This thread is for discussing news items specifically relevant to US politics, especially the 2016 Presidential Election. Politics is a wide-ranging subject. But it does not cover anything and everything. If you have a question about whether a topic is best discussed here or in its own thread, please don't hesitate to send me a PM.
Keep in mind that Rule Number Two is Stay On Topic - and this applies even in the Off Topic Sub-Forum.
And please use the modalert system for reporting off-topic posts rather than responding to them and therefore providing the derailment assist. Thanks in advance!
For the TL;DR crowd: basically, Clinton has received some 20+ million bucks from "Wall Street" and has campaign promises to end such huge sums of money in political donations, but why should we believe her?
We shouldn't. No candidate short of Bernie is going to run on real campaign finance reform, and no Congress is going to support such an initiative unless campaign finance reform becomes the difference between being elected and not being elected, which isn't happening any time soon.
Granted;
As others have said, what does the financial district think giving such a massive amount of money to Clinton will buy them? If she claims that she won’t be swayed by generous donations, why would they bother?
Is a completely false assumption. Campaign finance can be directly correlated to votes. Being able to fund a campaign, put out ads, make public appearances, buy talented organizers, etc. is a big part of winning. Giving money to a candidate is not just about getting "favors" but about getting the person you want elected elected. If corporations think Trump is too toxic, and Bernie is too anti-them, then the only real recourse they have is to throw everything at Clinton and hope the money translates into a win. Maybe she won't give them favors, but if the alternatives are worse...
Is a completely false assumption. Campaign finance can be directly correlated to votes. Being able to fund a campaign, put out ads, make public appearances, buy talented organizers, etc. is a big part of winning. Giving money to a candidate is not just about getting "favors" but about getting the person you want elected elected. If corporations think Trump is too toxic, and Bernie is too anti-them, then the only real recourse they have is to throw everything at Clinton and hope the money translates into a win. Maybe she won't give them favors, but if the alternatives are worse...
From an academic sense, I agree with you... But from what clickbait articles that are surfacing now (such as Verizon "donating" 1.2 billion over the course of several years, and in that same time span, getting tax breaks worth 10s of billions) show that there does seem to be a suspicious level of tit-for-tat giving.
If it were so simple, then no one would need a Lobby to advocate for them in government, yet everyone has one and actively lobbies. It looks bad yes, and people are right to notice I think. It is however important to remember that it's not that simple.
LordofHats wrote: If it were so simple, then no one would need a Lobby to advocate for them in government, yet everyone has one and actively lobbies. It looks bad yes, and people are right to notice I think. It is however important to remember that it's not that simple.
From the standpoint of something like Sprint vs. Verizon, it is that simple. But you are right that it isn't simple. I think part of the problem, and one that Sanders was trying to address was that in having this huge, professional lobbying apparatus in the country, those of us nowhere near the top don't really have a voice for our actual concerns. I mean, sure, petition.whitehouse.gov or whatever the website is, is nice and all... but how many people actually use it? IIRC, the "Death Star" petition is about the only one that I've ever heard of coming from that website, that the president has publicly commented on. Naturally, I'm not suggesting that the POTUS needs to publicly comment on every single petition that meets his viewing criteria, but if it's on an issue that would require actual debates and writing of new laws, it might be nice for the people to hear him/her say, "I saw this petition asking for the monday after the Superbowl to be named a national holiday... I gotcha, and we're gonna work on it, figure something out"
So, something im seeing among my Facebook Feed.
People Writing Bernie Sanders in. Now Im a realist and I know he will now not be president.
But I think that is how Trump might win, because the base for democrats is splitting.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, something im seeing among my Facebook Feed.
People Writing Bernie Sanders in. Now Im a realist and I know he will now not be president.
But I think that is how Trump might win, because the base for democrats is splitting.
The base for both parties is. I'd expect the Libertarian party to see it's biggest turn out ever this year.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, something im seeing among my Facebook Feed.
People Writing Bernie Sanders in. Now Im a realist and I know he will now not be president.
But I think that is how Trump might win, because the base for democrats is splitting.
The D base is a lot less split than the R party right now. Clinton will not get a lot of the younger Sanders crowd, but frankly, she was not going to get those votes anyway because that demographic typically does not turn out on election day. Obama got a much better than average turn out on 2008, but it was already going back down in 2012. Sanders may have been able to get another uptick in their participation, but Clinton never was.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, something im seeing among my Facebook Feed.
People Writing Bernie Sanders in. Now Im a realist and I know he will now not be president.
But I think that is how Trump might win, because the base for democrats is splitting.
The base for both parties is. I'd expect the Libertarian party to see it's biggest turn out ever this year.
I agree with this... If these assessments are accurate (that some Left folks are planning on voting Sanders, regardless, and some Right folks are gonna vote Libertarian or write-in Cruz or whatever) then I think that the issue will come down to who turns out in greater numbers.
If Libertarians turn out in greater numbers, then HRC will likely be president, if Sanders' supporters turn out in greater numbers, it may be a toss-up, but the probability of a Trump presidency is greatly increased.
Or we could see an electoral college map that looks akin to the 1860 map, when Lincoln got elected, which would be very interesting to me.
LordofHats wrote: If it were so simple, then no one would need a Lobby to advocate for them in government, yet everyone has one and actively lobbies. It looks bad yes, and people are right to notice I think. It is however important to remember that it's not that simple.
From the standpoint of something like Sprint vs. Verizon, it is that simple. But you are right that it isn't simple. I think part of the problem, and one that Sanders was trying to address was that in having this huge, professional lobbying apparatus in the country, those of us nowhere near the top don't really have a voice for our actual concerns. I mean, sure, petition.whitehouse.gov or whatever the website is, is nice and all... but how many people actually use it? IIRC, the "Death Star" petition is about the only one that I've ever heard of coming from that website, that the president has publicly commented on. Naturally, I'm not suggesting that the POTUS needs to publicly comment on every single petition that meets his viewing criteria, but if it's on an issue that would require actual debates and writing of new laws, it might be nice for the people to hear him/her say, "I saw this petition asking for the monday after the Superbowl to be named a national holiday... I gotcha, and we're gonna work on it, figure something out"
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, something im seeing among my Facebook Feed.
People Writing Bernie Sanders in. Now Im a realist and I know he will now not be president.
But I think that is how Trump might win, because the base for democrats is splitting.
The base for both parties is. I'd expect the Libertarian party to see it's biggest turn out ever this year.
If the Libertarian party gets 5% of the vote, then I believe they'd qualify for federal funding in 2020, which could be a meaningful start.
Looks like Ryan can't wait to get away from the GOP Presidential Election this year. He probably needs all the energy to fight the mighty power of Palin!
I don't know what Merchants of Doubt is, but the Lobbyist Revolving door refers to the "Revolving Door". This is another case of "it's not really that simple" in that this is usually treated as a tit for tat kind of relationship, which isn't really the case. However it is a relationship that just doesn't look good, and it's one that people should pay a lot of attention to (far more than currently is). A lot of the shadier things in politics end up looking even worse because of this phenomena, and it's basically conspiracy theory fodder.
Ahh gotcha... So to explain a bit... Merchants of Doubt was a documentary about a fairly significant number of lobbyists in key positions (think, Nick Nailor from "Thank You For Smoking" and you get the idea here) and how they literally jumped ship from Tobacco to oil, furniture, cell phones, climate change, etc. And that they are more responsible for the rhetoric of "doubt" that is sent through national and local media outlets. In this case, it isn't a left/right issue, it's an industry/government issue.
As to the revolving door itself... It may not entirely work, but perhaps something as simple as the ethical hiring practices that military members are supposed to adhere to. I'm referring to the policy here where, if in uniform, you oversaw the contract on the F-22 and had intimate knowledge of the program from the military perspective, you couldn't take off the uniform and enter the F-22 project from the civilian side (there's grey area here apparently, in that you can take employment in Lockheed or whoever, you're just supposed to be placed under different projects/areas of the company where you cannot affect outcomes on the project you worked on in the military)
It's not 100% tight, but in laymen's terms, it's what I came up with just now.
I was listening to some political commentators on the radio this morning. They had some interesting opinions and pointed out some interesting facts.
They thought that Hillary would suck up a bit more of the Independent voters. However (and this is interesting) they thought that Trump has the potential to snag a sizable amount of the Bernie Sanders people.
While this sounds slightly ridiculous at first glance, if you look at everyone's stances on certain key issues you will find that Trump is actually more in line with Sanders than Clinton is. The men seem like polar opposites they do share some interesting parallels.
This could make the election exciting, and actually gives me hope that people are paying attention to the issues for once instead of looking for the "R" or "D" next to a name.
While this sounds slightly ridiculous at first glance, if you look at everyone's stances on certain key issues you will find that Trump is actually more in line with Sanders than Clinton is. The men seem like polar opposites they do share some interesting parallels.
I think that does sound ridiculous.... Especially because, I think if you care to look through the old politics thread, you will see that Trump's stances seem to need the caveat of "today." As in, today he's against abortion.... tomorrow he may forget that he said he was against abortion, but now is for it. Obviously, my example is a bit of hyperbole, because I can't recall him saying much on abortion itself.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Somewhat unsurprisingly, the numbers are pretty close to the officer/enlisted ratio listed in their total respondents.
That is a little surprising to me, actually. That officers are more likely to back Clinton seems like a complete reversal from the politics I remember from my not-so-long-in-the-past day.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Somewhat unsurprisingly, the numbers are pretty close to the officer/enlisted ratio listed in their total respondents.
That is a little surprising to me, actually. That officers are more likely to back Clinton seems like a complete reversal from the politics I remember from my not-so-long-in-the-past day.
I choose to blame Army officers.
Lol, I'm saying that less as a statement on military ideology, and more on the "proven" metrics that people with a college education tend to lean more left of center than people with limited education. So, from the standpoint that all military officers must have a college degree, it makes sense.
Also, being that this survey was based on subscribers, and I mentioned this to the wife, the enlisted people who typically subscribed to Army Times or Military Times in general.... tend to be on the higher levels of the Enlisted scale.
I would suspect officers might fall into the category of "doesn't like Clinton, dislikes Trump more." Especially in the Army. That's a demographic that generally likes what would now be called "Establishment Republicanism."
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Lol, I'm saying that less as a statement on military ideology, and more on the "proven" metrics that people with a college education tend to lean more left of center than people with limited education. So, from the standpoint that all military officers must have a college degree, it makes sense.
Also, being that this survey was based on subscribers, and I mentioned this to the wife, the enlisted people who typically subscribed to Army Times or Military Times in general.... tend to be on the higher levels of the Enlisted scale.
That's definitely the trend for the general population, but if memory serves, it's (usually) reversed among military officers in that they tend to lean more heavily conservative than less-likely-to-have-degrees enlisted. I dunno if it's ever been polled at more than an informal level by outlets like Military Times, though, so it could just be bad data that became conventional wisdom.
Purely anecdotal experience, but naval aviation was definitely Republican-heavy, if only because Republicans = more flight time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I would suspect officers might fall into the category of "doesn't like Clinton, dislikes Trump more." Especially in the Army. That's a demographic that generally likes what would now be called "Establishment Republicanism."
There's probably something to that. I don't like Trump, at all, but I will vote for him.
1. I’m seriously thinking about voting for trump, and here is why. I firmly believe that our system of government is deeply flawed, if not completely broken. Yet we still keep voting for the same type of people. If trump wins, there’s a good chance the whole thing will collapse from his absurdity. Then maybe we could start over and build something better that works. A vote for trump is a vote for full system breakdown, which I believe is exactly what we need.
So... he/she's in the Burn It Down™ crowd.
2. So I’ve spent the last 30 years living outside D.C. And at least since the Bush Sr. administration I’ve paid pretty close attention to politics, and have become pretty disillusioned with both parties. Basically as I see it every candidate we get from either side has the same flaws, flaws that Trump, despite being a very flawed individual in his own right, doesn’t share.
First, every politician is a corporate whore. Campaign finance law basically exists to be super muddled, keep out 3rd parties, and disguise where any politicians money is coming from. We legitimately don’t know who our leaders owe favors to, it’s usually a lot of people, and it’s definitely influencing policy. With Trump we know exactly where his money came from, it’s going to be a lot harder for random lobbyist/backer to manipulate Trump. We’ve even seen this reflected in some policy ideas he’s talked about like the changes to the tax code to close loopholes that he knows as well as anyone because he’s used them himself for decades.
Second, if you think about the traits good leaders have had, from a historical figure you admire to a great coach or the boss you really liked, typically those people are straightforward and honest with people, speak their mind and stand up for what they believe in, are open minded but firm in their convictions, and tend to shine when making difficult decisions. I think the traits necessary to be a politician are the opposite of all that. To be a successful politician you have to hide your true thoughts and motives when they’re at all controversial and instead give people what they want, you have to avoid tough decisions like the plague and stand for what no one is opposed to. Just look at political debates, no one answers any questions, they all talk and talk and say nothing. Trump seems to legitimately say what he thinks. He seems honest, even when what he thinks is pretty weird. He legitimately doesn’t care if people aren’t going to like what he has to say. He answers those questions in those debates, it’s pretty refreshing.
I’d actually go so far as to argue that Trump is open minded. He used to be a Democrat, now he’s a Republican, he’s still very liberal on a large number of issues. He was on a Comedy Central roast and was a good sport about it. He’s clearly capable of laughing at himself, which implies he’s aware he may be wrong at times.
I don’t think he’s racist at all, though he’s definitely more worried about terrorism than I feel is warranted. He’s definitely an donkey-cave, but I’m not interested in having him as a friend. George W. seemed like a genuinely nice guy and we invaded two countries, Obama seems like a genuinely nice guy and NSA spying and drone strikes are at an all time high. Maybe being a nice guy isn’t that important to running a country.
Trump has been the victim of gotcha journalism and misquotation or out of context quotation pretty heavily recently, and I think people don’t know what he really stands for. He believes some weird gak, but it’s not all as crazy as it’s made out. For instance his statements that made the front page recently on the internet were wildly misrepresented. He was asked specifically about ISIS’ ability to recruit online and was talking about trying to take steps to limit that. To me it was obvious from what he said that he doesn’t know much about the Internet, but to me what he said about “get with Bill Gates” that was so heavily mocked here was pretty clear in context, that he was saying he wants to meet with experts in the field and see what our options are. As much as it’s been ripped I thought he was making a point mentioning Gates. Trump knows Bill Gates politically, and how liberal he is, and I think was implying it’s a non-partisan issue and showing the angle they’d take, which was what the next line mocking people crying about freedom of speech was about. Trump knows Bill Gates is the last guy on earth who would want to filter the Internet and restrict freedom, that’s the point in dropping his name. I’m far more concerned with the similar statements, from a more informed position, that Hillary and Obama have already made concerning freedoms and spying on the Internet.
This guy/gal is full of Zen...
3. As a legal immigrant I despise illegal immigrants. At worst they should be put at the back of the “queue”. Hillary’s offer to legalize them all is pandering. As a person who grew up in the western world, I respect the rule of law. Philosophically if you have a problem with people cutting in line in front of you at a coffee shop or while merging into traffic or at an amusement park, then you and I are in complete agreement on this topic. Also immigration is a privilege not a right. A huge part of the world wants to get into the US . And the US has historically welcomed these people with open arms. But to demand that you be let in like it is a fundamental right is not fair to the people who live here those who were born here and those who came here legally. The people who are here paid their dues, I don’t think it is unfair to ask the others do too.
One of the smartest things that Trump tapped into is *this* anger.
4. I think the support he has is a symbol of how fed up Americans are with how unbalanced and dishonest the system has gotten. We want politicians who will actually represent the people, not corporate entities. Even if his honesty is ignorant it’s still a change in the direction of having leaders that aren’t completely cynical.
Is this wrong? I mean... Trump's not a politician, but it ain't like he isn't the elite ya know?
5. I fullheartedly support Donald Trump and find him to be the most qualified candidate for the job.
Is he an donkey-cave? Yes. Is he not politically correct? Yes. Everything he says is completely controversial and on the surface it seems like he is totally outrageous.
However, he is the savior in such a corrupt and dishonest system.
Here is a list of things I like about him. Many of them significant and others small.
Our leadership is terrible. We have individuals across the world torturing innocent people and planning to kill thousands of American’s as we speak and nothing is being done about it. He will literally ruin ISIS. He doesn’t want to close Guantanamo because he isn’t an idiot. Constitutional rights don’t apply to terrorists.
He cannot be bought by any private lobbyist group.
He speaks his mind (i.e. no teleprompter and he does not have speeches written for him)
He never EVER apologizes. Idk I personally just kind of like that.
Everyone freaks out because they think he’s a racist. “Oh what he wants to deport 11 million people! What a racist!” “Oh he wants to stop illegal immigration to reduce crime. Racist!” “He wants to temporarily stop people of the islamic faith from coming into America for national security reasons so Congress can figure out issues regarding ISIS. Racist” Please. He’s not actually dumb enough to think he could deport 11 million illegal immigrants, given, they are legally not allowed to be in this country. He uses this classic method of negotiating called ‘anchoring’ as he talks about in his book the Art of the Deal. You want to sell a car for $25000? Ask for $28000 then negotiate down. By asking so much from Congress as to not allow Muslims in and deport 11 million people he will get a better reaction from democrats than by simply asking for a little better regulation of some sort for illegal immigrants and/or Muslims. No one has the right to come into America. We should build a massive wall and allow people to come in legally.
Regarding his statements about Muslims not being allowed to come into America. Yes obviously there is no way of knowing who is Muslim and who isn’t. So the next step is prevent certain regions from coming into the U.S. And Congress LITERALLY JUST DID THAT TUESDAY. If you are from Syria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon I think..? and one or two other countries in the middle east or have been there in the past 5 years you cannot come into the United States without adhering to our “strict” Visa policy (which is a joke, which is why Trump wants to stop it completely). The article is on CNN. The house passed it 407-19. And American intelligence expects that ISIS has the ability to make fake passports to get where they want. So that is really good!/s Also Rand Paul wants to temporarily halt immigration from those countries (a.k.a. Muslims) to get national security concerns worked out as well as Trump. But the media doesn’t talk about that cuz feth Trump amirite? fukin racist lol.
I don’t think people comprehend the fact that 21% of all Muslims in Syria support ISIS? Do people not understand that threat? If I remember correctly from a few recent polls, an average of like 8% of all Muslims in middle eastern countries are chill with ISIS and what they are doing. So I mean while we have millions of people rooting for innocent American’s deaths and tens of thousands of them plotting to kill innocent people across the world we are sitting here freaking out because Trump wants to TEMPORARILY halt Muslim (a.k.a. certain countries) entry into the U.S. Okay. Dude, feth logic!
Almost every single source of media that bashes him has some sort of clickbait headline that Sander’s supporters glance at and don’t even look into the situation. At first I hated Trump for what he was saying about Hispanics and for other BS media reasons. Then I actually listened to him talk and actually saw what he was like. Is he perfect? No. No candidate is though. And no matter what side you are on you absolutely 100% cannot deny that Trump is more genuine and less hitler like to at least to some degree than the media portrays him. If you don’t agree with that, you obviously have only seen headlines of CNN and Huffington Post articles.
Amazing Businessman. I was appalled in the first GOP debate where they questioned his business ability because he purposefully let his companies go bankrupt so he would save money. IN fething 2009. Anyone that says he isn’t a good businessman is ignorant. He has compounded his wealth at 44% since he got his first $1 million from his dad. Way better than some of the best hedge fund managers in the world.
We literally keep losing to everyone (China and other Asian Countries) for Jobs, Production, Trade, and GDP. I am 100% confident that he will make America an economic powerhouse again.
He wants to tax any couple making less than $50,000 per year 0%. Any individual making < $25k per year also 0%.
Simplifying tax code. He wants to make the IRS so much smaller and more simple. It is absurd with what we are dealing with now.
Other candidates suck. I like Bernie’s personality but he is a socialist that thinks the rich are the devil and thinks everyone deserves to have an iPhone, 4 kids, and a 3 story house. And a pussy. Hillary is corrupt as feth. Jeb”!” is a pussy. Ben Carson does not have the capacity as a human being to run a nation of 300 million+ people. Ted Cruz I like just not as much as Trump. Everyone else is irrelevant.
Things I dislike about trump: His environmental stance, Maybe a bit much on being an donkey-cave to people.
lolwut?
6. Frankly, he is possibly the most capable candidate I have seen.
Firstly, he is a strong figure. I’m only 26, but in my entire time voting, and learning about politicians, they have always come off as weak and pathetic. Their game is to make you like them. People rarely came to the table saying what they wanted to do, but they just said sound bites like “We need to save the middle class! Tax breaks for the middle class! Better schools!” When pressured on anything slightly controversial they could crumble and apologize. Trump stands by what he says against great opposition, and Tends to be correct, forcing the media to apologize. This just makes every allegation afterwards seem less credible.
He is very savvy with economics, listen to him speak. https://youtu.be/r-HPlMHnORo?t=86 . He has a good understanding of the economy, the problems that exist within it, and how to utilize the upper class to re-invest in America or face higher taxes. The tax structure he offers up in 91′ seems relevant even today to help alleviate some of the complaints we have about 1%’ers and wall street.
He is loud, and crass, and isn’t intimidated by people telling him to speak a certain way. As a kid raised on the internet, I always took free speech for granted. I could say anything, and everything I wanted on the internet with no fear of repercussions. When I came to the internet I saw a completely open arena where you could talk about anything, have any opinion, and voice yours without fear. Worst case sceneario? you make a new screen name instead of DarkSephirothx1950. As I got older, and the internet got more mainstream, I got more excited that people would join the free thinking, free talking movement, but sadly it slid in the opposite direction. Social media is tied to everything, and if you say the wrong thing it can be met with firm opposition and potentially losing your job. Trump signifies that culture for me at least. We have the first amendment, but it doesn’t mean gak if we don’t have a culture of free speech, and we don’t.
He has the most potential to actually beat Hillary. If he runs as independant it will probably suicide the republican party, they will be split, and hillary gets the white house.
I can’t possibly understand peoples aversion to deporting illegal immigrants besides their feelings. illegal immigrants hurt the lower class the worst, and they are in a bad enough spot as it is. If you are going to break the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences of your actions. If I shot up heroin, I wouldn’t expect any sympathy for my choice to break an established law. These workers come in and take the “undesirable jobs” for low wages. Guess what? When you have an undesirable job, it must be met with compensation equal to what people are willing to do it for. If they want to offer 5$ an hour to pick potatos, and nobody offers to do it, their option is to offer more pay for that work, or not harvest the potatos. Illegal imigration removes low education individuals ability to negotiate their wages. Food prices will increase, but everybody thinks its ridiculous that such hard jobs pay so low anyway.
Sounds like this voter wants an Authoritarian Daddy...
7. I do like the things Trump says about campaign finance, straight calling people like Bush out for being run by his donors. And I think hillary is a robot.
Hillary's a Terminator donchanknow?
8. He isn’t a pandering politician. He is relatively centrist and populist. He has a long track record without any damaging scandals. He seems more than the others to be genuinely interested in being a good leader for the country, rather than only for his base (as he doesn’t really have a base to pander to.)
In short, the rest of the field looks slimy and self-serving. Trump has proven successful enough at serving himself that he comes off as credibly genuine and not like he’s running to make more money or get more recognition or power. He is less easily corruptible than a politician looking to trade favors and pander for votes.
And the media reaction to him only serves to make the media look like corrupt establishment boot lickers seeking to control the narrative and the political process entirely.
I guess it takes power to speak truth to power, sometimes.
Don't know he'd by "less" corruptible... o.O
9. I want to preface this by saying I’m not decided on who I will vote for. I’ve supported candidates from both parties in the past, and I don’t agree with Trump 100%, but when it comes to thousands of Muslims coming over here, I have to say that as a gay man that worries me.
Let’s not mince words. Muslims are not at all in favor of gay rights (Page 14 for the lazy). Sure some are I guess, but they’re a small minority and they tend to be people who grew up in 1st world nations.
Now you may be thinking “why not just vote for Hilary or Bernie? They’re way more pro-gay than Trump.” True, but theres a little problem. Hilary only cared about gay rights when it became politically inconvenient for her not to and I have a whole host of problems with Bernie. Namely:
-Tax policies
-Gun Rights
-Abortion
-Immigration
-Foreign Policy (Climate change caused ISIS apparently. Not our foreign intervention, but climate change.)
-Affirmative Action
-The fact that he won’t be able to pass a single bill because neither party really supports him. Do we need more Gridlock?
-He’ll most likely die in office
Then there’s also the fact that even as a gay dude I don’t give a feth about gay marriage. Sure I think it should be legal for those who want to get married, but in my personal (selfish) view it doesn’t affect me one way or another. I will never get married in my life, so you can make it as illegal as you want, won’t affect my life at all. But you know what will affect me? Countless people coming into the country thinking that my sexuality is immoral, should be outlawed, or even punishable by death.
I find it so funny how liberals will on one hand sing the praises of the LGBT community but then turn around and welcome the most homophobic and bigoted people on the planet. Seriously. Go look at that chart again. 71% of millenial aged Muslims think that homosexuality should be outlawed. If Liberals heard that 71% of American white men thought that I guarantee that they’d parrot it from the highest mountain. We would never hear the end of it. Yet when Muslims think the same thing we get the NOT ALL MUSLIMS speech. Ok, fine. I will concede that not allMuslims; just a sizable majority of them. And apparently I’m supposed to feel comforted by that, as if to say “Suresome Muslims may want to kill you for the way you were born, but since it’s not 100% shut up or we’ll compare you to Hitler.” (Apparently Hitler was a 21 year old blonde-haired, bearded gay dude-TIL).
I ask you, dear Redditor (who is no doubt typing furiously about how wrong I am and how I’m a fascist) please consider for a moment how you would feel if you were in my shoes. How would you feel if your president was allowing God knows how many people into your country who want you dead? I figure you’d probably be pretty scared, and any rebuttle of “shut up or you’re Hitler” wouldn’t soothe your fears.
I concede that Trump is a stupid blowhard who says whatever crosses his mind, but how many of you have spent years complaining that politicians are too scripted, that they don’t say what they believe, or they’re too beholden to moneyed interests? Well Trump is the answer to what a politician would look like without all of those things; crude and unrefined, but honest. He says what he really thinks, even if it isn’t good politics. He isn’t right about a lot of things but he does appeal to me simply because he isn’t a politician.
...this is the most reasoned rationale so far.
10. I like the fact that he isn’t a politician nor plays the “political game” like it should.
I agree that immigration is a VERY serious problem. We just can’t afford supporting so many illegal immigrants. My father came here legally and he had to go through the long process of the system to become a US citizen, why cant others?
Indeed... why can't others follow the rules as it exist today?
11. I agree on being more careful with immigration, less gun control (or I think in his view leaving it up to states.), and focusing on getting our debts paid off.
I also feel like he is less of a liability, should he actually be a bad president. It would be like electing a guy who HAS to be on his best behavior, or get impeached.
Oh, I don't know about that... which presumes he'd overcome HRC in the first place.
12. He’s an donkey-cave, but at least he’s honest, and isn’t really into bullshitting people. Besides, I don’t want a third Bush or a second Clinton in office anyway. The Presidency is not a hereditary monarchy.
Anecdotally, this is the most common rationale that I've encountered in support of Trump. Thing is, my BS meter dang new breaks everytime I listen to Trump.
13. Because over time our entire political system has become a complete joke. It’s completely based on money. And these are just the popular mantras, but after 30 something years on this planet, I’ve decided they’re true, but for specific reasons.
No one involved in the White House or on the Hill has an actual “job” like they used to when the country was founded. Being a Senator or a Rep used to be be something else you did, not the only thing you did. You didn’t get paid a livable salary to come to DC, and you didn’t spend all year (minus vacations) in the city, you were at home, in your home state, doing your job. You ran a store, you were a farmer, a doctor, a butcher or some gak. Entire lifetimes are spent in office…why? How is that reality? Every single one of them is a millionaire…how does that represent anyone? How can they possibly relate to a huge swath of the country? The districts at a state/local level are absolute dogshit, carved up literally block by block in some arbitrary fashion that negates the effectiveness of being represented in the first place. And the term “middle class” is completely meaningless. There is no definitive line that says ‘above this, you are middle class, but above this, you are rich’. It’s an impossible to define completely meaningless term that does nothing but make everyone feel like a unique and special snowflake…the “average american citizen” snowflake. 40% of our income, out of the gate, goes directly to the Government. In addition to all the consumption taxes we pay (sales tax, property tax, gas tax, estate tax, capital gains tax, and on, and on, and on), and yet these idiots aren’t even marginally close to HALF of a balanced budget.
They trundle out on tv, radio, in the paper, and talk about taxes, about nonsensical political moving and shaking, about topics that seem to “matter” but realistically make zero difference. Major headlines are made for bills about personal rights, privacy, and a slew of other things, and then completely negated by riders on other bills under the radar, piece by piece, until the people that paid for the influence get what they originally wanted anyways. The entire voting populace, which is what, a third of the eligible voters that are alive and mentally coherent at any given November, are given the illusion of having a say, when it doesn’t matter. They call, they put Facebook posts up, they put signs and banners on, send stupid emails, write letters…’we’re making a difference!’. No, you’re not. You’re killing time, like knitting, but more social, and you don’t have something to show for it later.
