Politics - USA

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
I don't understand why they are filibustering instead of working with Congress to introduce legislation. I mean, it's literally the guys who pass laws complaining they can't pass laws. It's a little mystifying.

I can understand why Obama is frustrated - he can't sign what he doesn't get, but the Senate doesn't seem like they have as much of a leg to stand on.

I'm having problems finding what the Democrats want to pass... where's the bill?

The one last year had some language about both the 'no-fly' & 'terrorist watch' lists... but, it didn't pass because there were no due process previsions.

**d-usa**

So top Republicans are continuing to chastise Trump, and Trump is telling Republican leaders to shut up and threatening to run Independent?

What a lovely mess we got, they really want to have the opportunity to impeach President Clinton I think.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
So top Republicans are continuing to chastise Trump, and Trump is telling Republican leaders to shut up and threatening to run Independent?

Doooooooooo it Trump!

What a lovely mess we got, they really want to have the opportunity to impeach President Clinton I think.

I'll give HRC till midterm.

**d-usa**

Why join #TeamTrump when you can join #TeamClinton?

You can't impeach her, if you don't elect her!

**Dreadwinter**

d-usa wrote:
Why join #TeamTrump when you can join #TeamClinton?

You can't impeach her, if you don't elect her!

Because the only way we are truly going to get a real Warhammer 40k Universe is if we elect the one true God Emperor!

#ForeverTrump /s

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
Why join #TeamTrump when you can join #TeamClinton?

You can't impeach her, if you don't elect her!

I'm on #TeamJohnson.

**LordofHats**

#IceBearForPresident!

**Ensis Ferrae**

whembly wrote:

d-usa wrote:
Why join #TeamTrump when you can join #TeamClinton?

You can't impeach her, if you don't elect her!

I'm on #TeamJohnson.

To take a quote from Facebook (seriously, it's a page name)

Do you Feel the Johnson??

**reds8n**

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/hackers-just-released-what-appears-be-dncs-trump-opposition-research-file

has what purports to be the hacked Trump files from the Dems.

**Kilkrazy**

There are no real surprises there. The shocking thing is that millins of voters either don't know this stuff or worse, they do know and approve of the man.

**LordofHats**

Gonna be honest. Had no idea opposition research was so intensive XD. They wrote an entire book deal about him

**Kilkrazy**

I wonder if Trump has a similar book on Clinton. That would be inbteresting reading.

**Co'tor Shas**

Dreadwinter wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Why join #TeamTrump when you can join #TeamClinton?

You can't impeach her, if you don't elect her!

Because the only way we are truly going to get a real Warhammer 40k Universe is if we elect the one true God Emperor!

#ForeverTrump /s

Bill and Opus, 2016

Spoiler:

**Rosebuddy**

Kilkrazy wrote:
There are no real surprises there. The shocking thing is that millins of voters either don't know this stuff or worse, they do know and approve of the man.

gaking on Muslims and immigrants has been standard Republican policy for a while now, tho. Same goes for guns and giving money to the rich. Frankly that last part is official Democratic policy, too. The fething Clinton campaign saying that Trump's foreign policy would make the US an "enemy of the world" is similarly hilarious. She's all about wars.

If this is the heaviest thing they can slam Trump with then Clinton is going to have a very tough road ahead of her. I've read more convincing middle school book reports.

**Kilkrazy**

Are you saying it's wrong?

**Goliath**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I wonder if Trump has a similar book on Clinton. That would be inbteresting reading.

Of course he does. He has the best books; just the best. He has books with things you've never even heard of! I tell you, the attacks in his books are tremendous. just tremendous. Nothing like those weak books Clinton has, Trump's books are much better than hers. Just you see. When he shows you his books, you'll be amazed at what's in them, just amazed.

**Rosebuddy**

I'm just saying that it isn't very shocking that Trump has supporters when many of his positions are standard Republican fare. That's a very bad thing but also something that politics for the past decades have been building up to.

Basically I have a very grim view of things.

**Prestor Jon**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Are you saying it's wrong?

He makes a valid point. It's difficult for Clinton to say that Trump will hurt the country with his foreign policy positions when Clinton voted in favor of invading Iraq and while she was SecState Egypt fell apart, we attacked Libya and Yemen. Did Clinton accomplish anything while SecState to make the ME better or make the US safer or make the US more respected in the ME? What is Clinton's ME policy that is going to make things better?

