This current hot issue, with respect to Hillary's email ordeal, will be older than dirt when the next election season is upon us.
Consequently... HRC will be our next President.
Pretty much agreed. The simple fact is that the average American voter has the attention span of a gnat. Ignoring the ones that will vote for their party no matter what, many of the rest will barely remember anything that happened more than a month before the election. Anything older than that has to be something really big that can be easily waved in front of their faces in all the attack ads. It's like Romney's 47% comment; it's a short sound bite that could be endlessly played over and over, with no lengthy story required to remind people what it means or to provide context. That's why attack ads work, because the "stupidity of the American voter" is such that they will believe it without bothering to research the context/truth because, you know, that's work.
whembly wrote: I mean, the Clinton's are arguably the most corrupt, craven politicians we've ever seen...and traditionally, the media/low-information voters don't give a feth.
O.o
You should add a "wake up, sheeple!" to the end of that.
I swear Ouze and Whembley are like Dakkas US political Yin and Yang. Their arguments/discussions have to be some of my fave reads. I still can't decide which one i agree with more and this fence pailing is making my behind sore .
Foster's suicide was not that odd. Lots of people end up committing themselves to careers and associations, subsequently become disillusioned by them, and then succumb to depression; with suicide being the obvious extreme. Depression is actually very common for people who have never seen the sausage being made, be they low level staffers or Deputy White House Counsel.
The stuff against Clinton (or Obama really) has been overhyped faux scandal. They are looking for something and this is the best they come up with? Nothing is even close to W's lying to start a war plus going AWOL from the National Guard...
skyth wrote: The stuff against Clinton (or Obama really) has been overhyped faux scandal. They are looking for something and this is the best they come up with? Nothing is even close to W's lying to start a war plus going AWOL from the National Guard...
Aside from the Bush was AWOL not being accurate/true, there is also the minor fact that 'lying' to go to war isn't what really happened either.
But pretend you are correct. Bush Lied People Died. Got it. Congress had the same info he did and approved the war.
Now Obama on the other hand has bombed more countries and as good ol' Muammar Gaddafi would attest (if he were alive) has done so at times without congressional approval.
As for the current scandal being overhyped or a faux scandal, well we will see. It sure as hell isn't faux, she did do exactly what she is being accused of doing. What we don't know is the magnitude of any damage. She seems to have had sent out a cable directing DoS personnel to NOT use personal email for gov't business in 2011 (link somewhere above). She was clearly violating DoS policy by doing so.
whembly wrote: I mean, the Clinton's are arguably the most corrupt, craven politicians we've ever seen...and traditionally, the media/low-information voters don't give a feth.
O.o
You should add a "wake up, sheeple!" to the end of that.
If the sheeps didn't wake up then... they sure as hell ain't going to wake up now.
:shrug:
To be honest though... I really wonder if the Democratic "establishment" truly want Clinton to be their candidate. I figured this would be blown over by now.
Faux as in manufactured rather than actually being important...
And congress did not have the same info prior to Iraq. None of Obama's strikes (and an airstrike is different from an invasion) was under false pretenses. You are commiting a false equivalency...which is another indication of a faux scandal.
TravelGate: Whereas clintons were accused of "siccing" the FBI on folks.
Ken fething Starr exonerated Bill Clinton of anything. This was always a total nonsense.
Whitewater. Which was a real estate scam designed to cause investors to fail to meet difficult standards, thus default on any payments made on land.
The Clintons were in a land deal that went bad, and was headed up by a dodgy SOB. While there's a vague point to be made about the Clintons needing to choose their associates more closely, everything else is nonsense. The Clintons lost money in that land deal. It is only in the weirdest parts of the Republican myth machine that the Clintons as the centre of a Whitewater conspiracy to lose themselves a lot of money.
A man who was a central part of the Clinton machine killed himself. Everything that tried to make this the centrepiece of a Clinton conspiracy was, simply put, the worst, ugliest kind of political muckraking you'll ever see. Foster's own suicide talked about the shameless lies and muckraking of the rightwing press... and here seeing that death decided to make up even more crass lies. It was, and is, the absolute worst kind of gutter journalism, and you're still repeating it decades later.
Fundraising Shenanigans via the Lincoln Room in the White House.
Many hundreds of people stayed in the Whitehouse. Most of them were friends or political allies of the Clintons. It'd be weird if they weren't. Some of those friends gave to the Clintons, or raised funds for them. This cetainly pushes the boundaries of ethical use of government resources, but 'pushing the boundary of ethical use of government resources' is pretty much how I'd define US politics.
To single the Clintons out for a completely non-criminal, run of the mill action like that is pure muckraking.
Pay for Play Pardons. Four of the WhiteWater "crooks" got pardoned and convicted terrorist as well.
This one I'll grant you. I've got little doubt that Marc Rich was collecting for fundraising filtered through to the Clintons, and the story about the Hillary's brother taking money to lobby for a pardon had legs. and was being legitimately investigated years later.
Anyway, once again, dodgy pardons aren't actually anything unique in US politics. Pick me a president out of the last half dozen, I'll find you a dodgy pardon. The whole idea of presidential pardons seems destined to corruption, and that's exactly happens.
The Gorlick "wall": It was discovered that President Clinton accepted money from Chinese officials to influence American policy towards China. Determined to avoid accountability for what they'd done, the Clinton administration tried to hamper any investigations. It was decided that to ensure these agencies couldn't share info between each other that might connect the dots and lead to the Clintons. Thus, this policy was known as the "Gorlick Wall" between the agencies. However, this decision made it harder for these agencies to share information with their investigations had other consequences. Namely, the lead up to 9/11./quote]
First up, Republicans on the 9/11 commission said nothing in Gorelick's memo impacted investigations into the terrorists before 9/11 occurred. So that's nonsense straight off the bat.
The second part, trying to make that memo somehow linked to investigations in to the investigation in to the Clinton's taking Chinese money is straight up gibberish. There is no connection.
It's really weird to claim that people are unaware that Clinton is a sexpot. There have been major Hollywood movies made on the subject.
We've already discussed the paedo thing in this very forum. The actual list of facts are - Clinton rode with a man on his private plane, and on that plane was a woman who was almost certainly being paid to have sex with that man. That's it. It tells us Clinton is a bit of a sex sleaze. The whole world knows that.
Lewinski tried to blackmail Clinton. Vernon Jorden, a "fixer", tried to get her a cushy job at Revlon, which didn't happen because Tripp released the tapes later.
Your claim of blackmail it total fiction. Jordan was tasked with helping Lewinksy get a job after leaving the Whitehouse... which is exactly how anyone would expect things to work. What did you think would happen to a girl after she feths the president? A slap on the ass and a demand to never mention this to anyone or else? No, it was standard smooth politics, you give more help to the lady, so she never has reason to think about doing anything stupid.
The claims that there was direct blackmail were simply made up, with nothing to even hint it might be true, let alone anything approaching evidence. Like most of this list, the only reason it exists as an accusation is some of the standard old liars wanted to think it was true, so they simply claimed it.
And many, many more...
And it's all just mud being thrown at a wall, in the hope that some of it sticks. And outside of a couple of cases, it's all just made up bs. I mean, for all the damning evidence above, what have you actually got - Clinton used the pardon for political gain (and probably a family relation used it for financial gain), and a Whitehouse aide used his position to help out a girl Clinton slept with. That list ends up sounding about 1/100 as dodgy as the average town mayor, let along a POTUS.
Now, we all know Clinton was a smooth operator, and I mean 'smooth' in the sense that it's a pejorative - slick, a manipulator, a guy who trades in favours and skirts proper ethics, but when you look at all the bluster and nonsense you posted above, and how little substance there was, I almost forget how smooth Clinton really was. That's the problem with vastly overstating your position. It was, of course, the problem with both Benghazi and the IRS scandal - they were so overblown the actual substance of wrong doing was lost completely.
The thing with Hillary and the email actually has legs, by the way.
To be honest though... I really wonder if the Democratic "establishment" truly want Clinton to be their candidate. I figured this would be blown over by now.
It has blown over, and the associated scandals have been overblown to boot. It's only the die-hard conservative noise machine, something you seem deeply plugged into, which keeps the dream alive.
To be honest though... I really wonder if the Democratic "establishment" truly want Clinton to be their candidate. I figured this would be blown over by now.
It has blown over, and the associated scandals have been overblown to boot. It's only the die-hard conservative noise machine, something you seem deeply plugged into, which keeps the dream alive.
And you seem to be plugged into the DNC and the media (but, I repeat myself) spin machine
This is catnip for political junkies... and you can't resist.
And you seem to be plugged into the DNC and the media (but, I repeat myself) spin machine
In the age of the internet you cannot conflate any political party with "the media". That's a lazy conservative hook used to grab people that want to feel their ignorance is justified.
In the age of the internet you cannot conflate any political party with "the media". That's a lazy conservative hook used to grab people that want to feel their ignorance is justified.
What if you're like me, and aren't really conservative or liberal?? Typically, when I use "The Media" I am actually lumping MSNBC, Fox and CNN and their ilk together, because I am tending to talk about how each one is spinning/warping the "news" to fit their viewer ideology/office ideology.
What if you're like me, and aren't really conservative or liberal?? Typically, when I use "The Media" I am actually lumping MSNBC, Fox and CNN and their ilk together, because I am tending to talk about how each one is spinning/warping the "news" to fit their viewer ideology/office ideology.
That's the problem with amorphous terminology, it always depends on the context provided by the person using the term. Whembly was obviously conflating "DNC" with "the media", which has been a hilariously bad part of the conservative (especially the extreme conservative) playbook for years now.
Bullockist wrote: I swear Ouze and Whembley are like Dakkas US political Yin and Yang. Their arguments/discussions have to be some of my fave reads. I still can't decide which one i agree with more and this fence pailing is making my behind sore .
We just like debating each other. I assure you that if we live in the same town, we'd be good acquaintances, or even buds.*
* I have a standing offer to any dakkanaughts for beer if you're anywhere near St. Louis.
And you seem to be plugged into the DNC and the media (but, I repeat myself) spin machine
In the age of the internet you cannot conflate any political party with "the media". That's a lazy conservative hook used to grab people that want to feel their ignorance is justified.
Riiiiiight.
*looks at how ABC, NBC, CNN, (not Fox) treats Obama vs any Republican.
Speaking of which... don't you know there's a *new* Democrat Speaker of the House? His name is John Boehner.
sebster wrote: Okay, we have to deal with this once and for all.
Hah! Hah!
sebster wrote: The thing with Hillary and the email actually has legs, by the way.
To reiterate my earlier point, nearly everyone plays hide the emails. I mention this not for #whataboutism but because I think it's going to make any potential opponents leery of picking up that particular cudgel. Ultimately it's a really screwed up system: these departments are obligated to preserve records, but they pick the system and they are the arbiter of what a record is. I don't know how to make it better though; you can't pragmatically declare that people can't have private email accounts.
whembly wrote: Make it the penalty severe... felony level, if found using non-government resources for official business.
Who makes the determination that the business is "official business" or not? Currently that determination is made by the agency themselves.
No... I'm not explaining myself.
Require HIGH LEVEL posts to ONLY use government sanctioned accounts... even for personal things.
SoS send updates to POTUS? Use .gov account.
VP send schedule to Press Sec. Use .gov account.
HHS sends hubby message about picking up kidz. Use .gov account.
Head of VA sends sets up a date with girlfriend... Use .gov account.
Document retention policy is still defined by department policy... but, at least there's accountabiliy and possibility of valid oversight (or FOIA requests) for government officials.
If these department heads are found to use gmail for anything else? Make it a felony level charge.
Require HIGH LEVEL posts to ONLY use government sanctioned accounts... even for personal things.
SoS send updates to POTUS? Use .gov account.
VP send schedule to Press Sec. Use .gov account.
HHS sends hubby message about picking up kidz. Use .gov account.
Head of VA sends sets up a date with girlfriend... Use .gov account.
Document retention policy is still defined by department policy... but, at least there's accountabiliy and possibility of valid oversight (or FOIA requests) for government officials.
If these department heads are found to use gmail for anything else? Make it a felony level charge.
This is idiotic though, because someone's personal life has nothing to do with their job, and thus has no place in an official system of records, which is subject to FOIA. Person wants to sign up to pay their credit card bill? That email is now public record, along with the credit card number. Their doctor emails them some test results, well, so much for HIPPA.
Seriously. Someone's personal crap shouldn't be subject to FOIA, and doesn't belong clogging up government email systems which already struggle for the most part.
*looks at how ABC, NBC, CNN, (not Fox) treats Obama vs any Republican.
ABC and NBC are generally non-critical. CNN used to be noncritical, but isn't anymore. FOX and MSNBC are mirror images. But none of those networks constitute "the media" in the internet age.
Honestly, it just seems like you'll treat anyone who isn't on your side as being against you. Tom DeLay and Newt Gingrich tried that, and it ended poorly.
Require HIGH LEVEL posts to ONLY use government sanctioned accounts... even for personal things.
SoS send updates to POTUS? Use .gov account.
VP send schedule to Press Sec. Use .gov account.
HHS sends hubby message about picking up kidz. Use .gov account.
Head of VA sends sets up a date with girlfriend... Use .gov account.
Document retention policy is still defined by department policy... but, at least there's accountabiliy and possibility of valid oversight (or FOIA requests) for government officials.
If these department heads are found to use gmail for anything else? Make it a felony level charge.
This is idiotic though, because someone's personal life has nothing to do with their job, and thus has no place in an official system of records, which is subject to FOIA. Person wants to sign up to pay their credit card bill? That email is now public record, along with the credit card number. Their doctor emails them some test results, well, so much for HIPPA.
Seriously. Someone's personal crap shouldn't be subject to FOIA, and doesn't belong clogging up government email systems which already struggle for the most part.
"Idiotic" is a bit much man...
And no, you wouldn't FOIA to pull the credit card number,
As, request like these get scrubbed prior to public records...
whembly wrote: Seb... I'm sorry, but I'm laughing hysterically here...
Regardless what *I* think of the Clintons and what *you* think of them... they've got enormous baggage.
Except they don't have enormous baggage. You listed a collection of hackjobs, interspersed with a couple of bits of poor behaviour that are entirely run of the mill for US politics. Effectively, all you did was establish that the Republican noise machine has been throwing mud for more than two decades, without ever actually getting anything to stick. The only people that care about any of the stories you posted are people who decided long ago that they really hate the Clintons, and that is not a group that any Democrat is going to rely on wooing to secure the presidency.
But, this... THIS has legs?
o.O
Why? Is it hitting the Aussie news?
No, this kind of stuff doesn't hit the Aussie news. Even if it did, that wouldn't be what gave the story legs. I mean, if US policy was determined by what US issues get covered in the Australian news, you'd have gun control reform and reduced steel tariffs, if you get what I'm saying.
No, I think this has legs for nothing to do with my country of origin, but because it can't be factually dismissed, and can be tied to how Clinton actually performed in her work in the Federal Government. The rest of your list is either total fiction, or a minor issue that went stale more than a decade ago.
Now, don't take this as me thinking this is terminal for Clinton or anything like that. I simply mean that the story has meaning, and can possibly be used once during the campaign to change any favourable momentum Clinton has. It's a weapon that the Republican candidate will have in their armoury. They'll want to have a lot more, of course, but it is still a weapon, whereas all the old stories you listed can aren't useful or valuable in any way.
To reiterate my earlier point, nearly everyone plays hide the emails. I mention this not for #whataboutism but because I think it's going to make any potential opponents leery of picking up that particular cudgel.
The difference is that Clinton's behaviour was part of her role in a Federal position. That gives Republicans a lot of scope to drag this up again during election season. The trick to remember is that it won't be their opposing candidate who raises this issue. It will be raised through a 'new discovery' from some an investigator tasked at looking in to the matter, or through some random footsoldier talking about setting up an an investigative committee into the issue. Democrats might point out the Republican presidential candidate did similar in their state, but that's just part of the he said, she said stuff which doesn't really register outside of us political junkies - the story is on the investigation in to Hillary and that's a negative for her alone.
Democrats can't run similar efforts against former governors, in part because they often have little political clout in those states, but mostly because state level investigations just don't register at a Federal level, unless there's actually something meaningful in there.
I mean, I'm not saying I know exactly how this will play it, just that I think the above is a fairly likely outcome. And when the IRS scandal first broke I thought it was a real thing, so I have far from a perfect track record
Ultimately it's a really screwed up system: these departments are obligated to preserve records, but they pick the system and they are the arbiter of what a record is.
I don't know how to make it better though; you can't pragmatically declare that people can't have private email accounts.
It is difficult. I think ultimately the key is to make it clear that any communication sent in an official capacity is sent through official email addresses, anything sent through non-official email has no standing. So Clinton can't send an email through hrclinton.obamasucks@hotmail to inform the ambassador for Mauritania that they face sanctions unless they properly explain exactly what continent they're on because it is getting everyone confused, but she can use it to ask that same ambassador if they want to get a team in for the dodgeball tournament at the local Y.
The trick, of course, is that many non-official communications carry the weight of the office behind them, and so there's lots of subjectivity, and officers will exploit that. But then, there's no effective control about who officers talk to at state dinners, or what they talk about, and so controlling the email doesn't really improve that.
So the only control you can have, I think, is to make sure anything with any official weight behind it is recorded.
And no, you wouldn't FOIA to pull the credit card number,
As, request like these get scrubbed prior to public records...
Sorry, I thought about using "silly" and probably should have gone with that, but the idea of personal information being subject to FOIA, and forcing someone to give up privacy just because they are a federal employee, strikes a little close.
FOIA scrubs are a thing, but they basically only scrub certain kinds of information (generally, Personally Identifiable Information [PII] or secured information). You would still be easily able to go through someone's personal email and pull personal details, were they required to run their personal email through a government system. Not to mention the grotesque risk that puts the system under, because let's face it, we all have that relative who forwards every email with a phishing link in it.
Government email should be used for government functions; that's it.
And no, you wouldn't FOIA to pull the credit card number,
As, request like these get scrubbed prior to public records...
Sorry, I thought about using "silly" and probably should have gone with that, but the idea of personal information being subject to FOIA, and forcing someone to give up privacy just because they are a federal employee, strikes a little close.
FOIA scrubs are a thing, but they basically only scrub certain kinds of information (generally, Personally Identifiable Information [PII] or secured information). You would still be easily able to go through someone's personal email and pull personal details, were they required to run their personal email through a government system. Not to mention the grotesque risk that puts the system under, because let's face it, we all have that relative who forwards every email with a phishing link in it.
Government email should be used for government functions; that's it.
No worries... I knew what you were saying.
I'm not exactly advocating this full bore just yet. I was trying to come up with a "better" solution.... it's still stewing in my head.
Notice I said that this would only be for department heads and elected positions. People in this position are granted position of power, and thus we must take steps that these power are adjudicated appropriately. And the only way to ensure that, imo, is that these paper trails *are* subject to public scrutiny in some fashion.
Such policy would have no impact on anyone else under the department heads... as, yes, it would be impractical.
We do this *today* for the President.... just expand it for the department heads. (with additional privacy protections as well).
skyth wrote: The stuff against Clinton (or Obama really) has been overhyped faux scandal. They are looking for something and this is the best they come up with? Nothing is even close to W's lying to start a war plus going AWOL from the National Guard...
That argument probably was more compelling three election cycles ago.
The real issue with Clinton is that, for those who lived in those times, this is normal procedure. Always something shady. What I'm more concerned about is that she supported the Libya campaign (Libya sure turned out well), arming Syrian rebels (hello ISIL), and oh yes, Iraq too...
Notice I said that this would only be for department heads and elected positions. People in this position are granted position of power, and thus we must take steps that these power are adjudicated appropriately. And the only way to ensure that, imo, is that these paper trails *are* subject to public scrutiny in some fashion.
So you want people in positions of power to use their powers appropriately, and your means of enforcement regarding this is to subject all of their records to the People? That's a rather optimistic take on the capabilities of the People/public.
Also, are people that might have incriminated themselves along the way of your "paper trail" immune?