It’s a COMPLETE joke. An absolute circus. Our country exists still solely by accident, and by the forward motion created in WWII by becoming one of the largest economies and military powers in the world. And with each generation, we become more entitled, less creative, less hard working, and more egocentric than the generation before. It’s a fething gak show, and these asshats get on TV and talk about jobs, the economy, and the ‘good ol American dream’.
So I love Trump. I fething love him. I wish he was actually going to run all the way to the White House instead of just fart around until the primaries like he usually does. I wish he’d take shots and get on TV and give press conferences drunk off his ass. I wish he’d tell reporters to go feth themselves. I wish he’d treat International diplomacy like it was an episode of what’s his show where he got to say “You’re Fired”. I LOVE that he pisses off all the politicians on both sides, because he’s different than the good old boys (and gals) that come up year after year after year. How can he possibly be worse than what politician after politician after politician does in office? What’s he going to do, piss off an ally by spying on them? Inflame enemies by attacking their countries with remote controlled planes? Spend more money than we have? Pass laws for things with good intentions, like healthcare for people who don’t have it, without considering some of the gigantic gaping holes in getting it out there…like a working website to sign up for it in the first place? Sit on his ass and do nothing while OPM has the biggest leak of clandestine and TS information in the history of mankind? Bail out gigantic banks instead of busting them up after they fethed around and lost billions of dollars and screwed over half of the globe? Have the most non-secretive affair ever? Then lie about it and spend a million man hours talking about who he did or did not feth instead of governing? Cause gas lines and shortages, fail to rescue hostages from a shithole by piss poor planning? Invade a country and blow it to gak without figuring out how to get back out of said country, after we just did the same thing 40 years prior?
Seriously…how the feth could Trump be WORSE than the parade of human turds in suits that march into the Capitol and White House every day, every year? He can’t. He can’t possibly. But the sheer fact that he’s universally hated by every one of those lying out of touch idiots makes me want to vote for him as King let alone President. Go Trump.
Tell us how your really feel mang. And lol at "human turds in suits".
14. He’s not a bought man ( or women ), he does the buying, not the other way round
he’s honest about his opinions, and agree or disagree with them, at least you actually know what he thinks
he’s a survivor , he’s had up’s and downs, and he doesnt give up, he keeps on going, and he comes out on top in the end again and again
when charged with being ignorant of things a 8th grader should know, henry ford famously said that he could push a button, and have someone come and answer any question posed to him. He didnt need to know it himself, because he found good advisors, and listened to them
the Don may not be an expert in foreign affairs, but he doesnt have to be, because he has the business sense to listen to good advice
and just the fact that he is a non nonsense guy helps america on the world stage, and at home. Does anyone think that netanyahu would pull his gak if the Don was in charge ? You think putin would laugh at the Don ?
he is a strong leader, and thats precisely what america needs right now
Another point people bring up seemingly convinced that Trump would surround himself with good peeps...
Trump says his ban on Muslims entering the USA will contain exceptions for certain individuals, following the election of Sadiq Khan as Mayor Of London. Khan was planning on visiting the USA in order to see community programs in action in NY and Chicago, in the hope that ideas could be swapped.
I think that it's embarrassing for the USA that this idea of banning Muslims from entering is still being considered, and unworthy of any presidential candidate, be they Republican or Democrat.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Trump says his ban on Muslims entering the USA will contain exceptions for certain individuals, following the lection of Sadiq Khan as Mayor Of London
I think that it's embarrassing for the USA that this idea of banning Muslims from entering is still being considered, and unworthy of any presidential candidate, be they Republican or Democrat.
I think we're all pretty much aware of how much of a fething idiot Trump is lol.
The embarrasment is the large number of people who agree with him.
Admittedly in the UK it's the same, but we don't have a constitution that forbids religious discrimination. In the USA it will be a lot of the same people relying on the 2nd amendment to protect their guns while denying the separation clause.
Kilkrazy wrote: The embarrasment is the large number of people who agree with him.
Admittedly in the UK it's the same, but we don't have a constitution that forbids religious discrimination. In the USA it will be a lot of the same people relying on the 2nd amendment to protect their guns while denying the separation clause.
Let's say for arguments sake that Trump is elected. Would love to be a fly on the wall when Trump explains his Muslim ban to America's close ally, Saudi Arabia
It amazes me that the military is so pro-Repubican. After all, the Republicans are generally the ones that send them off to war let them get blown up, but want to cut funding for the VA and such after they come back hurt and need help.
3. Speaking of US politics. This new CNN series is awesome. It has a moderator go into their world. They did a show of the KKK. The first thirtyish minutes is on fakey Klan (hipster Klan), but the second half is on good old fashioned real Klan guys. If you want a periscope into another world the US must continue to leave behind, this is a good one. Did I mention the moderator is black comedian?
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/04/07/series-usoa-trailer-episode1-kkk.cnn-creative-marketing
Someone wants Bernie Sanders supporters to feel the burn — in their skin, filling their nostrils and in their lungs, even to the point of death.
A short infographic pulled straight from the Anarchist Cookbook called "How to make Bernie Sander's Glowsticks!" [sic] found its way to Tumblr, DeviantArt and Reddit in the past 48 hours.
Ostensibly, it's a guide to making small, blue glow sticks. It's even stamped with a fake "Bernie Sanders approves!" message at the bottom.
These instructions do not tell you how to make glow sticks. These are instructions for how to make a deadly chlorine bomb.
"Signal boost," one Tumblr user posted, warning others from taking the meme seriously. "Don't do this. It seems like it was made by someone to encourage people to hurt/kill themselves."
Here's what would actually happen if you made them. The instructions require you to mix a swimming-pool-chlorinating tablet with isopropyl alcohol, then shake the ingredients together inside of a closed bottle. The chemical reaction rapidly generates enough chlorine gas to cause a pressurized explosion in the bottle, releasing the gas into the air.
If the lungs are exposed to enough chlorine gas, it begins to attack the respiratory system and can cause the lungs to fill with fluid until the victim asphyxiates.
skyth wrote: It amazes me that the military is so pro-Repubican. After all, the Republicans are generally the ones that send them off to war let them get blown up, but want to cut funding for the VA and such after they come back hurt and need help.
I voted for Bush 1 because prior to him, no major war had started under a Republican President since the Spanish American War (edit thanks Ouze)
Lets review
WWI-Democrat WWII-Democrat Korea-Democrat Vietnam-Democrat Panama-Republican (edit-thanks Ouze) US-Iraq I -Republican Kosova- Democrat Afghanistan-republican Iraq II-Republican Libya-Democrat Iraq III - Democrat
The Vietnam War finished in 1973 (ground involvement.)
Since then ground forces have been sent to Grenada, the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq, all by Republican presidents. All the other involvements have been air force only, and these days even that increasingly depends on pilotless vehicles.
The other significant intervention was by US forces under UN command in Mogadishu in 1993, and the result of this was to convince the (Democrat) president to withdraw the US forces.
Thus realistically if you want to be a US ground forces personnel that a Democrat president has sent off to be shot at in a foreign coutry, you need to be an old age pensioner.
To be frank, though, I think this is a stupid pissing match. The reason any country has armed forces is because sometimes they do need to be sent off to fight whether the government of the day is left-wing or right-wing. Service people accept that as part of the business. The reasons why US and also UK armed forces tend to be conservative is due to long-standing cultural background.
skyth wrote: It amazes me that the military is so pro-Repubican. After all, the Republicans are generally the ones that send them off to war let them get blown up, but want to cut funding for the VA and such after they come back hurt and need help.
Sit through as many cultural sensitivity training PowerPoints as the modern military has to, and you'll be a Republican in no time.
The left lost the military with their treatment of Vietnam vets in the '60s and '70s and Carter's neglect, and basically hasn't done anything to win it back since. I think the general perception of Democrats as anti-military is pretty widespread, no? You're generally not going to win someone's vote when you're trying to get rid of their job, or the tools they need to do it.
An anecdotal example of Democrats just not getting it when it comes to the military is Bush landing on the carrier. Democrats scoffed at it as a stunt. We knew it was a stunt, too, and some guys though it was dumb, but I'd say the majority thought it was pretty cool that the president of the United States wanted to cosplay as us. The dude had an unfeigned enthusiasm for the military, and that counts.
skyth wrote: It amazes me that the military is so pro-Repubican. After all, the Republicans are generally the ones that send them off to war let them get blown up, but want to cut funding for the VA and such after they come back hurt and need help.
I voted for Bush 1 because prior to him, no Republican President had started a major war since the Spanish American War.
Lets review
WWI-Democrat
WWII-Democrat
Korea-Democrat
Vietnam-Democrat
US-Iraq I -Republican
Kosova- Democrat
Afghanistan-republican
Iraq II-Republican
Libya-Democrat
Iraq III - Democrat
yep, you're right.
Notice you didn't say anything about the main point, which is cutting benefits to wounded soldiers once they come back...
Also, it's a little odd to claim a US president of either stripe started WW2 or the invasion of Afghanistan.
Panama-thanks! will update.
Fair point, my intent was that the President at the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not as straightforwards as you make it look.
The Vietnam War finished in 1973 (ground involvement.)
Since then ground forces have been sent to Grenada, the Gulf, Afghanistan and Iraq, all by Republican presidents. All the other involvements have been air force only, and these days even that increasingly depends on pilotless vehicles.
The other significant intervention was by US forces under UN command in Mogadishu in 1993, and the result of this was to convince the (Democrat) president to withdraw the US forces.
Thus realistically if you want to be a US ground forces personnel that a Democrat president has sent off to be shot at in a foreign coutry, you need to be an old age pensioner.
To be frank, though, I think this is a stupid pissing match. The reason any country has armed forces is because sometimes they do need to be sent off to fight whether the government of the day is left-wing or right-wing. Service people accept that as part of the business. The reasons why US and also UK armed forces tend to be conservative is due to long-standing cultural background.
Sorry I don't distinguish between stabbing someone in the heart and killing them from 10,000 feet. I doubt they do either. Those forces are also guided by personnel on the ground. Don't kid yourself.
skyth wrote: It amazes me that the military is so pro-Repubican. After all, the Republicans are generally the ones that send them off to war let them get blown up, but want to cut funding for the VA and such after they come back hurt and need help.
I voted for Bush 1 because prior to him, no Republican President had started a major war since the Spanish American War.
Lets review
WWI-Democrat WWII-Democrat Korea-Democrat Vietnam-Democrat US-Iraq I -Republican Kosova- Democrat Afghanistan-republican Iraq II-Republican Libya-Democrat Iraq III - Democrat
yep, you're right.
Notice you didn't say anything about the main point, which is cutting benefits to wounded soldiers once they come back...
I don't see the VA being fixed. Should I blame Obama? Why are you playing this game when clearly you will lose. Can we get back to the topic now?
Its going to suck for you to vote for Hillary knowing she's more right wing than the Republican candidate or Obama. Feel the Bern!
President Barack Obama will travel to Hiroshima this month in the first visit by a sitting American president to the site where the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb.
The White House announced the visit in a statement Tuesday morning, saying Obama will visit along with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe during a previously scheduled visit to Japan.
Obama’s visit will “highlight his continued commitment to pursuing the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapon,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said. The U.S. bombing at Hiroshima killed 140,000 Japanese on Aug. 6, 1945.
The White House has ruled out the possibility that Obama will apologize for the bombing of Hiroshima.
Someone wants Bernie Sanders supporters to feel the burn — in their skin, filling their nostrils and in their lungs, even to the point of death.
A short infographic pulled straight from the Anarchist Cookbook called "How to make Bernie Sander's Glowsticks!" [sic] found its way to Tumblr, DeviantArt and Reddit in the past 48 hours.
Ostensibly, it's a guide to making small, blue glow sticks. It's even stamped with a fake "Bernie Sanders approves!" message at the bottom.
These instructions do not tell you how to make glow sticks. These are instructions for how to make a deadly chlorine bomb.
"Signal boost," one Tumblr user posted, warning others from taking the meme seriously. "Don't do this. It seems like it was made by someone to encourage people to hurt/kill themselves."
Here's what would actually happen if you made them. The instructions require you to mix a swimming-pool-chlorinating tablet with isopropyl alcohol, then shake the ingredients together inside of a closed bottle. The chemical reaction rapidly generates enough chlorine gas to cause a pressurized explosion in the bottle, releasing the gas into the air.
If the lungs are exposed to enough chlorine gas, it begins to attack the respiratory system and can cause the lungs to fill with fluid until the victim asphyxiates.
gonna be a long few months....
Not trying to start gak, but most likely Trump supporters. They've already shown they're perfectly okay with physical violence (look at several of his rallies, where they've punched/pushed people). This is right up there with their mob mentality.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why would he not apologize, seems like the right thing to do. Speaking of that, has there ever been an official apology?
Apologize for what?
Nuking two cities? I mean, although justifed by war, thousands of civilians were killed or otherwise harmed. Something along the lines of "I wish this could have been prevented".
Co'tor Shas wrote: I mean, although justified by war, thousands of civilians were killed or otherwise harmed. Something along the lines of "I wish this could have been prevented".
Sure, I'd have no problem with a more generalized sentiment expressing sadness or empathy. It's a tricky semantic line to walk all around though.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why would he not apologize, seems like the right thing to do. Speaking of that, has there ever been an official apology?
Apologize for what?
Nuking two cities? I mean, although justifed by war, thousands of civilians were killed or otherwise harmed. Something along the lines of "I wish this could have been prevented".
Nuking two cities? I mean, although justifed by war, thousands of civilians were killed or otherwise harmed. Something along the lines of "I wish this could have been prevented".
Here you go:
"I'm sorry the Empire of Japan stupidly attacked us, killed thousands of our citizens and forced us to beat your brains in for four years until you quit committing war crimes. I am sorry the Empire of Japan's actions directly led to the death of millions of Chinese, Filipinos, Thais, Vietnamese, Koreans, Laotians, Cambodians, Malayans, Burmese, Singaporeans, and hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens. I am sorry that it took the Allies four years to stop this global horror, this global tragedy from continuing. I am sorry for the men, women, and children, who suffered and died as a result of the Empire of Japan's insane policies and actions, and the suffering they endured until the Empire of Japan was destroyed. I am not sorry that today we stand together, as allies, as two democracies, as friends across the Pacific. "
wow, thats pretty good. I should be a speech writer instead of world renowned lover and Renaissance Neanderthal.
I've read some pf Horowitz's books (like Destructive Generation).
I'm fully convinced that HRC will win handily.
So, I'm at the "feth it" mindset.
I get the view that HRC will make more lasting change, probably for the worst.
I also get that Trump *may* making lasting changes for the worst.
But, my heart isn't in it.
HRC would have to collapse in the same vein as Romney did in '12. I don't see that happening... (edit: well, that's not right, Romney never really had a strong lead, but the perception was that it was Romeny's election to lose. The DNC/Obama's ground game kicked epic arse in '12)
Nuking two cities? I mean, although justifed by war, thousands of civilians were killed or otherwise harmed. Something along the lines of "I wish this could have been prevented".
Here you go: "I'm sorry the Empire of Japan stupidly attacked us, killed thousands of our citizens and forced us to beat your brains in for four years until you quit committing war crimes. I am sorry the Empire of Japan's actions directly led to the death of millions of Chinese, Filipinos, Thais, Vietnamese, Koreans, Laotians, Cambodians, Malayans, Burmese, Singaporeans, and hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens. I am sorry that it took the Allies four years to stop this global horror, this global tragedy from continuing. I am sorry for the men, women, and children, who suffered and died as a result of the Empire of Japan's insane policies and actions, and the suffering they endured until the Empire of Japan was destroyed. I am not sorry that today we stand together, as allies, as two democracies, as friends across the Pacific. "
wow, thats pretty good. I should be a speech writer instead of world renowned lover and Renaissance Neanderthal.
Yet another reason I cannot, and will not, in good conscience vote for her.
Spoiler:
Hillary Clinton weighed in on her 1975 legal defense of an accused child rapist on Saturday, her first comments on the case since it came under scrutiny following a Washington Free Beacon report last month.
Clinton spoke in clinical, legal terms while explaining her defense of the rapist, who Clinton helped to avoid a lengthy prison term by relying on a technicality relating to the chain of evidence of his blood-soaked underwear, as well as arguing at the time that the 12-year-old victim may have exaggerated or encouraged the attack.
“When you are a lawyer, you often don’t have the choice as to who you will represent, and by the very nature of criminal law there will be those who you represent that you don’t approve of,” said Clinton in an interview published on Friday with Mumsnet, an online forum for parents in the UK.
“But at least in our system you have an obligation, and once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation,” she added.
The Free Beacon reported in June on previously unpublished audio tapes from the 1980s that revealed Clinton laughing while discussing her successful effort to secure a plea bargain for her client and suggesting she believed the 41-year-old man was guilty of rape.
“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” said Clinton, laughing.
The audio recordings are part of a collection of interviews with the Clintons conducted by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed in the 1980s, which are housed at the University of Arkansas special collections library. They were opened to the public in January.
Clinton’s defense strategy also included aggressive claims about the victim’s character, including allegations that the 12-year-old “sought out older men” and was “emotionally unstable,” according to court documents first reported by Newsday in 2008.
Clinton told Mumsnet on Friday that she was appointed to the case and petitioned the judge to remove her, but her request was denied.
“I asked to be relieved of that responsibility but I was not and I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did,” said Clinton.
The response appears to be at odds with Clinton’s comments to Reed in the 1980s. She told Reed in the recordings that the local prosecutor, Mahlon Gibson, asked her to take the on case as a personal favor.
“The prosecutor called me a few years ago, he said he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer,” said Clinton. “Would I do it as a favor to him?”
However, Gibson, who did not respond to earlier inquiries by the Free Beacon, told a different story to CNN. He said Clinton was appointed by the judge and did not want to take the client.
According to Gibson, Clinton called him after the appointment and asked him to help get her out of the case.
The question of why and how Clinton ended up serving as the attorney for accused child rapist Thomas Alfred Taylor in 1975 is still murky.
At the time, Clinton was running a newly formed legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, which provided legal services to clients who could not afford to pay.
Taylor’s case was initially assigned to the local public defender, but, according to several accounts, Taylor insisted he wanted a female attorney instead.
Taylor “started screaming for a woman attorney,” Gibson told CNN in a June 25 interview.
However, in another June 25 interview with Talk Business & Politics, Gibson said he did not know why the public defender was replaced.
“The public defender was appointed to represent him and for some reason the public defender, I guess, wanted off or couldn’t handle it, I don’t know what the problem was there,” said Gibson.
Clinton offered yet another variation of the events leading to her taking the case in her autobiography Living History, saying the judge appointed her to the case after Gibson recommended her.
“One day the Washington County prosecuting attorney, Mahlon Gibson, called to tell me an indigent prisoner accused of raping a 12-year-old girl wanted a woman lawyer,” wrote Clinton. “Gibson had recommended that the criminal court judge, Maupin Cummings, appoint me.”
She wrote that she “didn’t feel comfortable” taking the client, but Gibson told her she could not refuse a request from the judge. Clinton had, until this weekend, never previously suggested that she actively sought to be removed as counsel.
Gibson said he had never spoken to Clinton prior to that 1975 phone call, and has not spoken to her since.
“I’ve had one conversation in my life with Hillary Clinton that I can remember, and I think that’s the only one I ever had really,” Gibson told Talk Business & Politics.
Clinton ran the local legal aid clinic in Gibson’s district from 1974 until 1977, according to biographical accounts.
Gibson did not return the Free Beacon’s requests for comment prior to publication of the “Hillary Tapes” story.
Clinton told Reed in the 1980s that she was able to strike a favorable plea agreement for her client after the prosecution lost crucial DNA evidence that linked Taylor to the crime.
Taylor was sentenced to one year in jail, with two months off for time served. He had been facing 30 years to life in prison for first-degree rape.
The University of Arkansas barred the Free Beacon from conducting research at its special collections archives after the “Hillary Tapes” story was published in June, arguing that the news outlet broke library policy by failing to get permission to publish.
Library dean Carolyn Henderson Allen, a Hillary Clinton donor, demanded in a June 17 letter that the Free Beacon “cease and desist your ongoing violation of the intellectual property rights of the University of Arkansas with regard to your unauthorized publication of audio recordings obtained from the Roy Reed Collection.”
However, the library now says it does not hold the copyright for Roy Reed’s interviews.
Reed told NWA Online that he does not object to the Free Beacon publishing excerpts from the recordings.
“I don’t see anything wrong with that. I certainly don’t object to it,” Reed said last Thursday.
I don't know about her specifically, but I have heard quite a few lawyers speak about defending unpopular, and even guilty, people.
Their main concern is not to get the person off, their main concern is to make sure the State does everything the correct and constitutional way. If the person gets convicted, and their work during the trial results in a conviction that will hold up to appeals because their work got rid of any grounds for appeal, then they consider their work a good thing.
Yet another reason I cannot, and will not, in good conscience vote for her.
Spoiler:
Hillary Clinton weighed in on her 1975 legal defense of an accused child rapist on Saturday, her first comments on the case since it came under scrutiny following a Washington Free Beacon report last month.
Clinton spoke in clinical, legal terms while explaining her defense of the rapist, who Clinton helped to avoid a lengthy prison term by relying on a technicality relating to the chain of evidence of his blood-soaked underwear, as well as arguing at the time that the 12-year-old victim may have exaggerated or encouraged the attack.
“When you are a lawyer, you often don’t have the choice as to who you will represent, and by the very nature of criminal law there will be those who you represent that you don’t approve of,” said Clinton in an interview published on Friday with Mumsnet, an online forum for parents in the UK.
“But at least in our system you have an obligation, and once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation,” she added.
The Free Beacon reported in June on previously unpublished audio tapes from the 1980s that revealed Clinton laughing while discussing her successful effort to secure a plea bargain for her client and suggesting she believed the 41-year-old man was guilty of rape.
“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” said Clinton, laughing.
The audio recordings are part of a collection of interviews with the Clintons conducted by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed in the 1980s, which are housed at the University of Arkansas special collections library. They were opened to the public in January.
Clinton’s defense strategy also included aggressive claims about the victim’s character, including allegations that the 12-year-old “sought out older men” and was “emotionally unstable,” according to court documents first reported by Newsday in 2008.
Clinton told Mumsnet on Friday that she was appointed to the case and petitioned the judge to remove her, but her request was denied.
“I asked to be relieved of that responsibility but I was not and I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did,” said Clinton.
The response appears to be at odds with Clinton’s comments to Reed in the 1980s. She told Reed in the recordings that the local prosecutor, Mahlon Gibson, asked her to take the on case as a personal favor.
“The prosecutor called me a few years ago, he said he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer,” said Clinton. “Would I do it as a favor to him?”
However, Gibson, who did not respond to earlier inquiries by the Free Beacon, told a different story to CNN. He said Clinton was appointed by the judge and did not want to take the client.
According to Gibson, Clinton called him after the appointment and asked him to help get her out of the case.
The question of why and how Clinton ended up serving as the attorney for accused child rapist Thomas Alfred Taylor in 1975 is still murky.
At the time, Clinton was running a newly formed legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, which provided legal services to clients who could not afford to pay.
Taylor’s case was initially assigned to the local public defender, but, according to several accounts, Taylor insisted he wanted a female attorney instead.
Taylor “started screaming for a woman attorney,” Gibson told CNN in a June 25 interview.
However, in another June 25 interview with Talk Business & Politics, Gibson said he did not know why the public defender was replaced.
“The public defender was appointed to represent him and for some reason the public defender, I guess, wanted off or couldn’t handle it, I don’t know what the problem was there,” said Gibson.
Clinton offered yet another variation of the events leading to her taking the case in her autobiography Living History, saying the judge appointed her to the case after Gibson recommended her.
“One day the Washington County prosecuting attorney, Mahlon Gibson, called to tell me an indigent prisoner accused of raping a 12-year-old girl wanted a woman lawyer,” wrote Clinton. “Gibson had recommended that the criminal court judge, Maupin Cummings, appoint me.”
She wrote that she “didn’t feel comfortable” taking the client, but Gibson told her she could not refuse a request from the judge. Clinton had, until this weekend, never previously suggested that she actively sought to be removed as counsel.
Gibson said he had never spoken to Clinton prior to that 1975 phone call, and has not spoken to her since.
“I’ve had one conversation in my life with Hillary Clinton that I can remember, and I think that’s the only one I ever had really,” Gibson told Talk Business & Politics.
Clinton ran the local legal aid clinic in Gibson’s district from 1974 until 1977, according to biographical accounts.
Gibson did not return the Free Beacon’s requests for comment prior to publication of the “Hillary Tapes” story.
Clinton told Reed in the 1980s that she was able to strike a favorable plea agreement for her client after the prosecution lost crucial DNA evidence that linked Taylor to the crime.
Taylor was sentenced to one year in jail, with two months off for time served. He had been facing 30 years to life in prison for first-degree rape.
The University of Arkansas barred the Free Beacon from conducting research at its special collections archives after the “Hillary Tapes” story was published in June, arguing that the news outlet broke library policy by failing to get permission to publish.
Library dean Carolyn Henderson Allen, a Hillary Clinton donor, demanded in a June 17 letter that the Free Beacon “cease and desist your ongoing violation of the intellectual property rights of the University of Arkansas with regard to your unauthorized publication of audio recordings obtained from the Roy Reed Collection.”
However, the library now says it does not hold the copyright for Roy Reed’s interviews.
Reed told NWA Online that he does not object to the Free Beacon publishing excerpts from the recordings.
“I don’t see anything wrong with that. I certainly don’t object to it,” Reed said last Thursday.
I view this as evidence that she will be a good president. She was able to set aside her personal bias and achieve the best result possible for her interests.
As president, she will do the same for the US. She's dirty and crooked, but that's International Politics. Always has been.
Trump is such a vainglorious clown with an incredible, unparalleled inconsistency . Its like he gets out of bed, opens his Monster Manual and rolls a D1000 on "Today's Policy Chart".
Yet another reason I cannot, and will not, in good conscience vote for her.
Spoiler:
Hillary Clinton weighed in on her 1975 legal defense of an accused child rapist on Saturday, her first comments on the case since it came under scrutiny following a Washington Free Beacon report last month.
Clinton spoke in clinical, legal terms while explaining her defense of the rapist, who Clinton helped to avoid a lengthy prison term by relying on a technicality relating to the chain of evidence of his blood-soaked underwear, as well as arguing at the time that the 12-year-old victim may have exaggerated or encouraged the attack.
“When you are a lawyer, you often don’t have the choice as to who you will represent, and by the very nature of criminal law there will be those who you represent that you don’t approve of,” said Clinton in an interview published on Friday with Mumsnet, an online forum for parents in the UK.
“But at least in our system you have an obligation, and once I was appointed I fulfilled that obligation,” she added.
The Free Beacon reported in June on previously unpublished audio tapes from the 1980s that revealed Clinton laughing while discussing her successful effort to secure a plea bargain for her client and suggesting she believed the 41-year-old man was guilty of rape.
“I had him take a polygraph, which he passed—which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs,” said Clinton, laughing.
The audio recordings are part of a collection of interviews with the Clintons conducted by Arkansas reporter Roy Reed in the 1980s, which are housed at the University of Arkansas special collections library. They were opened to the public in January.
Clinton’s defense strategy also included aggressive claims about the victim’s character, including allegations that the 12-year-old “sought out older men” and was “emotionally unstable,” according to court documents first reported by Newsday in 2008.
Clinton told Mumsnet on Friday that she was appointed to the case and petitioned the judge to remove her, but her request was denied.
“I asked to be relieved of that responsibility but I was not and I had a professional duty to represent my client to the best of my ability, which I did,” said Clinton.
The response appears to be at odds with Clinton’s comments to Reed in the 1980s. She told Reed in the recordings that the local prosecutor, Mahlon Gibson, asked her to take the on case as a personal favor.
“The prosecutor called me a few years ago, he said he had a guy who had been accused of rape, and the guy wanted a woman lawyer,” said Clinton. “Would I do it as a favor to him?”
However, Gibson, who did not respond to earlier inquiries by the Free Beacon, told a different story to CNN. He said Clinton was appointed by the judge and did not want to take the client.
According to Gibson, Clinton called him after the appointment and asked him to help get her out of the case.
The question of why and how Clinton ended up serving as the attorney for accused child rapist Thomas Alfred Taylor in 1975 is still murky.
At the time, Clinton was running a newly formed legal aid clinic at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, which provided legal services to clients who could not afford to pay.
Taylor’s case was initially assigned to the local public defender, but, according to several accounts, Taylor insisted he wanted a female attorney instead.
Taylor “started screaming for a woman attorney,” Gibson told CNN in a June 25 interview.
However, in another June 25 interview with Talk Business & Politics, Gibson said he did not know why the public defender was replaced.
“The public defender was appointed to represent him and for some reason the public defender, I guess, wanted off or couldn’t handle it, I don’t know what the problem was there,” said Gibson.
Clinton offered yet another variation of the events leading to her taking the case in her autobiography Living History, saying the judge appointed her to the case after Gibson recommended her.
“One day the Washington County prosecuting attorney, Mahlon Gibson, called to tell me an indigent prisoner accused of raping a 12-year-old girl wanted a woman lawyer,” wrote Clinton. “Gibson had recommended that the criminal court judge, Maupin Cummings, appoint me.”
