CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.
Considering that my statement originally was in reference to a statement about the primaries I don't think that this is a fair assessment.
Right-wingers as you refer to them have their own problems. The chants of 'let them die' come to mind
CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.
Considering that my statement originally was in reference to a statement about the primaries I don't think that this is a fair assessment.
Right-wingers as you refer to them have their own problems. The chants of 'let them die' come to mind
The guy I answered for says it was a fair assessment of what he intended, so, thanks for playing, but you're wrong.
Our current federal gov't has stampeded across the lines which were drawn to contain it and it is now brandied about as the remedy for all things
True, to an extent, but you're overlooking the extraordinary events that led to this power creep:
1) The American Civil War and AL's war measures.
2) The Great Depression and FDR's policy initiatives
obviously, there are more examples you could use as an argument.
Also, let's not let Congress off the hook - they're supposed to do their bit for checks and balances.
You would have a VERY hard time finding where I have 'let congress off the hook' on these boards. Congress critters as a class of being have disgusted me for a long time.
And I am saying it wadn't a fair assessment since he entirely ignored the context of the statement then used the 'no true Scottsman' fallacy. Basically a dishonest arguement all around.
Hillary Clinton withheld Benghazi-related emails from the State Department that detailed her knowledge of the scramble for oil contracts in Libya and the shortcomings of the NATO-led military intervention for which she advocated.
Clinton removed specific portions of other emails she sent to State, suggesting the messages were screened closely enough to determine which paragraphs were unfit to be seen by the public.
For example, one email Clinton kept from the State Department indicates Libyan leaders were "well aware" of which "major oil companies and international banks" supported them during the rebellion, information they would "factor into decisions" about about who would be given access to the country's rich oil reserves.
The email, which Clinton subsequently scrubbed from her server, indicated Clinton was aware that involvement in the controversial conflict could have a significant financial benefit to firms that were friendly to the Libyan rebels.
She thanked Sidney Blumenthal, her former aide and author of dozens of informal intelligence memos, for the tip, which she called "useful," and informed him she was preparing to hold a meeting with Libyan leaders in Paris in an exchange that suggests the flow of information went both ways.
State Department officials admitted Clinton had withheld all of nine emails and parts of six others after Blumenthal provided 60 emails to the House Select Committee on Benghazi that the agency had failed to submit earlier this year.
Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., immediately demanded to know whether State or Clinton herself withheld the records. The agency's admission Thursday that it couldn't find 15 of the new emails in its records indicated both had played a role in keeping the emails away from Congress.
An undisclosed memo sent in February 2012 contains details about how new Libyan leaders were forging business relationships with private firms. Blumenthal told Clinton his sources were concerned about the focus of international interest on Libya's oil sector, playing up the importance of other "private firms" that could provide "medical assistance."
By his own admission, Blumenthal had a personal financial interest in Libya involving medical assistance.
The fact that Clinton held the email back raises questions about whether she was aware of the conflict of interest at play in Blumenthal's advocacy.
Clinton also declined to hand over a memo in which Blumenthal relayed the complaints of Libyan rebels who felt NATO wasn't going far enough in its assistance in their struggle against Gaddafi.
"[R]ebel military commanders are extremely frustrated by the performance of NATO air forces over the weekend of April 22 [2011]," Blumenthal said.
"At the same time, these commanders believe that the small number of tactical advisers sent by Great Britain and France, under their NATO mandate, is not equipped to deal with the scope of the challenge facing the rebels," he added.
Blumenthal said his sources believed the U.S. could better support the rebels by sending traditional aircraft, such as A-10 "Warthogs," to combat the regime instead of the Predator drones it deployed after NATO took the lead in the mission.
The reason why Clinton withheld that particular memo is unclear, but it demonstrates that she knew the coalition's efforts were falling flat — and that they could have been boosted if she pushed for the use of a less politically popular aircraft.
Clinton withheld an email sent March 22, 2011 that described the French government's alleged involvement in forming the transitional government as the uprising against Gaddafi raged.
In the email, Blumenthal claimed the French had "provided money and guidance to assist" with the emerging Libyan council.
"In return for this assistance, [French government] officers indicated that they expected the government of Libya to favor French firms and national interests, particularly regarding the oil industry in Libya," Blumenthal wrote.
An email in which Blumenthal encouraged Clinton to consider the same "shock-and-awe" tactics former President George W. Bush employed in Iraq was also not included among the emails Clinton provided to State.
Blumenthal openly pressed for an increase in U.S. funding in another email that Clinton refused to turn over.
"My own view is that they desperately need professional military trainers, preferably Americans," Blumenthal said.
"Some of the funds released should go to that end," Blumenthal added, referring to the creation of a "more professional military" in the aftermath of the Gaddafi regime.
In the same memo, Blumenthal assured Clinton that representatives of the country's transitional government were "very, very happy," about a meeting with the secretary of state in May of 2011.
The subject of the same email refers to a "memo on OBL photos," likely referring to photographs of slain terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who was killed days before Blumenthal sent the memo. A controversy over whether the government should release graphic pictures of bin Laden continues to this day.
In the subject, Blumenthal said there was "more to come soon on Libya," but he did not send another email until the following month. The gap raises additional questions about whether Blumenthal provided Congress with all the emails he and Clinton exchanged.
Clinton selectively edited other portions of emails she declined to provide to the State Department.
For example, in July 2012, Clinton removed paragraphs from a Blumenthal memo that warned "simply completing the election...and fulfilling a list of proper democratic milestones may not create a true democracy." Blumenthal also wrote — in sections that Clinton deleted before providing the document to State — that the government would likely be "founded on Sharia," or Islamic laws.
The group advocating to implement Sharia, Ansar al-Sharia, is a designated terrorist group that played a role in the Benghazi attacks.
But Clinton hid how much she knew about that development.
Clinton withheld another email that showed she informed Blumenthal of a "very good call" she had with the new Libyan president, Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf. She deleted another, in which she called a memo about Magariaf's intention and history "a keeper."
Clinton did not include in the batch published by the State Department last month an exchange in which she prompted Blumenthal to provide her with "more intel" about French and British involvement with Libyan leaders.
She told Blumenthal the memo "strains credulity" in a message she withheld from State. Clinton posed the same question to a top aide, Jake Sullivan, when she forwarded him the memo, according to the records released by the agency.
TL;DR: With records under subpoena by an official committee of Congress, it seems clear that HRC and crew not only destroyed email subject to the subpoena, but also tamperedwith the evidence they did provide.
If it were ANY. OTHER. GUBMINT official... that official would be looking at jail time for that kind of action.
skyth wrote: And I am saying it wadn't a fair assessment since he entirely ignored the context of the statement then used the 'no true Scottsman' fallacy. Basically a dishonest arguement all around.
No... what's dishonest is your hyperbolic statement that:
Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.
and...
they are running on a platform of gays are bad and poir people are bad people...
skyth wrote: And I am saying it wadn't a fair assessment since he entirely ignored the context of the statement then used the 'no true Scottsman' fallacy. Basically a dishonest arguement all around.
No... what's dishonest is your hyperbolic statement that:
Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.
and...
they are running on a platform of gays are bad and poir people are bad people...
Seriously?
Yes...Seriously, they are. Every one has come out about how this is a bad ruling. Heck, some of them are doing their best not to go along with the ruling.
skyth wrote: And I am saying it wadn't a fair assessment since he entirely ignored the context of the statement then used the 'no true Scottsman' fallacy. Basically a dishonest arguement all around.
No... what's dishonest is your hyperbolic statement that:
Right wing talking points ard usually about how bad the 'enemy' is.
and...
they are running on a platform of gays are bad and poir people are bad people...
Seriously?
Yes...Seriously, they are. Every one has come out about how this is a bad ruling. Heck, some of them are doing their best not to go along with the ruling.
skyth wrote: *Yawns* Really should get that record looked at...It appears to be broken.
How about something that would matter like laws that she would vote for.
POTUS votes for laws?
Really?!?!?1 You really went there?!?!?!
Yep, you want to tell me my explanation of what another poster said was not a fair assessment of what he said (though the Wembly, the poster) said it was a good interpretation, and make other asinine comments, be prepared to get called out when they are asinine. Had you said 'voted for' to look at her record as a Senator you would get a pass. Displaying ignorance of what POTUS does,? Nope, no pass given.
Just like some of the people who vote for Bernie are Socialists, when push comes to shove we all know who they are going to vote for too.
I would actually say that's a bad analogy... I certainly will not be voting for "That other one" if Bernie isn't on the ballot in November. There are many people that I've talked to who are so sick and tired of seeing where the money in politics is coming from, and what it's buying that they are honestly going to cross all party lines to vote for the guy who isn't playing into the crony capitalism, "corporate politician" schtick that so many others are.
Heh. I still have hope. I wouldn't mind if someone like Pataki was chosen. Not overjoyed, but I'd be fine with that, he has a great environmental record, a good civil rights record, and a good health care record.
CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
So bashing what you see as Republican viewpoints (accurate or not) doesn't detract a bit from what he typed. I bet he thinks the gov't, especially the federal level, ought to leave even people he does not like alone. I also bet he could care less wether a politician has a D or an R if they believe using he gov't and proposing bigger gov't with more power sucking more resources is always the answer.
I've never really gotten the big government argument that always seems to get trotted out every election.
Truth be told, every time a politicians says they are against "big government," they are lying to you. What they really mean is "we want to shrink the parts the other party likes, but expand the parts our party likes." So, it still stays the same size, and sometimes gets bigger as every new tragedy is really just an opportunity for politicians to get what they want.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds about right. The only way I'm voting for Hillary is if the R's pick a particularly bad one.
So.... you're voting for Hillary
That's the sad part, isn't it? This election seems to be more and more about literally choosing, not someone who is good, but someone who is just not as bad as the other.
Bernie, I feel he will shoot for a 21st Century "New Deal" which the nation sorely needs, not the "hand it all to the rich" the past 40yrs have done to us. BTW that also includes Clinton and Obama for handing it all to the rich. Too much crap to paste not gonna do it.
That's the sad part, isn't it? This election seems to be more and more about literally choosing, not someone who is good, but someone who is just not as bad as the other.
Yeah, I kind of agree that this election in particular is really heading this way.
It seems like every day a new Republican candidate comes out and hops onto the campaign bandwagon. And while it's probably not entirely true, it just seems like each new candidate, on each side makes me cringe more and more. At least on the Democrat side we have what... a police lineup, instead of a DMV line
CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
This old claptrap. When push come sto shove, we all know who the Conservatives will vote for.
Just like some of the people who vote for Bernie are Socialists, when push comes to shove we all know who they are going to vote for too.
What a crock of gak. Not all the conservatives came out for Romney. McCain didn't pull conservatives in either. Got a bunch of Rs and single issue voters. If Jeb gets on the main spot on the ticket, conservatives will stay home big time.
CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
This old claptrap. When push come sto shove, we all know who the Conservatives will vote for.
Just like some of the people who vote for Bernie are Socialists, when push comes to shove we all know who they are going to vote for too.
What a crock of gak. Not all the conservatives came out for Romney. McCain didn't pull conservatives in either. Got a bunch of Rs and single issue voters. If Jeb gets on the main spot on the ticket, conservatives will stay home big time.
That all depends on who is on the D's ticket. If, say, Sanders makes it (even as VP), you can be certain that many will show up in force at the voting booths to make damn sure a Socialist doesn't get into the White House.
whembly wrote: No, the difference is: Socialist trying to convince you how much they care.
The Right-wingers just want to be left the feth alone.
Sort of. Socialists talk about how much they care. Right wingers talk about just wanting to be left alone. Both groups are lying to themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
That's just a cop out. You can't claim the identity but then distance yourself from the party based around that identity. That's the nonsense communists have tried for decades, pretending that each instance of communist leading to political oppression and death camps was just a happy accident that had no origin in the theory itself.
This doesn't mean that any individual conservative or right wing is directly responsible for the actions of the Republican party, or for the actions of other conservatives. But they do have to be honest about how their ideology works and functions in the real world.
CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
That's just a cop out. You can't claim the identity but then distance yourself from the party based around that identity. That's the nonsense communists have tried for decades, pretending that each instance of communist leading to political oppression and death camps was just a happy accident that had no origin in the theory itself.
This doesn't mean that any individual conservative or right wing is directly responsible for the actions of the Republican party, or for the actions of other conservatives. But they do have to be honest about how their ideology works and functions in the real world.
No, it isn't a cop out. If you pay a bit of attention you'll see a pretty decent schism in the Republican party. There is a Big Gov't/Progressive wing that wants to run candidates like McCain and Jeb Bush, and there is a more libertarian/conservative wing. Many of the latter have been voting for 3rd party candidates or not voting when some R candidate does not hold their values. That is why instead of Jeb waltzing in to the nomination, we are seeing a slew of other candidates from a much broader part of the R spectrum. Establishment incumbents for congress and state/local elections are being primaried left and right by more conservative candidates.
.
CptJake wrote: That is why instead of Jeb waltzing in to the nomination, we are seeing a slew of other candidates from a much broader part of the R spectrum.
It isn't that much broader. All of the likely R candidates have similar political positions.
There is a Big Gov't/Progressive wing that wants to run candidates like McCain and Jeb Bush, and there is a more libertarian/conservative wing. Many of the latter have been voting for 3rd party candidates or not voting when some R candidate does not hold their values.
CptJake wrote: That is why instead of Jeb waltzing in to the nomination, we are seeing a slew of other candidates from a much broader part of the R spectrum.
It isn't that much broader. All of the likely R candidates have similar political positions.
There is a Big Gov't/Progressive wing that wants to run candidates like McCain and Jeb Bush, and there is a more libertarian/conservative wing. Many of the latter have been voting for 3rd party candidates or not voting when some R candidate does not hold their values.
Perhaps they should reconsider what they value.
If you want to assert the likely candidates are all establishment types, go for it. I didn't limit my statement to 'likely', so taking it out of context/adding in the context you feel you need to make a contrarian point is on you.
I didn't limit my statement to 'likely', so taking it out of context/adding in the context you feel you need to make a contrarian point is on you.
Yes you did. That's what "3rd Party Candidate" means.
Damn, you enjoy twisting my words to force them into your contexts. You are wrong.
I wrote:
What I said, Not what Dogma wanted me to say wrote:If you pay a bit of attention you'll see a pretty decent schism in the Republican party. There is a Big Gov't/Progressive wing that wants to run candidates like McCain and Jeb Bush, and there is a more libertarian/conservative wing. Many of the latter have been voting for 3rd party candidates or not voting when some R candidate does not hold their values. That is why instead of Jeb waltzing in to the nomination, we are seeing a slew of other candidates from a much broader part of the R spectrum. Establishment incumbents for congress and state/local elections are being primaried left and right by more conservative candidates.
Never used 'likely' in reference to any R candidates. Used 3rd party in reference to past elections, pointed out how this election cycle has a slew of candidates on the R side and that they represent a broader part of the spectrum (which you disagree with, but you're contrarian to anything I type, so who cares). The fact that I use 'primaried' would be a big fething hint it did not refer to 3rd party candidates (who would not be in an R primary).
whembly wrote: No, the difference is: Socialist trying to convince you how much they care.
The Right-wingers just want to be left the feth alone.
Sort of. Socialists talk about how much they care. Right wingers talk about just wanting to be left alone. Both groups are lying to themselves.
Politicians... they belong to Mos Eisley moreso then any government offices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: I suspect Wembly (who will correct me if I am wrong) saw 'right wing' = conservative and not right wing = Republican.
That's just a cop out. You can't claim the identity but then distance yourself from the party based around that identity. That's the nonsense communists have tried for decades, pretending that each instance of communist leading to political oppression and death camps was just a happy accident that had no origin in the theory itself.
This doesn't mean that any individual conservative or right wing is directly responsible for the actions of the Republican party, or for the actions of other conservatives. But they do have to be honest about how their ideology works and functions in the real world.
Again... with feelings:
Republicans <> Conservatives.
Republicans <> Tea Party Groups.
Republicans <> Right Wingers.
It's a political party that *may* have aspects of the above ideology.
Same can be said of the Democrat party in the reverse too.
Republicans and Democrat, as a party apparatchik, are distinctly different than the diverse ideological groups.
It's a political party that *may* have aspects of the above ideology.
Same can be said of the Democrat party in the reverse too.
Republicans and Democrat, as a party apparatchik, are distinctly different than the diverse ideological groups.
Hence what we're having party rifts.
Just to clarify, are you using "<>" as a stand in for "does not equal"? I don't normally see it expressed that way, so just want to be sure. I'm used to seeing it as != or =/=.
I think Christie could pose the biggest challenge to Clinton if he can somehow not come across as being a bully. However, he has no shot in hell of getting through the GOP primary. Iowa is out for him and unless he can win NH (which will likely go Bush) his road after that is nonexistent.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again, none of these candidates looks like they can provide the vision necessary to lead America in this new century against the rise of China.
It looks like the USA is adopting a damage limitation mode - pick the candidate who'll do the least amount of damage for 4 years.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've said it once, and I'll say it again, none of these candidates looks like they can provide the vision necessary to lead America in this new century against the rise of China.
It looks like the USA is adopting a damage limitation mode - pick the candidate who'll do the least amount of damage for 4 years.
China's got their own problems. They're going to have severe demographic problems in the upcoming decades and they're still in the midst of the difficult task of pushing a huge portion of their workforce into the middle class in order to generate the level of domestic spending they need to keep their growing economy functional and stable. China will continue to grow their influence as a regional superpower but in the long run their global dominance is no sure thing.
Used 3rd party in reference to past elections, pointed out how this election cycle has a slew of candidates on the R side and that they represent a broader part of the spectrum (which you disagree with, but you're contrarian to anything I type, so who cares).
You, apparently, though I am not contrarian.
Regardless, there is no need to get angry, a simple clarification would have sufficed.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've said it once, and I'll say it again, none of these candidates looks like they can provide the vision necessary to lead America in this new century against the rise of China.
It looks like the USA is adopting a damage limitation mode - pick the candidate who'll do the least amount of damage for 4 years.
China's got their own problems. They're going to have severe demographic problems in the upcoming decades and they're still in the midst of the difficult task of pushing a huge portion of their workforce into the middle class in order to generate the level of domestic spending they need to keep their growing economy functional and stable. China will continue to grow their influence as a regional superpower but in the long run their global dominance is no sure thing.
Not so long ago, the UK was saying the same thing about the USA. Looked how that turned out
CptJake wrote: No, it isn't a cop out. If you pay a bit of attention you'll see a pretty decent schism in the Republican party.
Every political group has factions, and factions within factions, and factions within factions within… well its turtles all the way down. There are no hive minds political organisations out there. Trying to use the existence of factions and disagreements within the group to claim to separate right wingers from Republicans is nonsense. It’s the kind of nonsense that communists tried for decades, trying to pretend that communist theory had no part to play in the dystopian nightmares in Russia and China.
But honest, real thinking means reflecting on how the overall ideology followed by you and people like you actually functions in the real world.
But of course honest, real thinking and politics have very little in common.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Politicians... they belong to Mos Eisley moreso then any government offices.
Everyone thinks the politicians are the only ones lying. But they only say nonsense that we like to hear because it’s reinforcing the lies we’ve already told ourselves.
Hmmm… reading that back to myself it sounds way more ‘student party at 3:00 in the morning’ than it should.
Again... with feelings:
Republicans <> Conservatives.
Republicans <> Tea Party Groups.
Republicans <> Right Wingers.
It's a political party that *may* have aspects of the above ideology.
Same can be said of the Democrat party in the reverse too.
Republicans and Democrat, as a party apparatchik, are distinctly different than the diverse ideological groups.
Hence what we're having party rifts.
Of course there are rifts and factions, and the party functionaries are going to differ from the grassroots, but that doesn’t mean you get to just live in a nice little ideological bubble and separate your beliefs from what the party actually delivers. People need to be honest about how their private beliefs actually manifest themselves in real world politics.
whembly wrote: Politicians... they belong to Mos Eisley moreso then any government offices.
Everyone thinks the politicians are the only ones lying. But they only say nonsense that we like to hear because it’s reinforcing the lies we’ve already told ourselves.
Hmmm… reading that back to myself it sounds way more ‘student party at 3:00 in the morning’ than it should.
Thanks for the laugh.
Again... with feelings:
Republicans <> Conservatives.
Republicans <> Tea Party Groups.
Republicans <> Right Wingers.
It's a political party that *may* have aspects of the above ideology.
Same can be said of the Democrat party in the reverse too.
Republicans and Democrat, as a party apparatchik, are distinctly different than the diverse ideological groups.
Hence what we're having party rifts.
Of course there are rifts and factions, and the party functionaries are going to differ from the grassroots, but that doesn’t mean you get to just live in a nice little ideological bubble and separate your beliefs from what the party actually delivers. People need to be honest about how their private beliefs actually manifest themselves in real world politics.
The point seb, is that there are many things we disagree with overall direction of our Party.
What many are arguing, is that we are nothing more than lemmings in our party.
That's fething BS man. We're much more than simply whatever "planks" the party has...
If you REALLY want see this dichotomy, google up the Mike Flynn is running for House seat in Illinois. The dude is F'n aweseom, yet the party establishment hates him.
It is quite well informed. I know the man's political positions and the people who will likely vote for him. He is generic Tea Party and knows how to appeal to that group.
I listened to opening and closing arguments from this Flynn guy. He does not appear to have a platform other than "beauracrats are bad". Also, I have a hard time taking someone seriously at a formal debate when they dress up like it's casual Friday at Facebook HQ, and he's smug to the point of distraction. If this guy wants serious national attention, he needs some coaching.
Hillary Clinton withheld Benghazi-related emails from the State Department that detailed her knowledge of the scramble for oil contracts in Libya and the shortcomings of the NATO-led military intervention for which she advocated.
Clinton removed specific portions of other emails she sent to State, suggesting the messages were screened closely enough to determine which paragraphs were unfit to be seen by the public.
For example, one email Clinton kept from the State Department indicates Libyan leaders were "well aware" of which "major oil companies and international banks" supported them during the rebellion, information they would "factor into decisions" about about who would be given access to the country's rich oil reserves.
