Just going to take the invitation to get this started. So, politics, huh. Did you know it's an election year already? NC gets to have a special election for our legislature because the republicans gerrymandered so blatantly the court tossed out half our districts. So that whole "at least the election year is over" optimism? FORGET ABOUT IT.
And in New Mexico, public defenders are so over-worked that they are refusing to take more cases.
When Defendants Cannot Afford a Lawyer, and Neither Can New Mexico
HOBBS, N.M. — When Bennett J. Baur, New Mexico’s chief public defender, took office in April, he set out to review the workload of every lawyer on his team, ahead of another year of belt-tightening in a state whose budget has been crippled by the slump in oil and gas prices.
One place stood out: Hobbs, the largest city in Lea County, a misshapen rectangle speckled by pump jacks in the oil-rich Permian Basin, along the edge of western Texas. The number of felony cases in Hobbs had almost doubled since 2011, rising through the oil boom and bust even as the number of public defenders dropped by one-third in only three months.
In October, Mr. Baur ordered his lawyers here, who on average were representing 200 defendants each, to stop taking any new cases. It was a desperate and unprecedented step in this state, which triggered a nasty legal fight that has roiled this town of 43,000 for months.
“We have to turn off the spigot,” Mr. Baur said. “It is unconstitutional, inefficient and, frankly, not fair to represent more people if we can’t give them a functioning attorney.”
Lisa Kuykendall, Lea County’s chief deputy district attorney, called Mr. Baur’s decision to stop taking on new cases an “abdication of their statutory duty” and an affront to the more than 250 indigent defendants who have appeared in court to respond to criminal charges only to hear their lawyers tell judges, who are themselves working longer hours, they cannot do the job.
“We’re all doing a lot more with a lot less,” Ms. Kuykendall said.
Late last month, a district court judge found Mr. Baur in contempt of court, forcing the public defenders to go back to taking on cases. So the lawyers changed strategy. They started showing up in court and immediately asking judges to dismiss the cases without prejudice, meaning that the cases could still be filed later on.
So far, none of the judges have granted their requests.
And the crisis continues.
Poor defendants almost always make a first court appearance on their own, without a lawyer present to interpret the charges against them. Routinely, they meet the public defenders assigned to represent them only moments before they are supposed to negotiate critical decisions, such as a plea deal or the conditions for their release.
Public defenders contend that they are unable to properly prepare for hearings, thoroughly interview witnesses, evaluate the evidence against their clients or file the correct motions because they are stretched way too thin.
There is no relief in sight. Already confronting a $1.3 million shortfall this year, the courts are preparing for more cuts. Earlier this month, Arthur W. Pepin, director of the state’s Administrative Office of the Courts, asked magistrate and district judges to send him a memo listing ways they can trim expenses further.
“We are strained and we consistently hear prosecutors and public defenders tell us there are not enough of them to do the job that they ought to do,” Mr. Pepin said. “We’ve reached a point where the judges have grave concerns about the system’s ability to deliver justice.”
Mr. Baur had tried cajoling defenders assigned to other parts of the state to move to Hobbs, where housing remains relatively expensive and scarce. He had met with judges and the Lea County district attorney, Dianna Luce, to brainstorm solutions. He had advertised for two open positions and two new slots, hoping to bring the number of lawyers in the office to eight.
Months passed and no solution was in sight. One new hire resigned a week ahead of his start date. Most applicants, Mr. Baur said, were not even qualified enough to be interviewed. One who got hired this month was not experienced enough in criminal trials to take on a full caseload.
By then, Mr. Baur had already taken the dramatic step of turning down any new cases. “There’s no cavalry going over the hill,” said Mr. Baur (pronounced BOW-er). “We’re going to have to figure this out on our own.”
At the same time, the City of Hobbs finds its budget in the black. Having learned their lesson from previous boom-and-bust cycles, its leaders decided to set aside a third or more of what the city was taking in during the flush times. The saving has helped to hire new police officers, which has led to additional strain on the state-run courts.
The types of cases that come through magistrate court, the entry point to the state’s judicial system, highlight the economic struggles facing many of those who live in and around Hobbs: domestic violence, drunken driving, drug abuse.
“When oil took a dive, people’s meth addiction that allowed them to work 72 hours on the oil fields didn’t go away,” said Freeman Faust, a public defender.
On a recent morning in Lea County Magistrate Court in Hobbs, the metal detector buzzed as defendants walked through, but there was no one monitoring it; the court had no money to afford a security guard, Judge Willie R. Henry said.
In a corner of the lobby, Mr. Faust told one of his clients, Alfred M. Sosa, that prosecutors had offered to dismiss a charge of tampering with a motor vehicle — an ex-girlfriend had accused him of kicking in the door of her car — if Mr. Sosa pleaded guilty to a separate charge of assault on a family member.
They were meeting for the first time and Mr. Faust had yet to read Mr. Sosa’s case file, which he said made it hard to give his client any meaningful advice. According to the criminal complaint, the assault stemmed from the ex-girlfriend accusing him of swinging “a sock toward her face, barely missing her nose.”
reds8n wrote: ..I think we'll go with a slightly less provocative title m'kay ?
I'm sure the thread will be full of wacky hijinks soon enough.
That laughter and disbelief over the fact that Trump, the actual Donald Trump, is going to be the head of state of the mightiest nation on the planet is too provocative really says a lot about the state of the Western political discourse.
reds8n wrote: ..I think we'll go with a slightly less provocative title m'kay ?
I'm sure the thread will be full of wacky hijinks soon enough.
That laughter and disbelief over the fact that Trump, the actual Donald Trump, is going to be the head of state of the mightiest nation on the planet is too provocative really says a lot about the state of the Western political discourse.
Too provocative *for a thread title*. Surely we want the thread to be general about US politics, not just Donny Trumpo.
Given this is going to be the number 1 troll thread on all Dakka for the next year (or however long it takes to get locked) best to keep the gak storm to the thread content rather than the thread title, no?
Number one troll thread? I doubt it. I'm sure the reasonable and mature posters of Dakka can keep this thread completely on topic all year, without a single MOD warning or thread lock.
Verviedi wrote: Number one troll thread? I doubt it. I'm sure the reasonable and mature posters of Dakka can keep this thread completely on topic all year, without a single MOD warning or thread lock.
To be fair, now that we actually are getting plastic Sisters of Battle, this really does have a shot at being the number one troll thread on Dakka.
Peregrine wrote: NC gets to have a special election for our legislature because the republicans gerrymandered so blatantly the court tossed out half our districts.
Hopefully, the people will punish the legislators responsible for the worst offenses. But will the redistricting be handled fairly? Also, will the current legislators remain as incumbents in the new districts?
Verviedi wrote: Number one troll thread? I doubt it. I'm sure the reasonable and mature posters of Dakka can keep this thread completely on topic all year, without a single MOD warning or thread lock.
I doubt it'll get by on topic and without warnings (and I'm sure as usual there'll be plenty of veiled and not-so-veiled insults that slip under the radar), it'll probably dodge being locked because the mods seem to like keeping the US and UK politics threads open to contain all the crazy in one place, if they get locked they'll start seeping out all over the rest of the forum
Verviedi wrote: Number one troll thread? I doubt it. I'm sure the reasonable and mature posters of Dakka can keep this thread completely on topic all year, without a single MOD warning or thread lock.
I doubt it'll get by on topic and without warnings (and I'm sure as usual there'll be plenty of veiled and not-so-veiled insults that slip under the radar), it'll probably dodge being locked because the mods seem to like keeping the US and UK politics threads open to contain all the crazy in one place, if they get locked they'll start seeping out all over the rest of the forum
Ah, so this thread is like a squid made of anger. If you lock it, it will spray ink all over the forum and make everybody pissed.
I prefer to think of it as a mysterious burning bag left on your doorstep. You know you really should stomp it out, but if you do, guess what splatters everywhere...
“When oil took a dive, people’s meth addiction that allowed them to work 72 hours on the oil fields didn’t go away,” said Freeman Faust, a public defender.
Certainly doesn't mince words, does he? Hope they can get the public defender thing resolved soon.
Well, at least one of those stories isn't everything it seemed to be. The Washington Post also ran the story about the Burlington electric grid being hacked and is now walking it back.
“Authorities say there is no indication of that so far [that Russians had penetrated the US electric grid],” according to an editor’s note attached to a corrected version of the story on the paper’s Web site.
So, while the laptop had a virus it never touched the electric grid. Sort of like when you bring your personal laptop to work but don't connect to the corporate network.
Let's be clear here, malware has been around since the internet became a thing back in the 90s. What we have in this case is some dumb schmuck going to a website he/she probably shouldn't have (porn, poker, who knows) and wound up clicking on something and downloading a trojan. Trojans =/= hacking.
So, new thread, new discussions, new flame wars and burnt bottoms, lets get dangerous.
If we can keep it civil, I'd like to raise a discussion topic that often causes much gnashing of teeth, on the potential dangerous subject of guns, primarily for anyone living in CA the DoJ released new "assault weapons" rules friday afternoon. Now ostensibly these are "proposed" rules, but are unlikely to be changed as the legislation has already come into full effect.
Now, I bring this up not so much to debate the merits of the new AW ban (I don't live there anymore, though I do very much disagree with it), but more to point out some of the "slippery slope"-ness about the implementation that is often raised by some and dismissed by others, and how these perceptions come about and what they're grounded in and generate so much drama with this particular topic.
To illustrate the point, in July of 2016, in the wake of various shootings, CA passed yet another AW ban, expanding the definition of "assault weapons" by redefining the meaning of what a "detachable magazine" is to include magazines that require a tool to remove. I'll hold off on the specifics and debate over efficacy and whatnot. However, the restrictions became effective Jan 1 2017 for possession (and registration by Jan 1 2018), meaning the deadline to start DROS (background check & 10 day wait) in CA to take possession of weapons before the cut-off date was Dec 21 2016, and the CA DoJ was supposed to issue guidelines, rulings, and regulations before the ban kicked in, so that people would know how to register their AW's, what exactly was considered an AW now, etc.
Well, the CA DoJ waited and waited ultimately the new rules didn't make it to the public until...the afternoon on a Friday before a long holiday weekend, December 30th 2016...basically about 30something hours before they became effective.
So, we can see where this raises issues already, particularly with the DROS cut-off for people to buy rifles that may be banned ending before the actual rules are in place.
Furthermore, the DoJ's regulations then goes on to create several new complications and distinctions that did not exist in the initial legislation passed nor in previous AW legislation, again, right at the last minute, including how the CA DoJ treats the registration of "assault weapons" now significantly differently than the Federal government and the ATF (which in and of itself creates problems for people trying to follow the law). To give some examples, under federal law, only a receiver of a firearm is a gun, and for things like federally mandated background checks on firearms sales or NFA registration, that's all done with based off the receiver (as an example, this is an AR15 lower receiver, in and of itself considered a firearm under federal law) whether it is a complete gun or not, while the new CA ban will not allow registry "unless the firearm is fully assembled and fully functional" (without necessarily defining what that means). Additionally we get issues where now an AW isn't just an AW, an AW under the multiple other bans can retain full unmodified functionality and owners can basically change them however they like, while AW's registered under this new ban are effectively a new type of AW that cannot have parts modified or changed despite being registered AW's like older weapons. Registration and de-listing requirements have changed relative to older bans, now requiring 4 distinct different photographs of the firearm.
While not wanting to argue too much about the details or merits or constitutionality and whatnot of the ban, I'd like to discuss why the implementation feels extremely underhanded and overtly political, coming off as a "gotcha" to many to make things onerous for firearms owners rather than coming from a genuine regard for public safety (EDIT: If one wants to see how to identify an "assault weapon" under CA law, you basically need this detailed flowchart, which is about to become more complicated yet.), and why it feeds such teeth gnashing and "slipper slope" arguments whenever "guns" come up in legislation if we can keep it civil.
There's a host of other CA laws coming into effect as well (such as ammo requiring background checks and online ammo purchases having to be sent to an FFL for pickup and background check like firearms) that I won't dive into too much, but want to highlight a couple major points to go along with the AW thing. As something of an addendum, in 2016 CA passed a ban on possession of "high capacity" magazines (anything over 10 rounds) that becomes effective July 1 2017. There has been a ban on selling/importing/transferring/etc on such in CA for almost 20 years now, but those who owned them previously were grandfathered in, and this ban will require those people who legally possessed them prior to the ban to surrender those magazines they had been told they were allowed to keep for almost two decades by post-facto legislation. Now, on top of this, the CA DoJ a couple weeks ago put out a proposal "emergency" regulation to make that effective Jan 2 2017, with basically zero time for public comment or legislative review. This was eventually withdrawn without comment a couple days ago (yes, just a couple days before it would have been effective), but feeds the above points about "slippery slopeness" and why there's such strong reactions to almost any firearms legislation at this point.
whembly wrote: I so what him to say "Obama, you're fired" at his inauguration.
I wouldn't put it past him.
We can only hope that Trump is statesman like, gracious, and says something about healing divisions and moving the nation forward.
I'm not expecting an FDR inauguration speech, but let's hope he doesn't echo his recent twitter messages.
While I am hoping the liberals aren't going to try to close down roads, riot, or otherwise try to cause a massive disruption at the inauguration.
And here I was hoping that people would scale back characterising huge groups of people based on the actions of a few of them, but that's a pretty unrealistic hope. But if 'the liberals' do decide to riot I think the nation will be in pretty bad bad straights considering that's somewhere between a third and half the population.
but to this neutral observer, and from the newspaper articles I've read, it seems as though NC is turning into a banana republic.
North Carolina is essentially the last bastion of everything the Klan holds dear. They're a massive thorn in the side of the RNC and believe me, if we could write them off we would.
whembly wrote: I so what him to say "Obama, you're fired" at his inauguration.
I wouldn't put it past him.
We can only hope that Trump is statesman like, gracious, and says something about healing divisions and moving the nation forward.
I'm not expecting an FDR inauguration speech, but let's hope he doesn't echo his recent twitter messages.
While I am hoping the liberals aren't going to try to close down roads, riot, or otherwise try to cause a massive disruption at the inauguration.
Close down roads? Riot? Naw, liberals would never do that...
I'm worried that one of those #NeverTrump or #NotMyPresident whack jobs will try to assassinate Trump before he can be officially sworn in. Given the security around the place, it's unlikely such an attempt would succeed, but it would be tragic.
As for the "You're fired!" thing, I've made jokes about Trump doing just that, but I sincerely hope it won't actually happen. I also made jokes about having "The Apprentice: Presidential Cabinet Edition", but that didn't happen either.
Either way, let's wait until Trump does something dumb before we trash him, shall we?
whembly wrote: I so what him to say "Obama, you're fired" at his inauguration.
I wouldn't put it past him.
We can only hope that Trump is statesman like, gracious, and says something about healing divisions and moving the nation forward.
I'm not expecting an FDR inauguration speech, but let's hope he doesn't echo his recent twitter messages.
While I am hoping the liberals aren't going to try to close down roads, riot, or otherwise try to cause a massive disruption at the inauguration.
Close down roads? Riot? Naw, liberals would never do that...
I'm worried that one of those #NeverTrump or #NotMyPresident whack jobs will try to assassinate Trump before he can be officially sworn in. Given the security around the place, it's unlikely such an attempt would succeed, but it would be tragic.
As for the "You're fired!" thing, I've made jokes about Trump doing just that, but I sincerely hope it won't actually happen. I also made jokes about having "The Apprentice: Presidential Cabinet Edition", but that didn't happen either.
Either way, let's wait until Trump does something dumb before we trash him, shall we?
how much more dumb stuff does he need to do? its been his defining trait during his run, saying and doing dumb stuff. It should have been his campaign slogan, will do dumb stuff for votes.
whembly wrote: I so what him to say "Obama, you're fired" at his inauguration.
I wouldn't put it past him.
We can only hope that Trump is statesman like, gracious, and says something about healing divisions and moving the nation forward.
I'm not expecting an FDR inauguration speech, but let's hope he doesn't echo his recent twitter messages.
While I am hoping the liberals aren't going to try to close down roads, riot, or otherwise try to cause a massive disruption at the inauguration.
And here I was hoping that people would scale back characterising huge groups of people based on the actions of a few of them, but that's a pretty unrealistic hope. But if 'the liberals' do decide to riot I think the nation will be in pretty bad bad straights considering that's somewhere between a third and half the population.
In all fairness, my statement is in the same vein as this one of yours,
"Ah yes, funny how Republican supporters love to shift blame for Trump to anyone but themselves. Keep at it, worked so well for you thus far! I'll keep laughing at you as the GOP continues their burning fall into irrelevance. "
You are right, my tone was not at all exaggerated, it was serious and had no reason not to be taken at exactly face value. I messed up previously, which completely excuses you doing the same.
NinthMusketeer wrote: You are right, my tone was not at all exaggerated, it was serious and had no reason not to be taken at exactly face value. I messed up previously, which completely excuses you doing the same.
Actually, I could have chosen my words more carefully. Pals?
NinthMusketeer wrote: You are right, my tone was not at all exaggerated, it was serious and had no reason not to be taken at exactly face value. I messed up previously, which completely excuses you doing the same.
Actually, I could have chosen my words more carefully. Pals?
Fair enough, I have certainly made my fair share of poorly worded statements in the past.
Richard M. Nixon always denied it: to David Frost, to historians and to Lyndon B. Johnson, who had the strongest suspicions and the most cause for outrage at his successor’s rumored treachery. To them all, Nixon insisted that he had not sabotaged Johnson’s 1968 peace initiative to bring the war in Vietnam to an early conclusion. “My God. I would never do anything to encourage” South Vietnam “not to come to the table,” Nixon told Johnson, in a conversation captured on the White House taping system.
Now we know Nixon lied. A newfound cache of notes left by H. R. Haldeman, his closest aide, shows that Nixon directed his campaign’s efforts to scuttle the peace talks, which he feared could give his opponent, Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey, an edge in the 1968 election. On Oct. 22, 1968, he ordered Haldeman to “monkey wrench” the initiative.
The 37th president has been enjoying a bit of a revival recently, as his achievements in foreign policy and the landmark domestic legislation he signed into law draw favorable comparisons to the presidents (and president-elect) that followed. A new, $15 million face-lift at the Nixon presidential library, while not burying the Watergate scandals, spotlights his considerable record of accomplishments.
Haldeman’s notes return us to the dark side. Amid the reappraisals, we must now weigh apparently criminal behavior that, given the human lives at stake and the decade of carnage that followed in Southeast Asia, may be more reprehensible than anything Nixon did in Watergate.
Nixon had entered the fall campaign with a lead over Humphrey, but the gap was closing that October. Henry A. Kissinger, then an outside Republican adviser, had called, alerting Nixon that a deal was in the works: If Johnson would halt all bombing of North Vietnam, the Soviets pledged to have Hanoi engage in constructive talks to end a war that had already claimed 30,000 American lives.
But Nixon had a pipeline to Saigon, where the South Vietnamese president, Nguyen Van Thieu, feared that Johnson would sell him out. If Thieu would stall the talks, Nixon could portray Johnson’s actions as a cheap political trick. The conduit was Anna Chennault, a Republican doyenne and Nixon fund-raiser, and a member of the pro-nationalist China lobby, with connections across Asia.
“! Keep Anna Chennault working on” South Vietnam, Haldeman scrawled, recording Nixon’s orders. “Any other way to monkey wrench it? Anything RN can do.”
Nixon told Haldeman to have Rose Mary Woods, the candidate’s personal secretary, contact another nationalist Chinese figure — the businessman Louis Kung — and have him press Thieu as well. “Tell him hold firm,” Nixon said.
Nixon also sought help from Chiang Kai-shek, the president of Taiwan. And he ordered Haldeman to have his vice-presidential candidate, Spiro T. Agnew, threaten the C.I.A. director, Richard Helms. Helms’s hopes of keeping his job under Nixon depended on his pliancy, Agnew was to say. “Tell him we want the truth — or he hasn’t got the job,” Nixon said.
Throughout his life, Nixon feared disclosure of this skulduggery. “I did nothing to undercut them,” he told Frost in their 1977 interviews. “As far as Madame Chennault or any number of other people,” he added, “I did not authorize them and I had no knowledge of any contact with the South Vietnamese at that point, urging them not to.” Even after Watergate, he made it a point of character. “I couldn’t have done that in conscience.”
Nixon had cause to lie. His actions appear to violate federal law, which prohibits private citizens from trying to “defeat the measures of the United States.” His lawyers fought throughout Nixon’s life to keep the records of the 1968 campaign private. The broad outline of “the Chennault affair” would dribble out over the years. But the lack of evidence of Nixon’s direct involvement gave pause to historians and afforded his loyalists a defense.
Time has yielded Nixon’s secrets. Haldeman’s notes were opened quietly at the presidential library in 2007, where I came upon them in my research for a biography of the former president. They contain other gems, like Haldeman’s notations of a promise, made by Nixon to Southern Republicans, that he would retreat on civil rights and “lay off pro-Negro crap” if elected president. There are notes from Nixon’s 1962 California gubernatorial campaign, in which he and his aides discuss the need to wiretap political foes.
Of course, there’s no guarantee that, absent Nixon, talks would have proceeded, let alone ended the war. But Johnson and his advisers, at least, believed in their mission and its prospects for success.
When Johnson got word of Nixon’s meddling, he ordered the F.B.I. to track Chennault’s movements. She “contacted Vietnam Ambassador Bui Diem,” one report from the surveillance noted, “and advised him that she had received a message from her boss … to give personally to the ambassador. She said the message was … ‘Hold on. We are gonna win. … Please tell your boss to hold on.’ ”
In a conversation with the Republican senator Everett Dirksen, the minority leader, Johnson lashed out at Nixon. “I’m reading their hand, Everett,” Johnson told his old friend. “This is treason.”
“I know,” Dirksen said mournfully.
Johnson’s closest aides urged him to unmask Nixon’s actions. But on a Nov. 4 conference call, they concluded that they could not go public because, among other factors, they lacked the “absolute proof,” as Defense Secretary Clark Clifford put it, of Nixon’s direct involvement.
The passage of a “bathroom bill” last March sparked a maelstrom with severe political, economic and cultural consequences for North Carolina that continued through the end of 2016. Yet Texas is poised to propose a similar law in 2017.
In November, one of the state’s most senior politicians published his top 10 priorities for the next legislative session. A “Women’s Privacy Act” was at number six, right after banning immigration “sanctuary cities” and insisting on photo ID at the ballot box.
The act, said lieutenant governor Dan Patrick, is necessary so that “women and girls” can have “privacy and safety in their restrooms, showers and locker rooms”.
When filed, the bill is likely to turn national attention to Texas in the wake of North Carolina legislators’ failure to repeal their bill during a special session on 21 December. Patrick issued a statement the following day congratulating them.
The so-called bathroom bill in North Carolina includes a provision that requires people to use public bathrooms that match the gender on their birth certificate. Critics have described it as a thinly veiled attack on the transgender community under the guise of protecting public safety.
Patrick hasn’t released his own proposed bill, but has said it would allow businesses to create their own bathroom policies.
Despite the demonstrable negative consequences in states that have passed laws that undermine LGBTQ equality, the coming months will indicate whether the ascent of Donald Trump to the White House is emboldening religious conservatives to press for more such bills after a series of gains for gay and transgender people at the federal level under the Obama administration.
A federal court ruling Saturday may further embolden these efforts. A Texas judge temporarily halted Obama administration rules that are intended to ban discrimination by doctors and hospitals against transgender persons. Joining Texas in the suit were Wisconsin, Kentucky, Nebraska and Kansas.
In August, the same judge sided with 13 Republican-controlled states to block transgender protections in public schools sought by the Obama administration.
‘Something that should be avoided’
So-called “religious freedom” provisions similar to those that caused controversy in Indiana in 2015 are also set to be aired in the Texas statehouse next year.
“I certainly believe that logically thinking people would look to North Carolina and look to Indiana,” said Chuck Smith, chief executive of Equality Texas, an LGBTQ advocacy group.
Such people would see, he said, “the economic consequences that were experienced in those states as a result of filing discriminatory legislation, and a logically thinking person would come to the conclusion that that is something that should be avoided in the state of Texas.”
The state’s chamber of commerce, the Texas Association of Business (TAB), reached that view. It has produced a 23-page report warning of dire economic consequences if the state follows North Carolina’s path by pursuing a policy that would harm tourism, alienate employers and dissuade talented millennials from staying in or moving to Texas.