She wrote that she “didn’t feel comfortable” taking the client, but Gibson told her she could not refuse a request from the judge. Clinton had, until this weekend, never previously suggested that she actively sought to be removed as counsel.
Gibson said he had never spoken to Clinton prior to that 1975 phone call, and has not spoken to her since.
“I’ve had one conversation in my life with Hillary Clinton that I can remember, and I think that’s the only one I ever had really,” Gibson told Talk Business & Politics.
Clinton ran the local legal aid clinic in Gibson’s district from 1974 until 1977, according to biographical accounts.
Gibson did not return the Free Beacon’s requests for comment prior to publication of the “Hillary Tapes” story.
Clinton told Reed in the 1980s that she was able to strike a favorable plea agreement for her client after the prosecution lost crucial DNA evidence that linked Taylor to the crime.
Taylor was sentenced to one year in jail, with two months off for time served. He had been facing 30 years to life in prison for first-degree rape.
The University of Arkansas barred the Free Beacon from conducting research at its special collections archives after the “Hillary Tapes” story was published in June, arguing that the news outlet broke library policy by failing to get permission to publish.
Library dean Carolyn Henderson Allen, a Hillary Clinton donor, demanded in a June 17 letter that the Free Beacon “cease and desist your ongoing violation of the intellectual property rights of the University of Arkansas with regard to your unauthorized publication of audio recordings obtained from the Roy Reed Collection.”
However, the library now says it does not hold the copyright for Roy Reed’s interviews.
Reed told NWA Online that he does not object to the Free Beacon publishing excerpts from the recordings.
“I don’t see anything wrong with that. I certainly don’t object to it,” Reed said last Thursday.
I view this as evidence that she will be a good president. She was able to set aside her personal bias and achieve the best result possible for her interests.
As president, she will do the same for the US. She's dirty and crooked, but that's International Politics. Always has been.
Trump is such a vainglorious clown with an incredible, unparalleled inconsistency . Its like he gets out of bed, opens his Monster Manual and rolls a D1000 on "Today's Policy Chart".
Not sure how I feel about Hillary, but honestly, anyone's better than Trump, even the Zodiac Kill- I mean Ted Cruz
skyth wrote: Notice you didn't say anything about the main point, which is cutting benefits to wounded soldiers once they come back...
Possibly because it's untrue? Funding's gone up, not down.
Don't tell me you fell for the same kind of shilling propaganda you're always decrying around here.
While true that funding has gone up.... it's gone up under duress and under scandal.
In recent years, up through the scandal in 2014, I recall seeing very consistently that the VA was lumped in with Medicare and Medicaid.... two programs that are regularly under threat of funding cuts.
Now, we could all probably sit here and argue till we're blue in the face that it's just political gamesmanship, but personally, I think it's dead wrong on all counts.
As a vet myself, I have real problems with how congress uses the things that were in writing on my contract, certain things that I earned coming under threat of being diminished. For instance, I was promised a certain amount of money for schooling under the GI Bill, the Post-9/11 GI Bill was better, but then a few years later, with draw downs happening, suddenly there's talk of "ohh, we're gonna have to cut some of that funding, sorry guys" The VA has pretty much never been properly funded, but I think that only now that you have a generation of vets coming out of the military who are social media savvy that are shining the light under that rug, we're starting to see some difference. (I mean that those vets who came before us certainly complained to the proper channels about conditions at the VA, but nothing got done because there was no general public knowledge, social media allows us to put this in public light, with or without the "proper authorities")
d-usa wrote: I don't know about her specifically, but I have heard quite a few lawyers speak about defending unpopular, and even guilty, people.
Their main concern is not to get the person off, their main concern is to make sure the State does everything the correct and constitutional way. If the person gets convicted, and their work during the trial results in a conviction that will hold up to appeals because their work got rid of any grounds for appeal, then they consider their work a good thing.
I'd argue that there should always be someone on your side. Even if you've done something horrible, and totally deserve what you get, you should have someone on your side. To accept less than that is for society to say "we don't give a gak what happens to you because we don't like you" and while we might not care what happens to that person today, ten years from now, or twenty, or thirty, or one hundred who knows what will fall under the banner of "we don't like you." Lawyers get a lot of crap for doing something that has to be done. I enjoy a good joke about lawyers being soulless vampires who feed on us all when we aren't looking () but once the jokes are set aside, I think we should all sit back look outside our own lives for a moment and appreciate those folks who bite the bullet so the system can work (on the bright side, they get paid really well ).
Ted Cruz floated the possibility of restarting his presidential campaign if he wins Nebraska’s GOP primary on Tuesday and avoided saying whether he supports Donald Trump's bid for president.
d-usa wrote: If you knew the stuff I laugh about you wouldnt like me.
It's mostly personal experience, but I don't hold laughing about stuff against people in high impact high stress jobs.
I get the gallows humor....we in the medical field have it to keep us sane.
I don't believe it was appropriate in her situation, however...and I get the feeling it was more of an "effu" attitude. Without hearing the audio, I only have my gut feeling.
Ted Cruz floated the possibility of restarting his presidential campaign if he wins Nebraska’s GOP primary on Tuesday and avoided saying whether he supports Donald Trump's bid for president.
Ted Cruz floated the possibility of restarting his presidential campaign if he wins Nebraska’s GOP primary on Tuesday and avoided saying whether he supports Donald Trump's bid for president.
However, even *I* can see the writing on the wall. I don't see the RNC changing the nomination rules to stop Trump.
Honestly, he would be a big gak bird if he jumped back in at this point. It really would (should?) be considered insight into his character, and not in a good way.
whembly wrote: I don't see the RNC changing the nomination rules to stop Trump.
I could see it happening, if they can find a way to do it. It would be incredibly short-sighted and stupid, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: And I stand by my statement about doing a good job vs doing good.
But in a way it is doing good. A fundamental principle of our legal system is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and everyone is entitled to the best defense possible. If you don't give everyone that defense then you change it to "innocent until proven guilty, unless we think you're a Bad Person who should be thrown in prison without a trial". The process of defending horrible people is unpleasant to think about, but it's definitely a necessary thing for the good of society.
Ted Cruz floated the possibility of restarting his presidential campaign if he wins Nebraska’s GOP primary on Tuesday and avoided saying whether he supports Donald Trump's bid for president.
Loathsome and appalling though Trumpo is, he is the official candidate of the party. He has been raised up by the party members by the system the party established for selection of candidates. The leadership are morally obliged to support him in his campaign, or resign their positions.
skyth wrote: I'm amused that a conservative has a problem with someone making sure the checks on the government's power are in place and working...
I am certainly not a consetvative.
I like to think of myself as a....centrist....I like some liberal idealogies, I like some conservative idealogies, I like some libertarian idealogies....so please don't lump me in one category
skyth wrote: I'm amused that a conservative has a problem with someone making sure the checks on the government's power are in place and working...
I am certainly not a consetvative.
I like to think of myself as a....centrist....I like some liberal idealogies, I like some conservative idealogies, I like some libertarian idealogies....so please don't lump me in one category
Your posts do give me a bit of whiplash every now and then
skyth wrote: I'm amused that a conservative has a problem with someone making sure the checks on the government's power are in place and working...
I am certainly not a consetvative.
I like to think of myself as a....centrist....I like some liberal idealogies, I like some conservative idealogies, I like some libertarian idealogies....so please don't lump me in one category
Your posts do give me a bit of whiplash every now and then
Kilkrazy wrote: Loathsome and appalling though Trumpo is, he is the official candidate of the party. He has been raised up by the party members by the system the party established for selection of candidates. The leadership are morally obliged to support him in his campaign, or resign their positions.
Are they? I would argue that in this case not supporting Trumpo is the better move, as he is a very close embodiment of Hitler.
Kilkrazy wrote: Loathsome and appalling though Trumpo is, he is the official candidate of the party. He has been raised up by the party members by the system the party established for selection of candidates. The leadership are morally obliged to support him in his campaign, or resign their positions.
Are they? I would argue that in this case not supporting Trumpo is the better move, as he is a very close embodiment of Hitler.
Yeah... I disagree with KK's premise.
Keep in mind that <40% of the GOP primary voters voted for the guy...
What if a majority of those delegates believes, rightly or not, that Trump would get curb stomped in the General? Wouldn't it be incumbent on the party leadership/delegates to stop Trump?
Kilkrazy wrote: Loathsome and appalling though Trumpo is, he is the official candidate of the party. He has been raised up by the party members by the system the party established for selection of candidates. The leadership are morally obliged to support him in his campaign, or resign their positions.
Are they? I would argue that in this case not supporting Trumpo is the better move, as he is a very close embodiment of Hitler.
whembly wrote: What if a majority of those delegates believes, rightly or not, that Trump would get curb stomped in the General? Wouldn't it be incumbent on the party leadership/delegates to stop Trump?
No, because that's not what the voters voted for, and that's not how it works under the current rules. If party leadership wants to say "screw the will of the people and the rules, we're stopping Trump" then it might be legal for them to do so, but they'd be completely destroying their party in the long run. Is having a better chance* of winning in 2016 really worth losing every election for decades, until the republican party is rebuilt entirely into something that barely resembles what we have now?
*Not that this is really the choice, since whoever the republican party nominates over Trump is almost guaranteed to lose and will probably do worse than Trump, but we'll assume kicking out Trump helps their chances in 2016 for the sake of argument.
whembly wrote: What if a majority of those delegates believes, rightly or not, that Trump would get curb stomped in the General? Wouldn't it be incumbent on the party leadership/delegates to stop Trump?
No, because that's not what the voters voted for, and that's not how it works under the current rules. If party leadership wants to say "screw the will of the people and the rules, we're stopping Trump" then it might be legal for them to do so, but they'd be completely destroying their party in the long run. Is having a better chance of winning in 2016 really worth losing every election for decades, until the republican party is rebuilt entirely into something that barely resembles what we have now?
It may be a means to simply deny Trump to re-define the GOP party. He's running on a populist/nationalistic platform... which GOP leadership may want to prevent.
Keep in mind that the way the convention rules work, it can be simply changed at anytime. It's like the rules in the House/Senate... it's assumed that the previous session's rules are in effect, and thus are voted on every year prior to the beginning of the next session (usually rubber-stamped). But, nothing's stopping the House/Senate from changing some of the rules (ie, filibuster rules, floor rules, committee rules, etc...).
However, the PR aftermath would be epic if they do indeed change the rules to deny Trump the nomination, so it's really this: -Do you want the GOP be defined by Trump's populist/nationalistic profile? -Or, is it worth 4/8 years of HRC as President to preserve the GOP brand?
Kilkrazy wrote: The embarrasment is the large number of people who agree with him.
Admittedly in the UK it's the same, but we don't have a constitution that forbids religious discrimination. In the USA it will be a lot of the same people relying on the 2nd amendment to protect their guns while denying the separation clause.
"separation clause"??
Automatically Appended Next Post:
curran12 wrote: Out of curiosity, is there any precedent for those nomination rules changing? Has it happened in the past?
Yes, plenty.
The last one I remember was something like the nominee must have a majority of delegate votes in 8 states by Romney to quell a Ron Paul insurgency.
Kilkrazy wrote: Loathsome and appalling though Trumpo is, he is the official candidate of the party. He has been raised up by the party members by the system the party established for selection of candidates. The leadership are morally obliged to support him in his campaign, or resign their positions.
Are they? I would argue that in this case not supporting Trumpo is the better move, as he is a very close embodiment of Hitler.
Oh come on really? He's much more like Mussolini.
Except Mussolini had better hair.
Well, he did suggest Muslims should be registered, so.....
skyth wrote: I just had a thought. What are upsides/downsides of Hillary just boycotting any debates with Trump?
I would say negative:
1) Its almost a free win for her. HRC has done well in her debates so far. Trump, not so much. 2) She could set up her three ring philosophy: vote for me because I am not insane like the other guy; vote for me because we can unite; vote for me and you will have the first woman in the WH (and likely first Hispanic VP). 3) These debates won't feature the Morton Downey audience participation of the previous ones.
Now he'll say something coockoo right after or or the next day of course. Its his M O to regain the spotlight. But the media may be less quick to jump on that now that their girl will be in the game, and they may just pile on.
She should be concerned though, that he boycotts. He knows she'll clean his clock in a debate and its another method to keep attention on himself. Remember, he's not playing this like a politician. he's playing this like an entertainer. At least until all the dirt comes out about him.
I was just thinking...Debating him gives a false sense of legitimacy to him and his ideas. I wouldn't even think of Hillary boycotting debating Kaisch or even Ryan...But Trump and Cruz are just whackjobs...
At this point, everyone who isn't pro-Trump knows he's a whackjob. What's the point of even having a debate?
I like Gary Johnson, but he has the same problematic tax idea: Flat Tax.
Any idea of a Flat Tax is just unrealistic and it punishes those who make less more than those who make more. By the time you create all the rules to make it a fair tax, it ends up being just as complicated as what he currently have.
Kilkrazy wrote: Loathsome and appalling though Trumpo is, he is the official candidate of the party. He has been raised up by the party members by the system the party established for selection of candidates. The leadership are morally obliged to support him in his campaign, or resign their positions.
Are they? I would argue that in this case not supporting Trumpo is the better move, as he is a very close embodiment of Hitler.
Yeah... I disagree with KK's premise.
Keep in mind that <40% of the GOP primary voters voted for the guy...
What if a majority of those delegates believes, rightly or not, that Trump would get curb stomped in the General? Wouldn't it be incumbent on the party leadership/delegates to stop Trump?
Ethically yes, but morally no. The party rules are clear, they have been followed correctly, and Trumpo is the winner. The party leadership now must either support the party's choice, or resign and collapse the party in order to prevent Trumpo from going further.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Somewhat unsurprisingly, the numbers are pretty close to the officer/enlisted ratio listed in their total respondents.
That is a little surprising to me, actually. That officers are more likely to back Clinton seems like a complete reversal from the politics I remember from my not-so-long-in-the-past day.
I choose to blame Army officers.
Lol, I'm saying that less as a statement on military ideology, and more on the "proven" metrics that people with a college education tend to lean more left of center than people with limited education. So, from the standpoint that all military officers must have a college degree, it makes sense.
Also, being that this survey was based on subscribers, and I mentioned this to the wife, the enlisted people who typically subscribed to Army Times or Military Times in general.... tend to be on the higher levels of the Enlisted scale.
It's less the education level and more of "who has gone through the left-leaning political indoctrination machine". Let's face it, that is basically what most colleges are today. Anyone that states otherwise is delusional.
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that the way the convention rules work, it can be simply changed at anytime. It's like the rules in the House/Senate... it's assumed that the previous session's rules are in effect, and thus are voted on every year prior to the beginning of the next session (usually rubber-stamped). But, nothing's stopping the House/Senate from changing some of the rules (ie, filibuster rules, floor rules, committee rules, etc...).
Yes, but that's why I said that it may be legal to change the rules, but it will cost them. The public perception of such a rule change is that one faction in the party lost, then abused their power to change the rules and declare themselves the winner.
However, the PR aftermath would be epic if they do indeed change the rules to deny Trump the nomination, so it's really this:
-Do you want the GOP be defined by Trump's populist/nationalistic profile?
-Or, is it worth 4/8 years of HRC as President to preserve the GOP brand?
No, the choice is actually:
-Do you want the GOP to nominate a weak candidate in 2016, lose horribly, and then try to re-define its brand for 2020 using "Trump is a failure" to drive a shift to other principles?
-Or is it worth decades of overwhelming democrat wins and the current republican party ceasing to exist to make a desperate last-ditch bid (which is almost guaranteed to fail) to win in 2016.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: It's less the education level and more of "who has gone through the left-leaning political indoctrination machine". Let's face it, that is basically what most colleges are today. Anyone that states otherwise is delusional.
Seaward wrote: It'll be pretty rough having the first president in history try something the Supreme Court will deem unconstitutional, admittedly.
I'm kind of wondering what history books you've been reading. The SC has ruled Presidential actions unconstitutional several times. Ever hear of the Trail of Tears?
whembly wrote: Keep in mind that the way the convention rules work, it can be simply changed at anytime. It's like the rules in the House/Senate... it's assumed that the previous session's rules are in effect, and thus are voted on every year prior to the beginning of the next session (usually rubber-stamped). But, nothing's stopping the House/Senate from changing some of the rules (ie, filibuster rules, floor rules, committee rules, etc...).
Yes, but that's why I said that it may be legal to change the rules, but it will cost them. The public perception of such a rule change is that one faction in the party lost, then abused their power to change the rules and declare themselves the winner.
However, the PR aftermath would be epic if they do indeed change the rules to deny Trump the nomination, so it's really this:
-Do you want the GOP be defined by Trump's populist/nationalistic profile?
-Or, is it worth 4/8 years of HRC as President to preserve the GOP brand?
No, the choice is actually:
-Do you want the GOP to nominate a weak candidate in 2016, lose horribly, and then try to re-define its brand for 2020 using "Trump is a failure" to drive a shift to other principles?
-Or is it worth decades of overwhelming democrat wins and the current republican party ceasing to exist to make a desperate last-ditch bid (which is almost guaranteed to fail) to win in 2016.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
cuda1179 wrote: It's less the education level and more of "who has gone through the left-leaning political indoctrination machine". Let's face it, that is basically what most colleges are today. Anyone that states otherwise is delusional.
Irony, thy name is cuda1179.
Um.....what's so ironic about it? I've been to college. As I majored in Engineering I was basically in the last bastion of neutrality on the campus. My major required me to take Fact based courses, not fell-good political indoctrination classes. I'd watch as people that can only be described as "not quite cool enough to be hippies" shouted for socialized everything. This was all 16 years ago. I'm sure it hasn't gotten better since then.
jreilly89 wrote: I would argue that in this case not supporting Trumpo is the better move, as he is a very close embodiment of Hitler.
He's not a close embodiment of Hitler. He's not even really that conservative if you look at his well-documented history - he's functionally a moderate who is playing to the base in an extremely exaggerated, "no one's going to call me on my gak" manner. And why not? It's totally working, it's worked the whole campaign, because he's expertly played a media which cares about drama more than honesty.
But at the end of the day he's just clownish dude who says ridiculous gak which I don't think anyone thinks he really believes, which incidentally revealed an ugly side of the American voting public in 2016, and I think he'd probably not be a great president, but calling him Hitler is more than a little ridiculous, I'm sorry.
skyth wrote:I just had a thought. What are upsides/downsides of Hillary just boycotting any debates with Trump?
None. She should absolutely debate him. She's terrible campaigner, but she generally doesn't cause self-inflicted wounds the way that Trump does - some of his biggest controversies have been totally unforced errors. He'll be a little more polished now but the chances of him saying something that hurt his own electability remain very high, in my opinion. And also...
skyth wrote:I was just thinking...Debating him gives a false sense of legitimacy to him and his ideas.
His ideas are legitimate, though. He is his parties nominee. I think he's sort of a ridiculous choice, but they were all sort of terrible choices and this is who the people wanted. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Hillary Clinton has an obligation to debate him, but our process works best when the people are well informed, and the people are best informed by knowing more about the candidate's ideas and temperaments via a debate, ideally more than one debate.
Anyway, the other side of the coin is the perception that Trump is a dangerous outsider representing the people that the establishment is afraid of. Hillary Clinton is an establishment candidate. Why feed into that mystique? It empowers him, it's what his base loves about him. It would be a huge mistake. Better to simply reveal him for what he is, an easily angered blowhard who says stupid things he doesn't really believe, who constantly issues easily debunked lies, often doesn't know what he is talking about, and who doesn't really have the background, temperament or gravitas to be POTUS.
Kilkrazy wrote: The embarrasment is the large number of people who agree with him.
Admittedly in the UK it's the same, but we don't have a constitution that forbids religious discrimination. In the USA it will be a lot of the same people relying on the 2nd amendment to protect their guns while denying the separation clause.
"separation clause"??
Better known as the Establishment Clause:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Y'know, that part of the Constitution that the more religious members of the GOP (Ted Cruz, for example) would throw out given half a chance.
Kilkrazy wrote: The embarrasment is the large number of people who agree with him.
Admittedly in the UK it's the same, but we don't have a constitution that forbids religious discrimination. In the USA it will be a lot of the same people relying on the 2nd amendment to protect their guns while denying the separation clause.
"separation clause"??
Better known as the Establishment Clause:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Y'know, that part of the Constitution that the more religious members of the GOP (Ted Cruz, for example) would throw out given half a chance.
Aye.
It's easier to claim rights under the 2nd amendment, compared to arguing the "separation vs church and state" doctrine.
"The swing-state surveys from Quinnipiac University and a national snapshot from Public Policy Polling, a left-leaning firm, show a surprisingly close general-election race. The PPP survey found Clinton leading Trump by just four points nationally, 42 percent to 38 percent, while Quinnipiac found the two essentially tied in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Trump edged Clinton by four points in the Buckeye State, and Clinton led him by a point in Florida and Pennsylvania. As with any poll taken six months before the election, these require a couple grains of salt, and in the case of Quinnipiac, perhaps a few more. Other political forecasters pointed out that its sample of voters in the three states was more white than in 2012 exit polls, while the electorate is expected to be similar in 2016 if not more diverse than four years ago. A sample with more white voters would favor Republicans."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/what-landslide/482088/
Easy E wrote: Bernie won WV. His streak is impressive, but futile.
Futile or not, it is awakening more every-day people to the rigged system of delegates and superdelegates.
Especially if he ends up winning more of the popular vote than Clinton but she still becomes the nominee due to the system's failsafe against challengers to the party favorites.
jreilly89 wrote: I would argue that in this case not supporting Trumpo is the better move, as he is a very close embodiment of Hitler.
He's not a close embodiment of Hitler. He's not even really that conservative if you look at his well-documented history - he's functionally a moderate who is playing to the base in an extremely exaggerated, "no one's going to call me on my gak" manner. And why not? It's totally working, it's worked the whole campaign, because he's expertly played a media which cares about drama more than honesty.
But at the end of the day he's just clownish dude who says ridiculous gak which I don't think anyone thinks he really believes, which incidentally revealed an ugly side of the American voting public in 2016, and I think he'd probably not be a great president, but calling him Hitler is more than a little ridiculous, I'm sorry.
Are we including his pretty verbal anti-Mexican and Anti-Muslin statements? And he did suggest Muslims should be registered, so calling him similar to Hitler is not that far off.
Easy E wrote: Bernie won WV. His streak is impressive, but futile.
Futile or not, it is awakening more every-day people to the rigged system of delegates and superdelegates.
Especially if he ends up winning more of the popular vote than Clinton but she still becomes the nominee due to the system's failsafe against challengers to the party favorites.
Clinton has over 2 million more votes than Sanders at last count. And more delegates. While the DNC primaries are rigged to prevent some crazy pants takeover ala Trump, this election is not such an example. HRC may not be inspiring, but she is soundly beating Sanders.
Comparing Trump to Hitler is almost as ridiculous as the stuff Trump says. He is a grandstander with ever shifting positions and a nationalist streak. Saying that because Trump is similar to Hitler because of his nationalist rhetoric and some anti-immigrant statements is a narrow, superficial comparison at best. Trump has plenty of problems and is a terrible candidate that is easy to critique without resorting to hyperbole and Godwinesque argument.
I said *if* he does....there are a number of states left and a few favor him quite heavily.
And if you could please edit your post to quote whomever it was that was comparing Trump and Adolph, that would be swell....I certainly don't want folks assuming it was me that did it thank you kindly!
Easy E wrote: Bernie won WV. His streak is impressive, but futile.
Futile or not, it is awakening more every-day people to the rigged system of delegates and superdelegates.
Especially if he ends up winning more of the popular vote than Clinton but she still becomes the nominee due to the system's failsafe against challengers to the party favorites.
Clinton has over 2 million more votes than Sanders at last count. And more delegates. While the DNC primaries are rigged to prevent some crazy pants takeover ala Trump, this election is not such an example. HRC may not be inspiring, but she is soundly beating Sanders.
Comparing Trump to Hitler is almost as ridiculous as the stuff Trump says. He is a grandstander with ever shifting positions and a nationalist streak. Saying that because Trump is similar to Hitler because of his nationalist rhetoric and some anti-immigrant statements is a narrow, superficial comparison at best. Trump has plenty of problems and is a terrible candidate that is easy to critique without resorting to hyperbole and Godwinesque argument.
It was me, and I'll post this link for the third time, and hopefully be addressed rather than talked around.
He flat out says in interviews he'd like to see Muslims signed up on a registry and hinted at basically having Muslim areas be patrolled/watched by guards. If that's not pre-Hitler behavior, I don't know what is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: I said *if* he does....there are a number of states left and a few favor him quite heavily.
And if you could please edit your post to quote whomever it was that was comparing Trump and Adolph, that would be swell....I certainly don't want folks assuming it was me that did it thank you kindly!
It was me, and I'll post this link for the third time, and hopefully be addressed rather than talked around.
TheMeanDM wrote: SPolls are highly suspect.... in many polls in sates bernie has won, Clinton had been "polling" as leading by double-digits rather frequently.
Colorado:
Quinnipac poll projected Clinton at 55 and Sanders at 27
--Sanders took 59% of the vote
Minnesota:
Star Tribune poll had Clinton @ 59, Sanders at 25
PPP poll had Clinton at 50, Sanders at 32
- Sanders won with 61.6% of the vote
Oklahima:
Minmouth Clinton 43, Sanders 48
Sooner/News 9 Clinton 40, Sanders 31
PPP Clinton 46, Sanders 42
- Sanders win with 51.9%
Illinois:
Chicago Tribune Clunton 67, Sanders 25
PPP Clinton 60, Sanders 23
WeAskAmerica Clintin 62, Sanders 25
- Clintin won 50.5%, Sanders won 48.7%
Most famously, she led Sanders by *significant* numbers...and squeaked out about a 0.5% or so win.
So really...polls mean not very much, in my opinion.
**all poll research fiund at realclearpolitics.com
I think it'll be a lot closer than the media is painting a picture of, but sadly I think Clinton will win due to the Super Delegates, unless they all jump sides at the last moment.
TheMeanDM wrote: I said *if* he does....there are a number of states left and a few favor him quite heavily.
TheMeanDM wrote: SPolls are highly suspect.... in many polls in sates bernie has won, Clinton had been "polling" as leading by double-digits rather frequently.
(snip)
So really...polls mean not very much, in my opinion.
**all poll research fiund at realclearpolitics.com
So which remaining states is Bernie Sanders heavily favored in? What can we expect?
Easy E wrote: Bernie won WV. His streak is impressive, but futile.
In 2008 HRC won ALL 55 WV counties...
In 2016 HRC lostALL 55 WV counties...
Also, heard on radio that almost half of the Sander voters won't vote for HRC.
That's a hella swing and ought to be a concern for team Clinton...
It may be a concern but I don't think it's a big concern. Exit polls showed that most Republican voters wouldn't vote for Trump but he's still winning primaries. Sanders supporters obviously prefer Sanders to Clinton but I doubt they would vote for Trump instead of Clinton. As long as they either vote Clinton or stay home it shouldn't stop Clinton from winning. In a battle of who has the lower negatives and appeals to the most people Trump is literally the only opposing candidate that Hillary has lower negatives than. Trump is going to have to flip some very blue states to have any chance at all and I didn't see how he can do that with high negatives and a narrow base of support.
TheMeanDM wrote: I said *if* he does....there are a number of states left and a few favor him quite heavily.
TheMeanDM wrote: SPolls are highly suspect.... in many polls in sates bernie has won, Clinton had been "polling" as leading by double-digits rather frequently.
(snip)
So really...polls mean not very much, in my opinion.
**all poll research fiund at realclearpolitics.com
So which remaining states is Bernie Sanders heavily favored in? What can we expect?
Sanders should have good showings in Oregon, Montana and New Mexico with the potential to win all 3. California might be close but I think the Clintons still have a strong support base there and Hillary should win it.
NM is going to go squarely Clinton (Latino vote is huge there). California will likely be Clinton as well. Montana and SD are interesting in that they don't have a lot of liberals, but what they do have are pretty strongly left. The rest will Go Sanders most likely. It still doesn't matter. Unless Sanders wins upwards of 60-70% of all of the rest, he will still be behind in pledged delegates, forget about super delegates.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Are people suggesting that the Republicans need to destroy the GOP in order to save it?
Save it from what, exactly? They own most of the political power available in the country, bad presidential nominee aside.
The Republican top brass might think that the party needs to be saved from ordinary people, the group that stubbornly refuses to vote for 'approved' candidates.
This is not unique to America, but the political elites in the West seem to resent the common people these days.
On Monday, the State Department said that it couldn’t find any emails from senior information technology staffer Bryan Pagliano from when he worked for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“The Department has searched for Mr. Pagliano’s email pst file and has not located one that cover the time period of Secretary Clinton’s tenure,” a State Department spokesman told ABC News, adding they did find emails from his time as a contractor. The latest revelation is a result of a FOIA lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee. Now if Pagliano’s name sounds familiar, that’s because earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Justice (likely through a federal judge) reportedly granted immunity to Pagliano. He helped set-up Clinton’s privately maintained email server.
