I’m a liberal lawyer. Clerking for Scalia taught me how to think about the law.
I wanted the job because I was eager to learn how someone so brilliant could see the world so differently than I did.
When I was in law school, a Supreme Court clerkship was the Holy Grail. For me, it was clerking for Justice Antonin Scalia. Now that I’m a partner in a law firm that serves the notoriously progressive entertainment industry, the fact that I once clerked for Scalia often elicits looks of surprise from those sitting across from me, who ask if I’m the functional equivalent of a unicorn — a conservative in Los Angeles — a place that Scalia had amusingly warned me would “melt my brain.” I tell them, no, I’m politically liberal, but that my time working for the justice was one of the defining experiences of my life.
I’d heard all through law school that Scalia always hired one liberal clerk, though my sense is that this practice had waned in recent years. In fact, the process of applying for a Supreme Court clerkship entails applying to all nine justices — the notion being that justices choose clerks and not the other way around. But Justice Scalia was the person for whom I most wanted to work, not because we were ideologically aligned, but because we were not. It had to do with the way he was so deeply vilified — both personally, and as a jurist — by so many of my classmates. He was discussed in almost cartoonish fashion, conjuring images of twirled mustaches and barely-concealed devil horns. It was a time, just after Bush v. Gore and 9/11, when battle lines had been drawn, and it was politically correct to reject wholesale any belief that was not your own.
That approach made me uncomfortable, and I found myself becoming more and more interested in Justice Scalia’s work, eager to understand how someone so clearly brilliant could see the world so differently than I did. It’s why I took the job.
And, in some ways, the job is a strange one. To assist in the writing of opinions, clerks have to get inside a justice’s mind to think as they do and to write as they would. My role was to facilitate his, and sometimes that was easier than others. In one case I worked on writing a dissent — the position held by a minority of the court — with which I fundamentally disagreed on a moral level, but found, as I wrote, that I was drawn to Scalia’s reasoning; his emphasis on precedent, strict textual construction and judicial restraint. While I remain bound not to discuss details of the cases I worked on, I can say that Scalia’s arguments in that case conveyed a clarity not found in the majority’s opinion, which relied on legal and verbal gymnastics in order to reach the desired outcome. His approach had a logic and simplicity that resonated with me, despite my politics. I found myself able to get inside his mind in that moment, to sublimate my own views, and write confidently in his voice. I was proud when my co-clerk told me that Scalia had called it a “knock out.”
There were other days, though, where I found myself sitting on Scalia’s worn leather couch, looking up at Leroy — the mounted elk’s head that dominated the justice’s chambers — wondering how both Leroy and I had gotten there, as Scalia and my three conservative co-clerks all found common ground that I simply could not access. “You really think that?” and “That can’t be right,” were refrains I heard often in response to bench memos I prepared in advance of oral argument.
I’ll admit that I went back and forth between playing the part of contrarian and simply trying to give the justice the recommendations he was looking for. There were times I was pleased when he noted my penchant for disagreement. Once, when my co-clerk gave him a draft of an important opinion, Scalia nodded toward me, smiled and said, “Let’s give it to Mikey,” quoting the old Life cereal commercial, “She doesn’t like anything.” In those moments, I felt I had license to challenge Justice Scalia, and my arguments were always met with energetic debate and his eagerness to prove me wrong. At other times I simply wanted his approval, and for him to tell me that I was finally thinking “right” — which he meant with its full double-entendre.
I missed the mark a few times when I made assumptions about what Justice Scalia would think, based on his political leanings. In one particular criminal case, I tried to anticipate his reaction and gave him the analysis I thought he wanted. But when I suggested he might want to follow the more conventionally conservative line of thinking, he looked at me incredulously and said, “We can’t do that.” There was another case, where we were tasked with writing the majority opinion, when I saw him struggle and ultimately change his mind after realizing that the text of the statute would not support the position he initially wanted to take. That was the one time the Justice — who was very respectful of personal time and valued his own — called me on a weekend and asked me to come into chambers. As we worked through the case together, the power went out in our wing of the Court. Rather than taking a break, we moved our chairs and books into the hallway, using the natural light that came through the courtyard. This prompted Justice David Souter (who was famously averse to using modern technology, including, seemingly, the light bulb) to poke fun at our inability to read in dim light.
[If Republicans block Obama’s SCOTUS nomination, he wins anyway]
If there was a true surprise during my year clerking for Scalia, it was how little reference he made to political outcomes. What he cared about was the law, and where the words on the page took him. More than any one opinion, this will be his lasting contribution to legal thought. Whatever our beliefs, he forced lawyers and scholars to engage on his terms — textual analysis and original meaning. He forced us all to acknowledge that words cannot mean anything we want them to mean; that we have to impose a degree of discipline on our thinking. A discipline I value to this day.
Justice Scalia treated me with enormous respect and always seemed to value my opinion — a heady experience for someone just a year out of law school. I never felt as though he looked at me differently than my conservative counterparts; his trust felt implicit, which is, perhaps, why I struggled so much between wanting to challenge him and wanting to please. He was also, hands down, the smartest person I’ve ever known. What would take me weeks to understand would take him minutes to process. I’ll never forget my first experience handing him an opinion and watching him, in a matter of minutes, type a few lines into his typewriter (yes, a typewriter, even in 2004), and instantly cut to the heart of the issue in a way that I’d simply been unable to do. When I read his new draft, I realized that I’d tried too hard to bridge the difference between his opinion and that of another justice in order to hold our majority. His changes strengthened the argument but also, I feared, risked putting us in the dissent. But Justice Scalia didn’t compromise his principles, even on the smallest issues.
He knew his own mind, and taught me the importance of knowing my own.
So ask yourself this... why are the calls for the parties to 'rise above ideology and partisanship' only seem to be in effect when the Republicans are the majority?
Possibly because we expect better from the party that tries to claim its family values and religious morals are better than everybody else? It's like I said before, if you want to be the better man, you actually have to be the better man.
Just as the Senate voters in 2014 matters.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure the entire Senate wasn't elected in 2014.
What I strongly dislike about this whole process in how the Senate conducts its business, is that is essentially creates an executive branch within the Senate. The few at the top basically get to decide what the Senate as a whole gets to decide on. That's not right. (and before you go again, no, it wasn't right when the Ds did it, either).
What I strongly dislike about this whole process in how the Senate conducts its business, is that is essentially creates an executive branch within the Senate. The few at the top basically get to decide what the Senate as a whole gets to decide on. That's not right. (and before you go again, no, it wasn't right when the Ds did it, either).
That's an odd way of looking at it.
Keep in mind that the Senate *is* a co-equal Branch to the Executive. Each branch has some measure of oversight to keep it's side in check (if they so desire).
So ask yourself this... why are the calls for the parties to 'rise above ideology and partisanship' only seem to be in effect when the Republicans are the majority?
Possibly because we expect better from the party that tries to claim its family values and religious morals are better than everybody else? It's like I said before, if you want to be the better man, you actually have to be the better man.
What I strongly dislike about this whole process in how the Senate conducts its business, is that is essentially creates an executive branch within the Senate. The few at the top basically get to decide what the Senate as a whole gets to decide on. That's not right. (and before you go again, no, it wasn't right when the Ds did it, either).
That's an odd way of looking at it.
Keep in mind that the Senate *is* a co-equal Branch to the Executive. Each branch has some measure of oversight to keep it's side in check (if they so desire).
Minor correction: the Senate AND the House (combined) are a co-equal branch to the Executive. But the problem I have is that the Senate has it's own little executive branch within itself, that allows for a "tyranny of the majority" by preventing the minority from even getting to vote.
So ask yourself this... why are the calls for the parties to 'rise above ideology and partisanship' only seem to be in effect when the Republicans are the majority?
Possibly because we expect better from the party that tries to claim its family values and religious morals are better than everybody else? It's like I said before, if you want to be the better man, you actually have to be the better man.
I've been a card carrying Republican since I got out of high school back in the 1980's in a rural county full of populist "Yellow Dogs", and run by an old school Democratic Party machine that was rife with corruption/cronyism that would have made Boss Tweed proud. A legacy of the days when the "party of the working man" fought to maintain segregation here in the South.
I lean hard right when it comes to politics, military affairs, international affairs, and economics. I tend to be a strict constructionist, rejecting the idea of a "living" Constitution.
On the flipside, I'm also socially liberal to a degree, with a libertarian bent. Particularly when it comes to pot legalization, homosexuality, free speech, privacy, religious freedom, etc.
The point is that not all of us who are members of the Republican Party march in lock-step on everything. It's actually a fairly diverse party as far as views of it's members goes.
Keep in mind that the Senate *is* a co-equal Branch to the Executive. Each branch has some measure of oversight to keep it's side in check (if they so desire).
Well, not really. The Executive doesn't have a whole lot of authority over the Legislature, it pretty much only has veto power and the ability to circumvent it entirely by way of EOs, memorandums, and informal agreements. All three of those latter things are of dubious legality, but pretty much necessary for the US to have a foreign policy because the Senate reflexively chooses to avoid signing treaties.
No, simply be willing to reconsider their positions. As I said up thread, many of the ideas produced by the Republican Party are simply bad. Ted Cruz's flat tax plan, in which he simultaneously says the IRS will be abolished and that it will still need to exist, discriminates against against unmarried families and families that choose to have only 1 child, and states that the corporate income tax will be eliminated only to be replaced by another corporate income tax, is a fantastic example.
whembly wrote: I'll tell you why, it's about power and shaping the court to a desired ideology.
Yes it is, isn't it? And all this stuff about letting the people decide is total nonsense and everyone knows that - this is about power and shaping the court, by trying to wait until there's a Republican president to make the nomination.
Meanwhile any notion of process or governance can go and get fethed, because the balance of the court is at stake. Which is my point exactly.
The Democrats had it. If you want to talk about extremely dangerous precedent, look no further than Reid invoking the nuke option to do away with the filibuster rules.
Exactly. And if you follow that through I think you'll start to get the problem.
The Repubicans were very obstructionist, and this gave Reid the political justification for removing long held senate rules, which were then used for political ends. So we see how a Republican strategy resulted in a Democratic response, leading to an end result that was entirely unlike what Republicans expected.
And now we have the grand daddy of all obstructionist tactics. No-one can honestly claim they know where this will end up. That's what makes it inherently dangerous.
So... forgive me that my "give a feth o meter" is non existent here.
Because you keep looking at it as blue vs red. Look at the actual governance of your country, how it should be run and how it is run, and your give a feth meter should be full.
But, your fearmongering over the idea that if Clinton or Sanders win the Presidency
You're editing my post to make it easier to dismiss than it is. Note that I also suggested a scenario where a Republican won the presidency, leading to Democrats blocking for four years in retaliation, to prevent Democrats nominating the position they rightly thought they should have been able to claim.
And once again, I'm not saying that will happen. I'm not even saying Republicans will hold out for a year. I'm saying that when you walk away from accepted process, you don't know what you're going to end up with.
So ask yourself this... why are the calls for the parties to 'rise above ideology and partisanship' only seem to be in effect when the Republicans are the majority?
I think it's a very fantastical view to think that there'd be no call for Democrats to rise above partisanship, if they had announced a plan to block a SC nomination for a full year.
As regular Republican voters have seen, whenever the Republican party tries to take that "higher ground", they lose.
Well that's an issue the GOP is better off addressing through a root and branch assessment of their broadly insane and largely unpopular platform, than in trying to play negtive and obstructionist politics. The latter strategy is, as I've already mentioned, the platform of a permanent minority.
This referendum is a big deal in Britain. The ruling party, the conservatives (republicans) are pretty split on this, and there could be a political 'civil war' that goes on for years.
The British public is evenly divided as well. Many believe that the UK should free itself from the EU and forge a new role for itself in the wider world, whilst others want closer ties to Europe.
This question cuts at the heart of British identity since we lost the Empire. Should be push closer to the USA or should we push closer to Europe?
We've tried to be both over the years, and it never really worked. Now it'll be decided one way or another.
I think this is quite interesting.... On the one hand, you are literally arguing about the Westphalian model, which members of the EU voluntarily give up pieces of their own sovereignty to do... On the other hand, with the way US politics has gone, the Westphalian model has all but disappeared, and the Corporate interests seem to be given greater weight (see, TPP)
It really is a sticky situation, but I can see why the US would "want" to have the UK as a member state of the EU, as you are pretty much the only native English speaking country in there, combined with our intelligence sharing deals and whatnot, it really is advantageous for the US to have your voice in that body of politics.
whembly wrote: Voters have "spoken" in 2014 when the GOP took the majority.
We can play this game all day guys.
Yes they did. And so by electing a Republican majority senate alongside the already elected Democratic president, the people said that any justice who stood down should be replaced by someone nominated by the Democratic president, with advice and consent granted by the the Republican majority senate.
Which means, of course, Republicans are free to refuse consent on any specific candidate Obama nominates. And if they can find good enough reason to reject every candidate Obama puts up until Obama's term ends, then hey, that's the game.
But to simply refuse to consider any candidate proposed is a whole different thing entirely.
No, simply be willing to reconsider their positions. As I said up thread, many of the ideas produced by the Republican Party are simply bad. Ted Cruz's flat tax plan, in which he simultaneously says the IRS will be abolished and that it will still need to exist, discriminates against against unmarried families and families that choose to have only 1 child, and states that the corporate income tax will be eliminated only to be replaced by another corporate income tax, is a fantastic example.
Not to mention his idea of returning to the gold standard, which would be hilarious were it not a serious suggestion from a person who has a realistic chance of becoming the US president. Sure, this is not a first time Ted Cruz has threatened to destroy the world economy, but this time he doesn't even seem to realise he is doing that. No one whose grasp of economics is this tenuous should be let anywhere near the big chair.
Which means, of course, Republicans are free to refuse consent on any specific candidate Obama nominates. And if they can find good enough reason to reject every candidate Obama puts up until Obama's term ends, then hey, that's the game.
But to simply refuse to consider any candidate proposed is a whole different thing entirely.
And that's the point that a lot of people simply aren't getting, or are simply refusing to get.
oldravenman3025 wrote: I lean hard right when it comes to politics, military affairs, international affairs, and economics. I tend to be a strict constructionist, rejecting the idea of a "living" Constitution.
On the flipside, I'm also socially liberal to a degree, with a libertarian bent. Particularly when it comes to pot legalization, homosexuality, free speech, privacy, religious freedom, etc.
The point is that not all of us who are members of the Republican Party march in lock-step on everything. It's actually a fairly diverse party as far as views of it's members goes.
Um, I don't mean to be dismissive of your politics or anything, in fact I thank you for posting them because it's always good to see where a poster is coming from. But your position is hardly evidence of diversity within the Republican party. You're basically a libertarian, a group that's probably the majority among young movement conservatives.
Which means, of course, Republicans are free to refuse consent on any specific candidate Obama nominates. And if they can find good enough reason to reject every candidate Obama puts up until Obama's term ends, then hey, that's the game.
But to simply refuse to consider any candidate proposed is a whole different thing entirely.
And that's the point that a lot of people simply aren't getting, or are simply refusing to get.
I don't think Whembly refuses to get it. I think he just looks at politics as literally being a game. He doesn't really see it as Governance and how decisions like this have long lasting impacts on people all across the country. He just sees an open seat his team needs and he is all in to get it.
Crimson wrote: Not to mention his idea of returning to the gold standard, which would be hilarious were it not a serious suggestion from a person who has a realistic chance of becoming the US president. Sure, this is not a first time Ted Cruz has threatened to destroy the world economy, but this time he doesn't even seem to realise he is doing that. No one whose grasp of economics is this tenuous should be let anywhere near the big chair.
Reagan believed in the Laffer curve, and the US not only survived the 80s, it flourished. Though Reagan did have to reverse some of his tax cuts when they didn't work anything like Laffer's model projected. GW Bush believed his tax cuts wouldn't hurt revenue because of Laffer magic as well. The US didn't flourish in the 00s, though. And nor did Bush backtrack on his taxcuts, even when revenue refused to act like Laffer predicted.
I'm not saying it's okay to have economic lunatics in the presidency. I don't really know what I'm saying. I guess I'm saying that the US is quite resilient, enough that even completely loopy nonsense like the Laffer curve won't tank the country. It'll cause harm of course. And some of the stuff put out by Cruz like the gold standard stuff is admittedly a lot crazier than the Laffer curve, but even if he won office, well the US will survive. Lots of people will suffer, of course, but the country will survive.
Part of me even wonders if the final kick the Republican crazy train needs before it all falls over is to win the presidency again. If any one of the people currently campaigning for the Republican nomination wins the presidency and gets even part of their agenda up, I really don't see how the GOP would continue to function as a legitimate major party.
*Or even worse Rubio, some of policy positions are like reading from the desk of an overly enthusiastic Heritage intern.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: I don't think Whembly refuses to get it. I think he just looks at politics as literally being a game. He doesn't really see it as Governance and how decisions like this have long lasting impacts on people all across the country. He just sees an open seat his team needs and he is all in to get it.
I think it's more that once you get deep enough in the siege mentality it's pretty easy to justify anything. Right now he believes that there is a great tide of Democratic advantages and wins, and if Republicans don't fight them in every way possible then the war will be lost forever.
To some extent Democrats had it too, during the Bush presidency. Nowhere near as bad. Well, some liberals had it worse than whembly does now, but across the whole it's way more intense in the Republican party.
What everyone caught up in that mentality fails to understand is that politics is about winning one day, and losing the next. When you win you get some stuff, when you lose the other side gets some stuff. Of course you try as you can from opposition to limit how much the majority can get, but you always keep in mind that they're just daily battles. And hey, losing a battle today will build enthusiasm in your base, while making the other side complacent.
What matters more than any of it is that the system continues to function. That you don't dismantle a long running, accepted and functioning democracy because you really, really want to win today's fight.
What everyone caught up in that mentality fails to understand is that politics is about winning one day, and losing the next. When you win you get some stuff, when you lose the other side gets some stuff. Of course you try as you can from opposition to limit how much the majority can get, but you always keep in mind that they're just daily battles. And hey, losing a battle today will build enthusiasm in your base, while making the other side complacent.
What matters more than any of it is that the system continues to function. That you don't dismantle a long running, accepted and functioning democracy because you really, really want to win today's fight.
Why, dearie me, that almost sounds like, *gasp*, compromise. Giving some to get some. Who woulda thunk it?
This referendum is a big deal in Britain. The ruling party, the conservatives (republicans) are pretty split on this, and there could be a political 'civil war' that goes on for years.
The British public is evenly divided as well. Many believe that the UK should free itself from the EU and forge a new role for itself in the wider world, whilst others want closer ties to Europe.
This question cuts at the heart of British identity since we lost the Empire. Should be push closer to the USA or should we push closer to Europe?
We've tried to be both over the years, and it never really worked. Now it'll be decided one way or another.
I think this is quite interesting.... On the one hand, you are literally arguing about the Westphalian model, which members of the EU voluntarily give up pieces of their own sovereignty to do... On the other hand, with the way US politics has gone, the Westphalian model has all but disappeared, and the Corporate interests seem to be given greater weight (see, TPP)
It really is a sticky situation, but I can see why the US would "want" to have the UK as a member state of the EU, as you are pretty much the only native English speaking country in there, combined with our intelligence sharing deals and whatnot, it really is advantageous for the US to have your voice in that body of politics.
One of the reasons why De Gaulle opposed Britain's membership was he feared that Britain would be a Trojan Horse for the Americans.
In many respects, he was right - our heart has never really been in the European project.
It's very curious British trait that we love going into other people's countries, but don't like it when they come into ours, especially if they're European
On the other hand, if Britain leaves the EU, the European project could collapse and that would be a headache for any American President.
On the other hand, if Britain leaves the EU, the European project could collapse and that would be a headache for any American President.
I suspect this collapse would be very likely. From what little I see in the media, it would seem that aside from the UK, Germany feels that it is bearing all the weight and responsibility of the EU. If the UK goes, they will probably feel even more like that, and seek to get out of that situation.
If Germany leaves the EU, I think the whole thing would collapse, because I can't see France wanting to, or being able to support the organization.
whembly wrote: Voters have "spoken" in 2014 when the GOP took the majority.
We can play this game all day guys.
Yes they did. And so by electing a Republican majority senate alongside the already elected Democratic president, the people said that any justice who stood down should be replaced by someone nominated by the Democratic president, with advice and consent granted by the the Republican majority senate.
Which means, of course, Republicans are free to refuse consent on any specific candidate Obama nominates. And if they can find good enough reason to reject every candidate Obama puts up until Obama's term ends, then hey, that's the game.
But to simply refuse to consider any candidate proposed is a whole different thing entirely.
Exalted! You ninja'd me, but I am glad I reread the thread before posting.
On the other hand, if Britain leaves the EU, the European project could collapse and that would be a headache for any American President.
I suspect this collapse would be very likely. From what little I see in the media, it would seem that aside from the UK, Germany feels that it is bearing all the weight and responsibility of the EU. If the UK goes, they will probably feel even more like that, and seek to get out of that situation.
If Germany leaves the EU, I think the whole thing would collapse, because I can't see France wanting to, or being able to support the organization.
This is just my opinion, but here's what I think is the American view towards Europe.
The world is changing. Influence is shifting from West to east, and with the rise of China, America has decided to tilt towards the pacific to protect its interests and allies.
Europe is peaceful and prosperous, and if there is any trouble with the Russians, then Britain, France, and Germany can handle it. American interests are secure.
But if Britain pulls out of the EU, and the European project collapses, and the blowback from the Middle East crisis or Ukraine spills into Europe, and the EU can't handle it, and America's NATO obligations kick in....
Well, it might get interesting.
There is a potential pain in the ass awaiting the next American president, and I'm not talking about a new supreme court judge
Sigvatr wrote: welt.de, a German news portal, just reported that Clinton prett much won pre-elections in Nevada vs. Sanders.
Not really sure how to feel given that one candidates biggest trait is being a woman and the other one's being ultra socialist.
I've seen a report that participation dropped as much as 1/3 from 2008. I'm sure that's a factor. It'll definitely be a factor in the general election, too.
And Jeb has dropped out, and most of the remaining sanity in the Republican race went with him. At least the current numbers put Rubio just ahead of Cruz.
It's still amazing, though. Sanders lost, sure, but not by much.
Sigvatr wrote: candidates biggest trait is being a woman
I'm not a fan but she does have more going for her than just being a woman.
Perhaps... but it definitely is the one trait/card she plays most often in all public appearances.
I think that was his point.
With all of the positional flip-flopping she's done over the past number of years, it's hard to get a grasp on what her actual stances are. I feel she's taking the easy route by touting the "Time for the first woman President", rather than selling political policy.
And it's not like she hasn't been given an easy run. With the DNC pretty much trying to hand her the nomination for a while now, the sheer volumes of money poured into the campaign, and the super delegates giving her a 15% head start, it's hard to not feel like the process isn't completely rigged.
With all of the positional flip-flopping she's done over the past number of years, it's hard to get a grasp on what her actual stances are. I feel she's taking the easy route by touting the "Time for the first woman President", rather than selling political policy.
And it's not like she hasn't been given an easy run. With the DNC pretty much trying to hand her the nomination for a while now, the sheer volumes of money poured into the campaign, and the super delegates giving her a 15% head start, it's hard to not feel like the process isn't completely rigged.
It's incredibly frustrating.
Agreed... I don't think she really can run on any platform except for the first woman thing. Even her policies that she does talk about in debates and whatnot feel more like her saying "this is my policy.... right now"
And it's not like she hasn't been given an opportunity to do as Obama did, when opponents brought out video of him supporting "traditional marriage," IIRC, he responded by saying, "that video was taken years ago, I have met more people, talked with people, etc. and those people have shown me that my views were in error and that people should be free and legally able to marry the person they love"
She may have done that, but if she did, I don't recall it, nor even the debate it would have happened in.
With all of the positional flip-flopping she's done over the past number of years, it's hard to get a grasp on what her actual stances are. I feel she's taking the easy route by touting the "Time for the first woman President", rather than selling political policy.
And it's not like she hasn't been given an easy run. With the DNC pretty much trying to hand her the nomination for a while now, the sheer volumes of money poured into the campaign, and the super delegates giving her a 15% head start, it's hard to not feel like the process isn't completely rigged.
It's incredibly frustrating.
Agreed... I don't think she really can run on any platform except for the first woman thing. Even her policies that she does talk about in debates and whatnot feel more like her saying "this is my policy.... right now"
And it's not like she hasn't been given an opportunity to do as Obama did, when opponents brought out video of him supporting "traditional marriage," IIRC, he responded by saying, "that video was taken years ago, I have met more people, talked with people, etc. and those people have shown me that my views were in error and that people should be free and legally able to marry the person they love"
She may have done that, but if she did, I don't recall it, nor even the debate it would have happened in.
She's done a "I've always supported gay marriage", where there are videos of her saying that she flat out opposes it.
I'm honestly just feeling completely drained with the current political atmosphere, especially after tonight. I don't mind that the turnout ended up with Hilary winning by around 5.5%. It's just that with all the super delegate that have backed her right away pretty much turns this from a very close race between Sanders and Hilary to something that feels incredibly rigged.