What if you're like me, and aren't really conservative or liberal?? Typically, when I use "The Media" I am actually lumping MSNBC, Fox and CNN and their ilk together, because I am tending to talk about how each one is spinning/warping the "news" to fit their viewer ideology/office ideology.
That's the problem with amorphous terminology, it always depends on the context provided by the person using the term. Whembly was obviously conflating "DNC" with "the media", which has been a hilariously bad part of the conservative (especially the extreme conservative) playbook for years now.
And while I know many of us throw around terms like "liberal" and "conservative" they do actually mean something, and often times mean something other than what people use them as.... For instance, Libertarians are actually Liberals, as they are among the closest ideologically to Locke's ideals of liberalism, while guys like Santorum are true "conservatives" because they are calling on values that are "higher" than human beings as a reason to limit/conrtol the populace.
And while I know many of us throw around terms like "liberal" and "conservative" they do actually mean something, and often times mean something other than what people use them as.... For instance, Libertarians are actually Liberals, as they are among the closest ideologically to Locke's ideals of liberalism, while guys like Santorum are true "conservatives" because they are calling on values that are "higher" than human beings as a reason to limit/conrtol the populace.
Sure, those terms mean things when context is provided; as you are doing here by referencing Locke. But John Locke did not define "liberal" then, and he certainly cannot do so now.
Notice I said that this would only be for department heads and elected positions. People in this position are granted position of power, and thus we must take steps that these power are adjudicated appropriately. And the only way to ensure that, imo, is that these paper trails *are* subject to public scrutiny in some fashion.
So you want people in positions of power to use their powers appropriately, and your means of enforcement regarding this is to subject all of their records to the People? That's a rather optimistic take on the capabilities of the People/public.
Yup.
Also, are people that might have incriminated themselves along the way of your "paper trail" immune?
Last week the Washington Post reported that Algeria gave half a million dollars to Bill and Hillary Clinton’s foundation while at the same time lobbying Hillary Clinton at the State Department. At a forum in Miami this weekend, Bill Clinton defended taking money from Algeria and other countries while his wife held a high-level government position. From the Miami Herald:
“The U.A.E. gave us money,” he said, referring to the United Arab Emirates. “Do we agree with everything they do? No, but they help us fight ISIS,” referring to the so-called Islamic State. He characterized the donations as coming from “friends” that had previously contributed to the foundation and were allowed to keep doing so under a 2008 ethics agreement with the Obama administration. But that was not the case with a $500,000 contribution from the Algerian government. “My theory about this is, disclose everything and let people make their judgments,” Clinton said.
Oh, that’s right. The Algerian donation was solicited and received without the Obama administration’s approval. So any disclosure we’re discussing is after-the-fact.
One interesting way to look at the ethics of such a donation is how the U.S. government handles donations to foreign charities by U.S. entities lobbying government officials. Remember this part of the Post story:
The money was given to assist with earthquake relief in Haiti, the foundation said. At the time, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.
If the money was given for the stated purpose of earthquake relief, does that make the donation clean even though Algeria sought something from Hillary Clinton’s agency?
In 2011 and 2012, the Obama administration’s Securities and Exchange Commission levied large penalties against U.S. pharmaceutical companies for violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. These included Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and Eli Lilly and Company. Among the charges was making donations to a charitable foundation in Poland.
That charitable foundation was run by an official with a regional health ministry who had the authority to make pharmaceutical purchasing decisions. The charitable foundation was legitimate and the foundation’s work was for a good cause. But the U.S. government found that the donation still had a corrupt purpose.
Again, the Clinton foundation says the money was given for a good cause — earthquake relief in Haiti. At least when the shoe is on the other foot and U.S. companies are donating to foreign charities, the U.S. government does not hold the view that such donations toward charitable purposes can not be tainted. In fact, while Eli Lilly never admitted wrongdoing, those donations to a Polish charity cost them a pretty penny:
“On 20 December 2012, the SEC charged Eli Lilly with violations of the anti-bribery, books and records and internal controls provisions of the FCPA. The Company neither admitted nor denied the allegations in the SEC’s complaint, which included … making donations to a Polish charity founded and administered by a Polish regional health director, in order to secure an ensured market position for the Company’s pharmaceutical products. Eli Lilly agreed to pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest and penalties totaling USD 29,398,734.”
Earlier this month the head of the SEC’s enforcement division, Andrew Ceresney, discussed the Eli Lilly and “bribes disguised as charitable contributions“:
As you might know, the FCPA prohibits giving “anything of value” to a foreign official to induce an official action to obtain or retain business, and we take an expansive view of the phrase “anything of value.” The phrase clearly captures more than just cash bribes, and Eli Lilly is not the only matter where we have brought an action arising out of charitable contributions.
He noted an instance when a medical technology company’s subsidiary made a donation to a university to fund a laboratory that a doctor wanted. That doctor gave business to the medical technology company. And, like Eli Lilly, a subsidiary of Schering-Plough paid $76,000 to that Polish charitable foundation. That foundation’s head also directed a governmental body that funded pharm purchases. Schering-Plough had to pay a huge fine.
The lesson is that bribes come in many shapes and sizes, and those made under the guise of charitable giving are of particular risk in the pharmaceutical industry. So it is critical that we carefully scrutinize a wide range of unfair benefits to foreign officials when assessing compliance with the FCPA — whether it is cash, gifts, travel, entertainment, or charitable contributions. We will continue to pursue a broad interpretation of the FCPA that addresses bribery in all forms.
Other anti-corruption practitioners note that it’s a major red flag when you see a single, isolated charitable donation of the size that Algeria gave to the Clinton Foundation. Such investigators say the first thing you look for is whether the giver had any business before the government official, which clearly was the case with Algeria, which was lobbying at the time for more favorable foreign policy treatment.
If these facts were in the private sector, the Department of Justice would be all over the matter. The Clintons have had previous problems with raising funds from foreign entities seeking to influence domestic policy.
One other thing to note is that the FCPA defines a “government official” to include not just foreign officials, candidates for office, and parties, but also any other recipient if the payment ultimately goes to a foreign official, candidate or party. By this broad definition, all-but-officially-announced Hillary Clinton would more than fit the definition.
Of course, the U.S. Constitution and various laws already ban such payments to Hillary Clinton.
But it would be weird if we held U.S. companies to far stricter standards regarding bribery than we did our own secretary of state.
So the Clinton Foundation received money from the Algerian government but since Eli Lily gave money to a Polish foundation who had the authority to make pharmaceutical purchases (like stuff that Eli Lily manufactures) and they were accused of wrong doing (which they never denied) that makes the Clinton Foundation equally guilty although there is no proof of said wrongdoing but because it's the Clintons so everything they do is shady?
Ensis Ferrae wrote: For instance, Libertarians are actually Liberals, as they are among the closest ideologically to Locke's ideals of liberalism, while guys like Santorum are true "conservatives" because they are calling on values that are "higher" than human beings as a reason to limit/conrtol the populace.
It's interesting to point out that over here in Oz our mainstream right wing party are the Liberals... because the party was formed around the idea of laissez-faire economics.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: So the Clinton Foundation received money from the Algerian government but since Eli Lily gave money to a Polish foundation who had the authority to make pharmaceutical purchases (like stuff that Eli Lily manufactures) and they were accused of wrong doing (which they never denied) that makes the Clinton Foundation equally guilty although there is no proof of said wrongdoing but because it's the Clintons so everything they do is shady?
Did I get that right?
It is actually quite dodgy, I think.
The things in favour of Clinton;
The money wasn't directly solicited or requested. It was volunteered by Algeria after the Clintons put out a general request for Haiti.
The idea that Clintons would start giving up favours through her Sec of State role over $500,000 is silly - Bill can generate more than that in a week of speaches.
The things against Clinton;
The money sets up a relationship, and that relationship can come with expectations of future money, and that can lead to a request for favours down the line. That's how bribery works, and why you have to be vigilant even about the small payments.
Failure to tell the Obama administration about the donation directly breached the ethics rules that were put in place before Clinton was appointed Sec of State. The Foundation didn’t even have to reject the money, it just had to inform the Whitehouse about it. That they didn’t is either an incredibly bad oversight, or a decision made to ignore ethics requirements for political convenience. Either way it’s pretty bad.
It’s that last point that ultimately matters most of all. Clinton agreed to ethics rules, and then failed to follow them.
The things in favour of Clinton;
The money wasn't directly solicited or requested. It was volunteered by Algeria after the Clintons put out a general request for Haiti.
The idea that Clintons would start giving up favours through her Sec of State role over $500,000 is silly - Bill can generate more than that in a week of speaches.
The things against Clinton;
The money sets up a relationship, and that relationship can come with expectations of future money, and that can lead to a request for favours down the line. That's how bribery works, and why you have to be vigilant even about the small payments.
Failure to tell the Obama administration about the donation directly breached the ethics rules that were put in place before Clinton was appointed Sec of State. The Foundation didn’t even have to reject the money, it just had to inform the Whitehouse about it. That they didn’t is either an incredibly bad oversight, or a decision made to ignore ethics requirements for political convenience. Either way it’s pretty bad.
It’s that last point that ultimately matters most of all. Clinton agreed to ethics rules, and then failed to follow them.
I don't disagree with any of that, but I also don't think this is going to sink the Clinton Foundation like Whembly assumes it will.
My biggest issue with how this story is being presented is what we (and the author) don't know. We know that the Algerian government gave the foundation $500,000 and the rules to report it were not followed. The linchpin of the article is this though: a kind of similar (but not the same) situation involving American pharmaceutical companies and a Polish charity is proof that the Clintons are up to no good, even though there doesn't seem to be any real proof that this is the case. It plays in to the preconceived notion that the Clintons are inherently shady in their dealings. No matter what, I think it's a little early to say that this will sink the Clinton Foundation and Hilary's future in politics.
The charitable foundation run by Hillary Clinton and her family has received as much as $81m from wealthy international donors who were clients of HSBC’s controversial Swiss bank.
Leaked files from HSBC’s Swiss banking division reveal the identities of seven donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation with accounts in Geneva.
What reason do you have to suspect that the People will act responsibly on the basis of new information provided to them, when they don't do as much on the basis of information they are provided with now?
I asked a very simple question: Are people that might have incriminated themselves along the way of your "paper trail" immune? The fact that you cannot provide an answer is a rather significant strike against the kind of populism you are espousing.
Commentary: Let me start by saying what this article isn’t.
This isn’t an article about Hillary Clinton (in fact, for the rest of the article, I’m simply going to talk about the “Secretary of State” or “Secretary”). This isn’t an article about records retention and access and possible motivations around that. And it’s not about questions of the law.
This article is about actions that we know the Secretary of State took, and what it means from the point of view of information security.
Information security is the most important point in this whole situation, in my opinion. And because of the usual political nonsense, it’s getting lost and we can’t afford for it to get lost: it relates directly to critical matters of national security.
From this point of view, the facts are nearly undisputed. The Secretary of State did not use an email account that was hosted on an official State Department server. Instead, she used an email account on an outside server. All accounts indicate that this email account was used exclusively: the Secretary never used an official State Department email account hosted on State Department servers. And reports indicate that this email account was hosted on a physical server that was not physically under government control or protection. Some reports have even indicated that it was located in the Secretary’s personal residence. Some reports have characterized this as a “homebrew” server, and that’s apt and accurate.
These are the facts that we need to focus on from an information security point of view. Because if these facts are true, this can represent one of the most serious breaches in data handling that we’ve ever heard of.
This matters for three reasons.
1) The Secretary of State is a very “high value target” from the standpoint of nation-state threat actors. The President, Secretary of Defense and the head of the CIA would also qualify in this top tier. These individuals handle the most important, most sensitive, most dangerous and therefore most interesting information to foreign intelligence.
2) Nation-state threat actors represent the top of the food chain in terms of adversaries in information security. Nation-states can bring the most talent and resources to bear in this arena. For all the worry about cybercriminals and terrorists, everyone in information security looks at nation-state threat actors as the most advanced and sophisticated threat to defend against.
3) Take #1 and #2 together and you have a situation where the very high value targets are threatened by the most advanced and sophisticated offensive information security capabilities out there. Put another way, the best of the best are gunning for those people to get their information.
The third point is critical: if the best of the best are after your information, you need the best of your best protecting it. And there is simply no way that a “homebrew” server is EVER going to have the security and resources appropriate to defend it adequately.
Looking at it this way, a “homebrew” server was the worst possible choice. Even using a webmail system like Gmail, Outlook or Yahoo would have been better because those companies have the expertise and capability to meet at least some of the threat this class of information would face.
This is the most important point. You can liken this to the CFO of Chase taking billions of dollars in cash home and storing it in the mattress. It’s so inadequate to meeting the risks that it would be laughable if it weren’t so serious.
Unless we learn that this server was being protected by the government using the same levels of protection that official servers are, we have no choice but to assume that this server has been compromised by foreign intelligence agents. And let’s be clear, this isn’t just hostile governments: if the Snowden disclosures have shown us anything (reminded us, really) it’s that everyone spies on everyone, friend and foe alike. To put this in the starkest terms: we have to assume the Russians, the Chinese, the Israelis have had access to the Secretary of State’s official email.
In any data breach like this, one of the questions we raise is whether this kind of action represents a failure of policy. Did the State Department have clear security policies and procedures that were communicated to its employees about the appropriate use of systems? This is important because it helps us understand if this is the failure of a single individual or if we have a bigger problem where others (including other Secretaries of State) could be creating the same kinds of risks.
The press reports haven’t delved into this question adequately, being focused on other questions. I have the benefit of having a friend who was a political appointee to the State Department under a Secretary of State prior to the one in question. I asked this friend if there were clear guidelines that would make clear this was inappropriate, and I was told that everyone knew you only used your Blackberry for work, and only for work. Based on that, it would seem this was an intentional violation of security policies and procedures by this Secretary. The good news here, I suppose, is that we would seem to not have to worry that our ambassador to Russia is using Gmail or that John Kerry has his own server in his house.
But the fact remains that, unless we learn otherwise, this Secretary of State took actions that endangered the security of critical information in their trust and so the security of the United States. Regardless of one’s political affiliation and support that is a very serious violation, much more serious than the other violations being discussed.
What needs to happen is there needs to be a full investigation of the security piece of this. How secure was the server? Who was protecting it? Was there any evidence that it was compromised (though the best compromises are never detected)? Assuming that it was compromised, what information was on it and now has to be assumed to be lost?
But right now, the discussion isn’t focused on this. Where security is being raised it’s peripheral. These questions are secondary to other ones. And that is a problem.
This potentially could be the most serious national security data breach that we’ve heard of. The pieces are in place for it to be that. And part of the problem right now is we just don’t know and no one is focusing on those questions appropriately.
Hopefully calm heads will prevail and an appropriate investigation will occur so we can understand this situation better. But for now, I’m not hopeful that will happen. This critical piece of this situation may get lost in the shuffle as people focus on other, more interesting, but less important points.
So that makes it okay? and, it shouldn't factor into a possible HRC candidacy?
Yes, that does make it okay, and no it shouldn't factor into an HRC bid. At least unless you want to chase all the personal foundations, and the regulations which enable them.
So that makes it okay? and, it shouldn't factor into a possible HRC candidacy?
Yes, that does make it okay, and no it shouldn't factor into an HRC bid. At least unless you want to chase all the personal foundations, and the regulations which enable them.
I somewhat agree with Dogma here.... Anyone remember the noise being made about shady goings-on at the very top of Wounded Warrior Project? Or the same kind of noise about Girl Scouts of America?
I agree that it shouldn't factor in to ANY political bid, unless there is hard evidence that the potential candidate personally "commanded" that shady gak being done. I'm fairly sure that even though the Clinton's have their name on the foundation, they probably have very little to do with it's operation except in terms of money (either giving or receiving)
If their name is on it, regardless of whether they directly had anything to do with it, the buck stops at them.
Even if they're not directly guilty of anything shady when something shady goes down, they're guilty of failing to manage & oversee such organizations properly, in most cases.
So that makes it okay? and, it shouldn't factor into a possible HRC candidacy?
Yes, that does make it okay, and no it shouldn't factor into an HRC bid. At least unless you want to chase all the personal foundations, and the regulations which enable them.
I agree, it's "okay by default" because that's the way it is. I know that doesn't make it right to you and I because we don't have personal, private foundations, but such is the world.
I'm of the mind that unless it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was indeed wrongdoing with this Algerian donation thing then no, it won't factor in to her possible candidacy. Right now, it doesn't seem like there is enough here to do that.
Besides, skirting the law and operating in the grey area is the American way, dude.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: I don't disagree with any of that, but I also don't think this is going to sink the Clinton Foundation like Whembly assumes it will.
I don't think it will sink the foundation, unless way more than this is revealed. Its value is more in wiping the sheen off part of Hillary if she runs in 2016 - "look at all the amazing stuff the Clinton Foundation has done" is largely nullified by accusations of corruption within the foundation.
My biggest issue with how this story is being presented is what we (and the author) don't know. We know that the Algerian government gave the foundation $500,000 and the rules to report it were not followed. The linchpin of the article is this though: a kind of similar (but not the same) situation involving American pharmaceutical companies and a Polish charity is proof that the Clintons are up to no good, even though there doesn't seem to be any real proof that this is the case. It plays in to the preconceived notion that the Clintons are inherently shady in their dealings. No matter what, I think it's a little early to say that this will sink the Clinton Foundation and Hilary's future in politics.
The article was pretty silly, I'll grant you that.
The point of the penalties handed out to the pharmaceuticals is that it's argued, and with good reason, that donations to private projects associated with government officers, are really likely to lead to corruption. That's why Obama required Clinton to follow a really strict regime of declaring Foundation donations and even rejecting them if the Whitehouse didn't approve. Clinton didn't follow those requirements.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: I dunno scooty... the more scrutiny the foundation gets... the more shady it gets.
Okay, this is pure smoke. "People we don't know gave money" is not a story. When the names of the donors, and/or the nature of the donations and all the revealed, if there's something dodgy then that can add to story.
In the meantime, just stick to the the Algerian funds that weren't declared - that actually is a story based on what we already know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I somewhat agree with Dogma here.... Anyone remember the noise being made about shady goings-on at the very top of Wounded Warrior Project? Or the same kind of noise about Girl Scouts of America?
I agree that it shouldn't factor in to ANY political bid, unless there is hard evidence that the potential candidate personally "commanded" that shady gak being done. I'm fairly sure that even though the Clinton's have their name on the foundation, they probably have very little to do with it's operation except in terms of money (either giving or receiving)
If it was just stuff like the "$81 million from people we don't know" then that's just regular dodgy, and there's nothing there.
But Clinton accepted additional ethics rules in order to take the position of Sec of State, and then failed to meet those standards on one occasion. That ought to count against her in a Presidential run, to some extent.
d-usa wrote: No talk yet about the GOP letter to Iran?
What's wrong with this letter?
Not a surprising post.
Again... what's wrong with a letter from Congress advising the Iranian government that it is in their best interests to consent to a deal that could be ratified by the Senate?
The letter itself seems largely benign... unless I'm missing something here.
The Senate can affirm or not affirm whatever treaty they want.
Negotiating the treaty is the role and responsibility of the President.
But with the current "feth everything Obama does" climate within the party it is not surprising that stuff like this happens. Hosting the Prime Minister of Israel and writing letters that basically amount to nothing more than "feth Obama Iran, he will be gone soon" is not "advice and consent". It's crapping on the presidency.
There used to be a role about politics stopping at the shore and presenting a united front against foreign allies and enemies. Or as we say in soccer: "country before club".
... “It is not good to undermine the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy. But it’s not a good thing to undermine Congress’ authority to make laws, either. And to threaten even more undermining in the future, as Obama has done. . . . Congress is pushing back. It’s a shame it’s come to this, but that’s the way things work.” ...
So, no... it's not the "feth everything Obama does" climate that generated this response... it's two sides having a hissy fit, that's globally being watch by everyone.
I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.
Ouze wrote: I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.
At least in this case it is just the congress critters stating they plan on exercising their advise and consent role, though the means by which they are doing so is pretty gakky. In Kennedy's case, he was basically looking for a quid pro quo with the bad guys. THAT is a real gak head move.
