Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Oct 13, 2025
Oct 6, 2025
Teetering
Trump's default mode is to just get himself past any given moment during whatever particular crisis he's created for himself.
- Air traffic control
- Military
- TSA
- Healthcare
- Cops and Emergency responders
- etc
Shit just gets weirder.
Oct 1, 2025
Today's Belle
Stop letting Republicans lie to us. Their story about how the Dems just want to give free healthcare to "illegal immigrants" is horseshit.
The Big Bamboozle Bill
- Adds billions to the deficit, and trillions to the debt
- Abandons working people, ignoring everybody pulling down less than about $125K
- Takes all that money from 85% of us, and hands it to the Yacht Buyers
Shutting down the government today makes sure we don't get a Jobs Report, or a GDP/Inflation Report - and USDA had already announced they won't be putting out any more Food Security Surveys.
If Trump and the Republicans are so fucking concerned about looking out for the little guy, it seems like they should check in with him once in a while to make sure he's OK.
They aren't, and they won't.
Aug 31, 2025
Storm Brewin'
Congress is the First Branch - First Among Equals. Congress sets the course - basically issues the orders - and POTUS carries it out. The Executive executes.
When a president decides he'll go against the mandates of Congress, he creates undue tension in the balance of power.
Then if the courts rule against him, and if he does his usual stall-and-ignore, it sets up a possible full-blown constitutional crisis. Which I think is exactly what Trump is angling for.
Short term, we're "only" looking at a shutdown fight. But it pays to be wary of these "minor" scuffles.
Aug 19, 2025
A Small Bright Spot
...which could turn into a big blazing beacon - if we can keep any kind of spotlight on it, which fortunately, Trump is helping us with.
It seems like he thinks he can do this National Guard thing bit by bit, and get us used to the presence of US Military on the streets of our cities, so we'll just let it slide when he decides to do whatever really shitty thing he has in mind.
So we have to stay active and push back against every move. Because when confronted often enough with a particular question of ethics, most people will eventually come down on the side of justice.
The question here will revolve around whether or not enough people can be convinced that their neighbors don't make up the majority of the problem.
With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines.
Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests.
When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal?
The question may already be affecting troop morale. “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,” a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.”
Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey “manifestly unlawful” orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold.
We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so.
Compelled to disobey
U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions.
Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense.
Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.”
When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.”
Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.”
Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey.
The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.”
One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.”
Soldiers, not lawyers
But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance.
Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law.
Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S.
“Trump will issue illegal orders,” wrote one respondent. “The new laws will allow it,” wrote another. A third wrote, “We are not required to obey such laws.”
Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they’d disobey “oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution” or an order for “use of the military to carry out deportations.”
Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general.
This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law.
Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel.
This finding was also borne out in our survey.
When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points.
Drawing the line
As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes.
The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on “manifestly unlawful orders” before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders.
When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order.
But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%.
While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable.
Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one.
Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city.
The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, “becoming violently ill.”
Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same.
Whitehead’s research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly.
The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don’t want to obey unlawful orders.
Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line.
Majority of US Troops Surveyed Say They’re Aware of Their Duty to Not Follow Illegal Orders
With his Aug. 11, 2025, announcement that he was sending the National Guard – along with federal law enforcement – into Washington, D.C. to fight crime, President Donald Trump edged U.S. troops closer to the kind of military-civilian confrontations that can cross ethical and legal lines.
Indeed, since Trump returned to office, many of his actions have alarmed international human rights observers. His administration has deported immigrants without due process, held detainees in inhumane conditions, threatened the forcible removal of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip and deployed both the National Guard and federal military troops to Los Angeles to quell largely peaceful protests.
When a sitting commander in chief authorizes acts like these, which many assert are clear violations of the law, men and women in uniform face an ethical dilemma: How should they respond to an order they believe is illegal?
The question may already be affecting troop morale. “The moral injuries of this operation, I think, will be enduring,” a National Guard member who had been deployed to quell public unrest over immigration arrests in Los Angeles told The New York Times. “This is not what the military of our country was designed to do, at all.”