A lot of the attacks Clinton could launch at Trump can very easily bommerang back at her.

**Kilkrazy**

Here is Clinton's speech in the Senate preceding her vote for war on Iraq. (From Snopes.com. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-iraq-vote-bribe/ )

"The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or "with any allies we can muster." Such a course, she said, "is fraught with danger," in part because "it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us ... This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction ... My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose." A vote for the resolution, she argued, "is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort." "

It's hardly warmongering.

**Prestor Jon**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Here is Clinton's speech in the Senate preceding her vote for war on Iraq. (From Snopes.com. http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-iraq-vote-bribe/ )

"The evidence is clear. On Oct. 10, 2002, during the Senate debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, Clinton rose to express her highly qualified support. First, though, she criticized the idea of attacking Saddam then and there, either alone or "with any allies we can muster." Such a course, she said, "is fraught with danger," in part because "it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us ... This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction ... My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose." A vote for the resolution, she argued, "is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort." "

It's hardly warmongering.

I never called it war mongering, I said it makes it difficult for her to label Trump as a candidate that will damage the US standing in the ME and make America less safe. The Iraq War + Arab Spring + Libya + Yemen all happened while Clinton was either a senator or SecState and it can be argued that none of it has benefited the US or the ME. If Clinton wants to highlight Trump's rhetoric on foreign policy she needs to be prepared to defend her own foreign policy record that isn't unblemished.

**Rosebuddy**

It isn't just the invasion of Iraq, she has consistently supported using greater military power. It's one of her staples. You can trust her to adamantly refuse to say that the US won't invade a place.

**Kilkrazy**

Clinton probably will concentrate on Trump's issues as a liar, racist bigot and serial failure in business (four bankruptcies, Trump Uni etc.)

On foreign policy she will just paint him as naive and completely inexperienced.

**Prestor Jon**

Kilkrazy wrote:

Clinton probably will concentrate on Trump's issues as a liar, racist bigot and serial failure in business (four bankruptcies, Trump Uni etc.)

On foreign policy she will just paint him as naive and completely inexperienced.

That's also something that can bounce back on HRC.

Based on what happened the last time Hillary Clinton ran for President, we should expect that at some point Black people will get thrown under the bus again, especially if it helps Clinton gain or maintain power.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rucker/can-black-people-trust-hillary_b_9312004.html

A series of comments from Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, her husband and her supporters are spurring a racial backlash and adding a divisive edge to the presidential primary as the candidates head south to heavily African-American South Carolina.

The comments, which ranged from the New York senator appearing to diminish the role of Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement — an aide later said she misspoke — to Bill Clinton dismissing Sen. Barack Obama’s image in the media as a “fairy tale” — generated outrage on black radio, black blogs and cable television. And now they've drawn the attention of prominent African-American politicians.

: http://www.politico.com/story/2008/01/racial-tensions-roil-democratic-race-007845#ixzz4BkjJdj3v

**Kilkrazy**

I don't think it will make much difference. Those articles are pretty insubstantial compared with Trump's longterm history.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-racist-meme/

http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/

**whembly**

Holy. Fething. Gak!
http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-manchin-due-process-gun-control-2016-6

A US senator bemoaned Thursday morning that the constitutional right to due process "is what's killing us right now."

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that the right to due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, had made it difficult to pass gun-control legislation denying those on the FBI's terror watch list the ability to purchase a firearm.

"The firewall we have right now is due process," the West Virginia senator said. "It's all due process."

.@Sen_JoeManchin: Due process is what's killing us right now https://t.co/OTf9LnxHXZ

— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) June 16, 2016

In the aftermath of the Orlando terror attack, which claimed the lives of 49 people, Democrats have renewed calls for legislation aimed at blocking individuals on the terror watch list from being able to buy a gun. Republicans have argued against such legislation, contending it would be wrong to strip citizens of their Second Amendment right without being convicted of a crime.

Manchin noted that the FBI "did everything they were supposed to do," but had "no way" of blocking the Orlando attacker from purchasing a firearm. The bureau conducted two investigations into the shooter, 29-year-old Omar Mateen, but closed both after determining he was not a threat.