Robert Reich wrote:For the first time in American diplomatic history, one political party is devising its own foreign policy with its own entreaties to foreign governments. Not content with having Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu address Congress and the American people and tell them the President’s approach to Iran is wrong, Republican senators yesterday sent an “open letter” to Iran's leaders advising them that President Obama doesn’t have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. The letter warned Tehran that any nuclear deal needs congressional approval in order to last beyond Obama's term and that without that step Iran will be left a "mere executive agreement" between Obama and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Republicans are not only making common cause with hardliners in Iran, they’re also undermining our President’s capacity to deal with foreign governments and compromising his authority as Commander-in-Chief. In so doing, they’re jeopardizing the safety and security of the United States. In my forty-five years of political involvement, I don’t remember any act by a major party that comes as close as the Republicans' recent actions to what might be called treason.
... “It is not good to undermine the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy. But it’s not a good thing to undermine Congress’ authority to make laws, either. And to threaten even more undermining in the future, as Obama has done. . . . Congress is pushing back. It’s a shame it’s come to this, but that’s the way things work.” ...
So, no... it's not the "feth everything Obama does" climate that generated this response... it's two sides having a hissy fit, that's globally being watch by everyone.
The fact that these Republicans are being so brazen about it in a matter of foreign policy is, I feel, crossing the line. It is a matter of "feth everything the other side does" just because they can. Don't get me wrong, the Democrats are just as guilty of the same fundamental behavior.
[rant] It is way past time for everyfethingmember of Congressto GO. Not one of them is worth keeping because they're all willingly a part of the problem. This "hissy fit" between the Republicans and the Democrats is destroying our country, and they don't give a damn about it because stupid voters keep stupidly voting for them so they can keep on cashing their checks. We're here whining about Hillary's email, when every one of us should be writing, daily, to all of our representatives telling them to get off their fething asses and do their fething jobs, and that job involves COMPROMISE. It does not involve pig-headedly stubbornly opposing everything the other side does just to appease some random loudmouthed pundit's listeners on the TV/radio so you can get a few more votes in the next election. It will involve hard decisions. It may mean you don't get reelected because you pissed in your constituents' Wheaties to make those decisions. But to do anything less is a violation of the oath you swore when elected. Because you are there to make the hard decisions. You are there to work for the good of the United States of America, and not the good of your pocketbook or your party before all. Feth these politicians, feth them all. Feth them for making this a public spectacle in front of the world. [/rant]
Ouze wrote: I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.
At least in this case it is just the congress critters stating they plan on exercising their advise and consent role, though the means by which they are doing so is pretty gakky
Sidestepping the Executive means that you give it neither advice nor consent.
That is just a tit-for-tat argument and a gakky one at that.
There is talk that this letter is in violation of the Logan Act (the same thing Speaker Pelosi was accused of), but I don't necessarily think that is the case. First of all, there hasn't been an indictment under Logan Act since 1803 and it's difficult to say that members of Congress wouldn't be acting without the authority of the United States (I would say no). While I think the letter is wrong in just about every way, I wouldn't go so far as to call in treasonous.
Now, Bobby Jindal signing the letter as Governor... that might not have been such a good idea on his part. I don't think he gets to play by the same set of rules as members of Congress...
At least in this case it is just the congress critters stating they plan on exercising their advise and consent role, though the means by which they are doing so is pretty gakky
Sidestepping the Executive means that you give it neither advice nor consent.
Sending a "letter" is side stepping the Executive?
Huh... so what was Obama *changing* the PPACA laws because it was politically convenient then?
At least in this case it is just the congress critters stating they plan on exercising their advise and consent role, though the means by which they are doing so is pretty gakky
Sidestepping the Executive means that you give it neither advice nor consent.
[
Sidestepping the congress critters (as Pres Obama had indicated he wanted to do) is gonna draw plays like this, where again, they state they intend to exercise their advise and consent role.
Frankly it was a gakky move in response to a gakky move.
That is just a tit-for-tat argument and a gakky one at that.
That was my point. There are numerous cases with Senators from the opposing party would "chum up with the adversary" in order to antagonize the President.
There is talk that this letter is in violation of the Logan Act (the same thing Speaker Pelosi was accused of), but I don't necessarily think that is the case. First of all, there hasn't been an indictment under Logan Act since 1803 and it's difficult to say that members of Congress wouldn't be acting without the authority of the United States (I would say no). While I think the letter is wrong in just about every way, I wouldn't go so far as to call in treasonous.
Now, Bobby Jindal signing the letter as Governor... that might not have been such a good idea on his part. I don't think he gets to play by the same set of rules as members of Congress...
At least in this case it is just the congress critters stating they plan on exercising their advise and consent role, though the means by which they are doing so is pretty gakky
Sidestepping the Executive means that you give it neither advice nor consent.
[
Sidestepping the congress critters (as Pres Obama had indicated he wanted to do) is gonna draw plays like this, where again, they state they intend to exercise their advise and consent role.
Frankly it was a gakky move in response to a gakky move.
fething each other over domestically under your party flags is one thing (and still a crap thing at that). fething each other over in internstional manners under the US flag is another.
Sidestepping the congress critters (as Pres Obama had indicated he wanted to do) is gonna draw plays like this, where again, they state they intend to exercise their advise and consent role.
Over a year ago, and that was largely in response to GOP hostility which continues to this day.
What were the legal foundation for these unilateral changes to the PPACA?
You first need to establish how Obama "side-stepped" Congress by changing PPACA via Executive action but, as I said, that's another thread. I mean, on its face, Executive action against the Legislature is distinct from the inverse.
What were the legal foundation for these unilateral changes to the PPACA?
You first need to establish how Obama "side-stepped" Congress by changing PPACA via Executive action but, as I said, that's another thread. I mean, on its face, Executive action against the Legislature is distinct from the inverse.
whembly wrote: Again... what's wrong with a letter from Congress advising the Iranian government that it is in their best interests to consent to a deal that could be ratified by the Senate?
The letter itself seems largely benign... unless I'm missing something here.
There are plenty of means of communicating with the Iranian government that aren't public letters, telephones for instance. Publishing an open letter has absolutely nothing to do with ‘advising’ the Iranian government, it’s about playing to the voting public.
Interrupting government negotiations with other countries in order to play politics with voters is really, really bad. Presenting a united front is one of the absolute, most basic parts of being a decent and constructive elected representative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: In Kennedy's case, he was basically looking for a quid pro quo with the bad guys. THAT is a real gak head move.
It was a real gak head move. Teddy Kennedy was a real gak head.
But he was also one, single Democrat, acting on his own in his gak head moves. Both parties have, and will always have gak heads. All bar seven sitting Republicans signed this most recent gak head move.
That's pretty much where we're at - all bar seven Republicans are as gakky as one of the most notorious Democratic gaks in recent history.
I can totally see the Iranians scoff at this... because, really... it's largely benign.
IRAN: Really? Some chump is trying to force feed me some remedial US civics class now?
What it *does* do, which is crappy, is forces the President to openly acknowledge that he has no intention of submitting any agreements to Congress for ratification... Which... weakens the President... how? Anyone paying attention would know that Obama probably woundn't be able to get Congress to ratify anything short of full-nuclear disarmament.
But, what's really going on here, is that there's a "separation of power" war. That's why there's a pissing match going on here...
I've a more... left-leaning... friend on FB, who posted a link to an article of some sort (no idea on how "good" or "bad" the source is, and frankly I dont care enough to really investigate tonight) that apparently there's a new petition picking up some steam for those 47 republican senators to be brought up on treason charges
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I've a more... left-leaning... friend on FB, who posted a link to an article of some sort (no idea on how "good" or "bad" the source is, and frankly I dont care enough to really investigate tonight) that apparently there's a new petition picking up some steam for those 47 republican senators to be brought up on treason charges
Yeah, I addressed that a couple of posts ago.
The claim is that these Senators are running afoul of the Logan Act, which states:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
The problem is the law itself is pretty vague in its wording, so you'd need a pretty damn strict interpretation of the law. It's one of those things that gets quoted from time to time, but it's nothing more than sabre rattling really. It's extremely difficult to indict anyone under the Act, let alone a sitting United States Senator... Fun fact: the law was passed in 1799 and was last used to indict someone in 1803, so good luck to anyone that attempts to use it a legal basis for an accusation of treason.
Yes, I read the letter. Did you read my post, and then think about what I wrote?
Because the 'its just a totally benign warning' makes no fething sense on any level, once you remember that telephones exist. Had the Republicans honestly been intending to remind the Iranians that whatever deal was made with Iran would need the approval of congress, then that can be achieved with a phone call. I know the senate is typically pretty old, but I think most of them are probably familiar with the telephone.
No, the Republicans put this in an open letter because they want to make a public show to their domestic audience of how they intend to stop Obama effecting an agreement with Iran. Which is just fething outrageous.
IRAN: Really? Some chump is trying to force feed me some remedial US civics class now?
Yes, if it was actually intended for Iran then it would have been some incredibly patronising bs.
But it was, of course, not meant for Iran at all. The open letter, like all open letters, was meant for domestic public consumption.
But, what's really going on here, is that there's a "separation of power" war. That's why there's a pissing match going on here...
Exactly, there's a pissing match. Not so much over seperation of power, but just a simple pissing match between Republicans and Democrats.
Except that one side has chosen to drag international negotiations in to that pissing match, and do it in the most public way possible. That you don't see that as extraordinary is kind of disappointing. Cheering for your team doesn't mean you have to cheer for everything they do.
What it *does* do, which is crappy, is forces the President to openly acknowledge that he has no intention of submitting any agreements to Congress for ratification... Which... weakens the President... how?
It weakens the state, whether or not it weakens the President does not matter.
Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) is uncomfortable with the letter that GOP senators sent to Iran Monday. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
WASHINGTON -- Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), a frequent critic of President Barack Obama's foreign policies, expressed his disapproval Tuesday of a letter that GOP senators sent to Iran trying to undermine the president's nuclear negotiations.
Forty-seven out of the Senate's 54 GOP members, led by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), sent an open letter to the "leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran" Monday that warned them not to make any deal with Obama -- because it could be overturned once he leaves office.
Speaking to reporters at the International Association of Fire Fighters presidential forum Tuesday morning, King said that while he agreed with "the entire tone of the letter," he likely would not have signed it had he been in the Senate.
"I believe in a strong presidency. I don't know if I would have signed the letter. I don't trust the president on this, quite frankly, though I don't know if I'd go public with it to a foreign government," he said, adding that it sets the wrong "precedent" to publicly go to a foreign government to undermine the president of the United States while he or she is dealing with that country.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, which leans conservative, also called the senators' letter a "distraction" Monday.
"Democratic votes will be needed if the pact is going to be stopped, and even to get the 67 votes to override a veto of the Corker-Menendez bill to require such a vote," wrote the editors, referring to a bill that would require Obama to submit to Congress the text of any potential deal with Iran for a hearing and a vote. "Monday’s letter lets Mr. Obama change the subject to charge that Republicans are playing politics as he tries to make it harder for Democrats to vote for Corker-Menendez."
The U.S. and five other countries are negotiating with Iran to curb its nuclear program in exchange for loosened economic sanctions.
In their letter to Iran, the Republican senators warned that any such deal would have to pass both houses of Congress.
Obama sharply denounced the letter Monday.
"It's somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran," Obama said, referring to figures in Iran who also oppose a nuclear deal. "It's an unusual coalition."
In a statement Monday evening, Vice President Joe Biden, who previously served in the Senate, called the senators' letter "beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."
"In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them," Biden wrote. "This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous."
What it *does* do, which is crappy, is forces the President to openly acknowledge that he has no intention of submitting any agreements to Congress for ratification... Which... weakens the President... how?
It weakens the state, whether or not it weakens the President does not matter.
Yes, I read the letter. Did you read my post, and then think about what I wrote?
Because the 'its just a totally benign warning' makes no fething sense on any level, once you remember that telephones exist. Had the Republicans honestly been intending to remind the Iranians that whatever deal was made with Iran would need the approval of congress, then that can be achieved with a phone call. I know the senate is typically pretty old, but I think most of them are probably familiar with the telephone.
No, the Republicans put this in an open letter because they want to make a public show to their domestic audience of how they intend to stop Obama effecting an agreement with Iran. Which is just fething outrageous.
No. What's fething outrageous is some people are losing their fething minds over this.
It's like people forget that Congress is actually co-equal to the Executive Branch and the President is NOT. THE. FETHING. KING.
Just peruse the usual liberal/lefty sites... they're pushing the meme that this letter is actually treasonous.
IRAN: Really? Some chump is trying to force feed me some remedial US civics class now?
Yes, if it was actually intended for Iran then it would have been some incredibly patronising bs.
But it was, of course, not meant for Iran at all. The open letter, like all open letters, was meant for domestic public consumption.
It's meant for all parties involved, really it's meant to be a message to Obama by saying "hey dude, we're still here".
But, what's really going on here, is that there's a "separation of power" war. That's why there's a pissing match going on here...
Exactly, there's a pissing match. Not so much over seperation of power, but just a simple pissing match between Republicans and Democrats.
Except that one side has chosen to drag international negotiations in to that pissing match, and do it in the most public way possible. That you don't see that as extraordinary is kind of disappointing. Cheering for your team doesn't mean you have to cheer for everything they do.
Riiiiiiigt.
Look... I think it'd be politically wiser for Cotton to put it in the form of something like an op ed in the Washington Post, or NY Times... rather than a direct letter to IRAN. But Congress obviously felt the need to speak out stemming from Obama’s seemingly mindless pursuit of a deal at-all-costs... rather than allowing current sanctions to force a capitulation.
It has nothing to do with "cheering my team". It has everything to do with me opposing Obama's world view that Everything is Awesome!
Anyone paying attention would know that Obama probably woundn't be able to get Congress to ratify anything short of full-nuclear disarmament.
I sincerely doubt that anything Obama, or the Democrats, supported would garner significant conservative or GOP support.
Thank you for admitting, again, that you are part of the problem in the US.
I don't think addressing reality necessarily makes someone part of the problem, but hey- what do I know?
Wait a minute.
Just... wait...a... minute.
Are you implying that had Obama actually has a treaty on the table whereby Iran actually gives up it's nuclear ambition... that the GOP Congress won't ratify it? Because it simply came from Obama? Is that what you're really saying?
whembly wrote: No. What's fething outrageous is some people are losing their fething minds over this.
It's like people forget that Congress is actually co-equal to the Executive Branch and the President is NOT. THE. FETHING. KING.
US senators sent a letter to a hostile foreign power arguing that the President, current in negotiations, might not have the ability to honor any negotiations. Try removing the personalities and parties and just think about that sentence for a second.
Furthermore, "co-equal" doesn't mean they occupy the same spheres of power. I think you know this. At this point they went beyond the usual "lets piss on Obama", and actually hurt the country in my opinion, via the institution of the Presidency. They have undermined the sovereign ability of the Presidency to negotiate in good faith with other heads of state.
If they don't like a treaty, they are free to not ratify it, and they are also free to win a presidential election, or write a few op-eds. I think this is beyond the pale, especially in conjunction with Mr. Netanyahu's visit.
When somebody spends years going crazy over "optics" and "how stuff feels" and then complains that people are going crazy just because Senators place politics above country it is time to unsubscribe from the thread.
whembly wrote: No. What's fething outrageous is some people are losing their fething minds over this.
It's like people forget that Congress is actually co-equal to the Executive Branch and the President is NOT. THE. FETHING. KING.
US senators sent a letter to a hostile foreign power arguing that the President, current in negotiations, might not have the ability to honor any negotiations. Try removing the personalities and parties and just think about that sentence for a second.
Furthermore, "co-equal" doesn't mean they occupy the same spheres of power. I think you know this. At this point they went beyond the usual "lets piss on Obama", and actually hurt the country in my opinion, via the institution of the Presidency. They have undermined the sovereign ability of the Presidency to negotiate in good faith with other heads of state.
If they don't like a treaty, they are free to not ratify it, and they are also free to win a presidential election, or write a few op-eds. I think this is beyond the pale, especially in conjunction with Mr. Netanyahu's visit.
d-usa wrote: When somebody spends years going crazy over "optics" and "how stuff feels" and then complains that people are going crazy just because Senators place politics above country it is time to unsubscribe from the thread.
So, it's sorta getting idiotic to argue that this "letter" is beyond the pale... especially with the long precedents set by Democrats and progressives in Congress.
gak man, fething Presidential nominees would campaign on foreign soil to build up their "foreign policy cache" in direct opposition to sitting Presidents.
Are you implying that had Obama actually has a treaty on the table whereby Iran actually gives up it's nuclear ambition... that the GOP Congress won't ratify it? Because it simply came from Obama? Is that what you're really saying?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: The only thing you've been saying is just repeated tu quoque arguments and cries for everyone to "Prove it!"
I don't think that it's a matter of tu quoque. If it were then it should have been invoked much earlier in the thread when some of the responses to Hilary's private email server was pointing out that others have done the same.
People have been saying that this is beyond the pale, and that they do not remember similar events happening before. Pointing out these similar events from previous administrations should not be unreasonable.
For the record I do believe that this letter was ill advised, but it is a symptom of the hyper-partisan politics that both sides have willingly engaged in.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: People have been saying that this is beyond the pale, and that they do not remember similar events happening before. Pointing out these similar events from previous administrations should not be unreasonable.
If you're going to reference my posts I'd prefer you do it directly, not obliquely like Voldemort
What I said was:
Ouze wrote: I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.
I don't think any events of parity have been provided for that, unless those three congressmen were invited to speak before the Iraqi government to oppose Saddam Hussein's foreign policy.*
Dreadclaw69 wrote: People have been saying that this is beyond the pale, and that they do not remember similar events happening before. Pointing out these similar events from previous administrations should not be unreasonable.
If you're going to reference my posts I'd prefer you do it directly, not obliquely like Voldemort
What I said was:
Ouze wrote: I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.
I don't think any events of parity have been provided for that, unless those three congressmen were invited to speak before the Iraqi government to oppose Saddam Hussein's foreign policy.*
*they did not.
I was not referring solely to you. Had I been I would have quoted you directly
My argument is this: The visceral reaction of these Senator's "crime" of defying Obama on this big foreign-policy showpiece, by writing a letter, is so over-the-top silly. It's just a letter reminding everyone that unless Obama comes to the Senate for the ratification process of his Iran deal, it’ll have no binding authority on his successor. Gee... whoop-de-do.
We have gridlock, and yes that's a problem. But, it's not the sole domain on the GOP or Democrats. It's the nature of the beast now.
Didn't the Democrats do something similar concerning Syria under Bush? Like Pelosi met Assard
2007 when then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria and met with President Bashar Assad. The Bush administration was furious about that meeting because its strategy at the time was to isolate Assad as punishment for his alleged aid to Iraqi insurgents fighting against U.S. occupying forces, and the right-wing media and even mainstream media precincts attacked Pelosi in ways quite redolent of today’s attacks on the Senate Republicans over Iran.
Whembly wrote: "Okay... tell you what, you tell me what the GOP could propose that the Democrats/Obama would permit to pass. "
Are you speaking about the Iran nuclear negotiations specifically or just in general?
If the former, I would bet good money that if the GOP could get the Iranians to sign the treaty that the GOP might want, short of declaring war on Iran, Obama and the dems would back it. It would be political suicide not to. The problem is that there is no way in hell Iran would sign that bill.
If you are speaking more generally, how about the entire premise behind the ACA?
Ouze wrote: I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.
Ouze wrote: I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.
I mean, what can you even say to that?
Nancy Pelosi with Iraq?
Pelosi was the "head of state"? And here I thought it was Chaney...I mean Bush.
Frazzled wrote: No meeting with Maliki while Bush was President.
I don't think that's as good an example. In 2007, Iraq was at least theoretically a US ally, and she wasn't essentially running policy contrary to the administration as I recall. Not every fact finding trip is analogous, to my thinking.
I also should admit that I don't remember that terribly well. If there was a row about it, it must have been a pretty minor one.
Ouze wrote: I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.