So understandably, there are a lot of questions right now about how it could be possible that the State Department could not find a single work-related email from his time with Clinton. So to figure this all out, LawNewz.com spoke with FOIA legal experts from around the country. Here’s what’s interesting, all contend that what happened is very, very unusual, and even “suspicious.”
One of most interesting comments came from Dan Metcalfe who served as the founding director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy. For decades, Metcalfe served as the federal government’s information disclosure guru. Not only does he believe that this raises suspicions, he summed up the situation with Pagliano’s missing emails this way: “the whole thing stinks to high heavens.”
The Federal Records Act requires federal employees (like Pagliano) who are leaving office to maintain certain records (which often includes emails). Every employee meets with a ‘records manager’ to ensure they are maintaining the proper records.
Here are the FOIA experts’ reactions to this latest development:
Dan Metcalfe, Founding Director, Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy (1981-2007):
“If it is true that federal records directly documenting his work no longer exist, then that is awfully coincidental, to put it most charitably — especially given the nature of his work and the role he has played in the Clinton e-mail controversy.
Indeed, it is more than ironic, given that what appear to be “missing” are e-mails.
And it certainly now raises reasonable suspicion, as it did with the Senate a few months ago, that something was very much amiss here — either with record creation or record preservation, or both.
For someone who has taken the Fifth regarding his government activity, it is more than suspicious that his agency suddenly determines that the records that you would ordinarily expect it to have maintained about his work are just not there.
Several competing conclusions are possible: 1) either these records weren’t properly created and preserved to begin with, 2) they were improperly disposed of between then and when the state department did its records search, or 3) the records search, like so many at the state department lately, was a poor one, perhaps afflicted by other considerations.
In short, the whole thing stinks to high heavens. It is difficult to imagine how anyone associated with Secretary Clinton in any way could envision getting away with something such as this.”
Anne Weismann, FOIA attorney and Executive Director at the Campaign for Accountability:
“It is pretty suspicious that there is nothing from him from that period of time. It certainly seems at the a minimum he didn’t comply with his record keeping responsibility. When he left government, he had an obligation to go through his emails, and other records – and identify records that needed to preserved. They have no emails for this person, for a long period of time, means that I don’t buy the explanation that he didn’t create any emails worthy of preservation…. He would have known how to wipe everything clean. I think it is very suspicious that his email is gone as we’ve learned through the IRS it might suddenly appear in other places.”
Mark S. Zaid, Washington, DC legal expert on FOIA:
“It’s inexplicable that these e-mails would no longer exist. This appears to be yet another example of poor record keeping policies at the Department of State. Certainly a legitimate question would be if there exists something more sinister to explain the absence, although I am not aware of any prior example of this magnitude.
There are regulations and laws in place that would dictate the maintenance of these records. I don’t know offhand, however, what the time period would be but I’m confident we’re still within it.
Beyond embarrassing for the State Department it’s particularly unfortunate that this will be used to fuel further conspiracy theories involving former Secretary Clinton’s e-mail fiasco.”
Jeez...the idea that Pagliano didn’t send or receive any emails while managing Clinton’s email services is pretty fething insulting. Now that Pags has been granted immunity and has sat down for interviews with the FBI... hopefully, we should get some gooey details once the report becomes public. At a minimum he should at least be on record saying that he did, in fact, send emails... even if he can’t remember what they were about. At that point it will be obvious that somebody at the Staes Dept is lying asses off.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Are people suggesting that the Republicans need to destroy the GOP in order to save it?
Save it from what, exactly? They own most of the political power available in the country, bad presidential nominee aside.
The Republican top brass might think that the party needs to be saved from ordinary people, the group that stubbornly refuses to vote for 'approved' candidates.
This is not unique to America, but the political elites in the West seem to resent the common people these days.
Well they need those filthy peasants to survive, they just don't like having to listen to them.
TRANSCRIPT: President Trump’s First State of the Union Address, January 2017
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans -- tonight I look around this room and I see two types of people. My friends who want to make America great again, and the rest of you losers who were too stupid to vote for me. I mean, seriously; I won…you didn’t…and that’s why you’re down there in the loser pit because you didn’t have what it takes to be a winner like me.
Now, America is going to win because I won and I will make it happen.
So to all you losers tonight I say this: You’re fired. No, no. Stop laughing. I’m not joking. You’re fired. Go home. Take a vacation to Loser Island. I don’t need you here. America doesn’t need you here. I don’t need you to make America great again. I don’t need a bunch of losers in Congress talking about rules, and procedures, and votes, and filibusters, and closure or cloture or whatever it is you in the Senate use to avoid making decisions. All these things just get in the way. I don’t need them.
So how am I going to make America great again? Easy. I have a plan and the best people. I only hire the best people. I don’t tolerate anything but the best. I fire losers. I will take those plans and make them a reality. We are going to start winning again in so many places. It will be great. And it will be very fast. And the Congress will only get in the way and slow things down.
We’re going to win on trade and make trade great again. One of my first actions will be to fire all the CEOs who want to take their businesses to other countries. You know, capitalism and free markets are great, but they need a guiding hand like my big hands [see; they are big] to keep winning. I know business and markets and economics – just look at how much money I made by winning in business.
CARTOONS | Steve Kelley
View Cartoon
All these loser economists talk about trade wars and higher costs to consumers as the result of my policies, but they’re morons with calculators; and none of them has ever run a business before like me who’s run a bunch of highly successful businesses (aside from a few bankruptcies that weren’t my fault).
We’re also going to start winning at foreign policy again and make our foreign policy great again. A bunch of losers at the Geneva Convention tell us we have to play by their rules. Their rules! No more. No way. From now on, we’ll do whatever it takes to defeat the terrorists and anyone else who gets in my way, even if it means we have to loosen up on our morals and our laws a little bit.
And we’re going to build a wall. It’s going to be a great wall. It’s going to be so high and so long and so wide that anybody trying to climb it will die of oxygen deprivation. And Mexico is going to pay for the whole thing because I’m a great negotiator. I’ve negotiated some of the biggest deals in history – and I’ll get them to pay. And if they don’t pay we’ll sue them; and if there is one place you don’t want to mess with me, it’s in court, because I don’t settle unless my lawyers tell me to settle . . . and I never hire lawyers who tell me to settle
We’re going to make America’s national security great again by stopping the NSA, FBI and others from harassing good Americans, and instead use them to start spying on those who don’t want America to win; people like Muslims, illegal immigrants, and anybody who insults my presidency. We’re going to tap their phones, emails, text messages – whatever – and then we’re going to listen to what they say, and if I don’t like it, we’ll either sue them or send them to Guantanamo, which will once again be great!
Thank you. If you need me, I’ll be at the White House.
And, by the way, what’s with the name the “White House?” White is for losers; it’s for those who surrender, and I never surrender. White is boooooring. We will paint the “White House” gold, because gold is for winners, and I’m a winner. It will be called the “Gold House.”
And where did the name “Air Force One” come from? I mean, who came up with that? I’m not in the “Air Force.” “Trump” is for winners. So I’m going to rename the plane “Trump Force Won” because I’m a winner and I won.
The next time you hear from me, it will be to send you my budget. And you’d better approve it. Otherwise, I will hire you again just to fire you again.
Um.....what's so ironic about it? I've been to college. As I majored in Engineering I was basically in the last bastion of neutrality on the campus. My major required me to take Fact based courses, not fell-good political indoctrination classes. I'd watch as people that can only be described as "not quite cool enough to be hippies" shouted for socialized everything. This was all 16 years ago. I'm sure it hasn't gotten better since then.
You aren't at all politically neutral, tho. I bet you have, say, gender studies or sociology or psychology or the like in mind when you talk about "feel-good political indoctrination classes" and not economics or engineering. This is aside from that about the only thing that could possibly be described as being "politically neutral" is being utterly unaware of the concept of politics itself and even then that's open to debate.
TRANSCRIPT: President Trump’s First State of the Union Address, January 2017
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans -- tonight I look around this room and I see two types of people. My friends who want to make America great again, and the rest of you losers who were too stupid to vote for me. I mean, seriously; I won…you didn’t…and that’s why you’re down there in the loser pit because you didn’t have what it takes to be a winner like me.
Now, America is going to win because I won and I will make it happen.
So to all you losers tonight I say this: You’re fired. No, no. Stop laughing. I’m not joking. You’re fired. Go home. Take a vacation to Loser Island. I don’t need you here. America doesn’t need you here. I don’t need you to make America great again. I don’t need a bunch of losers in Congress talking about rules, and procedures, and votes, and filibusters, and closure or cloture or whatever it is you in the Senate use to avoid making decisions. All these things just get in the way. I don’t need them.
So how am I going to make America great again? Easy. I have a plan and the best people. I only hire the best people. I don’t tolerate anything but the best. I fire losers. I will take those plans and make them a reality. We are going to start winning again in so many places. It will be great. And it will be very fast. And the Congress will only get in the way and slow things down.
We’re going to win on trade and make trade great again. One of my first actions will be to fire all the CEOs who want to take their businesses to other countries. You know, capitalism and free markets are great, but they need a guiding hand like my big hands [see; they are big] to keep winning. I know business and markets and economics – just look at how much money I made by winning in business.
CARTOONS | Steve Kelley
View Cartoon
All these loser economists talk about trade wars and higher costs to consumers as the result of my policies, but they’re morons with calculators; and none of them has ever run a business before like me who’s run a bunch of highly successful businesses (aside from a few bankruptcies that weren’t my fault).
We’re also going to start winning at foreign policy again and make our foreign policy great again. A bunch of losers at the Geneva Convention tell us we have to play by their rules. Their rules! No more. No way. From now on, we’ll do whatever it takes to defeat the terrorists and anyone else who gets in my way, even if it means we have to loosen up on our morals and our laws a little bit.
And we’re going to build a wall. It’s going to be a great wall. It’s going to be so high and so long and so wide that anybody trying to climb it will die of oxygen deprivation. And Mexico is going to pay for the whole thing because I’m a great negotiator. I’ve negotiated some of the biggest deals in history – and I’ll get them to pay. And if they don’t pay we’ll sue them; and if there is one place you don’t want to mess with me, it’s in court, because I don’t settle unless my lawyers tell me to settle . . . and I never hire lawyers who tell me to settle
We’re going to make America’s national security great again by stopping the NSA, FBI and others from harassing good Americans, and instead use them to start spying on those who don’t want America to win; people like Muslims, illegal immigrants, and anybody who insults my presidency. We’re going to tap their phones, emails, text messages – whatever – and then we’re going to listen to what they say, and if I don’t like it, we’ll either sue them or send them to Guantanamo, which will once again be great!
Thank you. If you need me, I’ll be at the White House.
And, by the way, what’s with the name the “White House?” White is for losers; it’s for those who surrender, and I never surrender. White is boooooring. We will paint the “White House” gold, because gold is for winners, and I’m a winner. It will be called the “Gold House.”
And where did the name “Air Force One” come from? I mean, who came up with that? I’m not in the “Air Force.” “Trump” is for winners. So I’m going to rename the plane “Trump Force Won” because I’m a winner and I won.
The next time you hear from me, it will be to send you my budget. And you’d better approve it. Otherwise, I will hire you again just to fire you again.
Ouze wrote: Those are the only Democratic primaries remaining. Some of those numbers are really old, so if you have better ones, please improve what I have.
Washington State primary is at the end of May. I just sent in my ballot. I gave Bernie my vote since there really wasn't any point to do otherwise.
TRANSCRIPT: President Trump’s First State of the Union Address, January 2017
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans -- tonight I look around this room and I see two types of people. My friends who want to make America great again, and the rest of you losers who were too stupid to vote for me. I mean, seriously; I won…you didn’t…and that’s why you’re down there in the loser pit because you didn’t have what it takes to be a winner like me.
Now, America is going to win because I won and I will make it happen.
So to all you losers tonight I say this: You’re fired. No, no. Stop laughing. I’m not joking. You’re fired. Go home. Take a vacation to Loser Island. I don’t need you here. America doesn’t need you here. I don’t need you to make America great again. I don’t need a bunch of losers in Congress talking about rules, and procedures, and votes, and filibusters, and closure or cloture or whatever it is you in the Senate use to avoid making decisions. All these things just get in the way. I don’t need them.
So how am I going to make America great again? Easy. I have a plan and the best people. I only hire the best people. I don’t tolerate anything but the best. I fire losers. I will take those plans and make them a reality. We are going to start winning again in so many places. It will be great. And it will be very fast. And the Congress will only get in the way and slow things down.
We’re going to win on trade and make trade great again. One of my first actions will be to fire all the CEOs who want to take their businesses to other countries. You know, capitalism and free markets are great, but they need a guiding hand like my big hands [see; they are big] to keep winning. I know business and markets and economics – just look at how much money I made by winning in business.
CARTOONS | Steve Kelley
View Cartoon
All these loser economists talk about trade wars and higher costs to consumers as the result of my policies, but they’re morons with calculators; and none of them has ever run a business before like me who’s run a bunch of highly successful businesses (aside from a few bankruptcies that weren’t my fault).
We’re also going to start winning at foreign policy again and make our foreign policy great again. A bunch of losers at the Geneva Convention tell us we have to play by their rules. Their rules! No more. No way. From now on, we’ll do whatever it takes to defeat the terrorists and anyone else who gets in my way, even if it means we have to loosen up on our morals and our laws a little bit.
And we’re going to build a wall. It’s going to be a great wall. It’s going to be so high and so long and so wide that anybody trying to climb it will die of oxygen deprivation. And Mexico is going to pay for the whole thing because I’m a great negotiator. I’ve negotiated some of the biggest deals in history – and I’ll get them to pay. And if they don’t pay we’ll sue them; and if there is one place you don’t want to mess with me, it’s in court, because I don’t settle unless my lawyers tell me to settle . . . and I never hire lawyers who tell me to settle
We’re going to make America’s national security great again by stopping the NSA, FBI and others from harassing good Americans, and instead use them to start spying on those who don’t want America to win; people like Muslims, illegal immigrants, and anybody who insults my presidency. We’re going to tap their phones, emails, text messages – whatever – and then we’re going to listen to what they say, and if I don’t like it, we’ll either sue them or send them to Guantanamo, which will once again be great!
Thank you. If you need me, I’ll be at the White House.
And, by the way, what’s with the name the “White House?” White is for losers; it’s for those who surrender, and I never surrender. White is boooooring. We will paint the “White House” gold, because gold is for winners, and I’m a winner. It will be called the “Gold House.”
And where did the name “Air Force One” come from? I mean, who came up with that? I’m not in the “Air Force.” “Trump” is for winners. So I’m going to rename the plane “Trump Force Won” because I’m a winner and I won.
The next time you hear from me, it will be to send you my budget. And you’d better approve it. Otherwise, I will hire you again just to fire you again.
Easy E wrote: Bernie won WV. His streak is impressive, but futile.
I was happy to cast my vote yesterday for the lost cause.
That said, it's really time for Sanders to exit stage left. If a Trump Presidency is as dire a prospect as he's been espousing, the very least he can do is stop going after Clinton and use his pulpit to campaign against Trump exclusively. Campaign finance reform is an incredibly important issue, but this whole "Hilary is the spokeswoman for campaign corruption" is getting pretty old
TRANSCRIPT: President Trump’s First State of the Union Address, January 2017
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, my fellow Americans -- tonight I look around this room and I see two types of people. My friends who want to make America great again, and the rest of you losers who were too stupid to vote for me. I mean, seriously; I won…you didn’t…and that’s why you’re down there in the loser pit because you didn’t have what it takes to be a winner like me.
Now, America is going to win because I won and I will make it happen.
So to all you losers tonight I say this: You’re fired. No, no. Stop laughing. I’m not joking. You’re fired. Go home. Take a vacation to Loser Island. I don’t need you here. America doesn’t need you here. I don’t need you to make America great again. I don’t need a bunch of losers in Congress talking about rules, and procedures, and votes, and filibusters, and closure or cloture or whatever it is you in the Senate use to avoid making decisions. All these things just get in the way. I don’t need them.
So how am I going to make America great again? Easy. I have a plan and the best people. I only hire the best people. I don’t tolerate anything but the best. I fire losers. I will take those plans and make them a reality. We are going to start winning again in so many places. It will be great. And it will be very fast. And the Congress will only get in the way and slow things down.
We’re going to win on trade and make trade great again. One of my first actions will be to fire all the CEOs who want to take their businesses to other countries. You know, capitalism and free markets are great, but they need a guiding hand like my big hands [see; they are big] to keep winning. I know business and markets and economics – just look at how much money I made by winning in business.
CARTOONS | Steve Kelley
View Cartoon
All these loser economists talk about trade wars and higher costs to consumers as the result of my policies, but they’re morons with calculators; and none of them has ever run a business before like me who’s run a bunch of highly successful businesses (aside from a few bankruptcies that weren’t my fault).
We’re also going to start winning at foreign policy again and make our foreign policy great again. A bunch of losers at the Geneva Convention tell us we have to play by their rules. Their rules! No more. No way. From now on, we’ll do whatever it takes to defeat the terrorists and anyone else who gets in my way, even if it means we have to loosen up on our morals and our laws a little bit.
And we’re going to build a wall. It’s going to be a great wall. It’s going to be so high and so long and so wide that anybody trying to climb it will die of oxygen deprivation. And Mexico is going to pay for the whole thing because I’m a great negotiator. I’ve negotiated some of the biggest deals in history – and I’ll get them to pay. And if they don’t pay we’ll sue them; and if there is one place you don’t want to mess with me, it’s in court, because I don’t settle unless my lawyers tell me to settle . . . and I never hire lawyers who tell me to settle
We’re going to make America’s national security great again by stopping the NSA, FBI and others from harassing good Americans, and instead use them to start spying on those who don’t want America to win; people like Muslims, illegal immigrants, and anybody who insults my presidency. We’re going to tap their phones, emails, text messages – whatever – and then we’re going to listen to what they say, and if I don’t like it, we’ll either sue them or send them to Guantanamo, which will once again be great!
Thank you. If you need me, I’ll be at the White House.
And, by the way, what’s with the name the “White House?” White is for losers; it’s for those who surrender, and I never surrender. White is boooooring. We will paint the “White House” gold, because gold is for winners, and I’m a winner. It will be called the “Gold House.”
And where did the name “Air Force One” come from? I mean, who came up with that? I’m not in the “Air Force.” “Trump” is for winners. So I’m going to rename the plane “Trump Force Won” because I’m a winner and I won.
The next time you hear from me, it will be to send you my budget. And you’d better approve it. Otherwise, I will hire you again just to fire you again.
Frazzled wrote: Thats what terrifies me. I never realized there was a contingent of the population that thinks life is a gameshow.
The silent majority though that watches game shows are racists and bigots though. I'm pretty sure I'm not oozing racist aura here or that I am a bigot. I just hate career politicians and Trump makes me laugh
Sanders should have good showings in Oregon, Montana and New Mexico with the potential to win all 3. California might be close but I think the Clintons still have a strong support base there and Hillary should win it.
Judging by the pictures coming from rallies in California, I seriously doubt it.
And that is the problem that we're seeing... major media outlets aren't showing the huge numbers he's drawing, and the votes he's pulling, because delegates are still going to Clinton because, as we've discussed a lot, the system is rigged. I did see an article that apparently earlier this week, or last week Maine voted for, and got rid of their delegate system entirely.
Sanders should have good showings in Oregon, Montana and New Mexico with the potential to win all 3. California might be close but I think the Clintons still have a strong support base there and Hillary should win it.
Judging by the pictures coming from rallies in California, I seriously doubt it.
And that is the problem that we're seeing... major media outlets aren't showing the huge numbers he's drawing, and the votes he's pulling, because delegates are still going to Clinton because, as we've discussed a lot, the system is rigged. I did see an article that apparently earlier this week, or last week Maine voted for, and got rid of their delegate system entirely.
They are showing it though. They are covering it as if it is a close election, and while it is closer than she or really anybody expected, it isn't particularly close. She is beating Sanders by more than Obama ever led Clinton (I'm not even factoring in super delegates, just elected delegates). It sure doesn't seem like it though as Sanders supporters are extremely vocal in their support and he does draw large crowds at rallies. And how exactly is it rigged if she has a lead of roughly 2 million votes in the popular vote over Sanders? It seems like the delegate count is reflecting this reality.
Hillary Clinton for months has downplayed the FBI investigation into her private email server and practices as a mere “security inquiry.”
But when asked Wednesday by Fox News about Clinton's characterization of the bureau's probe, FBI Director James Comey said he doesn’t know what "security inquiry" means -- adding, “We’re conducting an investigation. … That’s what we do.”
The FBI director reiterated that he’s “not familiar with the term security inquiry” when told that is the phrase Clinton has used.
As for the timeline for the investigation, Comey, during a briefing with reporters, said he prefers doing the investigation “well” over promptly and said he’s not “tethered” to a schedule.
The briefing comes amid reports that FBI investigators have been meeting with top aides in Clinton’s inner circle, including Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. The interviews have stoked speculation that the investigation may soon be drawing to a close, in the heat of the 2016 political season.
Asked Wednesday if he would make a public report, regardless of whether criminal charges are pursued, Comey said he would not say at this time. But he said there are “no special set of rules for anybody that the FBI investigates.”
Clinton and her campaign team repeatedly have described the probe as a security inquiry. Most recently on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Clinton used the term when asked how she’d respond to people worried the FBI probe is a “big deal.”
“I say what I’ve said now for many, many months,” Clinton said. “It’s a security inquiry. I always took classified material seriously. There was never any material marked classified that was sent or received by me, and I look forward to this being wrapped up.”
The FBI probe is proceeding as Clinton tries to wrap up the Democratic presidential nomination. Though she leads by hundreds of delegates, she has not yet clinched the nomination and rival Bernie Sanders is vowing to take the fight to the convention – he fueled his own underdog bid with a primary win Tuesday in West Virginia.
There appear to be several moving parts in the FBI investigation.
Former State Department IT staffer Bryan Pagliano, who installed and maintained the server, has been granted immunity by the Department of Justice and is cooperating with the FBI.
In another development, the infamous Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer,” who was extradited to the U.S. to face cyber charges, recently told Fox News he easily breached Clinton’s personal email server in early 2013.
Fox News could not independently confirm the claims. But an intelligence source told Fox News last month that Guccifer, whose real name is Marcel Lehel Lazar, could help the FBI make the case that Clinton’s email server may have been compromised by a third party. Lazar told Fox News that he spoke with the FBI at length on the plane when extradited from Romania to Virginia last month.
Speaking from the Virginia jail where he’s being held, Lazar said the conversation was "80 minutes ... recorded," and he took his own notes. A government source confirmed that the hacker had a lot to say on the plane but provided no other details.
Um.....what's so ironic about it? I've been to college. As I majored in Engineering I was basically in the last bastion of neutrality on the campus. My major required me to take Fact based courses, not fell-good political indoctrination classes. I'd watch as people that can only be described as "not quite cool enough to be hippies" shouted for socialized everything. This was all 16 years ago. I'm sure it hasn't gotten better since then.
You aren't at all politically neutral, tho. I bet you have, say, gender studies or sociology or psychology or the like in mind when you talk about "feel-good political indoctrination classes" and not economics or engineering. This is aside from that about the only thing that could possibly be described as being "politically neutral" is being utterly unaware of the concept of politics itself and even then that's open to debate.
Engineering, math, and economics are all neutral. I took 400 level Psychology classes as electives in my freshman year, and while it might be different for some people I found it to be quite neutral as well.
Gender studies, women's studies, cultural appreciation studies, etc.: yes, I find many of them to be feel-good classes that are packed with as many half-truths, opinions, and falsehoods as there are actual facts. Even back then certain professors were teaching that minorities can't be racist, women can't rape, the US was responsible for Japan attacking Pearl Harbor in WWII, capitalism is evil, refusing to have open boarders to everyone is a human rights violation, and that Republicans are inherently bigoted. Even in my Midwest college in 2001 I was seeing free speech rights trampled for the sake of "political correctness". If anyone should dare lay any blame for any of history's problems on anyone of a "protected group" there was hell to pay.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Clinton keeps using the claim that "nothing was marked as classified" as a way to brush over the email scandal.
Here's the thing though, despite what cartoons and Mission Impossible movies have us believe classified emails aren't marked as "Classified" across the top. What determines if something is classified is the nature of the content. This was spelled out quite clearly in the confidentiality agreement she signed when she took that position.
Oh for feths sake, we've been over this far more times than I can count: classified documents do have the classification level and other markings plastered all over them as required by the fething executive order. The fact that such markings were missing is arguably a greater issue than any personal email server.
the US was responsible for Japan attacking Pearl Harbor in WWII,
This is actually pretty much viewed as a historic fact among historians today. Japan needed oil, and the US led the charge in an oil embargo on them. I cannot comment on whether or not FDR's comments directly to the Japanese ambassadors helped/hurt the situation, but that is among the pieces of evidence I've seen presented. Basically, at the time, Japan was quickly becoming the cornered raccoon... it could roll over and die, or it could lash out and attack unexpectedly.
I won't comment on whether the US's actions toward Japan prior to the war were done with the explicit intentions of forcing us into a war, but actions do have consequences. Ultimately, we can actually see the trail of breadcrumbs as far back as the Treaty of Versailles (we, the Western nations, treated China like dog gak as well.... and they most definitely resented it)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Japan needed oil, and the US led the charge in an oil embargo on them.
And they needed more oil to expand the operations to increase the Co-prosperity Sphere ie war on China/Korea/Philippines ect. It isn't like Japan needed more oil for fishing, or the US lead the embargo merely for laughs. Sure it isn't like one day Japan just decided to hit Pearl Harbor but it wasn't like Japan was doing nothing before that either. It wasn't a good time for a lot of people.
Ahtman wrote: And they needed more oil to expand the operations to increase the Co-prosperity Sphere ie war on China/Korea/Philippines ect. It isn't like Japan needed more oil for fishing, or the US lead the embargo merely for laughs. Sure it isn't like one day Japan just decided to hit Pearl Harbor but it wasn't like Japan was doing nothing before that either. It wasn't a good time for a lot of people.
Right, but that still leaves the US responsible. We may have had good reasons for doing it, but we placed ourselves directly into conflict with Japanese goals and made war inevitable. Pearl Harbor wasn't some out of nowhere attack on an innocent victim, it was the inevitable next step in the escalation of an existing conflict.
Ahtman wrote: And they needed more oil to expand the operations to increase the Co-prosperity Sphere ie war on China/Korea/Philippines ect. It isn't like Japan needed more oil for fishing, or the US lead the embargo merely for laughs. Sure it isn't like one day Japan just decided to hit Pearl Harbor but it wasn't like Japan was doing nothing before that either. It wasn't a good time for a lot of people.
Right, but that still leaves the US responsible. We may have had good reasons for doing it, but we placed ourselves directly into conflict with Japanese goals and made war inevitable. Pearl Harbor wasn't some out of nowhere attack on an innocent victim, it was the inevitable next step in the escalation of an existing conflict.
I agree that the US oil embargo prodded Pearl Harbor. What is often left out of the discussion is that the embargo was as a response to Japanese aggression to our allies in the area. Quite frankly I'd rather not trade with a country that systematically was machine gunning thousands of small children, slaughtering civilians, practicing government mandated slavery, or government mandated gang rape and kidnapping.
This is like saying it's a man's fault I shot him. He should have known better than to intervene while I was raping his wife.
cuda1179 wrote: I agree that the US oil embargo prodded Pearl Harbor. What is often left out of the discussion is that the embargo was as a response to Japanese aggression to our allies in the area. Quite frankly I'd rather not trade with a country that systematically was machine gunning thousands of small children, slaughtering civilians, practicing government mandated slavery, or government mandated gang rape and kidnapping.
This is like saying it's a man's fault I shot him. He should have known better than to intervene while I was raping his wife.
And none of that refutes my point: the US may have had good reasons for getting in the way of Japan, but Pearl Harbor was the entirely predictable* result. We said "bring it on", they brought it.
*Assuming you understand the power of aircraft carriers.
I agree that the US oil embargo prodded Pearl Harbor. What is often left out of the discussion is that the embargo was as a response to Japanese aggression to our allies in the area. Quite frankly I'd rather not trade with a country that systematically was machine gunning thousands of small children, slaughtering civilians, practicing government mandated slavery, or government mandated gang rape and kidnapping.
While maybe not "machine gunning thousands of small children".... we certainly still do business with countries that have less than sterling track records when it comes to treating people humanely (see: China, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, etc.)
I don't think "responsible" is the right word to describe the Pearl Harbor situation. It makes it sound like the Japanese were doing nothing and one day the US tried to provoke them into killing Americans; saying the USA was responsible for getting Japan to attack them is essentially national victim blaming. I think it is good to understand the situation and why things happened, but I don't think I would go so far as use the word "responsible" to describe it.
Ahtman wrote: saying the USA was responsible for getting Japan to attack them is essentially national victim blaming.
Except it isn't victim-blaming because the US isn't a victim. Pearl Harbor was an attack on a legitimate military target, in the context of an escalating conflict where war was pretty much inevitable (and understood to be inevitable on both sides). The fact that they fired the first shot before we could do it doesn't make us the victim.
Dakka OT. Where a the state that initiates violence with one country in furtherance of a war with a third country is equally guilty as the second country, whose only offense was saying the war with the third country was brutal and unjustified, and refused to take any part in it's continuance.