“If you just look at North Carolina and Indiana and put that over a Texas-sized footprint of our economy, it could be up to $8.5bn and 185,000 jobs lost, it is very dramatic,” said Chris Wallace, the association’s president.
“We want to remain one of the top states in which to do business, so why would we want to do anything to risk any of that, by legislation that’s really unnecessary and unenforceable?
“The question of how you would enforce people going into the right bathroom…What, so you have to take your birth certificate? It gets really tricky.
“We’ve got too many core issues that we need to be worried about in this state – education, transportation, water, many more. Economic development, keeping us strong. We don’t need these types of issues to overshadow our core agenda items.”
Att a Texas Tribune event in November, Joe Straus, the speaker of the Texas house of representatives, said he had other, more urgent concerns than the bathroom bill.
Patrick, though, appears unmoved. In a statement earlier this month his office called the TAB report “misinformation and fear-mongering regarding a bill they haven’t even seen”. It also defended the proposal as a way to “assure that sexual predators, like those who exploit the internet, will not be able to freely enter women’s restrooms, locker rooms or showers, and that businesses are not forced by local ordinances to allow men in women’s restrooms and locker rooms”.
Patrick’s spokesperson did not return a Guardian request for comment.
‘We have a friend in the White House’
Sexual assault in any location is, of course, already illegal, while there is no evidence that non-discrimination laws have resulted in increased rates of sexual assault. By contrast, LGBTQ advocates argue that violence and bias against transgender people is a very real problem exacerbated by prejudicial laws.
North Carolina’s HB2 was signed into law by Governor Pat McCrory, a Republican who lost his bid for re-election in November. The backlash saw sports events and concerts cancelled and businesses scrapping investment plans.
Patrick, 66, was a radio talkshow host perhaps best-known for getting an on-air vasectomy until he was elected as lieutenant governor in 2014 on a platform of stopping the “invasion” of undocumented immigrants. He was the Texas state chairman for the Trump presidential campaign.
“Starting in 2017, we will have a friend in the White House who was clearly elected because the people of this country believe in the conservative principles that have guided the way we govern in Texas,” Patrick said in November.
Smith, of Equality Texas, said that Texas’s conservative politicians telegraphed their intentions to introduce more anti-equality legislation long before Trump’s victory.
“I believe we have seen a heightened sense of concern about the possibility of favourable policies being rolled back on a federal level,” he said. “At the state level we already saw the threats that were lying ahead and those haven’t really changed.”
The US supreme court legalised same-sex marriage nationwide in June 2015. That major victory for gay rights appears to have inspired a pushback by conservative Republicans in states.
According to the Human Rights Campaign, more than 200 “anti-LGBTQ bills” were introduced across the country in 2016 sessions – most failing to pass – and more than 111 million people live in states without clear state-level protections against LGBTQ workplace discrimination.
Smith is also concerned that 2017 will see Texas legislators press for “religious freedom” laws that would, for example, exempt Christian retailers who believe homosexuality is a sin from providing services for gay weddings.
So far there are a handful of Texas bills which advocates consider anti-LGBTQ that have been filed amid the usual slew of pro-gun, pro-God, anti-undocumented immigrant, anti-abortion and anti-federal government proposals up for discussion when the legislative session starts in January.
One would eliminate local non-discrimination ordinances if they have protections that go beyond state law – reminiscent of HB2. Another calls on the state not to enforce federal laws that the Texas legislature deems to violate the state constitution – which since 2005 has defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
A high-profile revision of the law on a parent’s right to know information about their child has raised fears that it could force teachers to out students.
So, I was thinking, to keep the thread positive, we should all name something we will miss after Obama steps down.
I for one will miss his voice. For all the disagreements you can have with the content, he is an excellent orator, and superb debater. And that's not something we'll get from Donald Trump. (I doubt he'll even bother to do the weekly radio address.)
Co'tor Shas wrote: So, I was thinking, to keep the thread positive, we should all name something we will miss after Obama steps down.
I'll miss having a president with his heart in the right place. Obama did not become President to show how great he was, he didn't become President because it was his 'turn', and he didn't become President just out of some inane desire to 'win'. He was there to help the American people and while that didn't always work out at the end of the day he did a decent job of it. Despite the doom-and-gloom coming from the right the US has not collapsed into anarchy, we still have all of our rights (some groups have made gains, even), and the economy is better than when he took office. If every POTUS could manage that much I'd be pretty happy.
Verviedi wrote: Patrick, 66, was a radio talkshow host perhaps best-known for getting an on-air vasectomy until he was elected as lieutenant governor in 2014 on a platform of stopping the “invasion” of undocumented immigrants. He was the Texas state chairman for the Trump presidential campaign.
Ustrello wrote: Unless we will have a Cheney/Bush situation where we know where the power really lays
Do you honestly believe that Pence is the power behind the throne?
Possibly, trump is an idiot who is more apt to throw angry tweets at people than actually govern. Cue the leaks when he won the nomination that the VP would be doing most of the work.
Associated Press wrote:Puerto Rico's new gov promises immediate push for statehood
Gov. Ricardo Rossello is sworn in at the seaside Capitol in San Juan, Puerto Rico, Monday, Jan. 2, 2017. The U.S. territory is preparing for what many believe will be new austerity measures and a renewed push for statehood to haul the island out of a deep economic crisis. (AP Photo/Danica Coto)
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — Puerto Rico's new governor was sworn in Monday, promising an immediate push for statehood in a territory facing a deep economic crisis.
Gov. Ricardo Rossello, 37, proposed several measures aimed at alleviating the crisis shortly after he was sworn in at midnight. Among them is a proposal to hold a referendum that would ask voters whether they prefer statehood or independence. Many have argued that Puerto Rico's political status has contributed to its decade-long crisis that has prompted more than 200,000 people to flee to the U.S. mainland in recent years.
"The United States cannot pretend to be a model of democracy for the world while it discriminates against 3.5 million of its citizens in Puerto Rico, depriving them of their right to political, social and economic equality under the U.S. flag," Rossello said in his inaugural speech, delivered in Spanish. "There is no way to overcome Puerto Rico's crisis given its colonial condition."
The crowd rose to its feet and cheered as Rossello announced that he would fly to Washington, D.C., Monday to back a bill to admit Puerto Rico as the 51st state.
He also said he would soon hold elections to choose two senators and five representatives to Congress and send them to Washington to demand statehood, a strategy used by Tennessee to join the union in the 18th century. The U.S. government has final say on whether Puerto Rico can become a state.
Rossello said he also aims to boost public-private partnerships and use that revenue to save a retirement system that faces a $40 billion deficit and is expected to collapse in less than a year. He pledged to work closely with a federal control board that U.S. Congress created last year to oversee Puerto Rico's finances, and he has said he supports negotiations with creditors to help restructure a public debt of nearly $70 billion.
"Puerto Rico's recovery begins today," said Rossello, a scientist with no political experience and the son of a former governor who also sought statehood for Puerto Rico.
Rossello announced that he has already signed six executive orders, including one to promote bilingual education, another to provide female government employees with the same pay as their male counterparts, and a third ordering agencies to reduce their budgets and contracts for professional services by 10 percent.
He also seeks to privatize services such as the generation of energy, establish an office to oversee and distribute federal funds to cut down on corruption, and to create financial incentives for doctors to boost the number of dwindling specialists.
Thousands of supporters cheered as they clutched umbrellas to protect themselves from a searing sun.
"This is a historic moment for Puerto Rico," said 50-year-old Jose Davila as he waved a large flag from Rossello's pro-statehood New Progressive Party. "He's the hope of our island, he's the hope for statehood, he's the hope for a people that have suffered."
Puerto Ricans have been hit with dozens of new taxes in the past four years and increases in utility bills as former Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla aimed to generate more revenue for a government he said was running out of money. Despite those and other measures, the island's government has defaulted on millions of dollars' worth of bond payments and declared a state of emergency at several agencies.
The federal control board has requested a revised fiscal plan that has to be approved by end of January, saying that the one Garcia submitted last year was in part unrealistic and relied too heavily on federal funds. Garcia had refused to submit a revised plan to include austerity measures. Rossello has said he would request an extension of that deadline as well as an extension of a moratorium that expires in February and currently protects Puerto Rico from lawsuits filed by angered creditors.
As supporters streamed early on Monday toward the Capitol building, one yelled out, "Today, a new Puerto Rico begins!" to the cheers of others, including those holding U.S. flags.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.
It isn't non-partisan because it basically adds 2 D senators and a few D representatives. That turns partisan quickly.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.
It isn't non-partisan because it basically adds 2 D senators and a few D representatives. That turns partisan quickly.
Somehow, I don't see "Oh no, people will get representation, we have to stop it!!!" going over too well with the American people... It's not like Puerto Rican's couldn't vote if they just moved to Florida or something either.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.
It isn't non-partisan because it basically adds 2 D senators and a few D representatives. That turns partisan quickly.
Seems like a States Rights issue to pick their own representation, so GOP should be okay with it.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.
It isn't non-partisan because it basically adds 2 D senators and a few D representatives. That turns partisan quickly.
I suppose a bargain could be reached to split those seats 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans for the first term. The problem for Democrats is that PR currently enjoys some pretty sweet benefits as a US Territory which would go away as soon as Statehood becomes official. The change in economy coupled with the fact that it isn't the tourist Mecca that Hawaii is could push PR down a very different path.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.
It isn't non-partisan because it basically adds 2 D senators and a few D representatives. That turns partisan quickly.
I suppose a bargain could be reached to split those seats 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans for the first term. The problem for Democrats is that PR currently enjoys some pretty sweet benefits as a US Territory which would go away as soon as Statehood becomes official. The change in economy coupled with the fact that it isn't the tourist Mecca that Hawaii is could push PR down a very different path.
Why should there be a deal? If it becomes a state it should be able to elect their own senators and representatives to be sworn in on the day statehood becomes effective.
Well, at least one of those stories isn't everything it seemed to be. The Washington Post also ran the story about the Burlington electric grid being hacked and is now walking it back.
“Authorities say there is no indication of that so far [that Russians had penetrated the US electric grid],” according to an editor’s note attached to a corrected version of the story on the paper’s Web site.
So, while the laptop had a virus it never touched the electric grid. Sort of like when you bring your personal laptop to work but don't connect to the corporate network.
Let's be clear here, malware has been around since the internet became a thing back in the 90s. What we have in this case is some dumb schmuck going to a website he/she probably shouldn't have (porn, poker, who knows) and wound up clicking on something and downloading a trojan. Trojans =/= hacking.
It's a bit more than that. The code found on the computer was a match to APT28's malware code. What they likely found was pieces of an exploit snuck unto the computers last year.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.
Those statehood elections down there get pretty ugly.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.
It isn't non-partisan because it basically adds 2 D senators and a few D representatives. That turns partisan quickly.
I suppose a bargain could be reached to split those seats 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans for the first term. The problem for Democrats is that PR currently enjoys some pretty sweet benefits as a US Territory which would go away as soon as Statehood becomes official. The change in economy coupled with the fact that it isn't the tourist Mecca that Hawaii is could push PR down a very different path.
Why should there be a deal? If it becomes a state it should be able to elect their own senators and representatives to be sworn in on the day statehood becomes effective.
You should really look up the history behind States that were admitted after the Union was formed. There were often requirements beyond what the people in the territories wanted. When Statehood was being considered for Utah, the Democrats were hesitant because recent territorial elections didn't go in their favor. A compromise had to be made that Utah not be admitted until after the current congressional term which delayed Statehood by four years. Most western States were admitted via Enabling Acts which spelled out the terms and conditions under which those territories were granted Statehood. It was an Enabling Act that prohibited polygamy in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Nevada was forced to abolish slavery. Nebraska had to redo their proposed Constitution because suffrage only applied to White men (this was in 1866 after the Civil War). Suggesting that representation be initially appointed and as part of a power sharing agreement isn't too far fetched an idea.
For something a little more comparable with PR's situation, Wyoming's Statehood was opposed by Democrats not wanting to see more power shift to the Republicans (the reverse situation with PR) so they objected to Wyoming's article 6 that granted women equal rights (suffrage). How the Republicans handle PR's request for Statehood will be interesting to see. Like the Democrats during Wyoming's admission process, today's Republicans don't want to simply hand their opponents power on a silver platter. The problem for the Republicans is that they are desperate to make inroads with Hispanics so opposing PR's Statehood due to party affiliation issues could be a political disaster from the start. Then there is the massive PR debt and Congressional brinkmanship that's been going on these past few years - ugly stuff all around. When an Enabling Act is drafted for PR, it will be interesting to see the compromises involved.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.
It isn't non-partisan because it basically adds 2 D senators and a few D representatives. That turns partisan quickly.
Somehow, I don't see "Oh no, people will get representation, we have to stop it!!!" going over too well with the American people... It's not like Puerto Rican's couldn't vote if they just moved to Florida or something either.
It doesn't really matter how badly it would go over with the American people. The GOP could find some way to block PR from becoming a state, and no matter the public outrage, 60 million Republican voters will still show up on election day and, despite their outrage, loyally vote Republican. Because who else are they going to vote for, Democrats?
Anyway, this doesn't seem like a good idea. I get there are problems with the way things can and have been handled, so why not try to fix those problems rather than neuter independent oversight?
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is ironic that the party of government accountability can do whatever it wants and not be held accountable by a sizeable portion of their voters.
Not really because they are the party of doing whatever they want. They win elections and change laws as they please. In this they are an actual political party, just an awful one. The Democrats by contrast are so bad at politics that they make compromises without getting anything in return.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is ironic that the party of government accountability can do whatever it wants and not be held accountable by a sizeable portion of their voters.
Not really because they are the party of doing whatever they want. They win elections and change laws as they please. In this they are an actual political party, just an awful one. The Democrats by contrast are so bad at politics that they make compromises without getting anything in return.
What are these 'compromise' examples are you seeing?
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is ironic that the party of government accountability can do whatever it wants and not be held accountable by a sizeable portion of their voters.
Not really because they are the party of doing whatever they want. They win elections and change laws as they please. In this they are an actual political party, just an awful one. The Democrats by contrast are so bad at politics that they make compromises without getting anything in return.
What are these 'compromise' examples are you seeing?
They completely fethed up getting rid of HB2 in Charlotte in return for repealing trans protection ordinance.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.
It isn't non-partisan because it basically adds 2 D senators and a few D representatives. That turns partisan quickly.
I suppose a bargain could be reached to split those seats 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans for the first term. The problem for Democrats is that PR currently enjoys some pretty sweet benefits as a US Territory which would go away as soon as Statehood becomes official. The change in economy coupled with the fact that it isn't the tourist Mecca that Hawaii is could push PR down a very different path.
Why should there be a deal? If it becomes a state it should be able to elect their own senators and representatives to be sworn in on the day statehood becomes effective.
You should really look up the history behind States that were admitted after the Union was formed. There were often requirements beyond what the people in the territories wanted. When Statehood was being considered for Utah, the Democrats were hesitant because recent territorial elections didn't go in their favor. A compromise had to be made that Utah not be admitted until after the current congressional term which delayed Statehood by four years. Most western States were admitted via Enabling Acts which spelled out the terms and conditions under which those territories were granted Statehood. It was an Enabling Act that prohibited polygamy in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Nevada was forced to abolish slavery. Nebraska had to redo their proposed Constitution because suffrage only applied to White men (this was in 1866 after the Civil War). Suggesting that representation be initially appointed and as part of a power sharing agreement isn't too far fetched an idea.
For something a little more comparable with PR's situation, Wyoming's Statehood was opposed by Democrats not wanting to see more power shift to the Republicans (the reverse situation with PR) so they objected to Wyoming's article 6 that granted women equal rights (suffrage). How the Republicans handle PR's request for Statehood will be interesting to see. Like the Democrats during Wyoming's admission process, today's Republicans don't want to simply hand their opponents power on a silver platter. The problem for the Republicans is that they are desperate to make inroads with Hispanics so opposing PR's Statehood due to party affiliation issues could be a political disaster from the start. Then there is the massive PR debt and Congressional brinkmanship that's been going on these past few years - ugly stuff all around. When an Enabling Act is drafted for PR, it will be interesting to see the compromises involved.
This.
Granting statehood should be simple but won't be. It will be conditional. A new state means another looses a seat in the House and two more seats in the Senate (the later is a huge deal as well given the issues that will likely concern PR in federal politics). It changes the electoral college map. A new state means a new state of affairs for national politics, and political parties tend to like status quo until the status quo becomes disadvantageous. I don't see the Democrats opposing PR's statehood, but the Republicans likely will for obvious reasons. The only way it will go through is if the two parties achieve terms on the matter.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.
It isn't non-partisan because it basically adds 2 D senators and a few D representatives. That turns partisan quickly.
I suppose a bargain could be reached to split those seats 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans for the first term. The problem for Democrats is that PR currently enjoys some pretty sweet benefits as a US Territory which would go away as soon as Statehood becomes official. The change in economy coupled with the fact that it isn't the tourist Mecca that Hawaii is could push PR down a very different path.
Why should there be a deal? If it becomes a state it should be able to elect their own senators and representatives to be sworn in on the day statehood becomes effective.
You should really look up the history behind States that were admitted after the Union was formed. There were often requirements beyond what the people in the territories wanted. When Statehood was being considered for Utah, the Democrats were hesitant because recent territorial elections didn't go in their favor. A compromise had to be made that Utah not be admitted until after the current congressional term which delayed Statehood by four years. Most western States were admitted via Enabling Acts which spelled out the terms and conditions under which those territories were granted Statehood. It was an Enabling Act that prohibited polygamy in Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Oklahoma. Nevada was forced to abolish slavery. Nebraska had to redo their proposed Constitution because suffrage only applied to White men (this was in 1866 after the Civil War). Suggesting that representation be initially appointed and as part of a power sharing agreement isn't too far fetched an idea.
For something a little more comparable with PR's situation, Wyoming's Statehood was opposed by Democrats not wanting to see more power shift to the Republicans (the reverse situation with PR) so they objected to Wyoming's article 6 that granted women equal rights (suffrage). How the Republicans handle PR's request for Statehood will be interesting to see. Like the Democrats during Wyoming's admission process, today's Republicans don't want to simply hand their opponents power on a silver platter. The problem for the Republicans is that they are desperate to make inroads with Hispanics so opposing PR's Statehood due to party affiliation issues could be a political disaster from the start. Then there is the massive PR debt and Congressional brinkmanship that's been going on these past few years - ugly stuff all around. When an Enabling Act is drafted for PR, it will be interesting to see the compromises involved.
The thing with Puerto Rico, though, is that the majority of it's population have historically rejected statehood until a few years ago. On the other hand, it will be quite a legacy for any president to admit a new state, and I thought Obama would have been the one to back in 2012.
I doubt PR will achieve statehood soon even if people there start seriously pushing for it. Especially given that PR's economic woes are pretty much the sole fault of really wonky laws regarding its relationship to the United States, statehood will likely get support as a solution to the territories financial woes.
Anyway, this doesn't seem like a good idea. I get there are problems with the way things can and have been handled, so why not try to fix those problems rather than neuter independent oversight?
Gotta love it. They get voted in on a "Drain the Swamp" mandate and the first thing the Republicans do is add more swamp.
NinthMusketeer wrote: It is ironic that the party of government accountability can do whatever it wants and not be held accountable by a sizeable portion of their voters.
Not really because they are the party of doing whatever they want. They win elections and change laws as they please. In this they are an actual political party, just an awful one. The Democrats by contrast are so bad at politics that they make compromises without getting anything in return.
What are these 'compromise' examples are you seeing?
The Affordable Care Act was built on the Republicans proposal for Healthcare. The Democrats hoped by doing that they could get bipartisan support. If they knew they would be going alone, then the Democratic version would look quite a bit different.
The Democrats are just so endlessly stupid because their slavish devotion to building bridges and meeting halfway only works if the other side is interested in cooperation rather than gaining power to do as they please, and is so extreme that Democrats will try to compromise before even making demands of their own. They're idiots and cowards and the way forward lies through them instead of with them.
Rosebuddy wrote: The Democrats are just so endlessly stupid because their slavish devotion to building bridges and meeting halfway only works if the other side is interested in cooperation rather than gaining power to do as they please, and is so extreme that Democrats will try to compromise before even making demands of their own. They're idiots and cowards and the way forward lies through them instead of with them.
Rosebuddy wrote: The Democrats are just so endlessly stupid because their slavish devotion to building bridges and meeting halfway only works if the other side is interested in cooperation rather than gaining power to do as they please, and is so extreme that Democrats will try to compromise before even making demands of their own. They're idiots and cowards and the way forward lies through them instead of with them.
Is this serious or sarcastic?
How would that possibly work as sarcasm? Have you seen the massive political losses the Democratic Party is taking and have been taking for a decade? Disgust is the only appropriate reaction.
Rosebuddy wrote: The Democrats are just so endlessly stupid because their slavish devotion to building bridges and meeting halfway only works if the other side is interested in cooperation rather than gaining power to do as they please, and is so extreme that Democrats will try to compromise before even making demands of their own. They're idiots and cowards and the way forward lies through them instead of with them.
Is this serious or sarcastic?
How would that possibly work as sarcasm? Have you seen the massive political losses the Democratic Party is taking and have been taking for a decade? Disgust is the only appropriate reaction.
Honestly, I was so flabbergasted that what you said could be serious that I defaulted to doubt. If you're serious I don't have anything else to say, we're just too far apart to have common ground.
NinthMusketeer wrote:Honestly, I was so flabbergasted that what you said could be serious that I defaulted to doubt. If you're serious I don't have anything else to say, we're just too far apart to have common ground.
The DNC threw everything they had behind Hillary Clinton (and Sanders and downtickets under the bus), who then lost to Donald Trump. They've abandoned everything except for the office of the president and now don't even have that. The Republicans are free to implement whatever policies they feel like and are a hair's width away from being able to change the constitution. Trans protections, anti-discrimination laws and voting rights are on their way out. Things are looking dire and you think that loathing the Democrats for their unwillingness to fight is simply unimaginable.
Anyway, this doesn't seem like a good idea. I get there are problems with the way things can and have been handled, so why not try to fix those problems rather than neuter independent oversight?
It's interesting that places like CNN and the BBC are running this as their big banner article on their websites, and even Fox News is running it with a practically identical headline...but as a smaller side story... behind how Assange is saying that Obama is trying to weaken trump to distract from hacked emails...
Co'tor Shas wrote: Will Congress OK Puerto Rican statehood I wonder. It would seem to be a pretty non-partisan issue, but this is the US congress we are talking about.
I'm all for it. They can pay US taxes now! Just like I'm all for gay marriage. They can pay their marriage penalty taxes, too! See, tax generation right there!
Vash108 wrote: Pence is just as frightening to me with his theocratic views.
While I generally agree, I'm trying to avoid using the "T-word", since too many people stick to the old textbook definition of it. Best to just say Pence does not respect the intent of the separation of church and state.
Anyway, this doesn't seem like a good idea. I get there are problems with the way things can and have been handled, so why not try to fix those problems rather than neuter independent oversight?
It's interesting that places like CNN and the BBC are running this as their big banner article on their websites, and even Fox News is running it with a practically identical headline...but as a smaller side story... behind how Assange is saying that Obama is trying to weaken trump to distract from hacked emails...
We are so...so screwed...
It does somewhat set the tone when one of the first things this new House will be doing is voting to allow itself more freedom to behave badly. The GOP leadership is against it, to their credit. I wonder how many of those who are for it are new/newish members who rode the Trump Wave into office?
It does somewhat set the tone when one of the first things this new House will be doing is voting to allow itself more freedom to behave badly. The GOP leadership is against it, to their credit. I wonder how many of those who are for it are new/newish members who rode the Trump Wave into office?
Has the new congress been seated yet? If not, new members from the 'Trump Wave' won't have much to do with this....
Vash108 wrote: Pence is just as frightening to me with his theocratic views.
While I generally agree, I'm trying to avoid using the "T-word", since too many people stick to the old textbook definition of it. Best to just say Pence does not respect the intent of the separation of church and state.
It does somewhat set the tone when one of the first things this new House will be doing is voting to allow itself more freedom to behave badly. The GOP leadership is against it, to their credit. I wonder how many of those who are for it are new/newish members who rode the Trump Wave into office?
Has the new congress been seated yet? If not, new members from the 'Trump Wave' won't have much to do with this....
The new House that is sworn in today will be the one to actually vote on it, the old one just started it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: An informed citizenry is America's best defence against any dodgy dealings on Capitol Hill.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Very wise words.