The email, which Clinton subsequently scrubbed from her server, indicated Clinton was aware that involvement in the controversial conflict could have a significant financial benefit to firms that were friendly to the Libyan rebels.
She thanked Sidney Blumenthal, her former aide and author of dozens of informal intelligence memos, for the tip, which she called "useful," and informed him she was preparing to hold a meeting with Libyan leaders in Paris in an exchange that suggests the flow of information went both ways.
State Department officials admitted Clinton had withheld all of nine emails and parts of six others after Blumenthal provided 60 emails to the House Select Committee on Benghazi that the agency had failed to submit earlier this year.
Chairman Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., immediately demanded to know whether State or Clinton herself withheld the records. The agency's admission Thursday that it couldn't find 15 of the new emails in its records indicated both had played a role in keeping the emails away from Congress.
An undisclosed memo sent in February 2012 contains details about how new Libyan leaders were forging business relationships with private firms. Blumenthal told Clinton his sources were concerned about the focus of international interest on Libya's oil sector, playing up the importance of other "private firms" that could provide "medical assistance."
By his own admission, Blumenthal had a personal financial interest in Libya involving medical assistance.
The fact that Clinton held the email back raises questions about whether she was aware of the conflict of interest at play in Blumenthal's advocacy.
Clinton also declined to hand over a memo in which Blumenthal relayed the complaints of Libyan rebels who felt NATO wasn't going far enough in its assistance in their struggle against Gaddafi.
"[R]ebel military commanders are extremely frustrated by the performance of NATO air forces over the weekend of April 22 [2011]," Blumenthal said.
"At the same time, these commanders believe that the small number of tactical advisers sent by Great Britain and France, under their NATO mandate, is not equipped to deal with the scope of the challenge facing the rebels," he added.
Blumenthal said his sources believed the U.S. could better support the rebels by sending traditional aircraft, such as A-10 "Warthogs," to combat the regime instead of the Predator drones it deployed after NATO took the lead in the mission.
The reason why Clinton withheld that particular memo is unclear, but it demonstrates that she knew the coalition's efforts were falling flat — and that they could have been boosted if she pushed for the use of a less politically popular aircraft.
Clinton withheld an email sent March 22, 2011 that described the French government's alleged involvement in forming the transitional government as the uprising against Gaddafi raged.
In the email, Blumenthal claimed the French had "provided money and guidance to assist" with the emerging Libyan council.
"In return for this assistance, [French government] officers indicated that they expected the government of Libya to favor French firms and national interests, particularly regarding the oil industry in Libya," Blumenthal wrote.
An email in which Blumenthal encouraged Clinton to consider the same "shock-and-awe" tactics former President George W. Bush employed in Iraq was also not included among the emails Clinton provided to State.
Blumenthal openly pressed for an increase in U.S. funding in another email that Clinton refused to turn over.
"My own view is that they desperately need professional military trainers, preferably Americans," Blumenthal said.
"Some of the funds released should go to that end," Blumenthal added, referring to the creation of a "more professional military" in the aftermath of the Gaddafi regime.
In the same memo, Blumenthal assured Clinton that representatives of the country's transitional government were "very, very happy," about a meeting with the secretary of state in May of 2011.
The subject of the same email refers to a "memo on OBL photos," likely referring to photographs of slain terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, who was killed days before Blumenthal sent the memo. A controversy over whether the government should release graphic pictures of bin Laden continues to this day.
In the subject, Blumenthal said there was "more to come soon on Libya," but he did not send another email until the following month. The gap raises additional questions about whether Blumenthal provided Congress with all the emails he and Clinton exchanged.
Clinton selectively edited other portions of emails she declined to provide to the State Department.
For example, in July 2012, Clinton removed paragraphs from a Blumenthal memo that warned "simply completing the election...and fulfilling a list of proper democratic milestones may not create a true democracy." Blumenthal also wrote — in sections that Clinton deleted before providing the document to State — that the government would likely be "founded on Sharia," or Islamic laws.
The group advocating to implement Sharia, Ansar al-Sharia, is a designated terrorist group that played a role in the Benghazi attacks.
But Clinton hid how much she knew about that development.
Clinton withheld another email that showed she informed Blumenthal of a "very good call" she had with the new Libyan president, Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf. She deleted another, in which she called a memo about Magariaf's intention and history "a keeper."
Clinton did not include in the batch published by the State Department last month an exchange in which she prompted Blumenthal to provide her with "more intel" about French and British involvement with Libyan leaders.
She told Blumenthal the memo "strains credulity" in a message she withheld from State. Clinton posed the same question to a top aide, Jake Sullivan, when she forwarded him the memo, according to the records released by the agency.
So... she:
1) printed the subpoenaed emails and gave only what she though pertains as official records.
2) Sid Blumenthal released some emails that proves Hillary didn't release ALL the relevent emails to the committee
3) Now we find out that those released subpoenaed, printed emails were actually EDITED.
jasper76 wrote: I listened to opening and closing arguments from this Flynn guy. He does not appear to have a platform other than "beauracrats are bad". Also, I have a hard time taking someone seriously at a formal debate when they dress up like it's casual Friday at Facebook HQ, and he's smug to the point of distraction. If this guy wants serious national attention, he needs some coaching.
Then you missed some good quotes...
At 25 minute ish mark, he talks about his definition of conservative philosophy that I think is great:
We are all children of God, and we are all touched by the divine. And because of that we are unique, and we are all individuals. Conservatism is a humility in government, that we do not know what's best for you. That we would not try to define what's best for you. You go, with your divine spark, and pursue. Conservatism is freedom -- within responsibilities, we enter into a social contract through the Constitution to protect those rights we have so that others do not infringe on them, but at that point Government should largely go away. And let us live. As conservatives -- I've said it before, and it amazes me, but we are selling freedom. And if we can't sell freedom, we do indeed suck.
At 44 minute ish mark, he talks about flat tax. Many of us disagrees with this, but at least he's making a case to push the conversation.
At 53 minute ish mark, he praises an idea implmented by CANADA. The idea of "regulatory budgeting," in which if a regulatory agency implements a new regulation costing $100 million, they must offset that by taking a regulation worth $100 million off the books. Again, I doubt we can truly ever achieve this, but at least he's push these out there in the political realms to foment debates of these ideas.
Nothing about the extracted material seems particularly anti-establishment to me, with the possible exception of the flat tax (I don't really know what the GOP "establishment" platform is in tax scales).
His definition of conservatism seems pretty boiler plate, appeling to religious, small government, and libertarian-lite sensibilities. None of it would sound odd coming from any mainstream GOP politician .
jasper76 wrote: Nothing about the extracted material seems particularly anti-establishment to me, with the possible exception of the flat tax (I don't really know what the GOP "establishment" platform is in tax scales).
His definition of conservatism seems pretty boiler plate, appeling to religious, small government, and libertarian-lite sensibilities. None of it would sound odd coming from any mainstream GOP politician .
Cool.
I think he's feisty... although, he's going against the establishment candidate, so he's got a tall order to get the nomination.
There seems to be a lot more talk in Washington and in political operative circles around the country about the prospect of Vice President Joe Biden running for president in 2016. Interesting. Is a Biden candidacy more likely as a result of his recent family tragedy? It would be perfectly plausible for anyone who has suffered the kind of loss he has to want to rededicate themselves to their life’s work as well as stay as busy as possible. There is probably no better way on earth to stay busy than to run for president, to say nothing of how busy your life becomes if you ultimately get elected. The death of Biden’s son and the way he handled it with such dignity and grace struck a chord with not just Americans but also with people all over the world. Perhaps it made people see him in a new light and maybe even revealed a somewhat hidden dimension of his character.
All of this has happened at the same time the Hillary Clinton campaign is limping along as a synthetic, tired, manufactured exercise that appears to be — at best — winning by default. I actually feel sorry for the Clinton surrogates I see on TV. They gamely tough it out as they recite the talking points, deny the obvious, defend the indefensible and pretend there is some energy within the campaign.
In a lot of ways, Biden would be the true anti-Hillary. He is completely uninhibited, he is impossible to script — which makes him seem authentic — and he has a human appeal that everyone can relate to. Clinton, on the other hand, is running a surreal campaign that avoids crowds, media and spontaneity of any kind. She is protecting her lead in the most standard, unimaginative way possible. Compared with Clinton’s robotic, stiff approach, could having a reputation for occasionally saying the wrong thing and hugging too much work to Biden’s advantage in an era where voters want the real thing?
The Democrats appear to be yearning for an emotional connection with their candidate, which could explain the flurry of excitement surrounding the Bernie Sanders campaign. Sen. Sanders seems to have an outsize appeal, which could be a product of how his outside-the-box approach contrasts with the stale Clinton march. But whatever Bernie can do, can’t Biden do it better? Maybe Sanders’s candidacy has exposed the opening that exists for Biden in the Democratic primary. Maybe this is Biden’s moment.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Been watching an Obama press coverage - formal relations with Cuba are almost here. They're just thrashing out the embassy plans.
American dakka members: are you happy that your nation is extending the hand of friendship to Joe Commie?
I still think that Obama's motivation for this was securing his legacy.
*meh*
It's going to be a hot topic simply due to Florida constituents and the Presidential candidates. The Amb. position would likely see a confirmation fight... which, imo, is not a hill to die on.
If we can encourage meaningful reforms, sure... why not.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Been watching an Obama press coverage - formal relations with Cuba are almost here. They're just thrashing out the embassy plans.
American dakka members: are you happy that your nation is extending the hand of friendship to Joe Commie?
I still think that Obama's motivation for this was securing his legacy.
*meh*
It's going to be a hot topic simply due to Florida constituents and the Presidential candidates. The Amb. position would likely see a confirmation fight... which, imo, is not a hill to die on.
If we can encourage meaningful reforms, sure... why not.
Florida is one of those key election states, is it not?
I remember the last election when all they did was bang on about Ohio and Florida. It got so bad, I could recite Ohio's GDP and percentage of women in work, in my sleep
American dakka members: are you happy that your nation is extending the hand of friendship to Joe Commie?
Yes, actually I do.... The main reason we closed down relations is no longer present, there is no real, and imminent "danger" from that particular sector these days, and frankly I think that exposure to ideas are but a short stepping stone to toppling the regime in place.
whembly wrote: The point seb, is that there are many things we disagree with overall direction of our Party.
What many are arguing, is that we are nothing more than lemmings in our party.
That's fething BS man. We're much more than simply whatever "planks" the party has...
Sure, hardly anyone just blindly accepts everything in their party's platform. But my point is just mentioning that isn't enough to just step away from everything the party you vote for does - you have to be honest about what they party is in the real world, whether you agree individual parts or not they're still there.
It would be 93 kinds of bs for a person to say they hate unions, and then when you point out they vote Democrat and those guys are tied at the hip to unions, they say they only vote for them because of their progressive policies, so the unions aren't related. That hypothetical Democrat doesn't have to like everything about their side, but they don't get to pretend it isn't part and parcel of their voting choice.
If you REALLY want see this dichotomy, google up the Mike Flynn is running for House seat in Illinois. The dude is F'n aweseom, yet the party establishment hates him.
I didn't know him, but from what you posted he seems like a fairly standard Republican true believer. Those guys always run on an outside ticket, even when the establishment likes them or (more often) doesn't give give a gak one way or the other, they always complain about how the party establishment is against them. It's part of their appeal. Am I the only one who remembers GW Bush, son of a former president and former Texas governor running as an outsider?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote: Admitting to being wrong is difficult. It is far easier blame other people.
Admitting things are complex and difficult and have no good solution is even harder. So we fall for easy solutions that blame other groups.
whembly wrote: The point seb, is that there are many things we disagree with overall direction of our Party.
What many are arguing, is that we are nothing more than lemmings in our party.
That's fething BS man. We're much more than simply whatever "planks" the party has...
Sure, hardly anyone just blindly accepts everything in their party's platform. But my point is just mentioning that isn't enough to just step away from everything the party you vote for does - you have to be honest about what they party is in the real world, whether you agree individual parts or not they're still there.
It would be 93 kinds of bs for a person to say they hate unions, and then when you point out they vote Democrat and those guys are tied at the hip to unions, they say they only vote for them because of their progressive policies, so the unions aren't related. That hypothetical Democrat doesn't have to like everything about their side, but they don't get to pretend it isn't part and parcel of their voting choice.
It's one thing to acknowledge the stupid gak your party does... I think, in our own way, we know it'll never be perfect.
I'll boil down the problem. Todd Atkin.
Compare that to Robert C. Byrd. Need I say more?
One guy, put is foot in his mouth in a real bad way and not only lost the election... his whole party were made to answer to his mistake.
The other guy? Was a fething Keagle of the KKK. *crickets*
In the end, it doesn't fething matter. The best we can do, is hopefully vote in an informed manner to keep the extremist marginalized.
If you REALLY want see this dichotomy, google up the Mike Flynn is running for House seat in Illinois. The dude is F'n aweseom, yet the party establishment hates him.
I didn't know him, but from what you posted he seems like a fairly standard Republican true believer. Those guys always run on an outside ticket, even when the establishment likes them or (more often) doesn't give give a gak one way or the other, they always complain about how the party establishment is against them. It's part of their appeal.
Indeed. I want the fething establishments to be put on notice.
Am I the only one who remembers GW Bush, son of a former president and former Texas governor running as an outsider?
Eh... it wasn't so much that he was an outsider. I mean, c'mon, he's a Texan Governor whose Dad was President.
whembly wrote: It's one thing to acknowledge the stupid gak your party does... I think, in our own way, we know it'll never be perfect.
Yeah, and then the next part is thinking long and hard about how much of the stupid gak your party does is just random accidents, and how much actually an inherent part of the party ideology. To go back to my earlier example – for decades communists kept claiming that real and true communism had nothing to do with the brutal regimes in Russia, China, Cuba etc Some honest thinking would have led to a recognition that ideas at the core of communism really did lead to totalitarian hellholes, and from there you’d see people move away from communism, or find new solutions that weren’t going to produce death camps.
While mainstream politics in your country and mine is obviously a lot less dramatic
I'll boil down the problem. Todd Atkin.
Compare that to Robert C. Byrd. Need I say more?
It’s a weird quirk of politics that the left wing can actually get away with racism and things like that easier than the right. See how much gak Bush copped on civil and human rights compared to Bush, despite their policies being practically identical.
The flip side is that conservatives get away with heaps on stuff like deficits. Bush’s tax cuts were a fiscal disaster – had a Democrat plunged national finances like that we’d never hear the end of it. And while the issue wasn’t ignored, it got nothing like the press it deserved, and a fraction of the attention it would have got if it had happened under a Democrat. Compare to the extraordinary freakout over the deficit when Obama was in charge, despite the deficit being driven by the GFC.
That’s the difference between Akin and Byrd, I think. Akin’s comments were electoral gold for Democrats looking to mobilise their base. Whereas Byrd… well who does that play to? Democrats might be angry about his racist past, but they not there’s little gained by attacking their own. And Republicans simply aren’t going to raise race as an issue, because they know it’s a loser for them.
Indeed. I want the fething establishments to be put on notice.
Yeah, but this has been such a standard part of rhetoric for so long. The establishment position is to claim you’re anti-establishment
Eh... it wasn't so much that he was an outsider. I mean, c'mon, he's a Texan Governor whose Dad was President.
He ran on big government "conservative" policies.
No, he literally ran on ‘I’m an outsider I’m going to shake up Washington’. It was hilarious.
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) drew 10,000 supporters, the largest crowd of his campaign thus far, according to reports.
"Tonight, we have more people at any meeting for a candidate of president of the United States than any other candidate,” Sanders told his fans at Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Madison, Wis., according to The Associated Press.
Sanders used the occasion to slam Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a likely Republican White House hopeful, for Walker’s battles against state labor unions.
"When you deny the right of workers to come together in collective bargaining, that's extremism," Sanders said. "When you tell a woman that she cannot control her own body, that's extremism."
Sanders continued beating his populist drum, to the delight of his supporters.
"The big money interests — Wall Street, corporate America, all of these guys — have so much power that no president can defeat them unless there is an organized grassroots movement making them an offer they can't refuse," he said.
Some in attendance took to social media to share images from the event:
Fittingly, the only empty seats at this #BernieSanders rally are the luxury boxes. #Bernie2016 #FeelTheBern pic.twitter.com/e0QJhIbLHN
— Wisconsin Defender (@wi_defender) July 2, 2015
With Bernie Sanders about to come on in Madison, the arena is more or less full. pic.twitter.com/TXMV7Agtfz
— Dan Merica (@danmericaCNN) July 2, 2015
The coliseum is packed and people still trying to get in. Who's an underdog again? #FeelTheBern #HillaryWho pic.twitter.com/7kdUYyk0a7
— Elizabeth Wilke (@justlikeliz) July 2, 2015
HUGE crowd waiting for #BernieSanders in #Madison @erictheteamster @JahNahNah @danmericaCNN #Bernie2016 #FeelTheBern pic.twitter.com/4AZ0r0L9c2
Frazzled wrote: Go Sanders. I wish there were more than two viiable parties.
American history is littered with third parties, but nobody voted for them (well at least not in significant numbers)
You, and I don't mean you personally, only have yourselves to blame
But then again, the third party in the UK, is hopeless, so maybe you're better off without them
The problem with any third party in these days of "you're either with us or against us" politics, is that if third Party Z is even marginally closer to Party X over Party Y in ideology, then they split Party X's votes and Party Y keeps all of their usual votes and wins the election.
Frazzled wrote: Go Sanders. I wish there were more than two viiable parties.
American history is littered with third parties, but nobody voted for them (well at least not in significant numbers)
You, and I don't mean you personally, only have yourselves to blame
But then again, the third party in the UK, is hopeless, so maybe you're better off without them
The problem with any third party in these days of "you're either with us or against us" politics, is that if third Party Z is even marginally closer to Party X over Party Y in ideology, then they split Party X's votes and Party Y keeps all of their usual votes and wins the election.
Nine times out of ten, that's true, but in the UK, the third party (I won't mention their name because I utterly despise the ) won enough seats in 2010 to become part of a coalition government in the UK. I can't see the US ever having a coalition government
Happily for me, the third party got their just rewards in the 2015 election, and were nearly wiped out.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Nevada Independence Party of Progressive Left-wing Enterprise, or NIPPLE as I call them, is not a viable party in American politics
Tannhauser42 wrote: The problem with any third party in these days of "you're either with us or against us" politics, is that if third Party Z is even marginally closer to Party X over Party Y in ideology, then they split Party X's votes and Party Y keeps all of their usual votes and wins the election.
That isn’t so much about the ‘with us or against us’ culture, but a product of a winner take all election system.
Tannhauser42 wrote: The problem with any third party in these days of "you're either with us or against us" politics, is that if third Party Z is even marginally closer to Party X over Party Y in ideology, then they split Party X's votes and Party Y keeps all of their usual votes and wins the election.
That isn’t so much about the ‘with us or against us’ culture, but a product of a winner take all election system.
A coalition system would encourage co-operation on common ground, but the USA would never go in for it. Frankly, the current system is the only one that could work in the USA.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I've just been reading articles about the Clintons' money, and by God, I never thought I'd say this...but...Whembley...was right about the Clintons
So I don't really follow American politics, but I am curious about one thing, which I was hoping you could fill me in on. Why are there so many Republican candidates? My vaguely understanding was that the parties each normally decide between two or three, each of whom represents a given segment of the base; the victory in the primaries represents whichever segment won out over the others. But apparently this time everyone in the Republican party fancies their chances. Why is this? Do they think that the Democrats are likely to lose, so everyone wants to be the one to claim the top job? Or is the Republican party just exploding with different ideologies right now?
Charles Rampant wrote: So I don't really follow American politics, but I am curious about one thing, which I was hoping you could fill me in on. Why are there so many Republican candidates? My vaguely understanding was that the parties each normally decide between two or three, each of whom represents a given segment of the base; the victory in the primaries represents whichever segment won out over the others. But apparently this time everyone in the Republican party fancies their chances. Why is this?
There are a lot of candidates, but not very many who believe they will be President, nor is that their goal. Running for president is a good way to get on the news a lot, and maybe even on stage for a debate. That's a great way to sell a lot of books, or strengthen your bargaining power for the inevitable Fox News contract.
So, there actually only are about 3 Republican candidates, per se; and the rest are just positioning themselves for fleecing the rubes. Everyone on both sides of the ideological aisle is disgusted by the self aggrandizing manner someone like Donald Trump promotes himself - someone who will never submit the financial disclosure paperwork required and so will drop out right before that - but fundamentally, there's no real difference between Donald Trump and say, Mike Huckabee, or Rick Perry, or Ted Cruz, or Rick Santorum, or Bobby Jindal, or the rest of junior varsity lineup of has-beens/never was/is.
As said, most of them are just there for the attention, and the free ride on the fundraisers' money.
Another possibility is that the Rs believe Hillary will win anyway, so they're doing this to get future support for their own re-election, or even planning ahead for 2020.
It's also possible that this really is the best the Republican party has to offer in terms of candidates at this time, and none of them truly stand out. Hell, I recently read an article where Cruz is bragging that he's the better candidate because he's raised more money than others.
Doesn't running for president cost absolutely loads of money though? Or are they planning to slip back beneath the waves once they have gained the best exposure for their money spent?
Charles Rampant wrote: Doesn't running for president cost absolutely loads of money though? Or are they planning to slip back beneath the waves once they have gained the best exposure for their money spent?
Generally speaking Presidential candidates don't put a lot of their own money into their campaign. They usually stick within the individual limit for direct donations, which is 2,600 USD; nothing for most Presidential candidates.
No one asked Bernie Sanders what he thought about the Greek referendum on Sunday, but he shared his thoughts anyway.
“I applaud the people of Greece for saying ‘no’ to more austerity for the poor, the children, the sick and the elderly,” Sanders said in welcoming Sunday’s vote, even as it rattled world markets and provoked predictions of economic doom. The statement didn’t just align Sanders with left-wing Europeans; it aligned him with lefter-wing Greek socialists who are too radical for some of those left-wing Europeans.
