What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[The Brain]

The guy on the far right is the most weirdly dressed guy in the photo. Pick a lane.

[Caliga]

Fetterman's fashion... choices... are not to my taste but he has a specific role he's trying to play, so they are understandable.  He's my parents' Senator and my mom is a rabid fan of his, so it's serving him well, at least in her case.

[Barrister]

Defendants can wear whatever they want, but their sartorial choices may impact their fate.

Same goes for civil cases including video depositions. 

BAck when I was just starting out I had misdiarized something, and I had to call my client at the absolute last minute to come to court (it was something civil, but not a full trial).  So my client had to come right from work, in full work clothes, his work boots covered in mud.

My client was pissed - he wanted to be dressed better for the judge.

But let me tell you - I guy who obviously works so hard he had to come right from the work site, his boots covered in mud, could not have played off any better in court if I had tried.  The judge just ate him up.

Now yes - the Alberta Provincial Court - Civil Division in High Level (just a couple hours from the NWT border) is probably not the same as court in Manhattan, but the dress code can indeed be pretty flexible.


Personally when advising witnesses I tell them to dress nicely (I used to say as if going to church but then I realized that didn't mean anything to enough people) but by no means to buy new clothes.  They should still dress authentically as themselves.

[Syt]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4017344-rick-scott-issues-travel-advisory-for-socialists-warning-florida-is-openly-hostile-to-them/

Rick Scott issues travel advisory for 'socialists,' warning Florida is 'openly hostile' to them

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) issued what he described as a "formal travel advisory for socialists visiting Florida," on Tuesday, warning that the state was "openly hostile" to socialists and their enablers.

"The state of Florida devalues and marginalizes the contributions of, and the challenges faced by Socialists and others who work in the Biden Administration," Scott, who is also the state's former governor, said in a press release.

"Let me be clear – any attempts to spread the oppression and poverty that Socialism always brings will be rebuffed by the people of Florida," he added. "Travelers should be aware that attempts to spread Socialism in north Florida will fail and be met with laughter and mockery."

Scott's statement is a mocking response to recent travel issued by social justice groups declaring Florida an unsafe state for certain minority groups.

Over the weekend, the NAACP issuing a travel advisory warning that Florida has become "hostile to Black Americans" under Gov. Ron DeSantis. The League of United Latin American Citizens (a civil rights organization) and Equality Florida (an LGBTQ rights group) also issued travel warnings in recent weeks.

Scott, who has often served as a political foil to President Biden, used similar language found in the NAACP's advisory, seeming to mock the dangers outlined by the civil right's group by drawing parallels to Biden.

He said the counteractive travel advisory came "in direct response to the Biden Administration attempts to erase capitalism and the system that has brought prosperity to Florida and the entire United States."

[viper37]

in direct response to the Biden Administration attempts to erase capitalism and the system that has brought prosperity to Florida and the entire United States."

Ah, his this what they call hyperbole, or rather a simple lie?

[Admiral Yi]

According to NPR the DOJ is "close to a charging decision" on Hunter Biden.  Three tax things and one gun thing.

[Valmy]

Fetterman's fashion... choices... are not to my taste but he has a specific role he's trying to play, so they are understandable.  He's my parents' Senator and my mom is a rabid fan of his, so it's serving him well, at least in her case.

Yeah I don't like it but I am not his constituent. It seems the kind of thing the yinzers over there in western Pennsylvania would eat up.

[OttoVonBismarck]

According to NPR the DOJ is "close to a charging decision" on Hunter Biden.  Three tax things and one gun thing.

I don't know about the tax stuff, but the gun charge is almost certainly BS overcharging if they pursue it.

Form 4473 has this question on it:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

The premise of the charge is Hunter bought a gun during the time in which we also know he was using drugs regularly. The problem is this is close to being a "nonsense" question on the gun form. Unless you can show someone was actually actively under the effects of drugs, it's vague as to what "unlawful user" even means. Does that mean someone that has ever used ever? Does it mean someone who might use in the next 7 days, next 7 years?

"Addicted to" has additional problems of substantiation. AFAIK prosecutions for how this question is answered are very rare for this reason, and the fact anything is being made out of it seems highly partisan to me. In theory you could try to prosecute anyone in the drug business who has ever bought a firearm under this statute, but that normally doesn't happen.

You would need some hard substantiation that Hunter deliberately was in a state of mind where he knowingly lied on that question. Otherwise he can simply claim "I wasn't using drugs that day and did not intend to use them again" and on the addiction question "I have been under treatment for drug abuse, but never viewed myself as having an addiction." Addiction is pretty squishy definitionally. Like you could make an argument George W. Bush shouldn't be able to buy a gun because he recognized he was addicted to alcohol at age 40 and became a teetotaler, but no one is making that argument.

[Admiral Yi]

One thing that puzzles me is why the Democrats, back when they had control of both houses, didn't attach debt limit increases to their various spending bills.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I have asked that of people in other forums etc and I have never heard a satisfactory answer. I think it may just be as simple as, the debt limit ceiling probably can't be removed without overriding a filibuster procedurally, under current parliamentary rules. So they would have to first exempt such a vote from the filibuster (which they have done for a limited number of things to this point), and I am guessing Manchin or Sinema would've said no. But there was not even an attempt to get it done so I'm not sure.

[DGuller]

Why can't Democrats expand the debt limit by $700 trillion next time they have a chance?

[OttoVonBismarck]

They can. But they would need the political will to actually do it, which they seemed to lack completely the two years prior.

[frunk]

Theoretically they could get rid of the law entirely.

[Sheilbh]

Could they?

My understanding was that the debt ceiling originated in WW1 to allow the executive to issue debt up to a (at the time) level that was believed, at the time, to be astronomically high and as much as the US would be likely to need. From what I understand, before then Congress authorised specific debts.

If they got rid of the law wouldn't it just revert back to Congress having to authorise each issue of debt?

Edit: Obviously it is a massive irony that a legislative device designed to allow the US government to issue debt without going through legislative wrangling, brinksmanship or attempts to extort other policies has now itself become exactly that. (feel like maybe there's something about US politics in that?)

[OttoVonBismarck]

No--they are separate.

Before the modern system, Congress literally had to draft a law creating bond programs of a specified size and etc. They decided this was too cumbersome for modern finance, and passed a law giving the Secretary of the Treasury authority to create and issue bonds.

Not long after that, Congress realized that this in theory could allow the Secretary of the Treasury to take the U.S. into a lot of debt for no reason--while they still controlled appropriations and taxation, under the initial grant the Secretary of the Treasury could theoretically just issue debt for various reasons. The debt ceiling creates a statutory limit after which the SecTreas cannot issue any further debt.

A much more logical bill 100 years ago would have just been to say that SecTreas can issue debt "as needed, but only to pay for spending appropriated by congress."