Very wise words indeed. Too bad everyone is too busy with social media, video games and celebrity gossip to be bothered with becoming well informed. Opiate of the mass and blah, blah
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: An informed citizenry is America's best defence against any dodgy dealings on Capitol Hill.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Very wise words.
Very wise words indeed. Too bad everyone is too busy with social media, video games and celebrity gossip to be bothered with becoming well informed. Opiate of the mass and blah, blah
-
It's the 3 cycles of democracy: Revolution, corruption, tyranny, repeat ad infinitum. I think the USA is hovering somewhere between corruption and tyranny.
Nah, we're in the 4th cycle: apathy. Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter how much we might be outraged at our chosen party, when election day comes, most will still vote for whoever their party has thrown up, because who's really going to vote for the other party?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Nah, we're in the 4th cycle: apathy. Like I said earlier, it doesn't matter how much we might be outraged at our chosen party, when election day comes, most will still vote for whoever their party has thrown up, because who's really going to vote for the other party?
Then you, and anybody else you can find, must be the people to break the tradition and vote third party.
I''ve probably used this example before on the USA politics thread, but my party, SNP (Scottish National Party) which campaigns for Scottish independence and an end to the UK, started off decades ago as a fringe movement and went through tough times.
The Labour party were the dominant force in Scotland, and remained there for decades. Such was their dominance, they weighed the vote, they didn't count it, come election time. In some parts of Scotland, a traffic cone could have been the Labour candidate and they still would have won.
But years later, the SNP have smashed the Labour party to pieces and have controlled the Scottish 'state legislator' for 10 years now and will be pushing for another independence referendum pretty soon. Not bad for a party that at one time could have fitted its entire membership into a phone booth.
Yes, the American political system is obviously different, but even small parties can win in the end if you keep up the good fight.
Rosebuddy wrote: The Democrats are just so endlessly stupid because their slavish devotion to building bridges and meeting halfway only works if the other side is interested in cooperation rather than gaining power to do as they please, and is so extreme that Democrats will try to compromise before even making demands of their own. They're idiots and cowards and the way forward lies through them instead of with them.
Is this serious or sarcastic?
How would that possibly work as sarcasm? Have you seen the massive political losses the Democratic Party is taking and have been taking for a decade? Disgust is the only appropriate reaction.
Somewhat agreed. The Democrats must learn that it is impossible to compromise with the deluded. The modern GOP is the party that wants everything, burns the house down when it doesn't get what it wants, and then blames the Democrats for the fire. And their supporters believe it. Democrats must go scorched earth, run more candidates in every election, refuse to compromise, just like the GOP, and attack Republicans in the same ways that Republicans attack them. It's been proven that the high road doesn't work. The GOP suppresses minority votes and gerrymanders heavily. The Democrats cannot tolerate that. Attack it. HATE it.
And if they succeed and finally get a majority, they can justify it, as it was for the greater good. Time to go Full Machiavelli.
Rosebuddy wrote: The Democrats are just so endlessly stupid because their slavish devotion to building bridges and meeting halfway only works if the other side is interested in cooperation rather than gaining power to do as they please, and is so extreme that Democrats will try to compromise before even making demands of their own. They're idiots and cowards and the way forward lies through them instead of with them.
Is this serious or sarcastic?
How would that possibly work as sarcasm? Have you seen the massive political losses the Democratic Party is taking and have been taking for a decade? Disgust is the only appropriate reaction.
Somewhat agreed. The Democrats must learn that it is impossible to compromise with the deluded. The modern GOP is the party that wants everything, burns the house down when it doesn't get what it wants, and then blames the Democrats for the fire. And their supporters believe it. Democrats must go scorched earth, run more candidates in every election, refuse to compromise, just like the GOP, and attack Republicans in the same ways that Republicans attack them. It's been proven that the high road doesn't work. The GOP suppresses minority votes and gerrymanders heavily. The Democrats cannot tolerate that. Attack it. HATE it.
And if they succeed and finally get a majority, they can justify it, as it was for the greater good. Time to go Full Machiavelli.
And welcome to the monkey poo throwing match.
It might work but US Political system look like a death match.
Anyway, this doesn't seem like a good idea. I get there are problems with the way things can and have been handled, so why not try to fix those problems rather than neuter independent oversight?
It's interesting that places like CNN and the BBC are running this as their big banner article on their websites, and even Fox News is running it with a practically identical headline...but as a smaller side story... behind how Assange is saying that Obama is trying to weaken trump to distract from hacked emails...
We are so...so screwed...
Eh... it's a dept that's only 8 years old, that has had numerous problems for both side of the aisle.
However, the politics of this looks incredibly awful... I'm with Tanner... if it's so bad, try to fix it in a bipartisan manner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vash108 wrote: Pence is just as frightening to me with his theocratic views.
:rolls eyes:
This will be the new 'Obama is a secret muslim'... amirite?
The difference being, Obama is not a muslim. There is ample proof that Pence puts his religion over the country.
Here are some objective facts. I know those don't matter anymore, but I choose to fight for reason. This is copy/pasted from an outside source.
In the three years since Pence took office, he:
• Pushed through legislation making harsher penalties for drug crimes against the protests of numerous major legal organizations including the Indiana Bar Association, as well as most Hoosiers
• Inherited a phenomenal state balance sheet from Mitch Daniels and used it as an excuse to push tax cuts so extreme (would have caused a tremendous deficit) that the Republican-controlled Congress shut him down
• Tried and failed to amend the Indiana constitution to ban gay marriage, despite widespread polling that showed that Hoosiers didn't support it, and despite the vociferous condemnation of virtually every major business in the state
• Since his gay marriage amendment failed, he literally, as payback (not exaggerating, the signing ceremony was invite only, no media was allowed or invited, but someone leaked a picture that showed Pence surrounded by well-known anti-LGBT extremists), came back with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was a genuine political circus. It humiliated Indiana on the national stage, directly harmed Indianapolis, and was met with, perhaps, the fiercest backlash by the people of any state in the Union. The extraordinary protests of Hoosiers and businesses allowed the state GOP leaders to basically coerce--to his visible chagrin--Pence to amend the law and "fix it" (this was actually the front page of the biggest newspaper in Indiana).
• The RFRA was such a debacle that Pence ended up hiring an expensive out-of-state public relations firm to heal Indiana's national image. He couldn't answer why he chose an out-of-state firm. He couldn't answer why he chose such an expensive firm, when there are many firms in Indiana that could have done the job. It was eventually canceled, and was yet another waste of taxpayer money. To date, the RFRA has cost Indianapolis (a city that fought against it, changed the official tourism website to rainbow colors, and hung a huge rainbow banner at the airport) $60 million, and the total cost--to the economy and reputation--to the rest of the state is unknown.
• During the gay marriage supreme court fight, he literally sent the Indiana attorney general to other states to advise them on how to craft their laws and fight gay marriage nationally. He did this on the taxpayer dollar. He continued to spend taxpayer money fighting gay marriage in the courts and with lawsuits despite, at the time, everyone knowing what the Supreme Court decision was going to be. It was basically a political stand by Pence; an expensive political stand that Hoosiers didn't support.
• He fought to pass a law preventing cities from passing their own minimum wage statutes. Is this "small government"?
• He has acted like a strongman (think Turkey's Erdoğan), doing everything in his power to make Glenda Ritz, the state superintendent and an elected official, quit her job, and barring that, stripping her of the power given to her by the Indiana constitute and the Hoosiers that elected her through backroom deals, conspiracy, and highly technical legal challenges. Just Google "Mike Pence Glenda Ritz." You could write a thesis on it.
• Everyone, literally everyone, was on board for receiving a huge federal grant for preschool funding. The Indiana Department of Education was literally in the final stages of the application process--and the federal government was happy with Indiana and going to give us an especially large chunk of money--when Pence came in and shut it down for no reason because accepting money from the feds became politically untenable among the national GOP tea partier crowd. And, of course, you can't be elected president--Pence's eyes were always on the future--without support from the GOP's far right base. After shutting down the process, he has recently been opining that it would be a good idea to get federal money to fund preschools... A year after he gak all over the Dept of Education's proposal to do just that.
• The HIV epidemic in southern Indiana is out of control and among the worst in the country. Of course, we could provide free needles for heroin addicts like has been done in many states to curb HIV problems, but that is politically repugnant to Mike Pence. He also managed to get the Planned Parenthoods in that part of the state shut down, eliminating the opportunity for poor people to get tested. The HIV epidemic, which never had to be an epidemic, continues, and Pence gets to push the problem on our future governor as he goes to join Trump on the national stage.
• Speaking of Planned Parenthood, Pence is highly proud of his accomplishment at passing the single most restrictive abortion law since Roe vs Wade. The law, HEA 1337 is far stricter than anything even in the Deep South and is almost certainly unconstitutional. He knows that it's probably unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Indiana taxpayers will spend millions of dollars for our attorney general to fight the law all the way to the Supreme Court, just so Pence could make his political statement.
• He literally tried to make a state-run news agency that he would then give exclusive interviews and access to. I don't even know if that's legal, but he tried to do it and was promptly crucified by the media and even his own party.
• He asserted authority to ban Syrian refugees from being settled in Indiana. He has no authority. No governor has. He knew that, but he was planning to be a GOP presidential candidate, and he needed to show that he was strong and anti-Muslim refugee to appease the national GOP base. He took leadership role in this discriminatory crusade, appearing on national TV to preach his ignorance. This particular event managed to throw multiple refugee settlement organizations into disarray--which, by the way, actually include the Catholic Church of Indiana (the arch bishop of Indianapolis publicly criticized the governor)--and several Syrian refugees which were well into the process of moving to Indiana had to be relocated to another state. Pence didn't back down until the courts affirmed that his order was unconstitutional.
• He shut down a highly successful energy efficiency program--one of the first in the nation, making Indiana a trailblazer--initiated by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission with the support of previous governor Mitch Daniels. He did this for no good reason, other than to signal to his far-right constituents that he was fighting against Obama's evil despotic EPA.
It's hard to disagree with that stance, though. As a neutral observer, I think it's high time the Democrats cried havoc and let slip the dogs of war. Give the GOP a dose of their own medicine.
Take the nuclear option - and refuse to co-operate or compromise with the GOP, stage mass walk outs, have its members refuse to attend the Senate or Congress and see how the GOP like playing it out in half-empty chambers.
The American people might sit up and take notice and wonder what the feth is going on.
It sounds drastic and it is, but to this neutral observer, there's only one language the GOP understands.
At any rate, with the Executive, senate, congress and a friendly SCOTUS, the GOP will probably get arrogant anyway and not give two hoots for the Democrats. The Democrats may as well take a long vacation.
The Democrats could also harness the energy of the protest groups and peacefully bring the country to a standstill with mass rallies and demonstrations by taking a leaf out of the 1960s playbook.
If the GOP wants to play hardball then the Democrats should face them front and centre.
Verviedi wrote: The difference being, Obama is not a muslim. There is ample proof that Pence puts his religion over the country.
Here are some objective facts. I know those don't matter anymore, but I choose to fight for reason. This is copy/pasted from an outside source.
In the three years since Pence took office, he:
Spoiler:
• Pushed through legislation making harsher penalties for drug crimes against the protests of numerous major legal organizations including the Indiana Bar Association, as well as most Hoosiers
• Inherited a phenomenal state balance sheet from Mitch Daniels and used it as an excuse to push tax cuts so extreme (would have caused a tremendous deficit) that the Republican-controlled Congress shut him down
• Tried and failed to amend the Indiana constitution to ban gay marriage, despite widespread polling that showed that Hoosiers didn't support it, and despite the vociferous condemnation of virtually every major business in the state
• Since his gay marriage amendment failed, he literally, as payback (not exaggerating, the signing ceremony was invite only, no media was allowed or invited, but someone leaked a picture that showed Pence surrounded by well-known anti-LGBT extremists), came back with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was a genuine political circus. It humiliated Indiana on the national stage, directly harmed Indianapolis, and was met with, perhaps, the fiercest backlash by the people of any state in the Union. The extraordinary protests of Hoosiers and businesses allowed the state GOP leaders to basically coerce--to his visible chagrin--Pence to amend the law and "fix it" (this was actually the front page of the biggest newspaper in Indiana).
• The RFRA was such a debacle that Pence ended up hiring an expensive out-of-state public relations firm to heal Indiana's national image. He couldn't answer why he chose an out-of-state firm. He couldn't answer why he chose such an expensive firm, when there are many firms in Indiana that could have done the job. It was eventually canceled, and was yet another waste of taxpayer money. To date, the RFRA has cost Indianapolis (a city that fought against it, changed the official tourism website to rainbow colors, and hung a huge rainbow banner at the airport) $60 million, and the total cost--to the economy and reputation--to the rest of the state is unknown.
• During the gay marriage supreme court fight, he literally sent the Indiana attorney general to other states to advise them on how to craft their laws and fight gay marriage nationally. He did this on the taxpayer dollar. He continued to spend taxpayer money fighting gay marriage in the courts and with lawsuits despite, at the time, everyone knowing what the Supreme Court decision was going to be. It was basically a political stand by Pence; an expensive political stand that Hoosiers didn't support.
• He fought to pass a law preventing cities from passing their own minimum wage statutes. Is this "small government"?
• He has acted like a strongman (think Turkey's Erdoğan), doing everything in his power to make Glenda Ritz, the state superintendent and an elected official, quit her job, and barring that, stripping her of the power given to her by the Indiana constitute and the Hoosiers that elected her through backroom deals, conspiracy, and highly technical legal challenges. Just Google "Mike Pence Glenda Ritz." You could write a thesis on it.
• Everyone, literally everyone, was on board for receiving a huge federal grant for preschool funding. The Indiana Department of Education was literally in the final stages of the application process--and the federal government was happy with Indiana and going to give us an especially large chunk of money--when Pence came in and shut it down for no reason because accepting money from the feds became politically untenable among the national GOP tea partier crowd. And, of course, you can't be elected president--Pence's eyes were always on the future--without support from the GOP's far right base. After shutting down the process, he has recently been opining that it would be a good idea to get federal money to fund preschools... A year after he gak all over the Dept of Education's proposal to do just that.
• The HIV epidemic in southern Indiana is out of control and among the worst in the country. Of course, we could provide free needles for heroin addicts like has been done in many states to curb HIV problems, but that is politically repugnant to Mike Pence. He also managed to get the Planned Parenthoods in that part of the state shut down, eliminating the opportunity for poor people to get tested. The HIV epidemic, which never had to be an epidemic, continues, and Pence gets to push the problem on our future governor as he goes to join Trump on the national stage.
• Speaking of Planned Parenthood, Pence is highly proud of his accomplishment at passing the single most restrictive abortion law since Roe vs Wade. The law, HEA 1337 is far stricter than anything even in the Deep South and is almost certainly unconstitutional. He knows that it's probably unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Indiana taxpayers will spend millions of dollars for our attorney general to fight the law all the way to the Supreme Court, just so Pence could make his political statement.
• He literally tried to make a state-run news agency that he would then give exclusive interviews and access to. I don't even know if that's legal, but he tried to do it and was promptly crucified by the media and even his own party.
• He asserted authority to ban Syrian refugees from being settled in Indiana. He has no authority. No governor has. He knew that, but he was planning to be a GOP presidential candidate, and he needed to show that he was strong and anti-Muslim refugee to appease the national GOP base. He took leadership role in this discriminatory crusade, appearing on national TV to preach his ignorance. This particular event managed to throw multiple refugee settlement organizations into disarray--which, by the way, actually include the Catholic Church of Indiana (the arch bishop of Indianapolis publicly criticized the governor)--and several Syrian refugees which were well into the process of moving to Indiana had to be relocated to another state. Pence didn't back down until the courts affirmed that his order was unconstitutional.
• He shut down a highly successful energy efficiency program--one of the first in the nation, making Indiana a trailblazer--initiated by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission with the support of previous governor Mitch Daniels. He did this for no good reason, other than to signal to his far-right constituents that he was fighting against Obama's evil despotic EPA.
Some very opinionated reportings on the facts.
Do you want me to respond? If so, please provide the link where you got this.
Beside, at cursory look, that's not an argument that he's a living, breathing theocrat.... it's just a listing of one-side rant against Pence.
It's hard to disagree with that stance, though. As a neutral observer, I think it's high time the Democrats cried havoc and let slip the dogs of war. Give the GOP a dose of their own medicine.
Take the nuclear option - and refuse to co-operate or compromise with the GOP, stage mass walk outs, have its members refuse to attend the Senate or Congress and see how the GOP like playing it out in half-empty chambers.
Cool... let 'em try.
The American people might sit up and take notice and wonder what the feth is going on.
It sounds drastic and it is, but to this neutral observer, there's only one language the GOP understands.
Won't work. They control the House/Senate/WH. The only reason nothing of significant worked in the last few years was that Obama simply veto'ed or threatened to veto many GOP passed bills.
At any rate, with the Executive, senate, congress and a friendly SCOTUS, the GOP will probably get arrogant anyway and not give two hoots for the Democrats. The Democrats may as well take a long vacation.
'Tis why it'll be suicide for Democrats.
The Democrats could also harness the energy of the protest groups and peacefully bring the country to a standstill with mass rallies and demonstrations by taking a leaf out of the 1960s playbook.
If the GOP wants to play hardball then the Democrats should face them front and centre.
Verviedi wrote: The difference being, Obama is not a muslim. There is ample proof that Pence puts his religion over the country.
Here are some objective facts. I know those don't matter anymore, but I choose to fight for reason. This is copy/pasted from an outside source.
In the three years since Pence took office, he:
Spoiler:
• Pushed through legislation making harsher penalties for drug crimes against the protests of numerous major legal organizations including the Indiana Bar Association, as well as most Hoosiers
• Inherited a phenomenal state balance sheet from Mitch Daniels and used it as an excuse to push tax cuts so extreme (would have caused a tremendous deficit) that the Republican-controlled Congress shut him down
• Tried and failed to amend the Indiana constitution to ban gay marriage, despite widespread polling that showed that Hoosiers didn't support it, and despite the vociferous condemnation of virtually every major business in the state
• Since his gay marriage amendment failed, he literally, as payback (not exaggerating, the signing ceremony was invite only, no media was allowed or invited, but someone leaked a picture that showed Pence surrounded by well-known anti-LGBT extremists), came back with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was a genuine political circus. It humiliated Indiana on the national stage, directly harmed Indianapolis, and was met with, perhaps, the fiercest backlash by the people of any state in the Union. The extraordinary protests of Hoosiers and businesses allowed the state GOP leaders to basically coerce--to his visible chagrin--Pence to amend the law and "fix it" (this was actually the front page of the biggest newspaper in Indiana).
• The RFRA was such a debacle that Pence ended up hiring an expensive out-of-state public relations firm to heal Indiana's national image. He couldn't answer why he chose an out-of-state firm. He couldn't answer why he chose such an expensive firm, when there are many firms in Indiana that could have done the job. It was eventually canceled, and was yet another waste of taxpayer money. To date, the RFRA has cost Indianapolis (a city that fought against it, changed the official tourism website to rainbow colors, and hung a huge rainbow banner at the airport) $60 million, and the total cost--to the economy and reputation--to the rest of the state is unknown.
• During the gay marriage supreme court fight, he literally sent the Indiana attorney general to other states to advise them on how to craft their laws and fight gay marriage nationally. He did this on the taxpayer dollar. He continued to spend taxpayer money fighting gay marriage in the courts and with lawsuits despite, at the time, everyone knowing what the Supreme Court decision was going to be. It was basically a political stand by Pence; an expensive political stand that Hoosiers didn't support.
• He fought to pass a law preventing cities from passing their own minimum wage statutes. Is this "small government"?
• He has acted like a strongman (think Turkey's Erdoğan), doing everything in his power to make Glenda Ritz, the state superintendent and an elected official, quit her job, and barring that, stripping her of the power given to her by the Indiana constitute and the Hoosiers that elected her through backroom deals, conspiracy, and highly technical legal challenges. Just Google "Mike Pence Glenda Ritz." You could write a thesis on it.
• Everyone, literally everyone, was on board for receiving a huge federal grant for preschool funding. The Indiana Department of Education was literally in the final stages of the application process--and the federal government was happy with Indiana and going to give us an especially large chunk of money--when Pence came in and shut it down for no reason because accepting money from the feds became politically untenable among the national GOP tea partier crowd. And, of course, you can't be elected president--Pence's eyes were always on the future--without support from the GOP's far right base. After shutting down the process, he has recently been opining that it would be a good idea to get federal money to fund preschools... A year after he gak all over the Dept of Education's proposal to do just that.
• The HIV epidemic in southern Indiana is out of control and among the worst in the country. Of course, we could provide free needles for heroin addicts like has been done in many states to curb HIV problems, but that is politically repugnant to Mike Pence. He also managed to get the Planned Parenthoods in that part of the state shut down, eliminating the opportunity for poor people to get tested. The HIV epidemic, which never had to be an epidemic, continues, and Pence gets to push the problem on our future governor as he goes to join Trump on the national stage.
• Speaking of Planned Parenthood, Pence is highly proud of his accomplishment at passing the single most restrictive abortion law since Roe vs Wade. The law, HEA 1337 is far stricter than anything even in the Deep South and is almost certainly unconstitutional. He knows that it's probably unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Indiana taxpayers will spend millions of dollars for our attorney general to fight the law all the way to the Supreme Court, just so Pence could make his political statement.
• He literally tried to make a state-run news agency that he would then give exclusive interviews and access to. I don't even know if that's legal, but he tried to do it and was promptly crucified by the media and even his own party.
• He asserted authority to ban Syrian refugees from being settled in Indiana. He has no authority. No governor has. He knew that, but he was planning to be a GOP presidential candidate, and he needed to show that he was strong and anti-Muslim refugee to appease the national GOP base. He took leadership role in this discriminatory crusade, appearing on national TV to preach his ignorance. This particular event managed to throw multiple refugee settlement organizations into disarray--which, by the way, actually include the Catholic Church of Indiana (the arch bishop of Indianapolis publicly criticized the governor)--and several Syrian refugees which were well into the process of moving to Indiana had to be relocated to another state. Pence didn't back down until the courts affirmed that his order was unconstitutional.
• He shut down a highly successful energy efficiency program--one of the first in the nation, making Indiana a trailblazer--initiated by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission with the support of previous governor Mitch Daniels. He did this for no good reason, other than to signal to his far-right constituents that he was fighting against Obama's evil despotic EPA.
Some very opinionated reportings on the facts.
Do you want me to respond? If so, please provide the link where you got this.
Beside, at cursory look, that's not an argument that he's a living, breathing theocrat.... it's just a listing of one-side rant against Pence.
Whem, one has proof, that Pence has theocratic tenancies (from his repeated attempts to put his own religion into law) and the other had no proof whatsoever, that Obama is a Secretmuslim™. It being one-sided has nothing to do with it.
Also, you complain that what he posted is one-sided is hilarious.
You may dismiss it out of hand, Whembly, but the old rules no longer work, and the rulebook is likely to go out the window and be ran over by a Sherman tank, with Trump at 1600.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You may dismiss it out of hand, Whembly, but the old rules no longer work, and the rulebook is likely to go out the window and be ran over by a Sherman tank, with Trump at 1600.
The Democrats may as well try something radical.
Although I don't think they should go as far as mass protests to shut down the country (unless there is adiquite reason, like attacks on the first amendment or some-such), I do think they should use the Gingrich tactic. Their number one goal should be to re-capture the Senate in 2020, and if scorched earth politics are what is required, than scorched earth politics is what it will be. Make Republican senators own every one of Trump's gakky decisions. Make them either defend him or refute him, not the wishy-washy "I don't support him, but I won;t denounce him" gak. And try to harness the anger to make gains in State governments.
Verviedi wrote: The difference being, Obama is not a muslim. There is ample proof that Pence puts his religion over the country.
Here are some objective facts. I know those don't matter anymore, but I choose to fight for reason. This is copy/pasted from an outside source.
In the three years since Pence took office, he:
Spoiler:
• Pushed through legislation making harsher penalties for drug crimes against the protests of numerous major legal organizations including the Indiana Bar Association, as well as most Hoosiers
• Inherited a phenomenal state balance sheet from Mitch Daniels and used it as an excuse to push tax cuts so extreme (would have caused a tremendous deficit) that the Republican-controlled Congress shut him down
• Tried and failed to amend the Indiana constitution to ban gay marriage, despite widespread polling that showed that Hoosiers didn't support it, and despite the vociferous condemnation of virtually every major business in the state
• Since his gay marriage amendment failed, he literally, as payback (not exaggerating, the signing ceremony was invite only, no media was allowed or invited, but someone leaked a picture that showed Pence surrounded by well-known anti-LGBT extremists), came back with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was a genuine political circus. It humiliated Indiana on the national stage, directly harmed Indianapolis, and was met with, perhaps, the fiercest backlash by the people of any state in the Union. The extraordinary protests of Hoosiers and businesses allowed the state GOP leaders to basically coerce--to his visible chagrin--Pence to amend the law and "fix it" (this was actually the front page of the biggest newspaper in Indiana).