Democratic primaries have always featured liberal insurgent candidates, but perhaps none quite so liberal or insurgent as the socialist senator from Vermont. Sanders’ comments are a reminder of just how far the second-place Democratic presidential candidate stands from the American mainstream on some issues, and the looming reckoning Democrats face with their party’s leftward drift.
Never mind whether Sanders can crack 40 percent in any primary against Hillary Clinton — he has already established himself as her de facto challenger and a standard-bearer of a party that was, until this year, too far to the right for his liking.
“When I hear Bernie talk I’m almost inclined to accuse him of plagiarizing me,” said Ralph Nader, the left-wing gadfly whose third-party bid many Democrats still blame for swinging the 2000 election to George W. Bush.
Nader’s kinship with Sanders is yet another sign that the Democratic Party’s goal posts have moved left. The percentage of Democrats who identify as socially and economically liberal has increased 17 points since 2001, according to a recent Gallup poll. And the party’s restive liberal base — led in recent years by progressive icon Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren — has pushed the party establishment on social issues like same-sex marriage and populist economic ones like equal pay and paid sick leave.
Republicans, at least, are betting that broad swaths of the electorate have been left behind.
“Look, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and the other Democrats in D.C., they’re for socialism. They just — they’re not as honest as Bernie is,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show last week. “Did you honestly believe we would live to see the day when a guy, an honest-to-goodness socialist, is running for president and doing — he got 10,000 people in Wisconsin to come hear him speak, he’s gaining on Hillary in the polls? This shows you how radical the Democratic Party is.”
In Wisconsin, where Sanders appeared last week before a progressive throng in Madison, the state Republican Party put up billboards featuring Sanders and Clinton riding together on a moped with the words “Left and Lefter” and “extreme policies.” Shortly before Sanders’ speech, Gov. Scott Walker took the unusual step of criticizing the long-shot Sanders, saying his approach is in “stark opposition to most Americans.”
It’s usually Democrats who play this game — as they did with Republican challengers to Mitt Romney in 2012, or with fringe characters like Todd Aiken. Now, it’s Republicans seeking to use the Sanders surge to portray Democrats as radical and out of touch.
And that’s making many Democrats nervous, said Joe Trippi, who ran Vermonter Howard Dean’s campaign in 2004.
“We can’t lose the presidency. We can’t take a risk by nominating somebody outside the comfort zone. That’s what’s driving the inevitable-ness” of Clinton, said Trippi, speaking about the party establishment’s thinking.
Sanders is unlikely to tone it down for the long-term good of his newly adopted party.
“Bernie is saying what he believes. He’s unlikely to run for president again, and this is his shot … This is as unfiltered and as clear as it comes,” said liberal labor economist Robert Reich, who compared Sanders to past Democratic candidates like Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern.
But Sanders comes from an even more radical milieu than those left-wing insurgents of the 1960s and 70s.
As mayor of Burlington, Vermont, in the 1980s, Sanders visited Nicaragua in solidarity with its socialist Sandinista regime and later honeymooned in the Soviet Union, where he established a sister-city relationship with the community of Yaroslavl. In the mid-1960s, when Clinton was calling herself a “Goldwater girl,” Sanders spent time on a kibbutz in Israel.
“I think he’s the most leftist, and I think he is the greatest megaphone for leftist dissent” since Henry Wallace in 1948, said Doug Wilson, who served as deputy campaign manager for Gary Hart in 1984, who challenged establishment front-runner Walter Mondale. (Wilson and Hart are backing former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley in the Democratic primary.)
And Sanders has long been unabashed about his socialist beliefs. “Nobody should earn more than $1 million,” he told the Burlington Free Press in 1974.
“I believe that, in the long run, major industries in this state and nation should be publicly owned and controlled by the workers themselves,” he wrote in 1976.
While statements like these might be a skeleton in another candidate’s closet, Sanders has never renounced socialism, even if his brand of it has become more moderate. “Do they think I’m afraid of the word? I’m not afraid of the word,” Sanders said of the term “socialist” in an interview with The Nation on Monday.
Sanders — pointing to high approval numbers for a higher minimum wage, pay equity for women and other issues — often argues his agenda is mainstream. “It is not a radical agenda,” he said at a breakfast for reporters last month. “In virtually every instance, what I’m saying is supported by a significant majority of the American people.”
Still, many of his most important positions today fall well outside the traditional parameters that have bounded American political discourse in recent decades. He wants to raise the marginal tax rate for top earners to more than 50 percent — which would be the highest rate in 30 years and is more than 10 points higher than Barack Obama proposed as a candidate in 2007. He says he would replace the Affordable Care Act — perhaps Obama’s signature accomplishment in office and a prized victory for Democrats — with a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system, a position that was too liberal for Dean when he was governor of Vermont. (Sanders’ standard Obamacare line is to quickly laud its “modest gains” but quickly say it isn’t enough.)
He has called for free tuition at four-year public colleges and universities and introduced legislation that would break up banks like Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Citigroup. He said this weekend that he’d consider left-wing New York Times columnist Paul Krugman for his Cabinet.
But if all of that goes too far for the general American public, much of the Democratic Party is right there with him. “He’s not in the mainstream of the Democratic apparatchiks and the paymasters,” said Nader, “but look at where he polls on breaking up the big banks, on opposing trade dictatorships.”
Still, many of his most important positions today fall well outside the traditional parameters that have bounded American political discourse in recent decades. He wants to raise the marginal tax rate for top earners to more than 50 percent — which would be the highest rate in 30 years and is more than 10 points higher than Barack Obama proposed as a candidate in 2007.
Earlier, I watched Obama do a conference at the Pentagon, on the subject on ISIS, and I can only conclude that Obama can't wait for his term to end.
Obama more or less phoned it in!
In a way, I can't blame him - he's out the door in 20 months, but by God, what a damning indictment of political will.
Secretary of defence Carter wasn't that much better.
There seems to be no will, no solution, not even an attempt at strategy. Regardless what side of the debate you're on (should America stay in ME/should America leave the ME)
to see a superpower reduced to that, was pretty sobering...
The most depressing aspect was that some people think you can solve the ME's problems with missiles or the 82nd airborne...
“Look, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and the other Democrats in D.C., they’re for socialism. They just — they’re not as honest as Bernie is,” said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show last week.
I see we're going with this argument again.
It didn't work well the last time two times, so you should probably stop using it.
“Did you honestly believe we would live to see the day when a guy, an honest-to-goodness socialist, is running for president and doing — he got 10,000 people in Wisconsin to come hear him speak, he’s gaining on Hillary in the polls? This shows you how radical the Democratic Party is.”
Actually it just shows how much Wisconsin liberals hate Scott Walker.
I think the problem is comparing how reactionary the R's have become, any liberalism seems radical. Sanders tends to be in line with a lot of European liberals. Nothing he has said, to my knowledge, has been particularly radical, unless you look st it from a reactionary viewpoint . Liberal yes, but not radical.
Edit: that and lots of D's are tired of the Clintons.
Does anyone else think the Hillary Clinton is going to be Mitt Romney for 2016? She probably will end up winning the primary but liberals will never love her like they did with Obama in 2008. I mean if the republicans can put up a decent candidate they could beat her IMO. All they have to do is push Trump off the stage.
That and watching part of her interview earlier today on CNN bored me to death. Clinton clearly hates the press, I mean it is so obvious.
Blood Hawk wrote: Does anyone else think the Hillary Clinton is going to be Mitt Romney for 2016? She probably will end up winning the primary but liberals will never love her like they did with Obama in 2008. I mean if the republicans can put up a decent candidate they could beat her IMO. All they have to do is push Trump off the stage.
It depends. To put a real dent in HRC's campaign, there needs to be some significant issue that can be summed in a short soundbite that can be recycled in campaign ads everywhere (basically, just like Romney's "47%" comment). If you need a wall of text or more than a couple minutes to explain why you shouldn't vote for someone, well, the average American voter's attention span isn't long enough for that.
But the GOP still needs to put up a good, strong candidate that has actual plans, ideas, and strategies of his own to offer to America. They can no longer campaign on "I'm not Obama" and people are starting to get tired of the "I'll fight the ACA" platform, too. Seriously, every GOP ad I heard in the last election here in Texas all said the exact same thing "I will fight Obama and I will stop the ACA." And that was even from Rs running for state/local offices.
Blood Hawk wrote: Does anyone else think the Hillary Clinton is going to be Mitt Romney for 2016? She probably will end up winning the primary but liberals will never love her like they did with Obama in 2008. I mean if the republicans can put up a decent candidate they could beat her IMO. All they have to do is push Trump off the stage.
That and watching part of her interview earlier today on CNN bored me to death. Clinton clearly hates the press, I mean it is so obvious.
No.
Women and minorities overwhemingly is voting for HRC.
She got this in the bank ya'll. Figurative and literally.
And with the current republican crop, there are probably going to be plenty of D's voting just to not have them. I doubt people want another bush. The first one was OK-is, but the second one was disastrous. Let's hope the third one is nowhere near as bad.
Paul Ryan should have run. He's conservative enough to appeal to the Republican base, but can appear to be moderate and might even have some cross-party youth appeal.
The only other candidate I can see giving Clinton a legitimate challenge is Jeb Bush, but his last name is "Bush"...if he were not a Bush, I think people would be giving him a harder look.
Despite being another "Bush," it might still help him that he isn't from Texas. A lot of people dismissed Perry in 2012 because they didn't want another Texan in the White House.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Despite being another "Bush," it might still help him that he isn't from Texas. A lot of people dismissed Perry in 2012 because they didn't want another Texan in the White House.
Really? I figured a Bush name is more of an albatross than a candidate from Texas.
If you were looking to substantiate the inescapable impression that the political press is vastly more sympathetic toward Democrats than Republicans, look no further than the eccentric collectivist senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders and his quixotic presidential campaign. Sanders brings all the baggage and more to the table that former Texas Rep. Ron Paul and Missouri Senate Candidate Todd Akin lugged with them into the 2012 election cycle, and yet the nation’s political reporters cannot identify a single thing that the surging socialist says about his party as a whole. The press’s collective refusal to identify “the Democrats’ Bernie Sanders problem” says all that you need to know about that increasingly activist enterprise.
Political reporters find themselves newly enthralled by Bernie Sanders’ effort to create a contrast with Hillary Clinton’s low-key style of campaigning by organizing massive rallies in stadium-sized venues situated in left-of-center cities like Portland, Maine, and Madison, Wisconsin. Crowd sizes, while not even remotely indicative of future electoral performance, are captivating symbols. Few in the press have, however, remarked on the decidedly monochromatic nature of those packing stadium seats to see the Democratic presidential candidate – these being virtually all-white crowds in predominantly white cities. Fewer still have speculated about how these crowds, uniform in both ideology and skin tone, reflect on the Democratic Party’s ascendant progressive wing.
“He’s been to Portland, Maine, he’s been to Portland, Oregon, Madison, Wisconsin, in Iowa, in New Hampshire, and he’s consolidated that white progressive vote,” Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd remarked on Tuesday. “This is what Bill Bradley did. Gary Hart did it. Paul Tsongas did it.” He noted that the Clinton campaign can take this development in stride so long as Sanders’ crowds fail to become more “diverse,” but he demurely declined to speculate about what the Vermont senator’s predominantly white progressive support says about him, his campaign, or the Democratic Party’s activist base voters. This was charitably coy on Todd’s part, but it is safe to assume that the same courtesy would not have been extended to a phenomenon candidate on the right enjoying a similar surging in the polls.
That is not the only bit of deference by the political press from which Sanders has benefited. The avowed socialist politician’s economic views are objectively anachronistic, but they have not generated the same scorn as have those of the famously libertarian, hard money advocate, Ron Paul. “Paul apparently thinks that the best approach to a 21st century globalized economy is a return to banking practices of the 19th century,” The USA Today editorial board scolded in January of 2012. No word from USA Today on the century in which Marxist-Leninism’s economic prescriptions belong.
For all the contrived efforts on the part of Democrats and their allies in the press to make Todd Akin the face of the GOP in 2012, despite his narrow ascension to the party’s senatorial nomination in the Show Me State, few in the press have noted that Sanders once held similarly antediluvian views on women’s health and sexuality that could harm his party’s standing. This week, the New York Times revealed that, in the late 1960s, Sanders wrote in the revolutionary left-wing Vermont paper, the Freeman, that cervical cancer was an unfortunate side effect of ungratifying sex.
“[H]e cited studies claiming that cancer could be caused by psychological factors such as unresolved hostility toward one’s mother, a tendency to bury aggression beneath a “facade of pleasantness” and having too few orgasms,” the Times reported. “‘Sexual adjustment seemed to be very poor in those with cancer of the cervix,’ [Sanders] wrote, quoting a study in a journal called Psychosomatic Medicine.”
One only has oneself to blame after being led astray by a medical journal that calls itself “psychosomatic,” but Sanders lapse would be excusable if it were only one instance. A Mother Jones investigation revealed that Sanders also penned a thought piece for the Freeman investigating the nature of gender roles in which he indulged in a series of almost graphic rape fantasies.
“A man goes home and masturbates his typical fantasy. A woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused.
“A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously.
…
“Have you ever looked at the Stag, Man, Hero, Tough magazines on the shelf of your local bookstore? Do you know why the newspaper with the articles like ‘Girl 12 raped by 14 men’ sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?”
Had a Republican candidate for the presidency (or the U.S. Senate, for that matter) indulged in this manner of self-gratifying sexual assault fantasy – literary exercise or no – they would be made to account for it if only to tar the party with which they identified as unfriendly toward women. But Sanders, being a nominal Democrat, has his politically incorrect short story “explained” by the likes of National Public Radio.
“One way to read the essay is that Sanders was doing (in a supremely ham-handed way) what journalists do every day: draw the reader in with an attention-getting lede, then get to the meat of the article in the middle,” NPR’s Danielle Kurtzleben soothingly averred.
“Nobody honestly believes that Bernie Sanders is a sexual pervert or that he is a misogynist or that he intends to do women any harm,” National Review’s Charles C. W. Cooke wrote, admirably advising conservatives to take the high road in regards to the revelations about Sanders’ youthful essays. “Nobody suspects that he harbors a secret desire to pass intrusive legislation or to cut gang rapists a break. Really, there is only one reason that anyone would make hay of this story, and that is to damage the man politically.”
Correct. That is precisely why Democrat-aligned media figures did what they did with regards to Akin’s rape comments, compelling every politician with an “R” after their name to condemn his remarks or be implicitly associated with them. Commentators like Cooke can, and probably should, avoid the naked narrative setting in which the media indulged in 2012. That doesn’t mean the double standards the press sets for their own conduct should be summarily dismissed.
Democrats do not have a “Bernie Sanders problem” any more than the GOP had a “Todd Akin problem,” but the fact that the political media embraced one narrative but has apparently rejected the other outright exposes quite a bit about the ailing state of that industry.
Texans are often proud to vocally differentiate themselves from other Americans, and to differentiate their state from the other United States. I'd be lying if I said this didn't effect my image of Texan politicians.
...look no further than the eccentric collectivist senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders and his quixotic presidential campaign.
Points to the journalist for the use of the word "quixotic".
The press’s collective refusal to identify “the Democrats’ Bernie Sanders problem” says all that you need to know about that increasingly activist enterprise.
Those points have now been deducted.
Had a Republican candidate for the presidency (or the U.S. Senate, for that matter) indulged in this manner of self-gratifying sexual assault fantasy – literary exercise or no – they would be made to account for it if only to tar the party with which they identified as unfriendly toward women
Probably because Republicans tend to be against anything related to sex and women. That seems like something they should adjust.
Correct. That is precisely why Democrat-aligned media figures did what they did with regards to Akin’s rape comments, compelling every politician with an “R” after their name to condemn his remarks or be implicitly associated with them. Commentators like Cooke can, and probably should, avoid the naked narrative setting in which the media indulged in 2012. That doesn’t mean the double standards the press sets for their own conduct should be summarily dismissed.
So, "Hurr, we're conservative, and we feel persecuted." This is an argument that has been made many times, and it was always ineffectual.
...look no further than the eccentric collectivist senator from Vermont Bernie Sanders and his quixotic presidential campaign.
Points to the journalist for the use of the word "quixotic".
Indeed!
The press’s collective refusal to identify “the Democrats’ Bernie Sanders problem” says all that you need to know about that increasingly activist enterprise.
Those points have now been deducted.
Only if you're a partisan hack.
Had a Republican candidate for the presidency (or the U.S. Senate, for that matter) indulged in this manner of self-gratifying sexual assault fantasy – literary exercise or no – they would be made to account for it if only to tar the party with which they identified as unfriendly toward women
Probably because Republicans tend to be against anything related to sex and women. That seems like something they should adjust.
Correct. That is precisely why Democrat-aligned media figures did what they did with regards to Akin’s rape comments, compelling every politician with an “R” after their name to condemn his remarks or be implicitly associated with them. Commentators like Cooke can, and probably should, avoid the naked narrative setting in which the media indulged in 2012. That doesn’t mean the double standards the press sets for their own conduct should be summarily dismissed.
So, "Hurr, we're conservative, and we feel persecuted." This is an argument that has been made many times, and it was always ineffectual.
The press’s collective refusal to identify “the Democrats’ Bernie Sanders problem” says all that you need to know about that increasingly activist enterprise.
The press’s collective refusal to identify “the Democrats’ Bernie Sanders problem” says all that you need to know about that increasingly activist enterprise.
@whembley: The articles Sanders was said to have written are at least 45 years old by the authors own admission. When the media went after Akin, it was in real time about comments he just made.
I'm reminded of people making a big deal about Robert Byrd becaucse in his youth, he was a member of the KKK. He repudiated that association later in life, and in my opinion and the opinion of many others, he was one of the greatest US Senators in history (and certainly one of the most impressive orators, beside the point).
I'd be very interested to hear what Sanders has to say about these articles if he's ever grilled about them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As it turns out, Sanders has already provided a response on the Freeman articles:
MUSCATINE, Iowa — Senator Bernie Sanders said a 1972 article he wrote describing women’s fantasies of rape had been misinterpreted, and its resurfacing showed how campaigns had become “soap operas.’’
“That we worry what I wrote 40 or 50 years ago, to the degree they become significant in the campaign, that’s just sad,’’ Mr. Sanders said on Friday.
In the article, written for an alternative newspaper called The Vermont Freeman, Mr. Sanders imagined male and female sexual fantasies, apparently to illustrate how both sexes have internalized gender stereotypes, which he went on to write were self-defeating. The Vermont Freeman no longer exists.
“A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously,” Mr. Sanders wrote.
In another passage, he wrote: “Do you know why the newspaper with the articles like, “Girl, 12, raped by 14 men” sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?’’
At the time, Mr. Sanders was 30 and running for Vermont governor on the antiwar Liberty Union Party ticket. He lost the race. Nine years later he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vt., as an independent. The 43-year old essay resurfaced this week in an article in Mother Jones magazine about Mr. Sanders’s formative years in Vermont’s leftist counterculture.
It is bouncing around social media, where Mr. Sanders is a favorite with the left, and it is unclear if the article will become a serious distraction to Mr. Sanders’s recently announced campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
He has been drawing large crowds to rallies in New Hampshire and in Iowa, where he calls for progressive policies like higher taxes on the rich to pay for public works jobs.
“It was a poorly written article dealing with gender stereotypes of the period, in the sense that a lot of men have the feel to be all powerful and controlling,’’ Mr. Sanders said in an interview after a town hall event in Muscatine, Iowa.
“Women have the feeling they have to be dependent. It was very poorly written in a way I certainly would not write it now. But if you read it, what you find is that is a bad situation for both people: women shouldn’t be dependent. Men should not be oppressors. We want a society where people are equal. That was what it was about.’’
jasper76 wrote: @whembley: The articles Sanders was said to have written are at least 45 years old by the authors own admission. When the media went after Akin, it was in real time about comments he just made.
I'm reminded of people making a big deal about Robert Byrd becaucse in his youth, he was a member of the KKK. He repudiated that association later in life, and in my opinion and the opinion of many others, he was one of the greatest US Senators in history (and certainly one of the most impressive orators, beside the point).
I'd be very interested to hear what Sanders has to say about these articles if he's ever grilled about them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As it turns out, Sanders has already provided a decent enouigh rebuttal on the articles:
MUSCATINE, Iowa — Senator Bernie Sanders said a 1972 article he wrote describing women’s fantasies of rape had been misinterpreted, and its resurfacing showed how campaigns had become “soap operas.’’
“That we worry what I wrote 40 or 50 years ago, to the degree they become significant in the campaign, that’s just sad,’’ Mr. Sanders said on Friday.
In the article, written for an alternative newspaper called The Vermont Freeman, Mr. Sanders imagined male and female sexual fantasies, apparently to illustrate how both sexes have internalized gender stereotypes, which he went on to write were self-defeating. The Vermont Freeman no longer exists.
“A woman enjoys intercourse with her man — as she fantasizes being raped by 3 men simultaneously,” Mr. Sanders wrote.
In another passage, he wrote: “Do you know why the newspaper with the articles like, “Girl, 12, raped by 14 men” sell so well? To what in us are they appealing?’’
At the time, Mr. Sanders was 30 and running for Vermont governor on the antiwar Liberty Union Party ticket. He lost the race. Nine years later he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vt., as an independent. The 43-year old essay resurfaced this week in an article in Mother Jones magazine about Mr. Sanders’s formative years in Vermont’s leftist counterculture.
It is bouncing around social media, where Mr. Sanders is a favorite with the left, and it is unclear if the article will become a serious distraction to Mr. Sanders’s recently announced campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.
He has been drawing large crowds to rallies in New Hampshire and in Iowa, where he calls for progressive policies like higher taxes on the rich to pay for public works jobs.
“It was a poorly written article dealing with gender stereotypes of the period, in the sense that a lot of men have the feel to be all powerful and controlling,’’ Mr. Sanders said in an interview after a town hall event in Muscatine, Iowa.
“Women have the feeling they have to be dependent. It was very poorly written in a way I certainly would not write it now. But if you read it, what you find is that is a bad situation for both people: women shouldn’t be dependent. Men should not be oppressors. We want a society where people are equal. That was what it was about.’’