Troops who are ordered to do something illegal are put in a bind – so much so that some argue that troops themselves are harmed when given such orders. They are not trained in legal nuances, and they are conditioned to obey. Yet if they obey “manifestly unlawful” orders, they can be prosecuted. Some analysts fear that U.S. troops are ill-equipped to recognize this threshold.
We are scholars of international relations and international law. We conducted survey research at the University of Massachusetts Amherst’s Human Security Lab and discovered that many service members do understand the distinction between legal and illegal orders, the duty to disobey certain orders, and when they should do so.
Compelled to disobey
U.S. service members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In addition, under Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial, service members must obey lawful orders and disobey unlawful orders. Unlawful orders are those that clearly violate the U.S. Constitution, international human rights standards or the Geneva Conventions.
Service members who follow an illegal order can be held liable and court-martialed or subject to prosecution by international tribunals. Following orders from a superior is no defense.
Our poll, fielded between June 13 and June 30, 2025, shows that service members understand these rules. Of the 818 active-duty troops we surveyed, just 9% stated that they would “obey any order.” Only 9% “didn’t know,” and only 2% had “no comment.”
When asked to describe unlawful orders in their own words, about 25% of respondents wrote about their duty to disobey orders that were “obviously wrong,” “obviously criminal” or “obviously unconstitutional.”
Another 8% spoke of immoral orders. One respondent wrote that “orders that clearly break international law, such as targeting non-combatants, are not just illegal — they’re immoral. As military personnel, we have a duty to uphold the law and refuse commands that betray that duty.”
Just over 40% of respondents listed specific examples of orders they would feel compelled to disobey.
The most common unprompted response, cited by 26% of those surveyed, was “harming civilians,” while another 15% of respondents gave a variety of other examples of violations of duty and law, such as “torturing prisoners” and “harming U.S. troops.”
One wrote that “an order would be obviously unlawful if it involved harming civilians, using torture, targeting people based on identity, or punishing others without legal process.”
Soldiers, not lawyers
But the open-ended answers pointed to another struggle troops face: Some no longer trust U.S. law as useful guidance.
Writing in their own words about how they would know an illegal order when they saw it, more troops emphasized international law as a standard of illegality than emphasized U.S. law.
Others implied that acts that are illegal under international law might become legal in the U.S.
“Trump will issue illegal orders,” wrote one respondent. “The new laws will allow it,” wrote another. A third wrote, “We are not required to obey such laws.”
Several emphasized the U.S. political situation directly in their remarks, stating they’d disobey “oppression or harming U.S. civilians that clearly goes against the Constitution” or an order for “use of the military to carry out deportations.”
Still, the percentage of respondents who said they would disobey specific orders – such as torture – is lower than the percentage of respondents who recognized the responsibility to disobey in general.
This is not surprising: Troops are trained to obey and face numerous social, psychological and institutional pressures to do so. By contrast, most troops receive relatively little training in the laws of war or human rights law.
Political scientists have found, however, that having information on international law affects attitudes about the use of force among the general public. It can also affect decision-making by military personnel.
This finding was also borne out in our survey.
When we explicitly reminded troops that shooting civilians was a violation of international law, their willingness to disobey increased 8 percentage points.
Drawing the line
As my research with another scholar showed in 2020, even thinking about law and morality can make a difference in opposition to certain war crimes.
The preliminary results from our survey led to a similar conclusion. Troops who answered questions on “manifestly unlawful orders” before they were asked questions on specific scenarios were much more likely to say they would refuse those specific illegal orders.
When asked if they would follow an order to drop a nuclear bomb on a civilian city, for example, 69% of troops who received that question first said they would obey the order.
But when the respondents were asked to think about and comment on the duty to disobey unlawful orders before being asked if they would follow the order to bomb, the percentage who would obey the order dropped 13 points to 56%.
While many troops said they might obey questionable orders, the large number who would not is remarkable.
Military culture makes disobedience difficult: Soldiers can be court-martialed for obeying an unlawful order, or for disobeying a lawful one.