• The RFRA was such a debacle that Pence ended up hiring an expensive out-of-state public relations firm to heal Indiana's national image. He couldn't answer why he chose an out-of-state firm. He couldn't answer why he chose such an expensive firm, when there are many firms in Indiana that could have done the job. It was eventually canceled, and was yet another waste of taxpayer money. To date, the RFRA has cost Indianapolis (a city that fought against it, changed the official tourism website to rainbow colors, and hung a huge rainbow banner at the airport) $60 million, and the total cost--to the economy and reputation--to the rest of the state is unknown.
• During the gay marriage supreme court fight, he literally sent the Indiana attorney general to other states to advise them on how to craft their laws and fight gay marriage nationally. He did this on the taxpayer dollar. He continued to spend taxpayer money fighting gay marriage in the courts and with lawsuits despite, at the time, everyone knowing what the Supreme Court decision was going to be. It was basically a political stand by Pence; an expensive political stand that Hoosiers didn't support.
• He fought to pass a law preventing cities from passing their own minimum wage statutes. Is this "small government"?
• He has acted like a strongman (think Turkey's Erdoğan), doing everything in his power to make Glenda Ritz, the state superintendent and an elected official, quit her job, and barring that, stripping her of the power given to her by the Indiana constitute and the Hoosiers that elected her through backroom deals, conspiracy, and highly technical legal challenges. Just Google "Mike Pence Glenda Ritz." You could write a thesis on it.
• Everyone, literally everyone, was on board for receiving a huge federal grant for preschool funding. The Indiana Department of Education was literally in the final stages of the application process--and the federal government was happy with Indiana and going to give us an especially large chunk of money--when Pence came in and shut it down for no reason because accepting money from the feds became politically untenable among the national GOP tea partier crowd. And, of course, you can't be elected president--Pence's eyes were always on the future--without support from the GOP's far right base. After shutting down the process, he has recently been opining that it would be a good idea to get federal money to fund preschools... A year after he gak all over the Dept of Education's proposal to do just that.
• The HIV epidemic in southern Indiana is out of control and among the worst in the country. Of course, we could provide free needles for heroin addicts like has been done in many states to curb HIV problems, but that is politically repugnant to Mike Pence. He also managed to get the Planned Parenthoods in that part of the state shut down, eliminating the opportunity for poor people to get tested. The HIV epidemic, which never had to be an epidemic, continues, and Pence gets to push the problem on our future governor as he goes to join Trump on the national stage.
• Speaking of Planned Parenthood, Pence is highly proud of his accomplishment at passing the single most restrictive abortion law since Roe vs Wade. The law, HEA 1337 is far stricter than anything even in the Deep South and is almost certainly unconstitutional. He knows that it's probably unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Indiana taxpayers will spend millions of dollars for our attorney general to fight the law all the way to the Supreme Court, just so Pence could make his political statement.
• He literally tried to make a state-run news agency that he would then give exclusive interviews and access to. I don't even know if that's legal, but he tried to do it and was promptly crucified by the media and even his own party.
• He asserted authority to ban Syrian refugees from being settled in Indiana. He has no authority. No governor has. He knew that, but he was planning to be a GOP presidential candidate, and he needed to show that he was strong and anti-Muslim refugee to appease the national GOP base. He took leadership role in this discriminatory crusade, appearing on national TV to preach his ignorance. This particular event managed to throw multiple refugee settlement organizations into disarray--which, by the way, actually include the Catholic Church of Indiana (the arch bishop of Indianapolis publicly criticized the governor)--and several Syrian refugees which were well into the process of moving to Indiana had to be relocated to another state. Pence didn't back down until the courts affirmed that his order was unconstitutional.
• He shut down a highly successful energy efficiency program--one of the first in the nation, making Indiana a trailblazer--initiated by the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission with the support of previous governor Mitch Daniels. He did this for no good reason, other than to signal to his far-right constituents that he was fighting against Obama's evil despotic EPA.
Some very opinionated reportings on the facts.
Do you want me to respond? If so, please provide the link where you got this.
Beside, at cursory look, that's not an argument that he's a living, breathing theocrat.... it's just a listing of one-side rant against Pence.
Whem, one has proof, that Pence has theocratic tenancies (from his repeated attempts to put his own religion into law)
I get that his opposition from SSM is a thing AND is attempting to justify it because of his religious beliefs... but, that's not the same thing as he's a 'Theocrat'.
Words means something man...
and the other had no proof whatsoever, that Obama is a Secretmuslim™.
:shrugs:
Just look at his actions...
a) he defends Islam whenever he cans...
b) he ignores Christians...
c) he absolute despises Israel to almost toeing the anti-semitic line.
So, you can see why that is brought up. I disagree with it... as, I believe he only worships the tenets of statisms/liberalisms.
Also, you complain that what he posted is one-sided is hilarious.
He didnt' source the information, so I'm perfectly happy to consider it vaporware, as I'm too lazy to break it up and verify it.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You may dismiss it out of hand, Whembly, but the old rules no longer work, and the rulebook is likely to go out the window and be ran over by a Sherman tank, with Trump at 1600.
The Democrats may as well try something radical.
Although I don't think they should go as far as mass protests to shut down the country (unless there is adiquite reason, like attacks on the first amendment or some-such), I do think they should use the Gingrich tactic. Their number one goal should be to re-capture the Senate in 2020, and if scorched earth politics are what is required, than scorched earth politics is what it will be. Make Republican senators own every one of Trump's gakky decisions. Make them either defend him or refute him, not the wishy-washy "I don't support him, but I won;t denounce him" gak. And try to harness the anger to make gains in State governments.
That might work...
But that's a tall order in the midterm as D's are defending quite a bit of seats in red states.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You may dismiss it out of hand, Whembly, but the old rules no longer work, and the rulebook is likely to go out the window and be ran over by a Sherman tank, with Trump at 1600.
The Democrats may as well try something radical.
Although I don't think they should go as far as mass protests to shut down the country (unless there is adiquite reason, like attacks on the first amendment or some-such), I do think they should use the Gingrich tactic. Their number one goal should be to re-capture the Senate in 2020, and if scorched earth politics are what is required, than scorched earth politics is what it will be. Make Republican senators own every one of Trump's gakky decisions. Make them either defend him or refute him, not the wishy-washy "I don't support him, but I won;t denounce him" gak. And try to harness the anger to make gains in State governments.
I think Trump will be the Democrats greatest weapon. I think the American public will quickly tire of Trump booming down at them from twitter and whilst anything previously said can be dismissed as campaign talk, Trump will now have to make the hard decisions.
Candidate Obama and President Obama were miles apart, and I think the same thing will happen to Trump.
Vash108 wrote: What did he ignore christians about again?
O.o
ISIS systematic elimination of Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. Obama and his administration has said/done anything.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You may dismiss it out of hand, Whembly, but the old rules no longer work, and the rulebook is likely to go out the window and be ran over by a Sherman tank, with Trump at 1600.
The Democrats may as well try something radical.
Although I don't think they should go as far as mass protests to shut down the country (unless there is adiquite reason, like attacks on the first amendment or some-such), I do think they should use the Gingrich tactic. Their number one goal should be to re-capture the Senate in 2020, and if scorched earth politics are what is required, than scorched earth politics is what it will be. Make Republican senators own every one of Trump's gakky decisions. Make them either defend him or refute him, not the wishy-washy "I don't support him, but I won;t denounce him" gak. And try to harness the anger to make gains in State governments.
I think Trump will be the Democrats greatest weapon. I think the American public will quickly tire of Trump booming down at them from twitter and whilst anything previously said can be dismissed as campaign talk, Trump will now have to make the hard decisions.
Yup. Can't hide behind his predecessors or twittah.
Candidate Obama and President Obama were miles apart, and I think the same thing will happen to Trump.
Wait... you saying President Trump may not be this egotistical, misygonist, racist, anti-semtic donkey-cave? o.O
Whembly, I was thinking more along the lines of things like giant walls, locking up Clinton, and trade wars with China, might hit the brick wall of cold, hard reality.
I get that his opposition from SSM is a thing AND is attempting to justify it because of his religious beliefs... but, that's not the same thing as he's a 'Theocrat'.
He's trying to put his religion in law. I'm 95% sure that's the defonition of a theocrat.
:shrugs: Just look at his actions... a) he defends Islam whenever he cans...
You mean he doesn't lump all Muslims together and attack them? Golly-gee, I must be a Secretmuslim™ too.
b) he ignores Christians...
How does he ignore Christians? He's a christian himself.
c) he absolute despises Israel to almost toeing the anti-semitic line.
Whowhatnow? He hasn't just supported Israel blindly, and attacked some of their bad/illegal practices, but that's neither anti-semetic nor and indicator that someone is Muslim. And he's certainly no anti-Semite. Anti-Zionist, maybe, but he seems to still back Israel, just go after things it shouldn't be doing.
So, you can see why that is brought up. I disagree with it... as, I believe he only worships the tenets of statisms/liberalisms.
Statism! God, your turning into my pseudo-libertarian cousin.
He didnt' source the information, so I'm perfectly happy to consider it vaporware, as I'm too lazy to break it up and verify it.
And you also don't source most of what you say. Neither to I. Neither do most people on this forum. It's assumed that 95% of this stuff is a google away, so unless it's very specific, it's generally not sourced.
Vash108 wrote: What did he ignore christians about again?
O.o
ISIS systematic elimination of Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. Obama and his administration has said/done anything.
The Egyptian Coptics...
fething Little Sisters of the Poor...
Need I go on?
So Within the United States... which our government has control of... how has he hurt christians, with the passing of any laws or discrimination.
Vash108 wrote: What did he ignore christians about again?
O.o
ISIS systematic elimination of Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. Obama and his administration has said/done anything.
You mean, aside from reinsert US forces in the region (even if in a smaller scale than before), launch airstrikes agains ISIS and in direct support of freindly Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces against ISIS? There were no US aid drops to trapped Yazidi refugees or airstrikes in support of defending militia?
While there could potentially be more done, the idea that *nothing* has been done is a bit silly.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Whembly, I was thinking more along the lines of things like giant walls, locking up Clinton, and trade wars with China, might hit the brick wall of cold, hard reality.
Ah...
-Giant walls ain't happening... the trick for the Trump administration is to somehow prove the he's an anti-illegal-immigration hawk. We'll see...
-Locking up Clinton ain't going to happen...I think people can be swayed since she lost, and is now essentially out of office, that's punishment enough (I think Trump alluded to that much). However, I'm still in the camp that a thorough investigation and proper accounting in all facets of her rogue email server and her foundation..
-As for trade wars with China... I can actually see that happening, and it's going to be massively disruptive.
Vash108 wrote: What did he ignore christians about again?
O.o
ISIS systematic elimination of Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. Obama and his administration has said/done anything.
You mean, aside from reinsert US forces in the region (even if in a smaller scale than before), launch airstrikes agains ISIS and in direct support of freindly Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces against ISIS? There were no US aid drops to trapped Yazidi refugees or airstrikes in support of defending militia?
While there could potentially be more done, the idea that *nothing* has been done is a bit silly.
Also this... This sounds like perceived slights that you have Whemb.
Vash108 wrote: What did he ignore christians about again?
O.o
ISIS systematic elimination of Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. Obama and his administration has said/done anything.
The Egyptian Coptics...
fething Little Sisters of the Poor...
Need I go on?
So Within the United States... which our government has control of... how has he hurt christians, with the passing of any laws or discrimination.
Vash108 wrote: What did he ignore christians about again?
O.o
ISIS systematic elimination of Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. Obama and his administration has said/done anything.
I mean besides bombing the crap our of them and supporting the coalition against them, not at thing!
The Egyptian Coptics...
So you want him to invade the middle east again, it that it?
fething Little Sisters of the Poor...
What, taking the stance "you aren't alowed to pick and choice what laws you accept because of your religion" is 'ignoring' Christians? Saying that you can't deny employees coverage just because you don't like what they do with it? Tyring to provide basic coverage for all people is "ignoring" Christians? He hasn't ignored Christians, he just hasn't catered to their every whim. And 9/10 that's what people mean when they complain about a majority getting "ignored".
Need I go on?
Yes, as you haven't provided any evidence of him "ignoring" Christians.
Vash108 wrote: What did he ignore christians about again?
O.o
ISIS systematic elimination of Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. Obama and his administration has said/done anything.
You mean, aside from reinsert US forces in the region (even if in a smaller scale than before), launch airstrikes agains ISIS and in direct support of freindly Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces against ISIS? There were no US aid drops to trapped Yazidi refugees or airstrikes in support of defending militia?
While there could potentially be more done, the idea that *nothing* has been done is a bit silly.
Also this... This sounds like perceived slights that you have Whemb.
What, taking the stance "you aren't alowed to pick and choice what laws you accept because of your religion" is 'ignoring' Christians? Saying that you can't deny employees coverage just because you don't like what they do with it? Tyring to provide basic coverage for all people is "ignoring" Christians? He hasn't ignored Christians, he just hasn't catered to their every whim. And 9/10 that's what people mean when they complain about a majority getting "ignored".
Need I go on?
Yes, as you haven't provided any evidence of him "ignoring" Christians.
Then you need to read up on why the Sisters were suing the Obama administration.
Vash108 wrote: What did he ignore christians about again?
O.o
ISIS systematic elimination of Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. Obama and his administration has said/done anything.
The Egyptian Coptics...
fething Little Sisters of the Poor...
Need I go on?
So Within the United States... which our government has control of... how has he hurt christians, with the passing of any laws or discrimination.
You mean saying that Christians shouldn't get special reinstatement is ignoring them? Saying that Christians can't dictate every little thing about the people who work for them is not "ignoring Christians" .
So you want him to invade the middle east again, it that it?
At the very least, acknowledge that Christians are being slaughters in the name of Islamic extremism.
They made a very public stand NOT to label atrocities like these as 'radical islam', because Obama himself doesn't believe it's helpful in the 'discussion'.
I'm not advocating for new wars (ala Desert Storm, et el).
At the minimum, call it for what it is and direct your foreign policy on the basis of that.
Ustrello wrote: No because we are a Christian nation with Christianity as our nations religion. None of this secular crap or treating all religions as equals
The First Amendment would like to have a word with you about your statement.
So because he hasn't used the word genocide (because it's a word that should be used with great care), despite massive efforts to defeat ISIS and directly adressing the presecution of Christians by ISIS, he's ignoring Christians? How does that work?
Then you need to read up on why the Sisters were suing the Obama administration.
From what I gather, they are complaining that the health insurance company provides contraception, and they don't want their employees to be able to get conraceptions (because forcing our religion on others is the most moral thing to do after all).
Vash108 wrote: What did he ignore christians about again?
O.o
ISIS systematic elimination of Christians and other religious and ethnic minorities in the Middle East. Obama and his administration has said/done anything.
The Egyptian Coptics...
fething Little Sisters of the Poor...
Need I go on?
So Within the United States... which our government has control of... how has he hurt christians, with the passing of any laws or discrimination.
You mean saying that Christians shouldn't get special reinstatement is ignoring them? Saying that Christians can't dictate every little thing about the people who work for them is not "ignoring Christians" .
Special treatment? It's anything but...
Oo
The Sisters felt their government is forcing them to do something that violates their beliefs.
But, hey... if it's for the perceived greater good... feth religions. Right?
Ustrello wrote: No because we are a Christian nation with Christianity as our nations religion. None of this secular crap or treating all religions as equals
The First Amendment would like to have a word with you about your statement.
I am just talking in the same vain that whembly is posting about with all the atrocities that our government is doing to our beloved christian nation. I mean they aren't even allowed to wear symbols of their faith or have their holidays be federal holidays and they are heavily taxed for their beliefs as well, no tax exempt status for them.
Woah woah woah here. Is Whembly saying we should get involved in armed conflicts because a certain religion is being singled out? Sounds very un-american. Also a little chickenhawkish.
So because he hasn't used the word genocide (because it's a word that should be used with great care), despite massive efforts to defeat ISIS and directly adressing the presecution of Christians by ISIS, he's ignoring Christians? How does that work?
"massive efforts".
huh.
Then you need to read up on why the Sisters were suing the Obama administration.
From what I gather, they are complaining that the health insurance company provides contraception, and they don't want their employees to be able to get conraceptions (because forcing our religion on others is the most moral thing to do after all).
A) sisters of the poor are CELIBATE Catholic nuns. B) it's not new news what the Catholic church's stance on contraceptives. C) No one is forced to become The Little Sisters of the Poor.
So you want him to invade the middle east again, it that it?
At the very least, acknowledge that Christians are being slaughters in the name of Islamic extremism.
They made a very public stand NOT to label atrocities like these as 'radical islam', because Obama himself doesn't believe it's helpful in the 'discussion'.
I'm not advocating for new wars (ala Desert Storm, et el).
At the minimum, call it for what it is and direct your foreign policy on the basis of that.
Whembly, they have spoken about it, and are currently doing something about it (I'm sure you've heard all about Mosul).
Dreadwinter wrote: Woah woah woah here. Is Whembly saying we should get involved in armed conflicts because a certain religion is being singled out? Sounds very un-american. Also a little chickenhawkish.
Dreadwinter wrote: Woah woah woah here. Is Whembly saying we should get involved in armed conflicts because a certain religion is being singled out? Sounds very un-american. Also a little chickenhawkish.
Dreadwinter wrote: Woah woah woah here. Is Whembly saying we should get involved in armed conflicts because a certain religion is being singled out? Sounds very un-american. Also a little chickenhawkish.
Who does that remind you of?
I stated no such thing. So please stop lying.
Theeeeeeeen, what were you implying?
That Obama is a secretmuslimman who hates Christians and is forcing shariah law onto america
So because he hasn't used the word genocide (because it's a word that should be used with great care), despite massive efforts to defeat ISIS and directly adressing the presecution of Christians by ISIS, he's ignoring Christians? How does that work?
"massive efforts".
huh.
So the near continual air-strikes, drone-strikes, and supporting and coordination of various anti-ISIS groups and counties hasn't happened? ISIS has already lost a quater of it's territory in three months. The only thing he hasn't done is put "boots on the ground", although their are support units.
Then you need to read up on why the Sisters were suing the Obama administration.
From what I gather, they are complaining that the health insurance company provides contraception, and they don't want their employees to be able to get conraceptions (because forcing our religion on others is the most moral thing to do after all).
A) sisters of the poor are CELIBATE Catholic nuns. B) it's not new news what the Catholic church's stance on contraceptives. C) No one is forced to become The Little Sisters of the Poor.
If their only employees don't use it, then what's the issue? The mere existence of contraception is surely not an affront to christians.
Dreadwinter wrote: Woah woah woah here. Is Whembly saying we should get involved in armed conflicts because a certain religion is being singled out? Sounds very un-american. Also a little chickenhawkish.
Who does that remind you of?
I stated no such thing. So please stop lying.
Theeeeeeeen, what were you implying?
That Obama is a secretmuslimman who hates Christians and is forcing shariah law onto america
This is an inappropriate mischaracterization of what he posted.
There's really no hope for this thread is there. Its become the "late take shots at Whembly" thread.
Then you need to read up on why the Sisters were suing the Obama administration.
From what I gather, they are complaining that the health insurance company provides contraception, and they don't want their employees to be able to get conraceptions (because forcing our religion on others is the most moral thing to do after all).
A) sisters of the poor are CELIBATE Catholic nuns. B) it's not new news what the Catholic church's stance on contraceptives. C) No one is forced to become The Little Sisters of the Poor.
If their only employees don't use it, then what's the issue? The mere existence of contraception is surely not an affront to christians.
I guess a better question would be, is why are health insurance companies - and by extensions their subscribers - paying for contraception. Its not a medical issue.
Dreadwinter wrote: Woah woah woah here. Is Whembly saying we should get involved in armed conflicts because a certain religion is being singled out? Sounds very un-american. Also a little chickenhawkish.
Who does that remind you of?
I stated no such thing. So please stop lying.
Theeeeeeeen, what were you implying?
That Obama is a secretmuslimman who hates Christians and is forcing shariah law onto america
This is an inappropriate mischaracterization of what he posted.
There's really no hope for this thread is there. Its become the "late take shots at Whembly" thread.
When we have asinine comments that "Obama isn't helping Christians" and "Obama's war on Christians" being posted in this thread no that is not a mischaracterization, it is the same xenophobic crap that the republicans have been spewing for years as a way to try and de-legitimize Obama and them trying to tear down separation of church and state
Then you need to read up on why the Sisters were suing the Obama administration.
From what I gather, they are complaining that the health insurance company provides contraception, and they don't want their employees to be able to get conraceptions (because forcing our religion on others is the most moral thing to do after all).
A) sisters of the poor are CELIBATE Catholic nuns. B) it's not new news what the Catholic church's stance on contraceptives. C) No one is forced to become The Little Sisters of the Poor.
If their only employees don't use it, then what's the issue? The mere existence of contraception is surely not an affront to christians.
The HHS mandates that their plans must have (ie, pay for it) contraceptives.
Then you need to read up on why the Sisters were suing the Obama administration.
From what I gather, they are complaining that the health insurance company provides contraception, and they don't want their employees to be able to get conraceptions (because forcing our religion on others is the most moral thing to do after all).
A) sisters of the poor are CELIBATE Catholic nuns. B) it's not new news what the Catholic church's stance on contraceptives. C) No one is forced to become The Little Sisters of the Poor.
If their only employees don't use it, then what's the issue? The mere existence of contraception is surely not an affront to christians.
The HHS mandates that their plans must have (ie, pay for it) contraceptives.
Yes, and? The are being made to pay for something they won't use. That's not great, but it's not attack on Christians.
Then you need to read up on why the Sisters were suing the Obama administration.
From what I gather, they are complaining that the health insurance company provides contraception, and they don't want their employees to be able to get conraceptions (because forcing our religion on others is the most moral thing to do after all).
A) sisters of the poor are CELIBATE Catholic nuns. B) it's not new news what the Catholic church's stance on contraceptives. C) No one is forced to become The Little Sisters of the Poor.
A. Birth control pills have other beneficial uses for women apart from contraceptives.
Of course... there are exceptions. The Church allows it as long as their doctors stipulates the justification the off-label uses of hormonal treatements.
Then you need to read up on why the Sisters were suing the Obama administration.
From what I gather, they are complaining that the health insurance company provides contraception, and they don't want their employees to be able to get conraceptions (because forcing our religion on others is the most moral thing to do after all).
A) sisters of the poor are CELIBATE Catholic nuns. B) it's not new news what the Catholic church's stance on contraceptives. C) No one is forced to become The Little Sisters of the Poor.
If their only employees don't use it, then what's the issue? The mere existence of contraception is surely not an affront to christians.
The HHS mandates that their plans must have (ie, pay for it) contraceptives.
Yes, and? The are being made to pay for something they won't use. That's not great, but it's not attack on Christians.
Ustrello wrote: Just when you thought it couldn't get worse whembly actually believes that Obama hates christians. At this point I think you are just playing a bit
Not to put a fine point on it but certain right-wing forum members simultaneously believe Obama doesn't defend Christians in the middle east, Obama is an assassin for sanctioning drone strikes against forces attacking Christians in the middle east, Obama should not interfere in the middle east, and Obama doesn't do enough to support Israel in the middle east.
There are 300 Km between our front line and the river Don, and the Rasputitsa begins in three weeks. Draw your own conclusions.
What was the republicans fears about muslims again? That they would start dictating our laws and turn it into a muslim disneyland? Kinda odd that its okay for christians to do it
Ustrello wrote: What was the republicans fears about muslims again? That they would start dictating our laws and turn it into a muslim disneyland? Kinda odd that its okay for christians to do it
I just don't see how this is an attack on Christians, and you have yet to explain it. I'm not Christian, and I'm barely religious, so I do not understand. It may be clear to you, but not to anyone else who has not has that upbringing. Explain it if you think I'm wrong.
Ustrello wrote: Just when you thought it couldn't get worse whembly actually believes that Obama hates christians. At this point I think you are just playing a bit
Not to put a fine point on it but certain right-wing forum members simultaneously believe Obama doesn't defend Christians in the middle east, Obama is an assassin for sanctioning drone strikes against forces attacking Christians in the middle east, Obama should not interfere in the middle east, and Obama doesn't do enough to support Israel in the middle east.