LordofHats wrote: Dakka OT. Where a the state that initiates violence with one country in furtherance of a war with a third country is equally guilty as the second country, whose only offense was saying the war with the third country was brutal and unjustified, and refused to take any part in it's continuance.
Stay classy Dakka OT Politics thread
I guess you're going to overlook the part where the US imposed trade restrictions on Japan and was building up its own forces for an expected war? Japan shot first, but it's pretty likely that we would have shot first if they'd waited long enough for us to have the opportunity. It's not like all those battleships at Pearl Harbor were there to give a nice tropical vacation for the sailors.
Peregrine wrote: I guess you're going to overlook the part where the US imposed trade restrictions on Japan and was building up its own forces for an expected war?
And you're going to overlook that the only reason that happened was because Japan was waging an extremely brutal war in China, and had engaged in open warfare with Britain, Russia, and France as part of the exploding Second World War? For arguing that we shouldn't look at the Pearl Harbor attack in a vacuum, you're sure shoving the whole thing into that Dust Devil.
Japan shot first, but it's pretty likely that we would have shot first if they'd waited long enough for us to have the opportunity.
War doesn't work that way. Breaking off oil trade doesn't even remotely amount to Casus Belli, and even if breaking off oil trade did, Japan would still have failed the test since the only reason the embargo was a potential crisis was on account of their unwinnable war in China and throwing themselves into conflict with Britain and Russia and Vichy France. None of those things were America's fault, and Japan creating a crisis for itself does not give them just cause to wage a war on a state that was nominally at peace with them.
Japan's actions were rational within the context of their foreign policy, but we can't really brush aside what that foreign policy was in 1941.The US was no saint (still isn't), but if we're talking about war, guilt, and who was the victim, the US and Japan are not remotely on the same level when it comes to the events that transpired in the aftermath of 1937.
I never said that the US was wrong to take the position they took in opposing Japan, but it was still a choice they made. They decided to step in and say "this is not acceptable", and knew perfectly well that war was the likely result of that decision. If you step in someone's path and say "bring it on" you don't really get to claim victim status when they bring it, no matter how good your intentions were in opposing them.
Peregrine wrote: I never said that the US was wrong to take the position they took in opposing Japan, but it was still a choice they made. They decided to step in and say "this is not acceptable", and knew perfectly well that war was the likely result of that decision. If you step in someone's path and say "bring it on" you don't really get to claim victim status when they bring it, no matter how good your intentions were in opposing them.
War was not a certain outcome at that point as far as contemporary minds were concerned. If it were, the US/Japan would have simply declared war instead of attempting continued negotiations. We can see in hindsight that this was a certain outcome, because we know things now that Japanese and American officials did not at the time. It wouldn't be till after the war that the US learned Japan was actually ready to end its wars in Indochina and China, and would have if not for Hideki Tojo and the Imperial Army being outright against anything short of an impossible complete victory on Mainland Asia. Likewise, Japan thought that FDR would relent if they sweetened the pot enough, and in some fantasy flight Tojo actually though FDR would let him Ninking all of East Asia if he just made the deal good enough. They didn't know FDR just didn't give a gak what they offered. He thought they were wrong, and he wasn't budging (to be fair, I doubt any world leader short of Stalin/Hitler/that Italian guy would have gone for such a deal). Had we a better understanding of the state of Japan's internal politics, we might have never put up the oil embargo in the first place. We threw that out as a giant double down thinking "they have to stop now.:" With the advantage of hindsight, FDR's administration might have never pulled that stunt. He didn't want to be dragged into a war with Japan while he was busy trying to drag us into a war with Germany.
And of course, even now most Americans probably don't realize how disastrous it was that Woodrow Wilson, America's favorite punching bag President, tabled the Racial Equality Amendment proposed by Japan in 1919. Americans brushed it off pretty quick, because we just didn't care, but that was a huge deal for Japanese policy makers. Tojo and his friends especially took that very seriously. They viewed any negotiation with the US as pointless, assuming we'd just ignore anything we didn't like when it suited us and given the structure of the Imperial government at the time Tojo could basically say "you're going to do what I want or I'll crash this government and start a new one." Which he totally loved doing. The entire event pretty much put Japan in a "I just don't give a gak anymore" mood. Even as there were people in the Imperial government who favored more sensible courses, radicals were perfectly positioned to block anything reasonable from ever being achieved.
And then we just get back to the more immediate issue, drop all the hypothetical what ifs and address the reality that Japan from 1937 to 1941 was starting a new war annually, was political locked into a foreign policy that found peace anemic, and had joined the "we're committed crimes against humanity on an international scale" club (to be fair, we were already members of that one). While the oil embargo was the immediate spark that put the US and Japan on the path to war, that reality does not twist into erasing that the US was the victim of an unprovoked military action. Economic sanctions can translate into cause of war under most theories of warfare, but not in the context of Japan's situation, where the sanctions would have never happened lacking a half dozen other wars they were already engaged in. Just War theory don't work that way, and I'm unaware of any other theory of warfare that does. The US was under no obligation to sell to Japan the means of continuing its wars, and Japan didn't have the right to bomb us because "feth those Americans for not selling us oil."
This is like arguing that girl who got a little tipsy at the bar shouldn't have worn short shorts. If she hadn't the mean old Japanese military dicatatorship wouldn't have raped her in that alley behind the bar.
Ahtman wrote: And they needed more oil to expand the operations to increase the Co-prosperity Sphere ie war on China/Korea/Philippines ect. It isn't like Japan needed more oil for fishing, or the US lead the embargo merely for laughs. Sure it isn't like one day Japan just decided to hit Pearl Harbor but it wasn't like Japan was doing nothing before that either. It wasn't a good time for a lot of people.
Right, but that still leaves the US responsible. We may have had good reasons for doing it, but we placed ourselves directly into conflict with Japanese goals and made war inevitable. Pearl Harbor wasn't some out of nowhere attack on an innocent victim, it was the inevitable next step in the escalation of an existing conflict.
Viewed from a full historical perspective, the Japanese would not have attacked Pearl Harbour if the US had not imposed the oil embargo, but they were not forced to do it, they could have come back to the negotiating table instead.
A less onerous embargo might have been more effective in nudging the Japanese towards negotiation, but it had already been tried to some degree. Given the history of their involvement in China since the 1920s, it looks unlikely that Japan would have been persuaded to rein back their activities there.
In the long term, the pressure from pro-China people in the US establishment might have led to war anyway, perhaps with the US declaring war on Japan.
Then the question would have been to what extent did the USA have the right or duty to involve itself in defending China against Japan?
And here's the problem: you're arguing about "justice" and which side was right, I'm talking about "responsibility" in a cause and effect sense. It's pretty clear that Japan was wrong, from a moral point of view, and there's a good argument for the US acting to stop Japanese expansion. But that doesn't change the fact that Pearl Harbor (or some similar battle) was a likely outcome of US foreign policy choices. If you're going to say "what you are doing is wrong, and I'm willing to fight to stop you" you don't get to claim victim status when the other side says "ok, we'll fight".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: This is like arguing that girl who got a little tipsy at the bar shouldn't have worn short shorts. If she hadn't the mean old Japanese military dicatatorship wouldn't have raped her in that alley behind the bar.
No, it is not at all like that. The girl in your absurd analogy is an innocent victim. The people who died at Pearl Harbor were casualties in a battle, and part of the same military that the US was preparing to use against Japan. I said it before but I'll say it again: those battleships at Pearl Harbor were not there to give their sailors a nice relaxing tropical vacation.
Peregrine wrote: And here's the problem: you're arguing about "justice" and which side was right, I'm talking about "responsibility" in a cause and effect sense.
You're under the mistaken impression that justice is about "right," and is somehow separate from "responsibility." Functionally, most war theorists I've read say there's no such thing as a "right war" though I think World War II does a damn job of coming close. Just War Theory is about ethics, and under what circumstances the "crime of war" is necessary and justifiable.
If you're going to say "what you are doing is wrong, and I'm willing to fight to stop you" you don't get to claim victim status when the other side says "ok, we'll fight".
Except that isn't what happened. What happened is closer to "what you are doing is wrong, and I refuse to sell you the means to continue doing it while hoping that in doing so you'll run out of options and stop" to which the other side responds "I don't want to stop, and if you won't support me, I'll blow up your stuff that I'm just going to assume you want to use to blow up my stuff because you're in my way."
You can't pretend you're talking about pragmatic amoral reality on the one hand ("US foreign policy boxed Japan into a corner"), and then use the other hand to declare a moral position ("the US wasn't the victim"). Claim A does not lead to Claim B.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: No, it is not at all like that. The girl in your absurd analogy is an innocent victim.
Your entire argument hinges on this odd notion that had the US not done something completely within its rights as a sovereign state, and was not functionally an actionable cause for war on ethical grounds, somehow constitutes a forfeiture of status as the victim of a military aggressor. It's completely the same thing.
The people who died at Pearl Harbor were casualties in a battle, and part of the same military that the US was preparing to use against Japan. I said it before but I'll say it again: those battleships at Pearl Harbor were not there to give their sailors a nice relaxing tropical vacation.
Say it all you want, but that doesn't really make this logical hoola hoop you're trying to build spin. State's have a right to build and maintain military forces, and unless you've got evidence Japan believed the US was about to attack them in the immediate future for reasons other than as response to Japanese aggression*, you're just spinning a piece of historical fiction as standing evidence.
*which you won't find, because Japan knew the only reason the US would declare war on them in 1941 was as a direct response to Japanese military actions prompting US response which is the only reason they decided to jump to attacking Pearl.
Let's say I own a house. A violent ex-con, convicted rapist, drug dealer, burglar moves into the house next door. I buy a gun for protection. In what world does that even come close to justifying the neighbor burning down my house because he "was afraid of me"?
cuda1179 wrote: Let's say I own a house. A violent ex-con, convicted rapist, drug dealer, burglar moves into the house next door. I buy a gun for protection. In what world does that even come close to justifying the neighbor burning down my house because he "was afraid of me"?
Your analogy would work better if you and the rest of the neighborhood ganged together to stop the ex-convict from buying gas to his murder-truck rather then bought a gun
Ahtman wrote: And they needed more oil to expand the operations to increase the Co-prosperity Sphere ie war on China/Korea/Philippines ect. It isn't like Japan needed more oil for fishing, or the US lead the embargo merely for laughs. Sure it isn't like one day Japan just decided to hit Pearl Harbor but it wasn't like Japan was doing nothing before that either. It wasn't a good time for a lot of people.
Right, but that still leaves the US responsible. We may have had good reasons for doing it, but we placed ourselves directly into conflict with Japanese goals and made war inevitable. Pearl Harbor wasn't some out of nowhere attack on an innocent victim, it was the inevitable next step in the escalation of an existing conflict.
Thats a fairly unique and interesting viewpoint, shared by you and certain hard right elements of Japanese society.
Empire of Japan invades China and then invades Indochina.
World Powers outraged at these atrocities say hey we're not going to sell you the stuff you use to kill rape and torture with
Empire of Japan then freaks out and attacks everyone instead of, you know, well quitting the killing, torturing, raping and medical experimenting thing and using free enterprise to trade for goods and services.
Peregrine: Thats why the US is responsible.
TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG FROM CINCPAC ACTION COM THIRD FLEET INFO COMINCH CTF SEVENTY-SEVEN X WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR RR THE WORLD WONDERS[8]
There's been a lot of recent coverage of Donald Trump's embrace of various
conspiracy theories, so we asked about a bunch of them on this poll to see which
ones his supporters believe and which ones even they say are a bridge too far.
Among voters with a favorable opinion of Trump:
-65% think President Obama is a Muslim, only 13% think he's a Christian.
-59% think President Obama was not born in the United States, only 23% think
that he was.
-27% think vaccines cause autism, 45% don't think they do, another 29% are not
sure.
-24% think Antonin Scalia was murdered, just 42% think he died naturally,
another 34% are unsure.
-7% think Ted Cruz's father was involved in the assassination of JFK, 55% think
he was not involved, another 38% are unsure.
“For the most part we’ve found that Donald Trump’s supporters lap up every
conspiracy theory he pushes out there,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public
Policy Polling. “But the Ted Cruz’s dad was involved in killing JFK one appears to
be a bridge too far even for them.”
And closing the loop on the greatest conspiracy theory of this election- a rare one
that Trump didn't embrace- 5% of voters nationally think Ted Cruz is the Zodiac
Killer, 18% are unsure, and 77% find Cruz not guilty of the charge of being a serial
killer in diapers. So at least he has that going for him.
Much has been made of Trump's unpopularity over the course of this campaign
and certainly we find that to be the case too- only 34% of voters have a favorable
opinion of him to 61% who have an unfavorable one. But we decided to take it a
step further in finding out just how much people dislike Trump, by matching him
in a series of heads to heads with things such as root canals, cockroaches, and
even hipsters to see who voters had a higher opinion of. Here's how it stacked up:
Do you have a higher opinion of Donald Trump or
________________
Results (Trump +/-)
Hemorrhoids Trump, 45/39 (+6)
Cockroaches Trump, 46/42 (+4)
Nickelback Nickelback, 39/34 (-5)
Used Car Salesmen Used Car Salesmen, 47/41 (-6)
Traffic Jams Traffic Jams, 47/40 (-7)
Hipsters Hipsters, 45/38 (-7)
DMV DMV, 50/40 (-10)
Root Canals Root Canals, 49/38 (-11)
Jury Duty Jury Duty, 57/35 (-22)
Lice Lice, 54/28 (-26)
New Delhi, May.12 (ANI): United States Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who is seen as a staunch opposer of growing Islamic radicalism across the world, has now found support from the right-wing group Hindu Sena, which held prayers here yesterday for his victory in the US presidential elections to be held later this year.
A priest chanted hymns and members of the Hindu Sena made offerings to fire, as they sat holding posters of the Republican presidential candidate, with "We love Trump" written in bold letters.
The president of the Hindu Sena, Vishnu Gupta, said Trump was the only "saviour of mankind".
"The entire world is suffering due to Islamic terrorism. All these bomb blasts across the world are linked to Islamic terrorism. There is only one saviour of mankind and that is Donald Trump. We have done Yagya today and prayed to god that people of the US elect Trump as their Presdent," Gupta told ANI.
Trump has won both supporters and detractors for his blunt talk and hardline proposals, including a proposed ban on Muslims entering the United States.
The billionaire real estate developer has positioned himself as the answer to growing Islamic radicalism across the world. (ANI)
Ahtman wrote: And they needed more oil to expand the operations to increase the Co-prosperity Sphere ie war on China/Korea/Philippines ect. It isn't like Japan needed more oil for fishing, or the US lead the embargo merely for laughs. Sure it isn't like one day Japan just decided to hit Pearl Harbor but it wasn't like Japan was doing nothing before that either. It wasn't a good time for a lot of people.
Right, but that still leaves the US responsible. We may have had good reasons for doing it, but we placed ourselves directly into conflict with Japanese goals and made war inevitable. Pearl Harbor wasn't some out of nowhere attack on an innocent victim, it was the inevitable next step in the escalation of an existing conflict.
Thats a fairly unique and interesting viewpoint, shared by you and certain hard right elements of Japanese society.
Empire of Japan invades China and then invades Indochina.
World Powers outraged at these atrocities say hey we're not going to sell you the stuff you use to kill rape and torture with
Empire of Japan then freaks out and attacks everyone instead of, you know, well quitting the killing, torturing, raping and medical experimenting thing and using free enterprise to trade for goods and services.
Peregrine: Thats why the US is responsible.
TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG FROM CINCPAC ACTION COM THIRD FLEET INFO COMINCH CTF SEVENTY-SEVEN X WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR RR THE WORLD WONDERS[8]
There really isn't anything unique about his position. In fact I have 3 books on my kitchen table right now that take that position lol. I know its hard to believe given literal indoctrination via public education but the US isn't much of a "good guy" when it comes to its foreign policy.
The basic idea though is the American empire had been flexing its new muscles (post WW1) on the international stage to dictate the rules to everybody but itself. The Japanese, Germany and even the British empires were obstacles to the US strategy of open markets for its products. China was a major point of contention as the US was anti-colonial and pro-open market. It told everybody you can carve up China but the US keeps access to its markets. Japan disagreed with that stance and thus was an enemy to America. The US was already jn the business of globally projecting its power and would of inevitably came to conflict with Japan, so Japan foolishly struck first. Basically Japan did exactly what the US wanted, give it a reason to go out into the world and enforce itself with public support.
Or so the idea goes.
Either way its hardly unique and is a fairly common view point from what I've been gathering now that I'm aware of its existance.
cuda1179 wrote: Let's say I own a house. A violent ex-con, convicted rapist, drug dealer, burglar moves into the house next door. I buy a gun for protection. In what world does that even come close to justifying the neighbor burning down my house because he "was afraid of me"?
Your analogy would work better if you and the rest of the neighborhood ganged together to stop the ex-convict from buying gas to his murder-truck rather then bought a gun
I was specifically responding to the claim that having a naval presence in Hawaii was adequate provocation for Japan.
Ahtman wrote: And they needed more oil to expand the operations to increase the Co-prosperity Sphere ie war on China/Korea/Philippines ect. It isn't like Japan needed more oil for fishing, or the US lead the embargo merely for laughs. Sure it isn't like one day Japan just decided to hit Pearl Harbor but it wasn't like Japan was doing nothing before that either. It wasn't a good time for a lot of people.
Right, but that still leaves the US responsible. We may have had good reasons for doing it, but we placed ourselves directly into conflict with Japanese goals and made war inevitable. Pearl Harbor wasn't some out of nowhere attack on an innocent victim, it was the inevitable next step in the escalation of an existing conflict.
Thats a fairly unique and interesting viewpoint, shared by you and certain hard right elements of Japanese society.
Empire of Japan invades China and then invades Indochina.
World Powers outraged at these atrocities say hey we're not going to sell you the stuff you use to kill rape and torture with
Empire of Japan then freaks out and attacks everyone instead of, you know, well quitting the killing, torturing, raping and medical experimenting thing and using free enterprise to trade for goods and services.
Peregrine: Thats why the US is responsible.
TURKEY TROTS TO WATER GG FROM CINCPAC ACTION COM THIRD FLEET INFO COMINCH CTF SEVENTY-SEVEN X WHERE IS RPT WHERE IS TASK FORCE THIRTY FOUR RR THE WORLD WONDERS[8]
There really isn't anything unique about his position. In fact I have 3 books on my kitchen table right now that take that position lol. I know its hard to believe given literal indoctrination via public education but the US isn't much of a "good guy" when it comes to its foreign policy.
The basic idea though is the American empire had been flexing its new muscles (post WW1) on the international stage to dictate the rules to everybody but itself. The Japanese, Germany and even the British empires were obstacles to the US strategy of open markets for its products. China was a major point of contention as the US was anti-colonial and pro-open market. It told everybody you can carve up China but the US keeps access to its markets. Japan disagreed with that stance and thus was an enemy to America. The US was already jn the business of globally projecting its power and would of inevitably came to conflict with Japan, so Japan foolishly struck first. Basically Japan did exactly what the US wanted, give it a reason to go out into the world and enforce itself with public support.
Or so the idea goes.
Either way its hardly unique and is a fairly common view point from what I've been gathering now that I'm aware of its existance.
Here's a history lesson: there is no "good guy". A lot of gak happens. You think we're the first nation to ever flex on other countries, police the world, etc.? We're not. People have been killing each other for centuries.
Outside of Vietnam and the most recent Iraq war, I think we were perfectly justified in fighting WW1 and WW2.
Um.....what's so ironic about it? I've been to college. As I majored in Engineering I was basically in the last bastion of neutrality on the campus. My major required me to take Fact based courses, not fell-good political indoctrination classes. I'd watch as people that can only be described as "not quite cool enough to be hippies" shouted for socialized everything. This was all 16 years ago. I'm sure it hasn't gotten better since then.
You aren't at all politically neutral, tho. I bet you have, say, gender studies or sociology or psychology or the like in mind when you talk about "feel-good political indoctrination classes" and not economics or engineering. This is aside from that about the only thing that could possibly be described as being "politically neutral" is being utterly unaware of the concept of politics itself and even then that's open to debate.
Engineering, math, and economics are all neutral. I took 400 level Psychology classes as electives in my freshman year, and while it might be different for some people I found it to be quite neutral as well.
Gender studies, women's studies, cultural appreciation studies, etc.: yes, I find many of them to be feel-good classes that are packed with as many half-truths, opinions, and falsehoods as there are actual facts. Even back then certain professors were teaching that minorities can't be racist, women can't rape, the US was responsible for Japan attacking Pearl Harbor in WWII, capitalism is evil, refusing to have open boarders to everyone is a human rights violation, and that Republicans are inherently bigoted. Even in my Midwest college in 2001 I was seeing free speech rights trampled for the sake of "political correctness". If anyone should dare lay any blame for any of history's problems on anyone of a "protected group" there was hell to pay.
Go take upper-level sociology classes, they tend to be more nuetral than people think. But I am honestly tired of most of the stuff you said. Im actually in a Culture/Law of japan class right now and my proffessor just said "Japan Brought alot of (It) unto them to themselves. There where some real atrocities done during the war they still refuse to acknowledge" and he he grew in japa
Um.....what's so ironic about it? I've been to college. As I majored in Engineering I was basically in the last bastion of neutrality on the campus. My major required me to take Fact based courses, not fell-good political indoctrination classes. I'd watch as people that can only be described as "not quite cool enough to be hippies" shouted for socialized everything. This was all 16 years ago. I'm sure it hasn't gotten better since then.
You aren't at all politically neutral, tho. I bet you have, say, gender studies or sociology or psychology or the like in mind when you talk about "feel-good political indoctrination classes" and not economics or engineering. This is aside from that about the only thing that could possibly be described as being "politically neutral" is being utterly unaware of the concept of politics itself and even then that's open to debate.
Engineering, math, and economics are all neutral. I took 400 level Psychology classes as electives in my freshman year, and while it might be different for some people I found it to be quite neutral as well.
Gender studies, women's studies, cultural appreciation studies, etc.: yes, I find many of them to be feel-good classes that are packed with as many half-truths, opinions, and falsehoods as there are actual facts. Even back then certain professors were teaching that minorities can't be racist, women can't rape, the US was responsible for Japan attacking Pearl Harbor in WWII, capitalism is evil, refusing to have open boarders to everyone is a human rights violation, and that Republicans are inherently bigoted. Even in my Midwest college in 2001 I was seeing free speech rights trampled for the sake of "political correctness". If anyone should dare lay any blame for any of history's problems on anyone of a "protected group" there was hell to pay.
Go take upper-level sociology classes, they tend to be more nuetral than people think. But I am honestly tired of most of the stuff you said. Im actually in a Culture/Law of japan class right now and my proffessor just said "Japan Brought alot of (It) unto them to themselves. There where some real atrocities done during the war they still refuse to acknowledge" and he he grew in japa
I was actually very surprised by that. Ipman (while a kungfu movie and not a historical only film) touched on the atrocities committed by Japan against the Chinese during WW2 a lot and it was fascinating.
WW2 probably but WW1 was of zero consequence to the US, any side could have won and the US wouldn't of been any worse off. There is also a lot more to US foreign policy than the big wars too. The deaths of several hundred thousand Filipinos comes to mind.
From my stand point I'm not very worried about good guys and bad guys. I don't excuse actions because others guys did it too though, that the purview of playground excuses. I'd like to think I'm willing to hold my country to its claims of being the most moral of all nations.
Either way, I wasn't attempting to convince anybody of anything I was just saying Perigrine was in no way alone or had an opinion held by only old Japanese guys that miss the old days. Perigrine's opinion is one from people with well argued and a solidly evidenced theory on events from the past. If people care they can read up on it on their own time and either pick it up or put it down, not my problem either way.
The field of economics is not at all a politically neutral subject. Broadly speaking it is the study of the allocation, consumption and generation of resources which is very much a political subject but often it teaches one specific way of interpreting what "the economy" is. Either way it isn't and can't be "neutral". Engineering and mathematics are both subjected to how we value and use them. If one is more economically lucrative to pursue than the other then it isn't politically neutral, either. Equations may be equations but the reasons for people learning them are not neutral.
You think that it is a biased statement to say that capitalism is evil but is it a neutral statement to say that capitalism is good? Is it a statement without any values in it if you say that capitalism is, indeed, neutral?
The field of economics is not at all a politically neutral subject. Broadly speaking it is the study of the allocation, consumption and generation of resources which is very much a political subject but often it teaches one specific way of interpreting what "the economy" is. Either way it isn't and can't be "neutral". Engineering and mathematics are both subjected to how we value and use them. If one is more economically lucrative to pursue than the other then it isn't politically neutral, either. Equations may be equations but the reasons for people learning them are not neutral.
You think that it is a biased statement to say that capitalism is evil but is it a neutral statement to say that capitalism is good? Is it a statement without any values in it if you say that capitalism is, indeed, neutral?
As an engineer, sure, I'll give you economics, but math and engineering? Excuse me, there is no more neutral study than those two. Science is the most neutral of all studies, it's only purpose is to enlighten. Yeah, it can be used for good or ill, but at it's core, it is neutral.
I get in alot of trouble when I say I think that capitilism itself is a good system. Its just that human rights/worker rights need to be part of it.
We wouldnt have ANYTHING we have today without capitilism. I pissed off this one girl I went out with by saying "You like anime, conventions and cosplay, literally none of that would be possible without capitilism, this pizza place where in would not be here without capitilism)
BrotherGecko wrote: WW2 probably but WW1 was of zero consequence to the US, any side could have won and the US wouldn't of been any worse off. There is also a lot more to US foreign policy than the big wars too. The deaths of several hundred thousand Filipinos comes to mind.
Eh, I think WW1 was a decent standpoint as far as establishing/maintaining alliances. I know there's more to foreign policy, I was just going off the major events.
From my stand point I'm not very worried about good guys and bad guys. I don't excuse actions because others guys did it too though, that the purview of playground excuses. I'd like to think I'm willing to hold my country to its claims of being the most moral of all nations.
It's hard to be the most moral of all nations in an ever shifting landscape. Sure, we should strive to do the right thing, but most right or wrong actions have far reaching consequences, and "morality" is often relative.
Either way, I wasn't attempting to convince anybody of anything I was just saying Perigrine was in no way alone or had an opinion held by only old Japanese guys that miss the old days. Perigrine's opinion is one from people with well argued and a solidly evidenced theory on events from the past. If people care they can read up on it on their own time and either pick it up or put it down, not my problem either way.
Fair enough. I was just arguing that I think as much as the US may have baited or been responsible for Pearl Harbor, Japan is far more responsible. They chose to act, and we responded.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: I get in alot of trouble when I say I think that capitilism itself is a good system. Its just that human rights/worker rights need to be part of it.
We wouldnt have ANYTHING we have today without capitilism. I pissed off this one girl I went out with by saying "You like anime, conventions and cosplay, literally none of that would be possible without capitilism, this pizza place where in would not be here without capitilism)
Eh, it's 50/50. Capitalism can be good until things like monopolies happen. Then it's less capitalism and more dictatorship ruled by big money corporations.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I get in alot of trouble when I say I think that capitilism itself is a good system. Its just that human rights/worker rights need to be part of it.
We wouldnt have ANYTHING we have today without capitilism. I pissed off this one girl I went out with by saying "You like anime, conventions and cosplay, literally none of that would be possible without capitilism, this pizza place where in would not be here without capitilism)
It's always funny when you get into those kinds of arguments with those kinds of people... For instance, one of my classmates and I have butted heads/debated over trickle-down (he's a big time TEA Party type, looooves Milton Friedman's theories/teachings on economics, etc), when I tell him that I think guys like Milton Friedman are full of crap, that there's more evidence pointing against their views than there is for it, and much of that "evidence" has to be twisted or tailored to meet their views... he thinks instantly (and says as much, in a rather joking way) that I'm a commie and follow the Marx and Engels schools of thought.
Also, when my next door neighbor and I discuss things economically (he's the same type as my classmate), he inevitably seems to equate me saying "well regulated" as meaning "more regulated"
It's hard to be the most moral of all nations in an ever shifting landscape. Sure, we should strive to do the right thing, but most right or wrong actions have far reaching consequences, and "morality" is often relative.
While that is true, there are times where we have done some straight up immoral gak as a country. I mean, there was a vocal minority of people in the PNW who were voicing concerns and protesting against the US Government/military during the internment of Japanese citizens. Obviously, we could all drag up instances or situations where an action or institution started off as being a morally acceptable thing, and morals change... but there are plenty of times where an act or institution starts off on the wrong side of morality.
It's hard to be the most moral of all nations in an ever shifting landscape. Sure, we should strive to do the right thing, but most right or wrong actions have far reaching consequences, and "morality" is often relative.
While that is true, there are times where we have done some straight up immoral gak as a country. I mean, there was a vocal minority of people in the PNW who were voicing concerns and protesting against the US Government/military during the internment of Japanese citizens. Obviously, we could all drag up instances or situations where an action or institution started off as being a morally acceptable thing, and morals change... but there are plenty of times where an act or institution starts off on the wrong side of morality.
Oh, absolutely. My point was two fold: A) morality is relative, and what may seem like barbaric activities may be justified (and the reverse is true, the Japanese internment camps. I get their premise, but it was absolutely horrifying) and B) Countries shift up and down. We may have done terrible things, but we've also done some good. On the whole, there is no "good" country, just countries.
