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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't mean to be offensive

But what is it with you guys and rubbish vice-presidents?

Al Gore, Joe Biden, Dan Quayle, Spiro Agnew

Is there a special bunker where these guys are locked away and wheeled out every 4 years?

Because, as someone running for President, you don't want a VP that looks even remotely qualified to be President, because then people might vote for them instead, or they could potentially undermine you in other ways if they are seen as the "power behind the power."

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I don't mean to be offensive

But what is it with you guys and rubbish vice-presidents?

Al Gore, Joe Biden, Dan Quayle, Spiro Agnew

Is there a special bunker where these guys are locked away and wheeled out every 4 years?

Because, as someone running for President, you don't want a VP that looks even remotely qualified to be President, because then people might vote for them instead,

Truth!

or they could potentially undermine you in other ways if they are seen as the "power behind the power."

Truth! See Bush/Chaney.

Although, sometimes, I think we should go back to the old way and have whoever came in second in the election be the VP. Might make things a lot more interesting...

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Although, sometimes, I think we should go back to the old way and have whoever came in second in the election be the VP. Might make things a lot more interesting...

Indeedeo.

Could you imagine VP McCain or VP Romeny casting the deciding vote in a deadlock senate?

What is it with people not liking Biden? He does exactly what many people claim they want in politicians-not glossing their words with focus grouped doublespeak. Yeah, he can come off as crass or even silly at times, but so do we all. He was right on Iraq after the invasion (he thought it should be broken up into three separate states because it would eventually break up anyway), he understands tragedy (lost a wife a two children) the military (his son served), doesn't come from wealth, understands the legislative process intimately, and has worked effectively across the aisle.

I had a roommate who worked as a doorman in a DC hotel that Biden stayed at regularly when in town (he still lived in Delaware and took AmTrack to DC to work every day while in the Senate so he could be at home with his sons every night). My roommate is a staunch conservative but he loved Biden because he always took the time to chat with him, ask him about his family (who Biden always remembered by name), and tipped him every time (though not a lot each time). He even took my roommate to an ice cream shop nearby once because it was "too damn hot to be wearing that uniform on such a hot day. You need something cold in your belly if you're going to keep standing there". He is a politician who doesn't seem to have let it go to his head-what's not to like about that?

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
What is it with people not liking Biden? He does exactly what many people claim they want in politicians-not glossing their words with focus grouped doublespeak. Yeah, he can come off as crass or even silly at times, but so do we all. He was right on Iraq after the invasion (he thought it should be broken up into three separate states because it would eventually break up anyway), he understands tragedy (lost a wife a two children) the military (his son served), doesn't come from wealth, understands the legislative process intimately, and has worked effectively across the aisle.

I had a roommate who worked as a doorman in a DC hotel that Biden stayed at regularly when in town (he still lived in Delaware and took AmTrack to DC to work every day while in the Senate so he could be at home with his sons every night). My roommate is a staunch conservative but he loved Biden because he always took the time to chat with him, ask him about his family (who Biden always remembered by name), and tipped him every time (though not a lot each time). He even took my roommate to an ice cream shop nearby once because it was "too damn hot to be wearing that uniform on such a hot day. You need something cold in your belly if you're going to keep standing there". He is a politician who doesn't seem to have let it go to his head-what's not to like about that?

Biden's not a bad person by any stretch of the imagination, but as you say, he can be crass and silly. You get away with that when you're the average man on the street, but not when your VP of the most powerful nation on Earth. Mark Twain's advice about saying nothing springs to mind, whenever I think of Biden.

 whembly wrote:
To the rest of the GOP candidates... this is how you do it:

Jeb Bush called someone a "political hack"? That was not wise.

 whembly wrote:

That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which is that the government, is a good and benevolent force.

That is what conservatives want to believe leftist ideology is, which is causing GOP politicians to run to the right.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
To the rest of the GOP candidates... this is how you do it:

Jeb Bush called someone a "political hack"? That was not wise.

 whembly wrote:

That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which is that the government, is a good and benevolent force.

That is what conservatives want to believe leftist ideology is, which is causing GOP politicians to run to the right.

Yeah, I had to stop the video at that point. My BS meter was threatening to explode.

And I really have to wonder, if the "lefty ideology" is that the government is a good and benevolent force, whom does the "righty ideology" consider a good and benevolent force? The private sector? Individuals? The states (who are, themselves, governments)? God?

Jeb's words aren't wrong, but will his actions (should he be elected) remain true to his words? Or will he also just appoint his cronies and other party members to various "safe" political positions like every president has always done? If we ever want things to improve, the cycle has to stop at some point, but strong words and finger waving in a campaign ad aren't enough.

 streamdragon wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
To the rest of the GOP candidates... this is how you do it:

Jeb Bush called someone a "political hack"? That was not wise.

 whembly wrote:

That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which is that the government, is a good and benevolent force.

That is what conservatives want to believe leftist ideology is, which is causing GOP politicians to run to the right.

Yeah, I had to stop the video at that point. My BS meter was threatening to explode.

And I really have to wonder, if the "lefty ideology" is that the government is a good and benevolent force, whom does the "righty ideology" consider a good and benevolent force? The private sector? Individuals? The states (who are, themselves, governments)? God?

Smaller government. Empower the people at the local level, instead of the top-down method.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Jeb's words aren't wrong, but will his actions (should he be elected) remain true to his words?

Right here... THIS. Is why conservatives don't trust Jeb.

Or will he also just appoint his cronies and other party members to various "safe" political positions like every president has always done? If we ever want things to improve, the cycle has to stop at some point, but strong words and finger waving in a campaign ad aren't enough.

Indeed.

Frankly, it'd be an improvement if the next President (HRC or Walker) simply fills those possitions with QUALIFIED folks.

 whembly wrote:

Frankly, it'd be an improvement if the next President (HRC or Walker) simply fills those possitions with QUALIFIED folks.

Part of the problem is that, no matter how well qualified someone is, if it's a high profile position in a major agency, then the Senate will bicker and argue for weeks/months just to try to score political points. The lesser agencies that nobody in Congress cares about (say, OPM, for example) will get their appointees approved quickly, because there are no points to be scored over an agency nobody cares about.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Frankly, it'd be an improvement if the next President (HRC or Walker) simply fills those possitions with QUALIFIED folks.

Part of the problem is that, no matter how well qualified someone is, if it's a high profile position in a major agency, then the Senate will bicker and argue for weeks/months just to try to score political points. The lesser agencies that nobody in Congress cares about (say, OPM, for example) will get their appointees approved quickly, because there are no points to be scored over an agency nobody cares about.

Well that's just a defeatist attitude.

The President's job is to fill those positions with qualified personnel... not to use these positions as a reward for the President's flunkies.

Yes, it's incombent on the Senate to use their "Advise & Consent" role appropriately too... in fact, they should approve any qualified person that the President nominates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:
To the rest of the GOP candidates... this is how you do it:

Jeb Bush called someone a "political hack"? That was not wise.

meh...

 whembly wrote:

That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which is that the government, is a good and benevolent force.

That is what conservatives want to believe leftist ideology is, which is causing GOP politicians to run to the right.

They should go the Reagan route. Don't call out the predecessor's name.

Reagan never really said "Carter's administation"... "Carter's economic results"... "Carter"-anything.

Just say the "Federal Government". Not the "Obama's Regime".

 whembly wrote:

Smaller government. Empower the people at the local level, instead of the top-down method.

The Federal Government cannot simultaneously become smaller, and empower entities which are outside its jurisdiction.

 whembly wrote:

Reagan never really said "Carter's administation"... "Carter's economic results"... "Carter"-anything.

But they did debate, and Carter had some interesting things to say about healthcare in the US.

 whembly wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Frankly, it'd be an improvement if the next President (HRC or Walker) simply fills those possitions with QUALIFIED folks.