There are 300 Km between our front line and the river Don, and the Rasputitsa begins in three weeks. Draw your own conclusions.
Now you are being ridiculous.
Instead of being generalistic and painting as wide as a brush that you can get away with... why don't you say what you really want to say.
Because, I thought stereotyping posters here is a bad thing... innit?
I just don't see how this is an attack on Christians, and you have yet to explain it. I'm not Christian, and I'm barely religious, so I do not understand. It may be clear to you, but not to anyone else who has not has that upbringing. Explain it if you think I'm wrong.
It's the idea that Catholic nuns are somehow required to provide contraception through their insurer to their employees, demonstrates just how ridiculous this mandate is... as if Catholic nuns would be a group to ask for contraception.
The Sisters asked for an accommodation waiver from HHS... which were denied at every phase, until the SCoTS remanded the case back to the appellate court and to have the defense (HHS) work on the 'least restrictive' method on a government mandate. The court suggested to HHS that a waiver (which is NOT abnormal) would be considered as 'least restrictive'.
Here we have, a perfect example of how deaf the Obama HHS administration.
Ustrello wrote: Just when you thought it couldn't get worse whembly actually believes that Obama hates christians. At this point I think you are just playing a bit
Not to put a fine point on it but certain right-wing forum members simultaneously believe Obama doesn't defend Christians in the middle east, Obama is an assassin for sanctioning drone strikes against forces attacking Christians in the middle east, Obama should not interfere in the middle east, and Obama doesn't do enough to support Israel in the middle east.
There are 300 Km between our front line and the river Don, and the Rasputitsa begins in three weeks. Draw your own conclusions.
Now you are being ridiculous.
Instead of being generalistic and painting as wide as a brush that you can get away with... why don't you say what you really want to say.
Because, I thought stereotyping posters here is a bad thing... innit?
I just don't see how this is an attack on Christians, and you have yet to explain it. I'm not Christian, and I'm barely religious, so I do not understand. It may be clear to you, but not to anyone else who has not has that upbringing. Explain it if you think I'm wrong.
It's the idea that Catholic nuns are somehow required to provide contraception through their insurer to their employees, demonstrates just how ridiculous this mandate is... as if Catholic nuns would be a group to ask for contraception.
The Sisters asked for an accommodation waiver from HHS... which were denied at every phase, until the SCoTS remanded the case back to the appellate court and to have the defense (HHS) work on the 'least restrictive' method on a government mandate. The court suggested to HHS that a waiver (which is NOT abnormal) would be considered as 'least restrictive'.
Here we have, a perfect example of how deaf the Obama HHS administration.
Its this kind of stuff that makes me wish churches were taxed.
Verviedi wrote: Laziness. Such a great hazard. Let's say... Fox News reported that, because I know there's a great chance you won't believe any other news outlet.
I'm shocked they did though. I am sure it will be followed up by welfare fraud or Clinton emails.
I just don't get where this government persecution of christians and war on christmas come from. I am sorry being inclusive may tread on your ability to force your views on others.
No, the Fox News thing is me being horrible. I edited to make it productive, instead of just mindless HATE and mud-slinging.
American Christians as a group have a persecution complex. They're used to being in control. That control is slipping. They believe that they are inherently superior to non-Christians, and are pissed that their inferiors are taking control. See, "sin" system.
I just don't see how this is an attack on Christians, and you have yet to explain it. I'm not Christian, and I'm barely religious, so I do not understand. It may be clear to you, but not to anyone else who has not has that upbringing. Explain it if you think I'm wrong.
Let me mansplain you , coming from the Jesus Freak persuasion.
SO the argument is: 1. The First Amendment states that DAS EVILZ GOVERNMENT may not prohibit nor protect a particular religion. Obviously there are exceptions. The argument kind of falls as to whether this is a constituional exception.
2. The government mandated insurance and that employers pay that insurance.
3. Catholic policy is against abortion. Its viewed as a a biggie level sin (Manchu can provide the correct actual doctrine statement, I'm paraphrasing) and akin to murder. Catholic nuns are even more persnickety about the sin thing, being nuns and all.
4. Therefor the government is requiring the Catholic nuns violate their most sacred oaths and pay for murder.
I think we've learned an important lesson here. Don't mess with nuns, especially if they have guns*
*And drive tanks and wear battle armor and have a real thing for that whole purge the heretic with fire thing...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Verviedi wrote: No, the Fox News thing is me being horrible. I edited to make it productive, instead of just mindless HATE and mud-slinging.
Christians as a whole have a persecution complex. They're used to being in control. That control is slipping. They believe that they are inherently superior to non-Christians, and are pissed that their inferiors are taking control. See, "sin" system.
That depends. In Egypt, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, SA, Syria, and a host of other country's that "persecution complex" is a very very lethal one.
Verviedi wrote: Laziness. Such a great hazard. Let's say... Fox News reported that, because I know there's a great chance you won't believe any other news outlet.
Edit: The source is here. Google each item. You'll find them to be true.
Reddit... yeah, that the bastion of journalistic integrity there.
Look, I get you don't like Pence. His advocacy for Traditional marriage puts him as Enemy #1 and thusly, makes him disqualified for public office. That's a fine position to take...
But, it's a wee bit hyperbolic to state that he's advocating for a Theocracy:
the·oc·ra·cy
/THēˈäkrəsē/
noun
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
Pretty much, I don't use the NHS but I still pay for it (quite happily I should say). One day I may need it though. Same applies here and echoing what other posters have said; just because you don't think you need it, doesn't mean you won't need it one day.
You'd think from how they'd talk about how oppressed they are, you'd think we were still feeding them to the lions in the Colosseum.
Anyways thats the biggest part that irritates me about the "Religious Right' fear mongering about "Shariah law" yet they constantly try to push their "Abrahamic Law and Morals" on the population through legislation.
Look, I get you don't like Pence. His advocacy for Traditional marriage puts him as Enemy #1 and thusly, makes him disqualified for public office. That's a fine position to take...
1: Marriage has been around before christianity. Men used to marry men to combine wealth and land. This is another example of christianity taking something and trying to conform it.
2: The man has delivered a speech before the entire house of reps about his views on it and how he disbelieved evolution.
3: His views on the LGBT community are quite clear
4: The Trump administration has already stated their views on repealing the Johnson amendment.
5: Pence is a climate change denier
6: Wants to defund planned parenthood
7: Abhors the use of condoms and that people should strictly stick to christian abstinence.
Pretty much, I don't use the NHS but I still pay for it (quite happily I should say). One day I may need it though. Same applies here and echoing what other posters have said; just because you don't think you need it, doesn't mean you won't need it one day.
But we don't have the NHS.
You pay taxes that in turn funds the NHS.
In the US, Obamacare isn't even healthcare... it's primarily a set of regulations and mandates for the health insurance industry. The consumers has to 'go shop' for and 'pay for' an insurance plan. Ergo, you are participatingin a transaction that may or may not infringe on your beliefs.
Huge difference.
We have an "NHS-like" program, and it's called Medicaid (the state's insurance program for the poor, elderly and disabled) and it's not even an issue.
Look, I get you don't like Pence. His advocacy for Traditional marriage puts him as Enemy #1 and thusly, makes him disqualified for public office. That's a fine position to take...
1: Marriage has been around before christianity. Men used to marry men to combine wealth and land. This is another example of christianity taking something and trying to conform it.
2: The man has delivered a speech before the entire house of reps about his views on it and how he disbelieved evolution.
3: His views on the LGBT community are quite clear
4: The Trump administration has already stated their views on repealing the Johnson amendment.
5: Pence is a climate change denier
6: Wants to defund planned parenthood
7: Abhors the use of condoms and that people should strictly stick to christian abstinence.
That's your justification for his disqualification? Cool.
Doesn't mean he's an advocate for a theocratic system.
If their only employees don't use it, then what's the issue? The mere existence of contraception is surely not an affront to christians.
I guess a better question would be, is why are health insurance companies - and by extensions their subscribers - paying for contraception. Its not a medical issue.
It sure as hell is.
My wife has to take birth control for reasons related to endometriosis. We very much want to have more children, but can't, but leaving her condition untreated will only lead to more permanent damage, more constant pain, more surgeries and more complications.
There are many, many medical reasons why a woman might need birth control.
If their only employees don't use it, then what's the issue? The mere existence of contraception is surely not an affront to christians.
I guess a better question would be, is why are health insurance companies - and by extensions their subscribers - paying for contraception. Its not a medical issue.
It sure as hell is.
My wife has to take birth control for reasons related to endometriosis. We very much want to have more children, but can't, but leaving her condition untreated will only lead to more permanent damage, more constant pain, more surgeries and more complications.
There are many, many medical reasons why a woman might need birth control.
Insurance caps spending on terminal illness in many plans. You use up your cancer payments? Too bad or so we're told. but this is better?
Paying for monthly pills will save them from having to pay for many expensive surgeries. Just like paying for yearly screenings could save them from paying for expensive cancer treatments.
And I think it's pretty horrible that insurance companies have so many caps on what they'll pay out for treatment.
Then you need to read up on why the Sisters were suing the Obama administration.
From what I gather, they are complaining that the health insurance company provides contraception, and they don't want their employees to be able to get conraceptions (because forcing our religion on others is the most moral thing to do after all).
A) sisters of the poor are CELIBATE Catholic nuns. B) it's not new news what the Catholic church's stance on contraceptives. C) No one is forced to become The Little Sisters of the Poor.
A. Birth control pills have other beneficial uses for women apart from contraceptives.
Of course... there are exceptions. The Church allows it as long as their doctors stipulates the justification the off-label uses of hormonal treatements.
Then you need to read up on why the Sisters were suing the Obama administration.
From what I gather, they are complaining that the health insurance company provides contraception, and they don't want their employees to be able to get conraceptions (because forcing our religion on others is the most moral thing to do after all).
A) sisters of the poor are CELIBATE Catholic nuns. B) it's not new news what the Catholic church's stance on contraceptives. C) No one is forced to become The Little Sisters of the Poor.
If their only employees don't use it, then what's the issue? The mere existence of contraception is surely not an affront to christians.
The HHS mandates that their plans must have (ie, pay for it) contraceptives.
Yes, and? The are being made to pay for something they won't use. That's not great, but it's not attack on Christians.
Frazzled wrote: Because the First Amendment says they get it, just like you and me.
No, the first amendment says that nobody gets special treatment. If the rule is "everyone must do X" your organization's religious beliefs don't matter, you still have to do X. Giving special privileges to religious groups is going against the first amendment.
Frazzled wrote: Because the First Amendment says they get it, just like you and me.
No, the first amendment says that nobody gets special treatment. If the rule is "everyone must do X" your organization's religious beliefs don't matter, you still have to do X. Giving special privileges to religious groups is going against the first amendment.
So, are you saying that the Navajo's can't use Peyote as part of their religious rites? That the DEA should confiscate and convict anyone distributing/using peyote since it's a Schedule 1 drug?
whembly wrote: So, are you saying that the Navajo's can't use Peyote as part of their religious rites? That the DEA should confiscate and convict anyone distributing/using peyote since it's a Schedule 1 drug?
Or reevaluate our ridiculous drug laws. If it's safe for one group to use "because god said so" then it's safe for anyone to use.
Ustrello wrote: Just when you thought it couldn't get worse whembly actually believes that Obama hates christians. At this point I think you are just playing a bit
Not to put a fine point on it but certain right-wing forum members simultaneously believe Obama doesn't defend Christians in the middle east, Obama is an assassin for sanctioning drone strikes against forces attacking Christians in the middle east, Obama should not interfere in the middle east, and Obama doesn't do enough to support Israel in the middle east.
There are 300 Km between our front line and the river Don, and the Rasputitsa begins in three weeks. Draw your own conclusions.
Now you are being ridiculous.
Instead of being generalistic and painting as wide as a brush that you can get away with... why don't you say what you really want to say.
Because, I thought stereotyping posters here is a bad thing... innit?
te]
I see, so "certain" means "most".
New rule! Republican definition of grammar is correct.
Frazzled wrote: Because the First Amendment says they get it, just like you and me.
No, the first amendment says that nobody gets special treatment. If the rule is "everyone must do X" your organization's religious beliefs don't matter, you still have to do X. Giving special privileges to religious groups is going against the first amendment.
Please revisit the stare decisis on the First Amendment to correct your incorrect statement.
whembly wrote: So, are you saying that the Navajo's can't use Peyote as part of their religious rites? That the DEA should confiscate and convict anyone distributing/using peyote since it's a Schedule 1 drug?
Or reevaluate our ridiculous drug laws. If it's safe for one group to use "because god said so" then it's safe for anyone to use.
You can use that argument for way more things than just drugs too.
whembly wrote: So, are you saying that the Navajo's can't use Peyote as part of their religious rites? That the DEA should confiscate and convict anyone distributing/using peyote since it's a Schedule 1 drug?
Or reevaluate our ridiculous drug laws. If it's safe for one group to use "because god said so" then it's safe for anyone to use.
Or, acknowledge that some people may not want to be forced to do something that contravene their faith.
Frazzled wrote: Please revisit the stare decisis on the First Amendment to correct your incorrect statement.
The fact that rulings have turned "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" into "Congress shall respect an establishment of religion by granting special privileges to religious groups based on their beliefs" doesn't change what the first amendment says. Though, I suppose we could apply this revisionist history approach to other amendments. Are you willing to acknowledge that the second amendment does not prevent the government from passing gun control laws?
whembly wrote: So, are you saying that the Navajo's can't use Peyote as part of their religious rites? That the DEA should confiscate and convict anyone distributing/using peyote since it's a Schedule 1 drug?
Or reevaluate our ridiculous drug laws. If it's safe for one group to use "because god said so" then it's safe for anyone to use.
Or, acknowledge that some people may not want to be forced to do something that contravene their faith.
Ustrello wrote: Just when you thought it couldn't get worse whembly actually believes that Obama hates christians. At this point I think you are just playing a bit
Not to put a fine point on it but certain right-wing forum members simultaneously believe Obama doesn't defend Christians in the middle east, Obama is an assassin for sanctioning drone strikes against forces attacking Christians in the middle east, Obama should not interfere in the middle east, and Obama doesn't do enough to support Israel in the middle east.
There are 300 Km between our front line and the river Don, and the Rasputitsa begins in three weeks. Draw your own conclusions.
Now you are being ridiculous.
Instead of being generalistic and painting as wide as a brush that you can get away with... why don't you say what you really want to say.
Because, I thought stereotyping posters here is a bad thing... innit?
I see, so "certain" means "most".
Where are you getting that?
New rule! Republican definition of grammar is correct.
Well played.
Oo
What does "Republican" have to do with this line of conversation??
whembly wrote: Or, acknowledge that some people may not want to be forced to do something that contravene their faith.
What they want is irrelevant. There are two possible options here:
1) Peyote is not safe to use. There should be no religious exceptions, just like there are no religious exceptions for dumping toxic waste into water supplies, committing suicide, etc.
or
2) Peyote is safe to use. It should not be banned for anyone, just like we don't need special religious exceptions to drink a beer.
whembly wrote: Or, acknowledge that some people may not want to be forced to do something that contravene their faith.
What they want is irrelevant. There are two possible options here:
1) Peyote is not safe to use. There should be no religious exceptions, just like there are no religious exceptions for dumping toxic waste into water supplies, committing suicide, etc.
or
2) Peyote is safe to use. It should not be banned for anyone, just like we don't need special religious exceptions to drink a beer.
Or, apply the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA):
-Government must make a compelling case;
AND
-Government must apply the LEAST restrictive means;
Plus the NHS tends to get shat on in the papers because it's an easy target. Which would lead into an entirely different topic on why the NHS isn't funded properly.
That doesn't answer my point at all. If peyote is safe enough to use that anyone should be able to use it then there is no justification for banning it. If it is dangerous enough that a ban is justified then there is no "least restrictive means" of banning it, it's simply unsafe and not permitted. The government doesn't have to provide a "least restrictive means" to allow someone to commit suicide just because they say "god wants me to do it".
Plus the NHS tends to get shat on in the papers because it's an easy target. Which would lead into an entirely different topic on why the NHS isn't funded properly.
Anyhoo.
In Canada, most providers (medical groups, hospitals, etc...) are private companies vying for the single-payer funds.
Isn't it true that in the UK, the NHS' medical groups, hospitals (et. el) are mostly government owned and operated?
That doesn't answer my point at all. If peyote is safe enough to use that anyone should be able to use it then there is no justification for banning it. If it is dangerous enough that a ban is justified then there is no "least restrictive means" of banning it, it's simply unsafe and not permitted. The government doesn't have to provide a "least restrictive means" to allow someone to commit suicide just because they say "god wants me to do it".
It' answers it because THAT'S HOW RFRA WAS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE!
And, yes, peyote is extremely dangerous for public consumption. It's an extremely powerful hallucinogenic.
Plus the NHS tends to get shat on in the papers because it's an easy target. Which would lead into an entirely different topic on why the NHS isn't funded properly.
Anyhoo.
Britain is single provider. Canada is single payer.
OH CanaDUH!!! please send us more of your delicious bacon you hoser eh!
whembly wrote: It' answers it because THAT'S HOW RFRA WAS CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE!
And my point is that, regardless of the history, it's a poor example of "religious freedom" issues. The issue here is not religion being free from excessive burdens, it's that US drug laws are a complete mess that favors idiotic rules about "sin" over quantifiable harm in deciding what should be banned. In a country with sensible drug laws this issue never comes up in the first place.
And, yes, peyote is extremely dangerous for public consumption. It's an extremely powerful hallucinogenic.
Ok then. It's too dangerous for religious use too, just like we don't allow people to commit suicide as part of a religious ritual.
This will be fun to watch the GOP implode as the different wings that easily united against Democrats turn to infighting and factionalism, just like the Dems usually do.
This Ethics thing is just the first hint of it. Wait until they get to the big things like replacing Obamacare. Tee-hee.
Here is my theory for what will happen. The R's will repeal Obamacare, then replace it with Trumpcare, which will be Obamacare but with a few tweaks that Obamacare needed since day 1, selling insurance across state lines, and medical malpractice caps. Then they will trumpet it as freedom and democracy in action!
Plus the NHS tends to get shat on in the papers because it's an easy target. Which would lead into an entirely different topic on why the NHS isn't funded properly.
Anyhoo.
In Canada, most providers (medical groups, hospitals, etc...) are private companies vying for the single-payer funds.
Isn't it true that in the UK, the NHS' medical groups, hospitals (et. el) are mostly government owned and operated?
There are various healthcare trusts that look after hospitals and assorted stuff - they're all independently run however. Similar to the Canadian system they get central funding allocated from taxes.
Government oversight is only really present at the very very very top, with all the day to day bits run by the hospitals themselves; they hire doctors, nurses, porters and midwives and pay them according to their structures. Each trust as it's own priorities on healthcare spending depending on the needs of their local demographic.
But, it's a wee bit hyperbolic to state that he's advocating for a Theocracy:
the·oc·ra·cy
/THēˈäkrəsē/
noun
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.
That's not the only definition (and you didn't get that one from dictionary.com or Webster's). One Webster definition basically just requires the civil leaders to believe they are divinely guided.
Yes, it is generally hyperbole. But, I hope we can all agree that it is never a good thing when a politician puts their religion first.
And, yes, peyote is extremely dangerous for public consumption. It's an extremely powerful hallucinogenic.
Ok then. It's too dangerous for religious use too, just like we don't allow people to commit suicide as part of a religious ritual.
Being a powerful hallucinogen is a terrible definition for "extremely dangerous."
There aren't many studies, but there is no evidence of long term dangerous from religious or recreational use of Peyote. In fact the biggest health risk is the immediate risks associated with heart rate and blood pressure, both of which are only really risks if you already have a condition related to those issues (also probably don't want to eat before using the stuff). In fact Peyote is as far as anyone can tell one of the safest powerful hallucinogens humans can consume. There are legal (and even basic) drugs and medical procedures that are more hazardous.
And, yes, peyote is extremely dangerous for public consumption. It's an extremely powerful hallucinogenic.
Ok then. It's too dangerous for religious use too, just like we don't allow people to commit suicide as part of a religious ritual.
Being a powerful hallucinogen is a terrible definition for "extremely dangerous."
There aren't many studies, but there is no evidence of long term dangerous from religious or recreational use of Peyote. In fact the biggest health risk is the immediate risks associated with heart rate and blood pressure, both of which are only really risks if you already have a condition related to those issues (also probably don't want to eat before using the stuff). In fact Peyote is as far as anyone can tell one of the safest powerful hallucinogens humans can consume. There are legal (and even basic) drugs and medical procedures that are more hazardous.
Clinically, if you have any cardiovascular issues you'd best avoid peyote.
However, a powerful hallucinogen is on par with PCP, w/o the hulkamania aspect. So, yes, it's dangerous.
Whether it's a good idea or not to ban it... I really don't care... but, I'm more apt to not banning it if we're eventually going to allowing cannabinoid.
I'm basically for the restricted legalization of all drugs except for really feth you up (such as meth or heroine). If we are going to legalize smoking and alcahol, a little cannabis or peyote isn't going to that much damage if used responsibly. Not that I'd want to use it myself (I personally view drug use as stupid, much like smoking or NASCAR).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, it looks like NY is going for the free college idea with the SUNY system anyway. Annoyingly it would go into effect right after I graduate too.
This, of course, is under the assumption that the three faction in NY government (Republicans, Democrats, and Cuomo) can work together. Right now they state houses are angry because Cuomo won't OK a raise for them.
whembly wrote: However, a powerful hallucinogen is on par with PCP, w/o the hulkamania aspect. So, yes, it's dangerous.
Fallacious. You note that it is like PCP then note how it lacks PCP's most famous side effect. Peyote is the "stoner" psychoactive. Clinically Peyote's effects are similar to LSD but seems to lack all of LSD's prolific negative side effects (and long term consequences, such as recurring "trips"). Alcohol is more dangerous, because drunks can still get into a car and drive into a building relatively easily. That's not something someone on Peyote is really capable of.
whembly wrote: However, a powerful hallucinogen is on par with PCP, w/o the hulkamania aspect. So, yes, it's dangerous.
Fallacious. You note that it is like PCP then note how it lacks PCP's most famous side effect. Peyote is the "stoner" psychoactive. Clinically Peyote's effects are similar to LSD but seems to lack all of LSD's prolific negative side effects (and long term consequences, such as recurring "trips"). Alcohol is more dangerous, because drunks can still get into a car and drive into a building relatively easily. That's not something someone on Peyote is really capable of.
Also that "side effect" of PCP is not supported by any medical research, it is the result of false accounts (such as suspects breaking out of handcuffs) and the media taking some high profile cases and running them so much that it became embedded in the populations psyche. There is no medical mechanism of PCP which would result in massively increased strength of the user. It is a dissociative analgesic (and anaesthetic in high enough doses) which would allow someone to resist pain but they are still limited by their muscles.
Basically it is straight out of the same handbook that brought us Reefer Madness.
whembly wrote: However, a powerful hallucinogen is on par with PCP, w/o the hulkamania aspect. So, yes, it's dangerous.
Fallacious. You note that it is like PCP then note how it lacks PCP's most famous side effect. Peyote is the "stoner" psychoactive. Clinically Peyote's effects are similar to LSD but seems to lack all of LSD's prolific negative side effects (and long term consequences, such as recurring "trips"). Alcohol is more dangerous, because drunks can still get into a car and drive into a building relatively easily. That's not something someone on Peyote is really capable of.
Also that "side effect" of PCP is not supported by any medical research, it is the result of false accounts (such as suspects breaking out of handcuffs) and the media taking some high profile cases and running them so much that it became embedded in the populations psyche.
Basically it is straight out of the same handbook that brought us Reefer Madness
Oh hell no... PCP is a dissociative hallucinogen.
When they're 'hulking out'... it's not because they're truly stronger... they overestimate their abilities or think themselves impervious to harm and injures themselves in the process.
And lordy... peyote or Mescaline (I remembered the chemo that I brain farted earlier).... is a strong hallucinogen as well as a mood enhancer/dehancer... you don't want to be operating gak or be around people while high on that gak. LSD and weed are milder in comparison.
whembly wrote: is a strong hallucinogen as well as a mood enhancer/dehancer...
You keep saying that like its supposed to mean something.
you don't want to be operating gak or be around people while high on that gak. LSD and weed are milder in comparison.