Yet between one-third to half of the U.S. troops we surveyed would be willing to disobey if ordered to shoot or starve civilians, torture prisoners or drop a nuclear bomb on a city.
The service members described the methods they would use. Some would confront their superiors directly. Others imagined indirect methods: asking questions, creating diversions, going AWOL, “becoming violently ill.”
Criminologist Eva Whitehead researched actual cases of troop disobedience of illegal orders and found that when some troops disobey – even indirectly – others can more easily find the courage to do the same.
Whitehead’s research showed that those who refuse to follow illegal or immoral orders are most effective when they stand up for their actions openly.
The initial results of our survey – coupled with a recent spike in calls to the GI Rights Hotline – suggest American men and women in uniform don’t want to obey unlawful orders.
Some are standing up loudly. Many are thinking ahead to what they might do if confronted with unlawful orders. And those we surveyed are looking for guidance from the Constitution and international law to determine where they may have to draw that line.
Jul 17, 2025
May 31, 2025
Today's Rich
The Hobbes quote:
“...the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
He was making reference to the monarchy, but still - we have government and social norms to protect us from ourselves.
Mar 12, 2025
Thru The Back Door
Trump's fuckery is unlimited.
Every time we think it can't get worse,
he makes it worse.
There is no bottom.
But anyway -
Project 2025 is basically a plan to re-jigger the executive branch, in service of pushing hard for The Unitary Executive - which the wingnuts have been slavering over for decades.
Two things come to mind whenever I look at what President Musk and his frontman Trump have been doing the last 7 weeks.
First, it seems clear to me that the DOGE nonsense is at least partly about bringing the Line Item Veto back into play. This has been a major hobby horse for "conservatives" as far back as US Grant. Then Nixon's impoundment antics prompted legislation to outlaw that shit, and it popped up big in the Reagan years. They got Clinton to sign on for it in the mid-90s, but it got knocked down by SCOTUS in just a few years.
So it looks a lot like DOGE is an attempt to bring it in thru the back door.
Second, another bit they're trying to sneak in on us is the whole Schedule F thing - where they fire a huge number of career federal workers, and then hire (ie: appoint) people who are sufficiently loyal to Project 2025's ideology and objectives - where the ideological loyalty is disguised as loyalty to Trump.
All this shit is classic Republican fuckery on steroids.
- Fuck something up
- Wait for people to feel the pain, and start to push back
- Bring in the changes you wanted to make all along, "per the mandate of the people"
Granted, government needs to work better - nobody disputes that. But only a very few obscenely wealthy assholes want to remake the whole thing so it fits the standard Animal Instincts Business Model.
Mar 5, 2025
Ready For A Showdown?
Random-ish thoughts:
- We have to tax the rich now, so we don't have to eat them later
- Double the Social Security cap, and the system is good for generations. Remove it, and the surplus takes care of practically everything seniors will ever need
- Tell Elon to keep his grubby mitts off my stuff
- Republicans aren't trying to eliminate waste fraud and abuse - they're trying to install it. If you're impressed with the way the Russian military is working, you're gonna love privatized schools and Social Security
IF WE TAX THE RICH NOW
WE WON'T HAVE TO EAT THEM LATER
Mar 4, 2025
Today's Today
March 4, 1789
236 years ago, the US Constitution went into effect.
I'm creating this post almost 13 months before it'll go live, hoping we'll still have a good shot at preserving the rule of law here in USAmerica, Inc.
HAPPY
CONSTITUTION
DAY
The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers. The president is permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both houses. The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the approval for ratification of treaties.
For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments. More a concise statement of national principles than a detailed plan of governmental operation, the Constitution has evolved to meet the changing needs of a modern society profoundly different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived. To date, the Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992. The first ten amendments constitute the Bill of Rights.
Feb 23, 2025
About That Memo
An email sent to 2.3 million workers asking them to outline their work last week is leading to confusion and differing instructions across the government.
The State Department told employees not to answer it. Employees at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency were told: Definitely reply. And in some parts of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, staffers received instructions to draft a response but not send it yet.