I mean, what can you even say to that?
Nancy Pelosi with Iraq?
Pelosi was the "head of state"? And here I thought it was Chaney...I mean Bush.
Ouze wrote: Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria is actually a pretty close equivalent to what I had posted before, to be frank. I'd have to give Jihadin that one.
It was scummy, but it wasn't really a parallel. 1. Pelosi was not the "head of state." 2. Malaki's position was the foreign policy of Iraq at the time. He wasn't the opposition in Iraq. (Or do I have my timelines confused?)
Ouze wrote: I can't remember a precedent for an opposition party inviting a foreign head of state to denounce their own country's foreign policy to thunderous applause.
I mean, what can you even say to that?
Nancy Pelosi with Iraq?
Pelosi was the "head of state"? And here I thought it was Chaney...I mean Bush.
She's not, thats the point.
So you admit it wasn't a precedent to the stated comment?
Frazzled wrote: No meeting with Maliki while Bush was President.
I don't think that's as good an example. In 2007, Iraq was at least theoretically a US ally, and she wasn't essentially running policy contrary to the administration as I recall. Not every fact finding trip is analogous, to my thinking.
I also should admit that I don't remember that terribly well. If there was a row about it, it must have been a pretty minor one.
OH I agree with that.
What they're really saying is, if you want something permanent it has to be a good treaty. Something only approved by the President will only last as long as the President.
Again, I think Obama should welcome this. He can use it to play good cop to their bad cop and get a better deal.
Frazzled wrote: No meeting with Maliki while Bush was President.
I don't think that's as good an example. In 2007, Iraq was at least theoretically a US ally, and she wasn't essentially running policy contrary to the administration as I recall. Not every fact finding trip is analogous, to my thinking.
I also should admit that I don't remember that terribly well. If there was a row about it, it must have been a pretty minor one.
OH I agree with that.
What they're really saying is, if you want something permanent it has to be a good treaty. Something only approved by the President will only last as long as the President.
Again, I think Obama should welcome this. He can use it to play good cop to their bad cop and get a better deal.
Good cop/bad cop really only works when both cops are are working together secretly, not when the bad cop is actually a bad cop trying to undermine the good cop. Had the letter actually been aimed at the Iranian govt. and not the American people (see the open quality of the letter) and had discussed the plan with the Adminstration first, you might be on to something. Hell, maybe they did plan this all along and our leaders are the geniuses we wished they were. As it is though, if you look at the response from Iran, they are laughing at the letter and pointing out how it doesn't really hold up in practice, especially when the G5+1 will have to agree to any deal. Not a good play by the bad cop.
If one is "cynical".....Congress kept the hot potato in Obama lap so whatever agreement comes up is between his Admin and Iran since Congress is quite against a Treaty
Jihadin wrote: If one is "cynical".....Congress kept the hot potato in Obama lap so whatever agreement comes up is between his Admin and Iran since Congress is quite against a Treaty
Except that's not really cynical, that's exactly what it does. If one wanted to be cynical, they might think the GOP isn't really concerned with Iranian nukes at all, they are just concerned that a treaty with Iran could make the Obama look good in the eyes of the public. How to fix it? Make the possible treaty look bad before it is even agreed upon so that when/if it is agreed upon, they can attack it without looking like sore losers.
Frazzled wrote: No meeting with Maliki while Bush was President.
I don't think that's as good an example. In 2007, Iraq was at least theoretically a US ally, and she wasn't essentially running policy contrary to the administration as I recall. Not every fact finding trip is analogous, to my thinking.
I also should admit that I don't remember that terribly well. If there was a row about it, it must have been a pretty minor one.
OH I agree with that.
What they're really saying is, if you want something permanent it has to be a good treaty. Something only approved by the President will only last as long as the President.
Again, I think Obama should welcome this. He can use it to play good cop to their bad cop and get a better deal.
Or the Iranians could use the fact that such a treaty negotiated by Obama is not likely to last past his presidency as ammunition to support their own agenda and take the chance of renegotiating with the Republicans later.
Or if one wanted to be really cynical, they would see that Cotten just had a breakfast date with the National Defense Industrial Association — a trade group for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. Treaty negotiations fail, bomb Iranian nuclear infrastructure ever five years, money gets banked by the bomb makers, money gets banked by the lawmakers who set it all up. Laugh at election time.
Frazzled wrote: No meeting with Maliki while Bush was President.
I don't think that's as good an example. In 2007, Iraq was at least theoretically a US ally, and she wasn't essentially running policy contrary to the administration as I recall. Not every fact finding trip is analogous, to my thinking.
I also should admit that I don't remember that terribly well. If there was a row about it, it must have been a pretty minor one.
OH I agree with that.
What they're really saying is, if you want something permanent it has to be a good treaty. Something only approved by the President will only last as long as the President.
Again, I think Obama should welcome this. He can use it to play good cop to their bad cop and get a better deal.
Or the Iranians could use the fact that such a treaty negotiated by Obama is not likely to last past his presidency as ammunition to support their own agenda and take the chance of renegotiating with the Republicans later.
Mmm don't care. We're not going to war with Iran and nothing else matters.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Whembly wrote: "Okay... tell you what, you tell me what the GOP could propose that the Democrats/Obama would permit to pass. "
Are you speaking about the Iran nuclear negotiations specifically or just in general?
If the former, I would bet good money that if the GOP could get the Iranians to sign the treaty that the GOP might want, short of declaring war on Iran, Obama and the dems would back it. It would be political suicide not to. The problem is that there is no way in hell Iran would sign that bill.
If you are speaking more generally, how about the entire premise behind the ACA?
I meant both.
Because my point, that I've often have a hard time articulating, is that we've lost the art of true compromise. Both parties, both branch of government isn't interested in compromise.
Hence the gridlock we're seeing now...
Hence the squabbles between Congress and the Executive branch...
Hence things like the PPACA and stimulous acts...
etc...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gordon Shumway wrote: Or if one wanted to be really cynical, they would see that Cotten just had a breakfast date with the National Defense Industrial Association — a trade group for Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. Treaty negotiations fail, bomb Iranian nuclear infrastructure ever five years, money gets banked by the bomb makers, money gets banked by the lawmakers who set it all up. Laugh at election time.
When a legislative body acts against the executive on the international stage it makes the state weaker as no foreign state be assured as to whether or not it is negotiating with the executive, or the legislature.
When a legislative body acts against the executive on the international stage it makes the state weaker as no foreign state be assured as to whether or not it is negotiating with the executive, or the legislature.
Are you implying that had Obama actually has a treaty on the table whereby Iran actually gives up it's nuclear ambition... that the GOP Congress won't ratify it? Because it simply came from Obama? Is that what you're really saying?
Its debatable, and the fact that it is speaks volumes. The GOP has spent so much time building the Democrats up as monsters that being seen approving any action by the Monster in Chief is politically dangerous.
Are you implying that had Obama actually has a treaty on the table whereby Iran actually gives up it's nuclear ambition... that the GOP Congress won't ratify it? Because it simply came from Obama? Is that what you're really saying?
Its debatable, and the fact that it is speaks volumes.
I beg to differ.
You know that I detest Obama's politics... but, man... if he get's Iran to sign a binding nuclear disarmament, the GOP would be absolute fools to refuse to approve it simply because they don't want to give Obama "a win". To me, I'd work to primary them in the next election.
For some interesting legislation coming from the democrats that's not clinton related: I like this guy, let's put a end to victimless crimes. And as for the timing 50th anniversary of Selma, and just in time to get his name out there for a presidential run?
Legislation would make it a civil rights violation to enforce criminal or traffic laws for the purpose of raising revenue.
Today, U.S. Representative Emanuel Cleaver, II (MO-05) in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of Selma, and in response to the tragic events of Ferguson, announced his plan to introduce a bill to ban criminal and traffic law enforcement activities motivated by revenue raising purposes.
Announcing introduction of the Fair Justice Act, Congressman Cleaver stated, "The time has come to end the practice of using law enforcement as a cash register, a practice that has impacted too many Americans and has disproportionately affected minority and low-income communities. No American should have to face arbitrary police enforcement, the sole purpose of which is to raise revenue for a town, city, or state.”
Congressman Cleaver's Fair Justice Act would make it a civil rights violation, punishable by up to five years in prison, to enforce criminal or traffic laws solely to raise revenue. Thus, no official or agency of a state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision may adopt a policy or engage in any activity that authorizes, promotes, or executes the enforcement of criminal, civil, or traffic laws for the purpose of raising revenue.
This legislation will help prevent the kind of reprehensible activities that occurred in Ferguson, Missouri, where the Department of Justice found that Ferguson's law enforcement practices were shaped by the city's overwhelming focus on raising revenue rather than protecting the public.
“It is a common practice of certain law enforcement officials of state and local municipalities to target communities solely for profit,” said Congressman Cleaver. “Americans of all stripes have faced this, but there can be no doubt that minorities and low-income residents have faced the brunt of this. Make no mistake, the Fair Justice Act is needed now more than ever, in order to finally put an end to criminal and traffic law enforcement activities motivated solely by raising revenue,” said Congressman Cleaver.
Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the results of the Department of Justice’s investigation of the Ferguson police department. The report provided a searing account of unconstitutional police practices motivated by the purpose of generating revenue. The DOJ reported that police work disproportionately targeted minorities in generating revenue from fines and fees, rather than protecting the community.
President Barack Obama recently stated, in light of the report, that, “[w]hat we saw was that the Ferguson Police Department, in conjunction with the municipality, saw traffic stops, arrests, tickets as a revenue generator, as opposed to serving the community, and that it systematically was biased against African-Americans in that city who were stopped, harassed, mistreated, abused, called names, fined.”
Additionally, The U.S. Department of Justice report on the Ferguson Police Department offers examples of other unfortunate incidents in recent years outside of Ferguson and across the United States:
In Jennings, Missouri a new lawsuit alleges that the court system has almost exclusively black defendants, who are routinely sent to jail for failing to pay minor traffic fines.
In Alabama, which has made heavy budget cuts to court funding, several lawsuits contend that local courts perpetuate a cycle of steep fines for minor offenses, and jail those who cannot pay.
In California, residents in the predominantly Latino community of southeast L.A. County have complained for years that they are unfairly targeted by city officials for profit. Citizens allege that the city extracted tens of thousands of dollars from plumbers, carpet cleaners, even people scavenging for bottles and cans, by seizing vehicles for alleged code violations, and then pressuring the owners to pay arbitrary fines. Additionally, it was reported that local law enforcement officers targeted immigrants in the U.S. without proper papers by using towing schemes. Police would pull over drivers simply to impound their cars, forcing the drivers to pay large impound fees.
Emanuel Cleaver, II is the U.S. Representative for Missouri’s Fifth Congressional District, which includes Kansas City, Independence, Lee's Summit, Raytown, Grandview, Sugar Creek, Blue Springs, Grain Valley, Oak Grove, North Kansas City, Gladstone, Claycomo, and all of Ray, Lafayette, and Saline Counties. He is a member of the exclusive House Financial Services Committee, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance, and also a Senior Whip of the Democratic Caucus. A high-resolution photo of Congressman Cleaver is available here.
You know that I detest Obama's politics... but, man... if he get's Iran to sign a binding nuclear disarmament, the GOP would be absolute fools to refuse to approve it simply because they don't want to give Obama "a win".
My edit addresses your point.
Anyway: It is highly unlikely that Iran would ever sign a binding disarmament treaty during these negotiations. No state would unless placed under extreme duress, and the Guardian Council is more than willing to sacrifice the quality of life of the Iranian people if it means greater strength for Iran and the empowered clergy; who also happen to have a series of rather nice populist arguments stored up.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah, the only state in the past 40 years to carry out a death sentence by firing squad, is poised to bring back the Old West-style executions if the state cannot track down drugs used in lethal injections.
The Republican-controlled state Legislature gave final approval to the proposal Tuesday night, with lawmakers billing it as a backup plan as states struggle to find execution drugs amid a nationwide shortage.
If the governor signs the measure, Utah would become the only state to allow executions by firing squad if there is a drug shortage. Republican Gov. Gary Herbert has declined to say if he will approve or veto the bill, a decision that's not expected for a week or so.
The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Paul Ray of Clearfield, said it would give the state options.
"We would love to get the lethal injection worked out so we can continue with that. But if not, now we have a backup plan," Ray told The Associated Press.
Utah is one of several states to seek out new forms of capital punishment after a botched lethal injection in Oklahoma last year and one in Arizona that took nearly two hours for the condemned man to die.
Legislation to allow firing squads has been introduced in Arkansas this year, while a Wyoming firing-squad measure failed. In Oklahoma, lawmakers are considering legislation that would allow the state to use nitrogen gas to execute inmates.
Ray says a firing squad is a more humane form of execution. He argued that a team of trained marksmen is faster than the drawn-out deaths that have occurred in botched lethal injections.
It's like people forget that Congress is actually co-equal to the Executive Branch and the President is NOT. THE. FETHING. KING.
The President is not the King, but Congress does not have the same powers as the President. The Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary were never intended to be co-equal.
SALT LAKE CITY — Utah, the only state in the past 40 years to carry out a death sentence by firing squad, is poised to bring back the Old West-style executions if the state cannot track down drugs used in lethal injections.
The Republican-controlled state Legislature gave final approval to the proposal Tuesday night, with lawmakers billing it as a backup plan as states struggle to find execution drugs amid a nationwide shortage.
If the governor signs the measure, Utah would become the only state to allow executions by firing squad if there is a drug shortage. Republican Gov. Gary Herbert has declined to say if he will approve or veto the bill, a decision that's not expected for a week or so.
The bill's sponsor, Republican Rep. Paul Ray of Clearfield, said it would give the state options.
"We would love to get the lethal injection worked out so we can continue with that. But if not, now we have a backup plan," Ray told The Associated Press.
Utah is one of several states to seek out new forms of capital punishment after a botched lethal injection in Oklahoma last year and one in Arizona that took nearly two hours for the condemned man to die.
Legislation to allow firing squads has been introduced in Arkansas this year, while a Wyoming firing-squad measure failed. In Oklahoma, lawmakers are considering legislation that would allow the state to use nitrogen gas to execute inmates.
Ray says a firing squad is a more humane form of execution. He argued that a team of trained marksmen is faster than the drawn-out deaths that have occurred in botched lethal injections.
I saw that. I bet the folks who pushed the drug companies to refuse to sell to the states using lethal injection didn't see this one coming. There is a few years before it goes into effect (I think I read the next expected execution isn't until 2017 ) so I'm sure it will get challenged.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds like good legilation from a man with an awsome name.
edit:ninjed
Sounds like massive Federal over reach and a mockery of the concept of civil rights.
How so? If they states refuse to deal with these sort of practices, then it falls to the feds to do something.
It does not fall on the feds. Local traffic enforcement, even if the tickets are for revenue purposes, is not something our federal government has any business getting involved in. If a state doesn't care, and the county/municipality does it, that is on them. As long as it is not targeting people based solely on color or religion, enforcing traffic laws has nothing to do with civli rights.
FFS, why not just advocate disbanding all county, municipality, and state LE agencies and turn everything over to the feds if you honestly believe even local traffic law enforcement is a federal issue. Clearly at that point there is really no local, county or state LE issues, it is all federal.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds like good legilation from a man with an awsome name.
edit:ninjed
Sounds like massive Federal over reach and a mockery of the concept of civil rights.
How so? If they states refuse to deal with these sort of practices, then it falls to the feds to do something.
It does not fall on the feds. Local traffic enforcement, even if the tickets are for revenue purposes, is not something our federal government has any business getting involved in. If a state doesn't care, and the county/municipality does it, that is on them. As long as it is not targeting people based solely on color or religion, enforcing traffic laws has nothing to do with civli rights.
FFS, why not just advocate disbanding all county, municipality, and state LE agencies and turn everything over to the feds if you honestly believe even local traffic law enforcement is a federal issue. Clearly at that point there is really no local, county or state LE issues, it is all federal.
So they should do nothing while communites are used as piggy banks?
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds like good legilation from a man with an awsome name.
edit:ninjed
Sounds like massive Federal over reach and a mockery of the concept of civil rights.
How so? If they states refuse to deal with these sort of practices, then it falls to the feds to do something.
It does not fall on the feds. Local traffic enforcement, even if the tickets are for revenue purposes, is not something our federal government has any business getting involved in. If a state doesn't care, and the county/municipality does it, that is on them. As long as it is not targeting people based solely on color or religion, enforcing traffic laws has nothing to do with civli rights.
FFS, why not just advocate disbanding all county, municipality, and state LE agencies and turn everything over to the feds if you honestly believe even local traffic law enforcement is a federal issue. Clearly at that point there is really no local, county or state LE issues, it is all federal.
So they should do nothing while communites are used as piggy banks?
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds like good legilation from a man with an awsome name.
edit:ninjed
Sounds like massive Federal over reach and a mockery of the concept of civil rights.
How so? If they states refuse to deal with these sort of practices, then it falls to the feds to do something.
It does not fall on the feds. Local traffic enforcement, even if the tickets are for revenue purposes, is not something our federal government has any business getting involved in. If a state doesn't care, and the county/municipality does it, that is on them. As long as it is not targeting people based solely on color or religion, enforcing traffic laws has nothing to do with civli rights.
FFS, why not just advocate disbanding all county, municipality, and state LE agencies and turn everything over to the feds if you honestly believe even local traffic law enforcement is a federal issue. Clearly at that point there is really no local, county or state LE issues, it is all federal.
So they should do nothing while communites are used as piggy banks?
Again, you ought to just come right out and advocate that all LE functions are federal issues and should be only handled by federal LEOs. As it stands, local traffic laws and their enforcement are not a federal issue.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds like good legilation from a man with an awsome name.
edit:ninjed
Sounds like massive Federal over reach and a mockery of the concept of civil rights.
How so? If they states refuse to deal with these sort of practices, then it falls to the feds to do something.
It does not fall on the feds. Local traffic enforcement, even if the tickets are for revenue purposes, is not something our federal government has any business getting involved in. If a state doesn't care, and the county/municipality does it, that is on them. As long as it is not targeting people based solely on color or religion, enforcing traffic laws has nothing to do with civli rights.
FFS, why not just advocate disbanding all county, municipality, and state LE agencies and turn everything over to the feds if you honestly believe even local traffic law enforcement is a federal issue. Clearly at that point there is really no local, county or state LE issues, it is all federal.
So they should do nothing while communites are used as piggy banks?
Again, you ought to just come right out and advocate that all LE functions are federal issues and should be only handled by federal LEOs. As it stands, local traffic laws and their enforcement are not a federal issue.
They are when rights violations occor. I would argue that practices such as these violate the 8th amendment (exsessive fines).
Co'tor Shas wrote: Sounds like good legilation from a man with an awsome name.
edit:ninjed
Sounds like massive Federal over reach and a mockery of the concept of civil rights.
How so? If they states refuse to deal with these sort of practices, then it falls to the feds to do something.
It does not fall on the feds. Local traffic enforcement, even if the tickets are for revenue purposes, is not something our federal government has any business getting involved in. If a state doesn't care, and the county/municipality does it, that is on them. As long as it is not targeting people based solely on color or religion, enforcing traffic laws has nothing to do with civli rights.
Isn't the simple solution to, you know, not break the traffic laws in the first place?
whembly wrote: No. What's fething outrageous is some people are losing their fething minds over this.
It's like people forget that Congress is actually co-equal to the Executive Branch and the President is NOT. THE. FETHING. KING.
Just peruse the usual liberal/lefty sites... they're pushing the meme that this letter is actually treasonous.
Yes, that are, and they're also ridiculous. But so what? There's always idiots on the fringes of every political party.
The difference here is that 47 sitting Republican senators signed up to that piece of stupid, an overwhelming majority. That's what matters here - that letter is nothing but dumb, pointlessly partisan politics, and it's something the overwhelming majority of Republican senators want to sign up for.
Every party has a lunatic fringe, the issue is that the Republicans now have a lunatic majority.
It's meant for all parties involved, really it's meant to be a message to Obama by saying "hey dude, we're still here".