And now you're just missing the point. People under the effects of drugs like LSD and Peyote have extremely poor muscle control and almost no hand eye coordination. Opening a door would be a challenge, never mind unlocking it with a key or turning an ignition. That's my point. Someone who is tripping can appear as though they are asleep. These are not drugs that tend to result in great amounts of activity.
You keep saying the drugs are dangerous with no context for what the "danger" is. Functionally laying in a room with a boner and pretty pictures flying through your head isn't particularly dangerous to anyone other than you, and Peyote lacks the long lasting effects associated with other psychoactive drugs. If we're going to ban drugs based on how "dangerous" they are, alcohol should have been banned ages ago. It'll kill, maim, and poison far more people than PCP ever will, let alone Peyote.
Verviedi wrote: Business community was also against HB2 in NC. See how that turned out.
And Indiana, which changed its mind.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I'm basically for the restricted legalization of all drugs except for really feth you up (such as meth or heroine). If we are going to legalize smoking and alcahol, a little cannabis or peyote isn't going to that much damage if used responsibly. Not that I'd want to use it myself (I personally view drug use as stupid, much like smoking or NASCAR).
How about "bath salts" and synthetic marijuana (which isn't)? Thats the new thing.
When they're 'hulking out'... it's not because they're truly stronger... they overestimate their abilities or think themselves impervious to harm and injures themselves in the process.
Washington (CNN)Sen. Chuck Schumer lamented Tuesday the Democrats' move to diminish the number of senators needed to confirm Cabinet picks from 60 votes to 51, because the new rule now hurts his party.
"I argued against it at the time. I said both for Supreme Court and in Cabinet should be 60 because on such important positions there should be some degree of bipartisanship," Schumer, a New York Democrat and the incoming Senate minority leader, told CNN's Dana Bash. "I won on Supreme Court, lost on Cabinet. But it's what we have to live with now."
In 2013, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and other top Democrats became convinced GOP delaying tactics were crippling Washington. They triggered the so-called "nuclear option" which -- over the objections of Republicans -- lowered the threshold to overcome a filibuster from 60 to 51 votes.
"Wish it hadn't happened," Schumer said.
Senate Democrats have vowed to stall action on eight of President-elect Donald Trump's Cabinet nominees who are focused on implementing his economic, law enforcement and regulatory agenda, a senior Democratic aide told CNN Monday.
If effective, the threat could delay confirming the President-elect's choices for months.
It's an important axiom for the political greybeards... no political party remains in power forever, eventually you'll wind up on the minority.
Just wait until Don starts wielding power the way Obama has.
Executive orders for everything!
Lets fire up the weaponized IRS to go after political opponents!
Also, I am seeing a lot of "pro" drug views in here. Just so long as you feel the same way about gun rights, then we are cool.
One can definitely be Pro-Bill of Rights. Finding others who agree that the individual US citizen should not be messed with or told what to do by the government all the time is becoming a rare Lotto level rarity now.
Vash108 wrote: I am pretty sure you said "Executive orders for everything". I think so. Let me look.
::scrolls back up::
I mean it looks like that is what you are referencing. You did say Executive Order.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I do enjoy your change of subject though.
If you want to be pedantic, by all means.
But be honest about the discussion... 'Executive Orders' has become a short hand for Executive Actions which stems from the following:
Executive Orders are numbered; Obama’s begin with #13489....
Whereas, Executive Actions (also called Presidential Memoranda) are not numbered and not indexed.
Furthermore, its settled law that whether executive order or executive action or executive memorandum or “presidential determination” or “presidential notice” or whatever descriptive used, those executive actions are binding on future administrations unless explicitly revoked by a future president. The difference between executive order v. the others is simply that Executive Order must contain a “citation of authority,” saying what law it’s based on, but Executive Memoranda have no such requirement.
By issuing his directives as "memoranda" rather than executive orders, Obama has downplayed the extent of his executive actions.
WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.
When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.
Obama has issued executive orders to give federal employees the day after Christmas off, to impose economic sanctions and to determine how national secrets are classified. He's used presidential memoranda to make policy on gun control, immigration and labor regulations. Tuesday, he used a memorandum to declare Bristol Bay, Alaska, off-limits to oil and gas exploration.
Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don't require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.
Obama has made prolific use of memoranda despite his own claims that he's used his executive power less than other presidents. "The truth is, even with all the actions I've taken this year, I'm issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years," Obama said in a speech in Austin last July. "So it's not clear how it is that Republicans didn't seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did."
Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders.
He's already signed 33% more presidential memoranda in less than six years than Bush did in eight. He's also issued 45% more than the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who assertively used memoranda to signal what kinds of regulations he wanted federal agencies to adopt.
Obama is not the first president to use memoranda to accomplish policy aims. But at this point in his presidency, he's the first to use them more often than executive orders.
"There's been a lot of discussion about executive orders in his presidency, and of course by sheer numbers he's had fewer than other presidents. So the White House and its defenders can say, 'He can't be abusing his executive authority; he's hardly using any orders," said Andrew Rudalevige, a presidency scholar at Bowdoin College. "But if you look at these other vehicles, he has been aggressive in his use of executive power."
So even as he's quietly used memoranda to signal policy changes to federal agencies, Obama and his allies have claimed he's been more restrained in his use of that power.
In a Senate floor speech in July, Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "While Republicans accuse President Obama of executive overreach, they neglect the fact that he has issued far fewer executive orders than any two-term president in the last 50 years."
The White House would not comment on how it uses memoranda and executive orders but has previously said Obama's executive actions "advance an agenda that expands opportunity and rewards hard work and responsibility."
"There is no question that this president has been judicious in his use of executive action, executive orders, and I think those numbers thus far have come in below what President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton did," said Jay Carney, then the White House press secretary, in February.
Carney, while critical of Bush's executive actions, also said it wasn't the number of executive actions that was important but rather "the quality and the type."
"It is funny to hear Republicans get upset about the suggestion that the president might use legally available authorities to advance an agenda that expands opportunity and rewards hard work and responsibility, when obviously they supported a president who used executive authorities quite widely," he said.
While executive orders have become a kind of Washington shorthand for unilateral presidential action, presidential memoranda have gone largely unexamined. And yet memoranda are often as significant to everyday Americans than executive orders. For example:
• In his State of the Union Address in January, Obama proposed a new retirement savings account for low-income workers called a MyRA. The next week, he issued a presidential memorandum to the Treasury Department instructing it to develop a pilot program.
• In April, Obama directed the Department of Labor to collect salary data from federal contractors and subcontractors to monitor whether they're paying women and minorities fairly.
• In June, Obama told the Department of Education to allow certain borrowers to cap their student loan payments at 10% of income.
They can also be controversial.
AVOIDING 'IMPERIAL OVERREACH'
Obama issued three presidential memoranda after the Sandy Hook school shooting two years ago. They ordered federal law enforcement agencies to trace any firearm that's part of a federal investigation, expanded the data available to the national background check system, and instructed federal agencies to conduct research into the causes and possible solutions to gun violence.
Two more recent memos directed the administration to coordinate an overhaul of the nation's immigration system — a move that congressional Republicans say exceeded his authority. Of the dozens of steps Obama announced as part of his immigration plan last month, none was accomplished by executive order.
Executive orders are numbered — the most recent, Executive Order 13683, modified three previous executive orders. Memoranda are not numbered, not indexed and, until recently, difficult to quantify.
Kenneth Lowande, a political science doctoral student at the University of Virginia, counted up memoranda published in the Code of Federal Regulations since 1945. In an article published in the December issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly, he found that memoranda appear to be replacing executive orders.
Indeed, many of Obama's memoranda do the kinds of things previous presidents did by executive order.
• In 1970, President Nixon issued an executive order on unneeded federal properties. Forty years later, Obama issued a similar policy by memorandum.
• President George W. Bush established the Bob Hope American Patriot Award by executive order in 2003. Obama created the Richard C. Holbrooke Award for Diplomacy by memorandum in 2012.
• President Bush issued Executive Order 13392 in 2005, directing agencies to report on their compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. On his week in office, Obama directed the attorney general to revisit those reports — but did so in a memorandum.
"If you look at some of the titles of memoranda recently, they do look like and mirror executive orders," Lowande said.
The difference may be one of political messaging, he said. An "executive order," he said, "immediately evokes potentially damaging questions of 'imperial overreach.'" Memorandum sounds less threatening.
Though they're just getting attention from some presidential scholars, White House insiders have known about the power of memoranda for some time. In a footnote to her 1999 article in the Harvard Law Review, former Clinton associate White House counsel Elena Kagan — now an Obama appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court — said scholars focused too much on executive orders rather than presidential memoranda.
Kagan said Clinton considered memoranda "a central part of his governing strategy," using them to spur agencies to write regulations restricting tobacco advertising to children, allowing unemployment insurance for paid family leave and requiring agencies to collect racial profiling data.
"The memoranda became, ever increasingly over the course of eight years, Clinton's primary means, self-consciously undertaken, both of setting an administrative agenda that reflected and advanced his policy and political preferences and of ensuring the execution of this program," Kagan wrote.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?
Presidential scholar Phillip Cooper calls presidential memoranda "executive orders by another name, and yet unique."
The law does not define the difference between an executive order and a memorandum, but it does say that the president should publish in the Federal Register executive orders and other documents that "have general applicability and legal effect."
"Something that's in a presidential memorandum in one administration might be captured in an executive order in another," said Jim Hemphill, the special assistant to the director for the government's legal notice publication. "There's no guidance that says, 'Mr. President, here's what needs to be in an executive order.' "
There are subtle differences. Executive orders are numbered; memoranda are not. Memoranda are always published in the Federal Register after proclamations and executive orders. And under Executive Order 11030, signed by President Kennedy in 1962, an executive order must contain a "citation of authority," saying what law it's based on. Memoranda have no such requirement.
Obama, like other presidents, has used memoranda for more routine operations of the executive branch, delegating certain mundane tasks to subordinates. About half of the memoranda published on the White House website are deemed so inconsequential that they're not counted as memoranda in the Federal Register.
Sometimes, there are subtle differences. President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10789 in 1958 giving emergency contracting authority to the Department of Defense and other Cabinet departments. President Bush added other departments in 2001 and 2003, but he and Obama both used memoranda to give temporary authority to the U.S. Agency for International Development to respond to crises in Iraq and western Africa.
When the president determines the order of succession in a Cabinet-level department — that is, who would take over in the case of the death or resignation of the secretary — he does so by executive order. For other agencies, he uses a memorandum.
Both executive orders and memoranda can vary in importance. One executive order this year changed the name of the National Security Staff to the National Security Council Staff. Both instruments have been used to delegate routine tasks to other federal officials.
'THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT'
Whatever they're called, those executive actions are binding on future administrations unless explicitly revoked by a future president, according to legal opinion from the Justice Department.
The Office of Legal Counsel — which is responsible for advising the president on executive orders and memoranda — says there's no difference between the two. "It has been our consistent view that it is the substance of a presidential determination or directive that is controlling and not whether the document is styled in a particular manner," said a 2000 memo from Acting Assistant Attorney General Randolph Moss to the Clinton White House. He cited a 1945 opinion that said a letter from President Franklin Roosevelt carried the same weight as an executive order.
The Office of Legal Counsel signs off on the legality of executive orders and memoranda. During the first year of Obama's presidency, the Office of Legal Counsel asked Congress for a 14.5% budget increase, justifying its request in part by noting "the large number of executive orders and presidential memoranda that has been issued."
Other classifications of presidential orders carry similar weight. Obama has issued at least 28 presidential policy directives in the area of national security. In a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit last year, a federal court ruled that these, too, are "the functional equivalent of an executive order."
Even the White House sometimes gets tripped up on the distinction. Explaining Obama's memoranda on immigration last month, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the president would happily "tear up his own executive order" if Congress passes an immigration bill.
Obama had issued no such executive order. Earnest later corrected himself. "I must have misspoke. I meant executive actions. So I apologize," he said.
It's a classic spin to say that Obama issued fewer Executive Orders than his predecessors.
So am I reading this right, Trump is citing Assange as his support against the dozen or so Intelligence agencies stating unequivocally that Russia fethed around with our election process?
Mitochondria wrote: Schumer is expressing regret at using the "nuclear option" on filibusters now that his party is out of power.
I hope they enjoy that hope nad "change".
He also mentioned that Dems might be satisfied with leaving the SC as is. Rather than approving a new justice.
Wow, just wow. Turns out Dems are turds too.
Huh... and here I thought that an unfilled SCoTUS seat was such a constitutional crisis.
I guess that only works if there's a democrat in the Whitehouse...
Silly me...
Just like the GOP blocking their nomination for it. Works both ways I guess.
Guess so. Too bad so much effort is the parties talking at each other and not to each other...
Unfortunately, the cat is already out of the bag... say bye-bye to needing 60 to approve SCoTUS picks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: So am I reading this right, Trump is citing Assange as his support against the dozen or so Intelligence agencies stating unequivocally that Russia fethed around with our election process?
Frazzled wrote: I would just like to say Congress DO ITS JOB and pass an actual budget.
It will be funny to see the GOP's reaction if the Democrats try the same gridlock tactics the GOP have been pulling these past years.
You mean like when they shut down the government and blamed the Democrats?
That's exactly what i mean. Like I said earlier, the Democrats may as well give the GOP a dose of its own medicine and fight a 'guerrilla war' in the Congress and the Senate, looking to exploit the divisions that WILL appear in Trump's first term.
Like one poster said earlier, the GOP, not having a presidential campaign to unite them, could end up like ferrets fighting in a sack.
Mitochondria wrote: Schumer is expressing regret at using the "nuclear option" on filibusters now that his party is out of power.
I hope they enjoy that hope nad "change".
He also mentioned that Dems might be satisfied with leaving the SC as is. Rather than approving a new justice.
Wow, just wow. Turns out Dems are turds too.
Huh... and here I thought that an unfilled SCoTUS seat was such a constitutional crisis.
I guess that only works if there's a democrat in the Whitehouse...
Silly me...
Just like the GOP blocking their nomination for it. Works both ways I guess.
Guess so. Too bad so much effort is the parties talking at each other and not to each other...
Unfortunately, the cat is already out of the bag... say bye-bye to needing 60 to approve SCoTUS picks.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: So am I reading this right, Trump is citing Assange as his support against the dozen or so Intelligence agencies stating unequivocally that Russia fethed around with our election process?
Guess he didn't fething learn from Hillary Clinton...
You don't feth with your own Intelligence Community...
Oh and, feth Wikileak.
You and I seem to agree on a lot of things, but I don't think we'll ever agree on Wikileaks, which I believe has provided an invaluable service to the American people. Hate the message, not the messenger.
BigWaaagh wrote: So am I reading this right, Trump is citing Assange as his support against the dozen or so Intelligence agencies stating unequivocally that Russia fethed around with our election process?
AT vs TO? Good. The GOP will never; ever compromise. They burn the house down whenever they don't get everything they want, and blame the Democrats for it. As I said before, Dems should treat them the same way.
BigWaaagh wrote: So am I reading this right, Trump is citing Assange as his support against the dozen or so Intelligence agencies stating unequivocally that Russia fethed around with our election process?
Guess he didn't fething learn from Hillary Clinton...
You don't feth with your own Intelligence Community...
Oh and, feth Wikileak.
You and I seem to agree on a lot of things, but I don't think we'll ever agree on Wikileaks, which I believe has provided an invaluable service to the American people. Hate the message, not the messenger.
No.
feth wikileak...
They released numerous information (used to embarrass the Bush administrations) that puts american abroad and friendly pakistani/iraqi in danger.
They're not friends...and they're likely a front for Russian intelligence.
The only good thing, arguably, is that the Russians (sorry again, wikileak) unfairly told us about the DNC's and their media minions dirty laundry.
Wikileaks are a bunch of disgusting, partisan hacks. Only releasing their DNC data, and hiding their RNC data away, sealed the deal for me. Complete corruption of their so-called fairness. Sad!
Verviedi wrote: Wikileaks are a bunch of disgusting, partisan hacks. Only releasing their DNC data, and hiding their RNC data away, sealed the deal for me. Complete corruption of their so-called fairness. Sad!
Point of correction... there's no evidence that the RNC data was leaked/hacked to wiki.
Verviedi wrote: Wikileaks are a bunch of disgusting, partisan hacks. Only releasing their DNC data, and hiding their RNC data away, sealed the deal for me. Complete corruption of their so-called fairness. Sad!
That is a dumb assessment. They released a ton of stuff, made their name really, releasing stuff against Bush. Assange is an anarchist, he enjoys bringing down any gov't in power he can, he doesn't give a crap about singling out any US political party. I suspect his source did not have RNC stuff to release. The RNC hacking was more limited (in part due to RNC members not falling for phishing attempts), but the info taken was released by DC Leaks ( http://dcleaks.com/index.php/portfolio_page/the-united-states-republican-party/ ). RNC also asked for and received FBI aid in securing their servers. Podesta falling for a targeted phishing attempt has nothing to do with the RNC folks NOT doing so.
So yes, I stand corrected, and await further information.
...WikiLeaks, however, are still hacks.
Also... the whole irony is, what the feth does Assange know? He's trapped in London in the Equadorian (??) embassy, not because other nations are "out to get him"... but, because he doesn't want to be extradited back home to face sexual assault charges.
I bet money that the DNC data was leaked to Russian operatives, which then gave it to wikileak to wreck havoc in US election seasons.
The Podesta email was definitely a hack, as it was traced to a phishing scam. (never, EVER transmit your PASSWORD in an email reply people!).
Verviedi wrote: Wikileaks are a bunch of disgusting, partisan hacks. Only releasing their DNC data, and hiding their RNC data away, sealed the deal for me. Complete corruption of their so-called fairness. Sad!
That is a dumb assessment. They released a ton of stuff, made their name really, releasing stuff against Bush. Assange is an anarchist, he enjoys bringing down any gov't in power he can, he doesn't give a crap about singling out any US political party. I suspect his source did not have RNC stuff to release. The RNC hacking was more limited (in part due to RNC members not falling for phishing attempts), but the info taken was released by DC Leaks ( http://dcleaks.com/index.php/portfolio_page/the-united-states-republican-party/ ). RNC also asked for and received FBI aid in securing their servers. Podesta falling for a targeted phishing attempt has nothing to do with the RNC folks NOT doing so.
Read my links. The RNC was, indeed, hacked. And are you seriously saying Assange wouldn't support Trump? Trump will do more to kill the US government than any amount of leaks could. It's in his best interest to support Trump.
Verviedi wrote: Wikileaks are a bunch of disgusting, partisan hacks. Only releasing their DNC data, and hiding their RNC data away, sealed the deal for me. Complete corruption of their so-called fairness. Sad!
That is a dumb assessment. They released a ton of stuff, made their name really, releasing stuff against Bush. Assange is an anarchist, he enjoys bringing down any gov't in power he can, he doesn't give a crap about singling out any US political party. I suspect his source did not have RNC stuff to release. The RNC hacking was more limited (in part due to RNC members not falling for phishing attempts), but the info taken was released by DC Leaks ( http://dcleaks.com/index.php/portfolio_page/the-united-states-republican-party/ ). RNC also asked for and received FBI aid in securing their servers. Podesta falling for a targeted phishing attempt has nothing to do with the RNC folks NOT doing so.
While this is true, it's not a stretch to imagine that if wiki or the Russians did have the dirty laundry of the RNC, they would have withheld it to enable their preferred candidate.
Verviedi wrote: Wikileaks are a bunch of disgusting, partisan hacks. Only releasing their DNC data, and hiding their RNC data away, sealed the deal for me. Complete corruption of their so-called fairness. Sad!
Has it occured to you that the reason why Wikileaks didn't release anti-Trump information is because nobody gives a damn or that because Trump already pre-emptied them?
Example, say Wikileaks had explosive footage about Trump saying bad things about women and Mexicans, that might have damaged his election chances.
Well, Trump already said bad things about women and Mexicans, and the American public's response was to vote him in!
If I have evidence proving that person X is an idiot, and person X admits to being an idiot, with no negative effect on their prospects, what the hell can you do?
Ack. Yes, it's true that Trump's cult pushed him to victory, but more severe leaks could have made moderate Republicans stay home. Would it have flipped the election? Doubtful, but it's always worth trying.
I'm not convinced Assange knows who/what the original source of his info is. In the past he and his crew have worked hard to allow anonymity of their sources. He does claim this one was from an inside leak, but there is no real confirmation. There is plenty of evidence CozyBear and the other group were successful in hacking via phishing attempts in 2015 and 2016. There is no evidence release that shows they were directed by Russian intel, though they do both have relationships with GRU and a couple other Russian agencies.
So yes, I stand corrected, and await further information.
...WikiLeaks, however, are still hacks.
Also... the whole irony is, what the feth does Assange know? He's trapped in London in the Equadorian (??) embassy, not because other nations are "out to get him"... but, because he doesn't want to be extradited back home to face sexual assault charges.
I bet money that the DNC data was leaked to Russian operatives, which then gave it to wikileak to wreck havoc in US election seasons.
The Podesta email was definitely a hack, as it was traced to a phishing scam. (never, EVER transmit your PASSWORD in an email reply people!).
Slightly OT, but Assange has offered many a time to let the Swedish prosecutors interview him in London, and indeed, the Ecuadorian government has also tried to arrange it as well, in the role of honest broker, but Sweden seems to be making excuses not to take up the offer.
I'm not passing judgement on Assange's guilt or innocence, but there's more going on behind the scenes than we know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Verviedi wrote: Ack. Yes, it's true that Trump's cult pushed him to victory, but more severe leaks could have made moderate Republicans stay home. Would it have flipped the election? Doubtful, but it's always worth trying.
I don't doubt the Russians tried to hack into the US election, but I'm not buying this idea that it influenced the election.
Clinton was an awful candidate, who was always going to lose IMO. Yes, I admit that I predicted a Clinton victory months ago, but after Brexit, I knew the game was up for Clinton and adjusted my opinion accordingly.
America is ready for a female Commander in Chief, but it's any woman but Clinton is what my reading is of the situation.
Verviedi wrote: Wikileaks are a bunch of disgusting, partisan hacks. Only releasing their DNC data, and hiding their RNC data away, sealed the deal for me. Complete corruption of their so-called fairness. Sad!
That is a dumb assessment. They released a ton of stuff, made their name really, releasing stuff against Bush. Assange is an anarchist, he enjoys bringing down any gov't in power he can, he doesn't give a crap about singling out any US political party. I suspect his source did not have RNC stuff to release. The RNC hacking was more limited (in part due to RNC members not falling for phishing attempts), but the info taken was released by DC Leaks ( http://dcleaks.com/index.php/portfolio_page/the-united-states-republican-party/ ). RNC also asked for and received FBI aid in securing their servers. Podesta falling for a targeted phishing attempt has nothing to do with the RNC folks NOT doing so.
While this is true, it's not a stretch to imagine that if wiki or the Russians did have the dirty laundry of the RNC, they would have withheld it to enable their preferred candidate.
I think it is a stretch, because I don't think Assange HAD a preferred candidate. I think he enjoyed seeing DNC collusion with the press confirmed and if he had similar info on the RNC which could have further brought the legitimacy of the main political parties into question he would have released it. Frankly I think the same as the Russians. Putin did phenomenally well after Obama/Sec State Clinton 'reset'. Obama got busted telling Medvedev he 'would have more flexibility' after the 2012 elections. Putin took the Ds to task and upped his game in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria. He is at a massive advantage if the US Syria policy stays as is, as it very likely would have under Clinton.
Verviedi wrote: Wikileaks are a bunch of disgusting, partisan hacks. Only releasing their DNC data, and hiding their RNC data away, sealed the deal for me. Complete corruption of their so-called fairness. Sad!
Has it occured to you that the reason why Wikileaks didn't release anti-Trump information is because nobody gives a damn or that because Trump already pre-emptied them?
Example, say Wikileaks had explosive footage about Trump saying bad things about women and Mexicans, that might have damaged his election chances.
Well, Trump already said bad things about women and Mexicans, and the American public's response was to vote him in!
If I have evidence proving that person X is an idiot, and person X admits to being an idiot, with no negative effect on their prospects, what the hell can you do?
A. We are talking about the DNC and the RNC, not Trump and Clinton.
and
B. Trump doesn't like computers and refuses to use email.
Verviedi wrote: Wikileaks are a bunch of disgusting, partisan hacks. Only releasing their DNC data, and hiding their RNC data away, sealed the deal for me. Complete corruption of their so-called fairness. Sad!
Point of correction... there's no evidence that the RNC data was leaked/hacked to wiki.