It just pushes the feeling of "Why bother voting."
With all of the positional flip-flopping she's done over the past number of years, it's hard to get a grasp on what her actual stances are. I feel she's taking the easy route by touting the "Time for the first woman President", rather than selling political policy.
And it's not like she hasn't been given an easy run. With the DNC pretty much trying to hand her the nomination for a while now, the sheer volumes of money poured into the campaign, and the super delegates giving her a 15% head start, it's hard to not feel like the process isn't completely rigged.
It's incredibly frustrating.
Agreed... I don't think she really can run on any platform except for the first woman thing. Even her policies that she does talk about in debates and whatnot feel more like her saying "this is my policy.... right now"
And it's not like she hasn't been given an opportunity to do as Obama did, when opponents brought out video of him supporting "traditional marriage," IIRC, he responded by saying, "that video was taken years ago, I have met more people, talked with people, etc. and those people have shown me that my views were in error and that people should be free and legally able to marry the person they love"
She may have done that, but if she did, I don't recall it, nor even the debate it would have happened in.
She's done a "I've always supported gay marriage", where there are videos of her saying that she flat out opposes it.
I'm honestly just feeling completely drained with the current political atmosphere, especially after tonight. I don't mind that the turnout ended up with Hilary winning by around 5.5%. It's just that with all the super delegate that have backed her right away pretty much turns this from a very close race between Sanders and Hilary to something that feels incredibly rigged.
It just pushes the feeling of "Why bother voting."
Uno: It doesn’t matter whether Kasich & Carson formally withdraw or not. Neither of them will ever see ~3% again, anywhere. If they continue, it's nothing more than a vanity project. It’s truly a three-man race, with things will get interesting.
Dos: The March 1st primaries will either give Trump the nomination or eliminate one of the remaining two. Cruz *will* win Texas, which has the most delegates up for grabs by far; if he can pick up even one or two other wins in addition to Texas, unfortunately that’s the end for Rubio.
Tres: In the resulting two-man race, Trump is very, very weak... Cruz will win every primary after March 1st and take the nomination on the first ballot.
las Cuatro: In the General, Clinton will need to win over the Sanders voters and keep those voters highly motivated. I bet that the Sanders voters are feeling a bit 'disenfranchised' due to the DNC's SuperDelegates. I'd bet that people will forget about that primary and remain motivated for Hillary.
Well... better than religious nut jobs who actually believe the crap coming out of their mouths. Trump has recently been caught on video talking favorable about "his" policies when in fact he's being given exact copies of a number of Sanders' policies.
I personally would rather the country move forward, into the future, not try and go back to the bronze age.
whembly wrote: Heh... one thing I didn't realize about South Carolina... it's an open primary.
Had it been closed (like most of the up coming states), Trump would've been much, much lower...
I'm not so sure about that. He won evangelicals (surprising considering that's Cruz's base). In fact he won pretty much every demographic in the exit polls. I think you are giving Cruz too much of a chance in your post above. Rubio seems bettered positioned to me. Cruz does well in certain states but those states tend to allot delegates proportionally. Bush getting out will be a huge boon to Rubio as the establishment sway and money will now go to him. Carson and Kasich will likely still hurt Rubio the longer they stay in (look for Kasich to do well in Michigan and Ohio, but that's about it) and Carson is still pulling bigger numbers than I would have expected. Basically, it boils down to if Cruz stays in (Trump wins easily) or if he gets out sooner rather than later (Rubio might be able to make it competitive).
So NV was supposed to be a landslide of 20 or more points for Hillary, that Sanders changed that to so close a race shows things are swinging in a different direction than the establishment would like to have. For America to be repaired from the Reagan Impact, we need a bold candidate, I see Hilary as just more of the same lame, failed crap under her Husband and even to some extent Obama. She will do little in major changes if anything, she is likely to ride on being the first female in office, and do about as much "progress" as the last 2 Dems have done. Which is steer little away from the damage of the Reaganites
I don't know much about how American politics work but would a Clinton presidency with Sanders as a... I think it's Secretary of State (equivalent to the UKs Home Secretary?) or VP be a possible thing?
Compel wrote: I don't know much about how American politics work but would a Clinton presidency with Sanders as a... I think it's Secretary of State (equivalent to the UKs Home Secretary?) or VP be a possible thing?
It's very unlikely. Obama did that for Clinton because the two have very very similar politics. It was also a way of keeping her in the political system so that she could run for President again after Obama's terms.
Sanders is too much of an outsider for Clinton to do that.
Compel wrote: I don't know much about how American politics work but would a Clinton presidency with Sanders as a... I think it's Secretary of State (equivalent to the UKs Home Secretary?) or VP be a possible thing?
Secretary of State is the equivalent of foreign minister. The closest equivalent to the Home Secretary in the US is either the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General, depending on what part of the responsibilities we're discussing.
Better dig that trench and dig out my grandfather's lee enfield rifle and prepare for Trump's invasion of Scotland.
He won't forgive us for wanting him banned from Scotland.
Honestly you could beat him off with a longwinded Scottish speech. No need for a rifle. I do own an Enfield though.
I fething love Scotland and am pretty good with UK accents but I've met more than one Scot that I've talked to and had no idea what they were saying. I once talked to guy in Houston and said something like "You must be a Rangers fan" He responded with "something something Celtic FC something something"
I've got a trip planned for August to do parts of the West Highland Way with a few days in the Speyside area. Basically I want to live in the Balvenie distillery.PM me if you know any other areas I should hit, Cheers
Better dig that trench and dig out my grandfather's lee enfield rifle and prepare for Trump's invasion of Scotland.
He won't forgive us for wanting him banned from Scotland.
Honestly you could beat him off with a longwinded Scottish speech. No need for a rifle. I do own an Enfield though.
I fething love Scotland and am pretty good with UK accents but I've met more than one Scot that I've talked to and had no idea what they were saying. I once talked to guy in Houston and said something like "You must be a Rangers fan" He responded with "something something Celtic FC something something"
I've got a trip planned for August to do parts of the West Highland Way with a few days in the Speyside area. Basically I want to live in the Balvenie distillery.PM me if you know any other areas I should hit, Cheers
I could tell you what areas to avoid: Loch Ness (tourist trap) Fort William (another tourist trap) and Inverness (dull place, but decent people, but still a dull place) What out for Lyme's disease as well.
Glen Coe is very nice to visit. Spectacular scenery.
But dammnit! He won the civil war and cracked down on the KKK.
Probably because those things were a lot less ridiculous than the Grant administrations unbridled nepotism and cronyism, which along with Andrew Johnson's sabotage, pretty much killed the progressive side of the Reconstruction period and set the stage for pretty much all of American's 20th century problems. I mean sure, we'd have had problems anyway cause everyone has problems, but that doesn't really absolve Grant's administration for setting all the gears in motion.
But dammnit! He won the civil war and cracked down on the KKK.
Probably because those things were a lot less ridiculous than the Grant administrations unbridled nepotism and cronyism, which along with Andrew Johnson's sabotage, pretty much killed the progressive side of the Reconstruction period and set the stage for pretty much all of American's 20th century problems. I mean sure, we'd have had problems anyway cause everyone has problems, but that doesn't really absolve Grant's administration for setting all the gears in motion.
The irreversible force of reconstruction was always going to come against the immovable object of the defeated southerners.
Even Lincoln, had he lived, would have struggled to reconcile the differences.
Well, Bernie is the closest we have today of FDR, that would be yet to be seen if he can do as well in foreign policy as FDR did, but that was WW2.
But for equality issues and infrastructure that FDR made, well the corporates tried to stifle FDR back in the 1930's, they are hoping to stem Bernie this go around to avoid a fair nation as we had under FDR.
Right now we are more Oligarchy than Democracy. GOP purely serves them, the Dems pay lip service to being for the little guys, but seriously, Hilary's "No we can't" says otherwise, same with Pelosi and company,
Breotan wrote: I've seen a report that participation dropped as much as 1/3 from 2008. I'm sure that's a factor. It'll definitely be a factor in the general election, too.
I thought Nevada didn't release raw vote totals? Can you link to them, because that'd be interesting reading.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: And Jeb has dropped out, and most of the remaining sanity in the Republican race went with him. At least the current numbers put Rubio just ahead of Cruz.
It's amazing that Jeb! was the sane one. Anyone remember when GW Bush was considered out on the fringe?
It's still amazing, though. Sanders lost, sure, but not by much.
Yeah, he's dragged his numbers up, a lot more than I thought he would. It's still quite hard to plot a plausible path to victory for him, but with the Nevada result it is now possible. If anything, Nevada was a better result for Sanders than New Hampshire was.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RivenSkull wrote: With all of the positional flip-flopping she's done over the past number of years, it's hard to get a grasp on what her actual stances are. I feel she's taking the easy route by touting the "Time for the first woman President", rather than selling political policy.
Her policy position is to continue the moderate, incremental reform work that's taken place under Obama. It’s kind of ironic that for all their differences on the campaign trail in 2008, in most places Obama ended up doing things the way Clinton had argued for.
It’s left her as the defender of his legacy, and also of hers, as it’s hard to see how she would have done any differently in office had she won in 2008. And given the amount of frustration among voters that change didn’t come fast enough during the year, well I guess that’s where Sanders comes in.
And it's not like she hasn't been given an easy run. With the DNC pretty much trying to hand her the nomination for a while now, the sheer volumes of money poured into the campaign, and the super delegates giving her a 15% head start, it's hard to not feel like the process isn't completely rigged.
It's incredibly frustrating.
The whole primary process is very strange, and probably the worst part is the super-delegates. Handing votes to individuals in the party establishment basically means one of three things. The most likely result is that super-delegate votes will line up with the candidate who also got the most votes, in which case the super-delegates do nothing and don’t need to be there. It's also possible that most super-delegates will line up behind a less popular candidate, but not do enough to change the result, so again the super-delegates do nothing and don’t need to be there. The last possibility is that super-delegates will line up in sufficient numbers behind a candidate who narrowly lost the popular vote, enough to overrule the voters. This is the only situation in which super-delegates change the result, and it’s a disaster if it happens.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: At least the DNC *have* super delegates...
The RNC is looking at a Trump nomination,
If the majority of the party want him as their nomination, then he should be their nomination. He may not be a good candidate or a good person, but democracy should be about letting the people vote, and then watching the chips fall where they may.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Tres: In the resulting two-man race, Trump is very, very weak... Cruz will win every primary after March 1st and take the nomination on the first ballot.
That assumes the field narrows very quickly, and that Rubio drops out soon. It’s possible, but I wouldn’t assume it’s certain.
Similarly, there’s a big issue with the assumption that Trump’s got a hard ceiling. It’s a plausible theory, but it isn’t absolute, and we won’t know it’s true for certain until the field breaks up. For Trump to get beaten, two things need to happen – the Republican field needs to narrow to 3 and then to 2 candidates fairly soon, and when it does Trump can only pick up a small portion of those voters. That’s probable, but anytime you start needing multiple things to happen, and one of those things is almost entirely theoretical, well then I think it’s a decent rule of thumb to consider it less an 50% likely.
Oh, and fivethirtyeight makes an interesting point on Cruz – his best states all give votes on a proportional basis. So he might win the state with 30 or 40% of the vote, but all he gets is 30 or 40% of the delegates. Whereas Rubio and Trump have their best figures in states with winner takes all delegate counts. This, along with the fact that people inside the party really hate Cruz makes me think the man most likely to beat Trump is Rubio.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shasolenzabi wrote: So NV was supposed to be a landslide of 20 or more points for Hillary, that Sanders changed that to so close a race
Clinton wasn’t up by 20 points in Nevada since about December. And the expectations game is a very silly game.
The actual story is that Sanders spent about twice the money in Nevada that Clinton did, because a win or a close result would give his campaign a genuine feeling of being able to win the whole campaign. And he did well, closed the gap in Nevada from where it was months ago, and came close enough to show that he’s really in this primary. Probably the biggest win for him was with Hispanics, while he got thumped in black voters, he actually won Hispanics, showing his vote isn’t limited to white voters.
I see Hilary as just more of the same lame, failed crap under her Husband and even to some extent Obama.
Inflation adjusted median household income in 1992 - $49k. Inflation adjusted median household income in 2000 – $56k. Damn that failed Clinton presidency.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RivenSkull wrote: It's very unlikely. Obama did that for Clinton because the two have very very similar politics. It was also a way of keeping her in the political system so that she could run for President again after Obama's terms.
And Clinton was a natural fit for Secretary of State as she had lots of ideas and ambitions on the international stage. Sanders' is more focused on domestic matters. Really none of the executive positions would really help him with his policy objectives. If we’re going to stretch things he could take Health or Education, but he’d be hamstrung in either of those roles without new legislation to allow him new programs to roll out.
Assuming he doesn't win the presidency, the place he’s most able to influence things is by remaining in the senate.
@Sebster: Sanders got the majority of Hispanic voters via the exit poll numbers, if you look into the actual results, Clinton won Hispanic areas (suburbs of LV) pretty handily which suggests those exit polls might have been off (not surprising considering their small sample size). That's not to take anything away from Sanders though, he had to do better than expected with that demo considering the closeness of the overall results.
Gordon Shumway wrote: @Sebster: Sanders got the majority of Hispanic voters via the exit poll numbers, if you look into the actual results, Clinton won Hispanic areas (suburbs of LV) pretty handily which suggests those exit polls might have been off (not surprising considering their small sample size). That's not to take anything away from Sanders though, he had to do better than expected with that demo considering the closeness of the overall results.
Yes, I read fivethirtyeight too , and read about the speculation given the small portion of voters that maybe the actual result was different. But given it is speculation I thought I’d go with the simple headline – Sanders wins among Hispanic voters. Especially given fivethirtyeight speculated on points both ways, perhaps the exit poll was misleading, but perhaps the electorate results were, as those Hispanic neighbourhoods also tend to be older (and therefore lean Clinton), while many younger Hispanic voters (who lean to Sanders) live in white areas.
Well, it’s all speculation and the exact detail probably doesn’t matter that much. The big story is what you say –Sanders being talked about as maybe having won the Hispanic vote shows is a big win in itself, because it gives him a narrative of having appeal outside of white interests. And on a pure vote counting basis, given his strength in white votes, then drawing the Hispanic vote is probably enough. If it wasn't for black voters, that is. That's the flip side to his good showing among hispanics. Despite the money his campaign spent in Nevada, he didn’t make any real dent in Clinton’s advantage among black voters. And unless he can make in-roads there, or something causes Clinton’s share among white voters to drop significantly, then it remains Clinton’s to lose.
Yeah, but so much of her results had something to do with the concentration of people in general in the county that Vegas is nestled in as it is the most densely populated precinct of NV, Had Sanders focused a bit more there as Clinton had, he may have had a bigger impact, he went the whole state, thus spreading around, but not enough on Clark county, had he understood NV as Hillary had, and she has been working over NV for some time as she wanted to win there yet again, and not lose as she did in '08. But she had similar results vs Obama in 2008 in NV a she had to Bernie.
Bernie's message is what is fighting against her PACs+Media+Pundits+DWS lead DNC
Like any number of us raised in the late 20th century, I have spent my life perplexed about exactly how Hitler could have come to power in Germany. Watching Donald Trump’s rise, I now understand. Leave aside whether a direct comparison of Trump to Hitler is accurate. That is not my point. My point rather is about how a demagogic opportunist can exploit a divided country.
To understand the rise of Hitler and the spread of Nazism, I have generally relied on the German-Jewish émigré philosopher Hannah Arendt and her arguments about the banality of evil. Somehow people can understand themselves as “just doing their job,” yet act as cogs in the wheel of a murderous machine. Arendt also offered a second answer in a small but powerful book called “Men in Dark Times.” In this book, she described all those who thought that Hitler’s rise was a terrible thing but chose “internal exile,” or staying invisible and out of the way as their strategy for coping with the situation. They knew evil was evil, but they too facilitated it, by departing from the battlefield out of a sense of hopelessness.
One can see both of these phenomena unfolding now. The first shows itself, for instance, when journalists cover every crude and cruel thing that comes out of Trump’s mouth and thereby help acculturate all of us to what we are hearing. Are they not just doing their jobs, they will ask, in covering the Republican front-runner? Have we not already been acculturated by 30 years of popular culture to offensive and inciting comments? Yes, both of these things are true. But that doesn’t mean journalists ought to be Trump’s megaphone. Perhaps we should just shut the lights out on offensiveness; turn off the mic when someone tries to shout down others; reestablish standards for what counts as a worthwhile contribution to the public debate. That will seem counter to journalistic norms, yes, but why not let Trump pay for his own ads when he wants to broadcast foul and incendiary ideas? He’ll still have plenty of access to freedom of expression. It is time to draw a bright line.
One spots the second experience in any number of water-cooler conversations or dinner-party dialogues. “Yes, yes, it is terrible. Can you believe it? Have you seen anything like it? Has America come to this?” “Agreed, agreed.” But when someone asks what is to be done, silence falls. Very many of us, too many of us, are starting to contemplate accepting internal exile. Or we joke about moving to Canada more seriously than usually.
But over the course of the past few months, I’ve learned something else that goes beyond Arendt’s ideas about the banality of evil and feelings of impotence in the face of danger.
Trump is rising by taking advantage of a divided country. The truth is that the vast majority of voting Americans think that Trump is unacceptable as a presidential candidate, but we are split by strong partisan ideologies and cannot coordinate a solution to stop him. Similarly, a significant part of voting Republicans think that Trump is unacceptable, but they too, thus far, have been unable to coordinate a solution. Trump is exploiting the fact that we cannot unite across our ideological divides.
The only way to stop him, then, is to achieve just that kind of coordination across party lines and across divisions within parties. We have reached that moment of truth.
Republicans, you cannot count on the Democrats to stop Trump. I believe that Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination, and I intend to vote for her, but it is also the case that she is a candidate with significant weaknesses, as your party knows quite well. The result of a head-to-head contest between Clinton and Trump would be unpredictable. Trump has to be blocked in your primary.
Jeb Bush has done the right thing by dropping out, just as he did the right thing by being the first, alongside Rand Paul, to challenge Trump. The time has come, John Kasich and Ben Carson, to leave the race as well. You both express a powerful commitment to the good of your country and to its founding ideals. If you care about the future of this republic, it is time to endorse Marco Rubio. Kasich, there’s a little wind in your sails, but it’s not enough. Your country is calling you. Do the right thing.
Ted Cruz is, I believe, pulling votes away from Trump, and for that reason is useful in the race. But, Mr. Cruz, you are drawing too close to Trump’s politics. You too should change course.
Democrats, your leading candidate is too weak to count on as a firewall. She might be able to pull off a general election victory against Trump, but then again she might not. Too much is uncertain this year. You, too, need to help the Republicans beat Trump; this is no moment for standing by passively. If your deadline for changing your party affiliation has not yet come, re-register and vote for Rubio, even if, like me, you cannot stomach his opposition to marriage equality. I too would prefer Kasich as the Republican nominee, but pursuing that goal will only make it more likely that Trump takes the nomination. The republic cannot afford that.
Finally, to all of you Republicans who have already dropped out, one more, great act of public service awaits you. As candidates, you pledged to support whomever the Republican party nominated. It’s time to revoke your pledge. Be bold, stand up and shout that you will not support Trump if he is your party’s nominee. Do it together. Hold one big mother of a news conference. Endorse Rubio, together. It is time to draw a bright line, and you are the ones on whom this burden falls. No one else can do it.
Marco Rubio, this is also your moment to draw a bright line. You too ought to rescind your pledge to support the party’s nominee if it is Trump.
Donald Trump has no respect for the basic rights that are the foundation of constitutional democracy, nor for the requirements of decency necessary to sustain democratic citizenship. Nor can any democracy survive without an expectation that the people require reasonable arguments that bring the truth to light, and Trump has nothing but contempt for our intelligence.
We, the people, need to find somewhere, buried in the recesses of our fading memories, the capacity to make common cause against this formidable threat to our equally shared liberties. The time is now.
Read the first line, saw the Hitler comparison, stopped reading. Not worth it. If you go ahead and start a comment of yours with such a comparison, you pretty much declare yourself as devoid of any historical / political knowledge.
So a Democrat voter telling Republicans what they need to do in their primary? Seems legit. Because Trump talking about building a wall obviously equals death camps. But it's cool because it's not like the whole second to last paragraph is all unsubstantiated ad hominen attacks or anything.
jmurph wrote: So a Democrat voter telling Republicans what they need to do in their primary? Seems legit.
I definitely don't think you need to be a registered Republican to be able to state, totally free of bias, that Donald Trump would be a disastrous candidate for the GOP if nominated.
jmurph wrote: So a Democrat voter telling Republicans what they need to do in their primary? Seems legit.
I definitely don't think you need to be a registered Republican to be able to state, totally free of bias, that Donald Trump would be a disastrous candidate for the GOP if nominated.
I agree with you there but the sad thing is... I think that this same sentence would remain true if you removed Donald Trump's name and replaced it with Cruz's name, or even Rubio's name... So many of the Republican candidates this go round are just fething horrible.
jmurph wrote: So a Democrat voter telling Republicans what they need to do in their primary? Seems legit. Because Trump talking about building a wall obviously equals death camps. But it's cool because it's not like the whole second to last paragraph is all unsubstantiated ad hominen attacks or anything.
Aren't politics fun?
Trump also wants to ban all muslims from emigrating to the USA. That's a plain contradiction of the constitution he is supposed to uphold if he becomes president, as well as being against human rights.
Sigvatr wrote: Read the first line, saw the Hitler comparison, stopped reading. Not worth it. If you go ahead and start a comment of yours with such a comparison, you pretty much declare yourself as devoid of any historical / political knowledge.
Thank you for letting us know that not only did you not read the entire article, you completely misunderstood the part you did read. I appreciate your honesty.
jmurph wrote: So a Democrat voter telling Republicans what they need to do in their primary? Seems legit. Because Trump talking about building a wall obviously equals death camps. But it's cool because it's not like the whole second to last paragraph is all unsubstantiated ad hominen attacks or anything.
Aren't politics fun?
Here's something you might not realize, in quite a few states there are just voters. Not Republican voters or Democraic voters, but just voters. Eighteen states have open presidential primaries, including the one I live in. When I go to the polls next Tuesday, I'm free to pick anyone I would like because I'm not bound by a political party.
Ouze wrote: I definitely don't think you need to be a registered Republican to be able to state, totally free of bias, that Donald Trump would be a disastrous candidate for the GOP if nominated.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I agree with you there but the sad thing is... I think that this same sentence would remain true if you removed Donald Trump's name and replaced it with Cruz's name, or even Rubio's name... So many of the Republican candidates this go round are just fething horrible.
I would agree with Cruz. I would probably disagree with Rubio - I don't like Rubio, and I think he would lose in a general, but I don't think he's going to potentially cause lasting damage to the GOP brand the way that Cruz or most especially Trump will. He's just a bad candidate, like Romney was.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but things are heating up in the British EU referendum thread.
Representatives from various European countries are at each other's throats.
We may need American involvement in Europe, again, to sort this out
I looked... at least on the last page it looked more "war of the roses" than it did "Thirty Years' War".... The cavalry cannot ride in to save the day if it cannot properly discriminate it's target(s)
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump also wants to ban all muslims from emigrating to the USA. That's a plain contradiction of the constitution he is supposed to uphold if he becomes president, as well as being against human rights.
Good thing Congress passes the immigration laws and the Supreme Court can nix them. It's almost as if someone thought out a system of checks and balances!
And since when is it a human right to be able to enter a country? As far as I know, several Mideast nations restrict immigration based on religion and the US has one of the most open immigration schemes in the world. I doubt anyone would put a religious test on it, but restricting entry from nations or regions regarded as dangerous is certainly nothing new. Heck, Carter did it with Iran. Not saying any of this makes Trump more or less electable, but much of the outrage over Trump seems to be from those who would never vote GOP anyway, and he is clearly angling for the GOP nomination. I would expect that if he gets it, you will start hearing him talk about his more moderate stances (IE he is pro choice) that don't help him in a primary.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I agree with you there but the sad thing is... I think that this same sentence would remain true if you removed Donald Trump's name and replaced it with Cruz's name, or even Rubio's name... So many of the Republican candidates this go round are just fething horrible.
I would agree with Cruz. I would probably disagree with Rubio - I don't like Rubio, and I think he would lose in a general, but I don't think he's going to potentially cause lasting damage to the GOP brand the way that Cruz or most especially Trump will. He's just a bad candidate, like Romney was.
I actually think Rubio would be a great candidate against Clinton/Sanders. The contrast man... couldn't be more stark.
Unfortunately... that nomination lane doesn't seem to be opening up.
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump also wants to ban all muslims from emigrating to the USA. That's a plain contradiction of the constitution he is supposed to uphold if he becomes president, as well as being against human rights.
Good thing Congress passes the immigration laws and the Supreme Court can nix them. It's almost as if someone thought out a system of checks and balances!