BrotherGecko wrote: Which is to say it is wrong or to say its right or that people don't like to think America in negative terms or that it is secretly true?
It has nothing to do with thinking of America in negative terms but realizing that looking at history in such a way is no better than assuming everything is positive.
BrotherGecko wrote: As America the empire has nothing in relation to Birtherism and 9/11 Truthing, your point is unclear to me. I apologize.
Just saying "I have books that say this" doesn't make them accurate or true as there are books that say Obama isn't really American or that G.W. Bush was behind 9/11. Thinking the USA was dressed provocatively which provoked Japan to sneak attack Pearl Harbor and thus is Americas fault is historical revisionism. The problem isn't recognizing there was an embargo and what that meant, the problem is in solely blaming the USA for Japans decision to attack.
As an engineer, sure, I'll give you economics, but math and engineering? Excuse me, there is no more neutral study than those two. Science is the most neutral of all studies, it's only purpose is to enlighten. Yeah, it can be used for good or ill, but at it's core, it is neutral.
What we choosy to study and how we choose to structure that study are very much political choices. What we understand "science" to be is not free from ideology. This is not to say that it's bad to not be neutral, it's just that the idea of neutrality is more widespread than actual neutrality.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I get in alot of trouble when I say I think that capitilism itself is a good system. Its just that human rights/worker rights need to be part of it.
We wouldnt have ANYTHING we have today without capitilism. I pissed off this one girl I went out with by saying "You like anime, conventions and cosplay, literally none of that would be possible without capitilism, this pizza place where in would not be here without capitilism)
People would make cartoons and pizzas even if workers owned the means of production, though. If Warhammer or iphones or other trinkets wouldn't have existed without capitalism and/or would cease to be without capitalism then, uh, so what? They aren't that important.
Capitalism did indeed revolutionise production technology compared to feudalism but it's often pointed out that this wasn't done out of sheer good will but rather to extract the largest amount of surplus value possible. What this did to the people doing the gruntwork has not been a priority, exactly. The human cost of capitalism has been a defining aspect of global society for a couple of hundred years now. It's what the worker and anti-colonialist movements have been all about.
BrotherGecko wrote: WW2 probably but WW1 was of zero consequence to the US, any side could have won and the US wouldn't of been any worse off.
The US basically entered WW1 because we had a financial stake in it. Britain and France had exhausted their wealth (sending lots of it to the US buying US goods) and then borrowing gargantuan amounts when that ran out. The world center of banking moved from London to New York. We wanted to keep getting paid and repaid on loans, and basically joined in because an Allied defeat would likely have collapsed the US economy, particularly if Britain and France had defaulted as they almost certainly would have.
In all other aspects, yes the US had no real stake, but, as with everything, follow the money
hotsauceman1 wrote: I get in alot of trouble when I say I think that capitilism itself is a good system. Its just that human rights/worker rights need to be part of it.
We wouldnt have ANYTHING we have today without capitilism. I pissed off this one girl I went out with by saying "You like anime, conventions and cosplay, literally none of that would be possible without capitilism, this pizza place where in would not be here without capitilism)
Thats a silly sentiment, of course you can criticize a system even though you live in it and neither is capitalism the end of history.
BrotherGecko wrote: Either way its hardly unique and is a fairly common view point from what I've been gathering now that I'm aware of its existance.
I don't think that's what he's getting at.
I'd innately question any author who took the geopolitics of US-Japanese relations in the inter-war years, and used that relationship to make a moral judgement amounting to "America was asking for it, and was just as guilty in starting the war as Japan." In a realist sense, this statement is true. US foreign policy and Japanese foreign policy were not compatible, and given our knowledge now prolonged peace was extremely unlikely. That position however does not make moral judgments like "America wasn't the victim." By any standard of looking at war, America was the victim of unprovoked military aggression.
War theory tends to look poorly on the side that throws the first punch in general. It looks even more poorly when that punch is thrown at a tertiary party in continuance of ongoing wars with multiple primary parties when the tertiary party to the knowledge of the aggressor was not an immediate threat (immediate as in tomorrow. It gets even worse when the primary conflicts are all unwinnable, and the new conflict started in their furtherance is to execute a military plan that not only starts another unwinnable war, but doesn't make the other wars winnable.
Japan attacked the US because they believed the US would intervene if the Empire tried to seize British Borneo and the Dutch East Indies. Japan decided to take those territories because it could provide them with oil. They ignored that there wasn't enough oil in these areas to meet their needs (i.e. taking them would not help them win their wars). Whether or not the US would have intervened is pretty hotly debated, but the reality is that the US thought the oil embargo would work, and we put a lot less thought into "what do we do if it doesn't."
The US basically entered WW1 because we had a financial stake in it.
Hey. Let's give Britain some credit here. Nothing gets a country to join a war like finding out another country was talking to its neighbor about a military alliance to take back Texas, and boy oh boy was Britian happy to tell us all about it
Plus unrestricted submarine warfare was kind of a dick move anyway.
The zimmerman telegram was really a minor affair in the grand scheme of things that was made way worse because Germany basically didnt deny it but tried to explain it as Realpolitik, but wasnt any different than what all the world powers were doing.
Unrestricted submarine warfare was simply the only way submarines could work, when they tried to follow the old establishes rules they were extremely easy to destroy, and British Q ships masquerading as merchant vessels meant they couldnt take the chance, and Submarines were the only answer the Germans had to the British blockade of Germany. Britain sealed off German via suface vessels, going far beyond the accepted blockade norms of the time and preventing even foodstuffs coming in, eventually resulting in mass starvation. We had much less prewar trade with Germany though so we didnt complain much.
The US then basically insisted that any vessel with a US citizen on board was immune to attack, even if it was carrying purely military cargo destined for a combatant nation and under active escort by a combatant navy...which was more than a wee bit ridiculous by any standard...
Then of course in WW2 unrestricted submarine warfare was the norm from day 1, including with the US navy...
The Zimmerman Telegram was a big deal, mostly because it caused a complete shift in the attitudes of the American public. We were still pretty Anti-British as a country, and the electorate could care less about joining Britain's side. The economics of the war are pretty straight forward, and unrestricted submarine warfare was totally pissing us off and driving US policy makers towards joining the war. They really needed the electorate to get on board though, and the Zimmerman Telegram got the electorate on board.
And yes. Zimmerman explaining it as realpolitik and then not understanding why we didn't get it is comedy skit material
The US then basically insisted that any vessel with a US citizen on board was immune to attack, even if it was carrying purely military cargo destined for a combatant nation and under active escort by a combatant navy...which was more than a wee bit ridiculous by any standard...
It's definitely unreasonable to expect Germany to magically know which ships had US citizens on board, though on the other hand, why the feth is Germany torpedoing civilian shipping traveling under the flag of states it's not at war with? Total War doctrine does not extend to attacking the citizens and property of non-aggressor states simply because they happen to be traveling to an aggressor state. It's kind of unreasonable for Germany to think it could blow up US shipping and citizens as part of their war with a third party, so I'd say on that particular point the US wasn't being unreasonable at all. We weren't at arms with Germany, and Germany's right to wage its war against Britain does not under any standard extend to attacking US citizens as military targets.
Then of course in WW2 unrestricted submarine warfare was the norm from day 1, including with the US navy...
BrotherGecko wrote: Which is to say it is wrong or to say its right or that people don't like to think America in negative terms or that it is secretly true?
It has nothing to do with thinking of America in negative terms but realizing that looking at history in such a way is no better than assuming everything is positive.
BrotherGecko wrote: As America the empire has nothing in relation to Birtherism and 9/11 Truthing, your point is unclear to me. I apologize.
Just saying "I have books that say this" doesn't make them accurate or true as there are books that say Obama isn't really American or that G.W. Bush was behind 9/11. Thinking the USA was dressed provocatively which provoked Japan to sneak attack Pearl Harbor and thus is Americas fault is historical revisionism. The problem isn't recognizing there was an embargo and what that meant, the problem is in solely blaming the USA for Japans decision to attack.
I understand the whole I have books comment was rather nebulous lol. The ones I have are all cited academic works not just Uncle Barry's youtube channel. I honestly am not saying I am making the same conclusions as they have with the same info. The point of the book comment was to express that academic work has been made to support Perigrine's position and not being some fringe ideas found on reddit.
Obviously Japan did the attack an is absolutely responsible for their actions but at the same time the US was basically telling Japan to hit it. Japan fell for the trap and got molly whop'd for its efforts. Turned into a territory (more or less) and was completely and utterly removed as a rival power in the East that refused to play by US rules. I sincerely doubt the Japanese Empire's disregard for human life and murder of Chinese nationals ment anything to US policy makers of the time, seeing as they saw no issue in casually killing civilians as a way to defeat an enemy abroad.
"Academic" works get written for fringe positions all the time. May I ask what books these are? I'm pretty widely read on this subject, and I've never seen anyone not a loon equate the geo-politics of the situation to "America was asking for it."
Total War doctrine does not extend to attacking the citizens and property of non-aggressor states simply because they happen to be traveling to an aggressor state.
The Rape of Nanking shocked everyone. Especially in light of reporting on the Boxer rebellion many years earlier, where reporters found the Japanese looting in China "polite" and used it to demonize the comparatively rough conduct of Western soldiers. Even in comparison to previous crimes against humanity perpetrated by Western Imperial Powers, what happened in Nanking was a whole new level. It totally meant something to US policy makers, aided by gak tons of photos running in newspapers around the world, which made all of it really hard to brush off.
LordofHats wrote: The Zimmerman Telegram was a big deal, mostly because it caused a complete shift in the attitudes of the American public. We were still pretty Anti-British as a country, and the electorate could care less about joining Britain's side. The economics of the war are pretty straight forward, and unrestricted submarine warfare was totally pissing us off and driving US policy makers towards joining the war. They really needed the electorate to get on board though, and the Zimmerman Telegram got the electorate on board.
right, but again, wasnt any different than what all the great powers were doing, germany just basically got caught with that one...by the British illegally intercepting US transatlantic communications
And yes. Zimmerman explaining it as realpolitik and then not understanding why we didn't get it is comedy skit material
right, had Germany denied it, it would have blown over, most could have chalked it up to British propaganda or left it at least suspect. Germany being honest about it and saying "hey, we're all doing this, this is a 'just in case' thing, you understand right?" was the problem, playing into FrancoBritish information-war stuff of the time.
It's definitely unreasonable to expect Germany to magically know which ships had US citizens on board, though on the other hand, why the feth is Germany torpedoing civilian shipping traveling under the flag of states it's not at war with?
Because they're transporting war supplies to a combatant power? The laws of war at the time allowed them to stop, seize, and sink these vessels, the big issue was that they were supposed to warn the ships and disembark the passengers...which they stopped doing because Submarines were ill suited to taking on passengers and Submarines started getting sunk when they tried to play nice.
Germany gave ample warning to the general public however. hell theres a clip of a newspaper where tickets for the Luisitania (later confirmed to be carrying several million rounds of ammunition and other war supplies) are being advertised...and on the same page is a message from the German Embassy about their current stance on vessels travelling to the UK and the risk of such travel.
Britain was turning away neutral, noncombatant vessels away from German ports and boarding their vessels and seizing their goods, they just werent sinking much of anything because surface vessels could afford to take the risk and people stopped trying to ship stuff to Germany entirely because of the blockade pretty much immediately (and they werent as large a trading partner to begin with).
Total War doctrine does not extend to attacking the citizens and property of non-aggressor states simply because they happen to be traveling to an aggressor state. It's kind of unreasonable for Germany to think it could blow up US shipping and citizens as part of their war with a third party, so I'd say on that particular point the US wasn't being unreasonable at all.
it certainly allowed for interdiction of neutral shipping to a combatant nation. The British were doing it from day 1. The issue with Germany was that submarines could not play by the old rules of "well you have to want them and give them time to disembark first".
We weren't at arms with Germany, and Germany's right to wage its war against Britain does not under any standard extend to attacking US citizens as military targets.
which then meant that the British could just put a US citizen on every ship and make it safe from attack no matter what it was doing by the standards the US was trying to push.
Then of course in WW2 unrestricted submarine warfare was the norm from day 1, including with the US navy...
It got Donitz off
right, but it shows that it was a relatively lame pretext for war when nobody even pays lip service to it the next time around
LordofHats wrote: "Academic" works get written for fringe positions all the time. May I ask what books these are? I'm pretty widely read on this subject, and I've never seen anyone not a loon equate the geo-politics of the situation to "America was asking for it."
Total War doctrine does not extend to attacking the citizens and property of non-aggressor states simply because they happen to be traveling to an aggressor state.
The Rape of Nanking shocked everyone. Especially in light of reporting on the Boxer rebellion many years earlier, where reporters found the Japanese looting in China "polite" and used it to demonize the comparatively rough conduct of Western soldiers. Even in comparison to previous crimes against humanity perpetrated by Western Imperial Powers, what happened in Nanking was a whole new level. It totally meant something to US policy makers, aided by gak tons of photos running in newspapers around the world, which made all of it really hard to brush off.
Well currently I have the long essay "Empire as a Way of Life" by William Appleman Williams (lol), "America's Half-Century: United States Foreign Policy in the Cold War and After" by Thomas J. McCormick and the seemingly provocative "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II" by William Blum all inflicted upon me. I'm most of the way through "Empire as a Way of Life" and can say that his stance seemed to be one the Japan attacking the US was exactly what Roosevelt wanted to happen. The other two may or may not specifically make comments about US v Japan but likely are going to take the stance of the US not being innocent in its endeavors around the world.
Still I was just getting at Perigrine not being some freak sympathizer of to the woes of old Japanese imperialists.
I'm not an expert on anything this and am just dipping my toes on the subject at the moment. I know a great many eyes roll when someone brings up something from a class they are taking in uni but I got stuck taking this stupid class and I will be damnned if I won't waste my time and energy not at least attempting to learn/understand a different interpretation of the commonly accepted story of the US triumph over evil.
Vaktathi wrote: by the British illegally intercepting US transatlantic communications
More comedy skit material
The laws of war at the time allowed them to stop, seize, and sink these vessels,
No they didn't. That's why we were so peeved, and Britain and France liked harping on it to get us involved. Under no standard of war is permission granted to attack third parties who are not engaged in the conflict militarily. The World Wars were marked in general by the willingness of states to completely ignore what were the assumed conventions of warfare and wartime conduct (chemical gas, unrestricted submarine warfare, trench guns, etc), but that doesn't change that the US was not at war with Germany, and Germany had no right under the norms of war to attack American ships and passengers as military targets. Germany giving warning that they were going to attack a non-party to their war doesn't make it better anymore than Zimmerman explaining "we were just saying "if there's a war,"."
Britain was turning away neutral, noncombatant vessels away from German ports and boarding their vessels and seizing their goods,
And that's Britains choice, and their problem.
it certainly allowed for interdiction of neutral shipping to a combatant nation.
I think that under the standards of Maritime law at the time that's a dubious position. It's less likely to piss someone off as much as blowing ships up though.
which then meant that the British could just put a US citizen on every ship and make it safe from attack no matter what it was doing by the standards the US was trying to push.
There's a difference between sinking a British ship when you can't possible know it's passenger manifest, and attacking ships from a country you are not at war with. One is an unreasonable expectation, the other is not.
it shows that it was a relatively lame pretext for war when nobody even pays lip service to it the next time around
Eh, as a pretext for war "you attacked my people and their property even though we aren't at war with you" is a pretty good pretext for war.
I think I've committed a blunder in terminology. When attacking unrestricted submarine warfare, I don't mean to attack Germany for pragmatically deciding they couldn't be nice and play by traditional Prize Rules (that was suicidal as you point out). I mean to attack Germany to attacking ships belonging to states they were not at war with (both with Submarines and surface vessels). That's a war crime, and even in World War II, the US didn't go that far. Of course, in World War II we had the advantage that pretty much everyone was on someone's side, so it was really hard to sink a ship belonging to someone we weren't at war with if only for lack of targets.
Well currently I have the long essay "Empire as a Way of Life" by William Appleman Williams (lol), "America's Half-Century: United States Foreign Policy in the Cold War and After" by Thomas J. McCormick and the seemingly provocative "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions since World War II" by William Blum all inflicted upon me.
Thanks. I'm not familiar with these authors (EDIT: Well McCormick sounds familiar, but I don't think I've ever read anything by him), so I'll add them to the reading list.
Someone doesn't need to be an expert to have an opinion (and me being well read doesn't innately make me one), so go and use your knowledge!
BrotherGecko wrote: WW2 probably but WW1 was of zero consequence to the US, any side could have won and the US wouldn't of been any worse off.
The US basically entered WW1 because we had a financial stake in it. Britain and France had exhausted their wealth (sending lots of it to the US buying US goods) and then borrowing gargantuan amounts when that ran out. The world center of banking moved from London to New York. We wanted to keep getting paid and repaid on loans, and basically joined in because an Allied defeat would likely have collapsed the US economy, particularly if Britain and France had defaulted as they almost certainly would have.
In all other aspects, yes the US had no real stake, but, as with everything, follow the money
You missed the part of Germany killing our nationals, sinking our ships, and promising Mexico the return of California, Texas, and Arizona.*
*Even Mexico doesn't want New Mexico. Pancho Villa managed to domesticate a few New Mexico scorpions and use them as tanks for his revolutionary army.
I am to understand, "Killing Hope" isn't the most academic read as Blum is apparently rather sarcastic and prone to sniping US policy makers. He is however a former employee of the US state department for which I think of dubious importance. He at least cites the hell out of everything so you know where he is getting his ideas from.
But yah, one day I will make up my mind on how all this works and would like to be able to really discuss US foreign policy.
Empire as a Way of Life has certainly given me some food for thought on the foundation of the country.
Vaktathi wrote: The zimmerman telegram was really a minor affair in the grand scheme of things .
Says you. Other historians cite it as a primary causis belli.
It is also cited in Wilson's request for a declaration of war.
"Even in checking these things and trying to extirpate them, we have sought to put the most generous interpretation possible upon them because we knew that their source lay, not in any hostile feeling or purpose of the German people toward us (who were no doubt as ignorant of them as we ourselves were) but only in the selfish designs of a government that did what it pleased and told its people nothing. But they have played their part in serving to convince us at last that that government entertains no real friendship for us and means to act against our peace and security at its convenience. That it means to stir up enemies against us at our very doors the intercepted note to the German minister at Mexico City is eloquent evidence."
BrotherGecko wrote: I am to understand, "Killing Hope" isn't the most academic read as Blum is apparently rather sarcastic and prone to sniping US policy makers.
Well a quick google search on William Blum brings up his Wiki article... Which is certainly interesting. However, I wouldn't say that I see anything that makes me think he's a kook. Maybe he could have handled that Bin Laden thing a bit better from a PR stand point, and it is kind of a red flag for me on what exactly he thinks, but I'm not going to throw out judgments until I actually read something he's written.
Even kooks can be right, and I don't know that he is one yet XD
Really, my thought is that people might be taking some of the things written a bit too far. There's nothing fringe about the view of America and Japan as rival Imperial powers in the Pacific who were never going to agree because they were unwilling to accept not being the biggest fish in the deep blue sea. What strikes me as odd is taking that position and making a moral determination about the Pearl Harbor Attack, which is a pretty straight forward failure of Jus ad Bellum. America and Japan both being Imperial douche bags doesn't have much bearing on determining who the aggressor, and who was the aggressed (i.e. victim of aggression) was in 1941.
Obviously Japan did the attack an is absolutely responsible for their actions but at the same time the US was basically telling Japan to hit it.
Again, its the US shouldn't have worn that skirt into the bar. Japan just couldn't help itself.
You know what the doctrine is called in the law? Horsesh t. If Hardeep at the Quickie Mart refuses to sell you a slushi because you're wearing a KKK hat, does that mean you can you shoot Hardeep in the face? He is not going to thank you and ask you to come again!
The US and a variety of countries have had embargoes against Iran, Iraq, the USSR, Cuba, Germany, South Africa etc etc etc. does that mean the US was "basically telling them to hit it?"
What about the OPEC embargo in the 1970s? Under this theory we could have swept in an Pwoned the ME, because hey they were asking for it.
MMM back to current politics. Trump is now saying his Unconstitutional "ban all da Muslimz" rant was just a suggestion. He also just suggested he may be open to social security cuts. Mmm yes, pissing off old people - the highest voting percentage bloc in the US- is always a sure road to election.
MMM back to current politics. Trump is now saying his Unconstitutional "ban all da Muslimz" rant was just a suggestion. He also just suggested he may be open to social security cuts.
Mmm yes, pissing off old people - the highest voting percentage bloc in the US- is always a sure road to election.
Lol, All Hillary would need to do is say, "Y'all may hate me, but at least I don't hate your social security" and she'd have him beat in no time.
Also... I read an article in which Trump got really confused, spouted some nonsense unrelated to the question (the question was about veterans, the GI Bill and benefits)... and when asked even more directly, said that he "would not" support the GI Bill, as if it's some debated thing that hasn't been around since like, 1946.
Go take upper-level sociology classes, they tend to be more nuetral than people think. But I am honestly tired of most of the stuff you said. Im actually in a Culture/Law of japan class right now and my proffessor just said "Japan Brought alot of (It) unto them to themselves. There where some real atrocities done during the war they still refuse to acknowledge" and he he grew in japa
I'm not sure if I'm surprised by your professor or understand him better since he's teaching in the US. Currently over 40% of the Japanese refuse to believe the Rape of Nanking ever happened at all. Another 40% believe that the events are grossly exaggerated. All this despite countless records and film recovered from Japanese military archives.
Statistics on who believes what show that it's pretty similar on what percent of the Japanese population denies the atrocities of unit 731, treatment of prisoners of war, and the Batton Death March.
Basically the Japanese as a whole are a population of atrocity deniers. I am honestly honored that your professor acknowledges his country's past mistakes.
When I think of deniers like this I an thankful the allies in Europe marched Germans through the death camps so they'd never be able to deny what happened. If they didn't, could you imagine half the country believing the tales of Holocaust deniers?
MMM back to current politics. Trump is now saying his Unconstitutional "ban all da Muslimz" rant was just a suggestion. He also just suggested he may be open to social security cuts.
Mmm yes, pissing off old people - the highest voting percentage bloc in the US- is always a sure road to election.
Lol, All Hillary would need to do is say, "Y'all may hate me, but at least I don't hate your social security" and she'd have him beat in no time.
Also... I read an article in which Trump got really confused, spouted some nonsense unrelated to the question (the question was about veterans, the GI Bill and benefits)... and when asked even more directly, said that he "would not" support the GI Bill, as if it's some debated thing that hasn't been around since like, 1946.
Its like watching Will Ferrell running for President.
Can you imagine the Clinton campaign war room..."Wait we have to run against that guy?"
cuda1179 wrote: Basically the Japanese as a whole are a population of atrocity deniers. I am honestly honored that your professor acknowledges his country's past mistakes.
Just being technical, 40% saying it didn't happen doesn't amount to a "whole population of atrocity deniers." Sounds like a bit of an exaggeration
a mod has already warned-lets get back OT now methinks.
1. Lets move on to current politics. Trump is out there! 2. Lets not besmirch an entire nation for a government who's ashes were were dumped in the drink 70 years ago. They didn't do it, and they have to deal with living without quality Tex Mex. How could anyone survive? 3. Trump is out there!
Think part of it is it did not happen during their time frame. US never apologized for Slavery. Unsure if they even apologized to the Native Americans with all the treaties that were broken.
The events of the past week have demonstrated that there is probably nothing Donald Trump might do to mollify those in the conservative establishment opposed to him. After winning decisively in Indiana, Trump praised his rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio—respectively the most conservative and most establishment-favored among his opponents, while looking forward to a “united” party. In response, he received nothing but disdain from the GOP establishment: a patronizing statement from speaker Paul Ryan, expressing “hope” that Trump will somehow morph into an acceptable GOP nominee. Jeb Bush and Lindsey Graham reneged on pledges they had made with much solemnity last summer to support the eventual GOP nominee, a pledge whose origins lay in the party’s worry that Trump as an outsider might launch a third-party bid. In the background, neoconservative figure Bill Kristol was tweeting about his own efforts to organize an anti-Trump third party. Other neoconservative writers had been penning gushing references about Hillary’s acceptability to foreign-policy hawks for months. At times it seemed as if virtually the entire GOP intellectual apparat, its editors and featured newspaper columnists and think-tank staffers were falling over themselves to denounce the man who had won millions of Republican primary votes from New Hampshire to Arizona to every red and blue state in between.
It’s simple enough to point to Trump’s weaknesses as a campaigner or to his political inexperience in explaining this rejection. These are obvious and have been repeated well past extraordinary redundancy for months now, though the most used damning phrases (misogynist, Mexican rapists, ban Muslims) are always stripped of whatever qualifications Trump supplied. They have been aired repeatedly in the anti-Trump attack ads that have saturated primary states since mid March. But Trump’s failings as a campaigner—undisciplined tweeting, bombast, changes of positions, disdain for the conventional wisdom (which at least sometimes is conventional because it is sound) don’t account for the depth of the hostility. That’s because Trump’s victories are not due his personal qualities (which are seldom overrated by his supporters) so much as to the extraordinary weakness of what establishment conservatism has stood for and promises. For some tens of millions of American voters, it matters less that Trump is clearly not well versed in policy nuances than that he has somehow identified and targeted the weakest points of establishment conservatism.
For what has the establishment GOP accomplished for its voters—excepting those in its well-nurtured class of consultants and lobbyists? In early 2015, the veteran pollster and Democratic consultant Pat Caddell analyzed a poll of Republican and independent voters, and was shocked by the widespread of animosity respondents expressed towards their own leaders. “The GOP leadership, the lawyers, the lobbyists, the consultant class of the Republican party don’t understand that these people are angry” Caddell said, continuing “I’ve never seen anything like this at the base of a party. And that is why the analogy to the Whigs is not so far-fetched.” This was six months before Trump walked down the escalator at Trump Tower.
He wasn’t talking about social-issue anger, which has been around for two generations and may be ebbing, but the emotions of people slowly losing their standing in their country. And what can the contemporary Republican Party point to? The war in Iraq, its relentless cheerleading for a war in Iran; lower taxes for the very rich; for its most establishment leaders, legalization of illegal immigrants. These all are proposed against a backdrop of accelerating economic inequality, and the shocking demographic decline—early death through hopelessness one might call it—of less-educated white people. The latter are probably not Trump voters, who more or less match the Republican average in income. But you can’t go to a Trump rally and sense that Trump voters are not so far removed from those people who have given up, and likely feel a sense of shared destiny with them more than does the typical Obama, Hillary or Romney voter. Trump, many conservative intellectuals claim, is not a conservative; but the natural retort to them is what precisely, with their agenda of foreign wars, middle- and working-class job loss, and high rates of immigration, are they trying to conserve?
In Trump’s case, the answer probably is something like an Eisenhower conservatism, with big government and secure employment. Trump was a boy in New York when Ike was carrying the state by twenty-two points.
Trumpism is also, as some have noted but the mainstream press has ignored, an American variation of a pan-Western phenomenon. A closely contended referendum about Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union awaits; Marine Le Pen (after purging her father and moderating her party) is the leading politician in France (though the National Front is smaller than the combined center-left and establishment right), and even Germany—deeply and for good reason suspicious of any antiestablishment conservatism, has produced its own “nationalist” conservative party. Ditto Sweden, The Netherlands, Austria, anywhere you look. Due to geography more than any other factor, Europe’s immigration crisis is more severe than America’s, but its newly ascending conservative parties are interested in approximately the same thing—a desire to conserve the best elements about the society of their parents and own youth, including such attributes as a secure and self-confident working class and a considerable sense of common and shared culture. One can denounce such aspirations as bigotry and xenophobia all one wants, but their durability suggests that they are universal, natural and deeply rooted in the human personality.
In the United States, the question of the day is to what degree will the Republican Party go to accommodate and support these aspirations, of which Donald Trump has improbably become leading vector. It is clear that the answer for the some of the GOP intellectuals, the hardcore neocons and most of the people at National Review, the answer is no, not one bit, not ever. These publications have developed an almost religious devotion to hawkish foreign policies, and a comparable affection for free trade. Their feelings about immigration may be ambivalent, but like most of the American upper class they are immunized from the worse effects. Their vision of America as an indispensable nation is one which requires America’s meddling in every corner of the globe.
The reactions of politicians are harder to predict, probably because understanding and in some sense accommodating themselves to popular sentiment is part of their job description. For instance, Lindsey Graham and Jeb Bush, both humiliated by Trump in the primaries, fall clearly into the camp that will try everything possible to destroy his candidacy. John McCain—ideologically more or less identical on the same wavelength as Graham, hawkish and pro-immigration, now seeks to keep his options open. Did reports of Trump voters waiting hours in Saturday traffic jams on the Arizona highways –while protesters blocked roads in efforts to inflict mayhem on those seeking to attend Trump rallies, strike some chord within him? Did the fact that Trump pulled 47 percent in Arizona, nearly doubling Ted Cruz’s second-place score, temper his impulse to be disdainful?