Verviedi wrote: Wikileaks are a bunch of disgusting, partisan hacks. Only releasing their DNC data, and hiding their RNC data away, sealed the deal for me. Complete corruption of their so-called fairness. Sad!
Has it occured to you that the reason why Wikileaks didn't release anti-Trump information is because nobody gives a damn or that because Trump already pre-emptied them?
Example, say Wikileaks had explosive footage about Trump saying bad things about women and Mexicans, that might have damaged his election chances.
Well, Trump already said bad things about women and Mexicans, and the American public's response was to vote him in!
If I have evidence proving that person X is an idiot, and person X admits to being an idiot, with no negative effect on their prospects, what the hell can you do?
A. We are talking about the DNC and the RNC, not Trump and Clinton.
and
B. Trump doesn't like computers and refuses to use email.
Assuming Russia did have leaks on the RNC, what would it accomplish? There's no one to really take down. Trump was universally either loved or hated and no other candidate was really in his class popularity wise.
Verviedi wrote: Wikileaks are a bunch of disgusting, partisan hacks. Only releasing their DNC data, and hiding their RNC data away, sealed the deal for me. Complete corruption of their so-called fairness. Sad!
Has it occured to you that the reason why Wikileaks didn't release anti-Trump information is because nobody gives a damn or that because Trump already pre-emptied them?
Example, say Wikileaks had explosive footage about Trump saying bad things about women and Mexicans, that might have damaged his election chances.
Well, Trump already said bad things about women and Mexicans, and the American public's response was to vote him in!
If I have evidence proving that person X is an idiot, and person X admits to being an idiot, with no negative effect on their prospects, what the hell can you do?
A. We are talking about the DNC and the RNC, not Trump and Clinton.
and
B. Trump doesn't like computers and refuses to use email.
Assuming Russia did have leaks on the RNC, what would it accomplish? There's no one to really take down. Trump was universally either loved or hated and no other candidate was really in his class popularity wise.
Exactly. I'm reminded of the funny quote from Hot Shots part 2
Aide: Your opponents will try and use this to prove that your incompetent.
President Tug Benson (Lloyd Bridges) I can prove I'm incompetent as well as the next man.
While this is true, it's not a stretch to imagine that if wiki or the Russians did have the dirty laundry of the RNC, they would have withheld it to enable their preferred candidate.
I think it is a stretch, because I don't think Assange HAD a preferred candidate. I think he enjoyed seeing DNC collusion with the press confirmed and if he had similar info on the RNC which could have further brought the legitimacy of the main political parties into question he would have released it. Frankly I think the same as the Russians. Putin did phenomenally well after Obama/Sec State Clinton 'reset'. Obama got busted telling Medvedev he 'would have more flexibility' after the 2012 elections. Putin took the Ds to task and upped his game in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria. He is at a massive advantage if the US Syria policy stays as is, as it very likely would have under Clinton.
You may be right regarding Assange, I don't know anything about his personal motivations. It makes sense to me however, that he could have a personal grudge against the very establishment-HRC, and that he would view a Trump presidency as furthering his goals of de-legitimising the existing political process.
Putin very definitely wanted a Trump presidency. He and HRC have a long history of animosity, and HRC is as savvy and shrewd as he is. On the other hand, Trump is the ideal useful idiot. He's a thin-skinned clown who thinks he is a genius. Putin is going to lead Trump around by the nose.
Clinton was an awful candidate, who was always going to lose IMO. Yes, I admit that I predicted a Clinton victory months ago, but after Brexit, I knew the game was up for Clinton and adjusted my opinion accordingly.
America is ready for a female Commander in Chief, but it's any woman but Clinton is what my reading is of the situation.
That's a pretty weird conclusion after Clinton won the popular vote and lost a razor-close election.
Less than 100k votes out of 120 million going the other way (or simply staying home on election day) in a few key-states and HRC win the election. Hardly a candidate who was "always going to lose".
While this is true, it's not a stretch to imagine that if wiki or the Russians did have the dirty laundry of the RNC, they would have withheld it to enable their preferred candidate.
I think it is a stretch, because I don't think Assange HAD a preferred candidate. I think he enjoyed seeing DNC collusion with the press confirmed and if he had similar info on the RNC which could have further brought the legitimacy of the main political parties into question he would have released it. Frankly I think the same as the Russians. Putin did phenomenally well after Obama/Sec State Clinton 'reset'. Obama got busted telling Medvedev he 'would have more flexibility' after the 2012 elections. Putin took the Ds to task and upped his game in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria. He is at a massive advantage if the US Syria policy stays as is, as it very likely would have under Clinton.
You may be right regarding Assange, I don't know anything about his personal motivations. It makes sense to me however, that he could have a personal grudge against the very establishment-HRC, and that he would view a Trump presidency as furthering his goals of de-legitimising the existing political process.
Putin very definitely wanted a Trump presidency. He and HRC have a long history of animosity, and HRC is as savvy and shrewd as he is. On the other hand, Trump is the ideal useful idiot. He's a thin-skinned clown who thinks he is a genius. Putin is going to lead Trump around by the nose.
You can't know that for sure...
It's accepted that the Russians (and other state actors) has hacked Clinton's own private email server.... there's a treasure trove of blackmail material there, such that, it's equally likely that Russia didn't care who'd win. A useful idiot in Trump or a blackmail-able Clinton Presidency.
While this is true, it's not a stretch to imagine that if wiki or the Russians did have the dirty laundry of the RNC, they would have withheld it to enable their preferred candidate.
I think it is a stretch, because I don't think Assange HAD a preferred candidate. I think he enjoyed seeing DNC collusion with the press confirmed and if he had similar info on the RNC which could have further brought the legitimacy of the main political parties into question he would have released it. Frankly I think the same as the Russians. Putin did phenomenally well after Obama/Sec State Clinton 'reset'. Obama got busted telling Medvedev he 'would have more flexibility' after the 2012 elections. Putin took the Ds to task and upped his game in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria. He is at a massive advantage if the US Syria policy stays as is, as it very likely would have under Clinton.
You may be right regarding Assange, I don't know anything about his personal motivations. It makes sense to me however, that he could have a personal grudge against the very establishment-HRC, and that he would view a Trump presidency as furthering his goals of de-legitimising the existing political process.
Putin very definitely wanted a Trump presidency. He and HRC have a long history of animosity, and HRC is as savvy and shrewd as he is. On the other hand, Trump is the ideal useful idiot. He's a thin-skinned clown who thinks he is a genius. Putin is going to lead Trump around by the nose.
It's also worth remembering that in 8 years of Obama, the USA has never seen such an all out attack on leaks and whistleblowers in all its history, including excessive use of the Espionage act, and it's likely that a President Clinton would have continued Obama's policy on this.
Perhaps Wikileaks thought that maybe it would get a clean slate from a wildcard like Trump or at least a sofetening of the war against whistleblowers?
Clinton was an awful candidate, who was always going to lose IMO. Yes, I admit that I predicted a Clinton victory months ago, but after Brexit, I knew the game was up for Clinton and adjusted my opinion accordingly.
America is ready for a female Commander in Chief, but it's any woman but Clinton is what my reading is of the situation.
That's a pretty weird conclusion after Clinton won the popular vote and lost a razor-close election.
Less than 100k votes out of 120 million going the other way (or simply staying home on election day) in a few key-states and HRC win the election. Hardly a candidate who was "always going to lose".
National popular vote is meaningless.
What was gobsmackingly crazy was that Clinton lost states that she thought were safely in her corner.
Clinton was an awful candidate, who was always going to lose IMO. Yes, I admit that I predicted a Clinton victory months ago, but after Brexit, I knew the game was up for Clinton and adjusted my opinion accordingly.
America is ready for a female Commander in Chief, but it's any woman but Clinton is what my reading is of the situation.
That's a pretty weird conclusion after Clinton won the popular vote and lost a razor-close election.
Less than 100k votes out of 120 million going the other way (or simply staying home on election day) in a few key-states and HRC win the election. Hardly a candidate who was "always going to lose".
But she lost to Trump. How bad do you have to be to lose to Trump, regardless of what system was used?
While this is true, it's not a stretch to imagine that if wiki or the Russians did have the dirty laundry of the RNC, they would have withheld it to enable their preferred candidate.
I think it is a stretch, because I don't think Assange HAD a preferred candidate. I think he enjoyed seeing DNC collusion with the press confirmed and if he had similar info on the RNC which could have further brought the legitimacy of the main political parties into question he would have released it. Frankly I think the same as the Russians. Putin did phenomenally well after Obama/Sec State Clinton 'reset'. Obama got busted telling Medvedev he 'would have more flexibility' after the 2012 elections. Putin took the Ds to task and upped his game in Crimea, Ukraine and Syria. He is at a massive advantage if the US Syria policy stays as is, as it very likely would have under Clinton.
You may be right regarding Assange, I don't know anything about his personal motivations. It makes sense to me however, that he could have a personal grudge against the very establishment-HRC, and that he would view a Trump presidency as furthering his goals of de-legitimising the existing political process.
Putin very definitely wanted a Trump presidency. He and HRC have a long history of animosity, and HRC is as savvy and shrewd as he is. On the other hand, Trump is the ideal useful idiot. He's a thin-skinned clown who thinks he is a genius. Putin is going to lead Trump around by the nose.
You can't know that for sure...
Well, yeah, that's why I said "makes sense to me"
It's accepted that the Russians (and other state actors) has hacked Clinton's own private email server.... there's a treasure trove of blackmail material there, such that, it's equally likely that Russia didn't care who'd win. A useful idiot in Trump or a blackmail-able Clinton Presidency.
I don't believe there's anything blackmail-able on HRC in those emails. They've been gone over pretty thoroughly. What blackmail material are you thinking of?
Somewhat off-topic, but I do like the idea of an alternate reality where 100k key deplorables had the flu and stayed home. President HRC is secretly confronted with proof about Slick Willy's nefarious dealings with various women and girls, and she just throws him under the bus. Cold revenge, indeed.
Clinton was an awful candidate, who was always going to lose IMO. Yes, I admit that I predicted a Clinton victory months ago, but after Brexit, I knew the game was up for Clinton and adjusted my opinion accordingly.
America is ready for a female Commander in Chief, but it's any woman but Clinton is what my reading is of the situation.
That's a pretty weird conclusion after Clinton won the popular vote and lost a razor-close election.
Less than 100k votes out of 120 million going the other way (or simply staying home on election day) in a few key-states and HRC win the election. Hardly a candidate who was "always going to lose".
But she lost to Trump. How bad do you have to be to lose to Trump, regardless of what system was used?
There is something to be said for this. There's also something to be said for some of the last minute election hijinks like Comey's highly irregular actions and some other stuff, but ultimately, the fact that Trump won says a lot about the quality of Mrs. Clinton as a candidate. I dont think she was destined to lose by any means, but, much like 2008, she was magnificent at seizing defeat from the jaws of victory
First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop Wikileaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a “journalist,” any more than the “editor” of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.” He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?
What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle Wikileaks? Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?
First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop Wikileaks director Julian Assange from distributing this highly sensitive classified material especially after he had already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a “journalist,” any more than the “editor” of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.” He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?
What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt Wikileaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle Wikileaks? Were individuals working for Wikileaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?
..good times.
imma need a neck brace when she flips after Wikileak posts something unflattering of the Trump administration...
Thought it worth posting as it covers potential Trump actions and does mention the hacking. Posted text in spoiler for those not wishing to click the link.
Spoiler:
A little over a year ago, on a pleasant late fall evening, I was sitting on my front porch with a friend best described as a Ukrainian freedom fighter. He was smoking a cigarette while we watched Southeast DC hipsters bustle by and talked about ‘the war’ — the big war, being waged by Russia against all of us, which from this porch felt very far away. I can’t remember what prompted it — some discussion of whether the government in Kyiv was doing something that would piss off the EU — but he took a long drag off his cigarette and said, offhand: “Russia. The EU. It's all just more Molotov-Ribbentrop gak.”
His casual reference to the Hitler-Stalin pact dividing Eastern Europe before WWII was meant as a reminder that Ukraine must decide its future for itself, rather than let it be negotiated between great powers. But it haunted me, this idea that modern revolutionaries no longer felt some special affinity with the West. Was it the belief in collective defense that was weakening, or the underlying certitude that Western values would prevail?
Months later, on a different porch thousands of miles away, an Estonian filmmaker casually explained to me that he was buying a boat to get his family out when the Russians came, so he could focus on the resistance. In between were a hundred other exchanges — with Balts and Ukrainians, Georgians and Moldovans — that answered my question and exposed the new reality on the Russian frontier: the belief that, ultimately, everyone would be left to fend for themselves. Increasingly, people in Russia’s sphere of influence were deciding that the values that were supposed to bind the West together could no longer hold. That the world order Americans depend on had already come apart.
From Moscow, Vladimir Putin has seized the momentum of this unraveling, exacting critical damage to the underpinnings of the liberal world order in a shockingly short time. As he builds a new system to replace the one we know, attempts by America and its allies to repair the damage have been limited and slow. Even this week, as Barack Obama tries to confront Russia’s open and unprecedented interference in our political process, the outgoing White House is so far responding to 21st century hybrid information warfare with last century’s diplomatic toolkit: the expulsion of spies, targeted sanctions, potential asset seizure. The incoming administration, while promising a new approach, has betrayed a similar lack of vision. Their promised attempt at another “reset” with Russia is a rehash of a policy that has utterly failed the past two American administrations.
What both administrations fail to realize is that the West is already at war, whether it wants to be or not. It may not be a war we recognize, but it is a war. This war seeks, at home and abroad, to erode our values, our democracy, and our institutional strength; to dilute our ability to sort fact from fiction, or moral right from wrong; and to convince us to make decisions against our own best interests.
Those on the Russian frontier, like my friends from Ukraine and Estonia, have already seen the Kremlin’s new toolkit at work. The most visible example may be “green men,” the unlabeled Russian-backed forces that suddenly popped up to seize the Crimean peninsula and occupy eastern Ukraine. But the wider battle is more subtle, a war of subversion rather than domination. The recent interference in the American elections means that these shadow tactics have now been deployed – with surprising effectiveness – not just against American allies, but against America itself. And the only way forward for America and the West is to embrace the spirit of the age that Putin has created, plow through the chaos, and focus on building what comes next.
President-elect Trump has characteristics that can aid him in defining what comes next. He is, first and foremost, a rule-breaker, not quantifiable by metrics we know. In a time of inconceivable change, that can be an incredible asset. He comes across as a straight talker, and he can be blunt with the American people about the threats we face. He is a man of many narratives, and can find a way to sell these decisions to the American people. He believes in strength, and knows hard power is necessary.
ADVERTISING
inRead invented by Teads
So far, Trump seems far more likely than any of his predecessors to accelerate, rather than resist, the unwinding of the postwar order. And that could be a very bad — or an unexpectedly good — thing. So far, he has chosen to act as if the West no longer matters, seemingly blind to the danger that Putin’s Russia presents to American security and American society. The question ahead of us is whether Trump will aid the Kremlin’s goals with his anti-globalist, anti-NATO rhetoric– or whether he’ll clearly see the end of the old order, grasp the nature of the war we are in, and have the vision and the confrontational spirit to win it.
***
To understand the shift underway in the world, and to stop being outmaneuvered, we first need to see the Russian state for what it really is. Twenty-five years ago, the Soviet Union collapsed. This freed the Russian security state from its last constraints. In 1991, there were around 800,000 official KGB agents in Russia. They spent a decade reorganizing themselves into the newly-minted FSB, expanding and absorbing other instruments of power, including criminal networks, other security services, economic interests, and parts of the political elite. They rejected the liberal, democratic Russia that President Boris Yeltsin was trying to build.
Following the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings that the FSB almost certainly planned, former FSB director Vladimir Putin was installed as President. We should not ignore the significance of these events. An internal operation planned by the security services killed hundreds of Russian citizens. It was used as the pretext to re-launch a bloody, devastating internal war led by emergent strongman Putin. Tens of thousands of Chechen civilians and fighters and Russian conscripts died. The narrative was controlled to make the enemy clear and Putin victorious. This information environment forced a specific political objective: Yeltsin resigned and handed power to Putin on New Year’s Eve 1999.
From beginning to end, the operation took three months. This is how the Russian security state shook off the controls of political councils or representative democracy. This is how it thinks and how it acts — then, and now. Blood or war might be required, but controlling information and the national response to that information is what matters. Many Russians, scarred by the unrelenting economic, social, and security hardship of the 1990s, welcomed the rise of the security state, and still widely support it, even as it has hollowed out the Russian economy and civic institutions. Today, as a result, Russia is little more than a ghastly hybrid of an overblown police state and a criminal network with an economy the size of Italy — and the world’s largest nuclear arsenal.
Even Russian policy hands, raised on the Western understanding of traditional power dynamics, find the implications of this hard to understand. This Russia does not aspire to be like us, or to make itself stronger than we are. Rather, its leaders want the West—and specifically NATO and America — to become weaker and more fractured until we are as broken as they perceive themselves to be. No reset can be successful, regardless the personality driving it, because Putin’s Russia requires the United States of America as its enemy.
We can only confront this by fully understanding how the Kremlin sees the world. Its worldview and objectives are made abundantly clear in speeches, op-eds, official policy and national strategy documents, journal articles, interviews, and, in some cases, fiction writing of Russian officials and ideologues. We should understand several things from this material.
First, it is a war. A thing to be won, decisively — not a thing to be negotiated or bargained. It’s all one war: Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, the Baltics, Georgia. It’s what Vladislav Surkov, Putin’s ‘grey cardinal’ and lead propagandist, dubbed ”non-linear war” in his science fiction story “Without Sky,” in 2014.
Second, it’s all one war machine. Military, technological, information, diplomatic, economic, cultural, criminal, and other tools are all controlled by the state and deployed toward one set of strategic objectives. This is the Gerasimov doctrine, penned by Valery Gerasimov, the Russian Chief of the General Staff, in 2013. Political warfare is meant to achieve specific political outcomes favorable to the Kremlin: it is preferred to physical conflict because it is cheap and easy. The Kremlin has many notches in its belt in this category, some of which have been attributed, many likely not. It’s a mistake to see this campaign in the traditional terms of political alliances: rarely has the goal been to install overtly pro-Russian governments. Far more often, the goal is simply to replace Western-style democratic regimes with illiberal, populist, or nationalist ones.
Third, information warfare is not about creating an alternate truth, but eroding our basic ability to distinguish truth at all. It is not “propaganda” as we’ve come to think of it, but the less obvious techniques known in Russia as “active measures” and “reflexive control”. Both are designed to make us, the targets, act against our own best interests.
Fourth, the diplomatic side of this non-linear war isn’t a foreign policy aimed at building a new pro-Russian bloc, Instead, it’s what the Kremlin calls a “multi-vector” foreign policy, undermining the strength of Western institutions by coalescing alternate — ideally temporary and limited — centers of power. Rather than a stable world order undergirded by the U.S. and its allies, the goal is an unstable new world order of “all against all.” The Kremlin has tried to accelerate this process by both inflaming crises that overwhelm the Western response (for example, the migration crisis in Europe, and the war in eastern Ukraine) and by showing superiority in ‘solving’ crises the West could not (for example, bombing Syria into submission, regardless of the cost, to show Russia can impose stability in the Middle East when the West cannot).
This leads to the final point: hard power matters. Russia maintains the second most powerful military in the world, and spends more than 5 percent of its weakened GDP on defense. Russia used military force to invade and occupy Georgian territory in 2008 to disrupt the expansion of NATO, and in 2013 in Ukraine to disrupt the expansion of the EU. They have invested heavily in military reform, new generations of hardware and weapons, and expansive special operations training, much of which debuted in the wars in Ukraine and Syria. There is no denying that Russia is willing to back up its rhetoric and policy with deployed force, and that the rest of the world notices.
The West must accept that Putin has transformed what we see as tremendous weakness into considerable strength. If Russia were a strong economy closely linked to the global system, it would have vulnerabilities to more traditional diplomacy. But in the emerging world order, it is a significant actor – and in the current Russian political landscape, no new sanctions can overcome the defensive, insular war-economy mentality that the Kremlin has built.
***
How did we reach this point? After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Western security and political alliances expanded to fill the zone of instability left behind. The emerging Russian security state could only define this as the strategic advance of an enemy. The 9/11 attacks shattered Western concepts of security and conflict and expanded NATO’s new mission of projecting security. When Putin offered his assistance, we effectively responded “no thanks,” thinking in particular of his bloody, ongoing, scorched-earth war against the Chechens. We did it for the right reasons. Nonetheless, it infuriated Putin. This was the last moment when any real rapprochement with Putin’s Russia was possible.
Since that time, physical warfare has changed in ways that create a new kind of space for Putin to intervene globally. The Obama administration has a deep distaste for official overseas deployments of US troops and the associated political costs. ‘No new wars’ was the oft-repeated mantra — which altered America’s toolbox for, if not the frequency of, foreign interventions. Drone warfare was greatly expanded, as was the reliance on special forces— a politically easy choice due to their diverse capabilities and voluntary career commitment to service. But the actual number of special forces operators is exceedingly small and increasingly exhausted; soldiers deployed in shadow wars and shadow missions have far less protection than troops in traditional ground combat.
As the definitions of war and peace have blurred, creating impossibly vast front lines and impossibly vague boundaries of conflict, Putin has launched a kind of global imperialist insurgency. The Kremlin aggressively promotes an alternate ideological base to expand an illiberal world order in which the rights and freedoms that most Americans feel are essential to democracy don’t necessarily exist. It backs this up with military, economic, cultural and diplomatic resources. Through a combination of leveraging hard power and embracing the role of permanent disruptor — hacker, mercenary, rule-breaker, liar, thief — Putin works to ensure that Russia cannot be excluded from global power.
Putin tries to define recent history as an anomaly — where the world built with American sweat and ingenuity and blood and sacrifice, by the society founded on American exceptionalism, is a thing to be erased and corrected. The Russian version of exceptionalism is not a reflection of aspirational character, but a requirement that Russia remain distinct and apart from the world. Until we understand this, and that America is defined as the glavny protivnik (the ‘main enemy’) of Russia, we will never speak to Putin’s Russia in a language it can understand.
There is less and less to stand against Putin’s campaign of destabilization. It’s been 99 years since America began investing in European security with blood, and sweat, and gold. Two world wars and a long, cold conflict later, we felt secure with the institutional framework of NATO and the EU — secure in the idea that these institutions projected our security and our interests far beyond our shores. The post-WWII liberal world order and its accompanying security architecture ushered in an unparalleled period of growth and peace and prosperity for the US and other transatlantic countries.
I spend most of my time near the Russian frontier, and today that architecture seems like a Kodachrome snapshot from yesteryear. We joke that we yearn for a fight we can win with a gun, because the idea of a physical invasion is actually preferable to the constant uncertainty of economic, information, and political shadow warfare from the Kremlin.
Combatants in these shadow wars bear no designations, and protections against these methods are few. From the front lines, in the absence of the fabric of reassurance woven from our values and principles and shared sacrifice — and in the absence of the moral clarity of purpose derived from “us and them” — civil society is left naked, unarmored. Putin has dictated the mood of the unfolding era — an era of upheaval. This past year marks the arrival of this mood in American politics, whether Americans deny it or not. The example of Eastern Europe suggests that without renewed vision and purpose, and without strong alliances to amplify our defense and preserve our legacy, America too will find itself unanchored, adrift in currents stirred and guided by the Kremlin.
President-elect Trump harnessed this energy of upheaval to win the American presidency — a victory that itself was a symptom of the breakdown of the post-WWII order, in which institutional trust has eroded and unexpected outcomes have become the order of the day. Now it is his responsibility to define what comes next — or else explain to Americans, who want to be great again, why everything they’ve invested in and sacrificed for over the past century was ultimately for nothing.
As Obama did, Trump has already made the first mistake in negotiating with the Russians: telling them that there is anything to negotiate. Trump likes to discuss Putin’s strengths. He should also understand that much of it is smoke and mirrors. A renewed approach to dealing with Putin’s Russia should begin by addressing the tactics of Russia’s new warfare from the perspective of strength.
We have to accept we’re in a war and that we have a lot to lose. We need to look at this war differently, both geographically and strategically. For example, it’s hard to understand Ukraine and Syria as two fronts in the same conflict when we never evaluate them together with Moscow in the center of the map, as Russia does. We also need a new national security concept that adds a new strategic framework, connects all our resources, and allows us to better evaluate and respond to Gerasimov-style warfare: we have to learn to fight their one war machine with a unified machine of our own. This will also strengthen and quicken decisionmaking on critical issues in the US — something we will also need to replicate within NATO.