And since when is it a human right to be able to enter a country? As far as I know, several Mideast nations restrict immigration based on religion and the US has one of the most open immigration schemes in the world. I doubt anyone would put a religious test on it, but restricting entry from nations or regions regarded as dangerous is certainly nothing new. Heck, Carter did it with Iran. Not saying any of this makes Trump more or less electable, but much of the outrage over Trump seems to be from those who would never vote GOP anyway, and he is clearly angling for the GOP nomination. I would expect that if he gets it, you will start hearing him talk about his more moderate stances (IE he is pro choice) that don't help him in a primary.
What other countries do doesn't matter. What matters is that we have the Constitution that clearly says that what he is suggesting isn't allowed. It's just playing on hate with stuff that is blatantly illegal to pander for votes that really shows his lack of character.
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump also wants to ban all muslims from emigrating to the USA. That's a plain contradiction of the constitution he is supposed to uphold if he becomes president, as well as being against human rights.
Good thing Congress passes the immigration laws and the Supreme Court can nix them. It's almost as if someone thought out a system of checks and balances!
And since when is it a human right to be able to enter a country? As far as I know, several Mideast nations restrict immigration based on religion and the US has one of the most open immigration schemes in the world. I doubt anyone would put a religious test on it, but restricting entry from nations or regions regarded as dangerous is certainly nothing new. Heck, Carter did it with Iran. Not saying any of this makes Trump more or less electable, but much of the outrage over Trump seems to be from those who would never vote GOP anyway, and he is clearly angling for the GOP nomination. I would expect that if he gets it, you will start hearing him talk about his more moderate stances (IE he is pro choice) that don't help him in a primary.
What other countries do doesn't matter. What matters is that we have the Constitution that clearly says that what he is suggesting isn't allowed. It's just playing on hate with stuff that is blatantly illegal to pander for votes that really shows his lack of character.
The Alien Enemies Act, currently Title 50 of the United States Code Sections 21-24, originally part of the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 and revised prior to WWI when it was codified in the Federal Register, does allow for it if there are hostilities with said group. And the Court has ruled, in Ludecke v. Watkins (1948) that detention past the end of hostilities was legal if no formal peace treaty was signed with said hostile power(s).
Under the Executive's emergency powers, the President can issue substantive proclamations to detain foreign nationals and U.S. Citizens who pose a significant security risk. Executive Orders/proclamations have to be authorized by Congress, which historically has rubber-stamped them for political or wartime reasons.
Both the Legislature and the Presidency has the Constitutional power, which is codified in Public Law under the ADA, to bar foreign nationals from entering the territorial jurisdictions of the United States. Discrimination and religion has nothing to do with it.
Funny, since Trump's claim is that he wants to ban all Muslims. Not people from certain nations, but rather, people of a certain religion.
Because we are supposedly still at "war" with international terrorist groups. Groups where, at least on the surface, political aims and religion are closely tied together.
The theory is that any practitioner of Islam from overseas is a potential radical, or are at higher risk at becoming radicalized for various reasons. People who support barring further immigration from predominately Islamic countries do so under the old maxim "better safe than sorry".
The problems with this line of thinking is:
1. It would still be easy to get into the country for terrorist groups. We have a mostly open border with Canada and the Mexican border is horribly unsecured.
2. It would bar those who desire to come here legitimately and legally, obeying our immigration laws.
3. It doesn't take into account the fact that we've had U.S. Citizens, both those who were born into families from Islamic cultures and converts, become radicalized. See: the San Bernardino Shooters, Major Nidal Hassan, and John Walker Lindh.
In other words, while the U.S. Government has the power to do so, any public proclamations from Donald Hairpiece is just a lot of hot air to drum up support among angry Americans, who are fed up with the status quo.
The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
The theory is that any practitioner of Islam from overseas is a potential radical, or are at higher risk at becoming radicalized for various reasons. People who support barring further immigration from predominately Islamic countries do so under the old maxim "better safe than sorry".
Which completely ignores the fact that we've already had a number of instances of radicalization, both of a secular variety, and the religious variety.... and that he's ignoring the fact that there have been a number of radicalized Christians among those (I know, I know... they aren't following the Bible, so they aren't really Christians... blah blah blah, it's a lame excuse)
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
In fact, it's explicitly unconstitutional.
I get you don't like it. Neither do I. But unconstitutional? Since the Chinese Exclusion Act passed a SCOTUS test the courts basically say the other two branches can exclude any immigration they want to. Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights unless they are already here as legal residents/visitors, they do not have those rights overseas while seeking to immigrate or even visit the US, and there is no way SCOTUS gives them those rights.
US Code ( 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) says
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
In fact, it's explicitly unconstitutional.
I get you don't like it. Neither do I. But unconstitutional? Since the Chinese Exclusion Act passed a SCOTUS test the courts basically say the other two branches can exclude any immigration they want to. Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights unless they are already here as legal residents/visitors, they do not have those rights overseas while seeking to immigrate or even visit the US, and there is no way SCOTUS gives them those rights.
US Code ( 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) says
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
No, religion is not a 'protected class' when it comes to immigration, read the US code.
And Trump backtracked the US Citizen portion almost immediately after his staffer (not him) said it would apply to US citizens.
Again, bad? Probably. Unconstitutional? I very highly doubt it. No case law in the past 100+ years of immigration law, including SCOTUS decisions, seem to indicate it would be unconstitutional.
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
In fact, it's explicitly unconstitutional.
I get you don't like it. Neither do I. But unconstitutional? Since the Chinese Exclusion Act passed a SCOTUS test the courts basically say the other two branches can exclude any immigration they want to. Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights unless they are already here as legal residents/visitors, they do not have those rights overseas while seeking to immigrate or even visit the US, and there is no way SCOTUS gives them those rights.
US Code ( 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) says
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
In fact, it's explicitly unconstitutional.
I get you don't like it. Neither do I. But unconstitutional? Since the Chinese Exclusion Act passed a SCOTUS test the courts basically say the other two branches can exclude any immigration they want to. Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights unless they are already here as legal residents/visitors, they do not have those rights overseas while seeking to immigrate or even visit the US, and there is no way SCOTUS gives them those rights.
US Code ( 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) says
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
We've banned people for beliefs before (communists for example).
Yes, unconstitutional, via separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
.
Has nothing to do with immigration law and the authority Congress and the Executive have regarding it. Not allowing Muslims (or anyone) into the US does not prevent them from practicing their religion. And even if it did, foreign citizens overseas don't get constitutional protections. Again, 100+ years of court decisions back up my position.
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
In fact, it's explicitly unconstitutional.
I get you don't like it. Neither do I. But unconstitutional? Since the Chinese Exclusion Act passed a SCOTUS test the courts basically say the other two branches can exclude any immigration they want to. Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights unless they are already here as legal residents/visitors, they do not have those rights overseas while seeking to immigrate or even visit the US, and there is no way SCOTUS gives them those rights.
US Code ( 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) says
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
We've banned people for beliefs before (communists for example).
Yes, unconstitutional, via separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" .
Has nothing to do with immigration law and the authority Congress and the Executive have regarding it. Not allowing Muslims (or anyone) into the US does not prevent them from practicing their religion. And even if it did, foreign citizens overseas don't get constitutional protections. Again, 100+ years of court decisions back up my position.
Not quite. At best, it's a toss up.
However, that's only if it only effected immigrants, and trump wanted it to effect everybody, so it would get rejected so fast you would get whiplash by watching it. If it did only effect immigrants, its of dubious constitutionality.
skyth wrote: The problem is he didn't say countries that are primarily Islamic, he said all Muslims (Including Americans that left the country). That, the US government does NOT have the power to ban.
In fact, it's explicitly unconstitutional.
I get you don't like it. Neither do I. But unconstitutional? Since the Chinese Exclusion Act passed a SCOTUS test the courts basically say the other two branches can exclude any immigration they want to. Foreign nationals do not have constitutional rights unless they are already here as legal residents/visitors, they do not have those rights overseas while seeking to immigrate or even visit the US, and there is no way SCOTUS gives them those rights.
US Code ( 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)) says
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate
We've banned people for beliefs before (communists for example).
Yes, unconstitutional, via separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
.
Has nothing to do with immigration law and the authority Congress and the Executive have regarding it. Not allowing Muslims (or anyone) into the US does not prevent them from practicing their religion. And even if it did, foreign citizens overseas don't get constitutional protections. Again, 100+ years of court decisions back up my position.
It has nothing to do with being allowed to practice their religion. The government can not use religion as any sort of determination for anything.
shasolenzabi wrote: Yeah, but so much of her results had something to do with the concentration of people in general in the county that Vegas is nestled in as it is the most densely populated precinct of NV, Had Sanders focused a bit more there as Clinton had, he may have had a bigger impact, he went the whole state, thus spreading around, but not enough on Clark county, had he understood NV as Hillary had, and she has been working over NV for some time as she wanted to win there yet again, and not lose as she did in '08. But she had similar results vs Obama in 2008 in NV a she had to Bernie.
Clinton won the popular vote in Nevada in 2008.
Bernie's message is what is fighting against her PACs+Media+Pundits+DWS lead DNC
That's a bit of a story. I mean, first up, if you ever wanted a primary to show how little big money mattered, it's this election. Bush started with a war chest of $100 million, and his best result was about 10% of the vote and a 4th place finish. You can have all the advertising money in the world, and it won’t help if you’ve got a bad product.
So instead you have to consider that just maybe, some people actually like Clinton or her message. And then if you look at her message and compare it to Sanders. They’re both essentially singing from the same hymn sheet, income equality, improved and cheaper education etc. The difference is Clinton’s aims are much more moderate, while Sanders wants greater change, faster.
In essence it becomes a question of whether you shouldn’t risk missing out on the possible because you tried for the impossible, or if aiming for Mars might make it easier to reach the moon. It actually comes down to a difference in strategy, which is why its so strange that it’s become so emotional for so many Clinton and Sanders supporters.
Sigvatr wrote: Read the first line, saw the Hitler comparison, stopped reading. Not worth it. If you go ahead and start a comment of yours with such a comparison, you pretty much declare yourself as devoid of any historical / political knowledge.
Maybe in future try reading the second and third sentences. "Leave aside whether a direct comparison of Trump to Hitler is accurate. That is not my point."
I didn't even particularly agree with the article. I'm not convinced Trump would be that much worse than Rubio or Cruz, and I really don't like the idea of registering for the other party to control their nomination, that just strikes me as skeezy. But god damn, please just actually read things.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I would agree with Cruz. I would probably disagree with Rubio - I don't like Rubio, and I think he would lose in a general, but I don't think he's going to potentially cause lasting damage to the GOP brand the way that Cruz or most especially Trump will. He's just a bad candidate, like Romney was.
I think Rubio is far to the right of Romney. I'm actually starting to wonder if the final, terminal kick to the Republican party might come from winning the presidency. The party's brand at the end of GW Bush's term was utterly toxic, and while the Republicans did a great job rebuilding very quickly, I wonder if it will possible to rebuild at all if they elect another president even further to the right.
I mean, it's all speculation. Rubio might move back to the center in the general, and then if he wins office, he might actually be a lot more sensible than his policy releases, that does happen. And even if he goes hard line and it ends in exactly the mess you'd expect, the party might bounce back again. But also maybe not.
jmurph wrote: Good thing Congress passes the immigration laws and the Supreme Court can nix them. It's almost as if someone thought out a system of checks and balances!
A system of checks and balances is great, but it isn't so great that you should be okay with electing a crazy bigot because the checks and balances will keep them in line.
And since when is it a human right to be able to enter a country? As far as I know, several Mideast nations restrict immigration based on religion and the US has one of the most open immigration schemes in the world.
Being seen before the law independent of race or religion is a fundamental human right. Did I really have to type that out?
There you have it folks. When talking about banning people from entering the US because of their religion, CptJake says it is 'probably bad'.
fething incredible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Seb... if it weren't for the Superdelegates... Sanders would be leading big time now.
Well... momentum wise, he'd be. (it'd be a damn new split at this moment).
Whem, with three states counted the lead in delegates is meaningless. Thinking it mattered would mean assuming that 1/3 of all states will break for Sanders the way New Hampshire did, which is clearly ridiculous.
The only relevance the states decided so far have is in the delegates they assign, and in what they tell us about future races. And what they tell us is that Sanders has a lot more staying power than popular wisdom originally expected, but Clinton has a considerable advantage among black voters that will be hard for Sanders to overcome.
And that whole momentum thing makes little sense in a two horse race. It’s important in a larger field, as candidates have to prove they’re a legitimate chance to win, but once you’re down to two candidates it makes no difference. By that stage an individual merely has to select their preferred candidate, whether one or the other is ‘doing better than expected’ couldn’t be less relevant to an individual’s voting choice.
I'm glad I live in a state with open primaries; I show up next Tuesday, I get a ballot with everyone's name on it, and I pick the one want.
I don't know. I mean, this process is about Democrats deciding who they want in the general, and Republicans deciding who they want in the general. There is logic to that being an internal party matter. That it isn’t in some states is fine, I’m not arguing against that. Just saying that it also makes sense for it to be closed, as it is in some states.
But where it is closed, then signing up for that party in order to vote for a candidate you have no intention of voting for in the general… well that strikes me as pretty skeezy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I think that state run primaries are stupid, even more so when they are closed.
Why do I have to pay for primaries that I can't even vote in?
And that's a fair point. But it's a point more about state funds being used to administer an internal party matter.
d-usa wrote: I think that state run primaries are stupid, even more so when they are closed.
Why do I have to pay for primaries that I can't even vote in?
And that's a fair point. But it's a point more about state funds being used to administer an internal party matter.
Oh, I agree. I don't see why the state is in charge of administering, and paying for, private intraparty elections.
Oklahoma gives parties the options of making their primaries public, and surprisingly enough the Democratic Party actually opened up their primary to Independents this year. My personal preference has been: Give parties a choice. If both parties close their primaries, bill them for the cost of administering the election. Parties who open their primaries to everyone don't get a bill.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Unrelated:
It looks like someone is arguing that Justice Scalia should still get to vote on upcoming rulings.
The argument is that "we all know how he would have voted, so we should still count his vote". I guess letting conservative judges vote from beyond the grave is a viable method of meeting the needs of the court while blocking a liberal replacement .
It's just a single lawyer making the argument as far as I know. And I think the story has only been posted on TPM and DailyKos, so I certainly wouldn't consider it as any kind of indication that this idea has any backing from Conservatives in power and so far it's just a couple lefty websites jumping on the most recent "silly thing a righty said" story. Just one of those silly stories that I came across on Facebook that made me giggle
Kilkrazy wrote: Trump also wants to ban all muslims from emigrating to the USA. That's a plain contradiction of the constitution he is supposed to uphold if he becomes president, as well as being against human rights.
Good thing Congress passes the immigration laws and the Supreme Court can nix them. It's almost as if someone thought out a system of checks and balances!
And since when is it a human right to be able to enter a country? As far as I know, several Mideast nations restrict immigration based on religion and the US has one of the most open immigration schemes in the world.
...
.
It is a human right and enshrined in the constitution that the government cannot discriminate on the grounds of religion. It hardly makes the US' name shine to say we aren't as bad as places like Saudi Arabia or China.
Do you really want a president who cannot take the oath of office without perjuring himself? The system of checks and balances starts before you get a loony in the White House, not afterwards. It starts with the nomination process.
A lot of people seem to really be misunderstanding the Constitutional protections on religion and how they apply to immigration. In a nutshell, they kind of don't. They protect the exercise of religion by citizens and those in the US, not those who seek entry.
What I want in a president is irrelevant (and not present in any of the would be nominees of either party). If the citizens of the US determine that they want a leader who will preclude from immigration groups that they deem dangerous, rightly or wrongly, they can elect one and such an exercise in power does not seem to be inherently unconstitutional, reprehensible as some may find it.
Regardless, if said leader overstepped their bounds, we have 2 branches of government that get a say in it.
What I think is very interesting is that Trump seems to be enjoying his popularity not in spite of but because of his populist, nationalist rhetoric. Likewise, Sanders is also tapping into a strong populist vein. There is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction and anger in the American electorate that the political classes have largely ignored or coopted ineffectively. You see this on both sides of the political spectrum and seems intrinsically tied to perceptions of safety and economic disadvantage.
jmurph wrote: A lot of people seem to really be misunderstanding the Constitutional protections on religion and how they apply to immigration. In a nutshell, they kind of don't. They protect the exercise of religion by citizens and those in the US, not those who seek entry.
That is incorrect. The Constitution is a limit on the power of the government, not an allowance for citizens to do things. The government cannot constitutionally use religion as a basis for anything at all.
jmurph wrote: If the citizens of the US determine that they want a leader who will preclude from immigration groups that they deem dangerous, rightly or wrongly, they can elect one and such an exercise in power does not seem to be inherently unconstitutional, reprehensible as some may find it..
I have to concur. In my lay opinion, as wrongheaded and totally unworkable as the idea of barring certain religious groups from immigrating to the US is, I can't determine what constitutional basis there is preventing the Executive from instituting such a policy. I believe that the SCOTUS would give give the executive very, very wide latitude in these matters.
If you guys are saying it's not constitutional, I'm a reasonable dude and can be swayed but you need to show your work instead of just saying that.
I've been reading 538 a bit and playing with their primary voting tools...
It really does seem to me that Trump is going to win the GOP nomination.
Sweet Jesus... just go ahead and accept that Clinton will be the next President.
Here's why...
It's essentially a 3-man race now between Trump/Cruz/Rubio.
Trump is really kicking arse in the polls hovering around the 30's (that's now has meaning) and that Cruz/Rubio are consistently stuck in the 20's.
I've argued that it is *Rubio* who'll have a better chance in taking on Clinton because he really contrast really well against her. However, even he is losing steam....
The only way for Rubio to win, is if Cruz either gives up for the good of the party to rally the anti-Trump, or that he spectacularly crashes. None of these really has a chance.
So, at this point, my only hope is that Trump/Cruz/Rubio stays in until the Convention with no-one recieving the necessary votes to be the nominee in the 1st round. Thus, a broker'ed convention begins where the GOP powers-to-be get to pick. I can't see them taking Trump as the top of the ticket (and he'll likely won't accept a VP slot)... then it would be down to Cruz vs Rubio.
If they pick Rubio... we'd have a "close game".
If they pick Cruz, I feel that the Clinton Machine™ can take him on...
Trump is the wild card. I mean seriously... if a non-Trump-politician said the things he has said in the last 6 months, they'd never be on anyone's ballot in the first place.
jmurph wrote: If the citizens of the US determine that they want a leader who will preclude from immigration groups that they deem dangerous, rightly or wrongly, they can elect one and such an exercise in power does not seem to be inherently unconstitutional, reprehensible as some may find it..
I have to concur. In my lay opinion, as wrongheaded and totally unworkable as the idea of barring certain religious groups from immigrating to the US is, I can't determine what constitutional basis there is preventing the Executive from instituting such a policy. I believe that the SCOTUS would give give the executive very, very wide latitude in these matters.
If you guys are saying it's not constitutional, I'm a reasonable dude and can be swayed but you need to show your work instead of just saying that.
I have been looking at this these past few days, and I'd have to agree with you Ouze.
My gut reaction was that, "no... they can't do that"... but, I'm at a loss from a legal perspective 'what' would prevent this.
jmurph wrote: If the citizens of the US determine that they want a leader who will preclude from immigration groups that they deem dangerous, rightly or wrongly, they can elect one and such an exercise in power does not seem to be inherently unconstitutional, reprehensible as some may find it..
I have to concur. In my lay opinion, as wrongheaded and totally unworkable as the idea of barring certain religious groups from immigrating to the US is, I can't determine what constitutional basis there is preventing the Executive from instituting such a policy. I believe that the SCOTUS would give give the executive very, very wide latitude in these matters.
If you guys are saying it's not constitutional, I'm a reasonable dude and can be swayed but you need to show your work instead of just saying that.
I have been looking at this these past few days, and I'd have to agree with you Ouze.
My gut reaction was that, "no... they can't do that"... but, I'm at a loss from a legal perspective 'what' would prevent this.
To be fair, the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law...". So, yes, the Executive could try to get away with doing something regarding religion, so long as it falls wholly within the bounds of what the Executive is allowed to do by the Constitution. But not under some past legislation from Congress giving the Executive authority on something, because then we're back to "Congress shall make no law...".
That is incorrect. The Constitution is a limit on the power of the government, not an allowance for citizens to do things. The government cannot constitutionally use religion as a basis for anything at all.
Source? If you are thinking the 1964 Civil Rights act, it only applies within the jurisdiction, not to alien admissibility, which has its own set of rules. Maybe you were thinking the 14th Amendment?
The Equal Protection Clause U.S. Const. Am. XIV § 1 prohibits States from denying any person within its jurisdiction "equal protection of the laws." Again, not alien admissibility.
Please note that just because something is permissible under the constitution (or any law) does not make it a good or wise action. Additionally, it may run afoul of some international agreements or international law.
To be fair, the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law...". So, yes, the Executive could try to get away with doing something regarding religion, so long as it falls wholly within the bounds of what the Executive is allowed to do by the Constitution. But not under some past legislation from Congress giving the Executive authority on something, because then we're back to "Congress shall make no law...".
The First Amendment has been ruled to pertain to all levels of government. It keeps the states and cities from enacting laws as much as it does the federal government.
To be fair, the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law...". So, yes, the Executive could try to get away with doing something regarding religion, so long as it falls wholly within the bounds of what the Executive is allowed to do by the Constitution. But not under some past legislation from Congress giving the Executive authority on something, because then we're back to "Congress shall make no law...".
The First Amendment has been ruled to pertain to all levels of government. It keeps the states and cities from enacting laws as much as it does the federal government.
However, even if it is legal under the constitution, just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
My understanding of religious protections in the Constitution is that they do not apply to foreign elements. In other words, the Constitution protects the Westboro Baptist Church but not the Taliban. If a President wants to keep out foreign Muslims, Anglicans, Catholics, or Jews, it looks like the Constitution does not forbid it. It will likely take action on Congress' part to stop any foreign policy based on creed or ethnicity.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Do the protections of the US Constitution even apply to non citizens that arent even in country?
I admit, I'm no scholar, but the words "Congress shall make no law..." seem pretty clear to me. No exceptions were listed after it. So, in regards to religion at least, the Constitution would appear to guarantee that Congress can make no laws infringing on religious freedom, regardless of location.
whembly wrote: I've been reading 538 a bit and playing with their primary voting tools...
It really does seem to me that Trump is going to win the GOP nomination.
Sweet Jesus... just go ahead and accept that Clinton will be the next President.
Here's why...
It's essentially a 3-man race now between Trump/Cruz/Rubio.
Trump is really kicking arse in the polls hovering around the 30's (that's now has meaning) and that Cruz/Rubio are consistently stuck in the 20's.
I've argued that it is *Rubio* who'll have a better chance in taking on Clinton because he really contrast really well against her. However, even he is losing steam....
The only way for Rubio to win, is if Cruz either gives up for the good of the party to rally the anti-Trump, or that he spectacularly crashes. None of these really has a chance.
So, at this point, my only hope is that Trump/Cruz/Rubio stays in until the Convention with no-one recieving the necessary votes to be the nominee in the 1st round. Thus, a broker'ed convention begins where the GOP powers-to-be get to pick. I can't see them taking Trump as the top of the ticket (and he'll likely won't accept a VP slot)... then it would be down to Cruz vs Rubio.
If they pick Rubio... we'd have a "close game".
If they pick Cruz, I feel that the Clinton Machine™ can take him on...
Trump is the wild card. I mean seriously... if a non-Trump-politician said the things he has said in the last 6 months, they'd never be on anyone's ballot in the first place.
My head hurts...
I don't think your analysis is that far off.
However, I think the R's will do some horse trading of their own and get Cruz to drop and put his delegates to Rubio and therefore beat barely Trump in the Convention. In exchange, Cruz will get a nice party job or a Cabinet post. Alternatively, the R's may negotiate with Trump themselves and get some sort of deal involving cash and prizes for his delegates for Rubio.
There is no way the R's go tot eh polls in November with Trump as the head of their ticket.
Hold on, use real words please. Are you saying that the First Amendment, specifically the free exercise of religion and protection against the establishment of religion, isn't incorporated?
Easy E wrote: ...and get Cruz to drop and put his delegates to Rubio
Senator Palpati er, Cruz cares only about his own ambitions and never does anything that smacks of self-sacrifice or common good. He's the ultimate anti-Tau.
Yep. Trump's looking inevitable. So is Clinton. I doubt Trump can beat the Clinton machine, especially if Bernie ends up hopping on, but we'll see. I though Jeb! would win the primary, so what do I know?
jasper76 wrote: Yep. Trump's looking inevitable. So is Clinton. I doubt Trump can beat the Clinton machine, especially if Bernie ends up hopping on, but we'll see. I though Jeb! would win the primary, so what do I know?
Honestly out of the Republican field I was praying Jeb would win. Sad day when he's the moderate for the republican party.
Honestly Trump is going to have the same impact that Palin did on the younger generation more conservative middle (i.e. more libertarian bent) ground that vote. He's going to send them straight to whatever democrat gets nominated.
Washington (CNN)In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans vowed to deny holding confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- even promising to deny meeting privately with whomever the President picks.
The historic move outraged Democrats and injected Supreme Court politics into the center of an already tense battle for the White House.
"I don't know how many times we need to keep saying this: The Judiciary Committee has unanimously recommended to me that there be no hearing. I've said repeatedly and I'm now confident that my conference agrees that this decision ought to be made by the next president, whoever is elected," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday.
He then added he would not likely meet with any nominee, a custom that high court nominees typically do before hearings. "I don't know the purpose of such a visit I would not be inclined to take it myself."
The decision to not hold hearings is a historic move from the Senate, which has regularly held confirmation hearings for nominees since hearings became routine practice in 1955, the Senate historian's office said Tuesday.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn said he also would not meet with a nominee.
"I don't see the point in going through the motions, if we know what the outcome is going to be. I don't see the point in going through the motions and creating a misleading impression."
Cornyn, a Texas Republican, told reporters at an afternoon press conference that the Republicans on the Judiciary committee submitted a letter to the Republican leaders unanimously opposing any hearing for a nominee to replace late Justice Antonin Scalia.
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said that's the "consensus" view among Republicans on the committee and Cornyn said the same.
Republicans weigh denying Supreme Court nominee a hearing
"We believe the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame-duck president," Cornyn said Tuesday as he left a meeting of top Republicans discussing how to handle the White House's promised nominee.
Graham told CNN separately he would not even meet with any nominee, should he or she make courtesy calls on the Hill. As did Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican.
But Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, said he would meet with any nominee who came knocking. "I wouldn't have a problem with that. The President's going to do his job and I'll do mine."
A Fox News poll released earlier this month found that registered voters want Obama and Senate leaders to "take action to fill the vacancy now" by a margin of 62% to 34%. A Pew Research Center poll released Monday found a majority of Americans (56%) say the Senate should hold hearings and vote on Obama's choice to fill the vacancy, with 38% saying they should not hold hearings until the next president takes office.
In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor earlier Tuesday, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court.
"Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent," McConnell said. "In this case, the Senate will withhold it."
Democrats outraged
The announcement prompted sharp criticism from Democrats, who contended that the GOP-led Senate was failing to do its job and would be risking its tenuous hold on the majority in the fall elections.
Obama jabbed at Senate Republicans, tweeting Tuesday evening for Americans to tell the majority party in the Senate to "#DoYourJob."
"Refusing to even consider the President's Supreme Court nominee is unprecedented," he tweeted.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said McConnell was taking his marching orders from Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, who had called on the Senate to delay consideration of any nominee.
"That's exactly what the Republican leader is doing: Delay, delay, delay," Reid said. He angrily added that "333 days isn't enough to do the work that we do ordinarily do in 67 days."
But Democrats are uncertain over whether to bottle-up the Senate in retaliation for the GOP's hardball move.
Sen. Chris [see forum posting rules], a Delaware Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Democrats should not hold up important measures like spending bills in retaliation.
"It is my hope that we will not simply escalate" the fight, [see forum posting rules] said. "It is my hope that the Republican majority will heed the advice of Sen. Kirk of Illinois and back down from an absolutist obstructionist position and allow a hearing to proceed. There is a variety of steps the Senate minority, the Democratic minority could take. I really would hope we could avoid it."
But other Democrats declined to rule out blocking legislation if Republicans block a nominee. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, said that there "will be a major battle" if Republicans block the nomination but he "won't predict now what form that will take."
Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that Democrats don't want to make the same mistake Republicans did by laying their cards on the table too soon.
"At the moment, we don't even have a proposed nominee, so I don't want to get ahead of my skis," Whitehouse said. "I think the Republicans have made a mistake saying they want to oppose a nominee before they even know who the nominee is. I think for us to say what we're going to do before we're at the point of decision would not be sensible."
Biden comments in spotlight
Earlier in the day, Vice President Joe Biden took center stage as Senate Republican leaders grew increasingly confident they can unite their party behind a hard-ball strategy to block any consideration of an Obama nominee.
Republicans are seizing on old Democratic talking points -- focused namely on Biden -- to make their case against confirmation proceedings.
The latest revelation: A June 1992 interview Biden gave to The Washington Post, arguing against confirmation hearings of a prospective nominee by President George H.W. Bush to the nation's highest court.
"If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the President not name someone, not send a name up," Biden, then the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, told the newspaper, noting how close it was to the November elections.
"If (Bush) did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee," Biden had said.
The comments from the nearly 24-year-old interview came after Republicans seized on a clip Monday of Biden making similar comments on the Senate floor. In response, Biden pushed back and said the GOP was taking his comments out of context.
"In the same statement critics are pointing to today, I urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the court functions as the Founding Fathers intended," Biden said in a Monday statement. "That remains my position today."
Nevertheless, the comments gave new ammunition to the hardening GOP lines against anyone the President sends to Capitol Hill.
Republicans are worried that giving the new nominee an opportunity to present his or her case before a national audience will only give the White House momentum in confirming a nominee to replace Scalia, tipping the balance of the court. But it could present bad optics, especially if the nominee is viewed as highly qualified and Republicans refuse to meet with him or her.
Some vulnerable Republicans were prepared to side with their party's leadership as well, a heartening development for the Senate GOP.
"I think we should not confirm someone this year, I think we should let the people weigh in," said Sen. Rob Portman, a vulnerable Republican up for reelection from the battleground state of Ohio. "The credibility of the court will be enhanced by that, too."
GOP senator backs Supreme Court hearings
But at the same time, two moderate Republicans -- Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Susan Collins of Maine -- support holding hearings, giving Democrats confidence divisions are bound to grow in the GOP ranks once a nominee is proposed.
"We should take this process one step at a time as we always do under the regular order," Collins told CNN. "I would expect that there would be a hearing on a nominee when it's sent to us for our consideration ... The hearing would help me make a better decision."
Sooooo, wait a year until the next president in in office, have time to look over a canidate while he/she is learning. so it could be what????? a year and a half until we may even SEE a nominee?
DO YOU JOB SENATORS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Y'know, you could spoiler the really big articles, so they don't take up so much screen space.
Anyway, they're just repeating the same thing they said earlier. We'll see as the weeks go by if they hold to it. I will say this, though, they better shut the feth up, bend over, and take it from the next president. The people will have spoken, after all.
(Whembly, that mental image of a bunch of Senate Republicans "bending over and taking it" from Hillary? That one's just for you. )
I do believe Sanders is one of dem dirty atheists. Cuomo asked if he believed in a higher power and to describe his spirituality, and there was plenty of do unto others, but no higher power. Hopefully this trivia isn't important in the Democratic primaries anymore.
I don't really like Cuomo in this role. Bring back Cooper.
You know if any other candidate had steamrolled the primaries the way Trump has would be considered the nominee by the media. Why aren't they anointing him yet?
Easy E wrote: You know if any other candidate had steamrolled the primaries the way Trump has would be considered the nominee by the media. Why aren't they anointing him yet?
Easy E wrote: You know if any other candidate had steamrolled the primaries the way Trump has would be considered the nominee by the media. Why aren't they anointing him yet?
Because they don't want him to be the candidate.
I think it has more to do with they just want a fight. I would be really surprised if they didn't want him to be the candidate, crazy is great for ratings.
Easy E wrote: You know if any other candidate had steamrolled the primaries the way Trump has would be considered the nominee by the media. Why aren't they anointing him yet?
They are realizing that people are finally dropping out, which will end up showing just how much staying power Trump really has. Despite all his coverage and all his wins, he still has not been able to consistently get above the 30s in his poling. It's hard to anoint someone the winner when they consistently have more than 60% of the people voting against them.
As long as he manages to get a plurality he will win, but we are down to three main candidates and two sideshows, so by the simple process of elimination we should see more of a challenge to him now.
d-usa wrote: Oh, I agree. I don't see why the state is in charge of administering, and paying for, private intraparty elections.
Oklahoma gives parties the options of making their primaries public, and surprisingly enough the Democratic Party actually opened up their primary to Independents this year. My personal preference has been: Give parties a choice. If both parties close their primaries, bill them for the cost of administering the election. Parties who open their primaries to everyone don't get a bill.
I don’t think the state should pay either way. If a private company wanted to find out if people liked one soft drink recipe more than another, then government wouldn’t pay, whether they’re asking a narrow field of people, or asking everyone. A primary election is, ultimately, a private organisation asking people who they’d prefer to run in a general election.
Easy E wrote: You know if any other candidate had steamrolled the primaries the way Trump has would be considered the nominee by the media. Why aren't they anointing him yet?
Because there's a theory that there's a hard cap on Trump's support. 30% of the voters like him enough to vote for him, but many more Republican voters hate him. So there's been an expectation that as the field reduces, the rest of the voters would form up around some other candidate. It always looked like a pretty solid theory.
And it could still work. The Bush voters might move mostly to Rubio, and then Kasich might call his campaign, and his voters would move to Rubio as well. Suddenly Rubio leads the three party race, is tolerable to the greater Republican base and party, and there's your nominee. But it relies on a couple of ifs. There's no guarantee the voters will move to Rubio. And Kasich could stay in the campaign a while yet, especially if he gets a boost from former Bush voters.
The biggest argument against this theory, ultimately, is that it hasn't happened yet. This has been expected since last year. But we’re yet to see any part of the theory materialise. And during that time the expected ceiling on Trump’s vote voters has steadily. Back when he had 20% of the vote it was expected his ceiling was 30%. Now he’s got 30% and the cap is maybe 40%. He’s actually grown his appeal among the greater Republican base.
46% for Trump is a pretty emphatic result. Sort of. As fivethirtyeight said before the campaign, the number of expected caucus goers was very small (Tuesday night, Nevada struggling to get attendees to their caucuses since they switched...), so that might have meant the candidate with the most enthusiastic voters had an outsized result. They thought it might mean a poor showing for Trump, but it turns out we can read 'enthusiastic' as 'crazy', and therefore produce a the big result for Trump. Also, as 538 pointed out, there's a building in Vegas with his name on the side. That kind of thing can't hurt.
Anyhow, Rubio pipped Cruz for second. Only a couple of points in it, but the margin doesn't matter, it's all about the narrative. And that narrative is increasingly about Rubio being the one the party can unite behind to beat Trump. Wonder what will happen from here?
Kasich took less than 4%, but apparently he barely campaign in Nevada, continuing his strategy of heavily focusing on certain states, probably as a campaign to end up with the VP.
Bush got 0.1% of the vote. Establishing that approximately 0.1% of Nevadans haven't read a newspaper since last week.
However, I think the R's will do some horse trading of their own and get Cruz to drop and put his delegates to Rubio and therefore beat barely Trump in the Convention.
That's not really how it works in the GOP. If you want to push pledged delegates, who essentially become Democrat-style superdelegates after a candidate they are pledged to support drops out of the race, you need to influence them directly. As one can imagine this gets very pricey, and leads to lots of easy attacks during the General.
dogma wrote: That's not really how it works in the GOP. If you want to push pledged delegates, who essentially become Democrat-style superdelegates after a candidate they are pledged to support drops out of the race, you need to influence them directly. As one can imagine this gets very pricey, and leads to lots of easy attacks during the General.
There's also been a lot of talk this cycle about how weak the internal controls are within the GOP. Backroom leadership that could organise that kind of thing just isn't there right now, having been delegitimised by the Tea Party new wave. Its why they ended up with such a bloated field of candidates, and its why there's been no effective strategy to beat Trump.
There's really no-one capable of pulling Cruz in to line if it suits him to keep going, even if it becomes absolutely clear he’s just running a spoiling campaign against Rubio. It will rely on Cruz deciding to stop running for his own reasons, which may or may not happen.
jasper76 wrote: I do believe Sanders is one of dem dirty atheists. Cuomo asked if he believed in a higher power and to describe his spirituality, and there was plenty of do unto others, but no higher power.
Washington (CNN)In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans vowed to deny holding confirmation hearings for President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee -- even promising to deny meeting privately with whomever the President picks.
The historic move outraged Democrats and injected Supreme Court politics into the center of an already tense battle for the White House.
"I don't know how many times we need to keep saying this: The Judiciary Committee has unanimously recommended to me that there be no hearing. I've said repeatedly and I'm now confident that my conference agrees that this decision ought to be made by the next president, whoever is elected," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday.
He then added he would not likely meet with any nominee, a custom that high court nominees typically do before hearings. "I don't know the purpose of such a visit I would not be inclined to take it myself."
The decision to not hold hearings is a historic move from the Senate, which has regularly held confirmation hearings for nominees since hearings became routine practice in 1955, the Senate historian's office said Tuesday.
Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn said he also would not meet with a nominee.
"I don't see the point in going through the motions, if we know what the outcome is going to be. I don't see the point in going through the motions and creating a misleading impression."
Cornyn, a Texas Republican, told reporters at an afternoon press conference that the Republicans on the Judiciary committee submitted a letter to the Republican leaders unanimously opposing any hearing for a nominee to replace late Justice Antonin Scalia.
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said that's the "consensus" view among Republicans on the committee and Cornyn said the same.
Republicans weigh denying Supreme Court nominee a hearing
"We believe the American people need to decide who is going to make this appointment rather than a lame-duck president," Cornyn said Tuesday as he left a meeting of top Republicans discussing how to handle the White House's promised nominee.
Graham told CNN separately he would not even meet with any nominee, should he or she make courtesy calls on the Hill. As did Sen. Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican.
But Sen. James Lankford, an Oklahoma Republican, said he would meet with any nominee who came knocking. "I wouldn't have a problem with that. The President's going to do his job and I'll do mine."
A Fox News poll released earlier this month found that registered voters want Obama and Senate leaders to "take action to fill the vacancy now" by a margin of 62% to 34%. A Pew Research Center poll released Monday found a majority of Americans (56%) say the Senate should hold hearings and vote on Obama's choice to fill the vacancy, with 38% saying they should not hold hearings until the next president takes office.
In a sharply worded statement on the Senate floor earlier Tuesday, McConnell bluntly warned the White House that the GOP-controlled Senate would not act on anyone he chooses to sit on the high court.
"Presidents have a right to nominate just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent," McConnell said. "In this case, the Senate will withhold it."
Democrats outraged
The announcement prompted sharp criticism from Democrats, who contended that the GOP-led Senate was failing to do its job and would be risking its tenuous hold on the majority in the fall elections.
Obama jabbed at Senate Republicans, tweeting Tuesday evening for Americans to tell the majority party in the Senate to "#DoYourJob."
"Refusing to even consider the President's Supreme Court nominee is unprecedented," he tweeted.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said McConnell was taking his marching orders from Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, who had called on the Senate to delay consideration of any nominee.
"That's exactly what the Republican leader is doing: Delay, delay, delay," Reid said. He angrily added that "333 days isn't enough to do the work that we do ordinarily do in 67 days."
But Democrats are uncertain over whether to bottle-up the Senate in retaliation for the GOP's hardball move.
Sen. Chris [see forum posting rules], a Delaware Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Democrats should not hold up important measures like spending bills in retaliation.
"It is my hope that we will not simply escalate" the fight, [see forum posting rules] said. "It is my hope that the Republican majority will heed the advice of Sen. Kirk of Illinois and back down from an absolutist obstructionist position and allow a hearing to proceed. There is a variety of steps the Senate minority, the Democratic minority could take. I really would hope we could avoid it."
But other Democrats declined to rule out blocking legislation if Republicans block a nominee. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Oregon, said that there "will be a major battle" if Republicans block the nomination but he "won't predict now what form that will take."
Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the Judiciary Committee, said that Democrats don't want to make the same mistake Republicans did by laying their cards on the table too soon.
"At the moment, we don't even have a proposed nominee, so I don't want to get ahead of my skis," Whitehouse said. "I think the Republicans have made a mistake saying they want to oppose a nominee before they even know who the nominee is. I think for us to say what we're going to do before we're at the point of decision would not be sensible."
Biden comments in spotlight
Earlier in the day, Vice President Joe Biden took center stage as Senate Republican leaders grew increasingly confident they can unite their party behind a hard-ball strategy to block any consideration of an Obama nominee.
Republicans are seizing on old Democratic talking points -- focused namely on Biden -- to make their case against confirmation proceedings.
The latest revelation: A June 1992 interview Biden gave to The Washington Post, arguing against confirmation hearings of a prospective nominee by President George H.W. Bush to the nation's highest court.
"If someone steps down, I would highly recommend the President not name someone, not send a name up," Biden, then the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, told the newspaper, noting how close it was to the November elections.
"If (Bush) did send someone up, I would ask the Senate to seriously consider not having a hearing on that nominee," Biden had said.
The comments from the nearly 24-year-old interview came after Republicans seized on a clip Monday of Biden making similar comments on the Senate floor. In response, Biden pushed back and said the GOP was taking his comments out of context.
"In the same statement critics are pointing to today, I urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the court functions as the Founding Fathers intended," Biden said in a Monday statement. "That remains my position today."
Nevertheless, the comments gave new ammunition to the hardening GOP lines against anyone the President sends to Capitol Hill.
Republicans are worried that giving the new nominee an opportunity to present his or her case before a national audience will only give the White House momentum in confirming a nominee to replace Scalia, tipping the balance of the court. But it could present bad optics, especially if the nominee is viewed as highly qualified and Republicans refuse to meet with him or her.
Some vulnerable Republicans were prepared to side with their party's leadership as well, a heartening development for the Senate GOP.
"I think we should not confirm someone this year, I think we should let the people weigh in," said Sen. Rob Portman, a vulnerable Republican up for reelection from the battleground state of Ohio. "The credibility of the court will be enhanced by that, too."
GOP senator backs Supreme Court hearings
But at the same time, two moderate Republicans -- Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Susan Collins of Maine -- support holding hearings, giving Democrats confidence divisions are bound to grow in the GOP ranks once a nominee is proposed.
"We should take this process one step at a time as we always do under the regular order," Collins told CNN. "I would expect that there would be a hearing on a nominee when it's sent to us for our consideration ... The hearing would help me make a better decision."
You mean, the GOP is only taking up 'The Biden Rule'.
So much for Trumps "hard cap" of 30%. (at 46% at the moment)
Keep in mind that this was a caucus, and so they suck generally.
As for the rest of the Primary, Trump is only comfortably leading Massachusetts... the rest of the states Rubio/Cruz is very competitive.
So, I'd hold off anointing Trump as the victor till after March 15th.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tannhauser42 wrote: Y'know, you could spoiler the really big articles, so they don't take up so much screen space.
Anyway, they're just repeating the same thing they said earlier. We'll see as the weeks go by if they hold to it. I will say this, though, they better shut the feth up, bend over, and take it from the next president. The people will have spoken, after all.
(Whembly, that mental image of a bunch of Senate Republicans "bending over and taking it" from Hillary? That one's just for you. )
Indeed!
Where's my mind bleach!!!!
Or, you could say it'll be "Women's International Day".
Do you guy's think Kasich has a chance at all? For someone who was basically unknown at the start he's done rather well, and he's probably the most electable out of the bunch, IMO.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Do you guy's think Kasich has a chance at all? For someone who was basically unknown at the start he's done rather well, and he's probably the most electable out of the bunch, IMO.
Zero chance.
He's trying to make enough noise to be the VP pick or a cabinet post.
WrentheFaceless wrote: Do the protections of the US Constitution even apply to non citizens that arent even in country?
No, of course not. How would a foreign national outside the US invoke US legal protections? Not all constitutional protections even apply to non-citizens within the country. Campaign spending, voting, and firearm ownership, for example, are restricted. Additionally, the courts have permitted foreign nationals to be expelled because of race, precluded foreign ownership of land, and allowed deportations for associations that were completely legal at the time. Many do apply to foreign nationals in the country, however such as due process, equal protection, etc.
None of that has anything to do with limits on entry for foreign nationals, however. limits on what the government can do while someone is within the jurisdiction are not the same as limits on who they allow in the first place. This is why law can be tricky for the untrained. There are a lot of assumptions made by people based on how they think things work or should work, not based on how the law or government actually functions. And constitutional law often gets very complex, even for those trained in the legal field.
Whembly, pretty confident we have all made it clear that we do not care whose "rule" it is, it is all a bunch of crap and they just need to do their jobs.
Dreadwinter wrote: Whembly, pretty confident we have all made it clear that we do not care whose "rule" it is, it is all a bunch of crap and they just need to do their jobs.
That's the crux of the argument.
You don't think they're doing their job.
I do.
Where were you when Reid went nuclear on Senate filibuster?
Not that it'd matter... Clinton is gunna be the next President. So... I don't see a whole lot of differences between what a Obama nominee vs a Clinton nominee would look like.
Except... whomever Clinton nominates, you can safely bet that person donated to The Clinton Foundation.
Does any one truly believe that Obama will do as Biden suggested Bush to:
...consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation...
Really? Really?!?!
Okay. Challenge Accepted.
The ball is in Obama's court.
Obama needs to actually 'consult and cooperate' with the Senate, as in *work* with the Senate on his short-list... absent that, moderatehis selection. (Kegan/Sotomyer were far from being 'moderates')
Does any one truly believe that Obama will do as Biden suggested Bush to:
...consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation...
Really? Really?!?!
Okay. Challenge Accepted.
The ball is in Obama's court.
Obama needs to actually 'consult and cooperate' with the Senate, as in *work* with the Senate on his short-list... absent that, moderatehis selection. (Kegan/Sotomyer were far from being 'moderates')
We don't know if Obama will do as Biden suggested. We have no clue, this has never happened while Obama was in office. Maybe we should find out and go from there instead of accusing him of something he hasn't even done.
Or maybe you could inform yourself by doing research in to things next time instead of having a knee jerk reaction based on a line from a speech that the Republican party fed you so that you would regurgitate it as truth.
Does any one truly believe that Obama will do as Biden suggested Bush to:
...consults and cooperates with the Senate or moderates his selections absent consultation...
Really? Really?!?!
Okay. Challenge Accepted.
The ball is in Obama's court.
Obama needs to actually 'consult and cooperate' with the Senate, as in *work* with the Senate on his short-list... absent that, moderatehis selection. (Kegan/Sotomyer were far from being 'moderates')
We don't know if Obama will do as Biden suggested. We have no clue, this has never happened while Obama was in office. Maybe we should find out and go from there instead of accusing him of something he hasn't even done.
Or maybe you could inform yourself by doing research in to things next time instead of having a knee jerk reaction based on a line from a speech that the Republican party fed you so that you would regurgitate it as truth.
Or maybe you can acknowledge that articles like that ThinkProgress is simply Spin, and folks are mad at the GOP for actually doing what Democrats threatened to do.
d-usa wrote: Senate: feth off!
Whembly: clearly this is all Obama's fault.
Business as usual then.
Indeed it is. Obama has done nothing, nothing to foster any sort of relationship with House/Senate, so that there's contempt for each other.
Nearly every president in American history could have that charge levelled against them.
Andrew Jackson said his biggest regret was not hanging John C Calhoun!
As I type this, I reach over to the bookcase and flick through my general guide to American history and what do I see: FDR at odds with the Senate over his appointment of SCOTUS judges. Random example.
d-usa wrote: Senate: feth off!
Whembly: clearly this is all Obama's fault.
Business as usual then.
Indeed it is. Obama has done nothing, nothing to foster any sort of relationship with House/Senate, so that there's contempt for each other.
And do you think Cruz would be any better, after he has purposefully burned just about every bridge he has with his fellow senators from his own party?
d-usa wrote: Senate: feth off!
Whembly: clearly this is all Obama's fault.
Business as usual then.
Indeed it is. Obama has done nothing, nothing to foster any sort of relationship with House/Senate, so that there's contempt for each other.
And do you think Cruz would be any better, after he has purposefully burned just about every bridge he has with his fellow senators from his own party?
President Cruz?
*snort*
I honestly think it depends on who's the majority in the Senate.
Dreadwinter wrote: Dakka OT reminds me why girls just cant even some times
Via CNN:
The chairman of the Judiciary panel, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, spoke with Obama about the selection process last week, but has so far declined invitations to meet with Obama in person, a White House official said late Tuesday.
Dreadwinter wrote: Dakka OT reminds me why girls just cant even some times
Via CNN:
The chairman of the Judiciary panel, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, spoke with Obama about the selection process last week, but has so far declined invitations to meet with Obama in person, a White House official said late Tuesday.
d-usa wrote: Senate: feth off!
Whembly: clearly this is all Obama's fault.
Business as usual then.
Indeed it is. Obama has done nothing, nothing to foster any sort of relationship with House/Senate, so that there's contempt for each other.
Nearly every president in American history could have that charge levelled against them.
Let's look at modern history.
- Dubbya compromised with the Democrats in the last two years of his administration (much to the chagrin of conservatives).
- Clinton compromised with Republicans when they controlled Congress (welfare reform & balanced budget).
- Reagan was famous for compromising with Democrats to get things passed that were important to him. (lower marginal rates & more military spending)
Now there were items of contention on both sides of the isle but I don't see what is happening now as simply par for the course. Over the course of seven years, President Obama seems to be uniquely unwilling to reach out across the isle for virtually anything. Harry Reid really isn't helping the situation, either.
Dreadwinter wrote: Dakka OT reminds me why girls just cant even some times
d-usa wrote: Senate: feth off!
Whembly: clearly this is all Obama's fault.
Business as usual then.
Indeed it is. Obama has done nothing, nothing to foster any sort of relationship with House/Senate, so that there's contempt for each other.
Nearly every president in American history could have that charge levelled against them.
Let's look at modern history.
- Dubbya compromised with the Democrats in the last two years of his administration (much to the chagrin of conservatives).
- Clinton compromised with Republicans when they controlled Congress (welfare reform & balanced budget).
- Reagan was famous for compromising with Democrats to get things passed that were important to him. (lower marginal rates & more military spending)
Now there were items of contention on both sides of the isle but I don't see what is happening now as simply par for the course. Over the course of seven years, President Obama seems to be uniquely unwilling to reach out across the isle for virtually anything. Harry Reid really isn't helping the situation, either.
Dreadwinter wrote: Dakka OT reminds me why girls just cant even some times
Full and complete sentences, please.
But like I said earlier, how's that any different from Andrew Jackson threatening to hang his vice-president or FDR at loggerheads with the Senate over his SCOTUS nominations? The Republicans seem to think that different laws apply to Obama, in a way they never applied to previous presidents.
I remember Obama's first presidential campaign: vote for me and you'll get Obamacare, and Obama wins big. The Republican reaction was something to behold - they were literally foaming at the mouth. Heaven forbid a President does what he says he's going to do, if elected.
An old story, for sure, but I hope my point is valid.
Just because some Presidents got on fine with the Senate, doesn't mean every President has too get along with the senate. In an ideal world, American politics would be a wonderful, loving place of politicians working for the greater good of the USA.
But it doesn't happen, because humans are ultimately selfish, and political parties are no different.
George Washington despised and hated political parties and factions, describing them as a gangrene on the Republic. Does that make him a bad president?
Given that the powers of the executive have grown over the years due to the extraordinary events of the Civil War and the 1930s, and given that some scholars believe the executive to be an 'imperial presidency,' it's a wonder that any President co-operates with the senate or congress, when he can veto anything he doesn't like or executive order his way to a position he does like.
Yes, it's an slight over-simplification, but an important point none the less.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Given that the powers of the executive have grown over the years due to the extraordinary events of the Civil War and the 1930s, and given that some scholars believe the executive to be an 'imperial presidency,' it's a wonder that any President co-operates with the senate or congress, when he can veto anything he doesn't like or executive order his way to a position he does like.
Yes, it's an slight over-simplification, but an important point none the less.
*eh*
Most of the blame lies with Congress abdicating their duties by purposely writing many laws ambiguous enough to give the Executive Branch flexibility to "interpret" that law.
It even found it's way to the Supreme Court called the Chevron Doctrine.
This is a bipartisan problem and, imo, lies solely with Congress. Congress can wrest control by passing explicit laws and also withhold fundings. The former means Congress has to do a "better job". The latter has it's own distinct political problems.
Failing that, beat them into submission with your cane.
Whembly- Re: Perry, judge didn't throw it out, Court of Criminal Appeals said 1) no matter what the reason, veto cannot be a criminal act and 2) law on coercion of a public servant was overbroad and infringed on the 1st amendment. So not only did they say Perry couldn't be prosecuted, apparently the governor can never get in trouble over veto threats and they invalidate the portion of the law his second charge was filed under!
I get the logic, though. It shouldn't be illegal to threaten to do something that one can legally do, even if it is for less than admirable goals. The voters can decide that last part.
The White House is considering Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican centrist, as a potential nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, NBC News has confirmed.
Sandoval, a former District Court judge and state attorney general, was the first Latino candidate elected to statewide office in Nevada.
While he is a Republican, Sandoval's record does match President Barack Obama's on many key issues. He has said he supports the Supreme Court's same sex marriage decision of last year and backs abortion rights.
However, Sandoval also signed into law last year a measure that exempts school construction projects from having to pay contractors wages considered industry standard in the area. While he hailed the move as a cost cutting measure, labor unions rallied to decry the effort.
The Washington Post first reported that Sandoval is under consideration.
A source close to the process confirmed to NBC News that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid met with Sandoval on Monday and that the White House is considering the Nevada governor for the post.
The White House is considering Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican centrist, as a potential nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, NBC News has confirmed.
Sandoval, a former District Court judge and state attorney general, was the first Latino candidate elected to statewide office in Nevada.
While he is a Republican, Sandoval's record does match President Barack Obama's on many key issues. He has said he supports the Supreme Court's same sex marriage decision of last year and backs abortion rights.
Image: Brian Sandoval Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval speaks at a news conference, on Dec. 10, 2015, in Las Vegas. Sandoval announced plans for Faraday Future, a Chinese-backed electric carmaker's $1 billion manufacturing plant to be built in North Las Vegas, Nev. David Becker / AP However, Sandoval also signed into law last year a measure that exempts school construction projects from having to pay contractors wages considered industry standard in the area. While he hailed the move as a cost cutting measure, labor unions rallied to decry the effort.
Related: President Obama Explains What He Wants in Supreme Court Nominee
The Washington Post first reported that Sandoval is under consideration.
A source close to the process confirmed to NBC News that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid met with Sandoval on Monday and that the White House is considering the Nevada governor for the post.
It's unclear if the formal "vetting" process is underway. However, sources told NBC News that the governor as of right now is not objecting to the process moving forward.
Sandoval has not said he'd definitely accept if offered, but sources suggested he might be willing to hear out the White House if they move in his direction.
The news comes on the heels of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's announcement that the Senate would not hold hearings on any nominee in the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
The White House is considering Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican centrist, as a potential nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, NBC News has confirmed.
Sandoval, a former District Court judge and state attorney general, was the first Latino candidate elected to statewide office in Nevada.
While he is a Republican, Sandoval's record does match President Barack Obama's on many key issues. He has said he supports the Supreme Court's same sex marriage decision of last year and backs abortion rights.
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval speaks at a news conference, on Dec. 10, 2015, in Las Vegas. Sandoval announced plans for Faraday Future, a Chinese-backed electric carmaker's $1 billion manufacturing plant to be built in North Las Vegas, Nev. David Becker / AP However, Sandoval also signed into law last year a measure that exempts school construction projects from having to pay contractors wages considered industry standard in the area. While he hailed the move as a cost cutting measure, labor unions rallied to decry the effort.
Related: President Obama Explains What He Wants in Supreme Court Nominee
The Washington Post first reported that Sandoval is under consideration.
A source close to the process confirmed to NBC News that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid met with Sandoval on Monday and that the White House is considering the Nevada governor for the post.
It's unclear if the formal "vetting" process is underway. However, sources told NBC News that the governor as of right now is not objecting to the process moving forward.
Sandoval has not said he'd definitely accept if offered, but sources suggested he might be willing to hear out the White House if they move in his direction.
The news comes on the heels of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's announcement that the Senate would not hold hearings on any nominee in the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Related: Mitch McConnell Flatly Rejects Any Obama Pick to Supreme Court
"I can now confidently say the view shared by virtually everyone in my conference is that the nomination should be made by the president who the people elect in the election that is underway right now," McConnell said.
In a post published on the SCOTUSblog website Wednesday, Obama said he is looking for an intellectual, independent thinker with solid credentials.
"First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified," Obama wrote. "He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity. I'm looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions."
During Wednesday's press briefing, White House press secretary Josh Earnest did not confirm the Post account. However, the White House did confirm that the president has spoken with Reid about the court vacancy.
Earlier in the day, President Obama told reporters that he understood the politics surrounding the Supreme Court nomination, but that he has a job to do.
"We are going to go through a process as we have done in past vacancies to find a candidate with impeccable legal credentials," Obama said.
Obama is looking at a Republican?! GASP! What is this world coming to!
The White House is considering Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican centrist, as a potential nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, NBC News has confirmed.
Sandoval, a former District Court judge and state attorney general, was the first Latino candidate elected to statewide office in Nevada.
While he is a Republican, Sandoval's record does match President Barack Obama's on many key issues. He has said he supports the Supreme Court's same sex marriage decision of last year and backs abortion rights.
However, Sandoval also signed into law last year a measure that exempts school construction projects from having to pay contractors wages considered industry standard in the area. While he hailed the move as a cost cutting measure, labor unions rallied to decry the effort.
The Washington Post first reported that Sandoval is under consideration.
A source close to the process confirmed to NBC News that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid met with Sandoval on Monday and that the White House is considering the Nevada governor for the post.
The White House is considering Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican centrist, as a potential nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, NBC News has confirmed.
Sandoval, a former District Court judge and state attorney general, was the first Latino candidate elected to statewide office in Nevada.
While he is a Republican, Sandoval's record does match President Barack Obama's on many key issues. He has said he supports the Supreme Court's same sex marriage decision of last year and backs abortion rights.
Image: Brian Sandoval
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval speaks at a news conference, on Dec. 10, 2015, in Las Vegas. Sandoval announced plans for Faraday Future, a Chinese-backed electric carmaker's $1 billion manufacturing plant to be built in North Las Vegas, Nev. David Becker / AP However, Sandoval also signed into law last year a measure that exempts school construction projects from having to pay contractors wages considered industry standard in the area. While he hailed the move as a cost cutting measure, labor unions rallied to decry the effort.
Related: President Obama Explains What He Wants in Supreme Court Nominee
The Washington Post first reported that Sandoval is under consideration.
A source close to the process confirmed to NBC News that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid met with Sandoval on Monday and that the White House is considering the Nevada governor for the post.
It's unclear if the formal "vetting" process is underway. However, sources told NBC News that the governor as of right now is not objecting to the process moving forward.
Sandoval has not said he'd definitely accept if offered, but sources suggested he might be willing to hear out the White House if they move in his direction.
The news comes on the heels of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's announcement that the Senate would not hold hearings on any nominee in the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
The White House is considering Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, a Republican centrist, as a potential nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, NBC News has confirmed.
Sandoval, a former District Court judge and state attorney general, was the first Latino candidate elected to statewide office in Nevada.
While he is a Republican, Sandoval's record does match President Barack Obama's on many key issues. He has said he supports the Supreme Court's same sex marriage decision of last year and backs abortion rights.
Image: Brian Sandoval
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval speaks at a news conference, on Dec. 10, 2015, in Las Vegas. Sandoval announced plans for Faraday Future, a Chinese-backed electric carmaker's $1 billion manufacturing plant to be built in North Las Vegas, Nev. David Becker / AP However, Sandoval also signed into law last year a measure that exempts school construction projects from having to pay contractors wages considered industry standard in the area. While he hailed the move as a cost cutting measure, labor unions rallied to decry the effort.
Related: President Obama Explains What He Wants in Supreme Court Nominee
The Washington Post first reported that Sandoval is under consideration.
A source close to the process confirmed to NBC News that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid met with Sandoval on Monday and that the White House is considering the Nevada governor for the post.
Facebook Twitter Google Plus Embed
Partisan Battle Over Replacing Justice Scalia Is Already in Full Swing 2:14
It's unclear if the formal "vetting" process is underway. However, sources told NBC News that the governor as of right now is not objecting to the process moving forward.
Sandoval has not said he'd definitely accept if offered, but sources suggested he might be willing to hear out the White House if they move in his direction.
The news comes on the heels of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's announcement that the Senate would not hold hearings on any nominee in the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
Related: Mitch McConnell Flatly Rejects Any Obama Pick to Supreme Court
"I can now confidently say the view shared by virtually everyone in my conference is that the nomination should be made by the president who the people elect in the election that is underway right now," McConnell said.
In a post published on the SCOTUSblog website Wednesday, Obama said he is looking for an intellectual, independent thinker with solid credentials.
"First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified," Obama wrote. "He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity. I'm looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions."
During Wednesday's press briefing, White House press secretary Josh Earnest did not confirm the Post account. However, the White House did confirm that the president has spoken with Reid about the court vacancy.
Earlier in the day, President Obama told reporters that he understood the politics surrounding the Supreme Court nomination, but that he has a job to do.
"We are going to go through a process as we have done in past vacancies to find a candidate with impeccable legal credentials," Obama said.
Obama is looking at a Republican?! GASP! What is this world coming to!
whembly wrote: Or maybe you can acknowledge that articles like that ThinkProgress is simply Spin, and folks are mad at the GOP for actually doing what Democrats threatened to do.
They "spin" it by directly quoting what he said.
And here is what he said on the matter recently:
Joe Biden wrote:Nearly a quarter century ago, in June 1992, I gave a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about a hypothetical vacancy on the Supreme Court. Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject. Indeed, as I conclude in the same statement critics are pointing to today, urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended. That remains my position today.
I have a feeling that this is yet another thing in a long list of instances where what you believe to true is held in higher regard that what is actually true. Then we'll argue for a couple posts because I'll urge you to take the short excerpt in context and you'll swear that there is no such thing as context and everything has be take at pure face value and then we'll move on.
By the way, I'm still waiting for your answer on whether or not protection of the establishment of religion has been incorporated, because it seems like you think it isn't (it's hard to tell because you used words that aren't English).
However, I think the R's will do some horse trading of their own and get Cruz to drop and put his delegates to Rubio and therefore beat barely Trump in the Convention.
That's not really how it works in the GOP. If you want to push pledged delegates, who essentially become Democrat-style superdelegates after a candidate they are pledged to support drops out of the race, you need to influence them directly. As one can imagine this gets very pricey, and leads to lots of easy attacks during the General.
Good point.
i also forgot that Cruz doesn't care about the party and will do whatever the feth he wants to do. Example, shutting down the government.
whembly wrote: Or maybe you can acknowledge that articles like that ThinkProgress is simply Spin, and folks are mad at the GOP for actually doing what Democrats threatened to do.
They "spin" it by directly quoting what he said.
And here is what he said on the matter recently:
Joe Biden wrote:Nearly a quarter century ago, in June 1992, I gave a lengthy speech on the Senate floor about a hypothetical vacancy on the Supreme Court. Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject. Indeed, as I conclude in the same statement critics are pointing to today, urged the Senate and White House to work together to overcome partisan differences to ensure the Court functions as the Founding Fathers intended. That remains my position today.
I have a feeling that this is yet another thing in a long list of instances where what you believe to true is held in higher regard that what is actually true. Then we'll argue for a couple posts because I'll urge you to take the short excerpt in context and you'll swear that there is no such thing as context and everything has be take at pure face value and then we'll move on.
By the way, I'm still waiting for your answer on whether or not protection of the establishment of religion has been incorporated, because it seems like you think it isn't (it's hard to tell because you used words that aren't English).
Just another "you didn't build that" moment for him.
I watch that youtube... so, if there's more, throw it up here.
What "unusual rancor" has followed from either of Obama's SCOTUS appointees? Biden's speech was made in the wake of Clarence Thomas' Anita Hill controversy, to pretend that the circumstances are the same is beyond obtuse.
I watch that youtube... so, if there's more, throw it up here.
What "unusual rancor" has followed from either of Obama's SCOTUS appointees? Biden's speech was made in the wake of Clarence Thomas' Anita Hill controversy, to pretend that the circumstances are the same is beyond obtuse.
We can boil this exercise down to this: - when the Democrats are in opposition, they are being principled, and appealing to the values that the country was founded upon (dissent is highest form of patriotism) - when the Republicans are in opposition, they just want to be obstructionist and represent everything's that wrong with the US (dissent against Obama's policies is racist)
Cap it all off... Reid invokes the Filibuster Nuke Option.
As far as I'm concerned, civility in politics is fething gone. Just accept it's a bare knuckle bloodsport, and alway has been.
Trump has promised to punish Chinese currency manipulation
China warned the United States on Wednesday not to adopt punitive currency policies that could disrupt U.S.-China relations after Donald Trump’s win in the Nevada caucus.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters in Beijing that “we are following with interest the U.S. presidential election.”
Hua was asked about China’s response to a possible Trump presidency and his announced plan to punish China for currency manipulation with a tax on Chinese goods.
“Since it belongs to the domestic affair of the U.S., I am not going to make comments on specific remarks by the relevant candidate,” she said.
“But I want to stress that China and the U.S., as world’s largest developing and developed countries, shoulder major responsibilities in safeguarding world peace, stability and security and driving world development,” the spokeswoman added.
“The sustained, sound and steady growth of China-U.S. relations serves the fundamental and long-term interests of the two countries and benefits the world. We hope and believe that the U.S. government will pursue a positive policy toward China in a responsible manner.”
The comments came as Wang Yi, the Chinese foreign minister, is holding talks in Washington that include U.S. concerns about a Chinese military buildup on disputed islands in the South China Sea, and cooperation on dealing with North Korea’s nuclear and missile provocations.
Hua said Wang and Secretary of State John Kerry agreed the two sides will enhance cooperation and increase talks and exchanges.
“We stand ready to preserve and advance China-U.S. relations together with the U.S. side,” she said.
Kerry said he spoke to Wang about reducing tensions and finding diplomatic solutions to competing South China Sea claims.
“We want there to be a halt to the expansion and militarization of occupied features,” Kerry said. “Everyone benefits by true demilitarization, non-militarization.”
Kerry also said the United States remains committed to freedom of navigation and overflight, “something which China says it does not stand in the way of; it agrees that there should be peaceful freedom of navigation.”
Reports from Asia say Chinese state-run media have been ordered by the Communist Party to minimize reporting on the U.S. presidential election.
Hong Kong’s Chinese-language news outlet Oriental Daily reported Feb. 5 that the Party’s Propaganda Department, which sets policies for all state-run media, ordered all publications to ban election coverage of U.S. policies toward China and to focus election coverage on negative stories and scandals.
Trump won the Nevada caucus with 45 percent of the vote, increasing his chances of winning the Republican nomination later this year.
Last month, Trump vowed to impose a 45 percent tariff on Chinese good to offset China’s devaluation of the yuan.
“They’re devaluing their currency, and they’re killing our companies,” Trump said. “We are letting them get away with it, and we can’t let them get away with it.”
The Obama administration has adopted conciliatory policies toward China on trade and currency issues.
Trump, on his campaign website, outlined a hardline approach to dealing with China that involves officially declaring China a currency manipulator and negotiating an end to the practice.
Trump also wants to thwart China’s theft of intellectual property and adopt policies aimed at bring jobs back from overseas to the United States.
Bolstering the U.S. military and “deploying it appropriately in the East and South China Seas” are other goals.
“These actions will discourage Chinese adventurism that imperils American interests in Asia and shows our strength as we begin renegotiating our trading relationship with China,” the Trump website states. “A strong military presence will be a clear signal to China and other nations in Asia and around the world that America is back in the global leadership business.”
I mean, yeah, I get the arguments to oppose this current stance based on the fething arguments that in the spirit of 'effective governance', which we ought to encourage Senate GOPs seek a compromise.
However, since ya'll want to ignore/spin therepeated efforts by Senate Democrats to threaten to impose the “Biden Rules” on Republican presidents in 1992 and 2007, as well as Harry fething Reid’s unilateral nuke of the Senate filibuster on judicial confirmations... which has allowed Obama to nominate numerous liberal justices to stack the DC Court of Appeals...(yay for the D-team!) In addition to the TOXIC rancor in American Politics in these last 7/8 years, we damn well better exact a price from the Democrats to pay for their own obstructionism and double standards.
This isn't whataboutism, tit-for-tat, or some inane calls that Republicans take the "Higher Ground".
These are Their Rules™.
This is about administering adverse consequences so that there's a massive disincentive to these things again... yes, it's a vicious cycle. Hence why I've thrown up my hand and just Calvinball'ed this gak from now on. The sooner we acknowledge that this is a bloodsport, the better. At least we can be fething honest.
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that top Hillary Clinton staff should be questioned under oath about her use of a private email — another potential setback to the Democratic frontrunner's effort to leave the email controversy behind.
U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan granted a motion for discovery filed by Judicial Watch, which sued the State Department for Clinton-related documents and is now arguing there is “reasonable suspicion” that Clinton or State staff tried to thwart the Freedom of Information Act. That law requires all work emails to be archived in a government systems for public view.
Discovery in FOIA cases is relatively rare and presents political risk for Clinton: While the group has not yet called for Clinton to answer question personally, it said it may in the future as part of discovery. The process will likely entail attorneys asking questions of her top staff via deposition or written Q&A about why Clinton used a private email server in the first place and how they eventually determined what was an “official” record to be preserved.
The Clinton blasted the ruling as a political stunt from the right.
“This is one of several lawsuits filed by the same right-wing group, which will stop at nothing in pursuing the Clintons, just as they have done since the 1990s,” said Nick Merrill, Clinton campaign spokesman.
“The ruling a major victory in terms of moving forward to finding out the full truth about the Clinton email system,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton in a phone interview. “Our goal is to make sure in the end that all the records that should have been looked at, should have been reviewed, are disclosed to the public as the law requires.”
The process will take months, at the least, meaning the case could easily extend all the way through Election Day and give Republicans new ammunition to use on the trail.
The ruling comes as the FBI is working alongside State and intelligence community inspectors general to investigate whether laws governing the use of classified information were ever broken or if the server posed a security threat. More than 1,600 documents that passed through Clinton’s server have since been classified by State — and a number of them reached the “top secret” level.
Courts have required the State Department to ask the FBI for copies of any additional emails they discovered on the Clinton account to double-check that all official documents were turned over. Conservative groups and lawmakers have suggested that some records that would have been embarrassing to Clinton were intentionally left out, though Clinton’s campaign has said they were over inclusive in deciding what was work-related.
The Judicial Watch lawsuit originally focused on documents surrounding the dual job status of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Abedin worked for the Clinton Foundation and an outside consulting firm with Clinton ties called Teneo, while still advising Clinton at State — an arrangement that was approved by the department. Congressional Republicans believe those jobs may have equated to a conflict of interest. Abedin’s lawyers have said they did not.
Since news of Clinton’s use of a private email sever broke, however, the lawsuit has increasingly focused on how Clinton and State went about deciding what were public records.
Fitton said the judge mentioned in the hearing he is considering subpoenaing Clinton for all of her emails, not just the ones her staff and lawyer deemed official.
“He said he didn’t know how he could not conclude that there was a ‘reasonable suspicion,’” that aides tiptoed around FOIA, pointing to not only the State IG report but also emails suggesting top State staff knew of the personal email set up.
The ruling comes just hours after a 10 a.m. hearing on the matter in Washington. Judicial Watch lawyers argued that there was “reasonable suspicion” that Clinton and her staff intentionally tried to undermine record-keeping rules. They held up as proof a State inspector general report published in January that blasted the department for inaccurate and incomplete responses to FOIA requests on Clinton email accounts.
So far, the group has not sought to depose Clinton, but says it may still do so.
“Mrs. Clinton’s testimony might not be needed, but eventually it might be,” Fitton said. “To be clear, we’re not asking for Mrs. Clinton [to answer questions now], but it might be required eventually.”
For now the group is expected to propose questioning her top staffers about why she used a homebrew email server as well as the process they used to determine which of her more than 60,000 emails were work related or personal. Clinton’s camp has not gone into detail about that process, but after turning over half of those documents, they deleted the rest.
Fitton said Judicial Watch has until March 15 to propose a discovery plan, including who they want to interview and how. The judge in the hearing specified that the ruling should be “narrowly tailored.” The government will then be able to respond and push back, and ultimately the judge is expected to rule by April 15 on what “discovery” might entail, Fitton said.
The group has previously expressed interest in questioning via deposition or written questions: Clinton’s former State chief of staff Cheryl Mills, Abedin, her current lawyer David Kendall, her top IT staffer Bryan Pagliano and Undersecretary for Management Pat Kennedy.
It's sad that it's taken this long... and well into the election season.
Prepare for more bs remarks like "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Theory™"!!
As far as I'm concerned, civility in politics is fething gone. Just accept it's a bare knuckle bloodsport, and alway has been.
That's nonsensical. You cannot simultaneously argue that Democrats have recently engaged in "unusual rancor", causing civility to disappear, and that politics is a "bare knuckle bloodsport, and always has been." Either politics has always been a "bare knuckle bloodsport" that never featured civility, or it hasn't been.
As far as I'm concerned, civility in politics is fething gone. Just accept it's a bare knuckle bloodsport, and alway has been.
That's nonsensical. You cannot simultaneously argue that Democrats have recently engaged in "unusual rancor", causing civility to disappear, and that politics is a "bare knuckle bloodsport, and always has been." Either politics has always been a "bare knuckle bloodsport" that never featured civility, or it hasn't been.
Yeah... I can.
It's got worst over the years. That's all I'm saying.
Note, that this isn't me saying that the GOP is totally blameless... only that, there's no good solution to get out of this vicious cycle.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Who was the other face on that Cruz poster in the gif that Ouze posted?
Kevin from the US version of The Office.
A friend of mine works in the fashion industry in NYC and ends up going to a lot of those posh type clubs / galas / events anyone not rich or connected would never get in and apparently that guy is always coked out of his skull with 3-4 escorts with him. I say good play on his part.
d-usa wrote: There is a solution to the cycle: you simply stop the cycle.
Sure. I feel it starts with the President.
Not going to be easy for any President to do that...
OK then, what should Obama do in this instance?
For the Supreme Court nomination?
He's not going to find a Scalia replacement, as he's truly one of a kind.
But, if he finds an established Textualist (note, I didn't say a Conservative), then he should nominate him and kindly ask the Senate to reconsider.
Why should it be upon him to nominate a textualist? Why can't he nominate someone who he wants and is qualified (as he is required to do) and why can't the senate offer advice and consent (as they are required to do)? It isn't incumbent upon the president to nominate someone that the senate wants or that upholds the current status of the court's balance. If republicans wanted to be able to have the nominations they would like, they should have beaten Obama in the general election.
d-usa wrote: There is a solution to the cycle: you simply stop the cycle.
Sure. I feel it starts with the President.
Not going to be easy for any President to do that...
Except we both know that isn't really true, at least as long as the President is still elected from one of the two political parties. At the end of the day, it's the parties that are at odds with each other. The President is simply the most high profile member of the party they're from.
d-usa wrote: There is a solution to the cycle: you simply stop the cycle.
Sure. I feel it starts with the President.
Not going to be easy for any President to do that...
Except we both know that isn't really true, at least as long as the President is still elected from one of the two political parties. At the end of the day, it's the parties that are at odds with each other. The President is simply the most high profile member of the party they're from.
I didn't say it would be easy. But, if the President, the highest profile member of the party makes such a move, it'd be a powerful statement...no?
I swear, Congress is like trying to herd cats across bodies of water.
Why should it be upon him to nominate a textualist? Why can't he nominate someone who he wants and is qualified (as he is required to do) and why can't the senate offer advice and consent (as they are required to do)? It isn't incumbent upon the president to nominate someone that the senate wants or that upholds the current status of the court's balance. If republicans wanted to be able to have the nominations they would like, they should have beaten Obama in the general election.
Well, because clearly that's how it was written in the constitution
We could also run with, because that's what whembly thinks should happen? (and apparently a number of other people not completely in touch with reality)
Why should it be upon him to nominate a textualist? Why can't he nominate someone who he wants and is qualified (as he is required to do) and why can't the senate offer advice and consent (as they are required to do)? It isn't incumbent upon the president to nominate someone that the senate wants or that upholds the current status of the court's balance. If republicans wanted to be able to have the nominations they would like, they should have beaten Obama in the general election.
Well, because clearly that's how it was written in the constitution
We could also run with, because that's what whembly thinks should happen? (and apparently a number of other people not completely in touch with reality)
How would you "break" this cycle?
Telling one side or the other to "grow up" isn't going to cut it.
Telling one side or the other to "grow up" isn't going to cut it.
Personally, I'd have to violate one particular part of the 1st Amendment: I'd shut down ALL 24 hour, cable news networks, at least temporarily. Come to think of it, I'd also pass a law that says there can be no advertising during local news (a subject brought up in a monologue during the Newsroom)... advertising money in the news means that the media can and will tailor the news to what makes them money (ie, a friend of mine who once worked in media tells me a story of when he was just starting out. At the local station he started at, it was near an auto manufacturer, the station was going to run a story against that auto manufacturer, they got wind and tell the station, "if you run that story, we'll pull all of our ads from your time slot")
Once you cut out the media hype/vitriol, you take out one of the key elements, IMO, that drives the partisan BS in congress.
Telling one side or the other to "grow up" isn't going to cut it.
Personally, I'd have to violate one particular part of the 1st Amendment: I'd shut down ALL 24 hour, cable news networks, at least temporarily. Come to think of it, I'd also pass a law that says there can be no advertising during local news (a subject brought up in a monologue during the Newsroom)... advertising money in the news means that the media can and will tailor the news to what makes them money (ie, a friend of mine who once worked in media tells me a story of when he was just starting out. At the local station he started at, it was near an auto manufacturer, the station was going to run a story against that auto manufacturer, they got wind and tell the station, "if you run that story, we'll pull all of our ads from your time slot")
Once you cut out the media hype/vitriol, you take out one of the key elements, IMO, that drives the partisan BS in congress.
Perhaps another option is to replace the current voting system with something like isidewith.com. You know, something that actually forces people to think about the issues, to be informed about the issues, and who best represents the issues they care most about.
Telling one side or the other to "grow up" isn't going to cut it.
Personally, I'd have to violate one particular part of the 1st Amendment: I'd shut down ALL 24 hour, cable news networks, at least temporarily. Come to think of it, I'd also pass a law that says there can be no advertising during local news (a subject brought up in a monologue during the Newsroom)... advertising money in the news means that the media can and will tailor the news to what makes them money (ie, a friend of mine who once worked in media tells me a story of when he was just starting out. At the local station he started at, it was near an auto manufacturer, the station was going to run a story against that auto manufacturer, they got wind and tell the station, "if you run that story, we'll pull all of our ads from your time slot")
Once you cut out the media hype/vitriol, you take out one of the key elements, IMO, that drives the partisan BS in congress.
It is pretty remarkable when you compare the content between pbs news and corporate news. Sure pbs is "boring", but I think that's a good thing. It allows for more rational thought and less emotional reaction. Even when they have the same pundits that appear on cnn or fox debating, on pbs they actually respond to the questions and dont constantly interrupt one another.
Telling one side or the other to "grow up" isn't going to cut it.
Personally, I'd have to violate one particular part of the 1st Amendment: I'd shut down ALL 24 hour, cable news networks, at least temporarily. Come to think of it, I'd also pass a law that says there can be no advertising during local news (a subject brought up in a monologue during the Newsroom)... advertising money in the news means that the media can and will tailor the news to what makes them money (ie, a friend of mine who once worked in media tells me a story of when he was just starting out. At the local station he started at, it was near an auto manufacturer, the station was going to run a story against that auto manufacturer, they got wind and tell the station, "if you run that story, we'll pull all of our ads from your time slot")
Once you cut out the media hype/vitriol, you take out one of the key elements, IMO, that drives the partisan BS in congress.
I wouldn't go that far and I believe their are better avenues to address this.
Firstly, for the Elected Officials only (ie, only Prez, VP, Congressman/Senators), their *benefit* is strictly on what the government provides for the regular voters (ie, they don't get special treatment).
That means:
SS for their retirement
Medicare/VA for their healthcare
Things like that... then, you'll see more bi-partisan efforts to address any challenges with these programs that may arise. And because it's *bi-partisam", the acrimony should be dialed down a bit.
Secondly, the ignorance (I mean that in non-derogatory manner) of how our States Government functions is really, really high. The States don't really have a "say" in the Federal government and I think it's asinine that the Senate is directly voted by the constituents. Having the State Legislatures vote the Senators would hold these guys/gals more accountable imo. So *because* they're held accountable by the States, the level of discourse should be mitigated as well.
I wouldn't go that far and I believe their are better avenues to address this.
Firstly, for the Elected Officials only (ie, only Prez, VP, Congressman/Senators), their *benefit* is strictly on what the government provides for the regular voters (ie, they don't get special treatment).
That means:
SS for their retirement
Medicare/VA for their healthcare
Things like that... then, you'll see more bi-partisan efforts to address any challenges with these programs that may arise. And because it's *bi-partisam", the acrimony should be dialed down a bit.
Secondly, the ignorance (I mean that in non-derogatory manner) of how our States Government functions is really, really high. The States don't really have a "say" in the Federal government and I think it's asinine that the Senate is directly voted by the constituents. Having the State Legislatures vote the Senators would hold these guys/gals more accountable imo. So *because* they're held accountable by the States, the level of discourse should be mitigated as well.
Ohh, "fixing" the media is just one thing I would do, if I could.
That said, I do agree that elected officials in congress/WH should only receive benefits while they are sitting. Rare exceptions for why I would think a person should get the current "retirement package" they get now, is if they actually make a career of it (staying as a sitting member of the house/senate for 30+ years, like your typical job in the private sector)
I don't think that that by itself would fix the problem either, as a number of congress critters were independently wealthy before they arrived in office, so what do they care about healthcare costs, or SS, they can retire off of a golden parachute from what they brought with them.
whembly wrote: Obama needs to actually 'consult and cooperate' with the Senate, as in *work* with the Senate on his short-list... absent that, moderatehis selection. (Kegan/Sotomyer were far from being 'moderates')
That's the kind of nonsense Obama fell for at the beginning of his first term. Republicans would take up a hardline position, refusing any negotiation. Obama would try to win by taking the moral high ground and offering a starting point that was already compromised. Republicans would then find themselves unable to take Obama's first position because that'd look like they won nothing, but unable to push for any more as Obama had already given them the compromised option. Cue deadlock. It's basically the mess that was the first round of deficit ceiling negotiations.
Next time around Obama didn't offer that compromise position. He made it clear if there was to be a deadlock it was all on the Republicans, who were trying to use the debt ceiling to win concessions. He just waited it out, told them if they wanted to hit the debt ceiling, then do it. It all resolved much better.
Obama has to follow a similar strategy here. If Republicans are just going to refuse to discuss candidates, then that's on them, they can own the political blowback. And given the looming spectre of Trump, I'm not sure Republicans would want to wait until there's a new president and new senate, they might lose any bargaining power over the next appointment.
So instead, Obama should nominate whoever is willing to put their hand up to get villified. Because whoever Obama nominates will be labelled as an extreme left choice, and shot down, both publically and politically. Even if it was a vat grown clone of Scalia, modified to be 15% grumpier and with 20% more bitter dissenting opinions. Political theatre demands the first candidate will be shot down. But the second candidate, provided they are to the right of the first, and Republicans have some uncertainty about November, well there's a chance they'll get over the line, if they're a good pick.
That's really the only way the appointment will happen this year. This other thing you're offering, where Obama responds to Republican extremism by offering up power just to bring them to the table, nope not happening. Not gonna work. Been there, was a disaster.
It's got worst over the years. That's all I'm saying.
Yeah, that isn't what your initial screed indicated at all. If you had simply stated what you just did I'm sure the vast majority of people would have agreed with you.
...we damn well better exact a price from the Democrats to pay for their own obstructionism and double standards.
We? Did you do anything for the GOP besides vote for their candidates?
And really, shut up about "double standards", one of the main hooks for conservative sites is "Here is what the liberal media doesn't want you to know!" They literally thrive on pushing the idea that there are "double standards" in media.
Donald Trump, the petulant GOP front-runner and Twitter troll, never served in uniform except when he dressed up on parade at his military academy.
You might have thought avoiding military service, even in the reserves or National Guard, while the U.S. was at war, would have instilled in Trump a more modest regard for his own courage and patriotism and a deeper respect for the sacrifice of those who did. You would be wrong. The Donald doesn’t do modesty, and his shortcomings as a patriot don’t inform his self-awareness any more than his many business failures have.
By his own admission, the closest he came to combat was his sexual adventurism in the 1980s, when HIV/AIDS was claiming the lives of better men than him. It was his “personal Vietnam,” he told shock jock Howard Stern in 1997. “I felt like a great and very brave soldier.”
While Americans with little wealth and few family connections were dodging bullets, mortars and booby traps in the jungles and rice paddies of Vietnam, our Sergeant York of well-appointed bedrooms was bravely jumping in harm’s way, armed only with the aphrodisiac of his daddy’s money.
From his brush with mortality in service to his libido he acquired the self-regard to find John McCain’s heroism wanting, and by implication the heroism of all POWs. What’s to admire about being shot down, imprisoned in solitary confinement and tortured? Losers.
The Trumpian hero never loses a thing, including his freedom. He only wins. “I like people who weren’t captured,” he explained. Including, one assumes, those who, like Trump, aren’t captured by a sense of honor or duty to their country.
His cluelessness about what a genuine love of country entails seems to have liberated Trump from other conventional scruples including a respect for the inherent dignity of human beings that is central to Judeo-Christian values.
Trump is also ignorant, it seems, about just what constitutes a war crime; what is and is not permissible in lawful warfare. Or worse, he vaguely knows and doesn’t care.
Trump’s ignorance is a distinctive kind, familiar to schoolyard bullies everywhere. It’s indifferently stupid and reflexively brutal, a dumbass cruelty exercised by people too emotionally incontinent to let reason govern passions, too selfish to develop a conscience, and too insecure to relate to others by means other than base instinct.
In the war against terrorists, he’s recommended deliberately killing their wives and children. He promises to waterboard captured prisoners and torture them even more severely though the practice of waterboarding was ended by executive action and outlawed by congressional legislation. He can’t reinstitute it without new legislation and without changes to war crime conventions.
Were he to order military and intelligence officers to employ torture, as he insists he would, they would resign rather than comply, as they would if he ordered them to take innocent lives on purpose. He would deserve to be impeached. He would belong in an international court of justice, on trial for his life, the fate met by enemies in World War II who authorized the torture of our prisoners.
Trump recently cited as an example of how to deal with captured Muslim insurgents an anecdote from America’s occupation of the Philippines in the beginning of the 20th century. Gen. John J. Pershing ordered 49 of 50 Muslim prisoners shot with bullets dipped in pig’s blood, defiling them under Islamic law, and ordered the survivor to report to his confederates what he had witnessed. After which, Trump assured his audience, “for 25 years there wasn’t a problem.”
The story is fiction. Pershing did nothing of the kind. He was a disciplined general officer, whose sense of honor remained intact through the trials of war, as did his loyalty to our country and values. See what I mean about dumbass cruelty? Trump’s never more ignorant then when he’s playing at being a tough guy.
Wars have brought out the worst as well as the best in Americans. We have struggled at great cost to uphold the values that distinguish us from our enemies. In every war, soldiers under enormous strain have committed atrocities. In some cases they had been ordered to. But those instances were aberrations, considered a national disgrace and are remembered that way. Except, I guess, by Donald Trump, the man who fought his war in the discos of New York and would have American soldiers commit atrocities as a matter of national policy.
Trump is not trying to make great America great. He’s trying to make us the worst we can be to satisfy his own vainglory. There’s no dealing with him, no trying to encourage him to behave like a grown-up, much less a statesman. If you can see him plainly and you love our country, you must vote against him. Even if that means electing Hillary Clinton.
Mark Salter is the former chief of staff to Sen. John McCain and was a senior adviser to the McCain for President campaign.
Whembly, I remember earlier in the thread you mentioned Trump's 46% of the vote meant the theory about him having a ceiling of around 30 to 35% was proven wrong. But that ceiling is on his national vote, in individual states Trump is going to have a higher ceiling, or a lower one. And Nevada is a state where you'd expect him to do much better than elsewhere, Trump is very Vegas.
This doesn't mean I'm saying the theory about a ceiling on Trump's vote share is right. I thought it was very sound, but now I've got considerable doubts. For starters, that ceiling used to be 25%, then 30%, and now 35% maybe. And you add in that while Trump still has very high disapproval scores, those numbers have improved for him as his vote share has improved. It seems he is able to move people from hating him to being okay with him, to voting for him.
Republican Senator for Ohio George Voinovich, before Obama began his term; “If he was for it we had to be against it.”
Within a week of taking office, Obama had organised to travel to meet senior Republicans to discuss the new stimulus bill. He didn't need their votes, but he was quite naively committed to restoring bi-partisan politics, and so was offering to travel to meet Republicans on their own turf - something no president had ever done so early in their presidency. While this was happening, Eric Cantor was abandoning the 'walk back' strategy on steadily reducing the number of expected Republican votes for the bill, and had instead vowed no Republican would vote for the bill. Before even meeting with Obama.
Before Obama even took office, Mitch McConnell had demanded absolute, unified resistance against anything the Obama administration attempted. Multiple Republican congressmen have confirmed this.
Jerry Lewis, the Ranking Republican in the House Appropriations Committee, flat out told the chair ‘I’m sorry, but leadership tells us we can’t play.’ Explaining the Republican strategy, Lewis said it was because Obama had made a big promise to restore bi-partisan government, so Republicans made the decision to force Obama to break that promise by simply refusing any co-operation.
And that is from before Obama reached office, up until his first week in the job.
I don't know you from a bar of soap. I don't know if you're a Republican or one of those moderates who creates incredible mental hurdles to try and believe it's always both sides that are equally to blame. It doesn't really matter, either way the narrative you presented was 100% completely wrong. There is simply no sensible way to conclude that Obama rejected bi-partisan support. Not when we have the rejection of any bi-partisan co-operation as a Republican strategy from before Obama even took office,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Obviously, everything is pretty much kosher if your same party holds both branches.
That's in direct contrast to what you were saying when the Democrats held the presidency and a super-majority from 2008 to 2010. Back then your perception was that it was terrible for a party holding the power to do as it pleases to simply do as it pleases without engaging with the opposition.
That the Democrats weren't even doing that just pours nonsense on top of an already silly situation. But it is interesting to see you walking back from that position,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: As far as I'm concerned, civility in politics is fething gone. Just accept it's a bare knuckle bloodsport, and alway has been.
Thing is, Democrats are starting to wake up to that. Both at a party level, and perhaps even more so among their voting base.
All this time you've been thinking Democrats have been just as bad as Republicans. Well that's probably coming. And you're going to be in for a hell of rude shock when it happens.
He's not going to find a Scalia replacement, as he's truly one of a kind.
But, if he finds an established Textualist (note, I didn't say a Conservative), then he should nominate him and kindly ask the Senate to reconsider.
No. If you think you can reduce obstructionism by feeding compromises just to get the other side to come to the table, then you're as naive as Obama was when he started his first term.
Do you remember when Obama was talking about engaging with other countries, including rivals and enemies, and Republicans kept going on about how that was appeasement and therefore bad? It's actually quite ironic that while Obama was being hammered by very silly or very disingenuous Republicans for 'appeasing' Iran etc merely for the act of talking about talking to them, Obama was at that very time making the mistake of appeasing Republicans. Sure enough, Republicans didn't come to the table after Obama offered anything up.
And if a Republican president finds himself with an equally obstructionist Democratic party, that Republican president would be an absolute idiot for offering up something just to get the Democrats to come to the table.
Instead, the way you deal with people who refuse to talk is to simply make it clear that you and your party want to talk, make deals and move the country forward. And when the other side refuses to be part of that, see it what it does to them in the polls. And if they still don't move, watch them get churned up at the ballot. Let them turn themselves in to a permanent minority.
You don't fight bad actors with appeasement. You fight bad actors by standing your ground.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I don't think that that by itself would fix the problem either, as a number of congress critters were independently wealthy before they arrived in office, so what do they care about healthcare costs, or SS, they can retire off of a golden parachute from what they brought with them.
Efforts to restrict pay and benefits is actually likely to make the problem worse. If congresscritters are financially insecure, then they're going to be much more likely to protect special interests, either to direct bribes, or more likely to promises of lucrative lobbyist and think tank positions once their term is over.
Do you remember when Obama was talking about engaging with other countries, including rivals and enemies, and Republicans kept going on about how that was appeasement and therefore bad? It's actually quite ironic that while Obama was being hammered by very silly or very disingenuous Republicans for 'appeasing' Iran etc merely for the act of talking about talking to them, Obama was at that very time making the mistake of appeasing Republicans. Sure enough, Republicans didn't come to the table after Obama offered anything up.
Seb, your point about Iran is a fair and valid point. When I watched the Senate oversight committee on the Iran deal some months ago, it was amusing to see John Kerry slap down the Republican senators by telling them that the Obama Iran deal was more or less identical to the deal that George W Bush offered Iran!
When Kerry asked the R's senators what they would have done differently, their silence was a joy to behold. Kerry accused them of offering opposition for the sake of offering opposition, much to the delight of the other people present.
Russia, and Putin, however, is a completely different kettle of fish. I believe that Obama blundered with his strategy towards Russia, as his reset policy upset The Eastern Europeans, and made them very nervous.
Obama's red lines over Syria were embarrassing, also. When dealing with Russia, some Bismarck style realpolitik would do Obama, or any other American president, a world of good.
Dealing with Republicans on domestic issues is one thing, engaging in the great game with rival powers, many who have values completely at odds with American values, is another matter entirely.
Russia, and Putin, however, is a completely different kettle of fish. I believe that Obama blundered with his strategy towards Russia, as his reset policy upset The Eastern Europeans, and made them very nervous.
Obama's red lines over Syria were embarrassing, also. When dealing with Russia, some Bismarck style realpolitik would do Obama, or any other American president, a world of good.
Dealing with Republicans on domestic issues is one thing, engaging in the great game with rival powers, many who have values completely at odds with American values, is another matter entirely.
Oh, Obama's made plenty of mistakes, no disagreement there. Everything you said, especially Syria*, and you can also add his own involvement in Iraq - while the deal for drawdown was made under Bush, that deal was made with expectations that clearly weren't met when Obama continued the deal.
I certainly don't mean to say any criticism of Obama is wrong, far from it. I merely wanted to point out that it's foolish to think you can win over obstructionists by offering them something just for turning up to the negotiating table. That's appeasement, and as we all learnt in our highschool WWII class - appeasement just encourages them to demand more. I thought it would be funny to point that Republicans were complaining about Obama as an appeaser to other countries when he hadn't offered any country anything, but at the same time Obama was attempting to appease the Republicans.
*The focus on chemical weapons was ridiculous. We knew Assad had wiped civilian populations with artillery. And we knew thousands had been tortured and executed in government jails. All chemical weapons did was add an air of uncertainty as their use was never known, and give everyone a feeling that this was another Iraq. If Obama had planned his Syria strategy to avoid engagement he couldn't have handled it better.
Russia, and Putin, however, is a completely different kettle of fish. I believe that Obama blundered with his strategy towards Russia, as his reset policy upset The Eastern Europeans, and made them very nervous.
Obama's red lines over Syria were embarrassing, also. When dealing with Russia, some Bismarck style realpolitik would do Obama, or any other American president, a world of good.
Dealing with Republicans on domestic issues is one thing, engaging in the great game with rival powers, many who have values completely at odds with American values, is another matter entirely.
Oh, Obama's made plenty of mistakes, no disagreement there. Everything you said, especially Syria*, and you can also add his own involvement in Iraq - while the deal for drawdown was made under Bush, that deal was made with expectations that clearly weren't met when Obama continued the deal.
I certainly don't mean to say any criticism of Obama is wrong, far from it. I merely wanted to point out that it's foolish to think you can win over obstructionists by offering them something just for turning up to the negotiating table. That's appeasement, and as we all learnt in our highschool WWII class - appeasement just encourages them to demand more. I thought it would be funny to point that Republicans were complaining about Obama as an appeaser to other countries when he hadn't offered any country anything, but at the same time Obama was attempting to appease the Republicans.
*The focus on chemical weapons was ridiculous. We knew Assad had wiped civilian populations with artillery. And we knew thousands had been tortured and executed in government jails. All chemical weapons did was add an air of uncertainty as their use was never known, and give everyone a feeling that this was another Iraq. If Obama had planned his Syria strategy to avoid engagement he couldn't have handled it better.
I read a newspaper article some time ago that said the problem with modern politicians is that they don't read eough, in particular, they don't read enough history.
Obama is a noted reader, but his choice seems to fall on fiction and crime novels.
He should have been learning lessons from books on FDR, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, etc etc on what to do.
More stick than carrot is required from Obama.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is twitter, and this is the internet, so take it with a pinch of salt, but the latest poll from twitter has Trump beating Rubio...in Florida
WrentheFaceless wrote: So is there a Dakka bingo slot for every time Whembly is proven wrong about something?
Or is it now the free space in the middle of the card? haha
Nothing wrong with being wrong from time to time - we've all had a spanking on dakka, usually from the mods
In Whembley's defence, he was spot on about Hilary Clinton. Her financial arrangements should disqualify her from running a hotdog stand, never mind a global superpower.
Yeah, but it's a bit different when you're consistently wrong, proven wrong, still hold wrong position, repeat ad nauseam, only rarely admitting wrongness but usually just changing subject and pretending prior conversation didn't exist.
Yeah, but it's a bit different when you're consistently wrong, proven wrong, still hold wrong position, repeat ad nauseam, only rarely admitting wrongness but usually just changing subject and pretending prior conversation didn't exist.
Yeah, but it's a bit different when you're consistently wrong, proven wrong, still hold wrong position, repeat ad nauseam, only rarely admitting wrongness but usually just changing subject and pretending prior conversation didn't exist.
Well, both sides do it.
/snicker
Ah... the old, we disagree with you so YOU.MUST.BE.WRONG!
whembly wrote: Obama needs to actually 'consult and cooperate' with the Senate, as in *work* with the Senate on his short-list... absent that, moderatehis selection. (Kegan/Sotomyer were far from being 'moderates')
That's the kind of nonsense Obama fell for at the beginning of his first term. Republicans would take up a hardline position, refusing any negotiation. Obama would try to win by taking the moral high ground and offering a starting point that was already compromised. Republicans would then find themselves unable to take Obama's first position because that'd look like they won nothing, but unable to push for any more as Obama had already given them the compromised option. Cue deadlock. It's basically the mess that was the first round of deficit ceiling negotiations.
When was that? I honestly don't ever recall in the early days of ('08-'10), that he compromised with Republicans.
And don't say the PPACA was one, as the Republicans were shut out during the crafting of that legislation.
Next time around Obama didn't offer that compromise position. He made it clear if there was to be a deadlock it was all on the Republicans, who were trying to use the debt ceiling to win concessions. He just waited it out, told them if they wanted to hit the debt ceiling, then do it. It all resolved much better.
Obama has to follow a similar strategy here. If Republicans are just going to refuse to discuss candidates, then that's on them, they can own the political blowback. And given the looming spectre of Trump, I'm not sure Republicans would want to wait until there's a new president and new senate, they might lose any bargaining power over the next appointment.
So instead, Obama should nominate whoever is willing to put their hand up to get villified. Because whoever Obama nominates will be labelled as an extreme left choice, and shot down, both publically and politically. Even if it was a vat grown clone of Scalia, modified to be 15% grumpier and with 20% more bitter dissenting opinions. Political theatre demands the first candidate will be shot down. But the second candidate, provided they are to the right of the first, and Republicans have some uncertainty about November, well there's a chance they'll get over the line, if they're a good pick.
That's really the only way the appointment will happen this year. This other thing you're offering, where Obama responds to Republican extremism by offering up power just to bring them to the table, nope not happening. Not gonna work. Been there, was a disaster.
whembly wrote: Ah... the old, we disagree with you so YOU.MUST.BE.WRONG!
No, you're wrong because you continuously post falsehoods, over and over again, with no sense of shame. The things you have been called out on, over and over again, are not differences of opinion, they are statements of fact. You have an unbreakable pattern of doing this, being called out, and dropping it, only to repeat it or some variation thereof a few pages later.
This thread has been going on for nearly 300 pages, and at this point I think it's pretty clear the real fools are the ones who keep playing this stupid game with you, over and over again. Which includes myself, obviously.
whembly wrote: Secondly, the ignorance (I mean that in non-derogatory manner) of how our States Government functions is really, really high. The States don't really have a "say" in the Federal government and I think it's asinine that the Senate is directly voted by the constituents. Having the State Legislatures vote the Senators would hold these guys/gals more accountable imo. So *because* they're held accountable by the States, the level of discourse should be mitigated as well.
Have you seen state houses in action? They are rife with gerrymandering, misrepresentation, dirty politics, and corruption.
If we could fix the representation problems in state houses with the removal of FPTP/instating instant runoff, and hard anti-gerrymandering rules, then maybe, but until then I'd rather keep the power in the hands of the people, not the government.
And why is it "asinine" to have the Senate directly voted on? Surely that gives a more accurate picture of what the people want than state houses,
As previously noted, the Oklahoma Democratic Party decided to open their primaries to Independents this year.
Back in November I got a survey from the DNC that I never bothered to fill out, and today I got this:
Looks like someone is making a play for the moderates. I wonder if that is what the Oklahoma Democratic Party had in mind when they decided to let us vote
sebster wrote: I don't know you from a bar of soap. I don't know if you're a Republican or one of those moderates who creates incredible mental hurdles to try and believe it's always both sides that are equally to blame. It doesn't really matter, either way the narrative you presented was 100% completely wrong. There is simply no sensible way to conclude that Obama rejected bi-partisan support. Not when we have the rejection of any bi-partisan co-operation as a Republican strategy from before Obama even took office,
When I make statements that both sides engage in bad behavior in the past, they are true just as every example of compromise I presented previously also happened. But the saying 'the blame is equal' means overall and across administrations. Looking only at one administration and saying to the other guys, "you're wrong and we're not" is to ignore history. If you're willing to be honest with yourself, you'll see that whichever party does NOT hold the White House carries the lion's share of the blame during that period of time. Switch White House control and you switch which party becomes obstructionist. Of course those same obstructionists like to see themselves as the loyal opposition or some such rubbish. It is true that throughout the seven years of President Obama's term, Republicans have mostly acted as obstructionists to his agenda - for good reason if you're opposed to the Democrat Party's left-wing agenda or seemingly for pure spite if you embrace that ideology. Prior to that during President Bush's term, the Democrats were the obstructionists and the vitriol was just as ugly. The difference between us, sebster, is that I don't pretend that the Republicans are blameless victims in this situation as you seem do with President Obama and the Democrats.
whembly wrote: Secondly, the ignorance (I mean that in non-derogatory manner) of how our States Government functions is really, really high. The States don't really have a "say" in the Federal government and I think it's asinine that the Senate is directly voted by the constituents. Having the State Legislatures vote the Senators would hold these guys/gals more accountable imo. So *because* they're held accountable by the States, the level of discourse should be mitigated as well.
Have you seen state houses in action? They are rife with gerrymandering, misrepresentation, dirty politics, and corruption.
If we could fix the representation problems in state houses with the removal of FPTP/instating instant runoff, and hard anti-gerrymandering rules, then maybe, but until then I'd rather keep the power in the hands of the people, not the government.
And why is it "asinine" to have the Senate directly voted on? Surely that gives a more accurate picture of what the people want than state houses,
I'm going to have to agree with Co'tor Shas on this. Allowing the State legislatures to control Senate representation would disenfranchise a large segment of voters who voted for the "out of power" party. In fact, the party out of power in the State Senate would never have U.S. Senate representation unless it managed to take back the State Senate in which case the other party's voters would begin losing representation in Washington, D.C.
d-usa wrote: Back in November I got a survey from the DNC that I never bothered to fill out, and today I got this:
Spoiler:
Looks like someone is making a play for the moderates. I wonder if that is what the Oklahoma Democratic Party had in mind when they decided to let us vote
Are you sure? I could have sworn a representative on the Cruz campaign said that Sanders was dropping out.
sebster wrote: Whembly, I remember earlier in the thread you mentioned Trump's 46% of the vote meant the theory about him having a ceiling of around 30 to 35% was proven wrong. But that ceiling is on his national vote, in individual states Trump is going to have a higher ceiling, or a lower one. And Nevada is a state where you'd expect him to do much better than elsewhere, Trump is very Vegas.
This doesn't mean I'm saying the theory about a ceiling on Trump's vote share is right. I thought it was very sound, but now I've got considerable doubts. For starters, that ceiling used to be 25%, then 30%, and now 35% maybe. And you add in that while Trump still has very high disapproval scores, those numbers have improved for him as his vote share has improved. It seems he is able to move people from hating him to being okay with him, to voting for him.
Yeah... that's a fair assessment.
If Trump's the nominee... then the Democrat constituents have already won.
Who you gunna vote for? A Democrat-Populist or a Democrat-EveryOneHates?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Obviously, everything is pretty much kosher if your same party holds both branches.
That's in direct contrast to what you were saying when the Democrats held the presidency and a super-majority from 2008 to 2010. Back then your perception was that it was terrible for a party holding the power to do as it pleases to simply do as it pleases without engaging with the opposition.
I meant, it's *kosher* when it's yourfavored party in power. I still believe it's bad ju-ju.
That the Democrats weren't even doing that just pours nonsense on top of an already silly situation. But it is interesting to see you walking back from that position,
See above, it ain't a walk back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: As far as I'm concerned, civility in politics is fething gone. Just accept it's a bare knuckle bloodsport, and alway has been.
Thing is, Democrats are starting to wake up to that. Both at a party level, and perhaps even more so among their voting base.
All this time you've been thinking Democrats have been just as bad as Republicans. Well that's probably coming. And you're going to be in for a hell of rude shock when it happens.
He's not going to find a Scalia replacement, as he's truly one of a kind.
But, if he finds an established Textualist (note, I didn't say a Conservative), then he should nominate him and kindly ask the Senate to reconsider.
No. If you think you can reduce obstructionism by feeding compromises just to get the other side to come to the table, then you're as naive as Obama was when he started his first term.
What was it he compromised in his first term?
Do you remember when Obama was talking about engaging with other countries, including rivals and enemies, and Republicans kept going on about how that was appeasement and therefore bad? It's actually quite ironic that while Obama was being hammered by very silly or very disingenuous Republicans for 'appeasing' Iran etc merely for the act of talking about talking to them, Obama was at that very time making the mistake of appeasing Republicans. Sure enough, Republicans didn't come to the table after Obama offered anything up.
What was Obama's offer? Seriously, at what point did Obama want Republicans to come to the table during the Iranian negotionation?
And if a Republican president finds himself with an equally obstructionist Democratic party, that Republican president would be an absolute idiot for offering up something just to get the Democrats to come to the table.
Why? Maybe break the cycle???
Instead, the way you deal with people who refuse to talk is to simply make it clear that you and your party want to talk, make deals and move the country forward. And when the other side refuses to be part of that, see it what it does to them in the polls. And if they still don't move, watch them get churned up at the ballot. Let them turn themselves in to a permanent minority.
You don't fight bad actors with appeasement. You fight bad actors by standing your ground.
whembly wrote: Ah... the old, we disagree with you so YOU.MUST.BE.WRONG!
No, you're wrong because you continuously post falsehoods, over and over again, with no sense of shame. The things you have been called out on, over and over again, are not differences of opinion, they are statements of fact. You have an unbreakable pattern of doing this, being called out, and dropping it, only to repeat it or some variation thereof a few pages later.
This thread has been going on for nearly 300 pages, and at this point I think it's pretty clear the real fools are the ones who keep playing this stupid game with you, over and over again. Which includes myself, obviously.
Okay. Here's a challenge. Point out the next factually wrong thing I post. I'll either walk it back, or counter-challenge you on the basis of such 'facts' you posted.
sebster wrote: I don't know you from a bar of soap. I don't know if you're a Republican or one of those moderates who creates incredible mental hurdles to try and believe it's always both sides that are equally to blame. It doesn't really matter, either way the narrative you presented was 100% completely wrong. There is simply no sensible way to conclude that Obama rejected bi-partisan support. Not when we have the rejection of any bi-partisan co-operation as a Republican strategy from before Obama even took office,
When I make statements that both sides engage in bad behavior in the past, they are true just as every example of compromise I presented previously also happened. But the saying the blame is equal means overall and across administrations. Looking only at one administration and saying to the other guys, "you're wrong and we're not" is to ignore history. If you're willing to be honest with yourself, you'll see that whichever party does NOT hold the White House carries the lion's share of the blame during that period of time. Switch White House control and you switch which party becomes obstructionist. Of course those same obstructionists like to see themselves as the loyal opposition or some such rubbish. It is true that throughout the seven years of President Obama's term, Republicans have mostly acted as obstructionists to his agenda - for good reason if you're opposed to the Democrat Party's left-wing agenda or seemingly for pure spite if you embrace that ideology. Prior to that during President Bush's term, the Democrats were the obstructionists and the vitriol was just as ugly. The difference between us, sebster, is that I don't pretend that the Republicans are blameless victims in this situation as you seem do with President Obama and the Democrats.
I can't exalt this enough.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeowsa!
Rubio/Cruz are really going after Trump on tonight's CNN debate.
Remember, Cruz was playing nice with Trump because he wanted Trump's support when Trump dropped out. Of course, Trump didn't drop out, and Cruz now has to up his game. Because if Cruz loses Texas, he's finished. And if Cruz wins Texas, but Trump or Rubio finish a close second, then Cruz is in real danger.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Remember, Cruz was playing nice with Trump because he wanted Trump's support when Trump dropped out. Of course, Trump didn't drop out, and Cruz now has to up his game. Because if Cruz loses Texas, he's finished. And if Cruz wins Texas, but Trump or Rubio finish a close second, then Cruz is in real danger.
Aye... he really needs the 50% to trigger Texas' take-all rule.
I think the problems with taking the approach of "We want to work with you, but you don't want to work with us." and letting the voters watch the obstruction are thus:
1) party hardline/dedicated voters don't care..they love it and will keep voting for the obstructioners
2) average Joe/Jane americans don't seem to give a rip for the most part because they aren't that deep into politics. The highest voter turnout in the last 50 years was nearly 70% in 1962.
Otherwise, it has barely topped 60%...and even then, the same obstructionist idiots (from both parties) keep getting re-elected.
So unfortunately, you can't tell me that the voters will ever fix this gridlock problem...at least...I din't have faith they will.
whembly wrote: When was that? I honestly don't ever recall in the early days of ('08-'10), that he compromised with Republicans.
That’s right. He didn’t compromise. Because Republicans decided from before Obama even took the oath that they were going to refuse any co-operation as part of a strategy to regain some kind of legitimacy. I just posted the direct quotes establishing that.
We can quibble about whether the political gains justified the means, but denying that was the Republican plan from the get go is denying history.
*sigh*
See why it's only "Team-D" and "Team-R" now?
No, you’re clearly not reading what I’m saying. This is nothing to do with yay for the blue team and boo for the red team. This is all about the political strategies taken by both teams and the best way to respond to those political strategies.
If one side decides to play hardball, you don’t defeat that by giving them stuff in the hope they’ll stop playing hardball. That will only encourage them to play harder, for longer. That should just be obvious.
Consider if Rubio won, and Democrats decided they’d be just as obstructionist. Even from a minority senate position they declare they’ll filibuster any SC nomination for four years, and then four years after that, and so on until they finally retake the presidency. Rubio would be a complete numpty to try and deal with that by offering up free stuff just to get Democrats to agree to talk about a Rubio nomination.
Breotan wrote: When I make statements that both sides engage in bad behavior in the past, they are true just as every example of compromise I presented previously also happened. But the saying 'the blame is equal' means overall and across administrations. Looking only at one administration and saying to the other guys, "you're wrong and we're not" is to ignore history. If you're willing to be honest with yourself, you'll see that whichever party does NOT hold the White House carries the lion's share of the blame during that period of time.
You’re moving the goalposts. You had claimed that Obama was unique in being unable to pass a law with support from the other side. I showed you that was the product of a Republican strategy they formed before Obama even took the oath. And then you started talking about how all side do it.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you that the side that doesn’t hold the presidency is always going to be the most obstructionist. That’s just how it works. It’s really a bit like pointing out the side which doesn’t have the ball is the more defensive. The point then, is how defensive you play, how much you set up to win the ball and launch counter attacks, compared to how much you just try to block opposition attacking runs.
The Republicans launched as negative a plan as you’ll ever see. And given their position in 2008, on the back of two electoral spankings, and especially given the bounce they could hope to get by being out of government in a terrible economy, there was plenty of logic in the strategy.
The difference between us, sebster, is that I don't pretend that the Republicans are blameless victims in this situation as you seem do with President Obama and the Democrats.
No, the difference is I understand the concept of extent, and actually watched close enough to know that a claim that the Democrats were as obstructionist is completely wrong. From 2006 to 2008 they certainly played a more aggressive game than previously. Probably on par with the block voting tactics of the Republicans in Bush’s first term. Not quite on par with the Republican opposition in the Clinton administration, but they were more or less playing the same sport.
But what we’ve seen in the last 8 years is nothing like any of that. This is miles beyond the normal course of affairs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: If Trump's the nominee... then the Democrat constituents have already won.
Who you gunna vote for? A Democrat-Populist or a Democrat-EveryOneHates?
I think it’s pretty contrived to call Trump a Democrat-Populist. He’s actually managed to get where he has by ramping up the popular elements of both parties. He’s taken the social support net of the Democrats and the xenophobia of the Republicans, and played it up to disaffected Republican voters. For a long time now the Republicans have tried to cover over the unpopularity of their economic positions (low taxes is an easy sell, but if you look at the programs they’d have to dismantle to fund those taxes, it gets unpopular real quick) with other kinds of populist issues, so it isn’t a huge surprise to find that a candidate who took on the populist elements of the Republican party would do well in their primary.
That it’s worked so well that it’s overcome the basic fact that Trump is horrendously gakky person is the big surprise. And that the Republican party has been so weak in shutting him out is probably the other big surprise.
I wonder if something like happened on the Democratic side, would they be so weak to challenge?
I meant, it's *kosher* when it's yourfavored party in power. I still believe it's bad ju-ju.
Distinction without difference.
Already here my man.
You really aren’t. There’s a scent of it in the Sanders supporters, where we can see that a reasonable number of them see any criticism, and the first response is personal attack. I wouldn’t be surprised to see that culture overtake the Democrat party, especially if Clinton wins the primary and loses the general. Then hoo boy, you’ll see something amazing.
What was it he compromised in his first term?
Read my earlier post. Obama was the first president who in his first week of office organised to meet with the opposition in their offices on capitol hill, not call them to the Whitehouse. He went there having no idea Cantor had already committed to having not one single Republican vote for the stimulus package. Obama went planning to negotiate, he had no idea Republican leadership had decided there would be no negotiation. Obama got rebuffed on everything else, up to and including ACA. He learned from there, the best way to respond to that strategy was to leave them swinging – if they wanted to refuse to take part, then you leave on the side refusing to take part.
What was Obama's offer? Seriously, at what point did Obama want Republicans to come to the table during the Iranian negotionation?
You’ve got your timeline confused. The Republican attacks about appeasement were long before the Iran deal, back when Obama was merely talking about talking to Iran and other countries. Given Republicans attacked Obama endlessly over suggesting that talks should opened, exactly how surprised should you be that they weren’t part of the actual negotiations with Iran. Obama had learned by then.
Why? Maybe break the cycle???
Because it doesn’t work. It reinforces the cycle by rewarding the bad behaviour. The way to beat obstructionism is to show the voting public that it is exactly what is happening, and then see it fail at the ballot box.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: 1) party hardline/dedicated voters don't care..they love it and will keep voting for the obstructioners
Absolutely. Any Democratic plan that hoped that the Republican base would realise their obstructionism is bad and stopped would be a very bad plan.
2) average Joe/Jane americans don't seem to give a rip for the most part because they aren't that deep into politics. The highest voter turnout in the last 50 years was nearly 70% in 1962.
1962 was more than 50 years ago That’s an amazing stat though – the highest voter turnout was in a mid-term election. Things have changed.
Anyhow, if a party has policies that you really want to get passed, and the other side is blocking them, then you take that to voters at election. If you can’t draw more voters, or get a better turnout from your base, well then either those ideas aren’t actually that popular, or you aren’t selling them very well. If it’s the former, then there isn’t actually a problem, the system is working to block ideas that the public is lukewarm about at best. If it’s the latter, then there’s a problem of strategy – and most likely the problem is that you haven’t made the other side clearly responsible for blocking popular legislation.
Marco has just destroyed Trump and really REALLY got under his skin.
As far as I'm concerned, this race has been reset with Rubio/Cruz vs Trump.
That was impressive.
The "debate" on the whole is still pretty damn pathetic. I don't think those of us who lean left have much to worry about, especially after the kind of childish shenanigans we're seeing tonight.
I will applaud Rubio's comments regarding where Trump's clothing line is made... Donny sniped back with "that's a nice sound bite" and Rubio kept up with "well, it's the truth"
Rubio did have a few pretty good zingers, but didn't exactly make himself look good in the process. Kasich seemed like the only adult on the stage, other than Carson who once again looked like he was up past his bedtime. At this point I'm not really sure it will help Rubio though. As we have seen before, nothing stupid Trump says or does really will sway his supporters. They are like a cult and attacking their guy only seems to make them more rabid. Rubio would really need to expand his own voter pool to catch up to Trump and I'm not sure there is enough water in the pool to help him overtake Trump at this point. Even if Cruz gets out right now (which he won't anytime soon as he will likely win TX on Tuesday), I would guess a majority of his supporters go to Trump, not Rubio. I guess we will find out on Tuesday, but I would bet Rubio's only shot at a state on Tuesday will be Virginia. Granted, the primaries are still proportional at this point, and narrowing the margin will help with delegate count, but if Rubio can't win more than one state on Tuesday, look for Florida to be even more out of reach for Rubio than now due to the media narrative.
One thing I did get a chuckle out of was Rubio's comment about how if Trump hadn't inherited a fortune, he would be selling cheap watches in New York. On Rubio's website, he is offering broken "Trump watches" for donations for $10.
Okay. Here's a challenge. Point out the next factually wrong thing I post. I'll either walk it back, or counter-challenge you on the basis of such 'facts' you posted.
We'll keep a tally... shall we?
You're starting with 'facts'? That, in and of itself, implies deflection.
Gordon Shumway wrote: As we have seen before, nothing stupid Trump says or does really will sway his supporters. They are like a cult and attacking their guy only seems to make them more rabid.
There’s an old line in politics that if you’re going to attack, attack early before the electorate has made it’s mind up about someone. If voters have already decided they like someone, the attacks are only going to make them turn on you. The Republican field missed the boat on Trump, they needed to attack him last year – I still think back to Christie ignoring his claim about NJ muslims – that was the real moment to call Trump on his bs. But he let it slide.
Anyhow, I agree that the 30 something percent of voters that for Trump will probably be there to the end, no matter how witty Rubio’s script writers are. But maybe they can stop that number growing – it gets up much higher and this primary is done.
Or will it possibly just help isolate Trump from the rest of the field? That might put pressure on the remaining candidates to drop out, and on the base to focus behind either Rubio or Cruz, to put up one alternative to Trump.
dogma wrote: You're going to try and reskin the RINO argument? Really?
It took until 2006 for Republicans to start trying to dump Bush on Democrats. Trump's achieved it before he's even reached the general election. That goes to show how much faster things work when you've got a businessman at the helm.
Why would left-wing rhetoric be popular with right wingers? Or is Trump appealing to the left wing of the right wing party? If he's picking up 30% plus of the votes, does that mean the Republican party is a lot more left-wing than you would have thought?
Kilkrazy wrote: Why would left-wing rhetoric be popular with right wingers? Or is Trump appealing to the left wing of the right wing party? If he's picking up 30% plus of the votes, does that mean the Republican party is a lot more left-wing than you would have thought?
Trump isn't really popular because of his policies.
He's popular because he's "TV-Trump" and is perceived as an outsider.
I heard on the radio this morning that Lindsey Graham was at some event last night and said something awesome:
For me "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody could convict you."
And for Whembly "The most dishonest person in America is a woman who is about to be president. How could that be? My party has gone batsh** crazy."
Kilkrazy wrote: Why would left-wing rhetoric be popular with right wingers? Or is Trump appealing to the left wing of the right wing party? If he's picking up 30% plus of the votes, does that mean the Republican party is a lot more left-wing than you would have thought?
I never said left-wing. I said populist. Or were you directing that to someone else?
Trump's picking up +30% in the polls because the Republicans (in general) haven't been keeping their campaign promises. Before Ryan became Speaker, there was a sense (right or wrong) that the Republicans couldn't get anything passed so why even try? It was that seeming lack of effort that hacked off the grass roots voters. There is also the perception that voters gave Republicans control of Congress but still very little is happening regarding what the voters were promised. Yes, they know the President will veto it all but the Republicans look like they aren't trying very hard in the first place. Donald Trump has tapped into this frustration and given it voice. The Republican candidates are regurgitating the same old tired rhetoric. Is it really any wonder Trump is so far ahead in polling?
Then there's the issue that you have to be FOR something in order to win. You can't just be against President Obama or Obamacare or Immigration and expect that to carry you across the finish line. Like it or not, Trump is out there effectively saying 'I will do these things' and the other candidates are out there effectively saying 'elect me because Obama and Hillary are bad'.
It's almost like this current batch of Republican candidates just don't know how to inspire people.
I know. A lot of the radio ads I'm hearing are still saying the same things they said two years ago "ima gonna fight Obama, secure the border, and stop terrorists". Nevermind that Obama won't be in office next year, and the state office these peeps are running for have nothing to do with the border.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I know. A lot of the radio ads I'm hearing are still saying the same things they said two years ago "ima gonna fight Obama, secure the border, and stop terrorists". Nevermind that Obama won't be in office next year, and the state office these peeps are running for have nothing to do with the border.
I haven't been watching the debates lately. Have any of the candidates given an indication of how they'll handle foreign affairs such as Russian expansion, ISIS, the Kurds, North Africa, Chinese activity in disputed waters, etc? Have any put forward an outline of how to put the economy back on track?
sebster wrote: You had claimed that Obama was unique in being unable to pass a law with support from the other side.
Please don't attribute statements to me that I did not write.
Kilkrazy wrote: Why would left-wing rhetoric be popular with right wingers? Or is Trump appealing to the left wing of the right wing party? If he's picking up 30% plus of the votes, does that mean the Republican party is a lot more left-wing than you would have thought?
I never said left-wing. I said populist. Or were you directing that to someone else?
Trump's picking up +30% in the polls because the Republicans (in general) haven't been keeping their campaign promises. Before Ryan became Speaker, there was a sense (right or wrong) that the
…
...
It's almost like this current batch of Republican candidates just don't know how to inspire people.
Whembly said Trump is democrat-populist. I know that the Democrat party is what passes for left-wing in the US.
Obviously Trump’s main asset is high media exposure from being on The Apprentice. Presumably people have confused that with being competent.
It still seems impossible that 30+ percent of Republican party members apparently see him as a credible candidate for president. Don’t people think about how their candidate will play with the wider electorate, or is it just that someone has to win however bad the field might be, so you might as well pick someone you like? And what does that say about people who like Trump?
The R's really are going to miss Obama when he's gone, they basically ran on "stop Obama" for the last 6 years.
I feel sorry for the republican voters with this lot. Rubio is about the only decent one with a chance, and the other two are maniacs. Trump is, well, trump, and Crus is just as bad, but in a different way. "The only thing worse than a stupid donkey-cave is a clever one." about sums up by opinion on Cruz.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I know. A lot of the radio ads I'm hearing are still saying the same things they said two years ago "ima gonna fight Obama, secure the border, and stop terrorists". Nevermind that Obama won't be in office next year, and the state office these peeps are running for have nothing to do with the border.
I haven't been watching the debates lately. Have any of the candidates given an indication of how they'll handle foreign affairs such as Russian expansion, ISIS, the Kurds, North Africa, Chinese activity in disputed waters, etc? Have any put forward an outline of how to put the economy back on track.
So far, I've only seen two things to answer that.
1. They're going to tear up every agreement/deal Obama made (all on Day One, too).
2. They're going to rely on America being so fething awesome that the rest of the world will just kneel before us and give us whatever we demand.
sebster wrote: You had claimed that Obama was unique in being unable to pass a law with support from the other side.
Please don't attribute statements to me that I did not write.
"Over the course of seven years, President Obama seems to be uniquely unwilling to reach out across the isle for virtually anything. Harry Reid really isn't helping the situation, either."
You can quibble over some details if you want, but please don't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Why would left-wing rhetoric be popular with right wingers? Or is Trump appealing to the left wing of the right wing party? If he's picking up 30% plus of the votes, does that mean the Republican party is a lot more left-wing than you would have thought?
It turns out that some of the sacred cows of Republican leadership. Trump said he wouldn't cut Social Security - and the GOP leadership expected Trump to drop off in the polls. Bill Kristol said he was sacrificing the primary to win in the general. But Trump's numbers went up. TUrns out that cutting social security, a sacred cause of the party elite, isn't actually a vote winner on the ground.
Trump dared challenge the party position on Iraq - he said people were misled by Bush in to supporting that war. You just aren't supposed to be able to question the party position but... nothing happened to Trump's numbers.
The GOP has over the course of it's very strange last 25 years become a party fixated on loyalty and unquestioning observance of very specific political points. Without any kind of real internal debate they seemed to have just assumed all their positions were very popular, and managed to miss any sign to the alternative. Grover Norquist got almost every Republican member of congress to sign his no tax pledge, but when the Bush tax cuts were rolled back in part in a deal with Obama and the Democrats, the Republican base reacted with... nothing. Whether the base agreed to restore higher taxes on the very rich or just weren't that bothered we don't know, but we certainly could see that a sacred cow of the Republican leadership had nothing like the same importance among the base.
The Southern Democrats used to fill a certain place in US politics, overtly racist, but also in favour of the New Deal. They're now pretty gone from the scene, but I don't think anyone would honestly expect that every single person who was racist and supported a social safety net simply disappeared. Trump has found those people.
Well, he's found at least 30% of the Republican base seems to hold to those ideas. Probably there's a % of the Democratic base that also think similarly. If Trump wins the Republican nomination, we'll get to find out.
Tannhauser42 wrote: I heard on the radio this morning that Lindsey Graham was at some event last night and said something awesome:
For me "If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody could convict you."
Graham is an donkey-cave. But, he's prolly right.
And for Whembly "The most dishonest person in America is a woman who is about to be president. How could that be? My party has gone batsh** crazy."
Tannhauser42 wrote: I know. A lot of the radio ads I'm hearing are still saying the same things they said two years ago "ima gonna fight Obama, secure the border, and stop terrorists". Nevermind that Obama won't be in office next year, and the state office these peeps are running for have nothing to do with the border.
I haven't been watching the debates lately. Have any of the candidates given an indication of how they'll handle foreign affairs such as Russian expansion, ISIS, the Kurds, North Africa, Chinese activity in disputed waters, etc? Have any put forward an outline of how to put the economy back on track?
Rubio has... but, I don't like it. He's a neocon Bushivite with regards to Foreign Policy.
Cruz is still agressive, but much more reserved and deliberate than Rubio.
I'll see if I can dig some info up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: The R's really are going to miss Obama when he's gone, they basically ran on "stop Obama" for the last 6 years.
I feel sorry for the republican voters with this lot. Rubio is about the only decent one with a chance, and the other two are maniacs. Trump is, well, trump, and Crus is just as bad, but in a different way. "The only thing worse than a stupid donkey-cave is a clever one." about sums up by opinion on Cruz.
Don't worry... Hillary Clinton will take over that spot.
I think all of the people disparaging Trump's not insubstantial base as "cultlike" or "racists" are missing the bigger picture. Trump is touting a nationalist populist platform that appeals to a broader base than just the traditional Republican "conservative".
Republicans have traditionally formed a coalition between cultural conservatives and business interests. Their plank has varied on international interventionism. While traditional conservatives tend to be more isolationist and disfavor international interventionism and military action as it tends to be very expensive, the so called neo-conservatives tend to take an interventionist approach and favor military solutions. They also don't mind the large expenditures that drive tradition economic conservatives nuts. Likewise, many of the newer Republicans are in the camp of business interests who favor softer immigration enforcement and globalization, much to the anger of cultural conservatives and nativists.
Currently, economic concerns and domestic terror/safety issues seem to be larger issues to those who identify as Republicans. They are largely dissatisfied with the current party leadership who seem to be ineffective in articulating and achieving goals consistent with these issues. The so Tea Party movement was the first salvo in this conflict, but most who rode what little success that movement could muster were either quickly incorporated into the current structure and viewed as a sell out (Rubio), or became uncooperative obstructionists pushing a gambit that ultimately proved costly to the party (Cruz).
Trump offers credentials as an outsider and his bombastic style appeals to those who want to shake up the current structure. His business background appeals to Republicans not looking for another career politician. Since national politics is largely style over substance and he is riding an anti-establishment horse, his lack of political experience and unworkable stances don't really count against him all that much. Ironically, it is a lot of the same momentum that is driving Bernie Sanders campaign, just from a different angle.
In another bit of irony, Bernie's views are much more in line with those of the corporate entertainment media (and less directly confrontational), so he doesn't earn the same level of ire. Even the legitimate critiques of Trump seem unable to disengage from comparisons to Hitler and similar hyperbole. Which, of course, only serves to strengthen him with much of his base who view it as attacks by the "establishment" and provides fodder for his populist appeal.
Co'tor Shas wrote: The R's really are going to miss Obama when he's gone, they basically ran on "stop Obama" for the last 6 years.
I feel sorry for the republican voters with this lot. Rubio is about the only decent one with a chance, and the other two are maniacs. Trump is, well, trump, and Crus is just as bad, but in a different way. "The only thing worse than a stupid donkey-cave is a clever one." about sums up by opinion on Cruz.
Sorry to say this, but I am very disappointed in you
Of all the people on Dakka, I thought you would be somebody to appreciate the comedy potential of President Trump in the same room as President Putin
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jmurph wrote: I think all of the people disparaging Trump's not insubstantial base as "cultlike" or "racists" are missing the bigger picture. Trump is touting a nationalist populist platform that appeals to a broader base than just the traditional Republican "conservative".
Republicans have traditionally formed a coalition between cultural conservatives and business interests. Their plank has varied on international interventionism. While traditional conservatives tend to be more isolationist and disfavor international interventionism and military action as it tends to be very expensive, the so called neo-conservatives tend to take an interventionist approach and favor military solutions. They also don't mind the large expenditures that drive tradition economic conservatives nuts. Likewise, many of the newer Republicans are in the camp of business interests who favor softer immigration enforcement and globalization, much to the anger of cultural conservatives and nativists.
Currently, economic concerns and domestic terror/safety issues seem to be larger issues to those who identify as Republicans. They are largely dissatisfied with the current party leadership who seem to be ineffective in articulating and achieving goals consistent with these issues. The so Tea Party movement was the first salvo in this conflict, but most who rode what little success that movement could muster were either quickly incorporated into the current structure and viewed as a sell out (Rubio), or became uncooperative obstructionists pushing a gambit that ultimately proved costly to the party (Cruz).
Trump offers credentials as an outsider and his bombastic style appeals to those who want to shake up the current structure. His business background appeals to Republicans not looking for another career politician. Since national politics is largely style over substance and he is riding an anti-establishment horse, his lack of political experience and unworkable stances don't really count against him all that much. Ironically, it is a lot of the same momentum that is driving Bernie Sanders campaign, just from a different angle.
In another bit of irony, Bernie's views are much more in line with those of the corporate entertainment media (and less directly confrontational), so he doesn't earn the same level of ire. Even the legitimate critiques of Trump seem unable to disengage from comparisons to Hitler and similar hyperbole. Which, of course, only serves to strengthen him with much of his base who view it as attacks by the "establishment" and provides fodder for his populist appeal.
Disagree with this. Trump and Sanders are two sides of the same coin - they have more in common with each other than they'd care to admit.
Both are outsiders. Both are loathed by the more mainstream elements of their respective parties, and both appeal to the left behind who want to strike a blow against corporate interests and a system of elites who have nothing in common with ordinary Americans.
That's why their respective populism is winning votes.
jmurph wrote: Since national politics is largely style over substance and he is riding an anti-establishment horse, his lack of political experience and unworkable stances don't really count against him all that much.
National politics in the media focuses on style over substance, especially during election season. When it comes to actual work, politicians still need the substance to do anything. If you look at the schedules of the presidents, a vast majority of their time is spent with substance, not style. It may seem like Obama is constantly in front of the cameras because that is all we largely ever see because that is what television demands. In reality, most of a Presidents' Day is filled with meetings with policy advisors, planners, other politicians security briefers, etc., not in front of cameras. The problem with Trump is he has none of the substance at all. He has no actual plans other than slogans that are ridiculous "we will build a big wall and make Mexico pay for it". Mexico won't pay. "The wall just got ten feet taller". We will "win so much you will get sick of winning". The list goes on. When asked how he will do any of this, he has no answer, he just says "Believe me". Other than a tax plan, which the CBO has said will increase our deficit tremendously and lower our revenue because it is a cut across the board, he has given absolutely no details on how any of his bumper stickers will actually work. People knocked Obama for the "hope and change" bumper sticker, which the words themselves were. But Obama actually had specific plans with details on his website during the election on what he wanted to do. Obamacare was spelled out there, the actual plan, not just the slogan. Clinton has her plans on her website, Bush did before he dropped, Romney did when he ran, Cruz does. Trump has slogans and ugly hats. The reason I called his followers a cult is because cultist demand no evidence for their allegiance, they accept what their leader says blindly. And when someone challenges their belief, instead of questioning it and looking for answers, they double down on the platitudes. That is what Trump voters do. They are a cult.
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I meant national *election* politics. Once the election is over, the party ends and the hangover and the buyer's remorse sets in :-)
Anyway, I am awaiting Trump's pick for VP. Hoping for a wrestler and a Brawndo endorsement.
More interestingly, there seems to be a robust Sunshine State debate over whether Ted Cruz is the infamous Zodiac Killer. Asked, point blank, "Do you think Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer, or not?" ten percent of voters said they think he is, and 28 percent said they were not sure. About two-thirds of voters expressed confidence that the Texas senator is not the serial killer who terrorized Northern California in the Sixties and Seventies, killing as many as 37 people.
That's an additional 881 emails bringing the GRAND total number of classified emails released so far to 1,818. Of that 22 were TOP SECRET that would obviously not be released to public.
She has not broken any laws, she did not violate any rules, she did not receive a single email marked as confidential.
What she did looks shady as feth, and I think most people won't disagree with that, but it didn't break any laws or rules.
And that's why people won't care.
But I think we can also estimate that at least 10 of these 300 pages cover this exact same conversation with the same results:
whembly: they released more emails, X are classified.
everyone else: that's not how classification works
whembly: but it looks bad, optics, narrative, whatever
everyone else: *waits a few weeks*
whemblu" they release more emails, X are classified.
@Sebster I really enjoy your views on the modern state of the Republican Party. I think they fall very much in line with mine, but you can elucidate them much more succinctly. The fact the largest arguments you've gotten have brought up Democrats in the first line is telling.
I lean left, but I find myself believing more in traditional Republican views; that is before they were taken over by the religious social conservatives. There was a time in America when religion (let's be honest Christianity) wasn't viewed in such a strictly right-wing paradigm. And I can definitely see that starting to change in things like gay-friendly churches or the current Pope's sayings, but I do fear it may be too little too late. I don't consider myself an atheist but most religious people would; but I recognize the need for religion, the very human need to feel loved, to matter. I've just lost hope that religious social conservatives are the answer to that need.
Also why is Sanders considered such an "outsider" like Trump? When one has been in office for decades and one has never held office once. Its a dubious comparison at best IMO.
Plus Sanders is the only candidate that has publicly said he will stop the War on Cannabis. There's 14-100 billion right there in savings. Hillary won't. Cruz obviously won't because that drug isn't sacred like ethanol. Trump might I think.
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract,becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).
(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.
But I think we can also estimate that at least 10 of these 300 pages cover this exact same conversation with the same results:
whembly: they released more emails, X are classified.
everyone else: that's not how classification works
whembly: but it looks bad, optics, narrative, whatever
everyone else: *waits a few weeks*
whemblu" they release more emails, X are classified.
Nice fairy tale there bucko, and completely wrong.
Even Obama's own ex Intelligence Director stated that Hillary should drop out of the race.
Either she broke the law and won't be prosecuted for it because of who she and her husband are; or she did not break the law and this is a lot of drama for nothing.
Yes, let's give someone who doesn't give a gak about national security the nuclear codes.
I'm pretty sure I've said this repeatedly, but I really don't want her to be president. I'll hold my nose and vote for her to keep someone like Cruz out of office, but if I had a decent choice I'd vote against her.
She exemplifies some of the worst parts of the political system, and she'll get away with it as many others have. But the problem here is that her doing something wrong isn't why you and the R's keep, but rather that its her . It's the same anti-Clinton bs, but this time you actually found something wrong. It's just a shame you've lost credibility at this point. The boy who cried wolf springs to mind.
d-usa wrote: What she did looks shady as feth, and I think most people won't disagree with that, but it didn't break any laws or rules.
Even if she did, people still wouldn't care. PRISM didn't warrant much outrage in the long run. Like anyone is gonna give a gak about emails.
Actually, I have a better question; why is the government sending classified anything around via email? And we wonder how the Chinese keep managing to hack us
Actually, I have a better question; why is the government sending classified anything around via email? And we wonder how the Chinese keep managing to hack us
The Chinese need something more juicy to go with my finger prints they already hacked
That's a red herring. The "markings" doesn't make it classified. It's the content/source/methods.
If something is not marked according to a classification standard then, for all intents and purposes, it isn't classified. One might argue that it should have been, but pretending that it was is erroneous, and the hallmark behavior of someone on a witch hunt.
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract,becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Is that the best you can do? Less than 1 year in prison, a fine, or some combination thereof? And that's assuming she can be proven guilty in a court of law, as opposed to the kangaroo court which you adamantly support.
Also why is Sanders considered such an "outsider" like Trump? When one has been in office for decades and one has never held office once. Its a dubious comparison at best IMO.
Plus Sanders is the only candidate that has publicly said he will stop the War on Cannabis. There's 14-100 billion right there in savings. Hillary won't. Cruz obviously won't because that drug isn't sacred like ethanol. Trump might I think.
Sanders, despite being nearly the epitome of "insider" is still not considered such because of his platform and campaigning.... Remember, he's promising to get money out of politics, overturn CU and McCutcheon, and he's backing that up by taking NO super PAC money whatsoever. He also falls a bit further left of the Democratic party lines, which rubs a lot of people the wrong way. He's pro Single-Payer, he wants to go after certain big business practices (I dont think he's anti-big business, I just think his views suggest that there is a certain responsibility/stewardship that isn't being met currently), He wants to "fix" college education systems/student debt.
You're right, he's also pro-Weed. As for Trump?? I dunno, he might go for legalizing, but I could really only see him doing that if he sees a way he can personally make a buck doing it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Actually, I have a better question; why is the government sending classified anything around via email? And we wonder how the Chinese keep managing to hack us
Without going into any real details from my time in the army with secret and higher systems, I will say this: depending on location, you can bet that about 90% of what is sent via "Secret" emails, should be on the unclassified side.
Oh yeah. My dad has been MI his entire military career. He's complained, without going into details, that the military classifies things to a pointless degree.
I went to a military archive to do research once and the Allgermeine SS handbook they had a copy of was classified. At first we thought it a mere clerical error. Later learned that damn thing had been classified even before arriving at the archive, but the library had been exclusive to the US Army War college prior to their new facility was built and I just happened to be the first civilian to ask to see it
“I’m gonna open up our libel laws, so when they write purposely negative and horrible, false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.
We’re going to open up those libels laws. So that when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money.”
jmurph wrote: Anyway, I am awaiting Trump's pick for VP. Hoping for a wrestler and a Brawndo endorsement.
Well, not only does it have what plants crave, it does position him as someone who can both fix the ecomony, and replenish our supply of french fries and burrito coverings... but can he do it in one week?
That's a red herring. The "markings" doesn't make it classified. It's the content/source/methods.
If something is not marked according to a classification standard then, for all intents and purposes, it isn't classified. One might argue that it should have been, but pretending that it was is erroneous, and the hallmark behavior of someone on a witch hunt.
Exactly. In fact, the bigger crime here is that someone(s) must have been willfully stripping away the classification markings before sending it on, or, worse, that such material was never getting marked in the first place. The executive order requires a classification authority to review the material, determine the classification level(s) for the contents, AND determine the conditions under which the material will be declassified. Yes, there are things that should and must be classified, but until the classifying authority has done their job on it, other people can't necessarily be held accountable for not knowing what is and isn't classified. Now, while HRC can't be expected to recognize that every bit of unmarked classified material she received was supposed to be classified, she should have been able to recognize such material that fell directly within her area of responsibility (and that is one things she can and should get hit for).
You know, given recent events, this may never have been an issue if Hillary had just used an iPhone.
jmurph wrote: Anyway, I am awaiting Trump's pick for VP. Hoping for a wrestler and a Brawndo endorsement.
Well, not only does it have what plants crave, it does position him as someone who can both fix the ecomony, and replenish our supply of french fries and burrito coverings... but can he do it in one week?
One week? No, like all of the other R candidates, I expect him to do it On Day One.
That's a red herring. The "markings" doesn't make it classified. It's the content/source/methods.
If something is not marked according to a classification standard then, for all intents and purposes, it isn't classified. One might argue that it should have been, but pretending that it was is erroneous, and the hallmark behavior of someone on a witch hunt.
That is incorrect, the marking themselves DO.NOT.MAKE.IT.CLASSIFIED. It's the content. It's the source. It's the method.
All electronic classified information is stored on a CLOSED NETWORK. Meaning, these networks are not physically connected to the world wide web.
In order for these classified information to appear on HRC's email server. Someone had to either access the Secured Terminal and transcribed the information or copied it (a felony itself) and re-wrote into HRC's email server w/o the headings (a different felony).
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract,becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Is that the best you can do? Less than 1 year in prison, a fine, or some combination thereof? And that's assuming she can be proven guilty in a court of law, as opposed to the kangaroo court which you adamantly support.
Is that the best retort you can do?
There's reports the the FBI will make a major stink out of this if DA Loretta doesn't recommend indictment. In some ways, that be just as bad as the FBI (and other IC agencies) will leak information like a sieve.
That's a red herring. The "markings" doesn't make it classified. It's the content/source/methods.
If something is not marked according to a classification standard then, for all intents and purposes, it isn't classified. One might argue that it should have been, but pretending that it was is erroneous, and the hallmark behavior of someone on a witch hunt.
Exactly. In fact, the bigger crime here is that someone(s) must have been willfully stripping away the classification markings before sending it on, or, worse, that such material was never getting marked in the first place. The executive order requires a classification authority to review the material, determine the classification level(s) for the contents, AND determine the conditions under which the material will be declassified. Yes, there are things that should and must be classified, but until the classifying authority has done their job on it, other people can't necessarily be held accountable for not knowing what is and isn't classified. Now, while HRC can't be expected to recognize that every bit of unmarked classified material she received was supposed to be classified, she should have been able to recognize such material that fell directly within her area of responsibility (and that is one things she can and should get hit for).
You know, given recent events, this may never have been an issue if Hillary had just used an iPhone.
Tanner... that presumes that HRC and her staff doesn't know how to handle classified information.
So which is it? They were too ignorant of this and thus didn't know what they were doing? (even though 'ignorance of the law isn't a defense')
Or...
They knew exactly what they were doing, and did this to keep control unwanted review of their communications.
That's a red herring. The "markings" doesn't make it classified. It's the content/source/methods.
If something is not marked according to a classification standard then, for all intents and purposes, it isn't classified. One might argue that it should have been, but pretending that it was is erroneous, and the hallmark behavior of someone on a witch hunt.
Exactly. In fact, the bigger crime here is that someone(s) must have been willfully stripping away the classification markings before sending it on, or, worse, that such material was never getting marked in the first place. The executive order requires a classification authority to review the material, determine the classification level(s) for the contents, AND determine the conditions under which the material will be declassified. Yes, there are things that should and must be classified, but until the classifying authority has done their job on it, other people can't necessarily be held accountable for not knowing what is and isn't classified. Now, while HRC can't be expected to recognize that every bit of unmarked classified material she received was supposed to be classified, she should have been able to recognize such material that fell directly within her area of responsibility (and that is one things she can and should get hit for).
You know, given recent events, this may never have been an issue if Hillary had just used an iPhone.
Tanner... that presumes that HRC and her staff doesn't know how to handle classified information.
So which is it? They were too ignorant of this and thus didn't know what they were doing? (even though 'ignorance of the law isn't a defense')
Or...
They knew exactly what they were doing, and did this to keep control unwanted review of their communications.
Neither doesn't bode well for the Clintons.
Like I've said before, too many people, including yourself, are laser-focused on Hillary alone in all of this. The problem is much, much wider in scope, and her's may very well be the least part in it. Someone was sending her the stuff. Someone was removing the classification markings. Or someone wasn't classifying it properly in the first place. Those are the names you should be clamoring for, and it isn't necessarily "her staff" alone, either.
You keep claiming the classification markings (and lack thereof) are a "red herring" when they are, in fact, a very real problem themselves, and a symptom of the larger issue of the general mishandling of classified information at the highest levels in our government (something which, I am sure, is more widespread than you probably want to know).
(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract,becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
Is that the best you can do? Less than 1 year in prison, a fine, or some combination thereof? And that's assuming she can be proven guilty in a court of law, as opposed to the kangaroo court which you adamantly support.
The punishment for having over a half ounce of weed in Virginia is worse than that.
If You Were A Jazz Tune Running For President, What Would You Sound Like?
Presidential campaigns may inspire people to vote, but they rarely inspire people to compose music. Jazz pianist Marcus Roberts takes up the challenge on a new EP called Race for the White House, which explores the personas of four different candidates from this year's election cycle.
One of those candidates is Donald Trump; you can hear the song Roberts wrote to represent him below. It features a whistle, which he says is meant to express a particular vision of Trump.
"That symbolizes Donald just looking over his vast estate and just chilling and just having a great time," Roberts says. "And then the trumpet interrupts him just to make a bold statement of, 'I'm going to make America great again, all by myself.'"
Roberts says he was inspired by the unique personalities of the presidential hopefuls, and the challenges they face in communicating with potential voters.
"It's almost like you have to get into other people's experiences so that they can see their experience in you, and vice-versa," he says. "And I think that's a very important component of what's going on right now in America. I think everybody wants to feel like they're being understood and related to, as opposed to preached to or told what they should think."
Roberts lost his sight at age 5, so he's never actually seen these candidates. But, he says, you can learn a lot about politicians by listening to them — things you might miss just looking at them.
"If a person is nervous, they might talk a little faster — or, if they're really in command, they may project more of a louder voice," he says. "If they're really happy, they might use a higher pitch. There's a lot of information there when you hear people talk."
Roberts discussed translating those traits and tics into music with NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro. Hear more of their conversation at the audio link.
The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, quoted in National Journal, November 4, 2010
We're lucky that the American right haven't wasted everyone's time with a procession of losers, last chancers and abysmal liars/no hopers whose main tactic has been to accuse him of everything from destroying the economy, to not being an American or being the actual anti-christ.
And they weren't even good at that.
So, in essence, we're left with a president who we're told over and over again is useless beyond belief in every way -- whilst simultaneously of course having the cunning and trustiness of an Sheik's Vizier.
Who the GOP was unable to beat.
Comes a point -- especially in politics -- when you've gotta stop yelling at the opposition and have a long hard look at yourself if you're not winning.
Course mirrors involve science so that's akin to witchcraft so that won't happen.
We're not winning?
Who has both the house and senate now?
Who kicked major assed during Obama's tenure in all the State govenorships and legislatures?
Yeah, doing great with those Governorships. I mean look at Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, he is just a booming success story. His state is only hemorrhaging jobs. Look at Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, his state hasn't had a budget since July 1st and it is causing a lot of jobs built around helping those in need(Mental Health mainly) to shut down or cut back staff. (I got laid off from my job because of the State Budget)
I live in Illinois, and am really worried for State Universities. If they have no money, they shut down.
I live in Illinois, and am really worried for State Universities. If they have no money, they shut down.
They would stick around for a lot longer as well as need a whole lot less money, if they got rid of all the hundreds and thousands of redundant administrative positions.
, and read about the speculation given the small portion of voters that maybe the actual result was different. But given it is speculation I thought I’d go with the simple headline – Sanders wins among Hispanic voters. Especially given fivethirtyeight speculated on points both ways, perhaps the exit poll was misleading, but perhaps the electorate results were, as those Hispanic neighbourhoods also tend to be older (and therefore lean Clinton), while many younger Hispanic voters (who lean to Sanders) live in white areas.
