What stupid shit has Trump done today?

[spring-peeper]

Awww he didn't get it, UN World Food Programme got it instead. Fix

Didn't Biden's son work for UN World Food Program?

Biden's kid worked for a Nobel prize charity, and Trump's kids are never allowed to do charity work (? lazy) because they were ripping off a charity that raised funds for children with cancer.

 

[teqniq]

 

[spring-peeper]

The above reminds me of this:

Jared Kushner bragged in April that Trump was taking the country 'back from the doctors'

President Donald Trump's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, boasted in mid-April about how the President had cut out the doctors and scientists advising him on the unfolding coronavirus pandemic, comments that came as more than 40,000 Americans already had died from the virus, which...

www.cnn.com

In a taped interview on April 18, Kushner told legendary journalist Bob Woodward that Trump was "getting the country back from the doctors" in what he called a "negotiated settlement."

Kushner also proclaimed that the US was moving swiftly through the "panic phase" and "pain phase" of the pandemic and that the country was at the "beginning of the comeback phase."

"That doesn't mean there's not still a lot of pain and there won't be pain for a while, but that basically was, we've now put out rules to get back to work," Kushner said. "Trump's now back in charge. It's not the doctors."

 

[stavros]

Am I right in remembering that, should he get beaten cleanly next week and concedes, that Trump can still ingrain certain legislation before he leaves the White House in January? He's obviously got his Supreme Court choice in before the election, but I seem to remember with both Bush and Obama they had some time after their successors were elected.

 

[Streathamite]

Am I right in remembering that, should he get beaten cleanly next week and concedes, that Trump can still ingrain certain legislation before he leaves the White House in January?

Both the pre-vote legislature (as in, both of the Houses that are needed to pass legislation) can pass legislation up until end of play 2nd january. the next day, the new one gets sworn in. The President can issue executive orders up to 19th January; the inauguration is the next day. However, those orders are not legislation, and as such can be challenged in the courts

 

[Flavour]

Jared Kushner is a fucking psychopath. I really hope there's a mountain of legal action coming against him and Ivanka (and all the other Trumps) once Donald's out of office.

 

[existentialist]

Jared Kushner is a fucking psychopath. I really hope there's a mountain of legal action coming against him and Ivanka (and all the other Trumps) once Donald's out of office.

I don't know so if you're referring to anything specific, but he does come across a bit like someone who learnt to be human via a correspondence course.

 

[ska invita]

I don't know so if you're referring to anything specific, but he does come across a bit like someone who learnt to be human via a correspondence course.

that kkind of attitude comes with knowing where the bodies are buried

 

[StoneRoad]

Oh, I do hope Biden (or someone on his team) is taking notes.

I don't really now quite how the legislature actually works over there, but surely, if Biden & the Dems do get full working control by January they can have a field day by repealing the unwanted legislation, over-riding executive orders with new ones and so on ?

I just know that Trump and the Reps will be leaving a real mess to sort out. And I'm not talking just about Covid, or the Climate and the economy.

 

[Yossarian]

Am I right in remembering that, should he get beaten cleanly next week and concedes, that Trump can still ingrain certain legislation before he leaves the White House in January? He's obviously got his Supreme Court choice in before the election, but I seem to remember with both Bush and Obama they had some time after their successors were elected.

Politico had a good rundown of all the stupid shit a lame-duck Trump might do - I think he'll probably focus on destroying evidence and pardoning everybody he knows.

‘I’m Absolutely Expecting Him to Do Something Weird’: How Trump Could End His Presidency

Presidents typically reserve their most controversial decisions for their last weeks in office. Imagine what that could mean for Trump.

www.politico.com

 

[two sheds]

Oh, I do hope Biden (or someone on his team) is taking notes.

I don't really now quite how the legislature actually works over there, but surely, if Biden & the Dems do get full working control by January they can have a field day by repealing the unwanted legislation, over-riding executive orders with new ones and so on ?

I just know that Trump and the Reps will be leaving a real mess to sort out. And I'm not talking just about Covid, or the Climate and the economy.

You'd hope so, although unless they can stuff the Supreme Court there'll doubtless be appeals against anything he does (if he does actually try to do anything about it). And there'll doubtless be appeals to the Supreme Court if he tries to stuff the Supreme Court.

 

[Streathamite]

And there'll doubtless be appeals to the Supreme Court if he tries to stuff the Supreme Court.

Fortunately - they can't. There is absolutely nothing in the constitution that prohibits the President from expanding the court to 11, or even 13. the 'nine' is more or less unwritten, unspoken agreement and informal convention. Legally, there's no bar.

 

[Crispy]

Legally, there's no bar.

Yeah, but he'll wuss out.

 

[Yossarian]

You'd hope so, although unless they can stuff the Supreme Court there'll doubtless be appeals against anything he does (if he does actually try to do anything about it). And there'll doubtless be appeals to the Supreme Court if he tries to stuff the Supreme Court.

"The Supreme Court rejected the appeal against packing the Supreme Court in a 35-6 vote."

 

[planetgeli]

You want stupid shit?