After Elon Musk led a move to email all 2.3 million government workers over the weekend asking them to share five bullet points detailing what they accomplished last week, chaos and confusion reigned. Agencies issued conflicting guidance, as did different divisions within the same agency, in some cases.
Raising the stakes, Musk warned in a post on X that any employee who failed to respond would be treated as having resigned. But the email sent to workers made no mention of this possible consequence, which lawyers said would be illegal.
- more -
I don't work a government job, but I'm always looking to be of service to my country, so I consider myself "on the job" pretty much all the time.
So, of course, I felt the need to "comply", and I emailed this to hr@opm.gov:
Per your directive via email this evening (2-22-2025), here are the bullet points you requested, regarding my activities for the week ending 2-21-2025
- Picked the fly shit out of my pepper shaker
- Did some laundry
- Finished knitting a turtleneck sock
- Downloaded several clips of nude celebrities
- Went to the grocery store, and stopped at the 7-11 for a Power Ball ticket
- Made cheese dip - yummy, btw
- Noodled around on my new guitar (I'm learning another Dylan tune)
- Karened some random lady about picking up her dog's shit in the park
- Sent several postcards to the White House asking President Musk to fire that loser Trump guy
Your pal,Mike
Feb 19, 2025
The Central Conceit
The generic statement of MAGA-style "thinking" is:
The government can't be trusted
Now that MAGA is the government - and the fact that they haven't abandoned that sentiment - there's no doubt in my mind that what we're seeing from the rank-n-file movement and their leader is depression and self-loathing turned outwards, manifesting itself in hostility and aggression.
And that's typical of the authoritarian mindset.
Hitler didn't love Germany. He believed Germans had allowed themselves to be fooled and betrayed - and he hated them for it. But what he choose to do about it was to fool them in a different way, and in the end, to betray them just the same. He had to - he hated them.
He dragged his country into the abyss as a way to compensate for his own self-image of being crippled with shame, and a desperate denial that, ultimately, he wasn't worthy of the adulation that he sought and demanded. The more he gained, the more sure he was that he didn't deserve it, and that he needed to be punished for his ever increasing appetite, while at the same time, needing to demand more and more from his devotees in order to cover his inadequacies (which, of course, he couldn't allow himself ever to admit).
With Trump, it's not hard to see some very close parallels, but the problem behind the problem is that he's just the front man being manipulated by people who are absolutely bent on - and no longer shy about - tearing everything down in order to install a corporate-style plutocracy.
Trump has been named CEO, with Elon in the role of COO, all being overseen by a Board Of Directors (the cabinet), with liaisons from the major sectors of the economy - Finance, Manufacturing, Commodities, Transportation, Utilities, etc.
Welcome
We are
Feb 12, 2025
New Guy
I'm not unsympathetic, but I really don't understand how you look at the good things the Biden gang was doing for you, and then turn your back and vote for a guy who's never told anybody the truth in his whole miserable fucking life. Especially, when the whole Republican party has spent decades bitchin' about "over-spending", and how they intend to "starve the beast" and then "drown it in the bathtub".
What the fuck doesn't click for these people?
So I don't know how this guy intends to bring anybody around by talking nice and being all un-judge-y and shit. But hope springs eternal, and maybe we can look forward to a shift back towards reality.
IDK. Conventional wisdom says Democrats "lost" rural America by turning their attention to the problems of the population centers, leaving an opening for a Nixon to swoop in and grab up the American south by playing on their phobias.
Maybe that's kinda run its course, and getting the "people of the land" to come back to their senses is how we make the turn and approach resolution.
8 minutes on "The Fourth Turning" by Straus and Howe
Feb 11, 2025
Feb 9, 2025
Bill And Sarah
Starting at about 25:45, Sarah makes 2 great points
- If Republicans want to cut stuff, let them do their fucking jobs and cut it out of a proper budget bill
- Trump is setting the pretext to ignore the courts when they try to rein in his excesses
Feb 7, 2025
Jan 28, 2025
That IG Thing
Senate Committee for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
202-224-4751
TwiXter Republicans: @HSGAC_GOP
TwiXter Democrats: @HSGAC
Hi - my name is ______________, and I'm calling from ______________.