He's an unabashed Socialist. Not, the "spread the wealth around a bit", but full bore true believer of communism and that current capitalism is the root of everything's wrong.
Now imagine if Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Rubio, Ted Cruz of the world wrote that and repented too. Do you really believe that the democrat-leaning media would let them off the hook?
There's quite a big difference between socialism and communism whem'. Now I know you are an intelligent person, so this could just be miss-writing or something, but I'd like to make the point anyway. I lean towards socialism when I'm forced to address it, but I'm definitely not communist. Communism, just like laissez-faire capitalism, is a horrible system that works only for the elite (although in one it works for the economic elite, the other the political elite). Too often do I hear the tern socialism being used like communism, despte the fact that they are not the same. We are a socialist country (specifically a socialist capitalist mix), just like most of the westernized world.
@whembley: Socialism is no dirty word with me. Every politician that wants to keep Social Security alive is a socialist. Pretty much the entire western world is socialist.
If you're suggesting that Sanders is running on or plans to institute communist policies, that's another thing altogether.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: For once, the American definition is closer to the truth. Socialism and Communism have the same end-goals, but differ in how to get there.
Indeed... hence why we must ever be vigilant!
One thing I will say about Sanders and TRUMP. You know EXACTLY what you're going to get, because that don't give a flying gak.
EDIT: to clarify, I think it's their authenticity is what's driving up their popularity now.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Despite being another "Bush," it might still help him that he isn't from Texas. A lot of people dismissed Perry in 2012 because they didn't want another Texan in the White House.
Really? I figured a Bush name is more of an albatross than a candidate from Texas.
What's wrong with Texas?
Nothing wrong with Texas, and certainly the Bush name will be a problem for him. I just remember back in 2012 there were lots of commentary about Perry having to deal with the fact that the last Texas governor in the White House didn't work out too well for a lot of people. He was almost a Bush by association, basically.
Anyway, here's an honest question, as I am not completely familiar with every position each candidate has and how it interacts with the power of the President. Let's assume the raging Socialist Bernie Sanders wins the Presidency. Now, as President, what can he actual accomplish as far as what he would want to do? How much Socialism/extreme-left-stuff can he put in place with his Presidential authority without needing Congress? And, as a comparison, let's take Sanders's opposite (the GOP pool is so big now, not sure who would be the most right-leaning one, guessing Cruz). How much extreme-right-wing stuff could be done with Presidential authority without needing Congress?
Of the two, extreme left and extreme right, who could accomplish more (or do more damage, depending on your point of view) solely with their own executive power?
Of the two, extreme left and extreme right, who could accomplish more (or do more damage, depending on your point of view) solely with their own executive power?
Great question. Theoretically, Sanders would be the greater evil, since he is clearly a big gov't guy, and would use expand the federal gov't and federal programs in an attempt to 'solve' the problems he perceives.
A Cruz (or an actual 'conservative') should want to shrink federal gov't/power and should be less likely to use it/expand it as the solution set for the problems he perceives.
Of the two, extreme left and extreme right, who could accomplish more (or do more damage, depending on your point of view) solely with their own executive power?
It'll be hard to get partisans to agree on what "damage" means here, I think. A good portion of the country thinks that the extension of health care to the poor through government subsidies constitutes damage to the republic.
Since Presidents have been exercising independent warpowers since at least the Korean War IIRC, and Cruz seems very hawkish, I'm going to say he would be more likely to do real damage to the nation.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Despite being another "Bush," it might still help him that he isn't from Texas. A lot of people dismissed Perry in 2012 because they didn't want another Texan in the White House.
Really? I figured a Bush name is more of an albatross than a candidate from Texas.
What's wrong with Texas?
Nothing wrong with Texas, and certainly the Bush name will be a problem for him. I just remember back in 2012 there were lots of commentary about Perry having to deal with the fact that the last Texas governor in the White House didn't work out too well for a lot of people. He was almost a Bush by association, basically.
Which is truly ironic as the Perrys are NOT big fans of the Bushies.
Anyway, here's an honest question, as I am not completely familiar with every position each candidate has and how it interacts with the power of the President. Let's assume the raging Socialist Bernie Sanders wins the Presidency. Now, as President, what can he actual accomplish as far as what he would want to do? How much Socialism/extreme-left-stuff can he put in place with his Presidential authority without needing Congress? And, as a comparison, let's take Sanders's opposite (the GOP pool is so big now, not sure who would be the most right-leaning one, guessing Cruz). How much extreme-right-wing stuff could be done with Presidential authority without needing Congress?
Of the two, extreme left and extreme right, who could accomplish more (or do more damage, depending on your point of view) solely with their own executive power?
Sanders would be FAR more damanging that Cruz could ever be...
Just look at how far Obama has pushed is regulatory muscles and how he's set his disasterous foriegn policies.
If you want Obama's policies on steroids... vote for Sanders.
I think an extremist conservative would be much more damaging at least to the things I care about. Cutting funding to schools and social programs. Allowing industries to run amok, slashing budgets for consumer protection and environmental agencies. Cutting taxes for the ultra rich for no good reason (again). Possibly getting us into more wars. Deregulation on a massive scale. And IIRC he's one of those people who refuse to believe in separation of church and state, so he'll probably push for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, those sorts of things. I fear what would happen if someone like Perry got his way. Now that being said, I sort of support Bernie, but that's mostly because I hate Hillary, and the likelihood of the R's running a moderate candidate at this point is zero-none.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think an extremist conservative would be much more damaging at least to the things I care about. Cutting funding to schools and social programs. Allowing industries to run amok, slashing budgets for consumer protection and environmental agencies. Cutting taxes for the ultra rich for no good reason (again). Possibly getting us into more wars. Deregulation on a massive scale. And IIRC he's one of those people who refuse to believe in separation of church and state, so he'll probably push for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, those sorts of things. I fear what would happen if someone like Perry got his way. Now that being said, I sort of support Bernie, but that's mostly because I hate Hillary, and the likelihood of the R's running a moderate candidate at this point is zero-none.
What about Jeb? He's about as moderate as they come... and he's likely to get the nomination because, alas... money talks yo.
Moderate? I thought he was in line with his brother. TBH, I know barely anything about him, having just passed him off as another Bush.
The one I want to win the republican nomination is Pataki. He's experienced (mayor, assembly, state senate, governor) and, though he wasn't a very exciting governor, he was a good one. He has a great environmental record, and is moderate-liberal socially (pro-choice, pro-gay marriage), crime dropped steadily while he was governor, and he pushed expansion of healthcare to NY's poorest. And if anyone has a chance to help ease the gridlock in Washington, I think he will, as he can bridge the gap between the D's and R's.
Of the two, extreme left and extreme right, who could accomplish more (or do more damage, depending on your point of view) solely with their own executive power?
Great question. Theoretically, Sanders would be the greater evil, since he is clearly a big gov't guy, and would use expand the federal gov't and federal programs in an attempt to 'solve' the problems he perceives.
A Cruz (or an actual 'conservative') should want to shrink federal gov't/power and should be less likely to use it/expand it as the solution set for the problems he perceives.
But that is all theoretical...
Nah, I've said it before, when politicians say they believe in smaller government, what they really mean is they want to shrink the parts they don't like and increase the parts they do like in equal amounts.
Just look at how far Obama has pushed is regulatory muscles and how he's set his disasterous foriegn policies.
IMO, Sanders and hell, just about any of the "current" batch of candidates have a better foreign policy plan in place than big O does.
And I'm with Co'tor on the issue of which "side" could do more harm if left to their own devices. I have quite literally heard a number of Tea Party, Conservatives and general Republican "types" espouse the view that the Fed should not be in the market at all. They seriously want to go back to late 1800s levels of regulation wherein we got the wondrous paragons of Virtue named Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, Vanderbilt and others like them.
We're already to a point, economically speaking where the wealth and income gap is as large as it's been since 1928. The middle class, the very class which has historically driven the entire economy in the US, especially in the mid-20th century, is shrinking. Fewer people are buying homes, which in turn creates a larger demand for rental housing, which has created a situation where many apartment complexes are driving their rates up, which cause many people to no longer be able to afford THAT housing. Now, I'm not blaming these situations on anyone, as each president has left his mark on the economy, and each successor reacts in the way that he thinks best, or is advised to.... It's simply the situation we're in, and when I look at what the Republicans have repeatedly gone on record saying they want to do, the bills they want to pass, etc, to me, they are seriously trying to push for that glory age of monopolies and utter control of the country by the wealthiest people in the country.
And while I personally think that Common Core is terrible, I think the idea behind it is good. Having a kid who grew up in say, Mississippi, apply for colleges in Michigan (and isn't a star athlete) should be on equal footing, with little to no "catch up" classes when compared to a similarly aged applicant from Michigan, Wisconsin or any other state.
And well, quite frankly I am sick and tired of hearing right leaning candidates and politicians espouse idiotic views like "America is a Christian Nation!" (because it quite simply isn't) and the sheer lunacy of things like Akin's statements about rape (and really, the numerous guys who inserted foot in mouth around that time). Of course, I get sick and tired of ignorance from the left, but usually it stems from exactly that: ignorance... I am of course referring to things like the California senators who went on for 10 minutes or whatever it was about "ghost guns" and "30 round automatic clip firing guns" and such. Most of y'all who've been around know that I'm pretty well right-leaning when it comes to 2A issues
Nah, I've said it before, when politicians say they believe in smaller government, what they really mean is they want to shrink the parts they don't like and increase the parts they do like in equal amounts.
And the ones who ACTUALLY believe that, aren't in office (usually)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: A coalition system would encourage co-operation on common ground, but the USA would never go in for it. Frankly, the current system is the only one that could work in the USA.
Sort of. That'd be true if the US swapped to a proportional system overnight, but you mustn't forget that political culture changes (a few decades ago the US was noted by how frequently congressmen crossed the floor and voted based on regional or personal values, over the party line). And of course the culture of politics is largely defined by the system - the
And for what it's worth, I'm not even much of a fan of proportional systems, I'm certainly not trying to sell them as better. I'm just talking through the idea, really.
I'm still trying to figure out how much of the Sanders surge represents a genuine interest and appetite for more socialist policies, and how much is just the anyone-but-Hillary factor.
I think we'll probably only know once this is all over, and we see whether Sanders keeps his very prominent spot on the national spotlight.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blood Hawk wrote: Does anyone else think the Hillary Clinton is going to be Mitt Romney for 2016? She probably will end up winning the primary but liberals will never love her like they did with Obama in 2008. I mean if the republicans can put up a decent candidate they could beat her IMO. All they have to do is push Trump off the stage.
Clinton has been uninspiring in her past campaigns, that’s for sure. That’s why I’ve been saying to Whembly for like two years now that Clinton’s presidency was far from assured.
But in order for her to be as doomed as Mitt Romney was, well having a similarly mediocre set of campaign skills isn’t enough by itself. Romney also ran with a completely incoherent platform (the 47% thing stuck because it seemed like the only time Romney said anything about anything). And he was also up against Obama, who was a very skilled campaigner who even in his second run managed a clear message that worked with a lot of voters.
Now, the Republicans simply do not have a candidate like Obama, so that's one thing that improves Hillary's chances. But on the other hand there’s no guarantee Hillary won’t manage a campaign that’s worse than Romney’s – Romney was mediocre, Hillary could easily be downright terrible.
I think she's still the most likely winner, but this could go any way.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: So... you saying Sanders could be the Obama of '08? 'Cuz, that is what's going to take to knock her off again. I don't see it.
I think an actual Muslim Kenyan will win a general before a socialist does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jasper76 wrote: Paul Ryan should have run. He's conservative enough to appeal to the Republican base, but can appear to be moderate and might even have some cross-party youth appeal.
Paul Ryan really doesn't want to come under scrutiny right now. He came to fame with his pretend seriousness, and all those proposed budgets that turned out to be complete and utter gibberish. As long as he stays safely nestled in conservative quarters the crappiness of his policy work won't hurt, but if he actually came out in a live election and started getting media questions on the fictions in his budgets, he'd basically be left with nothing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only other candidate I can see giving Clinton a legitimate challenge is Jeb Bush, but his last name is "Bush"...if he were not a Bush, I think people would be giving him a harder look.
Basically the only achievement Jeb! has is the Florida growth rate, but it turns out that was just a property bubble and he was just lucky enough to leave office before it popped. Even if we don't penalise Jeb! for letting the bubble happen, and we just remove it from the picture, then the story is that he actually oversaw a pretty mediocre state economy (which is incredible when you consider the migration towards Florida).
I think Perry is still under-rated. He's actually got a genuine economic record to stand behind - Texas has had excellent sustained growth, and while Texas has had favourable circumstances, good economic policy has certainly played a part.
I think Perry is written off because of his terrible performance last time. But if the stories about back surgery are true and he campaigns well this time, then 2012 will be quickly forgotten and maybe his strong Texas record will come to the fore.
That article was a bit silly. Having an almost entirely white crowd only matters when there's genuine concern over your party's ability to woo non-white voters, and that's a R problem, not a D problem. And it then becomes a real problem for Ron Paul because of the way he's flirted with racism.
And there's a similarly simplistic analysis on the policies of the two men. Both have unorthodox beliefs compared to the US mainstream, but that doesn't mean both sets of beliefs are similarly flawed. What Sanders is proposing is fairly close to what much of the developed world uses as the bedrock of their economies, it may not be politically viable in the US, or even optimal, but it's certainly functional on an economic level. In comparison Ron Paul's ideas are not just outside the mainstream, but based on nonsense and completely ignorant of economic realities.
And then comparing things Sanders wrote five decades ago to Akin's recent comments... well I shouldn't have to explain why that's so sillly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Sanders would be FAR more damanging that Cruz could ever be...
I think answering that question is going to be more of a test of personal political biases than any kind of real analysis of their policies and what they would do.
It's also a fairly irrelevant question because Sanders is not going to be President. His chance of winning the primary is almost zero, and his chance of winning the general is zero. Cruz is an outsider, but not a 0% outsider.
@sebster: Bernie having a mainly white audience actually does matter, not in a general, but in a democratic primary. He is doing marginally well vs Clinton in the two early states (NH and IA) but those two states are in the top three as far as having a white dominate electoral base. They certainly aren't reflective of the majority of the states. Nate Silver (the only election polling analyst I put any stock in) just had an interesting write up about Bernie's problem http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/
Gordon Shumway wrote: @sebster: Bernie having a mainly white audience actually does matter, not in a general, but in a democratic primary. He is doing marginally well vs Clinton in the two early states (NH and IA) but those two states are in the top three as far as having a white dominate electoral base. They certainly aren't reflective of the majority of the states. Nate Silver (the only election polling analyst I put any stock in) just had an interesting write up about Bernie's problem http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/
Oh for sure. It definitely matters in terms of being one more reason why Sanders isn't a viable candidate (as I said in a bunch of my other posts).
No, I meant him having a white audience didn't mean anything in terms of having a problematic issue about race, like Ron Paul has. Because unlike Paul, Sanders has no other race issues, while for Paul it's just one part of his overall issue.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @sebster: Bernie having a mainly white audience actually does matter, not in a general, but in a democratic primary. He is doing marginally well vs Clinton in the two early states (NH and IA) but those two states are in the top three as far as having a white dominate electoral base. They certainly aren't reflective of the majority of the states. Nate Silver (the only election polling analyst I put any stock in) just had an interesting write up about Bernie's problem http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanders-could-win-iowa-and-new-hampshire-then-lose-everywhere-else/
Oh for sure. It definitely matters in terms of being one more reason why Sanders isn't a viable candidate (as I said in a bunch of my other posts).
No, I meant him having a white audience didn't mean anything in terms of having a problematic issue about race, like Ron Paul has. Because unlike Paul, Sanders has no other race issues, while for Paul it's just one part of his overall issue.
Looks like the Iran nuclear deal is reaching the finishing line.
Question is, though: will Obama get it through Congress?
What's the mood in Congress like these days?
With next year's Presidential campaign soon to be upon us, I get the feeling everybody's going to be outdoing each other on who can be the toughest on Iran...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
And for what it's worth, I'm not even much of a fan of proportional systems, I'm certainly not trying to sell them as better. I'm just talking through the idea, really
I'm pretty sure I've seen you bang the drum for PR, before, Sebster. Of course I may be wrong
I think the issue with Sanders and Minorities is he just needs to spread the platform for the other voting groups like African-American and Latino/Hispanic-Americans and others to get the word out. This is still early enough he has time to spread that out and via the social networks and internet if not the Corporate Mainstream media.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: For once, the American definition is closer to the truth. Socialism and Communism have the same end-goals, but differ in how to get there.
Indeed... hence why we must ever be vigilant!
Aaaand we're back to disagreeing again.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think an extremist conservative would be much more damaging at least to the things I care about. Cutting funding to schools and social programs. Allowing industries to run amok, slashing budgets for consumer protection and environmental agencies. Cutting taxes for the ultra rich for no good reason (again). Possibly getting us into more wars. Deregulation on a massive scale. And IIRC he's one of those people who refuse to believe in separation of church and state, so he'll probably push for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, those sorts of things. I fear what would happen if someone like Perry got his way. Now that being said, I sort of support Bernie, but that's mostly because I hate Hillary, and the likelihood of the R's running a moderate candidate at this point is zero-none.
Trump leads the GOP pack this week, though few think he will win the nomination
The Republican horserace continues to be a contest of multiple candidates – with frontrunners sometimes ahead by only a few points, and no one dominating the race. In this week’s Economist/YouGov Poll, businessman Donald Trump leads among Republicans, ahead of Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker.
Trump looks even better as a candidate this week when Republicans are asked for their second choice. When they are, Trump extends his lead. One in four Republicans who are registered to vote say he is their first or second choice.
But who are these Republicans? Trump’s statements on immigration may be striking a chord. Two-thirds of those who choose Trump first or second support the goals of the Tea Party, higher than the overall percentage of Republicans who do. They are much less likely to have a college education than are other Republicans, and they are more likely than other Republicans to say they are “very” conservative.
Trump supporters may be making more of a statement than voting for someone they consider a contender. Just one in five of Trump’s supporters think Trump will win the nomination. Only 7% of Republicans think Trump will capture the nomination: more give the edge to Bush, Paul, Rubio and Walker.
Trump also may have a problem mobilizing the rest of his party. While one in four Republicans make him their first or second choice this week, more than four in ten Republicans don’t like him.
This is a slight improvement for Trump compared to his ratings in some previous weeks, when there have been more Republicans who had an unfavorable than a favorable opinion of Trump. And when they were asked to give a one-word description of Trump, Republicans more often cited negative than positive assessments.
Oh my!
Polls, smolls, either he's a closetted Republican or he knows how to out-retail-politicks his competitors.
He's known to contribute to Democratic candidates... but, I'm not so sure that's a valid criticism per se, as he's a big businessman in NYC/NY. To be successful, you'd have to know whose palms you need to grease.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And now for some lighthearted political news
For Limberbutt McCubbins, 'The Time Is Meow' To Run For President
The first thing people noticed was the name.
A Louisville resident named Limberbutt McCubbins had apparently filed to run for president, gaining attention in recent months from a campaign watchdog and, most recently, The Rachel Maddow Show.
It's not entirely clear whether everyone realized that Limberbutt McCubbins is a cat.
In an interview, Isaac Weiss, 17, a rising senior at duPont Manual High School in Louisville, said he thought it would be funny to enlist his friend's cat to run for president. The presidential candidate belongs to 18-year-old Emilee McCubbins, who is also a rising senior at Manual.
So Weiss logged on to the Federal Election Commission's website this spring and created "The Committee for the Installation of Limberbutt."
According to Federal Election Commission filings, Limberbutt is a Democrat. Or as Weiss puts it, a "demo-cat."
Weiss and Emilee McCubbins say they have already gotten letters about Limberbutt's candidacy—some going as far as to ask for proof of the cat's citizenship. Other letters are seeking information about possible volunteer opportunities to help get McCubbins in the White House.
"I got a letter in the mail from a lawyer wanting to represent him," McCubbins said. "I've gotten numerous emails."
Weiss added: "It does not appear that they know that he is indeed a cat."
Candidate McCubbins is not the first non-human to become a presidential candidate. Others include a pig named Pigasus the Immortal in 1968 and Molly the Dog in 2008.
Anyone can start a committee to explore running for president, but actually getting on the ballot requires fundraising, an FEC spokesman said. It doesn't break FEC rules, per se, for a committee to be launched for a cat, the spokesman added.
Weiss said he and his friends started this process — which already includes a Facebook page ("The time is meow, watch out Hillary!" declares one post) and campaign swag — mostly as a joke.
"We often joked around that Limberbutt would make a great president," Weiss said of the 5-year-old cat.
He said what stood out to him was that it was even possible to register a cat with the FEC.
"Anyone can easily run for president, which is why if you go to the FEC website you'll see over 200 people listed—including Limberbutt," Weiss said.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm pretty sure I've seen you bang the drum for PR, before, Sebster. Of course I may be wrong
Really? In a bicameral* system then having one house proportionally represented is okay, but not outside of that. But for the basis of forming government I think it's a terrible idea - no singular control and authority. I do bang the drum pretty hard** for preferential voting though, so you may be thinking of that?
*It has taken all my concentration to make sure I didn't type bicaramel. Mmmm caramel.
** Well, as hard as you can bang the drum for any kind of voting system by posting on a wargaming forum
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I be highly amused watching Trump in a GOP debate. I'm so anti politician I'm seriously contemplating throwing my vote his way
I don't think anybody is as political as Trump. His whole method is image and sales, with no substance behind it.
His interviews do seem to be a thing of majesty. He just sits there and announces borderline insane things, before retorting that he isn't announcing anything. When you see that, the idea that he isn't intending on actually getting into the Oval Office does seem a bit more compelling. After all, getting your face plastered everywhere is easier if you come across as eminently entertaining watching.
To the rest of the GOP candidates... this is how you do it:
That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which isthat the government, is a good and benevolent force.
Too bad that this is probably the only time we'll see something like this.
<--- this guy is resigned for 8 more years of HRC Presidency.