Once again, telephone. Hell, they could even walk to the Whitehouse to tell him that. The only reason this was an open letter was to bring the public in to the issue.
Look... I think it'd be politically wiser for Cotton to put it in the form of something like an op ed in the Washington Post, or NY Times... rather than a direct letter to IRAN. But Congress obviously felt the need to speak out stemming from Obama’s seemingly mindless pursuit of a deal at-all-costs... rather than allowing current sanctions to force a capitulation.
An op ed would be stupid, but at least it would be stupid committed by only one senator, and more or less in line with the kind of stupid we've seen on this in the past. The best course of action would be to have conservative press raise the issue, and have senators only respond to questions asked, saying they weren't a rubber stamp etc.
Oh, and trying to force capitulation (which will likely only come after much political instability in Iran) is needlessly reckless. If a good deal can be worked out before then, then it shouldn't be rejected.
Of course, we don't know the terms of the deal at this point, but neither do the Republicans. And that's where the wisdom of my proposed method and the letter to Iran should become clear - the former sends the message without making any commitment before terms are known, the latter forces 47 senators into rejecting any deal that comes their way.
Do you get the problem now?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Okay... tell you what, you tell me what the GOP could propose that the Democrats/Obama would permit to pass.
Do you honestly, truly not get the political situation the 47 senators have placed themselves in? You write a letter like that, you can't just turn around 6 months later and say 'actually, this treaty is pretty good, I'll happily sign up for this'. It can't happen, those senators have locked themselves in to rejecting anything that Obama produces.
What those guys did was stupid, partisan politics.
But surely you see the difference between 3 guys from the house of reps, out of the more than 200 Democrats serving there, and 47 out of 54 Republicans doing something similar. There in plain numbers is the difference between a lunatic fringe and lunatic majority.
I mean, just read the article you linked to - it talks about how the rest of the Democratic party was backing off from what those three guys did as fast as possible. And yet here the majority didn't back off the issue, the overwhelming majority straight up signed up for it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: For the record I do believe that this letter was ill advised, but it is a symptom of the hyper-partisan politics that both sides have willingly engaged in.
It will never cease to amaze me that when the Republicans pull these kinds of stunts, some people will conclude 'both sides' every time.
Seriously, only one of your two major parties has gone flying rodent gak. The DNC is more or less the same machine it's been for the last few generations - basically built around selling a nice line about progressive values, while actually working to keep a more or less steady ship that keeps favours and money flowing to corporate & union special interests.
The Republicans used to have a very similar model - conservative instead of progressive values, and there were no unions among their special interests, but otherwise everything was pretty much the same. What's broken down is that the new generation of Republicans believe in some of the most hyperbolic claims about conservative ideology sold to them by previous generations of Republicans, and they simply don't get that on a basic level all that stuff is just window dressing for the real game of keeping things steady.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: No.... The compromises were not with/for the Rs, they were to get the Blue Dog Ds on board.
In the end, yes. Because Republicans had worked at every stage up until then to try and dismantle the process.
You don't put out memos saying that this is the issue that will ruin Obama and the Democrats, and revive the Republican party, and organise for people to attend meeting hall events to shout down senators, repeat a constant stream of known lies like 'death panels'... then get to the end of the process and ask why you weren't invited to be part of the negotiation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Isn't the simple solution to, you know, not break the traffic laws in the first place?
"Hey, that constitutional amendment you're working up, that puts limits on governments ability to mete out punishment, you should put something in there banning excessive fines." "Nah, if people are worried about excessive fines then they just shouldn't break the law in the first place. Best way to prevent a speeding fine costing you your home and life savings isn't with some civil protection, but by just not speeding." "Good point, leave it out then. Good thing we're not the USA, those idiots amended their constitution to prohibit 'excessive fines', they mustn't have thought of that people should just never, ever do anything wrong." "What a bunch of idiots those guys must have been."
CptJake wrote: No.... The compromises were not with/for the Rs, they were to get the Blue Dog Ds on board.
In the end, yes. Because Republicans had worked at every stage up until then to try and dismantle the process.
You don't put out memos saying that this is the issue that will ruin Obama and the Democrats, and revive the Republican party, and organise for people to attend meeting hall events to shout down senators, repeat a constant stream of known lies like 'death panels'... then get to the end of the process and ask why you weren't invited to be part of the negotiation.
Just out of curiosity, why do you see the need to go off on an anti-R diatribe under the guise of agreeing with my point (which was correcting an incorrect statement by another poster)? Nothing you brought up other than "In the end, yes' had any relevance to correcting the mistaken assumption Pelosi compromised with the Rs on the ACA. In fact, everything after the 'yes really only goes to show that your 'in the end' is wrong. Pelosi never had any intention of offering compromise to the Rs on the ACA. She had no reason to do so as she had the numbers and was very effective at whipping her side. Of course she can also lay claim to making Blue Dog Democrats an extinct sort of congress critter. Her holding them to the fire on the ACA killed them off.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Isn't the simple solution to, you know, not break the traffic laws in the first place?
"Hey, that constitutional amendment you're working up, that puts limits on governments ability to mete out punishment, you should put something in there banning excessive fines." "Nah, if people are worried about excessive fines then they just shouldn't break the law in the first place. Best way to prevent a speeding fine costing you your home and life savings isn't with some civil protection, but by just not speeding." "Good point, leave it out then. Good thing we're not the USA, those idiots amended their constitution to prohibit 'excessive fines', they mustn't have thought of that people should just never, ever do anything wrong." "What a bunch of idiots those guys must have been."
You do realize no one is making anything close to a legitimate claim the fines are excessive, right? The issue revolves around the fact some localities use traffic enforcement as revenue generation, not the amount of the fines. It is not now, nor should it be a federal issue and has nothing to do with the VIIIth amendment.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: For the record I do believe that this letter was ill advised, but it is a symptom of the hyper-partisan politics that both sides have willingly engaged in.
It will never cease to amaze me that when the Republicans pull these kinds of stunts, some people will conclude 'both sides' every time.
They're letting all the fire burn out slowly, but in the end we'll know that DoS systems were never safe, other employees did this and worse, her system was at least if not more secure as the DoS ones, and the Evil Republicans that waste a gak ton of tax payer dollars in long drawn out investigations which will turn up nothing of significance will look more foolish than usual.
And among Dems, even now, she is polling decently. She is ahead of even Walker in Wisconsin. She has time, and she'll be fine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: I don't think she can run if there's a Federal Charge leveled against her. As in she has to get it resolved quickly
No one will charge her. The DoJ will wait for the results of any investigation, and there will never be enough found to charge her.
CptJake wrote: Just out of curiosity, why do you see the need to go off on an anti-R diatribe under the guise of agreeing with my point (which was correcting an incorrect statement by another poster)?
Because your statement was factually correct, but lacked the context that showed it to be irrelevant. The final deal was written up without any compromise being given to the Republicans, but this is not because Democrats wanted to go alone on the deal, but because Republicans had made it clear they were never going to be part of producing a healthcare reform bill.
Pelosi never had any intention of offering compromise to the Rs on the ACA. She had no reason to do so as she had the numbers and was very effective at whipping her side.
The basic realities of how politics works make your claim nonsense. Point 1) Healthcare is just a sinkhole, it always costs way more than voters like to think it does, and no-one enjoys going to the doctor. Even the most amazing reform will cost you at the ballot. Point 2) Any politician committed to healthcare reform is going to want to minimise the political hit from that reform. This means bringing the other side of politics in, making the issue bi-partisan and reducing the political circus on this issue as much as possible. Point 3) The other side of politics is going to reject that offer, because they will want to make the healthcare reformers take the political hit all by themselves. So instead they will look to oppose the legislation, and make it as much of a political circus as possible. Point 4) No-one will ever admit that their political strategy was purely destructive. So when all is done and dusted, of course the opposition will pretend they were just trying to be part of a constructive debate on the issue.
Of course she can also lay claim to making Blue Dog Democrats an extinct sort of congress critter. Her holding them to the fire on the ACA killed them off.
Nah, that’s just the Democrats steadily following the Republicans down the path of increasing partisanship.
You do realize no one is making anything close to a legitimate claim the fines are excessive, right.
If the argument was ‘the fines aren’t excessive’ then you’d have a point. But the argument made was ‘don’t worry about excessive fines, just don’t break the law’… and so you have no point.
You said that exact fething thing. You noted the Republicans pulled a stunt, and concluded it was a symptom of both sides. I described this as “when the Republicans pull these kinds of stunts, some people will conclude 'both sides' every time.”
CptJake wrote: Just out of curiosity, why do you see the need to go off on an anti-R diatribe under the guise of agreeing with my point (which was correcting an incorrect statement by another poster)?
Because your statement was factually correct, but lacked the context that showed it to be irrelevant. The final deal was written up without any compromise being given to the Republicans, but this is not because Democrats wanted to go alone on the deal, but because Republicans had made it clear they were never going to be part of producing a healthcare reform bill.
Pelosi never had any intention of offering compromise to the Rs on the ACA. She had no reason to do so as she had the numbers and was very effective at whipping her side.
The basic realities of how politics works make your claim nonsense. Point 1) Healthcare is just a sinkhole, it always costs way more than voters like to think it does, and no-one enjoys going to the doctor. Even the most amazing reform will cost you at the ballot. Point 2) Any politician committed to healthcare reform is going to want to minimise the political hit from that reform. This means bringing the other side of politics in, making the issue bi-partisan and reducing the political circus on this issue as much as possible. Point 3) The other side of politics is going to reject that offer, because they will want to make the healthcare reformers take the political hit all by themselves. So instead they will look to oppose the legislation, and make it as much of a political circus as possible. Point 4) No-one will ever admit that their political strategy was purely destructive. So when all is done and dusted, of course the opposition will pretend they were just trying to be part of a constructive debate on the issue.
Of course she can also lay claim to making Blue Dog Democrats an extinct sort of congress critter. Her holding them to the fire on the ACA killed them off.
Nah, that’s just the Democrats steadily following the Republicans down the path of increasing partisanship.
You do realize no one is making anything close to a legitimate claim the fines are excessive, right.
If the argument was ‘the fines aren’t excessive’ then you’d have a point. But the argument made was ‘don’t worry about excessive fines, just don’t break the law’… and so you have no point.
You are amazingly wrong. Pelosi did have the numbers, and the compromises were not put in for Rs, they were put in for the Blue Dogs and other Ds in 'red' districts. You admit this, but then try to argue Pelosi did want to work with the Rs, but they had no intention of passing health care. Do you not understand she knew this, and as I stated, also knew she had the numbers and could whip the votes, and therefore never had the need to give an honest attempt at compromise with the Rs? And it did kill off the blue dog Ds. You can call that 'Democrats steadily following the Republicans down the path of increasing partisanship' if you want, the actual reality is the blue dog dems got HAMMERED in the following elections, and not by more progressive leaning Ds.
As for the fines, I do indeed have a point. You tried to make it an VIIIth amendment issue.
"Hey, that constitutional amendment you're working up, that puts limits on governments ability to mete out punishment, you should put something in there banning excessive fines." "Nah, if people are worried about excessive fines then they just shouldn't break the law in the first place. Best way to prevent a speeding fine costing you your home and life savings isn't with some civil protection, but by just not speeding." "Good point, leave it out then. Good thing we're not the USA, those idiots amended their constitution to prohibit 'excessive fines', they mustn't have thought of that people should just never, ever do anything wrong." "What a bunch of idiots those guys must have been."
And you wrote that in reply to: "Isn't the simple solution to, you know, not break the traffic laws in the first place?" which does not mention a damned thing about excessive fines.
You are the one who brought up excessive fines and tied it to the VIIIth.
You said that exact fething thing. You noted the Republicans pulled a stunt, and concluded it was a symptom of both sides. I described this as “when the Republicans pull these kinds of stunts, some people will conclude 'both sides' every time.”
Twisting what has been and resorting to profanity as a first resort again? Sorry Seb, I refuse to go round this roundabout with you this time - or ever again.
It's like people forget that Congress is actually co-equal to the Executive Branch and the President is NOT. THE. FETHING. KING.
The President is not the King, but Congress does not have the same powers as the President. The Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary were never intended to be co-equal.
True. The executive and judicial branches had less power than the legislative branch at the start of the Republic. The Presidency didn't become so powerful until the 30s.
True. The executive and judicial branches had less power than the legislative branch at the start of the Republic. The Presidency didn't become so powerful until the 30s.
You mean when there were 26 Senators, 59 Congressmen, slavery was legal, women couldn't vote, and Texas was controlled by European powers?
Anyway, the Legislature still has more power than the Executive, it simple is not allowed to exercise that power in the same fashion.
It was a good decision. Be the branch with the most power, but decentralize that power to keep one person from having all the power and therefore force compromise. Of course that counts on people placing country before party.
Washington sounds like a freaking time traveler when you read his predictions regarding the development of political parties.
Martin O'Malley: 'Important' for secretary of state to use official server By NICK GASS 3/12/15 8:05 AM EDT Updated 3/12/15 10:47 AM EDT
Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley says if he were president, it would be important as commander in chief to have his secretary of state use the official server for business.
“Well sure, it would be important to me,” he said Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” when asked about Hillary Clinton’s email practices at the State Department. But he said getting the economy working would be more important.
O’Malley said he didn’t “feel compelled to answer” a follow-up question about Clinton’s actions from Bloomberg Politics’ John Heilemann. “Secretary Clinton is perfectly capable of defending her own service in office,” he said.
He also addressed his underdog status in the nascent Democratic race for president, saying the “inevitable front-runner is inevitable up until he or she is no longer inevitable.”
“So I think you’re going to see a robust conversation in the Democratic Party,” he said.
O’Malley said American voters are more interested in economic policies than email policies.
“After 12 years of declining wages, people want executive leadership that knows how to get things done,” the former governor said, adding that he would make his decision on a presidential run this spring.
He's a former governor... so, at least he'd have a flipping clue.
It was a good decision. Be the branch with the most power, but decentralize that power to keep one person from having all the power and therefore force compromise. Of course that counts on people placing country before party.
Washington sounds like a freaking time traveler when you read his predictions regarding the development of political parties.
And Madison must be laughing his arse off in whatever afterlife he is in.... because he specifically designed this system to be cumbersome, unwieldy and extremely inefficient.
whembly wrote: Martin O'Malley the next man up in case Hillary chooses not to run?
He's a former governor... so, at least he'd have a flipping clue.
His speech at the DNC a few years back was a bit of a flop, but I didn't have a problem with him as mayor of Baltimore or governor of Maryland. I know he wants the job, but honestly I'm not sure he'd actually be a good president.
President Obama's senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, right, and Hillary Clinton
Photo: Startraks.com/Getty Images
Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett leaked to the press details of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail address during her time as secretary of state, sources tell me.
But she did so through people outside the administration, so the story couldn’t be traced to her or the White House.
In addition, at Jarrett’s behest, the State Department was ordered to launch a series of investigations into Hillary’s conduct at Foggy Bottom, including the use of her expense account, the disbursement of funds, her contact with foreign leaders and her possible collusion with the Clinton Foundation.
Six separate probes into Hillary’s performance have been going on at the State Department. I’m told that the e-mail scandal was timed to come out just as Hillary was on the verge of formally announcing that she was running for president — and that there’s more to come.
Members of Bill Clinton’s camp say the former president suspects the White House is the source of the leak and is furious.
“My contacts and friends in newspapers and TV tell me that they’ve been contacted by the White House and offered all kinds of negative stories about us,” one of Bill’s friends quotes him as saying. “The Obamas are behind the e-mail story, and they’re spreading rumors that I’ve been with women, that Hillary promoted people at the State Department who’d done favors for our foundation, that John Kerry had to clean up diplomatic messes Hillary left behind.”
Then, according to this source, Bill added: “The Obamas are out to get us any way they can.”
The sabotage is part of an ongoing feud between the two Democrat powerhouses.
Last fall, during the run-up to the 2014 midterm elections, Jarrett was heard to complain bitterly that the Clintons were turning congressmen, senators, governors and grass-root party members against Obama by portraying him as an unpopular president who was an albatross around the neck of the party.
Jarrett was said to be livid that most Democrats running for election refused to be seen campaigning with the president. She blamed the Clintons for marginalizing the president and for trying to wrestle control of the Democratic Party away from Obama.
And she vowed payback.
My sources say Jarrett saw an opportunity to hit back hard when Monica Lewinsky suddenly resurfaced after years of living in obscurity. Jarrett discreetly put out word to some friendly members of the press that the White House would look with favor if they gave Monica some ink and airtime.
Relations have gotten even frostier in the past few months.
After the Democrats took a shellacking in the midterms, the White House scheduled a meeting with Hillary Clinton. When she showed up in the Oval Office, she was greeted by three people — the president, Jarrett and Michelle Obama.
With his wife and Jarrett looking on, Obama made it clear that he intended to stay neutral in the presidential primary process — a clear signal that he wouldn’t mind if someone challenged Hillary for the nomination.
“Obama and Valerie Jarrett will go to any lengths to prevent Hillary from becoming president,” a source close to the White House told me. “They believe that Hillary, like her husband, is left of center, not a true-blue liberal.”
If she gets into the White House, they believe she will compromise with the Republicans in Congress and undo Obama’s legacy.
“With Obama’s approval,” this source continued, “Valerie has been holding secret meetings with Martin O’Malley [the former Democratic governor of Maryland] and [Massachusetts Sen.] Elizabeth Warren. She’s promised O’Malley and Warren the full support of the White House if they will challenge Hillary for the presidential nomination.”
Edward Klein’s most recent book is “Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas” (Regnery).
For those who can't see the video... he stated that he "suspect" that HRC used the private email system because she didn't want to be under congressional oversight... that's quite an admission.
Heh, nobody wants to be under Congressional oversight (including Congressmen), so that's nothing new.
The only way this email thing will really hurt her is if it gets proven that something important actually has been deleted/lost/hacked, like, say, 18 1/2 minutes' worth?
Tannhauser42 wrote: Heh, nobody wants to be under Congressional oversight (including Congressmen), so that's nothing new.
The only way this email thing will really hurt her is if it gets proven that something important actually has been deleted/lost/hacked, like, say, 18 1/2 minutes' worth?
Is this bigger than Watergate?
If it were anyone but a Clinton, then yeah... it'd be huge.
CptJake wrote: You are amazingly wrong. Pelosi did have the numbers, and the compromises were not put in for Rs, they were put in for the Blue Dogs and other Ds in 'red' districts. You admit this, but then try to argue Pelosi did want to work with the Rs, but they had no intention of passing health care. Do you not understand she knew this, and as I stated, also knew she had the numbers and could whip the votes, and therefore never had the need to give an honest attempt at compromise with the Rs?
Yes, the Democrats had the numbers to pass healthcare alone. That’s just not in dispute. The point is that it doesn’t automatically mean the Democrats just ignored the Republicans – because the Democrats aren’t idiots (at least not politically). And so the Democrats looked to minimise the negative impact to their popularity from healthcare reform, as healthcare reform is always going to have a negative political impact. So they sought to reform healthcare with a bi-partisan effort.
The Republicans, who are also not idiots (at least not politically) were also aware that healthcare is a big vote loser. And they knew the Democrats were committed electorally to delivering healthcare reform. So Republicans backed away from any talk of a bi-partisan bill, and instead looked to politicise the issue as much as possible and oppose any proposed reform as vehemently as possible.
I mean, before there was ever a bill even in concept, Republicans were organising people to attend town hall meetings and shout down the conversation and get everyone riled up.
While I’ve got issues with the extremes that Republicans went to in vilifying the bill, honestly I’ve got no issue that they did it. They saw a political advantage in forcing Democrats out on their own on healthcare, and the Republicans took it. That’s politics.
I don’t even have a problem with Republicans now making up fiction that it was Democrats keeping Republicans out of the reform. Covering your tracks is also just basic politics.
My problem really is with the true believers who just lap up that nonsense, believe this nonsense without any kind of critical analysis.
And it did kill off the blue dog Ds. You can call that 'Democrats steadily following the Republicans down the path of increasing partisanship' if you want, the actual reality is the blue dog dems got HAMMERED in the following elections, and not by more progressive leaning Ds.
