Switch Theme:

The Political Junkie™ Thread - USA Edition  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

That picture is a great example that in your world "removing the glasses" still leaves a tint that is obvious to everyone except you?
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 d-usa wrote:
That picture is a great example that in your world "removing the glasses" still leaves a tint that is obvious to everyone except you?

That means, the world is right!

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
It amounts to a fething blog post. You do know Senators are allowed to have their opinions... no?


And you do know that senators are supposed to act with some responsibility?

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
It amounts to a fething blog post. You do know Senators are allowed to have their opinions... no?


And you do know that senators are supposed to act with some responsibility?

Same can be said for the President.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Wise Ethereal with Bodyguard




Catskills in NYS

How is the president not doing so in this issue?

Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
 kronk wrote:
Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
 sebster wrote:
Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
 BaronIveagh wrote:
Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
 
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
You know VIII means you have to type more letters than just "8th".


You just typed out both VIII and 8th, so you've wasted way more energy than the rest of us.


Well, my chief concern is that I'm often too stupid to read roman numerals so I've spent half this thread wondering why we're arguing about quartering troops and concerned that we might re-legalize slavery.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/17 10:57:57


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
How is the president not doing so in this issue?

When negotiating with a terror sponsored state on something the magnitude of potentially having nuclear weapons at their disposal.

It's incumbent on both sides to negotiate in good faith,and as President you'd want the full backing of any disarmament agreement in a treaty... thus, with the full backing of the Senate.

A ratified Treaty is powerful and meaningful. In laymen terms, it has the same impact as any of the Amendments in the Constitution (as long there's no conflict).

A "non-binding" executive agreement isn't... and can be rescinded via "the pen" in the next administration.

Anything from full diplomatic relations to aids similar to what Egypt/Israel get were on the table.

The problem here is that anyone with two spare neurons to rub together will know that the Iranians aren't interested in any sort of compromise. Their only interest is to delay for as long as they can, so that they can clandestinely build their nukes.

Once the Iranians get Nukes... that'll spawn off an enormous arms race in the Mid-East.

I believe that the only reason we haven't "given up the farm" is because of our relationship with Saudi Arabia. The Saudies are not going to "let" Iran be the only mid-east nuclear state.

So, the US' best strategy is containment to force capitulation for Iran to give up it's nuclear ambition. Otherwise, the cynic in me is saying that Obama is trying to push for any agreement, non-binding that is, to spruce up his foreign policy legacy.*

*Let me posit that Obama "trying to form a legacy" isn't bad on it's face, as it implies lasting impact. It's just that, in this case, the stakes here are quite fething high. A Nuclear Iranian state, known for funding terrorism vs. a nuke free state with possible better relations.

Having said all that... let's look at this open letter ordeal. It was essentially a blog post. A statement published on the Senator's own .gov website.

That's it.

In fact, had he paid for an op-ed piece on the NYT or Washington Post for this letter... that's highly more antagonizing to the President than simply the method he chose. I find it hard to believe that the Iranian would really flip out ,when a junior Senator posts a reminder how our governance works, on his .gov website.

So, for all the acrimony over this, all it does is put a huge spotlight on it... it's a "LOOK AT ME! SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS IS?!?!? DO YOU SEE IT MAN!".

THE proverbial anthill made into a mountain.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/17 11:27:54


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 whembly wrote:

I did? You were reading over my shoulders?

*cbs? blech.
Honestly heard it on CNN


EDIT: steamy... when you're finished trying to read over my shoulders... please restock the beer fridge... it's getting low.

Haha, no, I heard it on the radio on my way into work yesterday morning is all.
   
Made in us
Esteemed Veteran Space Marine




My secret fortress at the base of the volcano!

 whembly wrote:


THE proverbial anthill made into a mountain.


Like Benghazi?

Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






And then this happened;
http://news.yahoo.com/missouri-ferguson-obama-justice-department-racist-st-louis-kinder-141254076.html

Missouri’s lieutenant governor lashed out at the Justice Department on Monday, accusing U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama administration of racism in the wake of the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, in Ferguson last year.