Automatically Appended Next Post: EDIT: I just saw this... the head of OPM tweeting this:
Mitt Romney’s statements reveal “little understanding of what’s going on in the 21st century”: http://t.co/0JBikUFh #RomneyNotReady
— Katherine Archuleta (@Archuleta2012) October 22, 2012
If I were Mitt, I’d run in 2016 with bumper stickers that say “I FETHING TOLD YOU SO!” Because, you know, he was right on just about everything.
But what is it with you guys and rubbish vice-presidents?
Al Gore, Joe Biden, Dan Quayle, Spiro Agnew
Is there a special bunker where these guys are locked away and wheeled out every 4 years?
Because, as someone running for President, you don't want a VP that looks even remotely qualified to be President, because then people might vote for them instead, or they could potentially undermine you in other ways if they are seen as the "power behind the power."
But what is it with you guys and rubbish vice-presidents?
Al Gore, Joe Biden, Dan Quayle, Spiro Agnew
Is there a special bunker where these guys are locked away and wheeled out every 4 years?
Because, as someone running for President, you don't want a VP that looks even remotely qualified to be President, because then people might vote for them instead,
Truth!
or they could potentially undermine you in other ways if they are seen as the "power behind the power."
Although, sometimes, I think we should go back to the old way and have whoever came in second in the election be the VP. Might make things a lot more interesting...
Tannhauser42 wrote: Although, sometimes, I think we should go back to the old way and have whoever came in second in the election be the VP. Might make things a lot more interesting...
Indeedeo.
Could you imagine VP McCain or VP Romeny casting the deciding vote in a deadlock senate?
What is it with people not liking Biden? He does exactly what many people claim they want in politicians-not glossing their words with focus grouped doublespeak. Yeah, he can come off as crass or even silly at times, but so do we all. He was right on Iraq after the invasion (he thought it should be broken up into three separate states because it would eventually break up anyway), he understands tragedy (lost a wife a two children) the military (his son served), doesn't come from wealth, understands the legislative process intimately, and has worked effectively across the aisle.
I had a roommate who worked as a doorman in a DC hotel that Biden stayed at regularly when in town (he still lived in Delaware and took AmTrack to DC to work every day while in the Senate so he could be at home with his sons every night). My roommate is a staunch conservative but he loved Biden because he always took the time to chat with him, ask him about his family (who Biden always remembered by name), and tipped him every time (though not a lot each time). He even took my roommate to an ice cream shop nearby once because it was "too damn hot to be wearing that uniform on such a hot day. You need something cold in your belly if you're going to keep standing there". He is a politician who doesn't seem to have let it go to his head-what's not to like about that?
Gordon Shumway wrote: What is it with people not liking Biden? He does exactly what many people claim they want in politicians-not glossing their words with focus grouped doublespeak. Yeah, he can come off as crass or even silly at times, but so do we all. He was right on Iraq after the invasion (he thought it should be broken up into three separate states because it would eventually break up anyway), he understands tragedy (lost a wife a two children) the military (his son served), doesn't come from wealth, understands the legislative process intimately, and has worked effectively across the aisle.
I had a roommate who worked as a doorman in a DC hotel that Biden stayed at regularly when in town (he still lived in Delaware and took AmTrack to DC to work every day while in the Senate so he could be at home with his sons every night). My roommate is a staunch conservative but he loved Biden because he always took the time to chat with him, ask him about his family (who Biden always remembered by name), and tipped him every time (though not a lot each time). He even took my roommate to an ice cream shop nearby once because it was "too damn hot to be wearing that uniform on such a hot day. You need something cold in your belly if you're going to keep standing there". He is a politician who doesn't seem to have let it go to his head-what's not to like about that?
Biden's not a bad person by any stretch of the imagination, but as you say, he can be crass and silly. You get away with that when you're the average man on the street, but not when your VP of the most powerful nation on Earth. Mark Twain's advice about saying nothing springs to mind, whenever I think of Biden.
That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which isthat the government, is a good and benevolent force.
That is what conservatives want to believe leftist ideology is, which is causing GOP politicians to run to the right.
That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which isthat the government, is a good and benevolent force.
That is what conservatives want to believe leftist ideology is, which is causing GOP politicians to run to the right.
Yeah, I had to stop the video at that point. My BS meter was threatening to explode.
And I really have to wonder, if the "lefty ideology" is that the government is a good and benevolent force, whom does the "righty ideology" consider a good and benevolent force? The private sector? Individuals? The states (who are, themselves, governments)? God?
Jeb's words aren't wrong, but will his actions (should he be elected) remain true to his words? Or will he also just appoint his cronies and other party members to various "safe" political positions like every president has always done? If we ever want things to improve, the cycle has to stop at some point, but strong words and finger waving in a campaign ad aren't enough.
That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which isthat the government, is a good and benevolent force.
That is what conservatives want to believe leftist ideology is, which is causing GOP politicians to run to the right.
Yeah, I had to stop the video at that point. My BS meter was threatening to explode.
And I really have to wonder, if the "lefty ideology" is that the government is a good and benevolent force, whom does the "righty ideology" consider a good and benevolent force? The private sector? Individuals? The states (who are, themselves, governments)? God?
Smaller government. Empower the people at the local level, instead of the top-down method.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Jeb's words aren't wrong, but will his actions (should he be elected) remain true to his words?
Right here... THIS. Is why conservatives don't trust Jeb.
Or will he also just appoint his cronies and other party members to various "safe" political positions like every president has always done? If we ever want things to improve, the cycle has to stop at some point, but strong words and finger waving in a campaign ad aren't enough.
Indeed.
Frankly, it'd be an improvement if the next President (HRC or Walker) simply fills those possitions with QUALIFIED folks.
Frankly, it'd be an improvement if the next President (HRC or Walker) simply fills those possitions with QUALIFIED folks.
Part of the problem is that, no matter how well qualified someone is, if it's a high profile position in a major agency, then the Senate will bicker and argue for weeks/months just to try to score political points. The lesser agencies that nobody in Congress cares about (say, OPM, for example) will get their appointees approved quickly, because there are no points to be scored over an agency nobody cares about.
Frankly, it'd be an improvement if the next President (HRC or Walker) simply fills those possitions with QUALIFIED folks.
Part of the problem is that, no matter how well qualified someone is, if it's a high profile position in a major agency, then the Senate will bicker and argue for weeks/months just to try to score political points. The lesser agencies that nobody in Congress cares about (say, OPM, for example) will get their appointees approved quickly, because there are no points to be scored over an agency nobody cares about.
Well that's just a defeatist attitude.
The President's job is to fill those positions with qualified personnel... not to use these positions as a reward for the President's flunkies.
Yes, it's incombent on the Senate to use their "Advise & Consent" role appropriately too... in fact, they should approve any qualified person that the President nominates.
That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which isthat the government, is a good and benevolent force.
That is what conservatives want to believe leftist ideology is, which is causing GOP politicians to run to the right.
They should go the Reagan route. Don't call out the predecessor's name.
Reagan never really said "Carter's administation"... "Carter's economic results"... "Carter"-anything.
Just say the "Federal Government". Not the "Obama's Regime".
Frankly, it'd be an improvement if the next President (HRC or Walker) simply fills those possitions with QUALIFIED folks.
Part of the problem is that, no matter how well qualified someone is, if it's a high profile position in a major agency, then the Senate will bicker and argue for weeks/months just to try to score political points. The lesser agencies that nobody in Congress cares about (say, OPM, for example) will get their appointees approved quickly, because there are no points to be scored over an agency nobody cares about.
Well that's just a defeatist attitude.
I prefer to think of it as "bitterly cynical."
The President's job is to fill those positions with qualified personnel... not to use these positions as a reward for the President's flunkies.
Yes, it's incombent on the Senate to use their "Advise & Consent" role appropriately too... in fact, they should approve any qualified person that the President nominates.
Well, they did approve the OPM director 62-35...
But, yes, you nailed the problem in that it is a two-part process. President needs to nominate someone qualified, Senate needs to approve qualified candidate with a minimum of political posturing. Both parts of that equation have been failing on a regular basis since long before Obama.
The problem of course when "should be qualified" gets confused with "should have a political ideology that I agree with.
Having the education and experience makes someone qualified to be the attorney general for example, but "thinks guns are bad" and "thinks guns are not bad" has nothing to do with being qualifies
Jeb is so out of touch with America though. So many working 40+hours as is, and the ones stuck at part time work want full time work, but many companies are only going part time. So Jebby says America needs to work more to get ahead, when reality is so many are working just to make their rent/bills and feed their families.
d-usa wrote: The problem of course when "should be qualified" gets confused with "should have a political ideology that I agree with.
Having the education and experience makes someone qualified to be the attorney general for example, but "thinks guns are bad" and "thinks guns are not bad" has nothing to do with being qualifies
Maybe 'Advise and consent' means more than 'Yep.he is qualified'. Maybe it can mean "Hey, his past actions and statements leave me in doubt as to whether or not he'll actually uphold the Constitution rather than try to undermine portions of it he disagrees with, so my advice is NO, don't pick him."
But, again, people interpret the Constitution differently. What you think is "undermining" may be them interpenetrating it very strictly or something. At that point, I think it's still down to "I disagree with them, so I'll block them". The only reason (IMO) that someone should be blocked is if they are actually incompetent or unqualified (or has massive conflict of interest, but that's just me). Otherwise it is a political matter that should be resolved by telling people how that person is a bad choice and getting public pressure for them to resend the nomination.
whembly wrote: That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which isthat the government, is a good and benevolent force.
I imagine you see nothing hypocritical at all in this idea coming from the person who spearheaded perhaps the most grotesque intrusion of the state into private matters in my lifetime.
shasolenzabi wrote: Jeb is so out of touch with America though. So many working 40+hours as is, and the ones stuck at part time work want full time work, but many companies are only going part time. So Jebby says America needs to work more to get ahead, when reality is so many are working just to make their rent/bills and feed their families.
My interpretation of that statement is that he was referring to the phenomenon we've been seeing lately of full-time jobs being replaced with multiple part-time positions.
Cheap companies have been getting around Obamacare by cutting peoples' hours. If you work part-time your employer is not legally obligated provide health insurance for you. What Jeb is saying is that we need more 40 hour positions.
d-usa wrote: The problem of course when "should be qualified" gets confused with "should have a political ideology that I agree with.
Having the education and experience makes someone qualified to be the attorney general for example, but "thinks guns are bad" and "thinks guns are not bad" has nothing to do with being qualifies
Maybe 'Advise and consent' means more than 'Yep.he is qualified'. Maybe it can mean "Hey, his past actions and statements leave me in doubt as to whether or not he'll actually uphold the Constitution rather than try to undermine portions of it he disagrees with, so my advice is NO, don't pick him."
Now if only we had some sort of system where unconstitutional actions by secretaries of whatever in one branch could be kept in check by the other branches so that there will be balances.
d-usa wrote: Having the education and experience makes someone qualified to be the attorney general for example, but "thinks guns are bad" and "thinks guns are not bad" has nothing to do with being qualifies
That may be a bad example as the oath of office for the AG reads;
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"
I don't think that there would be any question that an AG would be considered ineligible for office if (s)he "thinks free speech is bad"
d-usa wrote: Now if only we had some sort of system where unconstitutional actions by secretaries of whatever in one branch could be kept in check by the other branches so that there will be balances.
That worked so well for Eric Holder's being held in contempt and still performing his duties,
Or the NSA continually collecting meta data, which only stopped after a whistleblower came forward, and in spite of the Executive Branch arguing for the bulk collection to remain untouched,
Or Civil Asset Forfeiture
Or the us of drones over other countries to assassinate suspected terrorists
We there ever a formal declaration of war for the military actions against ISIS?
Thinking free speech is bad has zero to do with qualifications. Trying to ban free speech does, however. Small difference there, but I'm sure you are aware.
And how much of that other list is unconstitutional, or simply the result of other balancing branches of government bitching about stuff while at the same time refusing to do their job to actually balance the other branches.
To bring it back full circle: Eric Holder was absolutely someone that was fully qualified to be AG, so the whole "Obama just needs to nominate someone that is actually qualified" argument to get nominated is pointless. Qualification is only the second criteria for getting approval for candidates, they have to pass the ideological tests first and sit through the "I know you are qualified, but the people in my state think you eat babies, so im going to yell at you for being a baby eater before I approve you" and "I know you are qualified to be secretary of whatever, but the people voting for me want a new pork barrel project so I'm going to prevent your nomination until I get this unrelated thing".
Being qualified doesn't have anything to do with getting approved no matter who does the nominating and who does the approving.
d-usa wrote: Thinking free speech is bad has zero to do with qualifications. Trying to ban free speech does, however. Small difference there, but I'm sure you are aware.
I don't recall conflating those positions. But I'm sure you are aware.
d-usa wrote: And how much of that other list is unconstitutional, or simply the result of other balancing branches of government bitching about stuff while at the same time refusing to do their job to actually balance the other branches.
Are you asking if;
- the NSA acting in contravention of the 4th Amendment
- Civil Asset Forfeiture in contravention of he 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments
- the use of drones over other countries to assassinate suspected terrorists in contravention of Section 8
- there ever a formal declaration of war for the military actions against ISIS in line with obligations under Section 8
Was unconstitutional?
d-usa wrote: To bring it back full circle: Eric Holder was absolutely someone that was fully qualified to be AG, so the whole "Obama just needs to nominate someone that is actually qualified" argument to get nominated is pointless.
Good thing I did not cast aspersions on his qualification to be AG. He was brought in concerning checks and balances.
Well, I am glad you agree that me that "just nominate someone that is qualified" is a nonsense argument because "is qualified" doesn't really have anything to do with what you posted. To be qualified for AG you have to be an attorney, to be qualified to be surgeon General you have to be a doctor, and so forth. My point is that if Obama, or any president, only has to nominate someone qualified then the SG and new AG should have been approved a lot sooner than they actually were.
But "someone qualified" is just an over simplified "someone we ideologically agree with" and politicians making that argument are just hoping voters will fall for it.
There are plenty of arguments that can be made against the new Surgeon General as an example, or the past actions of Holder while he was AG, or how the new AG is going to do her job. The Senate should have gotten a good idea what to expect and made their own mandates for the nominees known, and they should do what they can to make sure they do their job right. That's their job to balance the branches. Every cabinet level person under Obama, under Bush, under Clinton, etc, were "qualified" to do their jobs. That doesn't mean they were good at their jobs.
d-usa wrote: Well, I am glad you agree that me that "just nominate someone that is qualified" is a nonsense argument because "is qualified" doesn't really have anything to do with what you posted.
d-usa wrote: And how much of that other list is unconstitutional, or simply the result of other balancing branches of government bitching about stuff while at the same time refusing to do their job to actually balance the other branches.
Are you asking if;
- the NSA acting in contravention of the 4th Amendment
- Civil Asset Forfeiture in contravention of he 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments
- the use of drones over other countries to assassinate suspected terrorists in contravention of Section 8
- there ever a formal declaration of war for the military actions against ISIS in line with obligations under Section 8
Stuff that was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court: checks and balances in action.
Stuff that hasn't been found unconstitutional by SCOTUS is constitutional.
Not declaring war: not sure how congress fsiling to declare war, or officially not authorizing force, is the fault of the AG.
Counter question: does any of this make Holder not an attorney?
Qualified =\= good =\= not making fethed up decisions.
If we want to use "doing something unconstitutional" as the magical yardstick to determine if someone is not qualified to do their job we should come up with a system where all legislators get fired whenever a law they pass gets cut down by SCOTUS.
Are you asking if;
- the NSA acting in contravention of the 4th Amendment
- Civil Asset Forfeiture in contravention of he 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments
- the use of drones over other countries to assassinate suspected terrorists in contravention of Section 8
- there ever a formal declaration of war for the military actions against ISIS in line with obligations under Section 8
Was unconstitutional?
Were even a single one of these things actually found unconstitutional under the criteria you specify, or feth it, any criteria at all?
The NSA spying is odious, unnecessary, and illegal in that it has exceeded the scope of the legislation that is purported to authorize it, but courts have not ruled on it's constitutionality. Asset forfeiture is wrongheaded, should not exist without a conviction, and should be super rare even then, but it's wholly constitutional - the most recent SCOTUS case actually strengthened it.
The usage of drones in other countries (pursuant to congressional whims, of course) has created generations of America-hating future jihadis, have a horrible collateral cost of innocent lives, and yet is a clear and unambiguous war power that is so self-evident that the courts have never significantly taken up these cases that I am aware of. Hell, even when the US kills an American with a drone, it was ruled lawful.
The closest you get to a solid argument is the US military operations against ISIS; but violating the war powers resolution isn't unconstitutional. In fact, Congress is loath to even challenge the issue because the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution itself is questionable, and they would rather assert a nebulous power and turn a blind eye to abuses of it then go to court and have that power unambiguously removed.
To be clear, in case there was any ambiguity, I think all of the things you listed are crappy things. I am dubious of drone strikes, think the NSA spying is ridiculous and there is scant evidence it has actually made us safer, I agree with the War Powers Resolution, and so on. However, your stance is that they are unconstitutional, a word with a very specific meaning, and you haven't shown any rulings - not opinions, rulings - that support that assertion. Correct me if I'm wrong; maybe there's case law I'm not aware of...
Ouze wrote: Were even a single one of these things actually found unconstitutional under the criteria you specify, or feth it, any criteria at all?
Remind me please; Did I say that these were unconstitutional, or did I ask if these were unconstitutional?
This discussion started out when I outlined the short comings of the vaulted checks and balances system when both sides are not using the system, but are instead happy to let things happen and point the finger
Ouze wrote: To be clear, in case there was any ambiguity, I think all of the things you listed are crappy things. I am dubious of drone strikes, think the NSA spying is ridiculous and there is scant evidence it has actually made us safer, I agree with the War Powers Resolution, and so on.
Seems we agree on quite a bit
Ouze wrote: However, your stance is that they are unconstitutional, a word with a very specific meaning, and you haven't shown any rulings - not opinions, rulings - that support that assertion. Correct me if I'm wrong; maybe there's case law I'm not aware of...
Again you'll be able to show me where I said that these examples were definitively unconstitutional
So do you think that "just nominate someone qualified" is the answer or do you think that it is a non-sensical stance that pretends that "I don't like his stance = he isn't qualified"?
I just made a fairly simple statement about X and instead of talking about X we are now talking about Z by way of Y without ever actually finding out what you think about X.
d-usa wrote: So do you think that "just nominate someone qualified" is the answer or do you think that it is a non-sensical stance that pretends that "I don't like his stance = he isn't qualified"?
I just made a fairly simple statement about X and instead of talking about X we are now talking about Z by way of Y without ever actually finding out what you think about X.
You never found my position because it had nothing to do with what we were talking about.
d-usa wrote: The problem of course when "should be qualified" gets confused with "should have a political ideology that I agree with.
Having the education and experience makes someone qualified to be the attorney general for example, but "thinks guns are bad" and "thinks guns are not bad" has nothing to do with being qualifies
Dreadclaw69 wrote: That may be a bad example as the oath of office for the AG reads;
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"
I don't think that there would be any question that an AG would be considered ineligible for office if (s)he "thinks free speech is bad"
The point being made that disliking a provision of the Constitution, while at the same time bearing true faith and allegiance to it, may show that someone is not qualified to hold the position.
shasolenzabi wrote: Jeb is so out of touch with America though. So many working 40+hours as is, and the ones stuck at part time work want full time work, but many companies are only going part time. So Jebby says America needs to work more to get ahead, when reality is so many are working just to make their rent/bills and feed their families.
My interpretation of that statement is that he was referring to the phenomenon we've been seeing lately of full-time jobs being replaced with multiple part-time positions.
Cheap companies have been getting around Obamacare by cutting peoples' hours. If you work part-time your employer is not legally obligated provide health insurance for you. What Jeb is saying is that we need more 40 hour positions.
See, but I can't agree with that interpretation... he said "Americans aren't working hard enough" And yeah... he later backtracked and basically spelled out what you said, but honestly, in today's political environment, you need to be absolutely clear the first time you say something.
He would have been much better served if he had said, "we need more americans working full-time jobs, not part-time"
Disliking a provision of the constitution has nothing to do with enforcing and following the provisions.
We don't courtmartial every single soldier that gets pissy about someone disrespecting the flag, or remove every legislator that runs on an unconstitutional platform.
None of which goes to the core of my actual argument: that it has nothing to do with actually being "qualified". Any attorney is "qualified", even attorneys that do a bunch of stuff none of us like. If you want keep on yapping about Y and Z then go ahead I guess, if you want to actually address X then feel free as well. Meanwhile my point stands: "just nominate someone qualified" is a stupid argument.
d-usa wrote: Disliking a provision of the constitution has nothing to do with enforcing and following the provisions.
So an AG who dislikes the Second Amendment and is on record saying that not being able to erode that particular right was "my single failure" is able to bear true faith and allegiance to that portion of the Constitution?
Or how about being held in contempt. Should that make someone ineligible?
d-usa wrote: If you want keep on yapping about Y and Z then go ahead I guess, if you want to actually address X then feel free as well. Meanwhile my point stands: "just nominate someone qualified" is a stupid argument.
If you want to keep yapping on about how I'm not discussing X when the whole time we were discussing Y and Z then go ahead I guess
He is still qualified, which is the actual X my entire argument is about. Gun control, despite your well know opinion on the matter, is not unconstitutional. Idividual actions can be, but the subject as a whole is not.
So yes, one can lament not being able to push for unpopular actions that may well be constitutional despite a vocal opposition to the idea while at the same time upholding their oath of office to defend it.
And unless the constitution says "people who have been held in contempt can't be AG anymore" then people who have been held in contempt can still be qualified to be AG.
Again, thanks for demonstrating the stupidity of the "just nominate someone qualified" argument.
d-usa wrote: He is still qualified, which is the actual X my entire argument is about. Gun control, despite your well know opinion on the matter, is not unconstitutional. Idividual actions can be, but the subject as a whole is not.
So yes, one can lament not being able to push for unpopular actions that may well be constitutional despite a vocal opposition to the idea while at the same time upholding their oath of office to defend it.