That’s right. When neither progressives nor conservatives will vote for politically conservative Democrats, then the end result is a Democrat party that is more uniformly left wing than it would otherwise have been. Which was a process that had been steadily growing for a long time before the 2010 elections.
Just as what had happened to the Republicans a long while before then.
As for the fines, I do indeed have a point. You tried to make it an VIIIth amendment issue.
Oh, I see the issue now, you hadn't followed the conversation before my comment, or gotten confused as to who said what. I didn't raise the VIIIth, nor did I make comment as to whether it applied (I decided years ago, before I joined dakka, that I'd never comment on exactly what limits are for the various parts of your constitution - it's a collection of vary important political issues decided by reference to complex law, but ultimately determined by political views - it's a mess and claiming knowledge of it is a fool's game, even the best regarded constitutional experts talk in very guarded terms on anything remotely contraversial).
Anyhow, Co’tor Shas raised the VIIIth; “They are when rights violations occor. I would argue that practices such as these violate the 8th amendment (exsessive fines).”
To which Tannhauser42 responded “Isn't the simple solution to, you know, not break the traffic laws in the first place?”
I then pointed out that if not breaking the law was enough by itself, then there’d be no need the excessive fines section of the VIIIth.
Get it know?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Twisting what has been and resorting to profanity as a first resort again? Sorry Seb, I refuse to go round this roundabout with you this time - or ever again.
I quoted your statement exactly as it was written, and then you claim that’s twisting what you said. You are actually complaining about your exact words being used.
Yes, it is best you walk away. Our conversations are pretty much always as ridiculous as this has been. I mean, I have engaged in lots of nonsense arguments with loads of other people, but it’s always of a much more mundane, ordinary kind.
I don’t know, maybe it’s some incredible way my worldview interacts with yours that produces this silliness over and over again. Or maybe you spend all your time on the internet complaining that other people are unfairly reading your words exactly as they are written. Either way, it’s probably time we stopped bothering talking to each other.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: James Carville... you ain't helping dude.
For those who can't see the video... he stated that he "suspect" that HRC used the private email system because she didn't want to be under congressional oversight... that's quite an admission.
I don't just suspect, I genuinely can't think of any reason for Clinton to have set up her email other than to avoid oversight.
Great question. So far it reports have said that Putin was shot by a member of his guard, that he is attending the birth of his love child, that he is ill, he died, or a combination of the above. I am disappointed that no journalists are asking the most important question though; if Putin is no more which world leader will we look to for shirtless pictures?
Great question. So far it reports have said that Putin was shot by a member of his guard, that he is attending the birth of his love child, that he is ill, he died, or a combination of the above. I am disappointed that no journalists are asking the most important question though; if Putin is no more which world leader will we look to for shirtless pictures?
I heard he's secretly fighting space Nazis and shooting down entire space battleships with his chest guns. The Ukraine thing is just a cover so the world doesn't become terrified of the new Hitlerite Space war.
Anyhow, Co’tor Shas raised the VIIIth; “They are when rights violations occor. I would argue that practices such as these violate the 8th amendment (exsessive fines).”
To which Tannhauser42 responded “Isn't the simple solution to, you know, not break the traffic laws in the first place?”
I then pointed out that if not breaking the law was enough by itself, then there’d be no need the excessive fines section of the VIIIth.
Get it know?
I suggest you go back and re-read what it is I actually responded to, and not what you think I responded to.
Great question. So far it reports have said that Putin was shot by a member of his guard, that he is attending the birth of his love child, that he is ill, he died, or a combination of the above. I am disappointed that no journalists are asking the most important question though; if Putin is no more which world leader will we look to for shirtless pictures?
I heard he's secretly fighting space Nazis and shooting down entire space battleships with his chest guns. The Ukraine thing is just a cover so the world doesn't become terrified of the new Hitlerite Space war.
by DEROY MURDOCK March 16, 2015 9:49 AM Before U.S. Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and 46 of his GOP colleagues are frog-marched to the gallows and hanged for treason, one vital point of confusion must be cleared up. Say what you will about the Republicans’ open letter “to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” The Cotton/GOP letter regarding Tehran’s atom-bomb talks with Obama was not sent to the ayatollahs.
Had Cotton & Co. actually delivered their communiqué to Iran’s mullahs — perhaps via a Swiss diplomatic pouch or something even more cloak and dagger — their critics would be on less swampy ground in calling them “traitors,” as the New York Daily News screamed.
Either through befuddlement or deceit, many of the Republicans’ detractors have echoed this gross inaccuracy.
A Slate column by Fred Kaplan last Tuesday bore this sub-headline: “The letter 47 Republican senators sent to Iran is one of the most plainly stupid things a group of senators has ever done.”
According to the Washington Post, “47 Republican senators sent a letter to leaders in Tehran saying that any agreement reached between Obama and Iran without the approval of Congress could be revoked by the next president.”
A citizen petition posted on the White House’s public-participation webpage demands that the federal government “File charges of treason against the 47 Senators who sent letter to Iran.”
No less a conservative luminary than Michael Reagan wrote in last Thursday’s Newsmax.com: “Those 47 Republican senators didn’t need to send a public letter to Tehran to remind the Iranians how America’s separation of powers works.”
Despite this hyperventilation, the Cotton Club did not send its letter anywhere — particularly not Tehran.
As I mentioned last Thursday, Cotton drafted this letter, which explained to Iran’s leaders several relevant aspects of basic American civics. “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” the letter states. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen,” it continues. Cotton got 46 other senators to sign this letter in ink. “Because it was an open letter, it was not sent to Tehran but rather posted on Senator Cotton’s website and social-media accounts,” Caroline Rabbitt, Senator Cotton’s communications director, explained to me last week. Cotton & Co. never even dropped an envelope in the mail.
The fact that Cotton and his colleagues created a letter to nowhere seems to have escaped the loudest voices in this national conversation. Had that letter been posted on the website of the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, or the Washington Times, the tumbrels would not be rolling toward Capitol Hill. So, this fight largely concerns which website first carried Cotton’s letter. As Americans debate the wisdom of this GOP gambit, it should not surprise Obama that nearly half the Senate went around him to express its views on what White House chief of staff Dennis McDonough calls a “non-binding arrangement” with Iran. (This sounds like handcuffs without locks.) After all, Obama very openly craves an accord with Iran that goes around Congress. Thus, Obama is getting precisely what he deserves, given his overbearing, anti-Constitutional lust for common cause with the ayatollahs — to the exclusion of America’s duly elected representatives. Obama is desperate for a deal with this radical-Islamic, terrorist-sponsoring, IED-detonating regime. And he wants Republicans to shut up about it. If Obama finds this Republican medicine bitter, he should stop pouring his own acrid elixir down their throats. Agree or disagree with that point, here is the inescapable truth: Tom Cotton and his Senate colleagues never contacted anyone in Iran. That fact alone should turn the Left’s fluttering “GOP = Treason” banner into a wet rag.
Ouze wrote: Does this mean that if people send death threats to politicians via twitter, it doesn't count cause it wasn't a physical letter with a stamp and all?
You know the difference so why jump to the deep end?
Ouze wrote: Does this mean that if people send death threats to politicians via twitter, it doesn't count cause it wasn't a physical letter with a stamp and all?
You know the difference so why jump to the deep end?
Well, if we're doing this aw-shucks hyper parsing, lets show just how ludicrous the idea is. Of course it's stupid, so why stop there?
By the way, the actual text of the Logan Act says "correspondence". An open letter posted on the web addressed to someone would fit virtually any reasonable interpretation of that word.
A better defense would be to argue that it doesn't matter because the Logan Act is unconstitutional, because it probably is. It's so vague it's, in my opinion, clearly a first amendment issue. Alternately they can argue that since the legislature ratifies treaties, they do speak with "the authority of the United States".
The media is portraying it for exactly what it is: an open letter.
One more time, so we are clear on what the concept of an open letter is (though it was nice of Whembly to share that condescending article for all to enjoy, as if no one understood something that has been around for well over 100 years):
o·pen let·ter noun a letter, often critical, addressed to a particular person or group of people but intended for publication.
Ouze wrote: Does this mean that if people send death threats to politicians via twitter, it doesn't count cause it wasn't a physical letter with a stamp and all?
You know the difference so why jump to the deep end?
Well, if we're doing this aw-shucks hyper parsing, lets show just how ludicrous the idea is. Of course it's stupid, so why stop there?
By the way, the actual text of the Logan Act says "correspondence". An open letter posted on the web addressed to someone would fit virtually any reasonable interpretation of that word.
A better defense would be to argue that it doesn't matter because the Logan Act is unconstitutional, because it probably is. It's so vague it's, in my opinion, clearly a first amendment issue. Alternately they can argue that since the legislature ratifies treaties, they do speak with "the authority of the United States".
Those are both much, much better arguments.
May as well really parse this...
Correspondence: communication by exchange of letters.
An open letter, unless replied to by the Gov't of Iran, won't likely be considered an exchange.
The media is portraying it for exactly what it is: an open letter.
One more time, so we are clear on what the concept of an open letter is (though it was nice of Whembly to share that condescending article for all to enjoy, as if no one understood something that has been around for well over 100 years):
o·pen let·ter noun a letter, often critical, addressed to a particular person or group of people but intended for publication.
Especially since members of Congress visited regional adversary, in person...
But a letter? Oh boy, lets gin up some outrageous OUTRAGE for members of Congress who dared to speak (oh... sorry... write) in defiance to Obama's wishes.
C'mon, be honest... this isn't about impugning the Office of the President... it's about Obama not having his way.
What you're seeing is a political equivalence to a 3yo temper tantrum.
Had there been genuine interest to having a meaningful Treaty, a savvy President would use this peasly "letter" to reinforce his position when bargaining with the Iranians.
No, the political equivalence of a temper tantrum was the open letter by a freshman Senator in an attempt to undermine the President (who will still get his way, so let's not forget that). Also, I quite enjoyed your throw away line of "a savvy President would use this letter..." If I was you, I'd pick up your red phone and call Obama to offer him your amazing negotiating abilities, I'm sure he could use them.
Again, as someone who loves to tote the "optics" line so heavily, don't you feel just a little hypocritical or has your hyperpartisanship moved you past all that?
I mean for feth's sake Whembly, I know shouldn't really be surprised by your position on this, but come on dude...
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Also, I quite enjoyed your throw away line of "a savvy President would use this letter..." If I was you, I'd pick up your red phone and call Obama to offer him your amazing negotiating abilities, I'm sure he could use them.
Haha, you give Whembly a bit too much credit there. He cribbed it from Rand Paul.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Also, I quite enjoyed your throw away line of "a savvy President would use this letter..." If I was you, I'd pick up your red phone and call Obama to offer him your amazing negotiating abilities, I'm sure he could use them.
Haha, you give Whembly a bit too much credit there. He cribbed it from Rand Paul.
I did? You were reading over my shoulders?
*cbs? blech.
Honestly heard it on CNN
EDIT: steamy... when you're finished trying to read over my shoulders... please restock the beer fridge... it's getting low.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I suggest you go back and re-read what it is I actually responded to, and not what you think I responded to.
Really?
You responded to CaptJake, who was arguing that unless there was ethnic or religious targeting, it was no business of the Feds. CaptJake was responding to Co'tor Shas, who was saying that fines that are just for revenue can justify Fed involvement, and among that he raised the eighth amendment.
The line of connection is kind of hard to ignore.
If you see no such relation between the two points... then exactly what were you saying?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: You know VIII means you have to type more letters than just "8th".
You just typed out both VIII and 8th, so you've wasted way more energy than the rest of us.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Also, I quite enjoyed your throw away line of "a savvy President would use this letter..." If I was you, I'd pick up your red phone and call Obama to offer him your amazing negotiating abilities, I'm sure he could use them.
Haha, you give Whembly a bit too much credit there. He cribbed it from Rand Paul.
How dare you imply that an independent critical thinker would ever follow any kind of narrative(tm) instead of posting his own original thoughts and opinions!
whembly wrote: Well huh... I didn't catch this distinction originally.
Remember when I was explaining to you that this was an open letter, and its entire purpose was to be read by the US public, and it really had nothing to do with informing Iran of anything? Well, it's good you're finally getting to that realisation.
Now if you grok the difference between a fringe senator or two turning international relations in to a political stunt... and 47 out of 55 senators turning international relations in to a political stunt. then we;re pretty much up to speed with what I was saying about four pages ago.
whembly wrote: Well huh... I didn't catch this distinction originally.
Remember when I was explaining to you that this was an open letter, and its entire purpose was to be read by the US public, and it really had nothing to do with informing Iran of anything? Well, it's good you're finally getting to that realisation.
Now if you grok the difference between a fringe senator or two turning international relations in to a political stunt... and 47 out of 55 senators turning international relations in to a political stunt. then we;re pretty much up to speed with what I was saying about four pages ago.
O.o
Riiiight.
I just don't see it as a big fething deal. The "outrage™" over this is beyond ridiculous.
It amounts to a fething blog post. You do know Senators are allowed to have their opinions... no?
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Also, I quite enjoyed your throw away line of "a savvy President would use this letter..." If I was you, I'd pick up your red phone and call Obama to offer him your amazing negotiating abilities, I'm sure he could use them.
Haha, you give Whembly a bit too much credit there. He cribbed it from Rand Paul.
How dare you imply that an independent critical thinker would ever follow any kind of narrative(tm) instead of posting his own original thoughts and opinions!
Uh huh... at least I can take off my tinted glasses.
Owwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!
Ouze wrote: You know VIII means you have to type more letters than just "8th".
You just typed out both VIII and 8th, so you've wasted way more energy than the rest of us.
Well, my chief concern is that I'm often too stupid to read roman numerals so I've spent half this thread wondering why we're arguing about quartering troops and concerned that we might re-legalize slavery.
When negotiating with a terror sponsored state on something the magnitude of potentially having nuclear weapons at their disposal.
It's incumbent on both sides to negotiate in good faith,and as President you'd want the full backing of any disarmament agreement in a treaty... thus, with the full backing of the Senate.
A ratified Treaty is powerful and meaningful. In laymen terms, it has the same impact as any of the Amendments in the Constitution (as long there's no conflict).
A "non-binding" executive agreement isn't... and can be rescinded via "the pen" in the next administration.
Anything from full diplomatic relations to aids similar to what Egypt/Israel get were on the table.
The problem here is that anyone with two spare neurons to rub together will know that the Iranians aren't interested in any sort of compromise. Their only interest is to delay for as long as they can, so that they can clandestinely build their nukes.
Once the Iranians get Nukes... that'll spawn off an enormous arms race in the Mid-East.
I believe that the only reason we haven't "given up the farm" is because of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. The Saudies are not going to "let" Iran be the only mid-east nuclear state.
So, the US' best strategy is containment to force capitulation for Iran to give up it's nuclear ambition. Otherwise, the cynic in me is saying that Obama is trying to push for any agreement, non-binding that is, to spruce up his foreign policy legacy.*
*Let me posit that Obama "trying to form a legacy" isn't bad on it's face, as it implies lasting impact. It's just that, in this case, the stakes here are quite fething high. A Nuclear Iranian state, known for funding terrorism vs. a nuke free state with possible better relations.
Having said all that... let's look at this open letter ordeal. It was essentially a blog post. A statement published on the Senator's own .gov website.
That's it.
In fact, had he paid for an op-ed piece on the NYT or Washington Post for this letter... that's highly more antagonizing to the President than simply the method he chose. I find it hard to believe that the Iranian would really flip out ,when a junior Senator posts a reminder how our governance works, on his .gov website.
So, for all the acrimony over this, all it does is put a huge spotlight on it... it's a "LOOK AT ME! SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS IS?!?!? DO YOU SEE IT MAN!".
Missouri’s lieutenant governor lashed out at the Justice Department on Monday, accusing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama administration of racism in the wake of the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, in Ferguson last year.
“There is more racism in the Justice Department than there is in anywhere I see in the St. Louis area,” Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder said in an interview with NewsMaxTV Monday. “We are making progress. We’ve come an enormous way in 50 years. That’s not to say we don’t have still have more to do. But it is the left — it is the Eric Holder and Obama left — and their minions who are obsessed with race, while the rest of us are moving on beyond it.”
Kinder, a Republican, criticized the administration for “[inciting] a mob” during the protests that followed Brown’s killing.
“The whole blowup of this protest movement was based on the lie that never happened of ‘hands up don’t shoot,’” Kinder said in remarks that were first reported by BuzzFeed. “It’s bad enough the protesters were behaving that way, but we have a right to expect much more from the attorney general, the head of the Justice Department of the United States, and the president of the United States. And instead, what we got too often from them was incitement of the mob, and, uh, encouraging disorder in Ferguson and disrupting the peaceable going-about of our daily lives in the greater St. Louis region.”
He added: “Many of them have spent most of their careers defending Black Panthers and other violent radicals.”
Kinder’s comments come on the heels of a Justice Department report that concluded officer Darren Wilson had reason to fear Brown when he fatally shot him and would not be charged — a decision President Obama said he fully supported.
“You can’t just charge him anyway because what happened was tragic,” Obama said. “That was the decision that was made, and I have complete confidence and stand fully behind the decision that was made by the Justice Department on that issue.”
The same Justice Department probe found pervasive racial bias on the part of Ferguson’s mostly white police force. Ferguson’s police chief, city manager and a municipal judge resigned in the wake of the findings.
Last week, two police officers were shot during a protest related to the case. Both officers were treated and released by a local hospital.
On Sunday, Jeffrey Williams, a 20-year-old man, was charged with first-degree assault in the shootings.
According to St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch, Williams told authorities he was not targeting police but was shooting at someone else.
“This arrest sends a clear message that acts of violence against our law enforcement personnel will never be tolerated,” Holder said in a statement.
Kinder is something of a controversial figure in Missouri. In February, he made headlines for requesting a daily allowance from the state legislature to cover his expenses when he is working in Jefferson City. Kinder, who lives in Cape Girardeau and maintains a second home in the state capital, said he’s experienced “gradual impoverishment” during his decade in public office. He receives an annual salary of about $86,000, according to public records.
Just in: Jen Psaki says there's "no record" of Hillary Clinton signing separation statement, adding the Dept is "fairly certain she did not"
— Ed Henry (@edhenry) March 17, 2015
The form is called an OF-109...essentially the legally binding form requires the signature of all exiting State Dept Personnel affirming they have turned over all official documents to the custody of the State Dept at the end of the tenure.
HRC left her office at the end of 2012. However, because she only used a personal email system for official State Dept business, she did not produce the documents until late-summer 2014.
Which means, she's not guilty of anything other than the premise that the rules don't applies to her.
Powell was mention that was in the same situation but I believe he signed his. I do remember mention of his emails (inquired about) but he left in '05. He deleted whatever he had back then, his defense is better then what's her name from (Lerner) IRS.
If you answer a question, then you get to ask a question.
If you need a day or to for the blogs to give you an answer you like just let me know and I will check back in a couple days. That way you can copy and paste it and do the "big text" and "colored text" thing that gets you all excited.
Of course we both know that you already know the answer and that calling something a "Clinton tactic" when the two prior SoS did the same thing is just idiotic.
Let's pretend we're back in 2002, and a story just broke that three senators had travelled to Iraq, spoken with Iraqi officials, and were now making statements that the President was lying about the need to go to war. Lots of people, including yourself I believe, would say that the senators were acting in a highly irresponsible manner, that they were trying to score political points over the Republicans, and they were doing it by engaging with a foreign power.
Consider then if someone looked to defend those three Democrats by saying 'well the President is also being highly irresponsible because we shouldn't be invading Iraq'. You would reject that completely, because whether you supported or opposed Iraq, it would be a complete nonsense to argue the President was about to invade Iraq in order to score a political win over the democrats. What Bush was doing, right or wrong, was nothing like the game being played by the three Democrats.