"There was no way to do that," he said.

The senator floated the idea of enacting a five-year cooling period, something he said could perhaps garner bipartisan support.

"So can't we say that if a person is under suspicion, there should be a five-year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits?" he asked. "Maybe we can come to that kind of an agreement."

He added: "But due process is what's killing us right now."

**Prestor Jon**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think it will make much difference. Those articles are pretty insubstantial compared with Trump's longterm history.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-racist-meme/

http://fortune.com/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/

I agree with you point on the substance of the allegations but there's plenty of stuff in articles from places like HuffPo and Politico to put in negative campaign ads. It's not like truth is very important in political campaigns, it's all about perception.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:
Holy. Fething. Gak!
http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-manchin-due-process-gun-control-2016-6

A US senator bemoaned Thursday morning that the constitutional right to due process "is what's killing us right now."

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that the right to due process, guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, had made it difficult to pass gun-control legislation denying those on the FBI's terror watch list the ability to purchase a firearm.

"The firewall we have right now is due process," the West Virginia senator said. "It's all due process."

.@Sen_JoeManchin: Due process is what's killing us right now https://t.co/OTf9LnxHXZ

— Morning Joe (@Morning_Joe) June 16, 2016

In the aftermath of the Orlando terror attack, which claimed the lives of 49 people, Democrats have renewed calls for legislation aimed at blocking individuals on the terror watch list from being able to buy a gun. Republicans have argued against such legislation, contending it would be wrong to strip citizens of their Second Amendment right without being convicted of a crime.

Manchin noted that the FBI "did everything they were supposed to do," but had "no way" of blocking the Orlando attacker from purchasing a firearm. The bureau conducted two investigations into the shooter, 29-year-old Omar Mateen, but closed both after determining he was not a threat.

"There was no way to do that," he said.

The senator floated the idea of enacting a five-year cooling period, something he said could perhaps garner bipartisan support.

"So can't we say that if a person is under suspicion, there should be a five-year period of time that we have to see if good behavior, if this person continues the same traits?" he asked. "Maybe we can come to that kind of an agreement."

He added: "But due process is what's killing us right now."

They're doing it backwards to boot. You're entitled to due process BEFORE the government places you on an arbitrary watch list not after. The government doesn't get to put you on a super secret list without telling you that you're on it or why you're on it and then take away your rights because you're on it but give you some kind of appeal process once you find out that your rights have been revoked. If the government wants to punish you they have to come after you in the open and respect your presumptive innoncence and right to due process.

Plus, the whole idea is fething insane. The FBI investigated the guy TWICE and both times determined HE WASN"T A THREAT. If the FBI says you're not a threat then there's no reason to put you on a list or take away your rights. Either there was some information that the FBI missed that would have provided cause to charge him with something or he didn't belong on any list. Why would people who are investigated and cleared by the FBI deserve to be punished just for being investigated?

**whembly**

Prestor Jon wrote:

They're doing it backwards to boot. You're entitled to due process BEFORE the government places you on an arbitrary watch list not after. The government doesn't get to put you on a super secret list without telling you that you're on it or why you're on it and then take away your rights because you're on it but give you some kind of appeal process once you find out that your rights have been revoked. If the government wants to punish you they have to come after you in the open and respect your presumptive innoncence and right to due process.

Plus, the whole idea is fething insane. The FBI investigated the guy TWICE and both times determined HE WASN"T A THREAT. If the FBI says you're not a threat then there's no reason to put you on a list or take away your rights. Either there was some information that the FBI missed that would have provided cause to charge him with something or he didn't belong on any list. Why would people who are investigated and cleared by the FBI deserve to be punished just for being investigated?

Exactamundo...

That's like saying Hillary Clinton should legally be disqualified for public office since the FBI is investigating her...

**Kilkrazy**

What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

**whembly**

Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

**feeder**

whembly wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
What's happened in the gun control situation in the USA is that anti-control people are so desperate to stop any controls that pro-control people are desperate to get any kind of control into action.

Then you end up with these stupid wrangles about having a pistol grip on the forestock of a shotgun, something that makes practically no real difference either way, and the real facts get ignored.

What real facts are getting ignored?

Real Fact: Owning a gun does not make you safer.