“There is more racism in the Justice Department than there is in anywhere I see in the St. Louis area,” Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder said in an interview with NewsMaxTV Monday. “We are making progress. We’ve come an enormous way in 50 years. That’s not to say we don’t have still have more to do. But it is the left — it is the Eric Holder and Obama left — and their minions who are obsessed with race, while the rest of us are moving on beyond it.”

Kinder, a Republican, criticized the administration for “[inciting] a mob” during the protests that followed Brown’s killing.

“The whole blowup of this protest movement was based on the lie that never happened of ‘hands up don’t shoot,’” Kinder said in remarks that were first reported by BuzzFeed. “It’s bad enough the protesters were behaving that way, but we have a right to expect much more from the attorney general, the head of the Justice Department of the United States, and the president of the United States. And instead, what we got too often from them was incitement of the mob, and, uh, encouraging disorder in Ferguson and disrupting the peaceable going-about of our daily lives in the greater St. Louis region.”

He added: “Many of them have spent most of their careers defending Black Panthers and other violent radicals.”

Kinder’s comments come on the heels of a Justice Department report that concluded officer Darren Wilson had reason to fear Brown when he fatally shot him and would not be charged — a decision President Obama said he fully supported.

“You can’t just charge him anyway because what happened was tragic,” Obama said. “That was the decision that was made, and I have complete confidence and stand fully behind the decision that was made by the Justice Department on that issue.”

The same Justice Department probe found pervasive racial bias on the part of Ferguson’s mostly white police force. Ferguson’s police chief, city manager and a municipal judge resigned in the wake of the findings.

Last week, two police officers were shot during a protest related to the case. Both officers were treated and released by a local hospital.

On Sunday, Jeffrey Williams, a 20-year-old man, was charged with first-degree assault in the shootings.

According to St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch, Williams told authorities he was not targeting police but was shooting at someone else.

“This arrest sends a clear message that acts of violence against our law enforcement personnel will never be tolerated,” Holder said in a statement.

Kinder is something of a controversial figure in Missouri. In February, he made headlines for requesting a daily allowance from the state legislature to cover his expenses when he is working in Jefferson City. Kinder, who lives in Cape Girardeau and maintains a second home in the state capital, said he’s experienced “gradual impoverishment” during his decade in public office. He receives an annual salary of about $86,000, according to public records.

 
   
Made in gb
Smokin' Skorcha Driver






If thats impovrished then I want in some of that action.

Join us on the Phoenix Forum for Bolt Action Tournaments and Much More:
http://phoenixgamingrushden.proboards.com/


 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

squidhills wrote:
 whembly wrote:


THE proverbial anthill made into a mountain.


Like Benghazi?

No... it's like:


With respect to 'ghazi... we still don't know the feth what happened.

Or, who initially thought of blaming the attacks on that youtube director.

Them emails during Clinton's time as Sec. of State would shed some light on this... eh?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 streamdragon wrote:
 whembly wrote:

I did? You were reading over my shoulders?

*cbs? blech.
Honestly heard it on CNN


EDIT: steamy... when you're finished trying to read over my shoulders... please restock the beer fridge... it's getting low.

Haha, no, I heard it on the radio on my way into work yesterday morning is all.



Was hoping for some more alcohol!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/17 17:08:19


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






hahahahaha woooow. I'm almost afraid to ask how someone looks at that cartoon and thinks "yeah, that's totally the way things are!"
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Heh... via twittah:
Just in: Jen Psaki says there's "no record" of Hillary Clinton signing separation statement, adding the Dept is "fairly certain she did not"

— Ed Henry (@edhenry) March 17, 2015


The form is called an OF-109...essentially the legally binding form requires the signature of all exiting State Dept Personnel affirming they have turned over all official documents to the custody of the State Dept at the end of the tenure.

HRC left her office at the end of 2012. However, because she only used a personal email system for official State Dept business, she did not produce the documents until late-summer 2014.

Which means, she's not guilty of anything other than the premise that the rules don't applies to her.



EDIT: vid:



Classic Clinton™ Tactic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/17 22:16:41


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

Who was the last SoS to sign it?
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 d-usa wrote:
Who was the last SoS to sign it?