And to bring that back to the current situation, people may support or oppose whatever deal Obama produces with Iran, but it’d be a nonsense to say the bill is being produced in order for Obama to win a political victory at home. Whereas 47 Republican senators are doing exactly what those three Democrats did – engaging a foreign power for no purpose other than to score political points at home.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Well, my chief concern is that I'm often too stupid to read roman numerals so I've spent half this thread wondering why we're arguing about quartering troops and concerned that we might re-legalize slavery.
Fair enough. Personally it never occurred to me to write 8th, I was using roman numerals as a way to avoid writing eighth, which always looks misspelled.
d-usa wrote: If you answer a question, then you get to ask a question.
If you need a day or to for the blogs to give you an answer you like just let me know and I will check back in a couple days. That way you can copy and paste it and do the "big text" and "colored text" thing that gets you all excited.
Of course we both know that you already know the answer and that calling something a "Clinton tactic" when the two prior SoS did the same thing is just idiotic.
Ah... so it's the "everyone does it" defense now... is it?
Hmmm, you do know you've accused me of using that line, dontcha?
We have the State depart's word on this... but, I'd be curious to hear from Power/Rice to see if they can confirm or deny.
I'm curious how these documents are "signed" these days... is it still paper and notarized?
Read what I fething write and get your head out of the delusions long enough to stop responding to what you think people are saying.
I did not say "it's okay because everyone is doing it", and if you think that this is what you think I typed then there is zero hope to ever have any discussion that doesn't include you making up answers to pretend statements.
I said that it is stupid to call something a "Clinton tactic" if she is at least the third person in a row to do the exact same thing.
Now off to the fething ignore list with you before I get baned.
Let's pretend we're back in 2002, and a story just broke that three senators had travelled to Iraq, spoken with Iraqi officials, and were now making statements that the President was lying about the need to go to war. Lots of people, including yourself I believe, would say that the senators were acting in a highly irresponsible manner, that they were trying to score political points over the Republicans, and they were doing it by engaging with a foreign power.
Consider then if someone looked to defend those three Democrats by saying 'well the President is also being highly irresponsible because we shouldn't be invading Iraq'. You would reject that completely, because whether you supported or opposed Iraq, it would be a complete nonsense to argue the President was about to invade Iraq in order to score a political win over the democrats. What Bush was doing, right or wrong, was nothing like the game being played by the three Democrats.
It's not a cop out.
Buddy... visiting in fething person in that situation, even if it would be just ONE Senator, is VASTLY different than an fething "open letter" electronically posted on some junior Senator's .gov website.
You and I can argue till we're blue whether nor not these action disrespects the office of the Presidency or attempt to affect policy.
But to compare the two and argue that this 'letter' is somehow more damaging... is absolutely asinine.
That's right... Senator Obama, WHILE. CAMPAIGNING. FOR. THE. 2008 Presidency... was in Iraq.
Doing... ya know, stuff.
And to bring that back to the current situation, people may support or oppose whatever deal Obama produces with Iran, but it’d be a nonsense to say the bill is being produced in order for Obama to win a political victory at home.
What bill?
Right now, it's looking like a non-binding executive agreement.
If he somehow pulls off a meaningful Treaty, that the Senate would consent? You'd bet your fething ass it's be a "political victory at home" for Obama... and a huge fething one at that!
Whereas 47 Republican senators are doing exactly what those three Democrats did – engaging a foreign power for no purpose other than to score political points at home.
Or, you can argue that Senators took action for the good of the country, and at the same time scoring some political points as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Read what I fething write and get your head out of the delusions long enough to stop responding to what you think people are saying.
I did not say "it's okay because everyone is doing it", and if you think that this is what you think I typed then there is zero hope to ever have any discussion that doesn't include you making up answers to pretend statements.
I'm well aware what you wrote and what I replied thankyouverymuch.
I said that it is stupid to call something a "Clinton tactic" if she is at least the third person in a row to do the exact same thing.
I'm not being an ass here, but were you politically aware during the Clinton Presidency? I barely remember, other than Whitewater/Lewinski/Bosnia. It was in college when I started to read various books about the Clinton era.
It's a known political tactic to deflect criticism when everyone does it. The Clinton's, takes it to a whole 'nother level.
*shrugs*
That's what was my reference.... not some bastardization of what you said.
Now off to the fething ignore list with you before I get baned.
Buddy... visiting in fething person in that situation, even if it would be just ONE Senator, is VASTLY different than an fething "open letter" electronically posted on some junior Senator's .gov website.
You and I can argue till we're blue whether nor not these action disrespects the office of the Presidency or attempt to affect policy.
But to compare the two and argue that this 'letter' is somehow more damaging... is absolutely asinine.
I think in these kinds of discussions its easy to get caught up arguing against points other people, often not even on this forum, have made about this issue. But I only have to be accountable for my own words, and you have to be accountable only for your own.
Point being, I’ve never said this ‘disrespects the office of the Presidency’… as a political standard that idea is about three generations dead. And I never said this letter was damaging – neither the trip to Iraq or the letter to Iran will damage anything in a material sense (the war in Iraq happened as planned anyway, and whatever agreement Obama makes is going to be shot down in the senate for certain).
And my point, once again is that this was irresponsible - the people who did it didn't act with care or concern for the responsibilities required by the positions. Both sides have have, and will always have, irresponsible dickheads on the fringes of their parties, people who’ll opt for disruptive political games over proper governance. What makes this amazing is that 47 Republican senators signed up for this – on a basic mathematical level we’ve got evidence that in one of the two major parties the lunatic fringe may have become a lunatic majority.
That's right... Senator Obama, WHILE. CAMPAIGNING. FOR. THE. 2008 Presidency... was in Iraq.
Doing... ya know, stuff.
Obama travelling to a country that was pretty much a US client state at that point is pretty much the opposite of a scandal.
What bill?
Treaty. You know what I mean
If he somehow pulls off a meaningful Treaty, that the Senate would consent? You'd bet your fething ass it's be a "political victory at home" for Obama... and a huge fething one at that!
Not that there’ll be a ratified treaty, but you know, hypothetically if there were one, then yes, Obama would score a significant political boost. But of course, that hypothetical boost would be the result of Obama hypothetically doing his job well.
Whereas the political impact of this letter has nothing to do with anyone actually doing their job. Or anyone actually doing anything – the impact is entirely about making it harder for someone else to do their job.
I mean, seriously, what would happen if this letter was not sent, and Obama went off and made a deal that the Republican senators didn’t like. They’d simply reject it, as is their constitutional right and duty. The letter changes nothing, it means nothing. The only reason to publish it was to score political points at home, and it was an act of scoring political points by interjecting themselves in to treaty negotiations being undertaken by other parts of government.
Or, you can argue that Senators took action for the good of the country, and at the same time scoring some political points as well.
The point is that people who think government is requires responsible people who might play politics but never let that interfere with the running of the country can’t make that argument.
Buddy... visiting in fething person in that situation, even if it would be just ONE Senator, is VASTLY different than an fething "open letter" electronically posted on some junior Senator's .gov website.
You and I can argue till we're blue whether nor not these action disrespects the office of the Presidency or attempt to affect policy.
But to compare the two and argue that this 'letter' is somehow more damaging... is absolutely asinine.
I think in these kinds of discussions its easy to get caught up arguing against points other people, often not even on this forum, have made about this issue. But I only have to be accountable for my own words, and you have to be accountable only for your own.
Point being, I’ve never said this ‘disrespects the office of the Presidency’… as a political standard that idea is about three generations dead. And I never said this letter was damaging – neither the trip to Iraq or the letter to Iran will damage anything in a material sense (the war in Iraq happened as planned anyway, and whatever agreement Obama makes is going to be shot down in the senate for certain).
Okay... I back tracked the thread and you're right. I've thrown Ouze's, dogma's, d-usa's and your responses together and thought I was arguing against shared statements here.
And my point, once again is that this was irresponsible - the people who did it didn't act with care or concern for the responsibilities required by the positions. Both sides have have, and will always have, irresponsible dickheads on the fringes of their parties, people who’ll opt for disruptive political games over proper governance. What makes this amazing is that 47 Republican senators signed up for this – on a basic mathematical level we’ve got evidence that in one of the two major parties the lunatic fringe may have become a lunatic majority.
There you go again.... okay, I can't disabuse you the notion that I think you're being silly here. But, moving on...
That's right... Senator Obama, WHILE. CAMPAIGNING. FOR. THE. 2008 Presidency... was in Iraq.
Doing... ya know, stuff.
Obama travelling to a country that was pretty much a US client state at that point is pretty much the opposite of a scandal.
Stop the press!
wut?
Seriously... WAT?
This is pure spin bucko... no way to sugarcoat that.
Obama visiting Iraq is not the problem. It's trying to influence a foreign leader in an ongoing negotiation is... Perhaps you should wonder why there was little or no coverage of this by the media.
What bill?
Treaty. You know what I mean
Well hold there... there's a major distinction here.
It's either an executive agreement (non-binding).
Or...
A treaty.
If he somehow pulls off a meaningful Treaty, that the Senate would consent? You'd bet your fething ass it's be a "political victory at home" for Obama... and a huge fething one at that!
Not that there’ll be a ratified treaty, but you know, hypothetically if there were one, then yes, Obama would score a significant political boost. But of course, that hypothetical boost would be the result of Obama hypothetically doing his job well.
Whereas the political impact of this letter has nothing to do with anyone actually doing their job. Or anyone actually doing anything – the impact is entirely about making it harder for someone else to do their job.
I mean, seriously, what would happen if this letter was not sent, and Obama went off and made a deal that the Republican senators didn’t like. They’d simply reject it, as is their constitutional right and duty. The letter changes nothing, it means nothing. The only reason to publish it was to score political points at home, and it was an act of scoring political points by interjecting themselves in to treaty negotiations being undertaken by other parts of government.
Depends on what format this "deal" is constructed.
IF it's a proposed Treaty, then yes, it'd have to be "consented" by the Senate before President Obama can ratify it.
If it's simply an executive agreement, congress has no say (except the power of the purse, which even then, is iffy). Furthermore, the next President can choose to maintain this agreement or nullify via executive action.
Now ask yourself this... if the Iranians were truly interested in meaningful dialogue, where they'd give up their nuclear ambitions, don't you think they'd want it as a Treaty, so that the US is held accountable as well?
Or, you can argue that Senators took action for the good of the country, and at the same time scoring some political points as well.
The point is that people who think government is requires responsible people who might play politics but never let that interfere with the running of the country can’t make that argument.
Weren't you the one who opined months ago that one could not take "politics" out of the equation? (or am I misremembering here...?).
whembly wrote: Okay... I back tracked the thread and you're right. I've thrown Ouze's, dogma's, d-usa's and your responses together and thought I was arguing against shared statements here.
No problem. It's something I've started to notice more and more (in the real world originally, in a conversation with my sister, actually We were both giving nice rebuttals to points we'd heard other people say, and completely talking past each other). Once I noticed that I keep seeing it on the internet too.
Stop the press!
wut?
Seriously... WAT?
This is pure spin bucko... no way to sugarcoat that.
I remember Obama going to Iraq as part of his 'I'm a proper world leader' publicity tour, so I didn't click on the article. I assumed him visiting Iraq was all the article was about. Now reading the article... oh dear, the Post really is an incredible rag. There is no source for the claim from Hoshyar Zebari other than that Post article.
Obama visiting Iraq is not the problem. It's trying to influence a foreign leader in an ongoing negotiation is... Perhaps you should wonder why there was little or no coverage of this by the media.
Because all we have is a claim that may or may have come from Zebari months after the meeting.
Now ask yourself this... if the Iranians were truly interested in meaningful dialogue, where they'd give up their nuclear ambitions, don't you think they'd want it as a Treaty, so that the US is held accountable as well?
No-one honestly believes there's going to be a ratified treaty out of this. No-one. Since 2000 there's been 4 treaties ratified in the US - two were nuclear arms limits with Russia, and one was a FTA. So hinging this on being a treaty just doesn't work.
Weren't you the one who opined months ago that one could not take "politics" out of the equation? (or am I misremembering here...?).
I don't remember, but it does sound like something I'd say. It also sounds like something dogma would say, and a few others, so I don't know
Anyhow, yeah, everything is political, and the only people who don't play political games are irrelevant. But that doesn't mean that you get to subvert every part of government to politics - the point is that there is an understanding that at the end of the day, for all the fun and games, there's a country that needs to be run.
Bibi won the election in Israel. I seriously hope there's no connection of financial contribution to a opposing organization in Israel in the Senate inquiry
It's high time I derailed this thread for the good of dakka
In all honesty, who cares about scandal in the US Senate? Seriously? This pales into insignificance compared with the Andrew Jackson days, or the Senate scandals when Grant was president. American dakka members need to start reading some American history books Senate scandal
As for a Middle East arms race. Newsflash: there's always a middle eastern arms race. America will probably end up selling all sides most of the weapons anyway = boost to US economy = happy times in America. What's the fuss?
My main concern is which British political leader is going to give me the biggest tax break if they win the election in a few weeks times. That's the big issue here
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Bibi won the election in Israel. I seriously hope there's no connection of financial contribution to a opposing organization in Israel in the Senate inquiry
Jihadin wrote: Bibi won the election in Israel. I seriously hope there's no connection of financial contribution to a opposing organization in Israel in the Senate inquiry
Eh... why?
I've looked into this, and I don't see anything illegal about it.
In all honesty, who cares about scandal in the US Senate? Seriously? This pales into insignificance compared with the Andrew Jackson days, or the Senate scandals when Grant was president. American dakka members need to start reading some American history books Senate scandal
As for a Middle East arms race. Newsflash: there's always a middle eastern arms race. America will probably end up selling all sides most of the weapons anyway = boost to US economy = happy times in America. What's the fuss?
My main concern is which British political leader is going to give me the biggest tax break if they win the election in a few weeks times. That's the big issue here
inorite? If nobody is being beaten half to death with a walking stick/cane or challenged to a duel it's not a real scandal and it's irrelevant.
In all honesty, who cares about scandal in the US Senate? Seriously? This pales into insignificance compared with the Andrew Jackson days, or the Senate scandals when Grant was president. American dakka members need to start reading some American history books Senate scandal
As for a Middle East arms race. Newsflash: there's always a middle eastern arms race. America will probably end up selling all sides most of the weapons anyway = boost to US economy = happy times in America. What's the fuss?
My main concern is which British political leader is going to give me the biggest tax break if they win the election in a few weeks times. That's the big issue here
inorite? If nobody is being beaten half to death with a walking stick/cane or challenged to a duel it's not a real scandal and it's irrelevant.
I now have this image of Nancy Pelosi and Boehner having a girl fight on the House dais.
In all honesty, who cares about scandal in the US Senate? Seriously? This pales into insignificance compared with the Andrew Jackson days, or the Senate scandals when Grant was president. American dakka members need to start reading some American history books Senate scandal
As for a Middle East arms race. Newsflash: there's always a middle eastern arms race. America will probably end up selling all sides most of the weapons anyway = boost to US economy = happy times in America. What's the fuss?
My main concern is which British political leader is going to give me the biggest tax break if they win the election in a few weeks times. That's the big issue here
inorite? If nobody is being beaten half to death with a walking stick/cane or challenged to a duel it's not a real scandal and it's irrelevant.
In all honesty, who cares about scandal in the US Senate? Seriously? This pales into insignificance compared with the Andrew Jackson days, or the Senate scandals when Grant was president. American dakka members need to start reading some American history books Senate scandal
As for a Middle East arms race. Newsflash: there's always a middle eastern arms race. America will probably end up selling all sides most of the weapons anyway = boost to US economy = happy times in America. What's the fuss?
My main concern is which British political leader is going to give me the biggest tax break if they win the election in a few weeks times. That's the big issue here
inorite? If nobody is being beaten half to death with a walking stick/cane or challenged to a duel it's not a real scandal and it's irrelevant.
I now have this image of Nancy Pelosi and Boehner having a girl fight on the House dais.
I finally realized what it is that bugs me about that letter to Iran those senators signed. At its core, it seems to be saying that any deal/treaty/etc. will be subject to the approval of the Republican Party. Not the Senate as a whole, but the Republicans and the Republicans alone will be the deciding body. Sure, we all know that the majority rules these days (party before country, indeed), but for them to come right out and flat out say it like that on the international stage just feels wrong. It's just like the Grubergate thing, we all know that politicians rely on the stupidity of the public, but it's still wrong to come out and actually say it for all to hear.
Anyway, say this article on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/politics/2016-election-poll-clinton-bush/index.html A recent poll using a bunch of potential match-ups for the next election results in HRC having at least 10 point lead over everyone else. This poll was conducted after the whole email thing was in the news. I'm actually surprised Jeb Bush did so well in the polling, given his last name and all the political baggage that goes with it. Most of the match-ups are roughly the same results, so it may just be that the poll randomly only got 40-something% Republicans responding, but it could also just be that there are enough people out there who, basically, just don't know the Republican potentials compared to what they know about HRC. Once the field narrows down a bit and more information gets out to the masses, it may get more interesting. But, at this point, do the Republicans really have a powerhouse they can throw up against HRC?
The Clinton's middle name should be "Teflon" as far as I'm concern.
Yeah, but HTC is already a corporate trademark, isn't it? Or maybe there could be some sort of product placement deal. Heh, that's the one thing missing from politics, product placement. We need to see more politicians conspicuously drinking Coke, eating Doritos, wearing Reeboks, using Samsung phones, and driving Ford F150s.
(gets a mental image of HRC doing a Carl's Jr. commercial) O.O
The Clinton's middle name should be "Teflon" as far as I'm concern.
Yeah, but HTC is already a corporate trademark, isn't it?
Maybe "Teflon Hillary Clinton!"... THC!™ for short!
Great sloganing for toughness AND for weed acceptance.
Or maybe there could be some sort of product placement deal. Heh, that's the one thing missing from politics, product placement. We need to see more politicians conspicuously drinking Coke, eating Doritos, wearing Reeboks, using Samsung phones, and driving Ford F150s.
(gets a mental image of HRC doing a Carl's Jr. commercial) O.O
Ugh... need some brain bleach! Damn you Tanner... DAAAAAAAMN YOOOOOOOOU! :shakes fist:
I'd be surprised if we don't see a anyone-but-Hillary nomination process similar to what Mitt had in 2012. I don't think they'll get anywhere but I am sure quite a few people are just... wearied by the thought of the nonstop scandal machine that will be cooking for the next like, almost a decade.
My hope is Elizabeth Warren stays out of it. It's not her moment yet, and much like Paul Ryan I think she can squander it by jumping too early.
Ouze wrote: I'd be surprised if we don't see a anyone-but-Hillary nomination process similar to what Mitt had in 2012. I don't think they'll get anywhere but I am sure quite a few people are just... wearied by the thought of the nonstop scandal machine that will be cooking for the next like, almost a decade.
My hope is Elizabeth Warren stays out of it. It's not her moment yet, and much like Paul Ryan I think she can squander it by jumping too early.
Although I don't like Warren I'd like her to get into the race. Would be nice to see some real policy differences between the candidates.
Just not Al Gore. The search for Manbearpig is never ending.
The US Vice-President has joked with the Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Enda Kenny that "if you're wearing orange, you're not welcome in here".
Joe Biden made the joke when he met Mr Kenny for a breakfast meeting at his home in Washington on Tuesday.
The vice-president later added that he was "only joking".
However, the Democratic Unionist Party described the remarks as "disgraceful and careless" and has called on Mr Biden to apologise.
'Slur'
DUP representative William McCrea, who is the MP for South Antrim, said he appreciated that Mr Biden said it was a joke, but added he did not view the comments as humorous.
"When Northern Ireland is making such an effort to make St Patrick's Day an inclusive celebration, Joe Biden's comments were disgraceful and careless," Mr McCrea said.
"Whether they were intended as a joke or not, the comments are a slur on those who would be known as 'orange' - i.e. Protestants.
"This term is much wider than anyone who is a member of the Orange Order. It has traditionally been used to define people from the Protestant faith.
The DUP MP said Mr Biden should "apologise for his remarks and take corrective action to prove in a practical way that people who are from a Protestant background are welcome in the White House".
"Undoubtedly if he had made such a remark about any other faith group there would be calls for his resignation," Mr McCrea added.
