Hope this helps ya. [This doesn't require captcha and I am the creator of HtmlPipe, I have written about it and how it works technically as well, Please feel free to ask me any questions about it if you might have :) ]
[Edit: Just want to give introduction to what HtmlPipe is, its essentially a static web-page which can allow to archive archive.is pages on wayback machine/archive.org, I had actually gotten this idea within hackernews discussions themselves.]
I support this. We should prosecute these people and Bondi's excuse that the economy would collapse was so ridiculous as to be insulting. If crimes were committed the perpetrators must be prosecuted no matter who they are.
MTG claims Trump said exposing the client list would hurt his friends. Elon said Trump is implicated in them and we all know he was extremely Epstein-adjacent. Trump also cares about the impact of the market indexes on his ego so he'd probably want to avoid a major shakeup.
Any of these reasons or the unmentioned ones is enough to be pretty confident Trump will nominate someone who will want to make the files go away quietly.
They might be, but that’s not really a reason to let bad people stay in jobs they shouldn’t have. Otherwise e might as well give up any pretense of accountability and just let them do whatever they want.
I'm not sure about the "bad people" characterization though. Certainly she is a terrible person but if you are interested in having the least terrible AG you need to worry about her replacement. If by "bad people" you mean people who betrayed the electorate, I think she's been an extremely faithful advocate of the MAGA agenda.
Considering the president is unable to acknowledge anything that could be regarded as unflattering, I think it's safe to say we voted away the pretense of accountability.
I think that was just a meaningless rally chant like "build the wall" and "no new wars". Why would they vote for the guy's friend and possible client if they actually wanted the files released (and predators prosecuted)?
I hate to be jaded, but why are they doing this? It's not out of the goodness of their hearts or to give us the convenience of changing our email address. Is it?
conjecture - retention of a generation? If i had deathfromtheside[at]gmail, then i grew up and was too lazy/non-tech/busy to set up a new account for janesmith[at]gmail?
That's a really good point… It reminded me of some of the crazy email addresses that my friends have had, and how they've mostly created new email addresses for their professional lives.
Another point to add, is that old saying: if the service is free, you are the product. I have long considered that dating apps are taking all of our data, and selling it. What's more personal than social media? What do you think about dating. Who you swipe on, the information you put in there, all deeply personal. Sometimes more so than what you put on places like Facebook
But isn't that part of the Apple distortion field? They do seem to wait a very long time, but then when they do execute, there seems to be this air of "look what we've invented" when it's something that's been around for a long time.
Negative. It was passed with unanimous consent, there was only maybe five people there. I think that's a big difference between "passed" which gives the connotation that people actually voted on it, "unanimous consent" of the present.
You make this sound like it was a democrat plot, it was not.
Thune, the republican senate majority leader, was the one that put up the unanimous consent motion.
There were more than just 5 people there. Though it was late at night.
You can't push something through unanimous consent if there's not a quorum. That requires at least 51% of each party to be present.
Now, it's possible they waited until some of the big objectors to the bill fell asleep or left. But, that doesn't really change the fact that Thune pushed this through.
I made no claim as to party, it's just how it was done. If anything it was the Republicans who are the majority. I wanted to clarify that it was by unanimous consent, not a recorded vote.
Fair enough. But I do still have to push back on the notion that it was just 5 people there. If that were the case, you could have expected one of the more lucid members to have done a quorum call.
Fair point. My understanding is that the Senate "assumes" a quorum unless someone suggests there is not. Since it was AFAIK around 2am... my guess is not and they all just wanted to get the heck out of there. Since no recorded vote we may never know. So I stand corrected on the number.
Your understanding is correct. The quorum call has a priority and can be done by any member.
The session has to start with a quorum and it's assumed that there is still a quorum since nobody has done a quorum call.
I have to assume that if someone actually objected to this, they would have done a quorum call before leaving the session. That or the few objectors simply left early not thinking this would go to 2am. Though, they could have always came back. They almost certainly would have had staffers there who'd inform them that something like this was coming up.
But what effects does it have on the legislative process? It sounds like at the very least, all the senators vaguely wanted it to be passed, but didn't want to be on the record for voting for it.
The danger of Steve Jobs hijacking his own private plane was obviously quite high! We can only thank the dutiful TSA officers for their brave service. I’m sure they risked their lives averting this danger. Have they been awarded any medals yet?
reply