And you know that his attempts at gun control would have been Constitutional because......
I'll go back to my earlier point and expand on it. Should an AG candidate who is on record saying that (s)he would like to erode any of the following;
- free speech
- freedom of assembly
- trial by jury
- equal protection
Be seen as qualified for the post?
d-usa wrote: And unless the constitution says "people who have been held in contempt can't be AG anymore" then people who have been held in contempt can still be qualified to be AG.
Because nothing says Head of the DoJ like being held in contempt.
I know, it's almost like "just nominate someone qualified" is a horrible argument to begin with since a guy who appears to hold questionable ethics in some areas, manages to skirt just on this side of constitutional actions, and who was held in contempt by congress still meets all the required qualifications for the office of AG.
"Just nominate someone qualified" is a useless sound bite for the electorate.
shasolenzabi wrote: Jeb is so out of touch with America though. So many working 40+hours as is, and the ones stuck at part time work want full time work, but many companies are only going part time. So Jebby says America needs to work more to get ahead, when reality is so many are working just to make their rent/bills and feed their families.
My interpretation of that statement is that he was referring to the phenomenon we've been seeing lately of full-time jobs being replaced with multiple part-time positions.
Cheap companies have been getting around Obamacare by cutting peoples' hours. If you work part-time your employer is not legally obligated provide health insurance for you. What Jeb is saying is that we need more 40 hour positions.
Well, here is a quote from ole Jeb
“My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.”
followed by some of the related facts
Let's see the real facts about just how hard Americans work below:
1. In the U.S., 85.8 percent of males and 66.5 percent of females work more than 40 hours per week. 2. According to the ILO, “Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese workers, 260 more hours per year than British workers, and 499 more hours per year than French workers.”
3. Using data by the U.S. BLS, the average productivity per American worker has increased 400% since 1950.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I think it would help if we screened politicians for mental stability before they get office.
That may be a bad example as the oath of office for the AG reads;
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"
I don't think that there would be any question that an AG would be considered ineligible for office if (s)he "thinks free speech is bad"
Actually his or her opinion on general free speech is irrelevant to the oath. It is the person's opinion on the validity of the Constitution which matters, at least when it comes to eligibility.
Frankly, it'd be an improvement if the next President (HRC or Walker) simply fills those possitions with QUALIFIED folks.
Part of the problem is that, no matter how well qualified someone is, if it's a high profile position in a major agency, then the Senate will bicker and argue for weeks/months just to try to score political points. The lesser agencies that nobody in Congress cares about (say, OPM, for example) will get their appointees approved quickly, because there are no points to be scored over an agency nobody cares about.
Well that's just a defeatist attitude.
I prefer to think of it as "bitterly cynical."
The President's job is to fill those positions with qualified personnel... not to use these positions as a reward for the President's flunkies.
Yes, it's incombent on the Senate to use their "Advise & Consent" role appropriately too... in fact, they should approve any qualified person that the President nominates.
Well, they did approve the OPM director 62-35...
But, yes, you nailed the problem in that it is a two-part process. President needs to nominate someone qualified, Senate needs to approve qualified candidate with a minimum of political posturing. Both parts of that equation have been failing on a regular basis since long before Obama.
You got it.
Counter point though: ALL Democrats voted for her... only something like 8 or 9 Republicans did. So.... yerself!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: The problem of course when "should be qualified" gets confused with "should have a political ideology that I agree with.
Having the education and experience makes someone qualified to be the attorney general for example, but "thinks guns are bad" and "thinks guns are not bad" has nothing to do with being qualifies
In a way... I agree. Although, some positions are more politically important than others that may garner more attention from the Senate.
whembly wrote: That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which isthat the government, is a good and benevolent force.
I imagine you see nothing hypocritical at all in this idea coming from the person who spearheaded perhaps the most grotesque intrusion of the state into private matters in my lifetime.
We're done with this AG/secretary/etc discussion. It's getting rude, and we're just going in a downward spiral with it. "You're too stupid to X" "Well if only you'd answer Z then we can talk" "But I'm not talking about Z" "But Z", stop it now.
shasolenzabi wrote: Jeb is so out of touch with America though. So many working 40+hours as is, and the ones stuck at part time work want full time work, but many companies are only going part time. So Jebby says America needs to work more to get ahead, when reality is so many are working just to make their rent/bills and feed their families.
Um... He wasn’t asking full-time workers to spend more time at work. He was calling for more full-time jobs that many are stuck in part-time jobs (or out of work) because of Obama's/Democrat's economic policies. (PPACA perverse incentives for one).
If you want more of the same, vote for Hillary!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: We're done with this AG/secretary/etc discussion. It's getting rude, and we're just going in a downward spiral with it. "You're too stupid to X" "Well if only you'd answer Z then we can talk" "But I'm not talking about Z" "But Z", stop it now.
shasolenzabi wrote: Jeb is so out of touch with America though. So many working 40+hours as is, and the ones stuck at part time work want full time work, but many companies are only going part time. So Jebby says America needs to work more to get ahead, when reality is so many are working just to make their rent/bills and feed their families.
Um... He wasn’t asking full-time workers to spend more time at work. He was calling for more full-time jobs that many are stuck in part-time jobs (or out of work) because of Obama's/Democrat's economic policies. (PPACA perverse incentives for one).
If you want more of the same, vote for Hillary!
You truly have no clue about me.
Actually his own words say he does want folks who work full time to do more hours
“My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in.
And I am a Sanders supporter, Hillary is part of the Democrats that are republican lite. What we call Corporate Democrats as Obama has actually shown himself to be. Not what the Tea-party tried to make him out to be. I voted Nader as I felt I was talking to a salesman when Obama spoke
I hear nothing really new or helpful from the Republican side, and watch as Trump burns himself each day. Now had we a more enlightened bunch on the Republican ticket that could possibly win me over but it is all the same, let infrastructure crumble, cut off social safety nets and education so we can make even more insanely enormous pay outs to the Military Industrial Complex, hand out of billions to BIG OIL, and other Fat Cats, allow pollution to go out of control, and let businesses (Corporations, not little guys), police themselves when that is the same as handing the burglar the keys to your house and car,
Too many are voting Hillary because instead of the issues we face, they want to put a democratic female in office to make history when she will help out the particular Fat Cats who paid that super-pac of hers.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, I used to be Republican in voting measures, but Reagan and Bush were my first dissolution, then the more unstable sounding party members in office opened their mouths and I realized I can't support "Crazy as a bag o cats" politicians. What we get from that party today is stuff I as a human being cannot support in good conscience.
That was why I went first to the dems, and then Progressives.
whembly wrote: That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which isthat the government, is a good and benevolent force.
So, repeat the same fundamentally weird thing that every Republican has been repeating as the central part of their platform since Reagan?
But what is it with you guys and rubbish vice-presidents?
Al Gore, Joe Biden, Dan Quayle, Spiro Agnew
Is there a special bunker where these guys are locked away and wheeled out every 4 years?
The VP is usually some guy who can 'balance the ticket'. So you want someone who has a strength to offset some weakness of your own, either in a certain region of the US, or on some political or personal level. So if you're weak in the midwest you pick a midwest VP, if you're perceived as weak on religion you pick a strongly Christian VP etc.
Then on top of that you typically pick someone who's got strong connections and backroom skills, because you want the VP to be useful when you're in office.
But the thing is if some candidate has all that and mainstream political appeal, well then they're probably beating you in their own run for the Whitehouse. Or if its close and you're a bit stronger, then they aren't going to accept your VP offer as they know it's a powerless position that typically sinks future presidential chances.
So naturally VP candidates tend to come from the pool of people who real mainstream popularity.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Could you imagine VP McCain or VP Romeny casting the deciding vote in a deadlock senate?
Can you imagine the political fallout if an assassination attempt killed Obama and put Romney in the Whitehouse? Or killed Bush and put Gore in the Whitehouse?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: What is it with people not liking Biden? He does exactly what many people claim they want in politicians-not glossing their words with focus grouped doublespeak. Yeah, he can come off as crass or even silly at times, but so do we all. He was right on Iraq after the invasion (he thought it should be broken up into three separate states because it would eventually break up anyway), he understands tragedy (lost a wife a two children) the military (his son served), doesn't come from wealth, understands the legislative process intimately, and has worked effectively across the aisle.
Biden is a really solid VP, I think, especially for Obama. I think Biden probably should have been a little more prominent, to offset Obama's issue with blue collar voters.
In the same sense Cheney was a really solid VP for Bush. Bush was all charm and pleasantry, but he lacked gravitas. Cheney was the perfect pick to adjust for that.
In both cases, Biden and Cheney, they were never going to be more than VPs.
That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which isthat the government, is a good and benevolent force.
That is what conservatives want to believe leftist ideology is, which is causing GOP politicians to run to the right.
Yeah, I had to stop the video at that point. My BS meter was threatening to explode.
And I really have to wonder, if the "lefty ideology" is that the government is a good and benevolent force, whom does the "righty ideology" consider a good and benevolent force? The private sector? Individuals? The states (who are, themselves, governments)? God?
Smaller government. Empower the people at the local level, instead of the top-down method.
So the "good and benevolent" force is... still the government then.
Also let's be real, the Rs don't actually care about a smaller government, seeing as the last few major government expansions have happened under the Rs. George W. Bush presided over the largest government expansion since FDR.
Jihadin wrote: Republicans now have a starting line up of a NFL team
Walker has announced he is running.....
A drop out runs for President. He has admitted such. I have no confidence in his winning, but he also pretty much trashed his state, and who knows what will happen?
I'm finding myself slightly nervous as of late with how much my social media is filled with Donald Trump being treated as the presidential messiah. Granted most of mine is filled with conservative service members/veterans. Still I can see the narrative of Jeb vs Trump vs Hilary for the election race ready taking form.
BrotherGecko wrote: I'm finding myself slightly nervous as of late with how much my social media is filled with Donald Trump being treated as the presidential messiah.
He appeals to a odd fringe or population presently in the modern party, there used to be a more sensible minded Republican Party, now they all seem like the lunatics escaped the nut-house
BrotherGecko wrote: I'm finding myself slightly nervous as of late with how much my social media is filled with Donald Trump being treated as the presidential messiah.
He appeals to a odd fringe or population presently in the modern party, there used to be a more sensible minded Republican Party, now they all seem like the lunatics escaped the nut-house
People seem to be really impressed with his ability to say reactionary rhetoric to confirm their bias. That an the mythic belief that a corporate businessman can save the economy.
Jihadin wrote: Republicans now have a starting line up of a NFL team
Walker has announced he is running.....
A drop out runs for President. He has admitted such. I have no confidence in his winning, but he also pretty much trashed his state, and who knows what will happen?
Indeed, plus Hillary has actual combat experience, having dodged sniper fire in the Balkans.
Other wise, you'd start seeing "no married gheys sanctuary cities".
Sanctuary ordinances are not prohibitive, they are inclusive.
That doesn't make any sense.
All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE. Contrary to federal laws.
The system is broken. I do not believe the current laws of the cities concerning Illegals does not extend to the type of individual who killed the female on the pier.
I blame the Police Chief for letting this guy go. I blame the current situation on how this came to be on the politicians
This was a needless death
I support Katie Law now
whembly wrote:Smaller government. Empower the people at the local level, instead of the top-down method.
whembly wrote:All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE. Contrary to federal laws.
Well, which is it? Should localities be empowered (like the people of San Francisco desired to be a sanctuary city, and so enacted it via their local government) or does the federal government know best?
I feel like you need to either defend sanctuary cities, or advocate for the federal government trumping the will of local government; and either way you've lost consistence over a single page.
To be fair, whembly wasn't saying no federal govt. Just limited. Not that I believe that is the solution to life, nor do I believe a single R candidate who is running for the nomination would ever do that (but by god they'll repeat it again and again), but that wasn't really what he was angling for. I think. Just that mythical "limited govt" except everywhere it isn't limited.
Frazzled wrote: Go Sanders. I wish there were more than two viiable parties.
Duverger's Law.
Majoritarian, First-Past-the-Post electoral Systems always produce two parties, except in the case of a strongly unified regional and/or ethnic demographic in the country.
Currently, we are, in the USA, in the process of having one party reduced to a "Regional or Ethnic Party," and the other beginning to split into a Centrist and a Progressive Wing.
The Outcome of this next Presidential Election will basically determine if the GOP lives as a viable national party (in which case it will systematically rig electoral mechanics in its favor for close to the next century), or if it dies as a major party, and the electoral rigging conducted since 1995 is undone by a new SCOTUS with a Progressive Majority, putting the Federal Government back into the Control of the Democrats (who would then fragment into a Centrist and Leftist Wing).
This election is really about the Democratic Primary in that regard, and is one of the reasons Sanders presents such a danger to the Democrats. If he wins the party nomination, he stands a very small chance of winning the national election: The GOP not only lives, but it sees the culmination of its gerrymandering and corporatist/theocratic planning pay off. Of course, Sanders could win the National Election (possible, but not probable).
But, if Hillary goes to the National Elections, she will likely win (Polls among Independents in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin show her beating any GOP candidate by double digits - Jeb by only 7% - 11%, but the rest by pretty significant percentages), and she will then likely serve two terms, appoint four Justices (two of whom will be Conservatives), flipping the SCOTUS from a 5:4 conservative leaning majority to a 6:3 Progressive Majority (and undoing many of the unpopular decisions of the Roberts Court, such as Citizen's United, and the many Voter Fraud laws, as well as restoring the Civil Rights Act voting restrictions - Oh! And undoing the Gerrymandering of the GOP which currently gives them control of Congress).
So....
Duverger's Law. . .
That's why we don't have more than two viable parties.
We would need some other electoral mechanism to support more than two (or a regional or ethnic demographic).
Tannhauser42 wrote: The problem with any third party in these days of "you're either with us or against us" politics, is that if third Party Z is even marginally closer to Party X over Party Y in ideology, then they split Party X's votes and Party Y keeps all of their usual votes and wins the election.
That isn’t so much about the ‘with us or against us’ culture, but a product of a winner take all election system.
Again, Called "Duverger's Law" after the political scientist who discovered the correlation between electoral mechanics and political parties, Maurice Duverger.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blood Hawk wrote: Does anyone else think the Hillary Clinton is going to be Mitt Romney for 2016? She probably will end up winning the primary but liberals will never love her like they did with Obama in 2008. I mean if the republicans can put up a decent candidate they could beat her IMO. All they have to do is push Trump off the stage.
That and watching part of her interview earlier today on CNN bored me to death. Clinton clearly hates the press, I mean it is so obvious.
Only polls show Hillary beating ANY GOP Nominee by 10% to 30% (depending upon the match-up).
The absolute best any proposed matchup came was 7% - 11% loss by Jeb Bush to Hillary Clinton.
The whole "She is the Democrat's Romney" is just a conservative Wet Dream, and Projection, because they seem to lack the imagination to actually consider new possibilities, and seem to be stuck with "I know you are, but what am I?" (which this is just another instance of).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: I think an extremist conservative would be much more damaging at least to the things I care about. Cutting funding to schools and social programs. Allowing industries to run amok, slashing budgets for consumer protection and environmental agencies. Cutting taxes for the ultra rich for no good reason (again). Possibly getting us into more wars. Deregulation on a massive scale. And IIRC he's one of those people who refuse to believe in separation of church and state, so he'll probably push for a constitutional ban on same sex marriage, those sorts of things. I fear what would happen if someone like Perry got his way. Now that being said, I sort of support Bernie, but that's mostly because I hate Hillary, and the likelihood of the R's running a moderate candidate at this point is zero-none.
Considering that every GOP Candidate wants to literally kill me.... Yeah. I am not too in favor of many of their policies.
Repeal the ACA and I am dead. It is as simple as that.
BrotherGecko wrote: I'm finding myself slightly nervous as of late with how much my social media is filled with Donald Trump being treated as the presidential messiah.
He appeals to a odd fringe or population presently in the modern party, there used to be a more sensible minded Republican Party, now they all seem like the lunatics escaped the nut-house
One of my Professors at UCLA is working on a book about the GOP, and how they went from being a party that DOMINATED Academia in the 1950s/60s to being represented by less than 10% of academics today.
Most of this began in the 1970s with the close of the Space Race, and the decision by Evangelicals to use the GOP as a means to affect policy. And that by 1995, after the growth of computation in the 1980s gave answers to policy questions, which used to be legitimately open, that did not favor the GOP, Newt Gingrich developed a plan for a "Perpetual Conservative Majority" that is now backfiring completely, by having driven every intellectual out of the GOP due to their opposition of so many foundational issues in the Sciences (which led to an overall rejection of the Sciences as a means to know things).
Looks like the Iran nuclear deal is done and dusted. Just a few t's to cross and a few i's to dot.
Already, though, the backlash has begun. On Al Jazeera, I saw the Israeli Prime Minister make a plea that was clearly targeted at elements of the Republican party.
And of course, Congress has to get involved in any ratification of the Iran nuclear deal.
Ouze wrote: Well, which is it? Should localities be empowered (like the people of San Francisco desired to be a sanctuary city, and so enacted it via their local government) or does the federal government know best?
What part do the States play in enforcing immigration? What if other States decided that other Federal laws should not apply to them?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Yeah, that was my point - "limited government" is a totally meaningless phrase. It's just a shorthand for "except the stuff I like".
I always thought the objective of limited government was to preserve individual liberty and protect private property.
whembly wrote:Smaller government. Empower the people at the local level, instead of the top-down method.
whembly wrote:All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE. Contrary to federal laws.
Well, which is it? Should localities be empowered (like the people of San Francisco desired to be a sanctuary city, and so enacted it via their local government) or does the federal government know best?
I feel like you need to either defend sanctuary cities, or advocate for the federal government trumping the will of local government; and either way you've lost consistence over a single page.
Seeing as enforcing immigration is one of the things the Constitution does give the Feds the responsibility and authority to do, your point doesn't seem very valid.
Ouze wrote: you need to either defend sanctuary cities, or advocate for the federal government trumping the will of local government; and either way you've lost consistence over a single page.
Then you totally missed my position.
When I say, "limited government" or "let the local people decide". That's not me saying they should be able to BREAK. FEDERAL. LAWS. AT. THE. SAME. TIME.
Really Ouze?!?!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: To be fair, whembly wasn't saying no federal govt. Just limited. Not that I believe that is the solution to life, nor do I believe a single R candidate who is running for the nomination would ever do that (but by god they'll repeat it again and again), but that wasn't really what he was angling for. I think. Just that mythical "limited govt" except everywhere it isn't limited.
All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE.
What does that have to do with gay marriage?
Gay marriage is now legal by virtue of the Supreme Court rule. It's the law of the land. So, there's going to be hell to pay if some county clerk refuses to issue licenses to SSM. Right?
Same with immigration laws. These sanctuary cities breaking federal laws, as they are REQUIRED to report illegal immigrants to ICE officials.
All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE.
What does that have to do with gay marriage?
Gay marriage is now legal by virtue of the Supreme Court rule. It's the law of the land. So, there's going to be hell to pay if some county clerk refuses to issue licenses to SSM. Right?
Same with immigration laws. These sanctuary cities breaking federal laws, as they are REQUIRED to report illegal immigrants to ICE officials.
You bolo'ed your delivery though by mentioning Same Sex Marriage with Immigration laws
Jihadin wrote: Has to pass through Congress.
That 14 day notice of an inspection is a "NO GO" on both sides of the aisle
It only needs a 1/3 vote as he's claiming its an executive act or some nonsense.
Considering that every GOP Candidate wants to literally kill me.... Yeah. I am not too in favor of many of their policies.
Yes I am sure Kacinich secretly has a picture of you he uses for target practice.
Are you ready to extend the hand of friendship to your Iranian brothers?
I'm for getting out of there. The region is blowing up. Now its going to go rocketing forward to the first nuclear exchange.
If Israel doesn't basically declare war in the next year, the gulf powers and Egypt will move to nuke up via purchases from Pakistan/Russia. Several have already effectively said it.
The Ottoman/Persian wars have returned but this time with tanks and terrorists. Soon it will be with nukes.
Best we get out.
All sanctuary cities does is shelter illegal immigrants from ICE.
What does that have to do with gay marriage?
Gay marriage is now legal by virtue of the Supreme Court rule. It's the law of the land. So, there's going to be hell to pay if some county clerk refuses to issue licenses to SSM. Right?
Same with immigration laws. These sanctuary cities breaking federal laws, as they are REQUIRED to report illegal immigrants to ICE officials.
You bolo'ed your delivery though by mentioning Same Sex Marriage with Immigration laws
True... I was being snarky.
Because if a city disagrees with certain laws state/federal... what's to stop them by say "nah... we ain't doing that".
Ouze was trying to bash me by being inconsistent with my "limited government" stance.
Jihadin wrote: Has to pass through Congress.
That 14 day notice of an inspection is a "NO GO" on both sides of the aisle
It only needs a 1/3 vote as he's claiming its an executive act or some nonsense.
Considering that every GOP Candidate wants to literally kill me.... Yeah. I am not too in favor of many of their policies.
Yes I am sure Kacinich secretly has a picture of you he uses for target practice.
Are you ready to extend the hand of friendship to your Iranian brothers?
I'm for getting out of there. The region is blowing up. Now its going to go rocketing forward to the first nuclear exchange.
If Israel doesn't basically declare war in the next year, the gulf powers and Egypt will move to nuke up via purchases from Pakistan/Russia. Several have already effectively said it.
The Ottoman/Persian wars have returned but this time with tanks and terrorists. Soon it will be with nukes.
Best we get out.
I hope you're wrong on that, but sadly, I fear you may be proven right...
One of my Professors at UCLA is working on a book about the GOP, and how they went from being a party that DOMINATED Academia in the 1950s/60s to being represented by less than 10% of academics today.
Most of this began in the 1970s with the close of the Space Race, and the decision by Evangelicals to use the GOP as a means to affect policy. And that by 1995, after the growth of computation in the 1980s gave answers to policy questions, which used to be legitimately open, that did not favor the GOP, Newt Gingrich developed a plan for a "Perpetual Conservative Majority" that is now backfiring completely, by having driven every intellectual out of the GOP due to their opposition of so many foundational issues in the Sciences (which led to an overall rejection of the Sciences as a means to know things).