Exposing how the Kremlin’s political and information warfare works is a critical component of this strategy, as is acting to constrain it. We must (re)accept the notion that hard power is the guarantor of any international system: security is a precondition for anything (everything) else. That the projection of our values has tracked with and been amplified by force projection is no accident. Human freedom requires security. NATO has been the force projection of our values. It hasn’t just moved the theoretical line of conflict further forward: the force multiplication and value transference has enhanced our security. This is far cheaper, and far stronger, than trying to do this ourselves.
It’s also important to acknowledge that a more isolated, more nationalist America helps Putin in his objectives even while it compromises our own. We need to accept that America was part of, and needs to be part of, a global system — and that this system is better, cheaper, and more powerful than any imagined alternatives. For many years, the United States has been the steel in the framework that holds everything together; this is what we mean by ‘world order’ and ‘security architecture,’ two concepts that few politicians try to discuss seriously with the electorate.
Taken together, these steps would be a critical realignment to our strategic thinking and internal operations, and would allow us to plow through this era of upheaval with greater certainty and for greater benefit to the American people.
***
In an era increasingly cynical about American ideals, and skeptical about intervention abroad, how can the US build support for a new, more muscular global resistance to what Russia is trying to do?
We already have one model: the Cold War. Putin and his minions have spent the past 15 years ranting about how the West (specifically NATO) wants a new Cold War. By doing so, they have been conditioning us to deny it, and made us do it so continually that we have convinced ourselves it is true. This is classic reflexive control.
The truth is that fighting a new Cold War would be in America’s interest. Russia teaches us a very important lesson: losing an ideological war without a fight will ruin you as a nation. The fight is the American way. When we stop fighting for our ideals abroad, we stop fighting for them at home. We won the last Cold War. We will win the next one too. When it’s us against them, they were, and are, never going to be the winner. But when it's “all against all” — a “multipolar” world with “multi-vector” policy, a state of shifting alliances and permanent instability — Russia, with a centrally controlled, tiny command structure unaccountable for its actions in any way, still has a chance for a seat at the table. They pursue the multipolar world not because it is right or just, but because it is the only world in which they can continue to matter without pushing a nuclear launch sequence.
We must understand this, and focus now, as Putin does, on shaping the world that comes next and defining what our place is in it. Trump has shown willingness to reevaluate his positions and change course — except on issues relating to Russia, and strengthening alliances with the Kremlin’s global illiberal allies. By doing so, he is making himself a footnote to Putin’s chapter of history — little more than another of Putin’s hollow men.
Trump should understand, regardless of what the Russians did in our elections, he already won the prize. It won’t be taken away just because he admits the Russians intervened. Taking away the secrecy of Russian actions — exposing whatever it was they did, to everyone — is the only way to take away their power over the US political system and to free himself from their strings, as well. Whatever Putin’s gambit was, Trump is the one who can make sure that Putin doesn’t win.
Trump should set the unpredictable course and become the champion against the most toxic, ambitious regime of the modern world. Rebuilding American power — based on the values of liberal democracy — is the only escape from Putin’s corrosive vision of a world at permanent war. We need a new united front. But we must be the center of it. It matters deeply that the current generation of global revolutionaries and reformers, like my Ukrainian friend, no longer see themselves as fighting for us or our ideals.
In a strange way, Trump could be just crazy enough — enough of a outlier and a rogue — to expose what Putin’s Russia is and end the current cycle of upheaval and decline. This requires non-standard thinking and leadership — but also purpose, and commitment, and values. It requires faith — for and from the American people and American institutions. And it requires the existence of truth.
The alternative is accepting that our history and our nation were, in fact, not the beginning of a better — greater — world, but the long anomaly in a tyrannous and dark one.
Document linked discusses the hacking and some ways to mitigate against future attempts.
Based on this document, it isn't really specific has to who was compromised. What this report does say, it's that the hackers are affiliated with RIS.
We're left to assume that Podesta was a victim of the phishing tactic, but this report implied that many other government workers were victimized as well.
It's not a well constructed forensic report.
Also, the mitigation strategies are basic IT Security's best practice methodologies that's been around for ever...
Document linked discusses the hacking and some ways to mitigate against future attempts.
Based on this document, it isn't really specific has to who was compromised. What this report does say, it's that the hackers are affiliated with RIS.
We're left to assume that Podesta was a victim of the phishing tactic, but this report implied that many other government workers were victimized as well.
It's not a well constructed forensic report.
Also, the mitigation strategies are basic IT Security's best practice methodologies that's been around for ever...
The document purposely does not mention specific parties or individuals. It is attempting to be apolitical. The intent of the document was to, in very basic terms, describe HOW the organizations did what they did.
I don't have the link to the accompanying CSV and STIX files, but it gives IOCs of the actors and IPs to add to watch lists. Yeah, basic stuff but show me where else that basic stuff is applied to these particular groups.
Document linked discusses the hacking and some ways to mitigate against future attempts.
Based on this document, it isn't really specific has to who was compromised. What this report does say, it's that the hackers are affiliated with RIS.
We're left to assume that Podesta was a victim of the phishing tactic, but this report implied that many other government workers were victimized as well.
It's not a well constructed forensic report.
Also, the mitigation strategies are basic IT Security's best practice methodologies that's been around for ever...
The document purposely does not mention specific parties or individuals. It is attempting to be apolitical. The intent of the document was to, in very basic terms, describe HOW the organizations did what they did.
I don't have the link to the accompanying CSV and STIX files, but it gives IOCs of the actors and IPs to add to watch lists. Yeah, basic stuff but show me where else that basic stuff is applied to these particular groups.
That's the crux of my argument.
It shouldn't be apolitical in the sense that it may be politically inconvienent. (meaning, how long can the WH keep the 'Russian hackedthe elections' narrative???)
Furthermore, what's missing from this JAR report is the DNC leak/hack itself... there's nothing about that in this report.
Addendum: This also highlights that there's gotta be a better way to ensure/enforce proper IT security with our nation's IT infrastructure...
So, what this says is that it is understood by the IC that these payloads are RIS connected. So, we can assume that the Phishing scam that Podesta fell for *is* RIS conducted or actors linked to RIS.
Do you know where the some sort of information is available for the DNC hack/leak (or even the RNC attempt?).
Clinton was an awful candidate, who was always going to lose IMO. Yes, I admit that I predicted a Clinton victory months ago, but after Brexit, I knew the game was up for Clinton and adjusted my opinion accordingly.
America is ready for a female Commander in Chief, but it's any woman but Clinton is what my reading is of the situation.
That's a pretty weird conclusion after Clinton won the popular vote and lost a razor-close election.
Less than 100k votes out of 120 million going the other way (or simply staying home on election day) in a few key-states and HRC win the election. Hardly a candidate who was "always going to lose".
National popular vote is meaningless.
What was gobsmackingly crazy was that Clinton lost states that she thought were safely in her corner.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's meaningless insofar as the it doesn't gain you any electoral seats. I only brought it up because I believe it further illustrates the closeness of the election and that it's weird to claim Clinton was doomed from the get-go. There were obviously enough people willing to vote for her. Some of them were just living in the wrong states.
Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all flipped compared to the last election and were presumably believed pretty safe by the Clinton team. Margin of victory in those three states were less than 10k, 23k, 45k voters respectively. If a combined 80k republican voters in these states abstain from voting for president of votes for a third party candidate (i.e they don't even need to flip to Clinton) that's 46 electoral votes swung, taking Trump down to 260 electors and Clinton up to 278.
A victory that's completely turned around by a reduction of 80k votes in three key states, out of 120 million is hardly something that was a sure thing or something that could be confidently predicted.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
But she lost to Trump. How bad do you have to be to lose to Trump, regardless of what system was used?
You're moving the goalposts here. What I took exception to were you claiming Clinton was always going to lose this election. While she did lose it against Trump of all people (and thus indeed were a bad candidate), the margin were so thin it could have very well have gone the other way.
It's like if the football world cup final goes into overtime despite loads of scoring opportunities and shots in the frame of the goal to either side and is eventually decided on penalties. You can hardly claim that it was obvious that the losers of the penalty shootout was always going to lose the match. Had they simply been slightly more effective on one of their chances during the play they'd have won. Claiming otherwise is rewriting the narrative in hindsight to fit a constructed narrative.
As I said above. 80k republicans in a certain three states decides to not vote for trump and Clinton takes the election. It was that close.
I thought I posted some articles about how Cozybear and the other group were known to work with but not necessarily for RIS. They have ties to GRU for example, but no one has published any proof they conducted this operation on behalf of RIS (any of the organizations making up RIS). Actors linked to RIS seems pretty certain. It also seems certain RNC was targeted in the same way but did not fall prey at nearly the same level.
I just wish the gov't had gotten as upset at the OPM hack that stole millions of records, to include the security clearance records of both my wife and I. It would seem a hack of an actual gov't agency by China would merit at least the same level of sanctions the hacking of a private agency like the DNC got. The info gleaned from that hack allows a lot of damage via decent link analysis; gives military assignments/units/schooling for all troops with a clearance for example. That allows a lot of puzzle pieces to connect for a variety reasons. Not to mention SSNs of family members and so on given away... fething gak storm.
Our governments computer and security protocols and software are in long need of an update. Major corporations have better defense than most of our government organizations. And Congress doesn't do gak about it, nothing ever came from that massive leak of personal data of government workers (which my father got a single email telling him his information may have been compromised, and than nothing else). And I seriously doubt Trump, who doesn't use computers and refuses to communicate with e-mail, will do anything about. But this is what happens when the median age of those in power is 70, and they refuse to learn.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Our governments computer and security protocols and software are in long need of an update. Major corporations have better defense than most of our government organizations. And Congress doesn't do gak about it, nothing ever came from that massive leak of personal data of government workers (which my father got a single email telling him his information may have been compromised, and than nothing else). And I seriously doubt Trump, who doesn't use computers and refuses to communicate with e-mail, will do anything about. But this is what happens when the median age of those in power is 70, and they refuse to learn.
Not only the protocols, the hardware too. You have military computer systems which control nuclear weapon systems which are still using eight inch floppy disks, for goodness sake
The DNC could have avoided the hacking problem by, you know... Not being two-faced donkey-caves. If they operated on some basic level of decency and transparency there wouldn't be any dirty laundry to reveal. I know that's unrealistic but we should remember that there's a decent chunk to blame to spread elsewhere.
NinthMusketeer wrote: The DNC could have avoided the hacking problem by, you know... Not being two-faced donkey-caves. If they operated on some basic level of decency and transparency there wouldn't be any dirty laundry to reveal. I know that's unrealistic but we should remember that there's a decent chunk to blame to spread elsewhere.
I'd say it's that they are politicians, but it's even worse they are political operatives. I know people go on about "don't trust politicians" or "politicians are all lairs", but groups like the DNC and RNC really exemplify it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, Trump promised us a "big reveal" about hacking "Tuesday or Wednesday". Who wants to take bets on what nonsense it will be?
"Under an amendment the two GOP lawmakers filed on Tuesday, House members would be allowed to serve three two-year terms and senators would be able to serve two six-year terms. "
Somehow I don't think the house it going to OK that, and all the senators and reps that are already over the line are definitely going to vote it down. But I'm pretty sure Cruz knows this, and is just trying to keep his name in the public psyke for an eventual presidential run.
I'm not wholey opposed to term limits, but these ones are far too short, especially for the house. We don't want it to turn into the Michigan legislature, which would happen under these rules.
I'm mystified by people believe that politics should be done by amateurs. Politicking is a skill set like any other. I want the people that make up my government to be really good at it, especially at an international level.
WASHINGTON — Bills to block or roll back federal regulations, initially conceived by Republicans as a check on President Obama’s power, are high on the agenda when the House returns to Washington this week and the changes could become reality shortly after the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.
The 115th Congress begins Tuesday with a Republican majority in the House and Senate preparing for the arrival of a Republican president for the first time in eight years.
The House is expected to take up two bills — the Midnight Rules Act and the REINS Act (which stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) — that passed on largely party-line votes in the 114th, 113th and 112th congressional sessions, but died in the Senate. The REINS Act would require that before any new major regulation could take effect, the House and Senate would have to pass a resolution of approval. The Midnight Rules Act would let Congress invalidate rules in bulk that passed in the final year of a presidential term.
The House is also expected to consider a nonbinding resolution disapproving the Dec. 23 United Nations Security Council vote that called on Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank. The United States abstained in that vote, allowing the measure to pass.
Regulations are adopted by the executive branch to implement laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. Congress already has the power to repeal laws by passing a new bill and getting the president to sign it. And under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress can pass a resolution of disapproval to block a rule if it acts within 60 days of notification from an agency.
The new legislation would further expand congressional power by preventing an administration from implementing rules without another vote. Under the REINS act, a proposed regulation would be deemed rejected if Congress was in session for 70 days and took no action. The bill allows for a major rule to take effect for a single 90-day period if the president determined it was necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.
“Our federal agencies are out of control, and Congress is partly to blame for that,” the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, said in a release last week. “We’ve ceded our legislative responsibility to agencies that were never intended to make laws, and the result has been redundant, counterproductive rules that have massive impacts on our economy.”
When the House considered the Midnight Rules Act in November, the White House said it would recommend that Obama veto it. Trump, however, has taken a page from the conservative playbook and blamed government regulations for holding down economic growth and job creation. He has pledged to eliminate two regulations for every new one adopted during his presidency.
The REINS Act and Midnight Rules Act are aimed at major rules. An April 2015 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office said are those that meet one of these conditions: an economic impact of more than $100 million; cause significant price increases for consumers, industries, geographic regions or state or local governments; or have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity or foreign competition.
The CBO said that over the past five years, 82 major rules have been adopted each year, on average. Blocking such regulations in the future would have “a significant effect on direct spending,” but CBO could not predict whether the effect would be positive or negative because it could not say whether Congress would block regulations to increase or decrease spending.
Before the House voted on the final REINS Act in 2015, Democrats unsuccessfully tried to include amendments that would exempt rules that affected veterans health care, nuclear reactor safety, transportation of hazardous materials, and the safety of products used or consumed by children under the age of 2. Each attempt was rejected in a largely party-line vote.
Critics say the changes would endanger the public and worsen gridlock in government.
“Regulations are public protections that are intended to safeguard regular citizens from dealing with unclean air and water, financial crises and unsafe products,” said Lisa Gilbert, director of the CongressWatch program at Public Citizen. “They are intended to protect us, and to do away with them wholesale is an extremely problematic approach.”
Gilbert said that while no one would argue every regulation is perfect, the changes Congress seeks to make would effectively stymie future rulemaking and allow Congress to erase actions the Obama administration took since the summer. She said she hoped there would be enough votes in the Senate to sustain a filibuster on the Midnight Rules bill, but on the REINS Act, “it’s possible there could be a path” for it to pass.
No idea if Trump'll will sign the bill... as it'll potentially reduces his impact...
I'll have some crow to eat if he does sign either one of those...
Nor, it's a given that the Senate Democrats would be on board (the need for 60th vote)... dude... do you wanna rein in the Cheeto Jesus? This is one way, especially if you retake Congress.
If the GOP were to impeach Trump in two years, or if he resigns in two years, then Pence would take over for the final two years of his term. He would then be eligible to run for two terms of his own? So we could have 2 years of Trump followed by 10 years of Pence, in theory at least?
Just wondering, because I wouldn't but it past the GOP to go that route if they think it's a possibility.
d-usa wrote: Quick question regarding the 22nd Amendment:
If the GOP were to impeach Trump in two years, or if he resigns in two years, then Pence would take over for the final two years of his term. He would then be eligible to run for two terms of his own? So we could have 2 years of Trump followed by 10 years of Pence, in theory at least?
Just wondering, because I wouldn't but it past the GOP to go that route if they think it's a possibility.
He'd have to be in office for LESS than two years. (ie, no more than 1 year and 364 days).
But, otherwise, you're correct.
Really confused on why you think the 'GOP' would want to do that tho...
d-usa wrote: Quick question regarding the 22nd Amendment:
If the GOP were to impeach Trump in two years, or if he resigns in two years, then Pence would take over for the final two years of his term. He would then be eligible to run for two terms of his own? So we could have 2 years of Trump followed by 10 years of Pence, in theory at least?
Just wondering, because I wouldn't but it past the GOP to go that route if they think it's a possibility.
He'd have to be in office for LESS than two years. (ie, no more than 1 year and 364 days).
But, otherwise, you're correct.
Really confused on why you think the 'GOP' would want to do that tho...
Because Trump's gonna Trump and can't be controlled by them, and Pence is a poster child for everything the GOP wants in Government and regulations. If they could get rid of Trump to get Pence, while opening the door of a 2.5 term Pence administration, they might be tempted. Especially if Trump keeps up his current actions, which may taint the GOP by association.
d-usa wrote: Quick question regarding the 22nd Amendment:
If the GOP were to impeach Trump in two years, or if he resigns in two years, then Pence would take over for the final two years of his term. He would then be eligible to run for two terms of his own? So we could have 2 years of Trump followed by 10 years of Pence, in theory at least?
Just wondering, because I wouldn't but it past the GOP to go that route if they think it's a possibility.
He'd have to be in office for LESS than two years. (ie, no more than 1 year and 364 days).
But, otherwise, you're correct.
Really confused on why you think the 'GOP' would want to do that tho...
Because Trump's gonna Trump and can't be controlled by them, and Pence is a poster child for everything the GOP wants in Government and regulations. If they could get rid of Trump to get Pence, while opening the door of a 2.5 term Pence administration, they might be tempted. Especially if Trump keeps up his current actions, which may taint the GOP by association.
Cool story.
I think Trump is going to hang in 'cuz he hates losing and he's a big prick.
But, I've been so wrong in this election season, who knows what could happen...
feeder wrote: I'm mystified by people believe that politics should be done by amateurs. Politicking is a skill set like any other. I want the people that make up my government to be really good at it, especially at an international level.
Cincinnattus was usually used as the example of of someone who took power only when he had to and laid it down immediately after the crisis was over.
WASHINGTON — Bills to block or roll back federal regulations, initially conceived by Republicans as a check on President Obama’s power, are high on the agenda when the House returns to Washington this week and the changes could become reality shortly after the inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump.
The 115th Congress begins Tuesday with a Republican majority in the House and Senate preparing for the arrival of a Republican president for the first time in eight years.
The House is expected to take up two bills — the Midnight Rules Act and the REINS Act (which stands for Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) — that passed on largely party-line votes in the 114th, 113th and 112th congressional sessions, but died in the Senate. The REINS Act would require that before any new major regulation could take effect, the House and Senate would have to pass a resolution of approval. The Midnight Rules Act would let Congress invalidate rules in bulk that passed in the final year of a presidential term.
The House is also expected to consider a nonbinding resolution disapproving the Dec. 23 United Nations Security Council vote that called on Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank. The United States abstained in that vote, allowing the measure to pass.
Regulations are adopted by the executive branch to implement laws passed by Congress and signed by the president. Congress already has the power to repeal laws by passing a new bill and getting the president to sign it. And under the 1996 Congressional Review Act, Congress can pass a resolution of disapproval to block a rule if it acts within 60 days of notification from an agency.
The new legislation would further expand congressional power by preventing an administration from implementing rules without another vote. Under the REINS act, a proposed regulation would be deemed rejected if Congress was in session for 70 days and took no action. The bill allows for a major rule to take effect for a single 90-day period if the president determined it was necessary because of an imminent threat to health or safety or other emergency.
“Our federal agencies are out of control, and Congress is partly to blame for that,” the bill’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, said in a release last week. “We’ve ceded our legislative responsibility to agencies that were never intended to make laws, and the result has been redundant, counterproductive rules that have massive impacts on our economy.”
When the House considered the Midnight Rules Act in November, the White House said it would recommend that Obama veto it. Trump, however, has taken a page from the conservative playbook and blamed government regulations for holding down economic growth and job creation. He has pledged to eliminate two regulations for every new one adopted during his presidency.
The REINS Act and Midnight Rules Act are aimed at major rules. An April 2015 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office said are those that meet one of these conditions: an economic impact of more than $100 million; cause significant price increases for consumers, industries, geographic regions or state or local governments; or have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity or foreign competition.
The CBO said that over the past five years, 82 major rules have been adopted each year, on average. Blocking such regulations in the future would have “a significant effect on direct spending,” but CBO could not predict whether the effect would be positive or negative because it could not say whether Congress would block regulations to increase or decrease spending.
Before the House voted on the final REINS Act in 2015, Democrats unsuccessfully tried to include amendments that would exempt rules that affected veterans health care, nuclear reactor safety, transportation of hazardous materials, and the safety of products used or consumed by children under the age of 2. Each attempt was rejected in a largely party-line vote.
Critics say the changes would endanger the public and worsen gridlock in government.
“Regulations are public protections that are intended to safeguard regular citizens from dealing with unclean air and water, financial crises and unsafe products,” said Lisa Gilbert, director of the CongressWatch program at Public Citizen. “They are intended to protect us, and to do away with them wholesale is an extremely problematic approach.”
Gilbert said that while no one would argue every regulation is perfect, the changes Congress seeks to make would effectively stymie future rulemaking and allow Congress to erase actions the Obama administration took since the summer. She said she hoped there would be enough votes in the Senate to sustain a filibuster on the Midnight Rules bill, but on the REINS Act, “it’s possible there could be a path” for it to pass.
No idea if Trump'll will sign the bill... as it'll potentially reduces his impact...
I'll have some crow to eat if he does sign either one of those...
Nor, it's a given that the Senate Democrats would be on board (the need for 60th vote)... dude... do you wanna rein in the Cheeto Jesus? This is one way, especially if you retake Congress.
It's just classic republican "regulation is bad because reaons" gak. This isn't exactly anything knew. Same gak, different label.
I'm wondering when they'll feth over the country again by putting in loopholes for the oil and gas industry in the clean water act. Again.
So what is the argument in support of a presidents final term being any different to any of their others which requires it to need different rules when it comes to overruling things passed by the president within that year?
A Town Called Malus wrote: So what is the argument in support of a presidents final term being any different to any of their others which requires it to need different rules when it comes to overruling things passed by the president within that year?
"Obama did bad things and we want to repeal it all". It's the same reasoning for why the president is not allowed to nominate supreme court justices in an election year (unless he's Saint Reagan), presidents serve three-year terms and the fourth year is subject to being approved by the upcoming election.
"Under an amendment the two GOP lawmakers filed on Tuesday, House members would be allowed to serve three two-year terms and senators would be able to serve two six-year terms. "
Somehow I don't think the house it going to OK that, and all the senators and reps that are already over the line are definitely going to vote it down. But I'm pretty sure Cruz knows this, and is just trying to keep his name in the public psyke for an eventual presidential run.
I'm not wholey opposed to term limits, but these ones are far too short, especially for the house. We don't want it to turn into the Michigan legislature, which would happen under these rules.
If anything, showing the names of all the legislators who voted it down would work wonders for making sure those kinds of people don't get reelected. It'd also be the same if one of the legislators voted to reduce congressional pay. THAT would be a fast way to "drain the swamp" right there: submit a bill that lowers congressional pay or forces them to choose either their congressional pay or their private sector interests ie. lawfirms and such. Vote out anybody who votes "no" to that.
"Under an amendment the two GOP lawmakers filed on Tuesday, House members would be allowed to serve three two-year terms and senators would be able to serve two six-year terms. "
Somehow I don't think the house it going to OK that, and all the senators and reps that are already over the line are definitely going to vote it down. But I'm pretty sure Cruz knows this, and is just trying to keep his name in the public psyke for an eventual presidential run.
I'm not wholey opposed to term limits, but these ones are far too short, especially for the house. We don't want it to turn into the Michigan legislature, which would happen under these rules.
If anything, showing the names of all the legislators who voted it down would work wonders for making sure those kinds of people don't get reelected. It'd also be the same if one of the legislators voted to reduce congressional pay. THAT would be a fast way to "drain the swamp" right there: submit a bill that lowers congressional pay or forces them to choose either their congressional pay or their private sector interests ie. lawfirms and such. Vote out anybody who votes "no" to that.
It wouldn't work. Over here we had our MPsget a 10% pay rise from a review by an independent body and they then voted to increase their pay by 1.3% on top of that 10% increase only 9 months later. Meanwhile all other public sector workers (nurses, police, firefighters, doctors, civil servants, teachers etc.) had their pay capped at a 1% increase per year. They did not get voted out.