Part of the problem is that, no matter how well qualified someone is, if it's a high profile position in a major agency, then the Senate will bicker and argue for weeks/months just to try to score political points. The lesser agencies that nobody in Congress cares about (say, OPM, for example) will get their appointees approved quickly, because there are no points to be scored over an agency nobody cares about.

Well that's just a defeatist attitude.

I prefer to think of it as "bitterly cynical."

The President's job is to fill those positions with qualified personnel... not to use these positions as a reward for the President's flunkies.

Yes, it's incombent on the Senate to use their "Advise & Consent" role appropriately too... in fact, they should approve any qualified person that the President nominates.

Well, they did approve the OPM director 62-35...

But, yes, you nailed the problem in that it is a two-part process. President needs to nominate someone qualified, Senate needs to approve qualified candidate with a minimum of political posturing. Both parts of that equation have been failing on a regular basis since long before Obama.

The problem of course when "should be qualified" gets confused with "should have a political ideology that I agree with.

Having the education and experience makes someone qualified to be the attorney general for example, but "thinks guns are bad" and "thinks guns are not bad" has nothing to do with being qualifies

Jeb is so out of touch with America though. So many working 40+hours as is, and the ones stuck at part time work want full time work, but many companies are only going part time. So Jebby says America needs to work more to get ahead, when reality is so many are working just to make their rent/bills and feed their families.

 d-usa wrote:
The problem of course when "should be qualified" gets confused with "should have a political ideology that I agree with.

Having the education and experience makes someone qualified to be the attorney general for example, but "thinks guns are bad" and "thinks guns are not bad" has nothing to do with being qualifies

Maybe 'Advise and consent' means more than 'Yep.he is qualified'. Maybe it can mean "Hey, his past actions and statements leave me in doubt as to whether or not he'll actually uphold the Constitution rather than try to undermine portions of it he disagrees with, so my advice is NO, don't pick him."

But, again, people interpret the Constitution differently. What you think is "undermining" may be them interpenetrating it very strictly or something. At that point, I think it's still down to "I disagree with them, so I'll block them". The only reason (IMO) that someone should be blocked is if they are actually incompetent or unqualified (or has massive conflict of interest, but that's just me). Otherwise it is a political matter that should be resolved by telling people how that person is a bad choice and getting public pressure for them to resend the nomination.

 whembly wrote:
That is, run a campaign that de-legitimize the central idea of the current US lefty ideology...which is that the government, is a good and benevolent force.

I imagine you see nothing hypocritical at all in this idea coming from the person who spearheaded perhaps the most grotesque intrusion of the state into private matters in my lifetime.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Jeb is so out of touch with America though. So many working 40+hours as is, and the ones stuck at part time work want full time work, but many companies are only going part time. So Jebby says America needs to work more to get ahead, when reality is so many are working just to make their rent/bills and feed their families.

My interpretation of that statement is that he was referring to the phenomenon we've been seeing lately of full-time jobs being replaced with multiple part-time positions.

Cheap companies have been getting around Obamacare by cutting peoples' hours. If you work part-time your employer is not legally obligated provide health insurance for you. What Jeb is saying is that we need more 40 hour positions.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The problem of course when "should be qualified" gets confused with "should have a political ideology that I agree with.

Having the education and experience makes someone qualified to be the attorney general for example, but "thinks guns are bad" and "thinks guns are not bad" has nothing to do with being qualifies

Maybe 'Advise and consent' means more than 'Yep.he is qualified'. Maybe it can mean "Hey, his past actions and statements leave me in doubt as to whether or not he'll actually uphold the Constitution rather than try to undermine portions of it he disagrees with, so my advice is NO, don't pick him."