Quit deflecting.

Do the rules applies to Clinton or not?


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Powell was mention that was in the same situation but I believe he signed his. I do remember mention of his emails (inquired about) but he left in '05. He deleted whatever he had back then, his defense is better then what's her name from (Lerner) IRS.

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Who was the last SoS to sign it?

Quit deflecting.


Sorry, I thought that I was asking someone who gave a gak. My mistake.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 d-usa wrote:
 whembly wrote:
 d-usa wrote:
Who was the last SoS to sign it?

Quit deflecting.


Sorry, I thought that I was asking someone who gave a gak. My mistake.

I gave a gak.

I asked a rather simple question: Does the rules apply to HRC, or not?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

If you answer a question, then you get to ask a question.

If you need a day or to for the blogs to give you an answer you like just let me know and I will check back in a couple days. That way you can copy and paste it and do the "big text" and "colored text" thing that gets you all excited.

Of course we both know that you already know the answer and that calling something a "Clinton tactic" when the two prior SoS did the same thing is just idiotic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 01:57:59


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
Same can be said for the President.


That's a cop out.

Let's pretend we're back in 2002, and a story just broke that three senators had travelled to Iraq, spoken with Iraqi officials, and were now making statements that the President was lying about the need to go to war. Lots of people, including yourself I believe, would say that the senators were acting in a highly irresponsible manner, that they were trying to score political points over the Republicans, and they were doing it by engaging with a foreign power.

Consider then if someone looked to defend those three Democrats by saying 'well the President is also being highly irresponsible because we shouldn't be invading Iraq'. You would reject that completely, because whether you supported or opposed Iraq, it would be a complete nonsense to argue the President was about to invade Iraq in order to score a political win over the democrats. What Bush was doing, right or wrong, was nothing like the game being played by the three Democrats.

And to bring that back to the current situation, people may support or oppose whatever deal Obama produces with Iran, but it’d be a nonsense to say the bill is being produced in order for Obama to win a political victory at home. Whereas 47 Republican senators are doing exactly what those three Democrats did – engaging a foreign power for no purpose other than to score political points at home.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Ouze wrote:
Well, my chief concern is that I'm often too stupid to read roman numerals so I've spent half this thread wondering why we're arguing about quartering troops and concerned that we might re-legalize slavery.


Fair enough. Personally it never occurred to me to write 8th, I was using roman numerals as a way to avoid writing eighth, which always looks misspelled.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 02:29:03


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 d-usa wrote:
If you answer a question, then you get to ask a question.

If you need a day or to for the blogs to give you an answer you like just let me know and I will check back in a couple days. That way you can copy and paste it and do the "big text" and "colored text" thing that gets you all excited.

Of course we both know that you already know the answer and that calling something a "Clinton tactic" when the two prior SoS did the same thing is just idiotic.

Ah... so it's the "everyone does it" defense now... is it?

Hmmm, you do know you've accused me of using that line, dontcha?

We have the State depart's word on this... but, I'd be curious to hear from Power/Rice to see if they can confirm or deny.

I'm curious how these documents are "signed" these days... is it still paper and notarized?

Or are these things electronic these days?

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Leerstetten, Germany

Read what I fething write and get your head out of the delusions long enough to stop responding to what you think people are saying.

I did not say "it's okay because everyone is doing it", and if you think that this is what you think I typed then there is zero hope to ever have any discussion that doesn't include you making up answers to pretend statements.

I said that it is stupid to call something a "Clinton tactic" if she is at least the third person in a row to do the exact same thing.

Now off to the fething ignore list with you before I get baned.
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
Same can be said for the President.


That's a cop out.

Let's pretend we're back in 2002, and a story just broke that three senators had travelled to Iraq, spoken with Iraqi officials, and were now making statements that the President was lying about the need to go to war. Lots of people, including yourself I believe, would say that the senators were acting in a highly irresponsible manner, that they were trying to score political points over the Republicans, and they were doing it by engaging with a foreign power.