Mr Kenny is on a five-day visit to the United States.
His meeting with Mr Biden came ahead of a bilateral meeting with President Barack Obama.
The US Vice-President has joked with the Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Enda Kenny that "if you're wearing orange, you're not welcome in here".
Joe Biden made the joke when he met Mr Kenny for a breakfast meeting at his home in Washington on Tuesday.
The vice-president later added that he was "only joking".
However, the Democratic Unionist Party described the remarks as "disgraceful and careless" and has called on Mr Biden to apologise.
'Slur'
DUP representative William McCrea, who is the MP for South Antrim, said he appreciated that Mr Biden said it was a joke, but added he did not view the comments as humorous.
"When Northern Ireland is making such an effort to make St Patrick's Day an inclusive celebration, Joe Biden's comments were disgraceful and careless," Mr McCrea said.
"Whether they were intended as a joke or not, the comments are a slur on those who would be known as 'orange' - i.e. Protestants.
"This term is much wider than anyone who is a member of the Orange Order. It has traditionally been used to define people from the Protestant faith.
The DUP MP said Mr Biden should "apologise for his remarks and take corrective action to prove in a practical way that people who are from a Protestant background are welcome in the White House".
"Undoubtedly if he had made such a remark about any other faith group there would be calls for his resignation," Mr McCrea added.
Mr Kenny is on a five-day visit to the United States.
His meeting with Mr Biden came ahead of a bilateral meeting with President Barack Obama.
Uncle Joe apologize? Whatevuh.
Well my maybe if he puked on him then yes.
Yes I know Bush Jr was F'ed up like a football sick wise but Uncle Joe has the best laughs incidents
The US Vice-President has joked with the Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Enda Kenny that "if you're wearing orange, you're not welcome in here".
Joe Biden made the joke when he met Mr Kenny for a breakfast meeting at his home in Washington on Tuesday.
The vice-president later added that he was "only joking".
However, the Democratic Unionist Party described the remarks as "disgraceful and careless" and has called on Mr Biden to apologise.
'Slur'
DUP representative William McCrea, who is the MP for South Antrim, said he appreciated that Mr Biden said it was a joke, but added he did not view the comments as humorous.
"When Northern Ireland is making such an effort to make St Patrick's Day an inclusive celebration, Joe Biden's comments were disgraceful and careless," Mr McCrea said.
"Whether they were intended as a joke or not, the comments are a slur on those who would be known as 'orange' - i.e. Protestants.
"This term is much wider than anyone who is a member of the Orange Order. It has traditionally been used to define people from the Protestant faith.
The DUP MP said Mr Biden should "apologise for his remarks and take corrective action to prove in a practical way that people who are from a Protestant background are welcome in the White House".
"Undoubtedly if he had made such a remark about any other faith group there would be calls for his resignation," Mr McCrea added.
Mr Kenny is on a five-day visit to the United States.
His meeting with Mr Biden came ahead of a bilateral meeting with President Barack Obama.
er... what?
In Ireland "Orange" is shorthand for Protestant, as a reference to William of Orange, a prominant Protestant leader in Europe during the many wars between Catholics and Protstants. The Irish flag is green, white, and orange, with orange representing the Protestant population of Ireland. Calling someone "orange" can be an insult.
The US Vice-President has joked with the Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Enda Kenny that "if you're wearing orange, you're not welcome in here".
Joe Biden made the joke when he met Mr Kenny for a breakfast meeting at his home in Washington on Tuesday.
The vice-president later added that he was "only joking".
However, the Democratic Unionist Party described the remarks as "disgraceful and careless" and has called on Mr Biden to apologise.
'Slur'
DUP representative William McCrea, who is the MP for South Antrim, said he appreciated that Mr Biden said it was a joke, but added he did not view the comments as humorous.
"When Northern Ireland is making such an effort to make St Patrick's Day an inclusive celebration, Joe Biden's comments were disgraceful and careless," Mr McCrea said.
"Whether they were intended as a joke or not, the comments are a slur on those who would be known as 'orange' - i.e. Protestants.
"This term is much wider than anyone who is a member of the Orange Order. It has traditionally been used to define people from the Protestant faith.
The DUP MP said Mr Biden should "apologise for his remarks and take corrective action to prove in a practical way that people who are from a Protestant background are welcome in the White House".
"Undoubtedly if he had made such a remark about any other faith group there would be calls for his resignation," Mr McCrea added.
Mr Kenny is on a five-day visit to the United States.
His meeting with Mr Biden came ahead of a bilateral meeting with President Barack Obama.
er... what?
Orange, as pointed out above, is synonymous with Protestants in Northern Ireland. Joe Biden basically told the Irish Prime Minister that if he was associated with the Protestant faith then he wasn't welcome
The US Vice-President has joked with the Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Enda Kenny that "if you're wearing orange, you're not welcome in here".
Joe Biden made the joke when he met Mr Kenny for a breakfast meeting at his home in Washington on Tuesday.
The vice-president later added that he was "only joking".
However, the Democratic Unionist Party described the remarks as "disgraceful and careless" and has called on Mr Biden to apologise.
'Slur'
DUP representative William McCrea, who is the MP for South Antrim, said he appreciated that Mr Biden said it was a joke, but added he did not view the comments as humorous.
"When Northern Ireland is making such an effort to make St Patrick's Day an inclusive celebration, Joe Biden's comments were disgraceful and careless," Mr McCrea said.
"Whether they were intended as a joke or not, the comments are a slur on those who would be known as 'orange' - i.e. Protestants.
"This term is much wider than anyone who is a member of the Orange Order. It has traditionally been used to define people from the Protestant faith.
The DUP MP said Mr Biden should "apologise for his remarks and take corrective action to prove in a practical way that people who are from a Protestant background are welcome in the White House".
"Undoubtedly if he had made such a remark about any other faith group there would be calls for his resignation," Mr McCrea added.
Mr Kenny is on a five-day visit to the United States.
His meeting with Mr Biden came ahead of a bilateral meeting with President Barack Obama.
er... what?
In Ireland "Orange" is shorthand for Protestant, as a reference to William of Orange, a prominant Protestant leader in Europe during the many wars between Catholics and Protstants. The Irish flag is green, white, and orange, with orange representing the Protestant population of Ireland. Calling someone "orange" can be an insult.
Not trying to go off topic, but how is that an insult if its part of the flag? There's information i am missing here.
The US Vice-President has joked with the Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Enda Kenny that "if you're wearing orange, you're not welcome in here".
Joe Biden made the joke when he met Mr Kenny for a breakfast meeting at his home in Washington on Tuesday.
The vice-president later added that he was "only joking".
However, the Democratic Unionist Party described the remarks as "disgraceful and careless" and has called on Mr Biden to apologise.
'Slur'
DUP representative William McCrea, who is the MP for South Antrim, said he appreciated that Mr Biden said it was a joke, but added he did not view the comments as humorous.
"When Northern Ireland is making such an effort to make St Patrick's Day an inclusive celebration, Joe Biden's comments were disgraceful and careless," Mr McCrea said.
"Whether they were intended as a joke or not, the comments are a slur on those who would be known as 'orange' - i.e. Protestants.
"This term is much wider than anyone who is a member of the Orange Order. It has traditionally been used to define people from the Protestant faith.
The DUP MP said Mr Biden should "apologise for his remarks and take corrective action to prove in a practical way that people who are from a Protestant background are welcome in the White House".
"Undoubtedly if he had made such a remark about any other faith group there would be calls for his resignation," Mr McCrea added.
Mr Kenny is on a five-day visit to the United States.
His meeting with Mr Biden came ahead of a bilateral meeting with President Barack Obama.
er... what?
In Ireland "Orange" is shorthand for Protestant, as a reference to William of Orange, a prominant Protestant leader in Europe during the many wars between Catholics and Protstants. The Irish flag is green, white, and orange, with orange representing the Protestant population of Ireland. Calling someone "orange" can be an insult.
Not trying to go off topic, but how is that an insult if its part of the flag? There's information i am missing here.
The Irish flag was originally designed to show peace between both religions (hence the white between the green and orange). Orange in Ireland almost exclusively refers to Protestants.
Frazzled wrote: Still not getting it but must be specific to there.
is Biden Irish or just stumble on a random color?
Orange = Protestant Irish
Green = Catholic Irish
Biden's comment about people wearing orange not being welcome is inflamatory because of the history of Catholic vs Protestant violence in Ireland.
That said, I'm also a bit puzzled as to why this is newsworthy since Biden has been saying stupid gak for years now you'd think people would be used to it.
It's the equivalent of joking about being lucky he's not a confederate in the north. Most of the time people would probably shrug it off, but if someone is going to be offended then it will be because it is a sensitive topic for them.
d-usa wrote: It's the equivalent of joking about being lucky he's not a confederate in the north. Most of the time people would probably shrug it off, but if someone is going to be offended then it will be because it is a sensitive topic for them.
It should be brought up, I think, that The Troubles of Northern Ireland are still a part of living memory having only ended (in so much as the violence has for the most part effectively ended) 17 years ago, so there's going to be a lot more people who will take offence compared to the Confederate/Unionist thing.
Yeah, I was thinking that it might not be recent enough. I thought about comparing it to a Israeli joking "you're lucky that you are not Palestenian" but then I do think that this goes too far the other way.
I also want to make it clear that I didn't mean to dismiss the feeling of being offended with my comparison.
We still need someone in the Democrat primary that is going to be anti-neo-liberalism to pull things to the left in the Dem party. I sense that the time for that sort of candidate is coming, but I don't know who it will be.
Easy E wrote: We still need someone in the Democrat primary that is going to be anti-neo-liberalism to pull things to the left in the Dem party. I sense that the time for that sort of candidate is coming, but I don't know who it will be.
easysauce wrote: How do you know Biden is saying something stupid?
his lips will be moving.
I think we just found Meghan Trainor's account on Dakka
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Still not getting it but must be specific to there.
is Biden Irish or just stumble on a random color?
He tried to establish his bona fides on the day by cracking a really bad joke that Protestant members of the Northern Irish delegation were always going to take badly
Easy E wrote: We still need someone in the Democrat primary that is going to be anti-neo-liberalism to pull things to the left in the Dem party. I sense that the time for that sort of candidate is coming, but I don't know who it will be.
d-usa wrote: It's the equivalent of joking about being lucky he's not a confederate in the north. Most of the time people would probably shrug it off, but if someone is going to be offended then it will be because it is a sensitive topic for them.
It should be brought up, I think, that The Troubles of Northern Ireland are still a part of living memory having only ended (in so much as the violence has for the most part effectively ended) 17 years ago, so there's going to be a lot more people who will take offence compared to the Confederate/Unionist thing.
Ehm... haven't been to the South recently, have you?
Yes, the Civil War ended 150 years ago. No, the South hasn't forgotten. The legacies of the Civil War, and of the post-war South, are still alive and well in many communities down there. This is where we get things like Ferguson. In fact, the argument could be made that the Civil War did not really end until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and the abolishment of "separate but (not really) equal" and Jim Crow laws. Of course, the argument can also be made that the Civil War didn't really end then, either.
Jihadin wrote: Think he might be alluding that Clinton (Hilary) might have been hacked and not know it.
o
Only if we are being completely dishonest.
There’s no evidence that Clinton’s e-mail server was linked to those or any other specific attacks. And it's worth noting that the State Department’s e-mail domain does not have SPF enabled. Thus, experts point out, it may also have been vulnerable to hacking during her time as secretary.
I mean, it's in the second article that there's no evidence of a link. And in the first article that these aren't the first hacks DoS has suffered.
Jihadin wrote: Think he might be alluding that Clinton (Hilary) might have been hacked and not know it.
o
Only if we are being completely dishonest.
There’s no evidence that Clinton’s e-mail server was linked to those or any other specific attacks. And it's worth noting that the State Department’s e-mail domain does not have SPF enabled. Thus, experts point out, it may also have been vulnerable to hacking during her time as secretary.
I mean, it's in the second article that there's no evidence of a link. And in the first article that these aren't the first hacks DoS has suffered.
If you're honest, the question should be:
HRC endangered national security and making other people she corresponded with as SoS, vulnerable all in the name of secrecy.
Is that who we want for President? Priorities steamy... hers have been all jacked up.
Anyway, in that first article:
"I have no doubt in my mind that this thing was penetrated by multiple foreign powers." -Bloomberg
It occurs to me that perhaps the best thing a Vice President can do make stupid but harmless screw ups, and then apologise. The offended country gets to feel important and loved because they got an apology out of the second most powerful person in the US, and the US doesn't care that he's giving an apology because he's just the idiot who got brought on to 'balance out the ticket' and has no actual, real power. Everyone wins!
It's just a theory, but Biden seems to be having a real crack at testing it...
Tannhauser42 wrote: Anyway, say this article on CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/18/politics/2016-election-poll-clinton-bush/index.html A recent poll using a bunch of potential match-ups for the next election results in HRC having at least 10 point lead over everyone else. This poll was conducted after the whole email thing was in the news. I'm actually surprised Jeb Bush did so well in the polling, given his last name and all the political baggage that goes with it. Most of the match-ups are roughly the same results, so it may just be that the poll randomly only got 40-something% Republicans responding, but it could also just be that there are enough people out there who, basically, just don't know the Republican potentials compared to what they know about HRC. Once the field narrows down a bit and more information gets out to the masses, it may get more interesting. But, at this point, do the Republicans really have a powerhouse they can throw up against HRC?
It's way too early. All the polls show at this point is that Clinton has a brand already established, while the field of Republicans are yet to establish there's.
I suspect had a similar poll been run before the 2008 Democratic primaries started, we would have seen similar results for Clinton v Obama.
In Ireland "Orange" is shorthand for Protestant, as a reference to William of Orange, a prominant Protestant leader in Europe during the many wars between Catholics and Protstants. The Irish flag is green, white, and orange, with orange representing the Protestant population of Ireland. Calling someone "orange" can be an insult.
So they're basically calling them Dutchmen? How is that an insult?
FYI, William of Orange wasn't just a prominent Protestant leader, he was also the founder of the Netherlands as an independent country (although actual independence after the closure of the 80 Years War wasn't achieved until long after his death at the hands of a Spanish assassin).
In Ireland "Orange" is shorthand for Protestant, as a reference to William of Orange, a prominant Protestant leader in Europe during the many wars between Catholics and Protstants. The Irish flag is green, white, and orange, with orange representing the Protestant population of Ireland. Calling someone "orange" can be an insult.
So they're basically calling them Dutchmen? How is that an insult?
FYI, William of Orange wasn't just a prominent Protestant leader, he was also the founder of the Netherlands as an independent country (although actual independence after the closure of the 80 Years War wasn't achieved until long after his death at the hands of a Spanish assassin).
[/thread derail]
Please refer to "The Troubles" and then take a guess as to why people might get annoyed.
d-usa wrote: It's the equivalent of joking about being lucky he's not a confederate in the north. Most of the time people would probably shrug it off, but if someone is going to be offended then it will be because it is a sensitive topic for them.
It should be brought up, I think, that The Troubles of Northern Ireland are still a part of living memory having only ended (in so much as the violence has for the most part effectively ended) 17 years ago, so there's going to be a lot more people who will take offence compared to the Confederate/Unionist thing.
Ehm... haven't been to the South recently, have you?
Yes, the Civil War ended 150 years ago. No, the South hasn't forgotten. The legacies of the Civil War, and of the post-war South, are still alive and well in many communities down there. This is where we get things like Ferguson. In fact, the argument could be made that the Civil War did not really end until the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and the abolishment of "separate but (not really) equal" and Jim Crow laws. Of course, the argument can also be made that the Civil War didn't really end then, either.
I think equating rednecks (I can say that I were one) pining about the "good old days " to what happened in Ireland in living memory of many people are completely and utterly separate.
And no Jim Crow wasn't the Civil War, but thats not an appropriate comparison either unless you're saying Biden just called the Irish Prime Minister the equivalent of a Klansmen (in which case someone better wake up the Secret Service and get him out of there).
Since when did an American Vice-President have any power? "My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived..."
People will say that if anything happened to Obama, Biden gets the top job
BUT
I can guarantee now that if Biden ever became President, America would tear up the declaration of independence and millions would beg Britain to re-establish colonial rule
While discussing money in politics on Wednesday, President Obama broached a topic normally confined to academic circles: A law requiring people to vote.
"In Australia, and some other countries, there's mandatory voting," Obama said while taking questions at the City Club of Cleveland. "It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything."
Over the years, a variety of political scientists have mused on the idea of requiring people to vote, citing the consistently poor turnout in U.S. elections. Critics have questioned the practicality of passing and enforcing such a requirement; others say that freedom also means the freedom not to do something.
As Obama noted, however, other countries to do have mandatory voting laws.
In addition to Australia, the Associated Press reported that "at least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment."
During his Cleveland remarks, Obama noted that many young people, minorities, and low income workers tend not to vote, and that some lawmakers want to discourage them from doing so.
Getting more people to vote would "completely change the political map in this country," Obama said.
Also reports the Associated Press:
"Less than 37% of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse."
Remind me again how he's a Constitutional Scholar?
While discussing money in politics on Wednesday, President Obama broached a topic normally confined to academic circles: A law requiring people to vote.
"In Australia, and some other countries, there's mandatory voting," Obama said while taking questions at the City Club of Cleveland. "It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything."
Over the years, a variety of political scientists have mused on the idea of requiring people to vote, citing the consistently poor turnout in U.S. elections. Critics have questioned the practicality of passing and enforcing such a requirement; others say that freedom also means the freedom not to do something.
As Obama noted, however, other countries to do have mandatory voting laws.
In addition to Australia, the Associated Press reported that "at least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment."
During his Cleveland remarks, Obama noted that many young people, minorities, and low income workers tend not to vote, and that some lawmakers want to discourage them from doing so.
Getting more people to vote would "completely change the political map in this country," Obama said.
Also reports the Associated Press:
"Less than 37% of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse."
Remind me again how he's a Constitutional Scholar?
And in other countries it is mandatory to produce voter ID, I don't see there being any rush to follow suit on that here
Changing the voting date to Sunday (I realize that this would require a constitutional amendment) and/or having a meaningful system in place to really enable people to vote (including paid time off to vote).
Changing the voting date to Sunday (I realize that this would require a constitutional amendment) and/or having a meaningful system in place to really enable people to vote (including paid time off to vote).
It would be much easier to just make Election Day a recognized Federal holiday. It still isn't difficult to vote if you want to and if you don't want to vote there's no compelling reason for the govt to force you to vote.
Nothing wrong with the basic idea behind what Obama said: to get more people to vote. But, like d-usa said, and I've said in the past as well, the real key is making voting as convenient as possible.
But, I don't think the Republicans would ever truly want every citizen to vote. After all, they already believe that at least 47% will automatically vote Democrat.
Federal Holidays do not require employees to give anybody off nor does it require pay if they do decide to give you time off. So it would not do anything to make voting easier.
Changing the voting date to Sunday (I realize that this would require a constitutional amendment) and/or having a meaningful system in place to really enable people to vote (including paid time off to vote).
Agreed.
Or, make it a Federal Holiday if it stays on a Tuesday.... probably easier than changing it to a Sunday via Constitutional Amendment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Federal Holidays do not require employees to give anybody off nor does it require pay if they do decide to give you time off. So it would not do anything to make voting easier.
Tannhauser42 wrote: But, I don't think the Republicans would ever truly want every citizen to vote. After all, they already believe that at least 47% will automatically vote Democrat.
So Romeny is all Republicans? So has every Democrat been to 47 States?
d-usa wrote: Federal Holidays do not require employees to give anybody off nor does it require pay if they do decide to give you time off. So it would not do anything to make voting easier.
This. Columbus Day is a federal holiday, but plenty of folks still work that day. Same with Labor Day, Memorial Day, 4th of July, President's Day, MLK day, etc. etc.
Voting, to me, is like organ donation or blood donation. It should never be mandatory, but it's something that I think everyone that can do, should do. But NOT voting is a valid form of expression, same as voting itself is.
I still can't decide which one i agree with more and this fence pailing is making my behind sore .
<--- me