Now if only we had some sort of system where unconstitutional actions by secretaries of whatever in one branch could be kept in check by the other branches so that there will be balances.

 d-usa wrote:
Having the education and experience makes someone qualified to be the attorney general for example, but "thinks guns are bad" and "thinks guns are not bad" has nothing to do with being qualifies

That may be a bad example as the oath of office for the AG reads;
"I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

I don't think that there would be any question that an AG would be considered ineligible for office if (s)he "thinks free speech is bad"

 d-usa wrote:
Now if only we had some sort of system where unconstitutional actions by secretaries of whatever in one branch could be kept in check by the other branches so that there will be balances.

That worked so well for Eric Holder's being held in contempt and still performing his duties,
Or the NSA continually collecting meta data, which only stopped after a whistleblower came forward, and in spite of the Executive Branch arguing for the bulk collection to remain untouched,
Or Civil Asset Forfeiture
Or the us of drones over other countries to assassinate suspected terrorists
We there ever a formal declaration of war for the military actions against ISIS?

Thinking free speech is bad has zero to do with qualifications. Trying to ban free speech does, however. Small difference there, but I'm sure you are aware.

And how much of that other list is unconstitutional, or simply the result of other balancing branches of government bitching about stuff while at the same time refusing to do their job to actually balance the other branches.

To bring it back full circle: Eric Holder was absolutely someone that was fully qualified to be AG, so the whole "Obama just needs to nominate someone that is actually qualified" argument to get nominated is pointless. Qualification is only the second criteria for getting approval for candidates, they have to pass the ideological tests first and sit through the "I know you are qualified, but the people in my state think you eat babies, so im going to yell at you for being a baby eater before I approve you" and "I know you are qualified to be secretary of whatever, but the people voting for me want a new pork barrel project so I'm going to prevent your nomination until I get this unrelated thing".

Being qualified doesn't have anything to do with getting approved no matter who does the nominating and who does the approving.

 d-usa wrote:
Thinking free speech is bad has zero to do with qualifications. Trying to ban free speech does, however. Small difference there, but I'm sure you are aware.

I don't recall conflating those positions. But I'm sure you are aware.

 d-usa wrote:
And how much of that other list is unconstitutional, or simply the result of other balancing branches of government bitching about stuff while at the same time refusing to do their job to actually balance the other branches.

Are you asking if;
- the NSA acting in contravention of the 4th Amendment
- Civil Asset Forfeiture in contravention of he 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments
- the use of drones over other countries to assassinate suspected terrorists in contravention of Section 8
- there ever a formal declaration of war for the military actions against ISIS in line with obligations under Section 8

Was unconstitutional?

 d-usa wrote:
To bring it back full circle: Eric Holder was absolutely someone that was fully qualified to be AG, so the whole "Obama just needs to nominate someone that is actually qualified" argument to get nominated is pointless.

Good thing I did not cast aspersions on his qualification to be AG. He was brought in concerning checks and balances.

Well, I am glad you agree that me that "just nominate someone that is qualified" is a nonsense argument because "is qualified" doesn't really have anything to do with what you posted. To be qualified for AG you have to be an attorney, to be qualified to be surgeon General you have to be a doctor, and so forth. My point is that if Obama, or any president, only has to nominate someone qualified then the SG and new AG should have been approved a lot sooner than they actually were.

But "someone qualified" is just an over simplified "someone we ideologically agree with" and politicians making that argument are just hoping voters will fall for it.

There are plenty of arguments that can be made against the new Surgeon General as an example, or the past actions of Holder while he was AG, or how the new AG is going to do her job. The Senate should have gotten a good idea what to expect and made their own mandates for the nominees known, and they should do what they can to make sure they do their job right. That's their job to balance the branches. Every cabinet level person under Obama, under Bush, under Clinton, etc, were "qualified" to do their jobs. That doesn't mean they were good at their jobs.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, I am glad you agree that me that "just nominate someone that is qualified" is a nonsense argument because "is qualified" doesn't really have anything to do with what you posted.

Not discussing it =/= agreement


To get back to the point you evaded;

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And how much of that other list is unconstitutional, or simply the result of other balancing branches of government bitching about stuff while at the same time refusing to do their job to actually balance the other branches.