Consider then if someone looked to defend those three Democrats by saying 'well the President is also being highly irresponsible because we shouldn't be invading Iraq'. You would reject that completely, because whether you supported or opposed Iraq, it would be a complete nonsense to argue the President was about to invade Iraq in order to score a political win over the democrats. What Bush was doing, right or wrong, was nothing like the game being played by the three Democrats.

It's not a cop out.

Buddy... visiting in fething person in that situation, even if it would be just ONE Senator, is VASTLY different than an fething "open letter" electronically posted on some junior Senator's .gov website.

You and I can argue till we're blue whether nor not these action disrespects the office of the Presidency or attempt to affect policy.

But to compare the two and argue that this 'letter' is somehow more damaging... is absolutely asinine.

But, let's use some real history here and you'll see how amazingly hypocritical this is...
http://nypost.com/2008/09/15/obama-tried-to-stall-gis-iraq-withdrawal/

That's right... Senator Obama, WHILE. CAMPAIGNING. FOR. THE. 2008 Presidency... was in Iraq.

Doing... ya know, stuff.


And to bring that back to the current situation, people may support or oppose whatever deal Obama produces with Iran, but it’d be a nonsense to say the bill is being produced in order for Obama to win a political victory at home.

What bill?

Right now, it's looking like a non-binding executive agreement.

If he somehow pulls off a meaningful Treaty, that the Senate would consent? You'd bet your fething ass it's be a "political victory at home" for Obama... and a huge fething one at that!

Whereas 47 Republican senators are doing exactly what those three Democrats did – engaging a foreign power for no purpose other than to score political points at home.

Or, you can argue that Senators took action for the good of the country, and at the same time scoring some political points as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 d-usa wrote:
Read what I fething write and get your head out of the delusions long enough to stop responding to what you think people are saying.

I did not say "it's okay because everyone is doing it", and if you think that this is what you think I typed then there is zero hope to ever have any discussion that doesn't include you making up answers to pretend statements.

I'm well aware what you wrote and what I replied thankyouverymuch.

I said that it is stupid to call something a "Clinton tactic" if she is at least the third person in a row to do the exact same thing.

I'm not being an ass here, but were you politically aware during the Clinton Presidency? I barely remember, other than Whitewater/Lewinski/Bosnia. It was in college when I started to read various books about the Clinton era.

It's a known political tactic to deflect criticism when everyone does it. The Clinton's, takes it to a whole 'nother level.

*shrugs*

That's what was my reference.... not some bastardization of what you said.

Now off to the fething ignore list with you before I get baned.

K. Don't be a stranger.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 03:32:02


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
It's not a cop out.

Buddy... visiting in fething person in that situation, even if it would be just ONE Senator, is VASTLY different than an fething "open letter" electronically posted on some junior Senator's .gov website.

You and I can argue till we're blue whether nor not these action disrespects the office of the Presidency or attempt to affect policy.

But to compare the two and argue that this 'letter' is somehow more damaging... is absolutely asinine.


I think in these kinds of discussions its easy to get caught up arguing against points other people, often not even on this forum, have made about this issue. But I only have to be accountable for my own words, and you have to be accountable only for your own.

Point being, I’ve never said this ‘disrespects the office of the Presidency’… as a political standard that idea is about three generations dead. And I never said this letter was damaging – neither the trip to Iraq or the letter to Iran will damage anything in a material sense (the war in Iraq happened as planned anyway, and whatever agreement Obama makes is going to be shot down in the senate for certain).

And my point, once again is that this was irresponsible - the people who did it didn't act with care or concern for the responsibilities required by the positions. Both sides have have, and will always have, irresponsible dickheads on the fringes of their parties, people who’ll opt for disruptive political games over proper governance. What makes this amazing is that 47 Republican senators signed up for this – on a basic mathematical level we’ve got evidence that in one of the two major parties the lunatic fringe may have become a lunatic majority.

That's right... Senator Obama, WHILE. CAMPAIGNING. FOR. THE. 2008 Presidency... was in Iraq.

Doing... ya know, stuff.


Obama travelling to a country that was pretty much a US client state at that point is pretty much the opposite of a scandal.