In any case, whether it wins, loses, or something in between, what Trump represents will now continue to find a political outlet. Trump was underestimated by the establishment press, because “populism” always loses. A different sort of politician, not able to self-fund through the primaries, less self-confident, less, if you will, bombastic, could never have broken through informal establishment cordon which separates serious candidates from fringe ones.
But Trump did break through, and the GOP won’t be same any time soon. It wasn’t the same after Barry Goldwater, even if the Arizona Republican (a completely different type of ideological figure than Trump) went down to inglorious defeat, shunned by establishment figures of his own party. Trump, whose victory reflects deeper historical forces than Goldwater’s did, will make a greater impact.
I don't know if most of the Trump voters are angling for that "Eisenhower conservatism, with big government and secure employment"... Maybe we do, but I'm unconvinced at the moment...
I think it's worth noting 2 things:
1) Trump recieved an unprecendent "in kind" contribution from the media in the form of free "face time" (worth approx $2billion), much to Nate Silver's chargrin.
2) The GOP's failings could simply be it's utter failure at public persuasion in the media. Trump, on the other hand, has figured out how to manipulate the media. You can argue about the ends to which he's doing it, but he's better at it than any of the candidates at this point.
No they didn't. That's why we were so peeved, and Britain and France liked harping on it to get us involved. Under no standard of war is permission granted to attack third parties who are not engaged in the conflict militarily. The World Wars were marked in general by the willingness of states to completely ignore what were the assumed conventions of warfare and wartime conduct (chemical gas, unrestricted submarine warfare, trench guns, etc), but that doesn't change that the US was not at war with Germany, and Germany had no right under the norms of war to attack American ships and passengers as military targets. Germany giving warning that they were going to attack a non-party to their war doesn't make it better anymore than Zimmerman explaining "we were just saying "if there's a war,"."
Under the laws of war, blockade could be imposed and vessels, even neutral ones, could be stopped and war material seized. The British just labelled everything as War material and prevented shipping into Germany entirely from all nations, seizing cargo and vessels, including foodstuffs resulting in starvation even amongst the German civilian population. The Germans could only counter this with Submarines...which quickly determined seizing cargo wasnt possible.
Either way the Germans were screwed if they did nothing, and nobody else in the same position would accept those conditions.
To put it in a more modern perspective, if the US and China went to war tomorrow, would the US freely allow Indian or Brazillian vessels carrying arms and industrial materials into Chinese ports without challenge? No, of course not. Would anyone accept, with a straight face, that a Brazillian or Indian citizen aboard a Chinese vessel made it immune to attack by the US in such a situation? No, of course not.Thats the kind of stuff the US was trying to get away with.
Britain was turning away neutral, noncombatant vessels away from German ports and boarding their vessels and seizing their goods,
And that's Britains choice, and their problem.
except nobody was raising the same stink about it with the British...because we were making gobs of money off of them. They basically got a free pass.
I think that under the standards of Maritime law at the time that's a dubious position. It's less likely to piss someone off as much as blowing ships up though.
sure, but the nature of submarines, the only option Germany had, basically means there isnt an alternative.
There's a difference between sinking a British ship when you can't possible know it's passenger manifest, and attacking ships from a country you are not at war with. One is an unreasonable expectation, the other is not.
except that the US position was that even on a Britsh flagged ship, a US citizen being on board effectively made it immune to attack, and there was demonstrable use by the Britsh of false flags (which was one of the major impetus for the opening of neutral vessels to attack).
And again, the rules governing blockades allowed intercept of neutral vessels and potentially sinking them, the US only paid minimal lip service to the British doing this however, and that was a key component of Germany stepping up its efforts.
Eh, as a pretext for war "you attacked my people and their property even though we aren't at war with you" is a pretty good pretext for war.
except its more "my ships are carrying weapons, munitions, and other material explicitley intended for a combatants war effort...but because I'm not openly at war with you, you cant stop them". That really doesnt fly with anyone.
The British certainly didnt allow Neutral ships into German ports regardless of what they were carrying, the only difference with the Germans was that they used Submarines instead of surface vessels, which necessitated sinkings. Aside from that the British were doing literally the exact same things to Neutral ships, stopping them, seizing cargo and ships, and interfering with free navigation.
I think I've committed a blunder in terminology. When attacking unrestricted submarine warfare, I don't mean to attack Germany for pragmatically deciding they couldn't be nice and play by traditional Prize Rules (that was suicidal as you point out). I mean to attack Germany to attacking ships belonging to states they were not at war with (both with Submarines and surface vessels).
. If they're carrying war material and a blockade is being enforced then action can certainly be taken, again the issue was the use of the submarine vs surface vessels and the tactics that entailed.
That's a war crime, and even in World War II, the US didn't go that far.
there werent really too many neutral powers in WW2 to sink really, that said, neutral powers like Sweden certainly faced hostile action and interference from the UK against its shipping and trade.
Of course, in World War II we had the advantage that pretty much everyone was on someone's side, so it was really hard to sink a ship belonging to someone we weren't at war with if only for lack of targets.
right, it just wasnt an issue that came up *too* much.
Vaktathi wrote: Under the laws of war, blockade could be imposed and vessels, even neutral ones, could be stopped and war material seized.
The right to blockade does not extend to attacking neutral ships in open seas.
To put it in a more modern perspective, if the US and China went to war tomorrow, would the US freely allow Indian or Brazillian vessels carrying arms and industrial materials into Chinese ports without challenge? No, of course not. Would anyone accept, with a straight face, that a Brazillian or Indian citizen aboard a Chinese vessel made it immune to attack by the US in such a situation? No, of course not. Thats the kind of stuff the US was trying to get away with.
I think the US would totally do it (I think we'd try bribing them first to be fair, but assuming that fails), and India and Brazil would be completely within their rights to declare war, because we've just started carrying out unilateral attacks on their citizens and economy with no formal declaration of conflict, and our might make right mentality in international politics doesn't actually make us right.
except nobody was raising the same stink about it with the British...because we were making gobs of money off of them. They basically got a free pass.
Are we talking about Britain or Germany? I mean we can talk about Britain too, but what was going on with Britain and Germany doesn't give Germany carte blanch to attack America. "Britain is being unfair so I'm going to attack America" doesn't fly.
except that the US position was that even on a Britsh flagged ship, a US citizen being on board effectively made it immune to attack, and there was demonstrable use by the Britsh of false flags (which was one of the major impetus for the opening of neutral vessels to attack).
"Britain is being unfair so I'm going to attack America" doesn't fly.
That really doesn't fly with anyone.
Then Germany should have declared war, if they felt so aggrieved. They didn't, and carried out wartime acts anyway. That's a war crime. Either America is the enemy and they are justified to declare a state of war, or America is neutral and they have no right to attack it's citizens and property, or interfere with our economic enterprises. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
Guys, c'mon, back on topic. I understand Kilkrazy didn't use red text in a 30pt font, but the words are still there.
Trump and Ryan have had a meeting, and are working towards coming together. I wonder what will ultimately come of it? Trump is a divisive figure within the Republican party, and nobody with half a brain should expect the entire party to walk lockstep in unison right away. Trump won enough of the party to get the nomination, but now he needs to win the rest of the party, and enough of the middle, to win the Gold House.
If Trump losing the election is a foregone conclusion, what hurts the GOP more in the long run: a unified front to support Trump, or remain a house divided? If they unite behind Trump and still lose in 2016, how much worse will it be in 2020? If the GOP broke itself up now and rebuilt, would they be better off for it in 2020?
That is a good question. Either way the Democrats are going to pin Trump on the party and all downstream candidates.
The problem for the Democrats is, is the Trump/Democartic Alliance succeeds and obliterates the Republican Party, then the US will be a one party state.
If you want to see what a one party state is like-look at Mexico during the PRI years. They become soft dictatorships.
If Trump losing the election is a foregone conclusion, what hurts the GOP more in the long run: a unified front to support Trump, or remain a house divided? If they unite behind Trump and still lose in 2016, how much worse will it be in 2020? If the GOP broke itself up now and rebuilt, would they be better off for it in 2020?
Personally, I would think it'd be smart politics to divest themselves from the "crazy" element of the party. Whether it's an official break up, or whether it's just a massive shaking up of the party planks to drive the crazies out, I don't know... but speaking towards both sides of the aisle, it's pretty clear to me that what we're seeing today cannot be good for us in the long run.
Go take upper-level sociology classes, they tend to be more nuetral than people think. But I am honestly tired of most of the stuff you said. Im actually in a Culture/Law of japan class right now and my proffessor just said "Japan Brought alot of (It) unto them to themselves. There where some real atrocities done during the war they still refuse to acknowledge" and he he grew in japa
I'm not sure if I'm surprised by your professor or understand him better since he's teaching in the US. Currently over 40% of the Japanese refuse to believe the Rape of Nanking ever happened at all. Another 40% believe that the events are grossly exaggerated. All this despite countless records and film recovered from Japanese military archives.
Statistics on who believes what show that it's pretty similar on what percent of the Japanese population denies the atrocities of unit 731, treatment of prisoners of war, and the Batton Death March.
Basically the Japanese as a whole are a population of atrocity deniers. I am honestly honored that your professor acknowledges his country's past mistakes.
When I think of deniers like this I an thankful the allies in Europe marched Germans through the death camps so they'd never be able to deny what happened. If they didn't, could you imagine half the country believing the tales of Holocaust deniers?
The problem is that Japanese history teaching starts with the formation of the solar system and gradually progresses through time until the 20th century is tacked on as a minor topic right at the end when people are frantically revising for university entrance exams in maths and so on.
Thus the vast majority of modern Japanese never are taught about WW2 in any level of detail.
1. Some of the issues driving Trump's success-illegal immigration, craptacular structural economy, lack of concern over the Middle Class are real issues, crappy international deals, and mirror many of the concerns of the Bernistas. I mean the Democratic Party used to espouse that.
2. How do you separate that from the wackjob authoritarians who like a little Mussolini in their spaghetti and are just fine with banning all muslims derp derp?
1. Some of the issues driving Trump's success-illegal immigration, craptacular structural economy, lack of concern over the Middle Class are real issues, crappy international deals, and mirror many of the concerns of the Bernistas. I mean the Democratic Party used to espouse that.
2. How do you separate that from the wackjob authoritarians who like a little Mussolini in their spaghetti and are just fine with banning all muslims derp derp?
Aren't most of those people the same?? I mean, many of the videos I've seen are of dudes standing there with their sister-wives or cousin-moms talking about how Trump is an "outsider" and that's what we need because he'll get rid of all them dirty mooslems and Meksi-cans and whatnot....
Jihadin wrote: Anyone else hear about Warren wanting the IRS to do our taxes themselves?
It's a pretty reasonable thing to suggest. In other countries the government sends you a completed tax form, and you can either sign it and accept it as correct or submit your own version if the standard assumptions are not correct. In most cases the standard version is correct, and "doing your taxes" consists of double-checking the numbers and mailing back a single form. The IRS already has your information (that's how they send you all those forms) and could probably do this, but the tax software industry lobbies against it since it would make their products obsolete.
They need to get back to the roots of the Republican party:
Anti-slavery = anti-sex trafficing, etc
Equal rights (1854) = equal rights
Anti discrimination (1900) = anti discrimination
Anti-monopoly (1900) = anti monopoly
General welfare and harmony in government (1864) = bipartisan cooperation
Liberal and just immigration (1864) = self explanitory
Collective bargaining for labor (1936) = pro union, less corporate
* * * * * *
Just a few things that I think a "new" and revised Republican party should/could look toward.
They should worry far, far less about the religous right wing and become closer to the middle.
Have the religous zealots ever actually tipped the scales in a general election? I honestly dont think they have...yet they are constantly embraced and pandered to.
It is rather interesting to see the shift in platforms from then until now....
1. Some of the issues driving Trump's success-illegal immigration, craptacular structural economy, lack of concern over the Middle Class are real issues, crappy international deals, and mirror many of the concerns of the Bernistas. I mean the Democratic Party used to espouse that.
2. How do you separate that from the wackjob authoritarians who like a little Mussolini in their spaghetti and are just fine with banning all muslims derp derp?
Aren't most of those people the same?? I mean, many of the videos I've seen are of dudes standing there with their sister-wives or cousin-moms talking about how Trump is an "outsider" and that's what we need because he'll get rid of all them dirty mooslems and Meksi-cans and whatnot....
See this is why the Democrats need to watch it. They believe their own PR BS. While the wackoes are out there, these are real issues. If they weren't do you think Bernie would have gotten any delegates? Its the same reason the unions are dead. Many of those former union voters are now Trump voters. D's haven't been any more concerned about the working class than the Republicans since the 90s. HRC sure wasn't talking about it until Bernie started Berning her (when he got back from Berning Man )
We may be seeing a shift to a Worker's party and a nonworker's party.
Go take upper-level sociology classes, they tend to be more nuetral than people think. But I am honestly tired of most of the stuff you said. Im actually in a Culture/Law of japan class right now and my proffessor just said "Japan Brought alot of (It) unto them to themselves. There where some real atrocities done during the war they still refuse to acknowledge" and he he grew in japa
I'm not sure if I'm surprised by your professor or understand him better since he's teaching in the US. Currently over 40% of the Japanese refuse to believe the Rape of Nanking ever happened at all. Another 40% believe that the events are grossly exaggerated. All this despite countless records and film recovered from Japanese military archives.
He is japanese and he is very critical of his nation. Heck, Japan still refuses to acknowledge unit 731.
Have the religous zealots ever actually tipped the scales in a general election? I honestly dont think they have...yet they are constantly embraced and pandered to.
They have. Well, maybe not zealots, but the Religious Right yes. They were vital in the formation of the "New Right" back in the 60s, and helped get Reagan elected. Of course, it's more complicated than that. The realignment of the political parties that occurted in the 1960s was heavily based in opinion on race issues. Something use to bring conservatives together and unite them behind one platform was that they were all white, but that was rapidly becoming politically unacceptable, so Conservative politics did some word shuffling and switched to "Americanism" and "Traditional Values", and used Christian faith as a major uniting force on both those things.
So yeah. The Christian Right has been politically significant, and they have tipped the scales in general elections. See the election of Reagan in 1980. The number of Christians voting Republican went up compared to 1976 (though not by much), but what really swung it was that Christians in the East and South switched to Reagan away from Carter who they voted for in 76.
The big thing Reagan discovered in 1980, and taught the GOP, was that the demographics of the electorate could be manipulated by building the Religious Right. It didn't provide winning margins per se, but it shifted the electoral map in their favor.
hotsauceman1 wrote: And then, suddenly, every american finds out they owe atleast 2000$ every tax season for some reason.
If you don't agree with the government's numbers you're always free to do the work yourself. Having the IRS do the work just lets the majority of people with simple taxes avoid the hassle of duplicating the IRS's numbers.
A federal judge ruled Thursday against the administration in a challenge to a portion of the Affordable Care Act brought by the House of Representatives.
At issue is the "cost sharing" provision in the law that requires insurance companies offering health plans through the law to reduce out-of-pocket costs for policy holders who qualify. The government offsets the added costs to insurance companies by reimbursing them.
But lawyers for the House argued that Congress did not properly approve the money for those reimbursements.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, sided with the challengers but said that she would stay her ruling pending appeal.
"Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one," she wrote.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision.
Jonathan Turley, a lawyer for the House, said the ruling shows that the President's signature health care law "violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the United States Treasury without the approval of Congress."
"Judge Collyer's opinion is a resounding victory not just for Congress but for our constitutional system as a whole," Turley said in a statement. "We remain a system based on the principle of the separation of powers and the guarantee that no branch or person can govern alone. It is the very touchstone of the American constitutional system and today that principle was reaffirmed in this historic decision."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday characterized Republicans' efforts as unprecedented, and predicted the administration would prevail.
"This suit represents the first time in our nation's history that Congress has been permitted to sue executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute," Earnest said during his daily briefing. "These are the kinds of political disputes that characterize a democracy. It's unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight they keep losing."
An announcement on appealing Thursday's decision would come from the Justice Department once the ruling is fully assessed, Earnest said.
Former House Speaker John Boehner, who led the effort on the suit, called the decision "a victory."
"Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law," he tweeted.
Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law.
— John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) May 12, 2016
"This case is far from over," said Timothy Jost, a supporter of the law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
He said that last fall the judge was wrong to rule that the House had the standing to bring the case in the first place and that he expects the appeals court to reverse on that threshold issue.
"Ultimately, if her opinion holds, and it is unlikely that it would, it would mean that insurers will have to come up with a way of providing the cost sharing reductions, and that would probably mean increased premiums down the road," he said.
Keep in mind that the plantiff's attorney is Jonathan Turley: Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda", have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian".
A federal judge ruled Thursday against the administration in a challenge to a portion of the Affordable Care Act brought by the House of Representatives.
At issue is the "cost sharing" provision in the law that requires insurance companies offering health plans through the law to reduce out-of-pocket costs for policy holders who qualify. The government offsets the added costs to insurance companies by reimbursing them.
But lawyers for the House argued that Congress did not properly approve the money for those reimbursements.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, sided with the challengers but said that she would stay her ruling pending appeal.
"Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one," she wrote.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision.
Jonathan Turley, a lawyer for the House, said the ruling shows that the President's signature health care law "violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the United States Treasury without the approval of Congress."
"Judge Collyer's opinion is a resounding victory not just for Congress but for our constitutional system as a whole," Turley said in a statement. "We remain a system based on the principle of the separation of powers and the guarantee that no branch or person can govern alone. It is the very touchstone of the American constitutional system and today that principle was reaffirmed in this historic decision."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday characterized Republicans' efforts as unprecedented, and predicted the administration would prevail.
"This suit represents the first time in our nation's history that Congress has been permitted to sue executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute," Earnest said during his daily briefing. "These are the kinds of political disputes that characterize a democracy. It's unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight they keep losing."
An announcement on appealing Thursday's decision would come from the Justice Department once the ruling is fully assessed, Earnest said.
Former House Speaker John Boehner, who led the effort on the suit, called the decision "a victory."
"Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law," he tweeted.
Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law.
— John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) May 12, 2016
"This case is far from over," said Timothy Jost, a supporter of the law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
He said that last fall the judge was wrong to rule that the House had the standing to bring the case in the first place and that he expects the appeals court to reverse on that threshold issue.
"Ultimately, if her opinion holds, and it is unlikely that it would, it would mean that insurers will have to come up with a way of providing the cost sharing reductions, and that would probably mean increased premiums down the road," he said.
Keep in mind that the plantiff's attorney is Jonathan Turley: Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda", have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian".
Maybe my logic circuits are broken, but if Congress passed the ACA, then, by extension, Congress approved the commitment to the spending of that money. If you order a pizza, you don't get to get out of paying for it by claiming you didn't budget for it.
A federal judge ruled Thursday against the administration in a challenge to a portion of the Affordable Care Act brought by the House of Representatives.
At issue is the "cost sharing" provision in the law that requires insurance companies offering health plans through the law to reduce out-of-pocket costs for policy holders who qualify. The government offsets the added costs to insurance companies by reimbursing them.
But lawyers for the House argued that Congress did not properly approve the money for those reimbursements.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, sided with the challengers but said that she would stay her ruling pending appeal.
"Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one," she wrote.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision.
Jonathan Turley, a lawyer for the House, said the ruling shows that the President's signature health care law "violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the United States Treasury without the approval of Congress."
"Judge Collyer's opinion is a resounding victory not just for Congress but for our constitutional system as a whole," Turley said in a statement. "We remain a system based on the principle of the separation of powers and the guarantee that no branch or person can govern alone. It is the very touchstone of the American constitutional system and today that principle was reaffirmed in this historic decision."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday characterized Republicans' efforts as unprecedented, and predicted the administration would prevail.
"This suit represents the first time in our nation's history that Congress has been permitted to sue executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute," Earnest said during his daily briefing. "These are the kinds of political disputes that characterize a democracy. It's unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight they keep losing."
An announcement on appealing Thursday's decision would come from the Justice Department once the ruling is fully assessed, Earnest said.
Former House Speaker John Boehner, who led the effort on the suit, called the decision "a victory."
"Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law," he tweeted.
Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law.
— John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) May 12, 2016
"This case is far from over," said Timothy Jost, a supporter of the law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
He said that last fall the judge was wrong to rule that the House had the standing to bring the case in the first place and that he expects the appeals court to reverse on that threshold issue.
"Ultimately, if her opinion holds, and it is unlikely that it would, it would mean that insurers will have to come up with a way of providing the cost sharing reductions, and that would probably mean increased premiums down the road," he said.
Keep in mind that the plantiff's attorney is Jonathan Turley: Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda", have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian".
Maybe my logic circuits are broken, but if Congress passed the ACA, then, by extension, Congress approved the commitment to the spending of that money. If you order a pizza, you don't get to get out of paying for it by claiming you didn't budget for it.
It's broke. Lemme fix it for ya...
Congress, in addition to passing statuatory laws, must appropriate the fundings as well. It's a two step process.
1) Here's a bunch of laws
2) Here's the fundings for the laws in #1
That's a general rule.
The exceptions are those legally mandated to be funded (ie, SS, MediCare, Essential Services...)
So, in section 4102 of PPACA that covers the risk mitigations to the insurers, Congress did NOT appropriate fundings.
d-usa wrote: *looks at current makeup of the SCOTUS, notices that Roberts is still Chief Justice*
Well, I don't expect much to come from this.
eh... when you get down to the actual function of Congress, the Courts tends to favor Congress than the Executive.
It's a case that doesn't really argues the merits/demerits of PPACA, but getting into the weeds of congressional appropriation via "the power of the purse".
See the case when the Executive Dept. wanted to label the Senate as adjourned so that Obama can seat his appointees. (NRLB v. ??).
You are aware that congress passed the law, right? This isn't a case of legislative vs. executive, it's a case of the current legislative branch vs. the previous legislative branch that passed the law.
A federal judge ruled Thursday against the administration in a challenge to a portion of the Affordable Care Act brought by the House of Representatives.
At issue is the "cost sharing" provision in the law that requires insurance companies offering health plans through the law to reduce out-of-pocket costs for policy holders who qualify. The government offsets the added costs to insurance companies by reimbursing them.
But lawyers for the House argued that Congress did not properly approve the money for those reimbursements.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, sided with the challengers but said that she would stay her ruling pending appeal.
"Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one," she wrote.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision.
Jonathan Turley, a lawyer for the House, said the ruling shows that the President's signature health care law "violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the United States Treasury without the approval of Congress."
"Judge Collyer's opinion is a resounding victory not just for Congress but for our constitutional system as a whole," Turley said in a statement. "We remain a system based on the principle of the separation of powers and the guarantee that no branch or person can govern alone. It is the very touchstone of the American constitutional system and today that principle was reaffirmed in this historic decision."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday characterized Republicans' efforts as unprecedented, and predicted the administration would prevail.
"This suit represents the first time in our nation's history that Congress has been permitted to sue executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute," Earnest said during his daily briefing. "These are the kinds of political disputes that characterize a democracy. It's unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight they keep losing."
An announcement on appealing Thursday's decision would come from the Justice Department once the ruling is fully assessed, Earnest said.
Former House Speaker John Boehner, who led the effort on the suit, called the decision "a victory."
"Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law," he tweeted.
Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law.
— John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) May 12, 2016
"This case is far from over," said Timothy Jost, a supporter of the law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
He said that last fall the judge was wrong to rule that the House had the standing to bring the case in the first place and that he expects the appeals court to reverse on that threshold issue.
"Ultimately, if her opinion holds, and it is unlikely that it would, it would mean that insurers will have to come up with a way of providing the cost sharing reductions, and that would probably mean increased premiums down the road," he said.
Keep in mind that the plantiff's attorney is Jonathan Turley: Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda", have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian".
Maybe my logic circuits are broken, but if Congress passed the ACA, then, by extension, Congress approved the commitment to the spending of that money. If you order a pizza, you don't get to get out of paying for it by claiming you didn't budget for it.
It's broke. Lemme fix it for ya...
Congress, in addition to passing statuatory laws, must appropriate the fundings as well. It's a two step process.
1) Here's a bunch of laws
2) Here's the fundings for the laws in #1
That's a general rule.
The exceptions are those legally mandated to be funded (ie, SS, MediCare, Essential Services...)
So, in section 4102 of PPACA that covers the risk mitigations to the insurers, Congress did NOT appropriate fundings.
There's no ambiguity here.
Again, Congress has ordered a pizza, and the bill has come due, and regardless of what Congress has budgeted for, services rendered have to be paid for. Shenanigans like this is why Congress's approval ratings are so pathetic. Change the law, but don't default on an obligation you made a promise for. If anything, perhaps Congress should be sued for failing to pay for what they ordered.
A federal judge ruled Thursday against the administration in a challenge to a portion of the Affordable Care Act brought by the House of Representatives.
At issue is the "cost sharing" provision in the law that requires insurance companies offering health plans through the law to reduce out-of-pocket costs for policy holders who qualify. The government offsets the added costs to insurance companies by reimbursing them.
But lawyers for the House argued that Congress did not properly approve the money for those reimbursements.
U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, sided with the challengers but said that she would stay her ruling pending appeal.
"Congress is the only source for such an appropriation, and no public money can be spent without one," she wrote.
The Obama administration is expected to appeal the decision.
Jonathan Turley, a lawyer for the House, said the ruling shows that the President's signature health care law "violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the United States Treasury without the approval of Congress."
"Judge Collyer's opinion is a resounding victory not just for Congress but for our constitutional system as a whole," Turley said in a statement. "We remain a system based on the principle of the separation of powers and the guarantee that no branch or person can govern alone. It is the very touchstone of the American constitutional system and today that principle was reaffirmed in this historic decision."
White House press secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday characterized Republicans' efforts as unprecedented, and predicted the administration would prevail.
"This suit represents the first time in our nation's history that Congress has been permitted to sue executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute," Earnest said during his daily briefing. "These are the kinds of political disputes that characterize a democracy. It's unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to re-fight a political fight they keep losing."
An announcement on appealing Thursday's decision would come from the Justice Department once the ruling is fully assessed, Earnest said.
Former House Speaker John Boehner, who led the effort on the suit, called the decision "a victory."
"Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law," he tweeted.
Today's Obamacare decision is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law.
— John Boehner (@SpeakerBoehner) May 12, 2016
"This case is far from over," said Timothy Jost, a supporter of the law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law.
He said that last fall the judge was wrong to rule that the House had the standing to bring the case in the first place and that he expects the appeals court to reverse on that threshold issue.
"Ultimately, if her opinion holds, and it is unlikely that it would, it would mean that insurers will have to come up with a way of providing the cost sharing reductions, and that would probably mean increased premiums down the road," he said.
Keep in mind that the plantiff's attorney is Jonathan Turley: Turley is widely regarded as a champion of the rule of law, and his stated positions in many cases and his self-proclaimed "socially liberal agenda", have led liberal and progressive thinkers to also consider him a champion for their causes, especially on issues such as separation of church and state, environmental law, civil rights, and the illegality of torture. Politico has referred to Turley as a "liberal law professor and longtime civil libertarian".
Maybe my logic circuits are broken, but if Congress passed the ACA, then, by extension, Congress approved the commitment to the spending of that money. If you order a pizza, you don't get to get out of paying for it by claiming you didn't budget for it.
It's broke. Lemme fix it for ya...
Congress, in addition to passing statuatory laws, must appropriate the fundings as well. It's a two step process.
1) Here's a bunch of laws 2) Here's the fundings for the laws in #1
That's a general rule.
The exceptions are those legally mandated to be funded (ie, SS, MediCare, Essential Services...)
So, in section 4102 of PPACA that covers the risk mitigations to the insurers, Congress did NOT appropriate fundings.
There's no ambiguity here.
Again, Congress has ordered a pizza, and the bill has come due, and regardless of what Congress has budgeted for, services rendered have to be paid for. Shenanigans like this is why Congress's approval ratings are so pathetic. Change the law, but don't default on an obligation you made a promise for. If anything, perhaps Congress should be sued for failing to pay for what they ordered.
And that summary says exactly what we're telling you: congress DID approve the spending when they passed the law saying "we're going to spend $X on doing {thing we want to do}". The entire argument of the lawsuit is based on a technicality, that when congress said "we're going to spend this money" they didn't quite follow the exact procedure required. This would be a complete non-issue except for the fact that the party balance in congress has shifted since the law was passed and the new majority party is looking for an excuse to overturn the decisions of the previous majority party.
And that summary says exactly what we're telling you: congress DID approve the spending when they passed the law saying "we're going to spend $X on doing {thing we want to do}". The entire argument of the lawsuit is based on a technicality, that when congress said "we're going to spend this money" they didn't quite follow the exact procedure required. This would be a complete non-issue except for the fact that the party balance in congress has shifted since the law was passed and the new majority party is looking for an excuse to overturn the decisions of the previous majority party.
Then you didn't read the whole thing:
Although she ruled that the government had no authority to pay out any money to insurance companies as cost-sharing reimbursements, she did conclude that Congress had in fact authorized that program to be created. What is lacking, she found, was separate authority to make the payments contemplated by that provision.
Ya know... the vaunted "Power of the Purse" thing.
Although she ruled that the government had no authority to pay out any money to insurance companies as cost-sharing reimbursements, she did conclude that Congress had in fact authorized that program to be created. What is lacking, she found, was separate authority to make the payments contemplated by that provision.