"In California you have a special mask. You cannot, under any circumstances, take it off. You have to eat through the mask. It's a very complex mechanism. And they don't realize, those germs they go through it like nothing. They look at you with that contraption and they say, 'That's an easy one.'" - Trump

Facts First: Trump's story was false. Californians are not required to wear "complex" or "special" masks; basic face coverings, even homemade ones, are acceptable there. Though Gov. Gavin Newsom has imposed a statewide mask order, Californians are not required to wear masks at all times; they can remove them when at home, when alone in a room outside their home, when outdoors more than 6 feet from others, and when eating or drinking. And while people can transmit the coronavirus or get infected with it while wearing masks, face masks have proven effective in reducing the chances of transmission; they are much better than "nothing."
Trump's comments about Californians being forced to eat through their masks appeared to be a reference to an early-October tweet from Newsom's office that told people "don't forget to keep your mask on in between bites" when going out to eat with members of their households. The tweet was widely mocked, particularly in conservative circles.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Yeah, but he'll wuss out.

He has no intention of expanding the court. He's just shining the left on with his commission to look into it. He wants their votes, but won't give them anything real to keep them. I've seen enough of this behavior with environmental issues to recognize it when I see it.

 

[Yossarian]

"In California you have a special mask. You cannot, under any circumstances, take it off. You have to eat through the mask. It's a very complex mechanism. And they don't realize, those germs they go through it like nothing. They look at you with that contraption and they say, 'That's an easy one.'" - Trump

Interesting that Trump characterizes the virus as mocking victims whose defenses it can easily bypass - he apparently believes microorganisms as well as other people have the same motivations as himself. I hope that after a humiliating election defeat, he is forever tormented by visions of swarms of viruses surrounding him and taunting him.

 

[Flavour]

It's so patently bonkers and again I just don't see it winning him a single vote he didn't already have sown up. What a clown

 

[Streathamite]

Yeah, but he'll wuss out.

sadly, that is almost certainly true

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Michael Moore has a theory on what will happen if Trump loses the election. He thinks that they will put pressure on Justice Thomas to resign. Then Trump can get a fourth appointment to the Supreme Court. This makes some sense because Thomas is one of the justices that will probably leave the court in the next four to eight years. If the Republicans anticipate losing the Presidency and Congress for the next few years, they may do that to protect their majority on the court.

Also, look for a lot of executive orders authorizing the sale of public lands.

 

[Cloo]

If course he's claiming it's going away and that because he and his son had it mildly, it's nothing. So if Biden wins, presumably GOP won't blink before saying it was all going away until he came along...

Trump’s Closing Argument on Virus Clashes With Science, and Voters’ Lives (Published 2020)

The president has continued to downplay the severity of the coronavirus and declare before largely maskless crowds that it is vanishing. The surge in new cases across the country says: Not so.

www.nytimes.com

 

[pesh]

Biden should just roll in on the first day, issue an executive order rescinding all Trumps executive orders and sign it with an even thicker Sharpie.

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

Michael Moore has a theory on what will happen if Trump loses the election. He thinks that they will put pressure on Justice Thomas to resign. Then Trump can get a fourth appointment to the Supreme Court. This makes some sense because Thomas is one of the justices that will probably leave the court in the next four to eight years. If the Republicans anticipate losing the Presidency and Congress for the next few years, they may do that to protect their majority on the court.

Not if the dems have an incoming majority in the senate.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Not if the dems have an incoming majority in the senate.

I'm pretty sure they have time with the current Senate to get it done. Is there a rule I'm unaware of that prohibits it?

 

[belboid]

Not if the dems have an incoming majority in the senate.

They don’t take office immediately, not until jan I think (tho before the presidential inauguration)

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

I'm pretty sure they have time with the current Senate to get it done. Is there a rule I'm unaware of that prohibits it?

It's not that it's prohibited, it's that it would be mind numbingly stupid.

I don't think Biden would want to be seen to pack the SC by adding more justices as things stand at the moment, despite the gauntlet thrown down by the 11th hour recent appointment; for a lame duck president and senate to carry out yet more utterly blatant SC packing would be an open invitation to Biden and the senate to pick however many justices they want.

If they're smart they'd also try and engineer a change to the law to set the maximum SC size and bind any future republican administration. I presume that would be a constitutional change, so would need a 60-40 vote in the senate though?

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

It's not that it's prohibited, it's that it would be mind numbingly stupid.

I don't think Biden would want to be seen to pack the SC by adding more justices as things stand at the moment, despite the gauntlet thrown down by the 11th hour recent appointment; for a lame duck president and senate to carry out yet more utterly blatant SC packing would be an open invitation to Biden and the senate to pick however many justices they want.

The ship has already sailed on that point with the confirmation of Barret. The Democrats are promising revenge of some type. It probably won't be expanding the court, but it may be a reformation of the lower courts. Stacking the lower courts with Democratic appointees is a little more subtle use of power to gain a most of what stacking the Supreme Court would do.

If they're smart they'd also try and engineer a change to the law to set the maximum SC size and bind any future republican administration. I presume that would be a constitutional change, so would need a 60-40 vote in the senate though?

Then, they'd have to push it through enough state legislatures to ratify it. I don't see that happening in the short term.

 

[Crispy]

If they're smart they'd also try and engineer a change to the law to set the maximum SC size and bind any future republican administration. I presume that would be a constitutional change, so would need a 60-40 vote in the senate though?

Nope. Nothing in the constitution about the number of Justices.
CGP Grey has a good video on the various political dances that can be done around the topic:

 

[strung out]

I just can't see them ramming through a fourth appointee in the lame duck period. For a start, there would be even more chance of some republican senators not voting to confirm. One didn't confirm Barrett this time, and there could be another Democratic senator in Georgia replacing Loeffler senator immediately rather than in January due to the special election there.

If there is any risk of not getting the appointment through, then that hands the appointment to Biden, and suddenly the advantage given by confirming Barrett is lost and we go back to a 5-4 split.

 

[gentlegreen]