It should be a very interesting read.
MB
How much info is he using from Venona project or the opened Soviet archives?
Ouze wrote: Well, which is it? Should localities be empowered (like the people of San Francisco desired to be a sanctuary city, and so enacted it via their local government) or does the federal government know best?
What part do the States play in enforcing immigration? What if other States decided that other Federal laws should not apply to them?
Good question. How many states have legalized marijuana at this point, contrary to Federal law?
Admittedly, immigration is on a whole different level compared to a single substance in the Controlled Substances Act. But it is something of a point to be made that the GOP likes to bang the drum of states' rights...except when they don't agree with what the states are doing.
Ouze wrote: Well, which is it? Should localities be empowered (like the people of San Francisco desired to be a sanctuary city, and so enacted it via their local government) or does the federal government know best?
What part do the States play in enforcing immigration? What if other States decided that other Federal laws should not apply to them?
Good question. How many states have legalized marijuana at this point, contrary to Federal law?
Admittedly, immigration is on a whole different level compared to a single substance in the Controlled Substances Act. But it is something of a point to be made that the GOP likes to bang the drum of states' rights...except when they don't agree with what the states are doing.
Immigration is clearly the Feds responsibility. Which is why it does not enter into a states rights argument. Finding where the feds have authority granted by the constitution to outlaw substances is a bit harder. Obviously the 18th Amendment gives precedence to do so, but the 21st kind of trumps that one.
Ouze wrote: you need to either defend sanctuary cities, or advocate for the federal government trumping the will of local government; and either way you've lost consistence over a single page.
Then you totally missed my position.
When I say, "limited government" or "let the local people decide". That's not me saying they should be able to BREAK. FEDERAL. LAWS. AT. THE. SAME. TIME.
Really Ouze?!?!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: To be fair, whembly wasn't saying no federal govt. Just limited. Not that I believe that is the solution to life, nor do I believe a single R candidate who is running for the nomination would ever do that (but by god they'll repeat it again and again), but that wasn't really what he was angling for. I think. Just that mythical "limited govt" except everywhere it isn't limited.
Pretty much.
We can discuss it here because we're obvious free to do so but the matter has already been decided. SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that states cannot nullify federal laws. There is no legal way for states or municipalities to refuse to obey federal laws.
Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.
Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.
In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
The issue with Colorado's legalization of marijuana is going to get struck down by the courts sometime this year most likely. Neighboring states are suing Colorado for the negative impact of it's marijuana legalization (higher crime rates and policing costs) and Colorado's defense is that it's not their fault that the Federal govt has been directed by the current administration to choose not to enforce standing federal drug laws in Colorado. There is no legal mechanism through which either states or federal agencies can pick and choose what federal laws have to be adhered to and enforced. Every federal law has equal standing and needs to be enforced. Again, we've had the Nullification debate in this country multiple times across multiple centuries and every time the courts have ruled that federal laws can't be electively ignored.
Putin is in deep with the ME after this Iran deal.
Agreement to help Saudi build ten nuclear reactors
Agreement to Egypt build one nuclear reactor in Cairo
Agreement (in the works) to build one nuclear reactor in Jordan
Majoritarian, First-Past-the-Post electoral Systems always produce two parties, except in the case of a strongly unified regional and/or ethnic demographic in the country.
Duverger himself said that his "law" was not absolute, and there are plenty of counterexamples to inform arguments against it.
Jihadin wrote: Has to pass through Congress.
That 14 day notice of an inspection is a "NO GO" on both sides of the aisle
It only needs a 1/3 vote as he's claiming its an executive act or some nonsense.
Considering that every GOP Candidate wants to literally kill me.... Yeah. I am not too in favor of many of their policies.
Yes I am sure Kacinich secretly has a picture of you he uses for target practice.
Eh? GOP Candidates wanting to kill who and why?
Me.
A repeal of the ACA would kill me.
I would not be able to get insurance, would not be able to get the medication I need for the problems I have with my liver, and would die. Almost happened already with insurance.
Given that I am not the only one in this situation, the GOP's obsession with repealing the ACA is literally a desire to kill people, due to the provisions that prevent insurance discrimination.
I probably have a pretty unpopular stance with Iran but after studying them a bit I would say of all the M.E. states they are the most stable and helpful as a potential ally. Given that for about a decade they have attempted to get snuggly with the US, with Bush Jr. outright denying them (usually without the public knowing), Obama (for better or worst) seems to be at least attempting to build some bridges over there.
Iraq I feel is going to disappear as a state sometime in the next 10 years. If ISIS isn't bombed to oblivion, the Shia majority will probably become part of Iran, the Kurds will do their own thing and ISIS will either exist or not with the Sunni majority.
So given US and Iran used to be super best frewnds forever, it seems logical to try it again. A few years ago Iran attempted to liberalize itself but after fears of an imminent US invasion (a real honest possibility at the time) the conservatives won out and that was that. All we need to do is support those people and Iran will change.
One of my Professors at UCLA is working on a book about the GOP, and how they went from being a party that DOMINATED Academia in the 1950s/60s to being represented by less than 10% of academics today.
Most of this began in the 1970s with the close of the Space Race, and the decision by Evangelicals to use the GOP as a means to affect policy. And that by 1995, after the growth of computation in the 1980s gave answers to policy questions, which used to be legitimately open, that did not favor the GOP, Newt Gingrich developed a plan for a "Perpetual Conservative Majority" that is now backfiring completely, by having driven every intellectual out of the GOP due to their opposition of so many foundational issues in the Sciences (which led to an overall rejection of the Sciences as a means to know things).
It should be a very interesting read.
MB
How much info is he using from Venona project or the opened Soviet archives?
WOW! Someone else who knows about Verona. He is using both it, and ex-Soviet Archives.
Plus, he has a HUGE number of retired Republicans from the 1970s and 1980s who were not the Evangelical, Born-Again types who proliferate the party now who talk about the war that took place within the Party over Nixon's Southern Strategy and Reagan's coddling of the Moral Majority (welcoming them into the GOP). Like Goldwater (And Dole, for that matter), they were not happen to see people who had no ability to govern taking over the GOP.
Most people do not understand the Totalitarian nature of the Evangelicals who have essentially taken the GOP Hostage by refusing any compromise on most issues (which is a refusal to govern - and an act of passive aggressive violence, provoking the opposition that the only way to make any progress is to resort to force), nor the insanity they represent.
Jihadin wrote: Has to pass through Congress.
That 14 day notice of an inspection is a "NO GO" on both sides of the aisle
It only needs a 1/3 vote as he's claiming its an executive act or some nonsense.
Considering that every GOP Candidate wants to literally kill me.... Yeah. I am not too in favor of many of their policies.
Yes I am sure Kacinich secretly has a picture of you he uses for target practice.
Eh? GOP Candidates wanting to kill who and why?
Me.
A repeal of the ACA would kill me.
I would not be able to get insurance, would not be able to get the medication I need for the problems I have with my liver, and would die. Almost happened already with insurance.
Given that I am not the only one in this situation, the GOP's obsession with repealing the ACA is literally a desire to kill people, due to the provisions that prevent insurance discrimination.
MB
You don't have access to Medicare or Medicade?
Have you considered the ACA is horrific and there are better systems out there (look North...)?
BrotherGecko wrote: I probably have a pretty unpopular stance with Iran but after studying them a bit I would say of all the M.E. states they are the most stable and helpful as a potential ally. Given that for about a decade they have attempted to get snuggly with the US, with Bush Jr. outright denying them (usually without the public knowing), Obama (for better or worst) seems to be at least attempting to build some bridges over there.
Iraq I feel is going to disappear as a state sometime in the next 10 years. If ISIS isn't bombed to oblivion, the Shia majority will probably become part of Iran, the Kurds will do their own thing and ISIS will either exist or not with the Sunni majority.
So given US and Iran used to be super best frewnds forever, it seems logical to try it again. A few years ago Iran attempted to liberalize itself but after fears of an imminent US invasion (a real honest possibility at the time) the conservatives won out and that was that. All we need to do is support those people and Iran will change.
I have a lot of contact with Persians (seeing as my niece is half Persian).
My brother-in-law is not the most politically astute (because becoming so is a danger to his livelihood), but many of his relatives are more outspoken.
A great deal of Iran is incredibly Liberal, and well educated, but they have the problem of the state being essentially captured by what they call "The Religious Mafia."
And listening to them talk about the Revolution in 78/79 is enlightening. The Revolutionaries basically pulled a fake-out on what they promised vs what was delivered.
And, yes, they have been trying to Liberalize the government to get away from "The Religious Mafia" for some time, but it is essentially impossible for the near future.
The Movement Republicans who became the Neocons dominate conservative conversation in the media. FOxnews is straight up owned by and staffed by neocons. Most conservatives I know claim to be anti-neocon but if you listen to what they say its dyed in the wool neocon rhetoric and its because of Foxnews being so popular. I don't even know where you would find a conservative media outlet at this point.
Frazzled wrote: SCOTUS has confirmed that immigration is fed purview when it knocked down Arizona's laws last year.
You know there IS such a thing as the Constitution getting an issue wrong, and thus it is up to states to lead in striking down the parts that get something wrong.
I believe that at least two issues fall into this category:
• Slavery
• Alcohol Prohibition
While the former was not explicitly encoded into the Constitution, the latter was.
But in both cases it was individual states deciding they had had enough of following a law that was broken.
In the case of immigration, the failure of the Federal Government to do anything meaningful on immigration essentially left it to Local Governments to act.
Some of those actions (Arizona) were seen as clear violations of Federal Law in ways other than just defying what was the purview of the Federal Government (In the Arizona Case, the law was also clearly racist in motivation).
Simply pointing to the Constitution and shrieking "See! SEE!" does not answer the question of whether something has a sound moral or ethical foundation.
And when a policy is determined to be lacking that foundation, it is incumbent upon individuals to act according to their conscience, as San Francisco, and other Sanctuary Cities have done.
Interesting that a guy who bases his position on "The ACA keeps me alive, if you don't like the ACA you are literally trying to kill me" wants to discuss sound moral and ethical foundations.
Frazzled wrote: SCOTUS has confirmed that immigration is fed purview when it knocked down Arizona's laws last year.
You know there IS such a thing as the Constitution getting an issue wrong, and thus it is up to states to lead in striking down the parts that get something wrong.
I believe that at least two issues fall into this category:
• Slavery
• Alcohol Prohibition
While the former was not explicitly encoded into the Constitution, the latter was.
But in both cases it was individual states deciding they had had enough of following a law that was broken.
In the case of immigration, the failure of the Federal Government to do anything meaningful on immigration essentially left it to Local Governments to act.
Some of those actions (Arizona) were seen as clear violations of Federal Law in ways other than just defying what was the purview of the Federal Government (In the Arizona Case, the law was also clearly racist in motivation).
Simply pointing to the Constitution and shrieking "See! SEE!" does not answer the question of whether something has a sound moral or ethical foundation.
And when a policy is determined to be lacking that foundation, it is incumbent upon individuals to act according to their conscience, as San Francisco, and other Sanctuary Cities have done.
MB
I want to post but no, not worth it.
Ok a little. You neither understand the law, or the federal system.
Same with immigration laws. These sanctuary cities breaking federal laws, as they are REQUIRED to report illegal immigrants to ICE officials.
There is no Federal law which requires cities to report illegal immigrants.
Yes there is, DHS' Priority Enforcement Program requires local and state law enforcement to send the same biometric data that they send to the FBI for criminal history and warrant checks to be sent to ICE so that ICE can determine if the individual being arrested is a priority for removal.
https://www.ice.gov/pep
Frazzled wrote: SCOTUS has confirmed that immigration is fed purview when it knocked down Arizona's laws last year.
You know there IS such a thing as the Constitution getting an issue wrong, and thus it is up to states to lead in striking down the parts that get something wrong.
I believe that at least two issues fall into this category:
• Slavery
• Alcohol Prohibition
While the former was not explicitly encoded into the Constitution, the latter was.
But in both cases it was individual states deciding they had had enough of following a law that was broken.
In the case of immigration, the failure of the Federal Government to do anything meaningful on immigration essentially left it to Local Governments to act.
Some of those actions (Arizona) were seen as clear violations of Federal Law in ways other than just defying what was the purview of the Federal Government (In the Arizona Case, the law was also clearly racist in motivation).
Simply pointing to the Constitution and shrieking "See! SEE!" does not answer the question of whether something has a sound moral or ethical foundation.
And when a policy is determined to be lacking that foundation, it is incumbent upon individuals to act according to their conscience, as San Francisco, and other Sanctuary Cities have done.
MB
Slavery was outlawed via constitutional amendments. Prohibition was initiated by a constitutional amendment and later repealed by another constitutional amendment. Both issues are clearly in the constitution.
BrotherGecko wrote:
I'm finding myself slightly nervous as of late with how much my social media is filled with Donald Trump being treated as the presidential messiah.
He appeals to a odd fringe or population presently in the modern party, there used to be a more sensible minded Republican Party, now they all seem like the lunatics escaped the nut-house
One of my Professors at UCLA is working on a book about the GOP, and how they went from being a party that DOMINATED Academia in the 1950s/60s to being represented by less than 10% of academics today.
Most of this began in the 1970s with the close of the Space Race, and the decision by Evangelicals to use the GOP as a means to affect policy. And that by 1995, after the growth of computation in the 1980s gave answers to policy questions, which used to be legitimately open, that did not favor the GOP, Newt Gingrich developed a plan for a "Perpetual Conservative Majority" that is now backfiring completely, by having driven every intellectual out of the GOP due to their opposition of so many foundational issues in the Sciences (which led to an overall rejection of the Sciences as a means to know things).
It should be a very interesting read.
That will be interesting to read. He needs to also do chapters on the Neo-cons who came up with perpetual wars, and spread the fear mongering which to my mind makes lie to "Home of the Brave" and the over reach of the Police state we have seen grow as civil liberties got curtailed some, which makes mockery of "Land of the Free" (includes that we have the most people locked up in prisons due to harmless individuals caught up in the "war on drugs" as well as the privately owned prisons making deals with judges to fill them up on account they need bodies to make bank.,
Yes there is, DHS' Priority Enforcement Program requires local and state law enforcement to send the same biometric data that they send to the FBI for criminal history and warrant checks to be sent to ICE so that ICE can determine if the individual being arrested is a priority for removal.
What part do the States play in enforcing immigration? What if other States decided that other Federal laws should not apply to them?
We still have counties and probably cities around the US that are "dry" even after federal law was amended to make the sale and consumption of alcohol legal.
What part do the States play in enforcing immigration? What if other States decided that other Federal laws should not apply to them?
We still have counties and probably cities around the US that are "dry" even after federal law was amended to make the sale and consumption of alcohol legal.
Er, I'm sure what you meant to say was that we still have dry counties even though the Amended Constitution has deferred the regulation of alcohol back to the states.
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
.
What part do the States play in enforcing immigration? What if other States decided that other Federal laws should not apply to them?
We still have counties and probably cities around the US that are "dry" even after federal law was amended to make the sale and consumption of alcohol legal.
Er, I'm sure what you meant to say was that we still have dry counties even though the Amended Constitution has deferred the regulation of alcohol back to the states.
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
.
Thank you for getting to that before I could. So what discretion is granted to the states in respect of immigration?
Same with immigration laws. These sanctuary cities breaking federal laws, as they are REQUIRED to report illegal immigrants to ICE officials.
There is no Federal law which requires cities to report illegal immigrants.
Yes there is, DHS' Priority Enforcement Program requires local and state law enforcement to send the same biometric data that they send to the FBI for criminal history and warrant checks to be sent to ICE so that ICE can determine if the individual being arrested is a priority for removal.
https://www.ice.gov/pep
So, then, NOT the "Constitution" as others were arguing.
Frazzled wrote: SCOTUS has confirmed that immigration is fed purview when it knocked down Arizona's laws last year.
You know there IS such a thing as the Constitution getting an issue wrong, and thus it is up to states to lead in striking down the parts that get something wrong.
I believe that at least two issues fall into this category:
• Slavery
• Alcohol Prohibition
While the former was not explicitly encoded into the Constitution, the latter was.
But in both cases it was individual states deciding they had had enough of following a law that was broken.
In the case of immigration, the failure of the Federal Government to do anything meaningful on immigration essentially left it to Local Governments to act.
Some of those actions (Arizona) were seen as clear violations of Federal Law in ways other than just defying what was the purview of the Federal Government (In the Arizona Case, the law was also clearly racist in motivation).
Simply pointing to the Constitution and shrieking "See! SEE!" does not answer the question of whether something has a sound moral or ethical foundation.
And when a policy is determined to be lacking that foundation, it is incumbent upon individuals to act according to their conscience, as San Francisco, and other Sanctuary Cities have done.
MB
Slavery was outlawed via constitutional amendments. Prohibition was initiated by a constitutional amendment and later repealed by another constitutional amendment. Both issues are clearly in the constitution.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with there point that the Constitution got those issues wrong FIRST, before they were corrected.
i.e. It is irellevant that the Constitution was changed to the point that it got these issues WRONG before changing them.
SO. . . PRIOR to the Slavery being outlawed in the Constitution (as early as 1775, in fact, in Vermont, where Slavery was first outlawed), individual states (Northern) outlawed the institution of Slavery:
Economic urgency played no small part in accelerating the advocacy for repeal. The number of conservatives who pushed for prohibition in the beginning decreased. Many farmers who fought for prohibition now fought for repeal because of the negative effects it had on the agriculture business.[63] Prior to the 1920 implementation of the Volstead Act, approximately 14% of federal, state, and local tax revenues were derived from alcohol commerce. When the Great Depression hit and tax revenues plunged, the governments needed this revenue stream.[64] Millions could be made by taxing beer. There was controversy on whether the repeal should be a state or nationwide decision.[63] On March 22, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed an amendment to the Volstead Act, known as the Cullen–Harrison Act, allowing the manufacture and sale of 3.2% beer (3.2% alcohol by weight, approximately 4% alcohol by volume) and light wines. The Volstead Act previously defined an intoxicating beverage as one with greater than 0.5% alcohol.[9] Upon signing the Cullen–Harrison Act, Roosevelt made his famous remark: "I think this would be a good time for a beer."[65]
So, that local governments are taking the lead in an unjust Federal Policy/Law in establishing Sanctuary cities has its precedents in PRIOR ACTS of this same nature.
BrotherGecko wrote:
I'm finding myself slightly nervous as of late with how much my social media is filled with Donald Trump being treated as the presidential messiah.
He appeals to a odd fringe or population presently in the modern party, there used to be a more sensible minded Republican Party, now they all seem like the lunatics escaped the nut-house
One of my Professors at UCLA is working on a book about the GOP, and how they went from being a party that DOMINATED Academia in the 1950s/60s to being represented by less than 10% of academics today.
Most of this began in the 1970s with the close of the Space Race, and the decision by Evangelicals to use the GOP as a means to affect policy. And that by 1995, after the growth of computation in the 1980s gave answers to policy questions, which used to be legitimately open, that did not favor the GOP, Newt Gingrich developed a plan for a "Perpetual Conservative Majority" that is now backfiring completely, by having driven every intellectual out of the GOP due to their opposition of so many foundational issues in the Sciences (which led to an overall rejection of the Sciences as a means to know things).
It should be a very interesting read.
That will be interesting to read. He needs to also do chapters on the Neo-cons who came up with perpetual wars, and spread the fear mongering which to my mind makes lie to "Home of the Brave" and the over reach of the Police state we have seen grow as civil liberties got curtailed some, which makes mockery of "Land of the Free" (includes that we have the most people locked up in prisons due to harmless individuals caught up in the "war on drugs" as well as the privately owned prisons making deals with judges to fill them up on account they need bodies to make bank.,
He will cover the Neocons and Drug wars as well.
I talked with him a great deal about the War on Drugs in the 1980s, as I was especially close to it during that period.
In addition to the Evangelicals, the Libertarians (i.e. the Koch's, who pretty much ARE the Libertarians - they account for roughly 90% of the funding of Libertarian Institutions in the USA) decided to use the GOP as their vehicle of choice, being an appealing group to the Evangelicals and all others who wish to legitimize discrimination (something that most Libertarians have an impossible time understanding - I know I did. When I was younger, I worked on Charles Koch's 1980 Presidential Bid. But they don't seem to understand that supporting policies that give aid and comfort to racists and bigots effectively makes one a racist and bigot - even if not explicitly, then implicitly).
Naturally, this causes Screams of outrage from those who feel they are being "Persecuted" for holding such views.
But that falls right in line with the contemporary conservative narrative of being a persecuted and marginalized group - would that this was ACTUALLY TRUE.
Eventually, though, as was demonstrated by Karl rove on Election Night of 2012, their creation of an alternate reality, and the adoption of the Post-Modernist philosophies used by the Left in the 1960s/70s (a rejection of "Facts") will lead to the collapse of the current Conservative Political Parties, and their actual marginalization as a fringe group.
Of course, they have a reply for this as well, which amounts to the typical "I know you are, but what am I?" or "I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say, bounces off of me and sticks to you!"
The Conservatives such as Goldwater, Eisenhower, and William F. Buckley Jr. are a thing of the past, which is unfortunate, because these men understood that when one was faced with new information, one changed one's mind, rather than adhering to "Values" which may no longer be valid, or sound, in the face of that new information.
HAve any of you guys answered the quiz on www.isidewith.com ? I just did it, and due to my non-American pinko tendencies I got Bernie Sanders ....I bet Frazzled gets Trump ;p
95% with bernie, despite the fact that I was not socialist at all with the economy (mostly choosing relatively moderate answers).
A remarkably large drop to 77% with Hillary, Martin O'Malley at 69% and Chris Christie at 66%.
Depressingly (at least for me) is that Pataki isn't even on the list. Which is sad, because I've been rooting for him to win the R primaries.
Bullockist wrote: HAve any of you guys answered the quiz on www.isidewith.com ? I just did it, and due to my non-American pinko tendencies I got Bernie Sanders ....I bet Frazzled gets Trump ;p
I think it's too early for an accurate match, but when I did it last week it placed me dead center on the grid but towards libertarian.