I expect the committee to investigate Mr Trump's illegal firing of the Inspectors General, which was in direct violation of the Inspector General Act of 1978.
I need to know if you'll be doing anything about it, or if we just have to sit here and let Trump and the GOP screw us with our pants on - again.
An Act to reorganize the executive branch of the Government and increase its economy and efficiency by establishing Offices of Inspector General within the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, and Transportation, and within the Community Services Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Small Business Administration, and the Veterans' Administration, and for other purposes.
- Enacted by the 95th United States Congress
- Effective October 1, 1978
- Signed into law by President Jimmy Carter on October 12, 1978
The Act specifically creates Inspector General positions and offices in more than a dozen specific departments and agencies. The Act gave these inspectors general the authority to review the internal documents of their departments or offices. They were given responsibility to investigate fraud, to give policy advice (5 U.S.C. § 404; IG Act, sec. 4), to handle certain complaints by employees, and to report to the heads of their agencies and to Congress on their activities every six months (5 U.S.C. § 405; IG Act, sec. 5).
Many existing offices with names like Office of Audit, Office of Investigations, or similar were transferred, renamed, folded into the new IG offices.
The core of the law is in 5 U.S.C. § 403 (IG Act, sec. 3(a)): "There shall be at the head of each Office an Inspector General who shall be appointed by the President, without regard to political affiliation and solely on the basis of integrity and demonstrated ability in accounting, auditing, financial analysis, law, management analysis, public administration, or investigations.
Each Inspector General shall report to and be under the general supervision of the head of the establishment involved or, to the extent such authority is delegated, the officer next in rank below such head, but shall not report to, or be subject to supervision by, any other officer of such establishment. Neither the head of the establishment nor the officer next in rank below such head shall prevent or prohibit the Inspector General from initiating, carrying out, or completing any audit or investigation, or from issuing any subpoena during the course of any audit or investigation."
The Act and the Inspector General role were amended thirty years later by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008,[3] which created the umbrella IG agency, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE).
In May 2020, after a series of IG firings for questionable causes, several House Democrats introduced a bill, H.R.6984, to amend the original act to protect against political retaliation and require just cause for IG dismissal.
The Act and the Inspector General role were amended thirty years later by the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008,[3] which created the umbrella IG agency, Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE).
In May 2020, after a series of IG firings for questionable causes, several House Democrats introduced a bill, H.R.6984, to amend the original act to protect against political retaliation and require just cause for IG dismissal.
Jan 6, 2025
Not A Good Start
So there won't be a honeymoon, and prices won't be coming down quickly, and the big-ass omnibus bill is a bit too complicated to get done before summer - if then - and the mass deportations will have wait a while, and at least some of Trump's cabinet picks are going to meet with resistance.
But hey - on the bright side, John Thune says he'll provide a little Congress 101 Tutorial for MAGA's mango-faced ape god so maybe he'll be a little less stupid about what it actually takes to get the whole governance thing done.
Fake Jesus have mercy.
Jan 4, 2025
On Sausage-Making
The gang of nine:
- Roy
- Massie
- Norman
- Biggs
- Clyde
- Cloud
- Gosar
- Harris
- Perry
... with Spartz and Ogles in reserve.
And it just so happens that the new rules require 9 votes for a Motion To Vacate.
Johnson probably can't get anything done without throwing large bones to the Tantrum Caucus, so we might see an awful lot of monkey-in-the-middle type negotiations as he tries to get the Democrats to help him - which of course will require throwing large bones to them as well.
Apr 1, 2024
Blows My Mind
At this point, I think the bi-partisanship that everybody's been squawking for is all about Democrats and the normie - albeit gutless - Republicans teaming up against the MAGA freaks.
And it may be just too fuckin' weird to contemplate, but the "normie Republicans" may now include at least some of the Freedom Caucus Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)