Ya know... the vaunted "Power of the Purse" thing.
Which is, again, nitpicking a ridiculous technicality. It's like saying "you have permission to buy a pizza, but you don't have permission to spend the money to buy it". The intent of what congress did was obvious, and the only argument here is that the exact proper procedure wasn't quite followed. If we still had the same congress that originally passed the law it would be a quick 5-minute correction to fix the issue with no controversy at all. The only reason anyone is objecting to it is because they've seen an opportunity to overturn the law with no chance of congress fixing the problem.
d-usa wrote: *looks at current makeup of the SCOTUS, notices that Roberts is still Chief Justice*
Well, I don't expect much to come from this.
eh... when you get down to the actual function of Congress, the Courts tends to favor Congress than the Executive.
It's a case that doesn't really argues the merits/demerits of PPACA, but getting into the weeds of congressional appropriation via "the power of the purse".
And when you look at the current SCOTUS, and look specifically at Chief Justice Roberts, and look at the reasoning behind his previous rulings, specifically on the PPACA, you have a pretty good idea of what the next ruling will be.
d-usa wrote: *looks at current makeup of the SCOTUS, notices that Roberts is still Chief Justice*
Well, I don't expect much to come from this.
eh... when you get down to the actual function of Congress, the Courts tends to favor Congress than the Executive.
It's a case that doesn't really argues the merits/demerits of PPACA, but getting into the weeds of congressional appropriation via "the power of the purse".
And when you look at the current SCOTUS, and look specifically at Chief Justice Roberts, and look at the reasoning behind his previous rulings, specifically on the PPACA, you have a pretty good idea of what the next ruling will be.
Oh.... come on. Let whembly have his dreams. It's a man has, in the end.
Here is how I see things happening with this court decision:
It's like when a parent gives their child their first debit card.
The Dad gives his teenage daughter a prepaid debit card. He had to be a co-signer for it as she had no credit rating. He tells her she has the authority to use it whenever she wants. The thing is that, as a prepaid card, there is no balance on it. The father never deposited any money into the account.
Sure, she can use the card whenever she wants, but if he hasn't authorized a deposit into the account there is nothing for her to spend. Every transaction will be denied.
cuda1179 wrote: The Dad gives his teenage daughter a prepaid debit card. He had to be a co-signer for it as she had no credit rating. He tells her she has the authority to use it whenever she wants. The thing is that, as a prepaid card, there is no balance on it. The father never deposited any money into the account.
Which would be such an obviously stupid thing to do that anyone looking at the situation would say "nope, we must have the story wrong". If your interpretation of the law is "you can spend money to do this, but you can't spend any money" then your interpretation is obviously not reasonable. The ONLY reason anyone is taking that interpretation is that doing so overturns a law they dislike for political reasons. This isn't legitimate concern for the process of allocating and spending money, it's taking any opportunity, no matter how obscure or petty, to make an attack on the law.
Although she ruled that the government had no authority to pay out any money to insurance companies as cost-sharing reimbursements, she did conclude that Congress had in fact authorized that program to be created. What is lacking, she found, was separate authority to make the payments contemplated by that provision.
Ya know... the vaunted "Power of the Purse" thing.
Which is, again, nitpicking a ridiculous technicality. It's like saying "you have permission to buy a pizza, but you don't have permission to spend the money to buy it". The intent of what congress did was obvious, and the only argument here is that the exact proper procedure wasn't quite followed. If we still had the same congress that originally passed the law it would be a quick 5-minute correction to fix the issue with no controversy at all. The only reason anyone is objecting to it is because they've seen an opportunity to overturn the law with no chance of congress fixing the problem.
Incorrect.
The intent of what congress did were to NOT specifically fund aspect of the law.
It's not called "the power of the purse" for nothing.
d-usa wrote: *looks at current makeup of the SCOTUS, notices that Roberts is still Chief Justice*
Well, I don't expect much to come from this.
eh... when you get down to the actual function of Congress, the Courts tends to favor Congress than the Executive.
It's a case that doesn't really argues the merits/demerits of PPACA, but getting into the weeds of congressional appropriation via "the power of the purse".
And when you look at the current SCOTUS, and look specifically at Chief Justice Roberts, and look at the reasoning behind his previous rulings, specifically on the PPACA, you have a pretty good idea of what the next ruling will be.
Gordon Shumway wrote: I'm pretty sure the GOP have been playing Calvinball ever since Reid taught them how to do it when he was the speaker. I miss Daschle.
The intent of what congress did were to NOT specifically fund aspect of the law.
It's not called "the power of the purse" for nothing.
Right. So, let me get this straight: the same congress that passed the law saying "we want to spend money to do {thing}" and sent it to the president for approval didn't want to fund their own law? If they didn't want to fund it then why did they pass a law saying "we're going to spend money"?
The intent of what congress did were to NOT specifically fund aspect of the law.
It's not called "the power of the purse" for nothing.
Right. So, let me get this straight: the same congress that passed the law saying "we want to spend money to do {thing}" and sent it to the president for approval didn't want to fund their own law? If they didn't want to fund it then why did they pass a law saying "we're going to spend money"?
One thing to remember if we are to consider the Power of the Purse argument, is that all spending bills have to originate in the House.
The PPACA, aka House Resolution 3590, did originate in the chamber of congress authorized to spend money. The bill that made changes to the ACA, House Resolution 4872 also originated in the correct chamber.
Which is why I am inclined to go with the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts would give this the same "guys, the intend was clear even if the language sucks" ruling as he did with previous challenges.
The intent of what congress did were to NOT specifically fund aspect of the law.
It's not called "the power of the purse" for nothing.
Right. So, let me get this straight: the same congress that passed the law saying "we want to spend money to do {thing}" and sent it to the president for approval didn't want to fund their own law? If they didn't want to fund it then why did they pass a law saying "we're going to spend money"?
Because the PPACA wasn't crafted really well?
Peregrine, this is a matter of law... not, "intent".
The problem is the law's vague language does not actually give the Department of HHS legal authority to fund the program... meaning Congress must get involved. This is appropriation 101 stuff...
According to a legal opinion released in 2014 by the Government Accountability Office, which said that in order for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid to use general funds for the risk corridors... Congress must adopt language spelling that out in CMS's future appropriations: http://www.gao.gov/products/B-325630
The provision that has been most widely noted so far requires the risk corridor program to be budget neutral for 2014. The risk corridor program moves funds from qualified health plans (QHPs) that have lower than anticipated allowable costs to those with higher than anticipated allowable costs. Section 1342 of the ACA, which creates the risk corridor program, contains no explicit appropriation.
The intent of what congress did were to NOT specifically fund aspect of the law.
It's not called "the power of the purse" for nothing.
Right. So, let me get this straight: the same congress that passed the law saying "we want to spend money to do {thing}" and sent it to the president for approval didn't want to fund their own law? If they didn't want to fund it then why did they pass a law saying "we're going to spend money"?
One thing to remember if we are to consider the Power of the Purse argument, is that all spending bills have to originate in the House.
The PPACA, aka House Resolution 3590, did originate in the chamber of congress authorized to spend money. The bill that made changes to the ACA, House Resolution 4872 also originated in the correct chamber.
Which is why I am inclined to go with the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts would give this the same "guys, the intend was clear even if the language sucks" ruling as he did with previous challenges.
Let's play a game:
1) Congress passes law to give every taxpayers $1,000 check by June 1st and Obama signs that legislation.
2) The law just states, "every tax payers gets a grand on 06/01/2016".
3) Stupidly, the congress-critters didn't appropriate the funding.
4) Do you believe the Executve Branch is empowered to direct the Treasury Department to disburse the check anyway? If so... why?
d-usa wrote:
Which is why I am inclined to go with the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts would give this the same "guys, the intend was clear even if the language sucks" ruling as he did with previous challenges.
Let's play a game:
1) Congress passes law to give every taxpayers $1,000 check by June 1st and Obama signs that legislation.
2) The law just states, "every tax payers gets a grand on 06/01/2016".
3) Stupidly, the congress-critters didn't appropriate the funding.
4) Do you believe the Executve Branch is empowered to direct the Treasury Department to disburse the check anyway? If so... why?
Give me thousands and thousands of pages of theoretical transcripts, hours and hours of theoretical oral arguments made during the passage of that bill, months and months of public comments by the people working on that bill, and then I will give you a theoretical answer.
d-usa wrote: Which is why I am inclined to go with the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts would give this the same "guys, the intend was clear even if the language sucks" ruling as he did with previous challenges.
Let's play a game:
1) Congress passes law to give every taxpayers $1,000 check by June 1st and Obama signs that legislation.
2) The law just states, "every tax payers gets a grand on 06/01/2016".
3) Stupidly, the congress-critters didn't appropriate the funding.
4) Do you believe the Executve Branch is empowered to direct the Treasury Department to disburse the check anyway? If so... why?
Give me thousands and thousands of pages of theoretical transcripts, hours and hours of theoretical oral arguments made during the passage of that bill, months and months of public comments by the people working on that bill, and then I will give you a theoretical answer.
So you don't want to engage... fine.
For the rest of the thread, I'll tell you the answer:
There's a distinction between an authorization bill and an appropriation bill. The authorization bill is simply something that was signed by the President and becomes law. Each year, an appropriation bill is then raised in Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives to specify how much of that money is actually going to be spent. The Senate Appropriations Committee raises a similar bill, both houses vote on their bills (with the Senate taking its lead from the House), then it's reconciled/sent to President for signature and then the money is disbursed. The next year, a new appropriation must be passed. The Appropriations Committees therefore have enormous power, as they can completely block spending that was authorized in previous years.
In other words, the Powah of the Purse™.
Some spending is mandatory... that is, the authorizing legislation contains language that appropriates the funds up front. Social Security, for example, is mandatory. Most such laws are discretionary, which is what allows Congress to control the budget, although mandatory spending does absolutely dominate the budget in terms of dollars spent.
None of the PPACA is part of the mandatory spending schedule.
In this case - HHS didn't have a direct legal means to disburse any fundings in the risk corridors because Congress, didn't specifically appropriate the funds.
d-usa wrote:
Which is why I am inclined to go with the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts would give this the same "guys, the intend was clear even if the language sucks" ruling as he did with previous challenges.
Let's play a game:
1) Congress passes law to give every taxpayers $1,000 check by June 1st and Obama signs that legislation.
2) The law just states, "every tax payers gets a grand on 06/01/2016".
3) Stupidly, the congress-critters didn't appropriate the funding.
4) Do you believe the Executve Branch is empowered to direct the Treasury Department to disburse the check anyway? If so... why?
Give me thousands and thousands of pages of theoretical transcripts, hours and hours of theoretical oral arguments made during the passage of that bill, months and months of public comments by the people working on that bill, and then I will give you a theoretical answer.
So you don't want to engage... fine.
I did engage, you just didn't like the answer.
Me: Like previous rulings, Chief Justice Roberts will likely look at both the text of the law as well as the intend of the law, and then rule on the law.
You: How would you rule on this stupid law?
Me: I don't know, I can't figure out the intend of the law compared to the text of the law because your theoretical question doesn't have any theoretical supporting documentation to answer the question.
You: So you don't want to answer, fine.
d-usa wrote:
Which is why I am inclined to go with the opinion that Chief Justice Roberts would give this the same "guys, the intend was clear even if the language sucks" ruling as he did with previous challenges.
Let's play a game:
1) Congress passes law to give every taxpayers $1,000 check by June 1st and Obama signs that legislation.
2) The law just states, "every tax payers gets a grand on 06/01/2016".
3) Stupidly, the congress-critters didn't appropriate the funding.
4) Do you believe the Executve Branch is empowered to direct the Treasury Department to disburse the check anyway? If so... why?
Give me thousands and thousands of pages of theoretical transcripts, hours and hours of theoretical oral arguments made during the passage of that bill, months and months of public comments by the people working on that bill, and then I will give you a theoretical answer.
So you don't want to engage... fine.
I did engage, you just didn't like the answer.
Me: Like previous rulings, Chief Justice Roberts will likely look at both the text of the law as well as the intend of the law, and then rule on the law.
You: How would you rule on this stupid law?
Me: I don't know, I can't figure out the intend of the law compared to the text of the law because your theoretical question doesn't have any theoretical supporting documentation to answer the question.
You: So you don't want to answer, fine.
My question had nothing to do with the PPACA.
I was trying to get you to see the distinction between an authorization bill vs appropriation bill.
The law is often A) what are you going to do, and B) how do you pay for it.
CJ Roberts may very well take it in the direction you'd expect, however what's different here than the other Burwell cases is that it really isn't about the PPACA.
If SCOTUS rules that the intent of the PPACA was to legislate mandatory spending, then the program is fully funded. So SCOTUS can rule that A) the PPACA will fund this section and B) by mandatory appropriation.
Based on his history with the PPACA, and ruling on intent rather than plain text only, that is what I would expect.
Your theoretical law didn't have any theoretical intent, so there was no way to answer it.
cuda1179 wrote: The Dad gives his teenage daughter a prepaid debit card. He had to be a co-signer for it as she had no credit rating. He tells her she has the authority to use it whenever she wants. The thing is that, as a prepaid card, there is no balance on it. The father never deposited any money into the account.
Which would be such an obviously stupid thing to do that anyone looking at the situation would say "nope, we must have the story wrong". If your interpretation of the law is "you can spend money to do this, but you can't spend any money" then your interpretation is obviously not reasonable. The ONLY reason anyone is taking that interpretation is that doing so overturns a law they dislike for political reasons. This isn't legitimate concern for the process of allocating and spending money, it's taking any opportunity, no matter how obscure or petty, to make an attack on the law.
No, my interpretation of the law is "You can spend money to do this, but only as much money as I authorized to put into your account". Perhaps the intent of the law was that X amount of money would be available at any given time. If congress decides that there has been enough subsidizing they can turn off the money spigot without taking away any authority. It might also mean that someone in Government might have to plan ahead with a limited budget (Wow that would be original these days).
cuda1179 wrote: No, my interpretation of the law is "You can spend money to do this, but only as much money as I authorized to put into your account". Perhaps the intent of the law was that X amount of money would be available at any given time. If congress decides that there has been enough subsidizing they can turn off the money spigot without taking away any authority. It might also mean that someone in Government might have to plan ahead with a limited budget (Wow that would be original these days).
And yet somehow nobody realized that it was a limited amount of funding, with continued authorization required, until this lawsuit was filed?
cuda1179 wrote: No, my interpretation of the law is "You can spend money to do this, but only as much money as I authorized to put into your account". Perhaps the intent of the law was that X amount of money would be available at any given time. If congress decides that there has been enough subsidizing they can turn off the money spigot without taking away any authority. It might also mean that someone in Government might have to plan ahead with a limited budget (Wow that would be original these days).
And yet somehow nobody realized that it was a limited amount of funding, with continued authorization required, until this lawsuit was filed?
To quote Nancy Pelosi, "no I haven't read the law. This law is so important we must pass it quickly so we can find out what's in it".
Let's just be honest. This isn't the only hiccup in the ACA. It was a rushed, bloated, errored attempt that fell flat on its face more than once when trying to deliver on its promises.
cuda1179 wrote: No, my interpretation of the law is "You can spend money to do this, but only as much money as I authorized to put into your account". Perhaps the intent of the law was that X amount of money would be available at any given time. If congress decides that there has been enough subsidizing they can turn off the money spigot without taking away any authority. It might also mean that someone in Government might have to plan ahead with a limited budget (Wow that would be original these days).
And yet somehow nobody realized that it was a limited amount of funding, with continued authorization required, until this lawsuit was filed?
To quote Nancy Pelosi, "no I haven't read the law. This law is so important we must pass it quickly so we can find out what's in it".
Let's just be honest. This isn't the only hiccup in the ACA. It was a rushed, bloated, errored attempt that fell flat on its face more than once when trying to deliver on its promises.
And again that quote comes up without context. It's there a bingo square for that?
cuda1179 wrote: No, my interpretation of the law is "You can spend money to do this, but only as much money as I authorized to put into your account". Perhaps the intent of the law was that X amount of money would be available at any given time. If congress decides that there has been enough subsidizing they can turn off the money spigot without taking away any authority. It might also mean that someone in Government might have to plan ahead with a limited budget (Wow that would be original these days).
And yet somehow nobody realized that it was a limited amount of funding, with continued authorization required, until this lawsuit was filed?
To quote Nancy Pelosi, "no I haven't read the law. This law is so important we must pass it quickly so we can find out what's in it".
Let's just be honest. This isn't the only hiccup in the ACA. It was a rushed, bloated, errored attempt that fell flat on its face more than once when trying to deliver on its promises.
And again that quote comes up without context. It's there a bingo square for that?
You seriously don't know where that quote came from????? My God, Pelosi was criticized for months for making that statement, and yes it was about the Affordable Care Act.
The simple fact remains that MOST bills get passed without being fully read. Michel Moore did a documentary that pointed that out. The ACA was a monster and even other members of congress have admitted they didn't fully read it or comprehend all the nuances.
cuda1179 wrote: You seriously don't know where that quote came from?????
Yes, we all know where that quote came from and it had been discussed to death in the recently closed Political Junkie thread.
Also, you didn't quote her because what she actually said was this:
You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.
But please, continue to use that ten second out-of-context soundbite that Fox News aired ad nauseam.
cuda1179 wrote: You seriously don't know where that quote came from?????
Yes, we all know where that quote came from and it had been discussed to death in the recently closed Political Junkie thread.
Also, you didn't quote her because what she actually said was this:
You’ve heard about the controversies, the process about the bill…but I don’t know if you’ve heard that it is legislation for the future – not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.
But please, continue to use that ten second out-of-context soundbite that Fox News aired ad nauseam.
The fact that it was taken out of context is a bit of a moot point. The question being asked was "And yet somehow nobody realized that it was a limited amount of funding, with continued authorization required?"
The answer is, yes, that very well might be the case. This wouldn't be the first time a bill got passed were someone did, or did not, have the authority enforce laws they thought they did or didn't have. Proofreaders often don't check these things and lead to legal loopholes. (funny, as this is a RAW argument that's not in the 40k rules forum).
I remember a while back here in Iowa there was a man charged with statutory rape. Our age of consent laws at the time stated that (paraphrased) "It is illegal to have sexual contact with any child under the age of 16". This man's boyfriend was 15, yet it was still legal to sleep with him. Why? State law stated that "a child" will be defined in all other laws as anyone under the age of 14. Thus, our consent laws literally meant "illegal to have sexual contact with anyone under that age of 16 that is also under the age of 14." Because of this the case was dismissed and the dismissal was upheld under appeal. It didn't take them long to change the law to what it meant. I think they changed the words "any child" to "anyone".
This is a great example of how a ridiculously complex system of laws can intermingle to give unintended consequences.
Are there any posters on these boards of a conservative persuasion who have decided to either
(a) not vote at all
(b) vote for Clinton instead of Trump
It's early in the game, and I wonder if people's responses might change over time.
The opposite for me. I usually go with Gary Johnson, but with two at least two more Supreme Court seats likely to come up, it's too important to go third-party. The Hair all the way.
Are there any posters on these boards of a conservative persuasion who have decided to either
(a) not vote at all
(b) vote for Clinton instead of Trump
It's early in the game, and I wonder if people's responses might change over time.
The opposite for me. I usually go with Gary Johnson, but with two at least two more Supreme Court seats likely to come up, it's too important to go third-party. The Hair all the way.
THIS!
This is the best reason to vote for Trump. Once Obama's SC nominee gets seated there will all ready be a Left leaning Bias. Add two more from Hillary and the SC will loose any chance of having a fair and balanced opinion. And I'll say this, if the situation was reversed I would be deeply tempted to vote Democrat in order to maintain balance.
cuda1179 wrote: This is the best reason to vote for Trump. Once Obama's SC nominee gets seated there will all ready be a Left leaning Bias. Add two more from Hillary and the SC will loose any chance of having a fair and balanced opinion. And I'll say this, if there situation was reversed I would be deeply tempted to vote Democrat in order to maintain balance.
What happened to the idea that the supreme court is meant to be unbiased and independent of political parties? Are you now abandoning this idea? Should we replace the nomination system with having the supreme court be just another congressional committee, with its membership split between democrats and republicans according to the most recent election?
Are there any posters on these boards of a conservative persuasion who have decided to either
(a) not vote at all
(b) vote for Clinton instead of Trump
It's early in the game, and I wonder if people's responses might change over time.
The opposite for me. I usually go with Gary Johnson, but with two at least two more Supreme Court seats likely to come up, it's too important to go third-party. The Hair all the way.
THIS!
This is the best reason to vote for Trump. Once Obama's SC nominee gets seated there will all ready be a Left leaning Bias. Add two more from Hillary and the SC will loose any chance of having a fair and balanced opinion. And I'll say this, if the situation was reversed I would be deeply tempted to vote Democrat in order to maintain balance.
The problem with this (besides the obvious fact that Trump is a moron) is that Trump doesn't consistently lean right, he leans whatever direction he feels like at the moment. He has gone against what is considered the Right on several issues such as birth control and social security. You have no way of predicting what kind of justice he would appoint to the supreme court and no guarantee that this judge will keep the balance.
the Signless wrote: You have no way of predicting what kind of justice he would appoint to the supreme court and no guarantee that this judge will keep the balance.
Oh, I know exactly what kind of justice he would appoint: whatever would make the most publicity for himself. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he appointed himself to the supreme court.
cuda1179 wrote: This is the best reason to vote for Trump. Once Obama's SC nominee gets seated there will all ready be a Left leaning Bias. Add two more from Hillary and the SC will loose any chance of having a fair and balanced opinion. And I'll say this, if there situation was reversed I would be deeply tempted to vote Democrat in order to maintain balance.
What happened to the idea that the supreme court is meant to be unbiased and independent of political parties? Are you now abandoning this idea? Should we replace the nomination system with having the supreme court be just another congressional committee, with its membership split between democrats and republicans according to the most recent election?
I'd love for the SC to be totally unbiased and non political. I'm just a realist that recognizes that it won't happen. I'd rather two opposing views cancel each other out and have one or two moderates as swing votes decide and issue that having it lopsided one way or the other. Lesser of two evils, just like this election.
While I don't know for a fact that Trump would appoint a conservative justice, I am almost certain Hillary would. Just playing the Vegas odds here.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news Hillary in the spotlight for questionable donations. Looks like she accepted $130 million from Arab countries.
So.....over meddling and over threatening government, much?
(Just so all know my feelings)
I am in the camps of:
1) use the restroom that matches your actual reproductive parts
And....
2) Make more individual neutral bathrooms available (like the "family" designated bathrooms you often see)
The Obama administration will send a letter to every public school district in the country telling them to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their chosen gender identity, as opposed to their birth certificate.
The letter, which is signed by officials at the Justice Department and the Department of Education, will be sent out to the districts on Friday.
While the letter does not have the force of law, it does warn that schools that do not abide by the administration’s interpretation of civil rights law may face lawsuits or loss of federal aid.
"There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement.
Officials say the letter is meant to clarify expectations of school districts that receive funding from the federal government. Educators have been seeking guidance on how to comply with Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding, Education Secretary John B. King said in a statement.
“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” King said. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”
Because it is politically conveinent for the states to accept money fron the Federal government while keeping their taxes low but complain about Federal taxes being so 'high'.
The states have the right to refuse the money and the strings that go along with it. However, then the states would have to raise taxes to get the money or go without stuff that their citizens want. Neither of which will work.
It also helps that all the things mentioned are good things that should happen regardless.
TheMeanDM wrote: So.....over meddling and over threatening government, much?
(Just so all know my feelings)
I am in the camps of:
1) use the restroom that matches your actual reproductive parts
And....
2) Make more individual neutral bathrooms available (like the "family" designated bathrooms you often see)
The Obama administration will send a letter to every public school district in the country telling them to allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms that match their chosen gender identity, as opposed to their birth certificate.
The letter, which is signed by officials at the Justice Department and the Department of Education, will be sent out to the districts on Friday.
While the letter does not have the force of law, it does warn that schools that do not abide by the administration’s interpretation of civil rights law may face lawsuits or loss of federal aid.
"There is no room in our schools for discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against transgender students on the basis of their sex," Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement.
Officials say the letter is meant to clarify expectations of school districts that receive funding from the federal government. Educators have been seeking guidance on how to comply with Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive federal funding, Education Secretary John B. King said in a statement.
“No student should ever have to go through the experience of feeling unwelcome at school or on a college campus,” King said. “We must ensure that our young people know that whoever they are or wherever they come from, they have the opportunity to get a great education in an environment free from discrimination, harassment and violence.”
This will have to adjudicated. Already the SC and DOJ are suing. Other jurisdictions may also initiate language. The DOJ is claiming "sex" which is protected under Title IX equates to "gender." The law and Congress are silent on the definition (as different definitions did not exist at the time generally), so this will have to be adjudicated. There is a strong chance it may be found to not be correct and the DOJ having no legislative authority.
While to me it is much ado about nothing, the extent with which the DOJ arbitrarily moved forward on this issue is breathtaking, which is my issue. On the flip side its irrelevant. The middle class is dying, we're tiptoing towards the biggest naval war since the Marianas Turkey Shoot... and the political parties are expending great capital on...this?!?!
skyth wrote: Just like it was threatening and meddling government that forced desegregation of the schools...
No that was direct lawsuits relying on the post ACW amendments. Threats of money were not involved. Threat of the 82nd Airborne Division kicking the gak out of you with 7.62 ball ammo and boots to da head if you interfered, was.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote: Good? I mean, I'm not exactly sure how it's a bad thing to tell some of the more egregious states to stop being dicks to kids.
Well if we go by the Dallas area school board, males can now play in women's teams, and users their lockers. Interfering will be viewed as a disciplinary offense. Thats a difficulty for the women if a nonwoman wants to use their locker room. Note: this has already happened and caused a mass walkout, suits (court affirmed the T could do such and couldn't be restricted) etc. There's also a religious angle. Person's who's faith make it a deep religious and social sin (Islam for example, nonreformed Judaism) to be around nonfamily males will be discriminated against.
Absent that, again meh its a non issue. I have no issue with Ts using the restroom of their preferred gender if it makes them safer. I have issues with dill weed boys or reverse SJWs using this as a crank.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I don't think they arbitrarily did it considering all the headlines and legislation about transgender people recently.
Arbitrary in that it wasn't an issue two months ago, and now they are pushing to make this Da Law in all 50 states. You bet it is.
***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** And in other news, Trump gets giggy with university student funding:
"Some of the ideas under consideration could be "revolutionary," Clovis said. Proposals currently being prepared would upend the current system of student loans, force all colleges to share the risk of such loans and make it harder for those wanting to major in the liberal arts at nonelite institutions to obtain loans. And even if some of the proposals would face a skeptical Congress, these ideas could gain considerable attention if Trump uses them to parry with his Democratic opponent." https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/05/13/trumps-campaign-co-chair-describes-higher-education-policies-being-developed
I'm a bit of a middle ground person when comes to this issue. If there are "single occupancy restrooms" then I really don't see the issue. I feel that all of those need to be unisex anyway.
If bathrooms are adequately "privatized" I'm okay with it too. You Europeans out there might not understand this, but compared to your restroom stalls American stalls are a little less that "private". Some have no doors at all, while others just have HUGE gaps between the walls and the door. Others have half-walls that start 20 inches off the ground and stop at chin-height. This is basically "private" in name only. Once restrooms are brought up to a more European standard I'd be fine with the transsexual community using them.
When it comes to communal changing rooms and showers.....here is where I have a problem. Unless you have had the surgery to have the genitals of your preferred gender stay the heck out.
cuda1179 wrote: This is the best reason to vote for Trump. Once Obama's SC nominee gets seated there will all ready be a Left leaning Bias. Add two more from Hillary and the SC will loose any chance of having a fair and balanced opinion. And I'll say this, if there situation was reversed I would be deeply tempted to vote Democrat in order to maintain balance.
What happened to the idea that the supreme court is meant to be unbiased and independent of political parties? Are you now abandoning this idea? Should we replace the nomination system with having the supreme court be just another congressional committee, with its membership split between democrats and republicans according to the most recent election?
I simply want someone to read the damn law as written. Not try to "fix" Congress' or the President's mess.
the Signless wrote: You have no way of predicting what kind of justice he would appoint to the supreme court and no guarantee that this judge will keep the balance.
Oh, I know exactly what kind of justice he would appoint: whatever would make the most publicity for himself. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he appointed himself to the supreme court.
Actually, once he realizes that the SCOTUS can stop a President, he'd elect a big-government, authoritarian jurist, imo.
While to me it is much ado about nothing, the extent with which the DOJ arbitrarily moved forward on this issue is breathtaking, which is my issue. On the flip side its irrelevant. The middle class is dying, we're tiptoing towards the biggest naval war since the Marianas Turkey Shoot... and the political parties are expending great capital on...this?!?!
We get the government we deserve.
Issue1) Fast and Furious
---AG Lorretta Lynch: meh
Issue2) Loris Lerner held in contempt
---AG Lorretta Lynch: boring
Issue3) Clinton email scandal
---AG Lorretta Lynch: wazzat?
Issue4) Stopping men who claims to be trans from wanting to use Women's restroom?
---AG Lorretta Lynch: ON IT! Dissenters is going down!
t.
