive agencies." So again the whole opinion is limited to the SEC's enforcement of securities fraud laws (which the SEC can still do, it just needs to go through the regular court system).
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know why we have to state this but the district of Columbias electricity is not reliant on furnaces powered by aborted fetuses. Unlike apparently experts provided by the gop believe well enough to officially testify in front of congress.
|
|
|
I still remember when Obama having mustard or wearing a tan suit was a scandal. Couldn't get enough outrage from the Right when that happened. Now Republicans are just openly making shit up without any regard for how stupid or absurd it sounds.
I'll wait for Republicans to denounce this claim, and the people who thought putting this witness on the stand was a good idea. Hold my breath too. + Show Spoiler +
|
Maybe it's just me but I'd rather my remains be incinerated for electricity than thrown in a medical waste bin anyway. I've thrown away a still-birthed fetus in the trash before. It's not a very flattering destination.
|
Norway28630 Posts
Yeah after an abortion you might as well use the fetus for energy or stem cell research or whatever. The absurd part is the notion that aborted fetuses constitutes a significant source of energy.
|
On May 21 2022 05:50 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Yeah after an abortion you might as well use the fetus for energy or stem cell research or whatever. The absurd part is the notion that aborted fetuses constitutes a significant source of energy.
Is burning humans even energy positive? I would assume that you need to put in a lot of energy to deal with all the water in human bodies.
|
United States15580 Posts
Is there a historic equivalent from the left? Since I’ll assume I live in a echo chamber, can one of the right wing folks show me a time democrats used an “expert” in a way comparable to this lady saying DC is powered by fetuses?
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24931 Posts
On May 21 2022 05:38 BlackJack wrote:
Maybe it's just me but I'd rather my remains be incinerated for electricity than thrown in a medical waste bin anyway. I've thrown away a still-birthed fetus in the trash before. It's not a very flattering destination.
I think it would be more efficient to use human remains as part of a nutritious broth for the plebs.
I’ll not remain soylent on this issue!
|
Northern Ireland24931 Posts
On May 21 2022 06:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Is there a historic equivalent from the left? Since I’ll assume I live in a echo chamber, can one of the right wing folks show me a time democrats used an “expert” in a way comparable to this lady saying DC is powered by fetuses?
In recent times? I can’t think of much similar insanity spouting forth on such a stage.
I mean ofc some will highlight a singular YouTuber or columnist as evidence on what ‘the left’ do and claim direct equivalence, as per usual.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24931 Posts
On May 21 2022 07:59 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2022 07:45 WombaT wrote:On May 21 2022 06:05 Mohdoo wrote:
Is there a historic equivalent from the left? Since I’ll assume I live in a echo chamber, can one of the right wing folks show me a time democrats used an “expert” in a way comparable to this lady saying DC is powered by fetuses? In recent times? I can’t think of much similar insanity spouting forth on such a stage. I mean ofc some will highlight a singular YouTuber or columnist as evidence on what ‘the left’ do and claim direct equivalence, as per usual. No a claim will be made that you can't pain all the GOP by the people they send to talk under oath AND THEN they will find some random youtuber and claim all Dems think that way, maybe even in the same post, but surely with in the same conversation.
Wow this is utterly ridiculous/preposterous and not something I’ve observed over and over
|
You kinda can't tell people not to take Republicans seriously when they make real efforts to pass regressive, draconian laws, and when they try to proliferate insane conspiracy theories by giving these people loudspeakers. They're about as serious as anyone can possibly be about what they're doing, and by any measure they're reasonably successful at it if I know about it. Why shouldn't I take them seriously in kind?
|
I mean is it true that some aborted fetuses are burned for power generation? That would appear to make the woman's statement true rather than absurd. To the extent she implied that burned fetuses account for any significant portion of power generation, that would be false, but that implication is a little less clear.
|
On May 21 2022 10:27 Doc.Rivers wrote:
I mean is it true that some aborted fetuses are burned for power generation? That would appear to make the woman's statement true rather than absurd. To the extent she implied that burned fetuses account for any significant portion of power generation, that would be false, but that implication is a little less clear.
Get out with this nonsense. We need to stop bending over backwards for these nutjobs. No more benefit if the doubt for any of these people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