Are you asking if;
- the NSA acting in contravention of the 4th Amendment
- Civil Asset Forfeiture in contravention of he 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments
- the use of drones over other countries to assassinate suspected terrorists in contravention of Section 8
- there ever a formal declaration of war for the military actions against ISIS in line with obligations under Section 8

Was unconstitutional?

Stuff that was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court: checks and balances in action.
Stuff that hasn't been found unconstitutional by SCOTUS is constitutional.
Not declaring war: not sure how congress fsiling to declare war, or officially not authorizing force, is the fault of the AG.

Counter question: does any of this make Holder not an attorney?

Qualified =\= good =\= not making fethed up decisions.

If we want to use "doing something unconstitutional" as the magical yardstick to determine if someone is not qualified to do their job we should come up with a system where all legislators get fired whenever a law they pass gets cut down by SCOTUS.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Are you asking if;
- the NSA acting in contravention of the 4th Amendment
- Civil Asset Forfeiture in contravention of he 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments
- the use of drones over other countries to assassinate suspected terrorists in contravention of Section 8
- there ever a formal declaration of war for the military actions against ISIS in line with obligations under Section 8

Was unconstitutional?

Were even a single one of these things actually found unconstitutional under the criteria you specify, or feth it, any criteria at all?


The NSA spying is odious, unnecessary, and illegal in that it has exceeded the scope of the legislation that is purported to authorize it, but courts have not ruled on it's constitutionality.
Asset forfeiture is wrongheaded, should not exist without a conviction, and should be super rare even then, but it's wholly constitutional - the most recent SCOTUS case actually strengthened it.
The usage of drones in other countries (pursuant to congressional whims, of course) has created generations of America-hating future jihadis, have a horrible collateral cost of innocent lives, and yet is a clear and unambiguous war power that is so self-evident that the courts have never significantly taken up these cases that I am aware of. Hell, even when the US kills an American with a drone, it was ruled lawful.

The closest you get to a solid argument is the US military operations against ISIS; but violating the war powers resolution isn't unconstitutional. In fact, Congress is loath to even challenge the issue because the constitutionality of the War Powers Resolution itself is questionable, and they would rather assert a nebulous power and turn a blind eye to abuses of it then go to court and have that power unambiguously removed.

To be clear, in case there was any ambiguity, I think all of the things you listed are crappy things. I am dubious of drone strikes, think the NSA spying is ridiculous and there is scant evidence it has actually made us safer, I agree with the War Powers Resolution, and so on. However, your stance is that they are unconstitutional, a word with a very specific meaning, and you haven't shown any rulings - not opinions, rulings - that support that assertion. Correct me if I'm wrong; maybe there's case law I'm not aware of...

Ouze wrote:
Were even a single one of these things actually found unconstitutional under the criteria you specify, or feth it, any criteria at all?

Remind me please; Did I say that these were unconstitutional, or did I ask if these were unconstitutional?

This discussion started out when I outlined the short comings of the vaulted checks and balances system when both sides are not using the system, but are instead happy to let things happen and point the finger

Ouze wrote:
To be clear, in case there was any ambiguity, I think all of the things you listed are crappy things. I am dubious of drone strikes, think the NSA spying is ridiculous and there is scant evidence it has actually made us safer, I agree with the War Powers Resolution, and so on.

Seems we agree on quite a bit

Ouze wrote:
However, your stance is that they are unconstitutional, a word with a very specific meaning, and you haven't shown any rulings - not opinions, rulings - that support that assertion. Correct me if I'm wrong; maybe there's case law I'm not aware of...

Again you'll be able to show me where I said that these examples were definitively unconstitutional

So do you think that "just nominate someone qualified" is the answer or do you think that it is a non-sensical stance that pretends that "I don't like his stance = he isn't qualified"?

I just made a fairly simple statement about X and instead of talking about X we are now talking about Z by way of Y without ever actually finding out what you think about X.