Thanks for that tip dreadclaw, I didn't notice the political spectrum result. According to us politics I am a centrist left winger (described as "extremely left wing") . Interesting. Hillary is apparently my 2nd choice. Bernie Sanders 97% Hillary at 84%
I've wanted to know for a while how does GoP translate into republican?
@BeAfraid: Seems I am not the only one who slid over when my original party politics went too far over to one, and I saw that we need a change to the present failed trickle down economics of the GoP and the need for a modern "New Deal" and other things so I am siding with Bernie, folks may be seeing Hilary as saying what may get her elected.
And with Trump leading the pack, well that is a train wreck the news likes to play with, Not report actual issues, or real news, just foolishness from Trump and celebrity misbehavior to deflect and mis-direct from reality the majority of News watchers who watch the corporate BS factories.
Which features a stock photo of people in military garb.
Who it turns out are WW II re-enactors dressed as SS
... For some the image of nazi soldiers walking towards the White House might be .... I dunno .... something you wouldn't want to suggest happening under ones leadership tenure.
and yet he's now leading the polls of the Republican Candidates
whilst other Republicans are suggesting he is in fact some form of Democrat ploy to hurt the Republicans election chances.
Well, Donald truly and emphatically believes there is no such thing as bad publicity. The important thing is, you're talking about him; regardless of why.
If Donald Trump can be leading a major political party's polls, that should tell you something about that political party and the people who identify with it. Comedy Central aired his roast last night. The Situation from Jersey Shore killed it...let that sink in folks. The Situation from Jersey Shore roasted the current leading Republican candidate.
motyak wrote: You're kidding about the SS thing right?
He kids you not. Look closely at the image. Those are German troops from WW2
I'm suing Trump for damages, because when I saw that picture, I nearly fell off my seat
That's what I love about American politics. You could not make this gak up
I remember a few years back, when a woman from the Tea party (her name escapes me) made a party political broadcast, and the first thing she said was "I am not a witch."
I am a huge fan of America, but sometimes I despair at the idiots they elect.
In other news , Hilary Clinton backs the Iran deal. Whembley should be happy
Mother Jones can now reveal that the image in question was taken at a World War II reenactment near Kent, England, some time within the last five years, according to its photographer, George Cairns. We reached Cairns by Skype at his home in St Albans, a town just north of London, where he was hanging out playing video games when his Twitter feed started to blow up in response to the Trump story.
Cairns is a British freelance stock photographer and photography instructor who says he frequents war reenactments as good locations to pick up realistic-looking stock images—not just of Nazis, but also of American GIs and other soldiers. Cairns said he didn't know much about Donald Trump beyond the controversy over a golf course the billionaire and GOP presidential contender bought in Scotland last year.
So what does Cairns make of Trump using his image to endorse his candidacy?
"Well luckily, it's not endorsed him in a sense... So that's a good thing," he said. "I'm not a Trump supporter. I can sleep OK tonight."
In an almost impossibly bizarre coincidence, this isn't the first time the Cairns family has been caught up in a photo kerfuffle involving Nazis and American politicians. George's brother John is also a stock photographer, and took the image of Nazi reenactors that was accidentally used in a flier for the campaign of North Carolina state legislator Tim Spear in 2010.
"I have photos of American soldiers as well," Cairns said. "But for some reason, politicians seem to be downloading Nazis."
What part do the States play in enforcing immigration? What if other States decided that other Federal laws should not apply to them?
We still have counties and probably cities around the US that are "dry" even after federal law was amended to make the sale and consumption of alcohol legal.
Er, I'm sure what you meant to say was that we still have dry counties even though the Amended Constitution has deferred the regulation of alcohol back to the states.
Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
.
Thank you for getting to that before I could. So what discretion is granted to the states in respect of immigration?
Little, its a true federal issue. They can help patrol and arrest da illegals, and cooperate but thats the extent*
*This is based on my extensive knowledge of almost nothing...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bullockist wrote: HAve any of you guys answered the quiz on www.isidewith.com ? I just did it, and due to my non-American pinko tendencies I got Bernie Sanders ....I bet Frazzled gets Trump ;p
Which features a stock photo of people in military garb.
Who it turns out are WW II re-enactors dressed as SS
... For some the image of nazi soldiers walking towards the White House might be .... I dunno .... something you wouldn't want to suggest happening under ones leadership tenure.
and yet he's now leading the polls of the Republican Candidates
whilst other Republicans are suggesting he is in fact some form of Democrat ploy to hurt the Republicans election chances.
Same with immigration laws. These sanctuary cities breaking federal laws, as they are REQUIRED to report illegal immigrants to ICE officials.
There is no Federal law which requires cities to report illegal immigrants.
Yes there is, DHS' Priority Enforcement Program requires local and state law enforcement to send the same biometric data that they send to the FBI for criminal history and warrant checks to be sent to ICE so that ICE can determine if the individual being arrested is a priority for removal.
https://www.ice.gov/pep
So, then, NOT the "Constitution" as others were arguing.
Frazzled wrote: SCOTUS has confirmed that immigration is fed purview when it knocked down Arizona's laws last year.
You know there IS such a thing as the Constitution getting an issue wrong, and thus it is up to states to lead in striking down the parts that get something wrong.
I believe that at least two issues fall into this category:
• Slavery
• Alcohol Prohibition
While the former was not explicitly encoded into the Constitution, the latter was.
But in both cases it was individual states deciding they had had enough of following a law that was broken.
In the case of immigration, the failure of the Federal Government to do anything meaningful on immigration essentially left it to Local Governments to act.
Some of those actions (Arizona) were seen as clear violations of Federal Law in ways other than just defying what was the purview of the Federal Government (In the Arizona Case, the law was also clearly racist in motivation).
Simply pointing to the Constitution and shrieking "See! SEE!" does not answer the question of whether something has a sound moral or ethical foundation.
And when a policy is determined to be lacking that foundation, it is incumbent upon individuals to act according to their conscience, as San Francisco, and other Sanctuary Cities have done.
MB
Slavery was outlawed via constitutional amendments. Prohibition was initiated by a constitutional amendment and later repealed by another constitutional amendment. Both issues are clearly in the constitution.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with there point that the Constitution got those issues wrong FIRST, before they were corrected.
i.e. It is irellevant that the Constitution was changed to the point that it got these issues WRONG before changing them.
SO. . . PRIOR to the Slavery being outlawed in the Constitution (as early as 1775, in fact, in Vermont, where Slavery was first outlawed), individual states (Northern) outlawed the institution of Slavery:
Economic urgency played no small part in accelerating the advocacy for repeal. The number of conservatives who pushed for prohibition in the beginning decreased. Many farmers who fought for prohibition now fought for repeal because of the negative effects it had on the agriculture business.[63] Prior to the 1920 implementation of the Volstead Act, approximately 14% of federal, state, and local tax revenues were derived from alcohol commerce. When the Great Depression hit and tax revenues plunged, the governments needed this revenue stream.[64] Millions could be made by taxing beer. There was controversy on whether the repeal should be a state or nationwide decision.[63] On March 22, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed an amendment to the Volstead Act, known as the Cullen–Harrison Act, allowing the manufacture and sale of 3.2% beer (3.2% alcohol by weight, approximately 4% alcohol by volume) and light wines. The Volstead Act previously defined an intoxicating beverage as one with greater than 0.5% alcohol.[9] Upon signing the Cullen–Harrison Act, Roosevelt made his famous remark: "I think this would be a good time for a beer."[65]
So, that local governments are taking the lead in an unjust Federal Policy/Law in establishing Sanctuary cities has its precedents in PRIOR ACTS of this same nature.
MB
Only in the sense that the constitution empowers the federal govt to run federal agencies and put into practice policies regarding the mission of those federal agencies such as immigration and law enforcement.
The constitution only got slavery "wrong" in the sense that it didn't outlaw it nationwide but the constitution did nothing to prevent states from abolishing slavery or individual citizens from manumitting slaves. The constitution is a charter of negative liberties that limits the jurisdiction of the federal government. Slavery was a state issue, that's how federalism and the 10th amendment works. Virginia outlawed the importation of slaves years before the federal govt outlawed the importation of slaves. The constitution was always going to give states a generous amount of autonomy because the convention was only being held because the Articles of Confederation gave the states so much autonomy that the federal government was nonfunctional. The delegates were never going to create a federal leviathan they were only there to create more balanced federalism so that we had a functional national government. The constitution didn't get slavery wrong, it gave every state the opportunity to get it right. That some states didn't isn't the constitution's fault.
One vague sentence about an alleged controversy is not proof that state and local governments were violating federal law with impunity. Your quote makes it clear that the federal govt amended the Volstead Act to allow more alcohol to be sold. That's the federal govt amending a federal law. If local and state govts ignoring the federal prohibition wasn't a problem then FDR wouldn't have needed to amend the Volstead Act.
The constitution didn't get prohibition wrong. The constitution as originally written didn't contain anything about prohibition. 120+ years after it was ratified Congress passed an amendment creating the federal prohibition of the sale of alcohol. A few years later they passed another amendment to repeal the prohibition amendment. I don't understand your issue with prohibition. Is your argument that the constituion failed because it lacked specific language detailing whether or not it was lawful for the states to ratify an amendment that forbade the manufacture and sale of a controlled substance? The federal govt established its jurisdiction over alcohol back during the Whiskey Rebellion, long before prohibition showed up.
There is no legal framework wherein a state or individual can lawfully violate federal laws. Nullification attempts were struck down by the federal courts and SCOTUS in the 1850s and the 1950s. You can have a personal opinion that a particular federal law is immoral or unjust but that opinion does not allow you to violate that federal law with impunity. Violating standing federal law is, has been, and always will be an illegal act subject to prosecution by the federal govt.
Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the theory of nullification.[2] The courts have decided that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.
Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.
In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.
A minor, possibly nitpicky, correction. Congress only proposes amendments, but it is the states that ratify them. Interestingly, the repeal of Prohibition is the only amendment to be ratified by state conventions rather than state legislatures.
Posted earlier somewhere either in this thread or another.
Saudi going nuclear
Jordan going nuclear
Egypt going nuclear
Israel is nuclear (bombs)
Putin is helping them build their reactors.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Question for American dakka members: have you guys seen any Iranian troops in your towns/cities?
Just been watching the Fox News/Republican party reaction to the Iran deal, and by the sounds of things, you guys are being invaded by Iran
I would love for British troops to help our American friends, but budget cuts have bitten deep into the British military
No, but Iranian Quds force have killed or helped kill 100s of our troops (and some of yours) in Iraq, and they, through their proxies have been causing trouble in many other places (and have been for decades) to include certain countries in South and Central America (one of the many things I did when in Panama was look at Hez activities in our AOR).
And we DID recently have the 2011 assassination of the Saudi Ambassador plot. Open source/unclassified reporting is a bit confused as to Iranian gov't or rogue Quds involvement, but the plot was there one way or another...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Question for American dakka members: have you guys seen any Iranian troops in your towns/cities?
Just been watching the Fox News/Republican party reaction to the Iran deal, and by the sounds of things, you guys are being invaded by Iran
I would love for British troops to help our American friends, but budget cuts have bitten deep into the British military
No, but Iranian Quds force have killed or helped kill 100s of our troops (and some of yours) in Iraq, and they, through their proxies have been causing trouble in many other places (and have been for decades) to include certain countries in South and Central America (one of the many things I did when in Panama was look at Hez activities in our AOR).
And we DID recently have the 2011 assassination of the Saudi Ambassador plot. Open source/unclassified reporting is a bit confused as to Iranian gov't or rogue Quds involvement, but the plot was there one way or another...
Just been watching the Fox News/Republican party reaction to the Iran deal, and by the sounds of things, you guys are being invaded by Iran
That's just Politics 101: if Party X tries to accomplish some big thing, Party Y must vilify it, no matter how good it may or may not actually be. Giving any credit to the other party is just giving vote away.
Yes, sorry I should have spelled it out but I'm a lazy son of a gun.
No problem. I take your point about Iranian backed groups 'operating abroad' and with the easing of sanctions and money coming into Iran, it'll probably get worse.
In saying that, it's not as if the US/UK/Israel are completely defenceless. I'm reliably informed that our respective governments spend a lot of money on their military and intelligence capabilities.
Just been watching the Fox News/Republican party reaction to the Iran deal, and by the sounds of things, you guys are being invaded by Iran
That's just Politics 101: if Party X tries to accomplish some big thing, Party Y must vilify it, no matter how good it may or may not actually be. Giving any credit to the other party is just giving vote away.
You've just demonstrated a golden rule of politics as well: answer a question as though it were the question you wanted to be asked. You didn't say if you were getting invaded or not
Yes, sorry I should have spelled it out but I'm a lazy son of a gun.
No problem. I take your point about Iranian backed groups 'operating abroad' and with the easing of sanctions and money coming into Iran, it'll probably get worse.
In saying that, it's not as if the US/UK/Israel are completely defenceless. I'm reliably informed that our respective governments spend a lot of money on their military and intelligence capabilities.
And I doubt you'll find me advocating a military solution to Iran at this point, except maybe as part of the ongoing 'asymmetric' rigamarole we are dancing to all over. If some of our guys get to cap some Quds or their proxies in Afghanistan (yes they operate there) or Iraq/Syria while running the course of doing business it won't hurt my feelings a bit.
Yes, sorry I should have spelled it out but I'm a lazy son of a gun.
No problem. I take your point about Iranian backed groups 'operating abroad' and with the easing of sanctions and money coming into Iran, it'll probably get worse.
In saying that, it's not as if the US/UK/Israel are completely defenceless. I'm reliably informed that our respective governments spend a lot of money on their military and intelligence capabilities.
And I doubt you'll find me advocating a military solution to Iran at this point, except maybe as part of the ongoing 'asymmetric' rigamarole we are dancing to all over. If some of our guys get to cap some Quds or their proxies in Afghanistan (yes they operate there) or Iraq/Syria while running the course of doing business it won't hurt my feelings a bit.
Al Jazeera have been doing some good journalism on the Iran situation and the impression I get that this deal was pushed through for two reasons:
1) To keep the hard-liners in Iran at bay
2) Fear that sanctions could lead to regime change in Iran = more Iraq/Syria style instability in the Middle East.
Obama has came to the conclusion better the devil you know, rather than another Middle East power vacuum.
Last Repubican primary we had a bunch of nonsense talking idiots gain sudden popularity, before dropping away in the polls to overtaken by another nonsense talking idiot. Michelle Bachmann did well in early straw polls, then we had Herman Cain, and then things got really weird with Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich being frontrunners for brief periods.
At the time it was written off as 'anyone by Romney' but it seems like its happening again, especially now that the deeply ridiculous Donald Trump is leading. It starts to look like the dynamic is actually 'anyone but a Republican'.
And it kind of makes sense when you think about it. The Republican mantra for a long time has been to hate government, especially politicians, and especially Federal politicians. So it isn't too much of a surprise that every four years the base goes looking for someone who they don't immediately recognise as a politician... until the get a couple more weeks of exposure to their new candidate and they see this new non-politician out there making speeches and they realise he's actually a politician just like everyone else in this political race. Shocked by this discovery, they move on to the next nitwit, and so on and so on until all that's left are the conventional candidates.
Last primary the Republicans finally settled on a broadly sensible politician*, and you'd have to think in the end they'll do the same again. But we aren't there yet, and in the mean time they're actually considering one of the most deeply ridiculous public figures as their Presidential candidate.
*I share very few political opinions with Romney, but at the end of the day he wasn't a complete loon. Compare him to Ron Paul or Herman Cain. I'm not completely convinced Herman Cain wasn't just having a laugh the whole time, actually.
Co'tor Shas wrote: It's a weird nickname, imo. Especially since the democratic party is older. Maybe because it's filled with rich, old people.
Yep.
The GOP essentially (Once) represented the OLD Wealth of New England, and was the more socially progressive party on most things (from 1860 - 1918). A change in the demographics of the US Aristocracy (using that word metaphorically - hopefully no one will freak overly much) after the 1900s saw more and more of the Old South's Wealth become associated with the New England Wealthy (mostly the new Oil Barons from Texas - which is how my family got involved, and where I learned this history of the GOP), which led to increasingly conservative values, socially, over the years (especially after the Democrat/Republican flip of the 1970s, where all of the old Democrats of the South (Dixiecrats) joined the GOP, to give us what we have today..
The first mentions of "Grand ol' Party" are from Newspapers in the 1870s. And the name has been used to mean different things through the years (Get Out and Push - during the 1920s/30s; "Generation Of Peace - by Nixon; and Gallant Old Party, in the 1900s).
It could come from taking the name of an English Prime Minister of the early Republican Period, who were by the nickname of the "Grand Old Man" (GOM).
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton's standing is falling among Democrats, and voters view her as less decisive and inspiring than when she launched her presidential campaign just three months ago, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.
The survey offers a series of warning signs for the leading Democratic candidate. Most troubling, perhaps, for her prospects are questions about her compassion for average Americans, a quality that fueled President Barack Obama's two White House victories.
Just 39 percent of all Americans have a favorable view of Clinton, compared to nearly half who say they have a negative opinion of her. That's an eight-point increase in her unfavorable rating from an AP-GfK poll conducted at the end of April.
The drop in Clinton's numbers extends into the Democratic Party. Seven in 10 Democrats gave Clinton positive marks, an 11-point drop from the April survey. Nearly a quarter of Democrats now say they see Clinton in an unfavorable light.
"I used to like her, but I don't trust her," said Donald Walters of Louisville, Kentucky. "Ever since she's announced her candidacy for the presidency I just haven't liked the way she's handled things. She doesn't answer questions directly."
While Clinton's approval rating fell, Obama's stayed constant at 46 percent since April. More than 8 in 10 Democrats have a positive view of the president.
At least part of Clinton's decline may be due to questions about her character, a topic Republicans have been trying to make central to the 2016 campaign. In ads, stump speeches and online videos, they paint her as a creature of Washington who flouts the rules to get ahead.
While Clinton has spent decades in the public eye, she's focused in recent months on creating a more relatable — and empathetic — image. In public events, she frequently talks about her new granddaughter, Charlotte, and references her early career as a legal advocate for impoverished children.
The survey suggests that voters aren't sold on her reinvention: Only 4 in 10 voters say they view Clinton as "compassionate." Just 3 in 10 said the word "honest" described her either very or somewhat well.
Stephanie Bergholdo, a Democratic voter from Oak Park, California, says she finds Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren far more sincere in their liberal views — though she's likely to vote for Clinton should she become the party's nominee.
"She's piggybacking on some of the things they've been talking about," said Bergholdo. "I don't think she comes across very genuine. She just seems a little stiff to me."
The percentage of respondents calling Clinton at least somewhat inspiring also slipped from 44 percent to 37 percent.
Even the number of voters saying Clinton is at least somewhat decisive, previously a strong point for the former New York senator, fell from 56 percent in April to 47 percent in the new poll.
"She's pretty much a run-of-the-mill Democrat," said Mark Oldenburg of Madison, Wisconsin. "I don't know that there's anything particularly special about her."
Other polls released this week show contrasting results. A Washington Post-ABC News survey found an uptick in Clinton's favorability, while a Suffolk University-USA Today poll showed a slightly net negative rating.
That means the downturn for Clinton could be a result of random differences in survey sampling or a troubling trend for the dominant Democratic candidate, underscoring the undefined nature of the crowded early presidential campaign.
Democrats argue that a drop in her numbers is a predictable result of Clinton's return to the partisan fray after years in the less overtly political position of secretary of state. Republicans, meanwhile, attribute the drop to questions about the financial dealings of Clinton's family foundation and her use of an email account run from a server kept at her New York home while serving as secretary of state.
Clinton's bad marks weren't unique: Nearly all of the Republican candidates surveyed in the poll shared her underwater approval ratings. Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a leading GOP candidate, saw his unfavorable ratings rise to 44 percent from 36 percent in April.
---
The AP-GfK Poll of 1,004 adults was conducted online Thursday to Monday, using a sample drawn from GfK's probability-based KnowledgePanel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.
Respondents were first selected randomly using phone or mail survey methods, and later interviewed online. People selected for KnowledgePanel who didn't otherwise have access to the Internet were provided access with no cost to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post: ON the flip side only 3% of donors to Bush gave less than $200.
July 15, 2015 Jeb Bush is a fundraising powerhouse among the Republican Party's biggest donors, but he is struggling among smaller donors. Of the $11.4 million his campaign raised during its first two weeks, only 3 percent came from donors who gave less than $200.
Small contributors gave Bush only $368,023, the campaign's federal filings show. Donors who gave the legal maximum of $2,700 accounted for more than 80 percent of Bush's total haul.
For comparison's sake, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz raised $1.8 million from small donors during the first week of his campaign back in March, nearly half of his campaign's total. And, on the Democratic side, Sen. Bernie Sanders said Wednesday that more than 76.5 percent of his fundraising ($10.5 million) came from small donors.
(RELATED: Mark Ruffalo, Ben & Jerry Among Bernie Sanders' Donors)
Bush had 12,334 donors between June 15 and June 30, his campaign said. That means his average contribution was $926. The average Sanders contribution? $35.
If I were Clinton, I'd take that any day of the week. 39% approval from the American people when the average national turnout for presidential elections is 55%?
Frazzled wrote: Er, that means that not even Democratic voters like her, much less Republicans or Independents. It means the Democratic nomination is in play.
I'd bet good money Biden is winding up to run.
Trust me on this, Frazz - Hilary's gonna win The Conservatives and David Cameron won May's election on 33% of the vote. Obviously the British system is different, but if Clinton is hovering around the 40% mark, that's enough for me.
America's women and the Hispanic votes will push her into the White House.
I've seen many an American presidential election. I usually call them pretty well. This time next year, I'll be proven right.
As part of the Texas Guard, I will insure all federal activities are carefully monitored at the Alamo Drafthouse Lakeline showing Trainwreck Saturday night. I'll be carefully disguised as a drunken bear with mange, eating pizza and slamming Jack Daniels. None shall get past my watchful eye!
) won enough seats in 2010 to become part of a coalition government in the 