What bill?


Treaty. You know what I mean

If he somehow pulls off a meaningful Treaty, that the Senate would consent? You'd bet your fething ass it's be a "political victory at home" for Obama... and a huge fething one at that!


Not that there’ll be a ratified treaty, but you know, hypothetically if there were one, then yes, Obama would score a significant political boost. But of course, that hypothetical boost would be the result of Obama hypothetically doing his job well.

Whereas the political impact of this letter has nothing to do with anyone actually doing their job. Or anyone actually doing anything – the impact is entirely about making it harder for someone else to do their job.

I mean, seriously, what would happen if this letter was not sent, and Obama went off and made a deal that the Republican senators didn’t like. They’d simply reject it, as is their constitutional right and duty. The letter changes nothing, it means nothing. The only reason to publish it was to score political points at home, and it was an act of scoring political points by interjecting themselves in to treaty negotiations being undertaken by other parts of government.

Or, you can argue that Senators took action for the good of the country, and at the same time scoring some political points as well.


The point is that people who think government is requires responsible people who might play politics but never let that interfere with the running of the country can’t make that argument.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 04:01:50


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 sebster wrote:
 whembly wrote:
It's not a cop out.

Buddy... visiting in fething person in that situation, even if it would be just ONE Senator, is VASTLY different than an fething "open letter" electronically posted on some junior Senator's .gov website.

You and I can argue till we're blue whether nor not these action disrespects the office of the Presidency or attempt to affect policy.

But to compare the two and argue that this 'letter' is somehow more damaging... is absolutely asinine.


I think in these kinds of discussions its easy to get caught up arguing against points other people, often not even on this forum, have made about this issue. But I only have to be accountable for my own words, and you have to be accountable only for your own.

Point being, I’ve never said this ‘disrespects the office of the Presidency’… as a political standard that idea is about three generations dead. And I never said this letter was damaging – neither the trip to Iraq or the letter to Iran will damage anything in a material sense (the war in Iraq happened as planned anyway, and whatever agreement Obama makes is going to be shot down in the senate for certain).

Okay... I back tracked the thread and you're right. I've thrown Ouze's, dogma's, d-usa's and your responses together and thought I was arguing against shared statements here.

And my point, once again is that this was irresponsible - the people who did it didn't act with care or concern for the responsibilities required by the positions. Both sides have have, and will always have, irresponsible dickheads on the fringes of their parties, people who’ll opt for disruptive political games over proper governance. What makes this amazing is that 47 Republican senators signed up for this – on a basic mathematical level we’ve got evidence that in one of the two major parties the lunatic fringe may have become a lunatic majority.

There you go again.... okay, I can't disabuse you the notion that I think you're being silly here. But, moving on...

That's right... Senator Obama, WHILE. CAMPAIGNING. FOR. THE. 2008 Presidency... was in Iraq.

Doing... ya know, stuff.


Obama travelling to a country that was pretty much a US client state at that point is pretty much the opposite of a scandal.

Stop the press!

wut?

Seriously... WAT?

This is pure spin bucko... no way to sugarcoat that.

Obama visiting Iraq is not the problem. It's trying to influence a foreign leader in an ongoing negotiation is... Perhaps you should wonder why there was little or no coverage of this by the media.

What bill?


Treaty. You know what I mean

Well hold there... there's a major distinction here.

It's either an executive agreement (non-binding).

Or...

A treaty.

If he somehow pulls off a meaningful Treaty, that the Senate would consent? You'd bet your fething ass it's be a "political victory at home" for Obama... and a huge fething one at that!


Not that there’ll be a ratified treaty, but you know, hypothetically if there were one, then yes, Obama would score a significant political boost. But of course, that hypothetical boost would be the result of Obama hypothetically doing his job well.

Whereas the political impact of this letter has nothing to do with anyone actually doing their job. Or anyone actually doing anything – the impact is entirely about making it harder for someone else to do their job.

I mean, seriously, what would happen if this letter was not sent, and Obama went off and made a deal that the Republican senators didn’t like. They’d simply reject it, as is their constitutional right and duty. The letter changes nothing, it means nothing. The only reason to publish it was to score political points at home, and it was an act of scoring political points by interjecting themselves in to treaty negotiations being undertaken by other parts of government.

Depends on what format this "deal" is constructed.

IF it's a proposed Treaty, then yes, it'd have to be "consented" by the Senate before President Obama can ratify it.

If it's simply an executive agreement, congress has no say (except the power of the purse, which even then, is iffy). Furthermore, the next President can choose to maintain this agreement or nullify via executive action.

Now ask yourself this... if the Iranians were truly interested in meaningful dialogue, where they'd give up their nuclear ambitions, don't you think they'd want it as a Treaty, so that the US is held accountable as well?

Or, you can argue that Senators took action for the good of the country, and at the same time scoring some political points as well.


The point is that people who think government is requires responsible people who might play politics but never let that interfere with the running of the country can’t make that argument.

Weren't you the one who opined months ago that one could not take "politics" out of the equation? (or am I misremembering here...?).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 04:25:08


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 whembly wrote:
Okay... I back tracked the thread and you're right. I've thrown Ouze's, dogma's, d-usa's and your responses together and thought I was arguing against shared statements here.


No problem. It's something I've started to notice more and more (in the real world originally, in a conversation with my sister, actually We were both giving nice rebuttals to points we'd heard other people say, and completely talking past each other). Once I noticed that I keep seeing it on the internet too.

Stop the press!

wut?

Seriously... WAT?

This is pure spin bucko... no way to sugarcoat that.


I remember Obama going to Iraq as part of his 'I'm a proper world leader' publicity tour, so I didn't click on the article. I assumed him visiting Iraq was all the article was about. Now reading the article... oh dear, the Post really is an incredible rag. There is no source for the claim from Hoshyar Zebari other than that Post article.

Obama visiting Iraq is not the problem. It's trying to influence a foreign leader in an ongoing negotiation is... Perhaps you should wonder why there was little or no coverage of this by the media.


Because all we have is a claim that may or may have come from Zebari months after the meeting.

Now ask yourself this... if the Iranians were truly interested in meaningful dialogue, where they'd give up their nuclear ambitions, don't you think they'd want it as a Treaty, so that the US is held accountable as well?


No-one honestly believes there's going to be a ratified treaty out of this. No-one. Since 2000 there's been 4 treaties ratified in the US - two were nuclear arms limits with Russia, and one was a FTA. So hinging this on being a treaty just doesn't work.

Weren't you the one who opined months ago that one could not take "politics" out of the equation? (or am I misremembering here...?).


I don't remember, but it does sound like something I'd say. It also sounds like something dogma would say, and a few others, so I don't know

Anyhow, yeah, everything is political, and the only people who don't play political games are irrelevant. But that doesn't mean that you get to subvert every part of government to politics - the point is that there is an understanding that at the end of the day, for all the fun and games, there's a country that needs to be run.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Bibi won the election in Israel. I seriously hope there's no connection of financial contribution to a opposing organization in Israel in the Senate inquiry

Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.

Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha


 
   
Made in gb
Courageous Grand Master




-

It's high time I derailed this thread for the good of dakka

In all honesty, who cares about scandal in the US Senate? Seriously? This pales into insignificance compared with the Andrew Jackson days, or the Senate scandals when Grant was president. American dakka members need to start reading some American history books Senate scandal

As for a Middle East arms race. Newsflash: there's always a middle eastern arms race. America will probably end up selling all sides most of the weapons anyway = boost to US economy = happy times in America. What's the fuss?

My main concern is which British political leader is going to give me the biggest tax break if they win the election in a few weeks times. That's the big issue here


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jihadin wrote:
Bibi won the election in Israel. I seriously hope there's no connection of financial contribution to a opposing organization in Israel in the Senate inquiry


You're far too cynical

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/03/18 12:26:32


"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Jihadin wrote:
Bibi won the election in Israel. I seriously hope there's no connection of financial contribution to a opposing organization in Israel in the Senate inquiry

Eh... why?

I've looked into this, and I don't see anything illegal about it.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: